Cooperative Collection Development in the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries: A Success

1
Cooperative Collection Development in the
Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries A
Success?

• Charleston Conference
• November 8, 2008
• Yem Fong, University of Colorado at Boulder
• Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver

2
The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries

• Auraria Library
• CU Denver
• Metro State College
• Comm. College of Denver
• Colorado College
• Colorado School of Mines
• Colorado State University
• Denver Public Library
• Regis University

• University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Library
• University of Colorado, Boulder
• University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
• University of Denver
• University of Northern Colorado
• University of Wyoming

3
Prospector

• Serves 25 academic, public, and special libraries
  in Colorado and Wyoming
• Over 23 million items
• A shared collection

4
Goals for the Project

• Control duplication
• Improve overall collection quality
• Save time and money

5
Scope of the Project

• 2.5-year pilot
• Two vendors
• Blackwell
• YBP
• Undergraduate materials
• YBP GEN-AC (General Academic)
• Blackwell Undergraduate Library
• Four subject areas
• Economics
• Mathematics
• Political science
• Religion

6
Participants

• Auraria Library (3 subjects) 10.1
• Colorado College 12.2
• Colorado State Univ. 14.1
• Regis Univ. 1.6
• Univ. of Colorado at Boulder 20.0
• Univ. of Denver 38.6
• Univ. of Northern Colorado (1 subject) 1.0
• Univ. of Wyoming (3 subjects) 2.5
• Budget percentages are for FY 08/09

7
Requirements

• Controlled duplication
• Direct billing
• Current institutional standards for materials
  processing
• Purchase plan no returns

8
Profiling

• All books (undergraduate and graduate) with one
  vendor
• Institutional priorities
• Number of copies based on anticipated usage

9
Collection Analysis

• Spectra Dimension
• Seven years of data
• Annualized use per title
• Percent of zero usage
• Number of copies per title
• Number of titles

10
Profiling Example (Economics)
11
Distribution of Books

• Individual profiles
• Group profile (limits)
• commitment
• Weekly patterns

12
How did we do?

• Did we better control duplication?
• Did we receive good titles?
• Did we miss good titles?
• Did the process work?
• Did we free up money for other things?
• Did we free up selector time?
• Did the process make sense for acquisitions
  departments?
• Was the project valuable in ways beyond the
  initial goals?

13
Assessment Quantitative Measures

• Quantitative data from vendors
• Snapshots in Prospector
• Collection analysis using Spectra Dimension

14
Assessment Qualitative Measures

• Vendor feedback
• Selector feedback
• Feedback from acquisitions personnel
• Review of titles missed
• Review of titles that would have been sent

15
Overview of titles received

• Blackwell
• Mathematics
• 327 undergrad, 2,885 total
• Political Science
• 2,126 undergrad, 2,421 total
• YBP
• Economics
• 903 undergrad, 1,246 total
• Religion
• 619 undergrad, 3,035 total

16
Duplication Copies per Title
17
Duplication - Prospector

• Blackwell Average of titles sent as part of
  the plan (1,639 titles)
• Sent as part of plan 2.33
• Sent to all participating libraries 2.41
• In Prospector (Alliance members) 3.36
• In Prospector 4.64
• prior to March 2008

18
Duplication - Prospector

• YBP Average of titles sent as part of the
  plan (459 titles)
• Sent as part of plan 1.59
• Sent to all participating libraries 1.83
• In Prospector (Alliance members) 2.55
• In Prospector 6.03
• prior to March 2008

19
Titles Received Annualized Use per Title
20
Titles Received Percentage of Titles Never Used
21
The Process

• Duplication between undergrad/grad
• Blackwell 88 math, 58 poli sci
• YBP 310 econ, 121 religion
• Duplication between vendors
• 21 titles
• YBPHC, BlackwellJ, etc.
• More copies sent than maximum
• Blackwell 41 titles
• YBP 102 titles

22
Surveys of Participants

• Selectors
• 25 responses
• Average of 6 per subject
• Mixed
• Acquisitions
• 7 responses
• Generally negative

23
Titles Received

• Selectors generally pleased with quality
• BUT
• Economics selectors concerned about suitability
• Small budgets not enough books

24
Titles Received An Example

• University of Colorado at Boulder Religion
• 96 firm order requests. July 1, 2007-Oct 24, 2008
• 20 titles not part of plan
• Price, reference, etc.
• 20 GEN-AC
• 1 title held by 3 libraries
• 5 titles held by 2 libraries
• 14 titles held by 1 library
• Mostly higher level

25
Titles Missed

• Selectors in all subject areas identified titles
  they would have purchased.
• Math, Religious Studies especially
• Firm orders sometimes needed.

26
Titles Missed An Example

• University of Denver Religion
• Looked at 435 GEN-AC titles not received by
  anyone
• 20.92 (91 titles) desirable
• 6.44 (28 titles) maybe
• 72.64 (316 titles) not wanted

27
The Process

• Undergrad/grad split somewhat artificial
• May not have worked for larger libraries
• Caused some unnecessary duplication

28
Impact on Budgets

• Most selectors not affected
• Two found less flexibility for firm orders

29
Impact on Selectors

• Positive
• Joint meetings
• In larger libraries -gt more time
• Little oversight needed
• Negative
• Initial time commitment
• Smaller libraries -gt not enough titles
• Unsure of what others were receiving
• Missed handling books

30
Acquisitions Workflow

• Second vendor
• Extra staff time
• New interface
• Multiple workflows
• Special codes
• General discontent

31
Intangibles

• A culture of cooperation
• Impetus to experiment

32
Next Steps

• Single vendor
• Targeted subjects
• Graduate/research materials
• Some smaller groups
• eBook packages

33
Thank you

• Yem Fong
• Head of Collection Development
• University of Colorado at Boulder
• judith.fong_at_colorado.edu
• Michael Levine-Clark
• Collections Librarian
• University of Denver
• michael.levine-clark_at_du.edu