Introduce self describe our library/university briefly so they understand the size and scope? State university Master’s degree university with a few PhD’s 11,000 Students Very popular and busy since we’ve put in a learning commons….we get on average over 5000 students a day and 6000 on Mondays. In the 13-14 academic year we had a gate count of 745,898 which is approximately double what it was in 2008-2009. Budget is $2.9 million dollars overall, $1.25 million of which is for the collection The two things we wanted to address was the departmental liaison structure and the money allocation structure to try to revamp our collection development. As you’ll see, the scope grew huge, which was a little intimidating, but it allowed us to enjoy bigger successes!
We wanted to improve this process because although it worked in some departments, it did not work in others. The faculty chosen to be liaisons were chosen by the department, and were usually either new tenure-track faculty, or long-established and opinionated faculty Turns out the majority of the liaisons were either overly involved or not involved at all. Their major involvement was to disseminate communications and news from the library and send in the yellow cards So the yellow cards were how faculty made orders – we printed them and handed them out, then they filled out the info on them to request orders. We had been doing that for about 30 years, and no one thought we should change it despite the invention of email and whatnot. So the faculty would basically fill out a yellow card and submit it to their liaison. Then the liaison would send it to the library – this was their main responsibility in practice it turns out. Turns out we discovered that many were not distributing the communications to their faculty and that some of them were making JUDGMENT CALLS before sending in the yellow cards and only forwarded requests they thought were worthy. I don’t know the goals for the liaison program when it was created at our library, but I’m pretty sure the reality was not what was planned. we realized we had set up some pretty big roadblocks for some faculty
Emphasize this is for one-time purchases (physical items, books and DVDs mostly) – NOT SUBSCRIPTIONS Formula developed in 1970 with feedback from faculty on what was important to consider The library set aside a dollar amount to allocate, then these factors with their weights were magically converted to give each college a percentage of that allocation I couldn’t find an actual formula to determine how this becomes a percentage of the money for college allocations, but we always refer to it as a formula. So what does that look like in terms of allocations?
The numbers for 82-83 were so much bigger because we allocated more money to divide – pre-electronic resources. 12-13 we kept a lot of money back for subscriptions to e-content and then allocated the remaining, so much smaller. Notice A&S used to be the biggest, but now education is, so although the formula hasn’t changed, allocations do reflect changes in the university. So each college could further allocate as desired. Some didn’t divide any further (nursing, business, engineering, education) because they were already one subject Others divided further (arts and sciences and Ag and Human Ecology) because they had such different subject matters The library was not involved in any further allocation process at all except to know what those numbers were, but some felt if they didn’t get enough from their college, it was that they didn’t get enough from the library
So let’s look at what the departments DID with their allocations using 2010-2011 as an example. They didn’t use all of it, except nursing (which appears to be super under funded to begin with, although they were transitioning to their own college so that could have been part of the issue) Over ¼ of the money went unspent. And the library’s process included the librarians trying to spend the remainder in the last few months of the fiscal year, so this 72.8% spent includes the librarians’ last-minute additions and we still underspent. Luckily we were able to roll over the extra money or spend it in other categories.
So besides not using the money and the liaison issues, this whole system had additional problems. It doesn’t take into account any special needs like new programs/concentrations, new classes, faculty changes with different research interests, etc. It made us very impersonal and insensitive to specific situations. There were non-academic departments that had needs for materials including: Office of Research, Career Services, Student Success Centers….then others that are non-academic may have needs in the future: ROTC, centers (women’s center, black cultural center, etc.), financial aid, etc. *we did satisfy these needs but with the library money we did not allocate, but it sent a PR message like they weren’t as important, didn’t get a say, or didn’t count. The scramble for librarians to spend the money at the end of the year was exhausting. we would send reminders of how much they have spent and how much they had left, and then try to give them a deadline before the library started spending it. That was more than just the six colleges because when a college further allocated to a department we would work with the individual departments to send them updates and reminders. Then to spend the rest of their money but still get it in this fiscal year, we’d scramble to buy stuff including going to the local bookstore – chaotic! It was so much time and effort to manage, and you can see the spend rate of about 73% means we couldn’t even spend it all in the scramble. Not only did it stress us out but it didn’t even work! A problem that recently arrived is we have a new Provost and we can no longer roll over our money, so there is more of a need to get that spend rate higher!!
We chucked the formula out the window and decided to adopt a new motto: “you want it we’ll buy it”. That is only for one-time costs (books, music, DVDs, etc….no subscriptions). So although the no subscriptions is a caveat, we literally say this motto to people, faculty staff and students. This is a much more PR-friendly statement than choosing certain people to get money over others. We only question if we already have a copy or there is a newer version. We told the departments that we weren’t using liaisons any longer, and we introduced the MyLibrarian program. The MyLibrarian program was intended to give every single faculty member a personal connection to the library - they each had a librarian with no go-between. We had 3.5 librarians (I am the half because I&apos;m also doing administration) doing this, but many of you know not everyone needs or uses the library. MyLibrarian aims to work with faculty to find out how we can help them and make it a personal relationship so they know they can depend on us while we learn about what we can do for them. we made sure to tell the departments that if THEY wanted a liaison system, that was up to them...whatever worked best. But they were not under any obligation to use one and we were contacting all faculty directly. The yellow cards are gone! Well not gone, I&apos;m holding one. But they are scrap paper now. No faculty member is sad to see them go. We changed the purchase process to basically be &quot;tell us what you want in whatever way is most convenient&quot;. We take phone calls, emails, written notes, circled books in publication catalogs through campus mail...whatever. We also put a purchase request form on our website homepage, and when one is submitted it is an email automatically submitted to me. In 2013-2014 I received 342 requests through this online form. Once the right subject librarian gets the request (either an email or my forward from the online form), they submit them electronically so our purchasing specialist can process them. No paper on our end!! We realized we had to consider our articles and subscriptions as part of these considerations because as we’re talking about collection development, that is a huge portion of it! This is one of the biggest changes on our end when it comes to collection development...we have started relying on Interlibrary Loan and Get It Now as part of our collection. We do not try to provide immediate access to everything because we just can&apos;t. So we are now choosing to make some users get materials through ILL and Get It Now. for those of you who do not know, Get It Now is article purchase on demand for articles available from the publishers who participate in the program, which is facilitated through the Copyright Clearance Center.
We decided to start using GIN because we were providing journals and databases of journals when most people “shop by” articles…so we were purchasing information they didn’t want or need. We had a lot of information, already paid for, that no one was using, and that is certainly not budget friendly So the plan was to cancel print journals and eJournals that were covered in a database -then there were many journals we were getting that were print and online, so we cancelled the print side and purchased only the online, which saved us money -we cancelled low-use index databases, since they were not providing full-text access anyway -we cancelled low-use eJournals. this happened before I started working there, but there was an analysis to determine the cost-per-usage of our eJournals, and cancelled those that were not high use and were expensive. The cutoff dollar amount was about $40 (because the cost per article through Get It Now is around 32 to 36 dollars). This plan saved our library $498,872!!!! the best part of this plan is that we reduced access very little because we cancelled overlap and LOW USE items. Not to mention, the journals and articles available through GIN offers access to things they could not access so fast before - so although we shrank our electronic collection some, we also increased it some!
1. GIN & ILL allow us to provide articles, not journals, and help us pay for the information that people NEED and not a whole lot of unused info 3304 requests that were filled via ILL. (FYI last year it was 1652, so it doubled) there were only 218 GIN requests, which was much less than we anticipated. The program is only intended for faculty and graduate students, but we cannot actually limit it. So we have text on the site where they can either choose ILL or GIN, and basically say &quot;please only use GIN if you really need it faster because it does cost the library money&quot;. They must listen to us and are money conscious! 2. For those of you curious about turnaround times, here you go. shortest was instantaneously. the longest was 9 hours, and the average was around one hour. Although over half were delivered in 20 minutes or less - it&apos;s like a pizza!
3. Here&apos;s the best part: The cost of GIN for a year was $5,465. We saved almost half a million with our plan, and we only spent 1% of it on GIN.
-so remember how in 2010-2011 the librarians scrambled and we managed to only spend about 73% of the allocations? CLICK - now let&apos;s look at 2012-2013 where we started our new motto halfway through the fiscal year (so we did allocations but didn&apos;t follow them). We spent 105%!! We hit our goal of spending all the money, which was great. Why we overspent was CLICK right here - the agriculture and human ecology spending. It was way over. I can tell you why - those are my subject areas. These collections were so out of date that I made a ton of purchase requests with faculty consultation for many videos and books. I knew we had saved so much from the cancellation plan that I just kept spending and telling them to spend. -in case you are thinking &quot;you overspent - how can the budget sustain that??!!&quot; well these areas had been ignored so long, it was sort of a &apos;let&apos;s catch up&apos; shopping spree. It should not need an overhaul like that again. Not to mention was saved so much money, we had it this year. We also tell them that if we ‘run out of money’ we just hold their purchase until the new fiscal year and then will buy it in July.
so not that we really forgot these things, but this is where our idea of eliminating the formula and the liaisons kept expanding to other things. we had to change a lot about our website to reflect these changes and set up a way to allow for book requests online -getting rid of the yellow cards were not part of the original plan, just a happy perk. Also had to put the MyLibrarian program on the website. but we had to change the book request procedure and it wasn&apos;t just the yellow cards but now all librarians have an online account in our vendor&apos;s website to submit our orders in there, which required time and training. policies needed to be changed like our collection development policy. although that seems obvious, it turns out the liaison program was a statement in the faculty handbook as a university policy. So to change it required going through the entire process of changing a university policy. It was doable, but we didn&apos;t realize that until after we already started the new practice. oops :) communicating these changes to everyone who needs to know (which is basically everyone) is so important. especially because there will be unhappy people. Even though this sounds like the greatest thing since sliced bread, we had a very unhappy and very vocal faculty member. Hint: it was the one who was making judgment calls on the yellow cards and turning down others&apos; requests to submit her own. don&apos;t forget to acknowledge this is a culture shift. this is a completely different way of thinking about collection development both within and outside the library. Not only were we changing a process that was 40+ years old, we were severely altering the definition of &quot;our collection&quot; by considering ILL and GIN as part of it.
These were the benefits we discovered: we are getting more requests the librarians are more involved in the purchase process (since the yellow cards used to go directly to purchasing) so they know the collection better the librarians consult with faculty about their requests as needed, so they are interacting with faculty more. the budget, as the numbers showed, is much healthier, and providing less extraneous material is more responsible the collection has expanded, with relevant and desired material! – both print & electronic this is the best part and my favorite benefit: people think we hung the moon. Those that weren&apos;t able to purchase enough before think it&apos;s great. Those that have a voice now to order that didn&apos;t before, they love us. When people realize the book they ordered actually arrives, they are so happy. Seriously, people think we hung the moon.
All in all I think it went smoothly if looking at the big picture, so there isn’t a whole lot I would change. But these are things that are important to keep in mind if you’re considering any similar types of changes. Idea of eliminating allocations sounds like they have no money – they can’t grasp the idea of ‘we’ll buy anything you want one-time purchase’ until it happens. So objections were based on ideas and concepts…once they had a year to see how it settled in, they LOVED it. So keep fighting the good fight until you can prove your ideas with action….they naysayers will catch up. Communication – you make your best effort but expect that people will have no idea, even if they heard you talk about it twice and asked a question. They either never listened, forgot, or truly don’t understand. The idea started with eliminating allocations and it morphed into changing a lot of things to all work together into a big picture…which was a GOOD thing, but just go in that knowing that you will have to review the way you do a LOT of things to determine how a major change in collection development will affect everything else. this process affected our subscriptions because they have started making a lot of subscription requests. so we have put a process for that in place. honestly since our cancellations saved so much, we are able to purchase the subscription requests, which is also making people happy. we aren&apos;t sure what took so long to revamp this process. I can&apos;t speak to whether it was discussed before or the faculty just weren&apos;t ready since I wasn&apos;t there. but the stars aligned with the GIN participation, ILLiad acquisition, organizational restructure, etc. etc. so we took advantage and both the librarians and the faculty wished it would have happened sooner.
Rethinking Collection Development: Thinking Way Outside the Box
OUTSIDE THE BOX
Coordinator of Public Services
Tennessee Technological University
THE WAY WE WERE….
the yellow cards
THE WAY WE WERE….
what we allocated
College 82-83 allocation 12-13 allocation
Ag/Human Ecology $13,429.81 $3,564.00
Arts & Sciences $104,505.58 $28,808.00
Business $39,857.22 $9,476.00
Education $79,529.31 $29,090.00
Engineering $71,440.45 $13,222.00
Nursing $6,011.59 $1,831.00
Interdisciplinary Studies $1,000.00
TOTALS: $314,773.96 $86,991.00
THE WAY WE WERE….
what people spent
Ag/Human Ecology $6,453.26 $3,414.22
Arts & Sciences $41,000.86 $33,354.00
Business $12,026.89 $10,677.73
Education $40,718.85 $22,727.32
Engineering $18,367.13 $13,129.61
Nursing $242 $3,158.70
TOTALS: $118,808.99 $86,461.58
OH THE PROBLEMS YOU’LL
not based on need
leftover money scramble
no more rollover
THE GREAT CHANGES OF 2013
hello new motto
“You want it? We’ll buy it!”
goodbye departmental liaisons
hello MyLibrarian program
goodbye yellow cards
hello new purchase process
hello Get It Now (welcome back ILL)
GET IT NOW (GIN)
eJournals/databases vs. articles
cancel journals with database overlap
switch print+online to online only
cancel low-use index databases
cancel low-use eJournals/databases
cost savings: $498,872
GIN SEPT 2013 – AUG 2014
3304 ILL article requests filled
218 GIN requests filled
shortest: 0 minutes
longest: 9 hours
average: 1.2 hours
half are delivered in 20 minutes or less
HOW IT ALL AFFECTED
Ag/Human Ecology $6,453.26 $3,414.22 $3,564.00 $23,866.06
Arts & Sciences $41,000.86 $33,354.00 $28,808.00 $31,199.87
Business $12,026.89 $10,677.73 $9,476.00 $1,314.26
Education $40,718.85 $22,727.32 $29,090.00 $22,849.81
Engineering $18,367.13 $13,129.61 $13,222.00 $10,504.89
Nursing $242 $3,158.70 $1,831.00 $1,613.58
Interdisc Studies $1,000.00 $0.00
TOTALS: $118,808.99 $86,461.58 $86,991.00 $91,348.47
DON‘T FORGET THE….
book request procedure
WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN
more purchase requests
more librarian involvement
better faculty connections
we are rock stars
OUR 20/20 HINDSIGHT
what took so long???