Rebuilding the Plane While Flying:
Library/Vendor Strategies for Approval
Plan Revision (in a DDA World)
Charles Hillen, H...
About Loyola Marymount University
 A mid-sized Master’s L institution located on the West

side of Los Angeles.
 One of ...
Collection Development at LMU
 Liaison model


22 librarians are liaisons/selectors for one or more academic
program

 ...
New Directions
 New Dean and Head of CD agreed: program needed to

become more intentional and less dependent on faculty
...
Putting Peas In Pods
 Solution:


We needed a forum that met regularly in small groups for training
 Raise all the liai...
The Approval Plan Profile
 Created in the mid-1990s
 Many minor changes since, but no systematic review
 Major flaws wi...
Wait a Sec…What About E-Books?
 At about the time that we started this process, we also

piloted our first Demand-Driven ...
Why Continue Approval and Selection?
 Buy it when you can (is e-access guaranteed?)


Bob Nardini in “Approval Plans and...
Redefined Goals
 For liaisons (and faculty):


Reduction in slips and time spent reviewing slips



Invest time now to ...
Additional Goals
 Provide a framework for moving the needle from

print purchasing to e-books, both firm and DDA
 To fee...
Getting Started
 In consultation with our YBP representative, we

outlined a plan for a full revision
 Cautionary factor...
YBP’s Role
 YBP approval profiling and Collection Development

Manager’s role
 LMU’s process more involved than typical ...
YBP’s Role Adjusted
 Expectations: more in depth review process,

working with a profile that had not been significantly
...
YBP in Partnership
 Deconstructed the existing profile
 Constructed several new profiles that mirror the

collection dev...
The Review Process
 Title by title review in GOBI


Viewed title notifications sent and titles shipped



Reviewed titl...
Reflections


It was a much more intensive process than most libraries choose
to employ



Worked well for LMU and the o...
The Results


We now have a profile structure that includes several subject or
function specific plans:


A main books p...
More Results
 So far in fiscal year 2014, we have we have received

fewer books on approval than in either 2011 or 2012
...
Next Steps
 Incorporate reviews of subject areas into the subject

librarians’ performance goals on staggered intervals

...
THANK YOU!
 Charles Hillen – chillen@lmu.edu

 Glenn Johnson-Grau – gjohnson@lmu.edu

 Joan Thompson – jthompson@ybp.co...
Sources
 Nardini, B. (2011). Approval Plan and Patron

Selection: Two Infrastructures. In D.A. Swords
(Ed.), Patron-Drive...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rebuilding the Plane While Flying: Library/Vendor Strategies for Approval Plan Revision (in a DDA World)

174 views

Published on

Charles Hillen (speaker), Glenn Johnson-Grau (speaker), Joan Thompson (speaker)

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
174
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • After these experiences, we needed a reboot.
  • Troubleshooting discussions between the Head of Acquisitions & Serials and the Head of Collection DevelopmentPods were created to handle a range of collection development issues. For example, we had whole pod meetings just about standing orders: what they are, when to use them, how to make a request for an STO to the Acquisitions & Serials department.It was clear to us that the Pods could provide the structure through which we would address the plan to revise the approval plan. We ended up using the Pods as the training and group discussion forum for the individual work necessary for profile revision. Since Pods met monthly throughout the process, we set Pods agendas to prepare for upcoming profile work. We discussed the incentives for liaisons to spend time now in profile review to save time later in approval slip review. We also spent time on basics, such as our examination of the relationship between the classification system and the approval plan, which was clear for catalogers but less so for other librarians.
  • There is a major difference between tinkering around the edges and a complete review.LMU is a different place than it was even ten years ago.We had a language limitation that excluded Latin and Greek.
  • An approval plan is both a philosophical and an operational document. We are committed to transition from primarily print to primarily electronic for our monographs, just as we have done for serials.But, without severe space constraints and with room to let the budget evolve, we will work in an evolutionary manner.
  • CDM role includes creating, maintaining and revising approval plans. Normally entails a 1-2 day onsite meeting for the creation phase and occasional follow-up meetings and e-mail exchanges for regular maintenance Do not normally spend time on site on a regular basis with the library. Typically, we do not have the time to be so involved in the decision making process Instead, the time spent with libraries is usually focused on documenting decisions that have already been made, or at least consideredRefreshing to start on a process of reviewing a profile not with the goal of drastically reducing it or shutting it down to be replaced by DDA, rather to comprehensively make decisions about what should be collected
  • Knew it would be a more in depth profile review than most libraries normally undertakeKnew we were going to review a profile that had been written a number of years in the pastDid not know the extent to which we would end up breaking down the existing document and creating a new structureUsed various types of approval plans in response to content and format needsNeeded to coordinate the updates with the profile that provides DDA content coverageScope expanded to include additional needs discovered during the review process
  • YBP profiles are based on four areas of rules: series instructions, publisher list, and subject and non-subject parameters. There is interplay among most of these rules and there are various options for employing them, with the exception of series instructions. The result is that each set of rules could be arranged in multiple permutations. The role of the YBP collection development manager is to guide the library through the decision making process so that not every option need be examined. But when a library has very specific needs and interests, it can be rewarding to explore some of the less obvious choices.
  • Made use of the YBP database, GOBIViewed new title slips sent and titles shippedReviewed the actual titles and the number of titles by sub-classReviewed detailed bibliographic information for individual titles to better understand the output and how it was currently being mapped to LMU areas of study and researchThe subject specialists were responsible for determining what changes were needed in the profile instructionsLabor intensive and involved a number of participants in addition the library subject specialistYBP explained how the profile rules were applied in individual situations and what options existed for altering rules to bring about different outcomes
  • It was a much more intensive process than most libraries choose to employWorked well for LMU and the outcomes are informative for libraries in generalThe library found it useful to consider the e-book policy and print policy simultaneouslyWhile academic output of e-books is somewhere above 40% of print and growing, there are still titles for which there is only a print optionThe library needs to have a policy in place for collecting preferences for e and pThe library must decide between the multiple e-book options for the 40%+ that are available in both print and e. And when DDA is part of the equation, it must be remembered that not every e-book title is available for DDA, so that is a subset of the subset of print titles are available in electronic formatOnce the library has decided on the appropriate relationship between DDA and purchased titles, there are more considerations for DDA. All of these can be incorporated into a comprehensive collection development policy and LMU’s example shows the value of doing so (de-duplication along with comprehensive coverage of subjects of interest)
  • meaning that when rules are changed for one plan, the other plans need to be reviewed and possibly revised
  • From June 1-September 30, 2011, the library was invoiced by YBP for 2618 titles. In 2012, for the same months, we received 3368 titles, and in 2013 the number was only 2235.
  • Not all changes are worthy of assessment, such as deciding to exclude aerospace engineering titles at a liberal arts college. However, changes that will cause an increase in the number of notification slips and fewer books to be received automatically, or changes that restrict or relax the profile based on title pricing, publisher, content orientation (e.g., reference, textbook) need to be monitored in order to determine whether or not there are unintended consequencesThe assessment’s questions were created from the POD meeting agendas in order to ensure that the topics covered were formerly discussed and reviewed with everyone. The questions also forumlate a critical baseline of expertise that the library’s Dean expects of each subject liaison. The results of the assessment were relatively scattershot, making definitive conclusions all but impossible. Given that, we are considering an additional assessment of demonstrated skill, knowledge and ability, the results of which should permit us to make confident decisions about how to further develop the liaison program.
  • Rebuilding the Plane While Flying: Library/Vendor Strategies for Approval Plan Revision (in a DDA World)

    1. 1. Rebuilding the Plane While Flying: Library/Vendor Strategies for Approval Plan Revision (in a DDA World) Charles Hillen, Head of Acquisitions & Serials, Loyola Marymount University Glenn Johnson-Grau, Head of Collection Development, Loyola Marymount University Joan Thompson, Collection Development Manager, YBP Library Services
    2. 2. About Loyola Marymount University  A mid-sized Master’s L institution located on the West side of Los Angeles.  One of the twenty-eight Jesuit institutions in the U.S.  6100 undergraduates and about 2200 graduate students; the affiliated Loyola Law School is located near downtown Los Angeles.
    3. 3. Collection Development at LMU  Liaison model  22 librarians are liaisons/selectors for one or more academic program  Advantages:  Large group with diverse knowledge and expertise  CD responsibilities written into job descriptions  Disadvantages:  Liaison work not a primary job responsibility  Librarians frequently don’t have much CD experience  Schedules full from primary responsibilities  Maintaining a well-informed and engaged company of liaisons is a continuous challenge.
    4. 4. New Directions  New Dean and Head of CD agreed: program needed to become more intentional and less dependent on faculty involvement  Trials and Lessons Learned:  Have liaisons revise and/or create individual departmental collection development policies  FAIL  Expertise of the liaisons was not uniformly advanced enough  First attempt to involve liaisons in revising our approval profile  Struggled for the same reasons noted with the CD policies  Attempts to provide information to all the liaisons in a large group meeting were also unsuccessful
    5. 5. Putting Peas In Pods  Solution:  We needed a forum that met regularly in small groups for training  Raise all the liaisons to a uniform level of expertise  Encourage discussion of concerns about collection development activities  Thus, the Pods:  Four groups of 4-6 liaisons  Organized around broad subjects  Monthly meetings  The Pods have been meeting since the spring of 2011  Basic processes, workflows and technical training  Collection development concepts, goals and foci  Development and/or application of subject expertise
    6. 6. The Approval Plan Profile  Created in the mid-1990s  Many minor changes since, but no systematic review  Major flaws with the old plan  Significant areas within classification ranges, particularly in the sciences, were excluded for no discernable reason  Conception and contraception in RG  Innumerable areas were set to receive slips, even in areas of curricular focus and collection strength  Unexpected discoveries in the analysis process  Bioethics in R-class (and elsewhere)
    7. 7. Wait a Sec…What About E-Books?  At about the time that we started this process, we also piloted our first Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA) plan  Built upon our ebrary Academic Complete subscription  We had to think long and hard:  Why invest the time in revising our approval profile if we were going to let patrons select materials?  Was an approval plan an anachronism in a DDA world? Nothing succeeds like excess. – Oscar Wilde
    8. 8. Why Continue Approval and Selection?  Buy it when you can (is e-access guaranteed?)  Bob Nardini in “Approval Plans and Patron Selection”  Local expertise matters  “Patron-Driven Acquisition and Circulation” by Tyler, et al.  For now, format matters to our patrons; therefore it should matter to us.  Known unknowns and unknown unknowns; burned by aggregator content in early years of full text databases.  There is still a lot we don’t know. Observe moderation. -- Hesiod
    9. 9. Redefined Goals  For liaisons (and faculty):  Reduction in slips and time spent reviewing slips  Invest time now to save time later  For Acquisitions (and Cataloging and Circulation)  Reduction of backlogs/Stabilized workflows  Consistent and reliable spending  Reduce process labor  Accelerate receipt of desired material  Receive roughly 70% of our print book purchase on approval and 30% on firm orders  Flip the old ratio
    10. 10. Additional Goals  Provide a framework for moving the needle from print purchasing to e-books, both firm and DDA  To feel confident that our approval-to-firm order ratio would be within broad parameters that we had set through our systematic approval plan review  Begin a pilot project for going e-preferred through the approval plan for certain academic disciplines
    11. 11. Getting Started  In consultation with our YBP representative, we outlined a plan for a full revision  Cautionary factors:  Desired granularity of our decision making with the dual challenges --AND  Had to educate each liaison on the process – AND  Had to manage the time constraints of each meeting
    12. 12. YBP’s Role  YBP approval profiling and Collection Development Manager’s role  LMU’s process more involved than typical profiling project  More time onsite; more involvement in process  More involvement in decision making  An excellent opportunity to be present while intensive collection development work was being carried out  LMU approval is expanding and becoming comprehensive while the trend is toward contraction and/or shift to DDA
    13. 13. YBP’s Role Adjusted  Expectations: more in depth review process, working with a profile that had not been significantly changed in many years  Unanticipated outcomes: the extent of changes  Created new framework of multiple plans  Needed to coordinate profile changes among plans  Scope expanded to include additional needs discovered during the review process
    14. 14. YBP in Partnership  Deconstructed the existing profile  Constructed several new profiles that mirror the collection development and access objectives of the library  Found a few limitations  Expanded to full use of the profiling capabilities of YBP  Found it necessary and beneficial to address each level of the profile  The subject review process  Review of certain publisher list rules  Review of series instructions  The process also served as a crash course for the library on YBP’s profiling capabilities and vocabulary
    15. 15. The Review Process  Title by title review in GOBI  Viewed title notifications sent and titles shipped  Reviewed title detail in GOBI record  Kept running list of additional needs not met by main profile  Subject liaison as central decision maker  Liaisons were in the hot seat but didn’t work alone  YBP role to explain profiling options and expected outcomes  Additional tools  Excel : to view title information from GOBI in aggregate  Classweb, Local catalog, Google Sites
    16. 16. Reflections  It was a much more intensive process than most libraries choose to employ  Worked well for LMU and the outcomes are informative for libraries in general  It was beneficial for the library to consider the e-book policy and print policy simultaneously  While academic output of e-books is somewhere above 40% of print and growing, there are still titles for which there is only a print option  Library needs a policy in place for collecting preferences for e and p  Library must decide between the multiple e-book options  A comprehensive collection development program can and, in this case, should include traditional print approval, e-preferred approval and DDA  The process was very beneficial for YBP as it provided opportunities to test out new approaches and new services
    17. 17. The Results  We now have a profile structure that includes several subject or function specific plans:  A main books profile  An “essentials” profile to capture critical titles  A reference plan  A museum publications plan  A novels plan  Plans to support DDA  All of these plans are automatically de-duplicated but must be manually coordinated  Long-standing undesirable parameters were repaired  Found new opportunities to contemporize receipts based on new programs or other curricular developments
    18. 18. More Results  So far in fiscal year 2014, we have we have received fewer books on approval than in either 2011 or 2012  Factors to keep in mind as we begin to fully analyze the impact of our profile changes  At the end of both the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years, the library had to place our approval accounts on hold  YBP continued to allocate materials to our approval plans  When the new fiscal year began we received backlogged titles as well as current allocations  Some areas of our profile were restricted rather than opened  It will take several months for us to fully know the impact of our changes
    19. 19. Next Steps  Incorporate reviews of subject areas into the subject librarians’ performance goals on staggered intervals  Employ the use of online conferencing, video chat or remote desktop technologies to have dynamic and productive meetings with YBP  Establish a routine method for assessing the impact of the changes and ensuring quality control  Already created an assessment tool that asked the subject liaisons to self-identify their skills, abilities and knowledge of all of the concepts and tasks that underpin selection, evaluation, and collection management  Recently created a new DDA profile from the revised print profile
    20. 20. THANK YOU!  Charles Hillen – chillen@lmu.edu  Glenn Johnson-Grau – gjohnson@lmu.edu  Joan Thompson – jthompson@ybp.com
    21. 21. Sources  Nardini, B. (2011). Approval Plan and Patron Selection: Two Infrastructures. In D.A. Swords (Ed.), Patron-Driven Acquisitions: History and Best Practices (23-44). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.  Tyler, D.C. et al. (2012) Patron-Driven Acquisition and Circulation at an Academic Library: Interaction Effects and Circulation Performance of Print Books Acquired via Librarians’ Orders, Approval Plans, and Patrons’ Interlibrary Loan Requests. Collection Management, 38(1), 3-32. DOI:10.1080/01462679.2012.730494

    ×