Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Reducing Unintentional Duplication

481

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
481
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Reducing Unintentional Duplication: Adventures & Opportunities inCooperative Collection Development Charleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition November 4, 2011 Leslie Button, UMass Amherst Rachel Lewellen, UMass Amherst Kathleen Norton, Mount Holyoke College Pam Skinner, Smith College
  • 2. Five Colleges Consortium• Amherst• Hampshire• Mount Holyoke• Smith• University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • 3. 5C Libraries Cooperation• Long history dating back to 1950s• Strong resource sharing philosophy• Geographic proximity – 15 mile radius• 5C committees• Single shared ILS• Shared print repository• Delivery system that gets materials to users within 24 hours (M-F)
  • 4. Project Impetus• Five Colleges Presidents and Chancellor sought increased cooperation between institutions• Five Colleges Library Directors defined cooperative collection development as a strategic priority in 2008.• Five Colleges Collection Management Committee assigned the implementation• Interest in maintaining overlap where appropriate and retain flexibility to expand base of resources available to library users
  • 5. Defining Policy and Project Goals• Increase number of unique titles purchased• Utilize YBP as common supplier• Implement by July 1, 2009• Needed data to inform subject areas• High duplication with low circulation• Shift from 10 subject areas to all books purchased
  • 6. Implementation• Required cooperation of selectors at all five campuses as well as engagement of the faculty• Widely divergent campus sizes, acquisitions budgets, and collection development practices
  • 7. Hampshire College• Smallest (FTE = 1,450) and newest of the Five College campuses• Purchases mainly support 100- and 200-level classes, duplicating local holdings as necessary• For upper level courses, HC relies heavily on the other FC collections• Views the FC Library collections holistically• No faculty selectors; no question of “buy in”• Moved to YBP; GobiTween facilitates selection
  • 8. Amherst College• Student FTE = 1,800• Librarians & faculty members place premium on “browsability”• Very generously funded; often duplicates purchases made by other Five College libraries• Amherst faculty & librarians pushed back re: initial “one copy” proposal• Like Hampshire, moved to YBP
  • 9. Mount Holyoke College• Student FTE = 2,100• Librarians & instructional technologists main selectors (merged organization)• Orders flagged “DN” (designated need) if the book needs to be at Mount Holyoke, regardless of other Five College locations• Level of faculty purchasing is low (< 15%); faculty requests are always considered “designated need”• Faculty members voluntarily add notes to orders, stating either that another copy in Five Colleges will suffice—or that there is a local need
  • 10. Smith College• Student FTE = 2,600• Academic depts. receive annual book allocation (approx. 55% of total monographs budget)• Policy change required endorsement of the Faculty Committee on the Library• Orders flagged “SC copy essential” when title is needed regardless of other FC holdings• Shelf-ready approval books for some subjects (15% of all YBP orders/year)• 75% of monographic titles come from YBP
  • 11. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst• Student FTE = roughly 26,000• Erratic funding from state played major role in policy shift• Acquisitions staff relies heavily on selectors to check GobiTween for other FC orders• Limited exceptions to the policy: – Automatic orders for books receiving major reviews in the NYT – Two small art & music approval plans• New policy shared with campus community via Faculty Senate Research Library Council; liaisons; Dean’s Council• Most faculty members very supportive of this new policy
  • 12. The Data• Duplication, circulation, and cost• Shared Oracle database• OCLC number basis for determining duplication
  • 13. Duplicated Titles – FY08 and FY11 % of Duplicated titles Purchased90%80%70%60%50% FY0840% FY1130%20%10%0% Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total
  • 14. Unique Titles – FY08 and FY11 % of Unique Titles Purchased60%50%40%30% FY08 FY1120%10%0% Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total
  • 15. Titles Owned by 3-5 Libraries Monograph Duplication within the Five Colleges Consortium FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Owned by 2 Libraries 24% 26% 29% 29%Owned by 3-5 Libraries 38% 35% 26% 21%Total Duplication 61% 61% 56% 51%
  • 16. Overlap – Titles Purchased % of Titles Purchased by 3-5 Libraries70%60%50%40% FY0830% FY1120%10%0% Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total
  • 17. Five College Circulation Analysis as of August 26, 2011* FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011Amherst uni que ti tl es 58% 55% 49% 46% 29% dupl i ca ted ti tl es 69% 65% 61% 55% 33% a l l ti tl es 66% 62% 56% 51% 31%Hampshire uni que ti tl es 72% 69% 77% 62% 45% dupl i ca ted ti tl es 83% 74% 73% 61% 44% a l l ti tl es 80% 73% 73% 62% 44%Mount Holyoke uni que ti tl es 56% 56% 58% 50% 34% dupl i ca ted ti tl es 67% 66% 62% 55% 37% a l l ti tl es 64% 64% 61% 53% 36%Smith uni que ti tl es 55% 52% 49% 41% 23% dupl i ca ted ti tl es 68% 62% 59% 50% 30% a l l ti tl es 63% 58% 55% 45% 26%UMass uni que ti tl es 63% 64% 62% 55% 31% dupl i ca ted ti tl es 77% 74% 70% 72% 44% a l l ti tl es 70% 69% 67% 64% 44%Five Colleges Total uni que ti tl es 59% 58% 54% 46% 28% dupl i ca ted ti tl es 71% 67% 63% 55% 36% all titles 67% 63% 60% 51% 32%* Includes circulation of unique items, duplicated items and overall circulation fromthe time of purchase through August 2011.
  • 18. Five College Borrowing as a % of Total Borrowing Mount Amherst Hampshire Holyoke Smith UMassFY08 11% 44% 14% 18% 16%FY09 11% 46% 15% 17% 18%FY10 10% 49% 17% 18% 19%FY11 11% 49% 20% 19% 20%
  • 19. Five College Collection Analysis - Monograph Purchasing for Unique and Duplicated Items - FY08 - FY11 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010* FY2011Amherst Items % $ Items % $ Items % $ Items % $ unique 4,824 34% $241,026 5,608 41% $294,076 6,462 44% $296,767 6,314 49% $317,656 duplicated 9,335 66% $393,383 8,095 59% $313,247 8,122 56% $416,081 6,589 51% $318,039 Total 14,159 100% $634,409 13,703 100% $607,323 14,584 100% $712,848 12,903 100% $635,695Hampshire unique 456 21% $12,602 223 16% $7,735 437 22% $16,444 451 26% $21,301 duplicated 1,767 79% $50,644 1,215 84% $48,692 1,594 78% $60,752 1,254 74% $42,644 Total 2,223 100% $63,246 1,438 100% 56,428 2,031 100% 77,196 1,705 100% $63,946Mount Holyoke unique 1,551 23% $65,735 1,638 24% $75,085 2,472 36% $125,996 2,027 35% $107,827 duplicated 5,181 77% $221,876 5,093 76% $231,359 4,449 64% $182,568 3,786 65% $159,621 Total 6,732 100% $287,611 6,731 100% 306,444 6,921 100% 308,563 5,813 100% $267,448Smith unique 6,685 41% $495,232 5,634 44% $455,779 6,276 52% $491,028 6,852 54% $549,321 duplicated 9,714 59% $475,546 7,315 56% $324,446 5,821 48% $282,633 5,837 46% $276,696 Total 16,399 100% $970,778 12,949 100% 780,225 12,097 100% 773,661 12,689 100% $826,017UMass unique 8,294 50% $464,695 5,265 45% $389,824 1,594 47% $95,377 5,420 55% $335,900 duplicated 8,167 50% $338,794 6,522 55% $261,108 1,821 53% $73,282 4,431 45% $208,756 Total 16,461 100% $803,489 11,787 100% 650,931 3,415 100% 168,660 9,851 100% $544,656Five College Total unique 21,810 39% $1,279,290 18,368 39% $1,222,500 17,241 44% $1,025,612 21,064 49% $1,332,006 duplicated 34,164 61% $1,480,242 28,240 61% $1,178,852 21,807 56% $1,015,316 21,897 51% $1,005,756 Total 55,974 100% $2,759,532 46,608 100% 2,401,352 39,048 100% 2,040,927 42,961 100% $2,337,762* Intentional reduction of duplication began FY10
  • 20. Future Areas for CooperationPrint resources• Print standing orders• Art approval plans• Foreign language booksWhat is the “right” balance of duplication?
  • 21. Future Areas for CooperationElectronic resources• Intentional, coordinated• Reduce barriers to access – Purchase eBooks for heavily requested print monographs – R2 recommendation to jointly license electronic resources – Patron-driven acquisitions
  • 22. Applying Lessons Learned• Allowed for institutional philosophies and priorities• Worked within existing committee structures – no additional overhead• Details of implementation were local - parameters were not prescriptive• Importance of ongoing analysis
  • 23. Questions?Leslie Button, Associate Director for Library Services, button@library.umass.eduRachel Lewellen, Assessment Librarian, rlewellen@library.umass.eduKathleen Norton, Head of Collections , knorton@mtholyoke.eduPam Skinner, Reference and Electronic Resources Librarian, pskinner@smith.edu

×