What OCLC data analysis reveals about SCELC libraries SCELC Colloquium John McDonald CIO, Claremont University Consortium March 6, 2013
SCELC’s Need for DATA• Nascent resource sharing program (CAMINO) What can I get out of this if I join?• Interest in shared print preservation program What will I be obligated to keep if I join?• Some have interest in closer collaborative collection development What can I stop buying or what else can I buy?
OCLC Data Analysis• SCELC officially requested provision of print book holdings from OCLC for a portion of its members• 56 SCELC schools requested (50% of membership)• Simple Data provided: By OCLC Number Holding Libraries by Symbol
OCLC Data Analysis• 2.2 Million Books (or 2,190,464 to be exact)• 5.5 Million Holdings (or 5,558,921 to be exact)
600,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 100,000 0 Claremont Santa Clara LMU USF Oxy Fuller Pepperdine CaltechUniversity of the Pacific Biola La Sierra Azusa Pacific Loma Linda St. Marys La Verne Pacific Union College Point Loma Nazarene California Lutheran Claremont School of… Golden Gate Baptist… Mills College American Jewish… Westmont College Simpson University Vanguard University Cal Arts Cal Baptist Monterey Institute Dominican Mount St. Marys Whittier Woodbury San Diego Christian Golden Gate Hope International John F. Kennedy Menlo College William Jessup Holy Names Marymount College Cal Inst of Integral… Sierra Nevada Western University of… City of Hope Alliant San Diego Wright Institute Charles Drew Palo Alto University Alliant - SF San Francisco… Alliant International… Alliant - Fresno Inst of Transpersonal…Notre Dame de Namur Total Books Held, by Library SF Center for… Alliant - Irvine
Who makes a good resource sharing partner?Who makes a good shared print partner?Who do is best to collaborate with oncollections in the future?What traits can influence a Library to join aprogram or start a partnership?
Shared Print: Find Unique Holdings to Maximize Preservation 30% 25% Claremont, 180KTotal Portion of Collection 20% LMU, USF, Santa Clara, 70-80K each 15% Occidental, 50K Fuller Theological Seminary, 100K 10% Caltech, 75K 5% American Jewish University, 50K 0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Unique across all Libraries
Shared Print: Find Overlap Holdings to Maximize DeselectionBooks also held by Claremont
Shared Print: Find Overlap as a % of Collection 70.0%% of Collection held by Claremont 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Resource Sharing: Find Libraries Most Unlike Us 20% 18% LMU, USF, Santa Clara, 200-250K eachTotal Portion of Collection 16% 14% 12% Fuller Theological Seminary, 230K 10% Caltech, 150K 8% Biola, 135K 6% Loma Linda, 120K 4% 2% 0% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unique from Claremont
CUC Resource Sharing: CAMINO Collections LMU Oxy Pep UOP CSTWstmtCalArts CBU Dom WJUWUHS AJU HNU 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Books held only by library Books held by BOTH library and the rest of Camino Books held only by the rest of Camino
Percentage of Each Librarys books that are Unique to Camino 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CUC Resource Sharing: CAMINO CollectionsLMU Oxy Pep UOP CSTWstm tCalAr ts CBUDomWJUWUH S AJUHNU
Resource Sharing: Prospective CAMINO Collections Santa Clara 119012 394706 USF 115071 377476 Fuller 149023 270988 Caltech 96352 226332 Biola 68159 182984 La Sierra 49731 150355Azusa Pacific 47403 148658 Unique to 73435 Loma Linda 136616 Library St. Marys 32632 129135 La Verne 33712 116530 Total 35796 Pacific Union 101624 Books Point Loma 30527 Nazarene 100582Cal Lutheran 23506 94953 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Resource Sharing: Prospective CAMINO Collections Loma Biola Linda 32% 35% Fuller 54% Caltech 60% BothBoth 14% 5% USF Santa 38% Clara 40% Both 22%
Potential for this data • Data has proven to be valuable in modeling potential for resource sharing, print preservation, and collaboration • Additional areas of analysis: ▫ Overlap and uniqueness by publication year and subject area (LC Call Number) ▫ Paired and multiple modeled scenarios • OCLC Data is just a snapshot in time (and already outdated) • OCLC is hard to work with and can be expensive
Potential Next Steps • Need data from members directly ▫ Could include circulation ▫ Simple data extraction should be easy and can be supplemented by OCLC API • Find appropriate permanent home for database • Develop self-service tool with (close to) real time data • Determine if new OCLC Collection Analysis tool will provide the same or similar information