Transcript Cooperative Monographic Collection Development Recent Trends

Cooperative Monographic
Collection Development
Recent Trends
RUSA CODES/STARS Cooperative Collection Development
Committee
ALA Annual
June 23, 2007
Definition
• “Cooperation, coordination, or sharing in the
development and management of collections by
two or more libraries entering into an agreement
for this purpose”
• Harloe, 1994
Why?
•
•
•
•
•
Libraries can’t be self-sufficient
Contain costs/stretch resources
Broaden access
Improve coverage
Ensure the exotic
Components
•
•
•
•
•
•
Usually academic libraries
Subset of library cooperation
Resource sharing/document delivery
Shared catalog
Shared storage
Shared information
Keys to Success
• Limit to research materials
• Clear vision and goals
• Administrative and financial structure that
supports cooperation
• Recognition of need for mutual dependence
• Involve operational staff and provide support
Organizational models
•
•
•
•
•
Geographic area
Political jurisdiction
Type of library
Funding source
Consortia
Types of cooperation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Subject area
Geographic area
Language
Format
Coordinated approval plan
Item by item
Barriers/Issues
•
•
•
•
•
Local control/autonomy
Legacy collections
Governance/administration
Overhead costs
Lack of national library system
History
•
•
•
•
•
Farmington Plan
Center for Research Libraries (shared purchase)
Federal Programs
Research Libraries Group (RLG)
OCLC
State/Regional Cooperation
(selected examples)
• Triangle University Libraries (NC)
• University of California Shared Collections and
Access Program (SCAP)
• Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC)
• More in a few minutes!
Current and Future
• Julia Gammon, University of Akron
• Ewa Elizabeth Barczyk, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee
• Eric Pumroy, Bryn Mawr College
• Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver
• Susi Seiler, Alvin Sherman Library
More information – RUSA
CODES/STARS wiki
• http://ccdc.pbwiki.com/FrontPage
Cooperative Monographic Collection
Development—Recent Trends
CODES/STARS CCD Committee
June 23, 2007
Julia Gammon
University of Akron
&
Chair, OhioLINK Collection Building Task
Force
[email protected]
330.972.6254
Consortial CCD
• Word is getting out
• Interest is high
• Technology is there
• Money & staff are tight
Consortial World Tour
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Colorado
Missouri
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Tennessee
Kentucky
Washington
Oregon
Why CCD in OhioLINK?
It was the mid-80s…
• Because:
–
–
–
–
Too many books
No space
No new buildings
Group commissioned to
find a solution
– Resource sharing began
Who belongs to
OhioLINK?
OhioLINK
84 libraries
• State Library
• Private liberal
arts colleges
• Public two-year
colleges
• Medical & Law
schools
• Private
universities
• Public
universities
• Testing public
& school
libraries
Regional Depositories
Northwest
650,000 items
stored
Northeast
550,000
items
stored
Ohio State
1,100,000
items
stored
Southwest
1,000,000 items
stored
Southeast
350,000 items
stored
Northeastern Ohio Book Depository
What do we share?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
600,000+ Users (faculty staff, students)
45.3 million Catalog Records
4,500 Simultaneous Users
100 Electronic Research Databases
7,000 Electronic Journals
1,900 Digital Media Center
22,000 E-books
8,600 Electronic Theses & Dissertation Center
120 Delivery Sites for Online Borrowing
What did our OhioLINK collection
look like in 1997?
Approval Plans: Duplication &
Homogenization
• In 1997 Tom Sanville,
Director of OhioLINK
found:
– Number of titles with
5+copies increasing
– Number of unfilled
borrowing requests
growing
Duplication and Homogenization?
Why was this happening?
• Why? It was attributed to
our approval plans. We
were all buying the same
books
Leadership & Cheerleading for CCD
OhioLINK’s Collection Building Task
Force (CBTF) Charge
• To reduce duplication
• To increase local CD activities
• To expand the amount spent on cooperative
purchases
• To move beyond books…
Here I am at yet another
OhioLINK committee meeting
and another sandwich.
The Committees
We meet often….
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5,560 + Meetings
31,100 + Cups of coffee
18,433 + Muffins
20,800 + Lunches
4,000,000 Frequent driver miles
65,000 Hours of singing to the radio
8,000 Lunch upgrades
Collection Building Task Force
Abridged History
•
•
•
•
•
1997 Discussion began
1998 Wrote statewide RFP
1998 Selected vendor—YBP
1999 Began receiving books
More recently: Vendor assessment, analysis,
marketing, training, education
OhioLINK’s Current Tools for CCD
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
YBP’s Gobi
GobiTween
“Not Bought” Lists
Peer reports
Subject Groups
Cooperative projects
Road Shows
Tools: GobiTween in OhioLINK
• Can make an informed purchase decision
because….expected buying
• Know actual purchases
• Know potential purchases
• Can review approval plan receipts
• Know how many copies can be expected within
the state
Tools: “Not Bought in Ohio”
•
•
•
•
•
•
Select a time frame
Run list on GOBI
Evaluate choices
Select items to order
Any number can play
Year end list
Tools: Peer & Management Reports
•
•
•
•
Compare ourselves
Inside consortium
Outside consortium
Selection and purchase
decisions visible to all!
Tools: Cooperative projects ….
• Share profiles
• Coordinate standing
orders
• Maintain a CCD website
• “Last copy” lists
• Depository duplication
limits
Tools: Subject Group Listservs
• Purpose: To facilitate CCD and resource
sharing
• Grassroots level
• Independent
• 28+ groups & listservs
• Anthropology to Psych
• Buying decisions
Tools: Road Shows
• Taking the show on the road….
– Consortial wide meetings
– Summit meeting Director level
– Vendor driven training sessions
OhioLINK New Trends
How Many Copies Do We Need?
Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
“Selling” CCD without data
Need info to make informed decisions
Questions: What do we want to know?
Commercial products
OCLC Research
Questions: Collection Usage
•
•
•
•
What subjects are being used?
What subjects are not being used?
Who is using them?
What subject areas have the lowest usage?
Highest? Most?
• What areas do we have too many copies? Not
enough?
• What % of items circulate in subject areas?
Questions: Collection Usage
• Does circulation change by year by subject?
• What publishers have the highest Circulation?
Lowest?
• What is the average number of circulations per
book? By Subject?
• What is the optimum range of copies for
OhioLINK by subject areas?
Questions: Collection Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Is our collection getting more diverse?
Is duplication of titles increasing or decreasing?
What does the overall OhioLINK collection look like?
Does the 80/20 rule apply?
Are we spending our money on speculative materials or
materials in demand?
Questions: Collection Analysis
• What is the average age of books circulated by
subject?
• What is the half-life of books in a subject area?
• Do the circulation transactions correlate with
the strengths of the libraries’ collections
OCLC Research Project
• Project Goal
– Collect, analyze and compare book circulation data
from all OhioLINK libraries
– Use OCLC #, ISBN or LCCN to link circulation
records to WorldCat bib records
OCLC Research Project
•
•
•
•
•
Met with OCLC Research
Planned the information to gather
Tested data gathering
Wrote procedures
Advertised, promoted & encouraged
participation
• Results: All but 3 libraries participated!
OCLC—OhioLINK Preliminary
Data
•
•
•
•
•
•
81 Institutions participated
33,000,000 records received
47,000,000 circ transactions
43% books circulated by item
1.7% average circ per book by items
Answers to questions?
Vision Document
OhioLINK White Paper on Co-op
Book Purchasing—In Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain the status quo
Get director buy in
Expand pilot projects
More Marketing & Education
Soft caps vs. hard caps
More approval plan coordination
Expand circulation decisions
White Paper Continued…
• Increase e-book resources
• Provide predictability on what will be purchased
and retained
• Provide bibliographic support for purchasing
unique titles
• Create war chest funding model
• Create centralized collection development unit
Cooperative Collection Management
is still a journey …not a destination.
Julia Gammon
University of Akron
&
Chair, OhioLINK Collection Building TF
[email protected]
330.972.6254
“…no useless lumber is more useless than unused books.”
John Cotton Dana
Collaboration among University of
Wisconsin System Libraries
Ewa Barczyk
Director, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Libraries
ALA Conference
Washington, D.C.
June 23, 2007
University of Wisconsin System
26 campuses
BACKGROUND
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
– CUWL coordinating body
• Collection Development Committee since 1991
15 million monographs held
 $7.6 K annually for monographs
 $21 K combined collection budget
“ONE SYSTEM ONE LIBRARY”
Collaborative Activities Among
UW Libraries
• Bibliographic Access:
– Common Opac (Voyager)
– Shared hubsite
– Federated searching and link resolver (ExLibris)
• User initiated online borrowing (Universal
Borrowing)
• Daily dedicated delivery system
• Digital collections (UWDC)
• Institutional repository (Minds @UW)
• Shared electronic collections $1.5 K
UW-System
LibQUAL+ Survey Summary for
Faculty
CUWL Collection Management Task
Force Created February 2004
• Conduct review of collection management
issues of system-wide importance
• Recommend collaborative strategies to
reduce unnecessary duplication & better
utilize shrinking funding
• Investigate need for collaborative remote
storage
Initial activities
• Surveyed existing consortial approaches
• Serials overlap study initiated
• Gauge barrier-free borrowing across UWS
– UWS funding to support document delivery from
British Library to remove barriers to access
– Eliminate ILL fees & reimburse net lenders
• March 2005 Summit for Collaborative
Collection Development
Top Summit Suggestions to
Promote Collaboration
• Explore collaborative book purchasing trial
• Create shared statewide reference collection
• Confirm areas of excellence within collections
building on individual UW strengths
• Create funding model for volume discount for
document delivery of articles
• Update last copy issue & create repository for
journals available electronically
Study of the Impact of Consortial Book
Purchasing
• Initiate trial with vendor on state contract YBP
– 6 month voluntary participation July- December
2005
– 12 libraries (4 UW Colleges + 8 four year UW’s)
• Communication with participants critical
– Face-to-face overview and hands-on training
meeting
– Emails and articles sent to participants by
Taskforce
• Survey instrument developed and shared at
start of trial
Results of Trial
• Over 400 titles identified as consciously not
purchased
– Over 30% ++ duplication rate
• New collaborative activities
– UW Colleges focus on UW Press titles
– UW La Crosse conducts study using performance
indicators for consortial monograph purchasing
– UW Madison & Milwaukee look at subject coverage
through approval plans
What We Learned
• Local practices dictate procedures
– Need to identify best practices for acquisition to
optimize consortial project
• Vendor interface, ease of use, delivery time,
loyalty, and discounts are important
• Not all formats available through one vendor
• Vendor tools can support collaborative
activities & provide additional information
Primary Vendor Will Enhance
Collaborative Book Purchasing
• Appointed new taskforce for book bid
– RFP submitted Winter 2006
• Evaluation of submissions completed Spring
2007
• Blackwell selected effective July 2007
– Firm & standing orders, approval plans
– $2,500,000 minimum spending
CHALLENGES
• No new state funding likely in near future
• UWS support for collaborative activities 1 FTE
• Wide discrepancy in acquisition budgets
$12,000 to $11,600,000
• No governance body to enforce policies
• 26 different collection development policies
– Control over acquisition dollars often maintained by
faculty
• CUWL reorganizes committee structure Spring 2007
NEXT STEPS
• Develop a User-Focused Model for CCD
– Conduct second LibQUAL+ assessment
– Utilize ILL data, universal borrowing & circulation
statistics
• Measure collection development performance
indicators & establish benchmark assessment of
collection strengths
• Work on shared off-site storage/preservation facility
• Pursue broadening collaboration with other state
funded libraries
NEXT STEPS -- MORE
• Develop acceptance of using access & delivery
in lieu of ownership
• Develop policy on consortial purchasing
guidelines
• Implement best practice book purchasing
• Expand communication –internal/external
• Launch common publicity campaign
Our Vision
• Buy strategically
– Reduce duplication
– Enhance diversity of resources across the UW
Community
– Maximize use of limited funding
• Realize economic advantages to collaborative
purchasing
• One system one library with many location throughout
the state readily accessible with richer collections for
our use
• Jointly develop integrated, interdependent resources
for University research and teaching
PROGRESS TO DATE
QUESTIONS
[email protected]
(414) 229-4781
University of Wisconsin Libraries
Cooperative Monographic
Collection Development – Recent
Trends
http://ccdc.pbwiki.com/FrontPage
Building a Consortial
Monographic Purchase Plan:
The Colorado Alliance of
Research Libraries
Experience
ALA Annual Conference
Washington, DC
June 23, 2007
Michael Levine-Clark
Collections Librarian
University of Denver
[email protected]
The Colorado Alliance of
Research Libraries
• Auraria Library
•
•
•
•
•
• University of Colorado,
Boulder
– CU Denver
– Metro State College
• University of Colorado,
– Comm. College of Denver
Colorado Springs
Colorado College
• University of Denver
Colorado School of Mines
• University of Northern
Colorado State University
Colorado
Denver Public Library
• University of Wyoming
Regis University
Prospector
• Serves 25 academic, public, and special
libraries in Colorado and Wyoming
• Over 23 million items
• A shared collection
Goals for the Project
• Control duplication
• Improve overall collection quality
• Save money
Scope of the Project
• Undergraduate materials
• Four subject areas
– Economics
– Mathematics
– Political science
– Religion
• Two vendors
– Blackwell
– YBP
Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Auraria Library (3 subjects) – 11.8%
Colorado College – 17.3%
Colorado State University – 16.6%
Regis University – 4.3%
University of Colorado at Boulder – 19.0%
University of Denver – 27.3%
University of Northern Colorado (1 subject) – 1.5%
University of Wyoming (3 subjects) – 2.2%
Requirements
• Controlled duplication
• Direct billing
• Current institutional standards for
materials processing
• Purchase plan – no returns
Profiling
• All books (undergraduate and graduate)
with one vendor
• Institutional priorities
• Anticipated usage
Collection Analysis
• Spectra Dimension
– Annualized use per title
– Percent of zero usage
– Number of copies per title
– Number of titles
Profiling Example (Economics)
Spectra Call
No.
YBP Call
No.
HB
Annualized Use
per title
# Copies
per
title
% zero usage
# of titles
0.31214
2.41543
41.04%
2566
Limit
HB1-70
HB1-71
0.05046
1.11444
80.93%
367
1
HB71-74
HB72
0.31881
3.09396
28.86%
149
2
HB75-130
HB73
1
HB74-74-4
2
HB74.5-74.9
1
HB75-76
0.26861
2.78555
32.40%
429
2
HB77
1
HB78-79
2
...
HB501-521
HB501-521
0.4612
3.20548
21.92%
146
3
Distribution of Books
•
•
•
•
Individual profiles
Group profile (limits)
$ commitment
Weekly patterns
Reports
• Group Reports
– Monthly
• Titles sent and to whom
• Titles missed
• Individual Reports
– From existing vendor
– Titles that would have been sent
Assessment – Quantitative
Measures
At start and six-month intervals:
• Percent of LC English titles in collection
• Number of copies per title
• Percent zero usage
• Annualized use per title
• Usage within each library
• Snapshots in Prospector
Assessment – Qualitative
Measures
•
•
•
•
Selector satisfaction
Faculty and student satisfaction
Titles missed
Titles that would have been sent
Levine-Clark, Michael, “Building a Consortial
Monographic Purchase Plan: The Colorado
Alliance of Research Libraries Experience,”
Hugh A. Thompson, ed. Sailing into the Future:
Charting Our Destiny: Proceedings of the
Thirteenth National Conference of the
Association of College and Research Libraries,
March 29-April 1, 2007, Baltimore, Maryland.
Chicago: Association of College and Research
Libraries, 2007: 39-45.
Thank You
Cooperative Monographic Collection Development
at the Alvin Sherman Library, Research, and
Information Technology Center
ALA Annual
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Susi Seiler
Head of Technical Services
Nova Southeastern University
[email protected]
Broward County provided funds to cover 50% of the
construction costs of the Alvin Sherman Library,
Research, and Information Technology Center (joint-use
library), and 40% of the operating expenses of the shared
facility, which was built on the NSU campus. NSU is in
charge of the facility, and the staff are all employees of
the university.
Physical Description
of Joint-Use Library

325,000 square foot joint- use
library, containing 815,841 volumes
as of May 1, 2007

Shared space: 700 computer
workstations, 20 electronic
classrooms, 1,000 user seats,
Children’s reading room, art gallery,
study rooms, and laptops available for
checkout for use within the library

1st floor – Public Library Services
(includes children’s reference desk),
computer labs, and circulation
department

2nd floor – reference desk for
academics and adults, microform and
periodical collections

3rd floor – technical services,
systems, ILL, administration, and
book stacks

4th floor – archives and book stacks

5th floor – empty, awaiting built-out in
2010
Challenges

Growing pains as everyone
adjusts to changes in procedures,
policies, and practices

Avoiding the “us and them”
perspective

Overcoming staff negativity and
anxiety

Questions regarding the mission
of each institution

Overcoming self-interest and fear
of the unknown

Two classification systems
Advantages
 Dramatic and continual
increase in gate count,
circulation, ILL, program
attendance, and reference
statistics.
 Combined financial and
technological resources.
 Combined collection
resources cover collection
gaps. Library material in
more languages and more
formats.
 Diverse cultural and
educational programming
Collaborative Collection Development
Efforts between NSU and Broward County

Joint CD Committee with established with members of both BCL and
NSU staff, that decide what ventures are worth pursuing, and select
material to be acquired

First collaborative effort was planning shelving and space for
opening day collection, comprised of material for children and
adults.
 Advantages for NSU:
- collection now contained popular non-fiction and art
- enhanced collection for education students
- Foreign Language collection for Adults

Second collaborative effort was the acquisition of online databases
 NSU subscribes to 231 online databases (198 available to BCL users),
which provides access to 23,221 unique e-journal titles
BCL and NSU advertise each other’s database on
their website, free publicity for each institution
Beginning in 2005:
 Broward County Libraries began weeding their older academic
materials and sending them to NSU.
 NSU academic selectors are choosing the material to add,
and NSU staff are re-cataloging this material into LC
Most of the monographs are duplicates, and are sold at
our bi-annual book sales
Monographs being added are is adding depth to the
NSU academic collection
 As of June 1st 2007, there have been 2121 older BCL
academic monographs added to the joint-use library
holdings
Beginning in 2006:
 A joint Approval Plan for
academic and popular
material was created
- NSU funding pays for
50% of this approval
plan, and Broward
County pays for 50%
- Selection of material is
done by staff from both
NSU and BCL
In 2007…NSU became the Genealogy
center for Broward County.
 Our first acquisition was the
entire collection from the
Genealogical Society of
Broward County collection,
which we received as a gift.
 This material had never
been cataloged. NSU
staff is cataloging this
material into LC.
 All BCL libraries will
send us their genealogy
material, NSU will hire a
genealogy librarian, and
they will be able to
deploy their staff
elsewhere
Cooperative Collection Development Monographic resources available for
Broward County Library patrons offered
by NSU

34,674 e-books have been purchased and added to
the NSU online catalog since the building opened

At the request of the Joint CD Committee, NSU
President Ferrero gave $50,000 special one-time
funding next year for us to purchase Latino Literature
from Alexander Street Press, and the 6th SOLINET
shared collection of e-books (7030 titles)
Cooperative Collection Development Monographic resources available for NSU
patrons offered by Broward County
Library system

Broward County Library has subscribed to
Overdrive, and their collection has 500+ E-Audio
books. Over 30 titles are added each month

214 e-books from Adobe and Mobipocket

Large collections of audios (292,547) and videos
(205,215)
Cooperative Technical Services
 NSU is responsible for all acquisitions, and absorbs the
cost of staffing, technology, binding, and supplies
 BC is responsible for the cost of cataloging and
processing
 For juvenile, popular, and young adult material (cataloged in
Dewey)
 The majority of this work is outsourced
 Vendor cataloging and processing specifications developed by
NSU staff
 If vendor cataloging records are not acceptable, NSU has the
option of cataloging and processing the material in-house, and
billing BCL for staff time and processing supplies
 For adult material (cataloged in LC)
 NSU catalogs the material, and BCL reimbursed us for staff time
and processing supplies
Programming and
Training
 Joint publicity
 In 2005, 16,230 programs
were offered by Broward
County Library, with a
program attendance of
565,273
 NSU offers an estimated
1,000 programs each year,
with an annual attendance
of about 28,000
Latest initiative
 NSU has been searching
for ways to increase our
patron list and circulation
statistics
 Broward County Library is
assisting by links on their
website for Broward
patrons to get a NSU
library card, and forms at
their reference and
circulation desks