Reducing to Improve:     Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and SmallSyracuse University’s Science and Technology Libr...
Situation•   Sci-Tech Library in 100 year old Carnegie Building – poor condition•   99% full   ~350,000 volumes•   Share b...
What we don’t currently have but will soon get!
Floor layout          OfficeSeveralStacklevels               Not stacks            Office
Early questions1) Weneed to project a timeline and estimated costs for accomplishing this massive project, including –espe...
Realization• We are not good at large scale withdrawals• We have Acquisitions Departments• Not De-Acquisitions Departments...
Checking what others didSent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:22 PMTo: sts-l@ala.orgSubject: [STS-L] Presentations on "Evaluating ...
The SEVEN BACKFILES in the table below are ones that provide excellent linear footage gains in          the Carnegie Libra...
Talking to Faculty• Soon the Library will announce information regarding trials of several  journal backfiles that have la...
Major!                 Withdrawals/Transfers–   Journal backfile sets:       •   Wiley Chemistry       •   Springer Chemis...
What to do with it?• Bills of lading• Truckloads to a recycler in New Jersey   – Remember, these are mostly journals• Load...
Bill of Lading•   “is a document issued by a carrier to a shipper, acknowledging that non specified    goods have been rec...
Details, Details                                          For example: updating staff to new locationsThere has been a lot...
Keeping track of it all - SharePoint• https://sp.syr.edu/lib/commitees/SciTechAttack/default.aspx
Working examples“The new spreadsheet to work from is now in SharePoint. It’s called ‘Sci TechCollection Changes June 11.’ ...
How many library staff does it take to…1.    Associate Dean, Access and Resource management2.    Director of Program Manag...
Summary• Hundreds of print journals withdrawn• Backfiles withdrawn in their entirety• Dozens of print indexes withdrawn• D...
Outcomes•   Revitalized the public spaces of the Sci-Tech Library•   Patron Experience improved•   Better access to the mo...
Larger Context and Future• National conversation - how much redundant print is needed?     – locally?     – Collectively?•...
Reducing to Improve: Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and SmallSyracuse University’s Science and Technology Library
Reducing to Improve: Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and SmallSyracuse University’s Science and Technology Library
Reducing to Improve: Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and SmallSyracuse University’s Science and Technology Library
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Reducing to Improve: Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and Small Syracuse University’s Science and Technology Library

645 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
645
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reducing to Improve: Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and Small Syracuse University’s Science and Technology Library

  1. 1. Reducing to Improve: Case Studies in Weeding Projects Large and SmallSyracuse University’s Science and Technology Library Scott Warren November 4, 2011 Charleston Conference
  2. 2. Situation• Sci-Tech Library in 100 year old Carnegie Building – poor condition• 99% full ~350,000 volumes• Share building with Math Dept. and Math Library• 1/3 of main floor going to Math Dept.• No swing space• Modest Library system storage space – not high density (Warehouse), mostly full• Dozens of shelves of unshelvable new books• Large incoming gifts• Primary 1st floor space used for ceased/dated indexes
  3. 3. What we don’t currently have but will soon get!
  4. 4. Floor layout OfficeSeveralStacklevels Not stacks Office
  5. 5. Early questions1) Weneed to project a timeline and estimated costs for accomplishing this massive project, including –especially – the casual wage costs(FWS students).2) If you carefully keep track of how much of each activity can be done in one hour by one student or by one staff person, we can use thatbase to estimate totals. For now, would you begin to assemble your “best” figures for:3) SciTech shelflist sweep:(one) remaining shelflist cards to be “swept” in SciTech; 1” of cards = 100 titles(two) how many shelflist cards can be reviewed in one hour(three) therefore : how many hours will be needed4) SciTech retention decisions:(one) how many cards need to be reviewed by Sci librarians for retention(two) how long will this take (estimate)5) SciTech retrospective conversion:(one) how much needs to be physically verified in the stacks; how long will this take(two) how many sl cards need retro(three) how many can be done per hour(four) how many hours will this need(five) handling withdrawals…what we can’t find and what is no longer wanted, need to note this differentiation on stats6) SciTech de-accessioning of print journals (when we begin):(one) how many print volumes can be brought down from Storage level 7 in one hour?(two) gross count – how many print volumes are on Storage level 7? Based on physical count of that area, not a report from the system(three) how many journal volumes (average) in a box for Textbook Recycling?(four) how many boxes can we target for Textbk Recycling to pickup at Sci --- knowing there is no loading dock and boxes are hand-carried tothe truck.(five) how many boxes can be stored (someplace--- not in a public area) in SciTech, awaiting Textbk Recycling pickup?
  6. 6. Realization• We are not good at large scale withdrawals• We have Acquisitions Departments• Not De-Acquisitions Departments• Logistics are horrendous• We don’t fully know how much print we have – Especially older journals (items not barcoded) – Relying on ILS reports undercounts itemsShelf-list versus catalog versus shelf (will the real collection please stand up?!?)
  7. 7. Checking what others didSent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:22 PMTo: sts-l@ala.orgSubject: [STS-L] Presentations on "Evaluating and Weeding Book Collections in the Sciences"STS’ Assessment Committee hosted a discussion group at ALA on “Evaluating and Weeding Books Collections in the Sciences”. For both those thatattended, and those that could not, we wanted to provide you with access to the presentations given at this session.Here is a list of our speakers with brief descriptions of their talks and links to their presentation materials (some of the files may take a little while to load):Ronke Lawal, Virginia Commonwealth University:She discussed how they struggled with space concerns and how LibQual survey results were used to help drive the decisions about the weeding process.URL for printable slides(PDF)Michelle Leonard & Steve Carrico, University of Florida:They shared how they used data mining and visualization techniques to analyze the science collection for evaluation and weeding purposes.URL for printable slides (PDF)Mary Abdoney, Washington and Lee University:She outlined the role of, and the library’s interactions with, faculty in the course of evaluating the library’s collection.Interactive PreziURL for printable slides(PDF)Kevin Messner, Miami University:He discussed the role of consortiums in their decision processes and the development and implement of a “zero-growth” policy for their collection.URL for printable slides(PDF)
  8. 8. The SEVEN BACKFILES in the table below are ones that provide excellent linear footage gains in the Carnegie Library while also providing access to titles relevant to SU. Backfiles only way to make large gains in one fell swoop Name Estimated Price Linear footage Royal Society of Chemistry $62,000 231.15 Total Elsevier General Physics $77,000 242.92 spend Elsevier ScienceDirect: Organic Chemistry $25,000 121.1 about Elsevier ScienceDirect: Inorganic Chemistry $16,000 101.6 $300,000 Elsevier ScienceDirect: Physical/Analytic Chemistry $41,000 245.15 Wiley-Blackwell Chemistry Backfile Pricing done at title 175.4 (possibly 4.55 more if Int’l. J. of level, total ~$65,700 Quan. Ch. Symposia included, not counted in total) Springer Chemistry Backfile $25,000 226.87
  9. 9. Talking to Faculty• Soon the Library will announce information regarding trials of several journal backfiles that have large print equivalents in SciTech and could be possible purchases• Trialing backfiles to determine whether image quality is acceptable for faculty work was another request…• I want to…gather as much feedback…as possible so that informed and transparent decisions can be made…
  10. 10. Major! Withdrawals/Transfers– Journal backfile sets: • Wiley Chemistry • Springer Chemistry and Materials Sciences • Thieme Chemistry • Elsevier Physical Chemistry • Elsevier Organic Chemistry • Elsevier Physical/Analytical Chemistry • Elsevier Inorganic Chemistry • Elsevier Materials Sciences • Elsevier General Physics • Royal Society of Chemistry • American Chemical Society • Institution of Civil Engineers– 50+ shelves of dated computer technology books– Dozens of dated print index sets– Chemical Abstracts post 1967– 5% of reference collection– Nature– Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences– IEEE– Popular computing journals– Print spectra– ½ of reference collection
  11. 11. What to do with it?• Bills of lading• Truckloads to a recycler in New Jersey – Remember, these are mostly journals• Loading by pallet
  12. 12. Bill of Lading• “is a document issued by a carrier to a shipper, acknowledging that non specified goods have been received on board as cargo for conveyance to a named place for delivery to the consignee who is usually identified.”• The BL must contain the following information: – Name of the shipping company; – Flag of nationality; – Shippers name; – Order and notify party; – Description of goods; – Gross/net/tare weight; and – Freight rate/measurements and eighteenth of goods/total freight From Wikipedia “The recyclers were able to use all of the material we sent to them which was good news. They are able to reimburse us at the rate of $20 per ton for the 35,940 lbs. we sent which comes out to about $365.”
  13. 13. Details, Details For example: updating staff to new locationsThere has been a lot of movement of books from one room to another as we make room for Math to move into what was onceGovernment Document space. In order to keep the catalog clean and yet not be changing it every day, there was a decision tomake the descriptions more generic and the signs within the library clear and more abundant.Changes made in Summit [catalog] and sent along the request to Discover (Encore)phys,cprchanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Curr Per Rm 103changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-1st Floor (does not circulate)phys,refchanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Reference Room 103 (does not circulate)changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-1st Floor (does not circulate)sci, cprchanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Curr Per Rm 103 (does not circulate)changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-1st Floor (does not circulate)sci,docpchanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Documents Room 115 (does not circulate)changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-1st Floorsci,docschanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Documents Room 115changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-1st Floorsci,microchanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Microforms Room 115 (does not circulate)changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-Microforms, 1st Floor (does not circulate)sci,refchanged from: Sci/Tech Lib-Reference Room 103 (does not circulate)changed to: Sci/Tech Lib-1st Floor (does not circulate)sci,rm115changed from: Sci/Tech Lib - Cooking Collection, Room 115
  14. 14. Keeping track of it all - SharePoint• https://sp.syr.edu/lib/commitees/SciTechAttack/default.aspx
  15. 15. Working examples“The new spreadsheet to work from is now in SharePoint. It’s called ‘Sci TechCollection Changes June 11.’ There are 4 different worksheets.”• Titles to transfer to Sci-Tech storage (uncertain how much may fit)• Titles to withdraw. The big one is Journal of Biological Chemistry. This will open almost a whole row on the second level.• Titles to move to Warehouse storage. I think these will fit. Focus on the Q’s first as they are the ones that open up the space for the physics monos.• The ASME backfile. Years vary by journal title, but all withdrawals are before 1999. Any print post 1999 can be transferred to storage if any space remains after #1 and #3.
  16. 16. How many library staff does it take to…1. Associate Dean, Access and Resource management2. Director of Program Management (facilities)3. Head of Collections (me)4. Head, Access & Resource Sharing5. Cataloging Librarians (3, in succession)6. 4 subject librarians7. Supervisor, Business Services Office8. Supervisors, Access & Resource Sharing (2)9. Library Warehouse Supervisor10. Delivery and Retrieval Services Coordinator11. Library Technicians (4)12. 6 temporary shelvers13. Numerous student workersAnd one recycling companyPeople in red met weekly for nearly 2 years coordinating the project
  17. 17. Summary• Hundreds of print journals withdrawn• Backfiles withdrawn in their entirety• Dozens of print indexes withdrawn• Dozens more journals transferred• Storage transfers only possible once backfile journals withdrawn – created swing space
  18. 18. Outcomes• Revitalized the public spaces of the Sci-Tech Library• Patron Experience improved• Better access to the most important remaining print holdings• Consolidation of the Sci-Tech reference collection. The smaller (halved), up-to- date, and newly focused reference collection is far more visible• Currently received print journals much more browsable• Shelf space to integrate the former National Plastics Center Library• Much-needed swing space• We finished all of these projects on time under strict renovation deadlines
  19. 19. Larger Context and Future• National conversation - how much redundant print is needed? – locally? – Collectively?• Pre-conference:Shared Print Archiving: Building the Collective Collection, and a Print Safety Net!• Now planning for major high density storage facility• Switch entire floor with Math Dept.• Send all print journals to storage (~167,000 volumes)

×