Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to Developing a regional shared-print collection for White Rose Libraries
Similar to Developing a regional shared-print collection for White Rose Libraries (20)
More from northerncollaboration
More from northerncollaboration (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Developing a regional shared-print collection for White Rose Libraries
- 1. Developing a regional shared-print collection Michael Fake & Liz Waller ?
- 3. Collaboration • Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York • Geography • Demographics • Research/Teaching • Connections at all levels
- 5. In numbers • 75,898 students • 16,397 staff • 15 library sites
- 6. In numbers • 5.2M books
- 7. History • Repositories • Digitisation • RDM training • COPAC tools
- 8. Current services • CPD • Training provision • Mutual support • Erasmus • Research projects • Knowledge exchange events
- 9. Current services • Repositories • White Rose University Press
- 11. The challenge • Improve the student experience • NSS, CSE, TEF • Study spaces • Learning spaces • Flexible spaces • Light, open, social • Replicate the success of Laidlaw, Diamond, Fairhurst
- 12. The problem • Libraries are at capacity: • Leeds losing storage • Sheffield 1-in-1-out • York small external store
- 13. The problem • Long tail of low-use material • Not all digital • Don’t want to lose access • Community role in preserving material
- 14. The problem • Save money • £3 per year per volume
- 15. Shared print strategy • Regional print strategy 1. Identify common titles 2. Agree retentions 3. Identify storage 4. Agree access mechanism 5. Build local specialities
- 16. Existing initiatives • COPAC Tools • UKRR • National Monograph Strategy • RLUK investigations • Other regional plans • But WRL small enough to pilot something • Potential to scale up?
- 17. GreenGlass
- 18. GreenGlass • First step! • OCLC • Analytical tool • Comparison of holdings • Includes usage data • Retention modelling • Retention allocations • First in Europe
- 19. Working together • Project team • Coordinator • Fortnightly webex • Decisions by webex, email • Team members then work locally • Oversight from CCM group
- 20. Challenges • Bureaucracy • Three project teams • Multiple stakeholders
- 21. Challenges • Complexity of data • Multiple class schemes • Different systems • Identifying OCLC numbers • Errors in data exports
- 22. Challenges • Different timescales! • Leeds want to weed urgently… • Sheffield want deep collections analysis… • York fewer immediate pressures
- 23. Where are we now? • Data delivered in August • Still getting to grips with the tool • Need to do a lot more checking • Some surprises…
- 24. WRL crossover • 15% of York’s title holdings shared by all three • 25% shared by two • 60% only held by York
- 25. Wider crossover • 11% of York title holdings unique in UK • 17% unique within Russell Group • 38% not in BL • 71% not in Hathi Trust
- 26. Usage • 29% of York title holdings have no recorded usage
- 27. Interim findings • We have more unique material than we thought… • Making space by deduping across libraries less likely? • Making space through shared storage more likely?
- 28. Future plans • Complete our analysis and modelling • Agree retentions • Start thinking about… • Storage • Access • Ownership • …Shared collection