This presentation was provided by Julia Gammon of The University of Akron Libraries and University of Akron Press, during the NISO event "Collaborative Library Resource Sharing: Standards, Developments, and New Models for Cooperating," held October 7 - October 8, 2008
Model Call Girl in Bikash Puri Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝
Gammon "How Many Copies Do We Need? Collaborative Collection Development in the OhioLINK Consortium"
1. 1
NISO Collaborative Library
Resource Sharing
October 6-7, 2008
Atlanta
Julia Gammon
University of Akron
&
Chair, OhioLINK Collection
Building Task Force
jgammon@uakron.edu
330.972.6254
How Many Copies
Do We Need?
Collaborative Collection
Development in the OhioLINK
Consortium
Why the Interest?
Word is getting out
Interest is high
Technology is there
Money & staff are tight
Adversity breeds
innovation!
I’m the only thing between you and
lunch….
Why OhioLINK?
It was the mid-80s…
OhioLINK was born
because:
Too many books
No place to put them
No new buildings
Not enough money
2. 2
Who belongs to OhioLINK?
90 members
16 public universities
23 community/technical colleges
50 private colleges
State Library
What do we share?
600,000+ Users (faculty, staff, students)
46 million Catalog Records
4,500 Simultaneous Users
140 Electronic Databases
12,000 E-journals
25,000 E-books
14,000 E-Theses & Dissertations
Thousands of images, videos, and sounds
Regional Depositories
Northwest
650,000 items
stored
Northeast
550,000
items
stored
Southeast
350,000 items
storedSouthwest
1,000,000 items
stored
Ohio State
1,100,000
items
stored
Northeastern Ohio Book Depository
Circulation of Materials
46 million items to pick from
Patron initiated
Requests item online
120 pick up sites
48 hour delivery
4 renewals up to 15 weeks
3. 3
Materials Delivered Around State
2007: 751,000 items
Since 1992: 7,285,000
Who does the work ?
Here I am at yet another
OhioLINK committee meeting
and another sandwich.
The Committees
Let me introduce one of those
committees…..
Collection Building Task Force
Abridged History
1997 Discussion began
1998 Wrote statewide RFP
1998 Selected vendor—YBP
1999 Began receiving books
“Nothing great was ever
achieved without
enthusiasm (or coffee).”
---Ralph Waldo Emerson
4. 4
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
Folks, It Ain’t Easy!
Cooperation takes work
New relationships need to be developed
Not all wanted to change
Processes & procedures can become
entrenched
Old habits die hard
Cooperation takes more work!
It’s easy to write an
approval plan
Coordinated plans
take more work
It’s easy to order a
new book
It’s harder to find a
similar replacement
Value of making the effort…
Better use of funds
What could you buy if you didn’t by this
dup?
What is *not* purchased?
Where is duplication needed?
What was our biggest problem? Politics
Cooperative collection management is like
a presidential year—full of politics.
Fear of change
Loss of autonomy
Passive resistance, inertia and indifference
Trust: Questioning the quality or reliability
of the partners
In short, people are the biggest barrier.
5. 5
Advantages of Cooperating
More diversified collections
Economic incentives
Know your colleagues better
Know your collections better
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 expected in the
state
Tools: Peer & Management Reports
Compare ourselves
Inside consortium
Outside consortium
Accreditation
New programs
Tools: Gobi “Not Bought in Ohio”
Select a time frame
Run GOBI list
Evaluate results
Year end spending
Extra funds
Tools: Subject Group Listservs
Purpose: To facilitate
CCD & resource
sharing
28 listservs
Grassroots level
Make buying decisions
6. 6
Tools: Cooperative Projects
Religion, Art, Math,
Engineering, Computer
Science, Music etc.
Share approval plan
profiles
Coordinate standing
orders
Digital rights on videos
Tools: Road Shows
Taking the show on
the road….
Consortial-wide
meetings
Summit meeting
Director level
Vendor driven
training sessions
What’s the value of working with a
consortial vendor?
Force consortial
agenda
Clout—get what you
want
Big & small—favorable
discount
Share ideas &
expertise
New business $$$
Was it Hard to
Change Vendors?
Yes
But… Change is Good
New excitement
about work
New responsibilities
New processes &
procedures
New efficiencies
New ways of looking
at things
Save money
OhioLINK New Trends
7. 7
“Unnecessary-Duplication” Collection Assessment 2008
“Selling” CCD without
data
Need info to make
informed decisions
Questions: What do
we want to know?
Commercial products
OCLC Research
Questions: Collection Analysis
Information Needed
Is our OhioLINK collection getting more
diverse?
Is duplication of titles increasing or
decreasing?
What does the complete overall OhioLINK
collection look like?
What books didn’t we purchase?
Does the 80/20 rule apply?
OhioLINK-OCLC Research Project
Met with OCLC Research
Planned the information to gather
Tested data gathering
Wrote procedures
Advertised, promoted & encouraged
participation
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
Data To Be Collected
Dawn of Time
One year
Future plans?
8. 8
OCLC—OhioLINK Preliminary Data
81 institutions participated
33,000,000 records received
47,000,000 circ transactions
Early Results? Ta-Dah!
Most Held
Libraries: 68
Copies: 109
Circulations: 99
Most Copies
Libraries: 12
Copies: 9,542
Circulations: 9
The National union catalog,
pre-1956 imprints
Most Circulated
Libraries: 6
Copies: 92
Circulations: 6,023
Hot Subjects
Computer Science (QA 75-76)
Women, Feminism, Life Skills, Life Style (HQ
1101-2044)
Medicine: Special Subjects (R 690-920)
Buddhism (BQ)
Nursing (RT)
Broadcasting (PN 1990-1992)
9. 9
Subject Distribution
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000
Language, Linguistics, and Literature
History and Auxiliary Sciences
Business and Economics
Philosophy and Religion
Law
Sociology
Medicine
Engineering and Technology
Art and Architecture
Education
Political Science
Library Science, Generalities, and
Biological Sciences
Physical Sciences
Geography and Earth Sciences
Music
Mathematics
Psychology
Performing Arts
Agriculture
Computer Science
Physical Education and Recreation
Chemistry
Anthropology
Number of Items
Duplication by Subject
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Law
Chemistry
Psychology
Sociology
Education
Mathematics
Political Science
Physical Sciences
Performing Arts
Music
Library Science, Generalities, and Reference
Biological Sciences
Medicine
Business and Economics
Anthropology
History and Auxiliary Sciences
Geography and Earth Sciences
Philosophy and Religion
Computer Science
Art and Architecture
Physical Education and Recreation
Language, Linguistics, and Literature
Engineering and Technology
Agriculture
No. of Copies
Circulation by Subject
0 1 2 3 4
Computer Science
Psychology
Sociology
Physical Education and Recreation
Medicine
Anthropology
Mathematics
Art and Architecture
Performing Arts
Music
Chemistry
Education
Engineering and Technology
Biological Sciences
Philosophy and Religion
Physical Sciences
History and Auxiliary Sciences
Agriculture
Language, Linguistics, and Literature
Business and Economics
Political Science
Geography and Earth Sciences
Library Science, Generalities, and Reference
Law
Circulation per Item
Cooperative Collection Management
is still a journey in Ohio…
How to use data collected???
Educate selectors
Set guidelines for
unnecessary
duplication
Influence purchasing
decisions
Change behaviors
Refine approval plans
Weed & move
collections
Small Steps….
It only takes 2 to cooperate
10. 10
Julia Gammon
University of Akron
&
Chair, OhioLINK Collection
Building Task Force
jgammon@uakron.edu
330.972.6254