Collection Space Management Program Update: LSF Selection

1
Collection Space Management Program Update LSF
Selection Transfer FY04

• Michael DiMassa Danuta Nitecki
• Library Forums Jan. 29 Feb. 4, 2004

2
Agenda

• Collection space management program update
• FY04 selection overview
• New tools and routines
• Training
• The most frequently asked question . . .
• Future selection support

3
CSM Program Goals progress

• Reduce shelf occupancy to 80
• Rationalize shelving arrangements
• Weed maintain an intensive use collection in
  CCL
• Pilot an inventory of 200K item collection
• Improve ELI Express delivery

4
CSM Program ProjectionsSML

• Major goals content, shelf occupancy
  rationalization
• Serials are critical
• Resource allocations may shift
• Mechanisms to identify 220K transfers are being
  explored
• Transfers will be coordinated with
  rationalization efforts

5
CSM Program Projections CCL

• Major goals shape intensive-use content within
  size of c. 150k volumes
• Content is being defined by discipline
• Portions will be weeded or transferred
• Phase 2 Renovation will set time frame

6
CSM Program Projections Other targets

• Purpose and management principles of Mudd Library
  stacks will be revisited
• Arts Library renovation plans triggered move of
  40K volumes
• ELI Express delivery has been improved
• Inventory pilot is deferred

7
Whats needed next?

• Identify what should go where
• Edit bibliographic and holding records
• Transfer serials routinely
• Transfer low use items to LSF
• Remove items from CCL
• Manage the CSM program to meet its goals on time
  and within budget

8
FY 04 Selection Overview (A)

• Selection Routine in Previous Years
• Predetermined slice of the collection selected
• One Set of extract criteria applied for the
  entire selection cycle
• Criteria applied to a snap-shot of the database
• Division of the resulting extract into call
  number segments
• Generation/posting of individual access files
• Selector decision on an item basis
• No deadlines/defaults

9
Introducing a new philosophy

• Emphasizes creating space on campus to shape
  browsing collections over time

10
FY 04 Selection (B)

• FY04 Routines for SML
• Selection at Extract Level
• Deadlines/Default Extract Criteria
• Advantages of FY 04 Selection Routines
• Allows different criteria for different call
  number ranges
• Dynamic
• Prevents extract overlap
• Allows coordination of LSF effort with stack
  rationalization operations
• Reduces selection effort

11
New Tools and Routines

• The Collection Analysis Tool
• Deadlines and Default extract Criteria

12
The Collection Analysis Tool

• History of the tool
• Current status
• The tool in action

13
Choose a Location/Classification
14
Select Call Number Range
15
Set Format/Encoding Level
16
Set Circulation Counts
17
Select Browses Count/Last Date Used (?)
18
Select by First Published Date
19
Show Collection Summary
20
Further Options

21
Option 1 Create a List
22
Option 2 Export a Delimited File into Access
23
Option 3 Examine Your Query
24
Submit Extract Criteria

• Extract Criteria
• Call Number Type/ Range
• Circ Count
• Browse Count
• Last Date Used (if Applicable)
• Date of Publication
• Submit Extract Criteria
• Via Fax [phone]
• Via e-mail michael.dimassa_at_yale.edu

25
Paths of Least Resistance. . .

• Do Nothing. . . and the default extract criteria
  will be applied automatically
• Use the Collection Analysis Tool and make your
  decision(s) based on the summary information.

26
Default Criteria FY04 transfers from SML to LSF

• Circs 0
• Browses 0
• Last Date Used-N/A
• Date of Publication lt1998
• Formatam (monographs)
• Language All
• Place of Publication All

27
Getting Started

• Responsibilities continue to be assigned by Call
  Number Ranges.
• Updated Lists of Selection Responsibilities (LC
  and Old Yale)
• Location of the Collection Analysis Tool will be
  announced
• Central Authentication Center requires
• Net ID
• Password

28
Training Assistance

• Personal
• Small Groups

29
Timeline for FY 04 SML Selection

• LMC approved selection plan
• December 3, 2003
• Presentation of plan
• January 29 and February 4, 2004
• Training and selection
• January 30 through March 3, 2004
• Selection completed for FY04 transfers
• March 3, 2004

30
The Most Frequently Asked Question by Selectors .
. .

• What About Serials????

31
Serials

• Serials are being Transferred
• 2,905 Titles transferred to LSF to Date
• 372 Titles transferred from SML Stacks
• Routines/Procedures for Serials Transfers have
  been Finalized
• Files of Dead Serials Posted and Awaiting
  Selection

32
Future Selection Support

• Reports on circulations from LSF
• Transfers back to Campus? No Problem!
• Future selection tools
• Reports on Collection Space Management program

33
ThanksQuestions/comments

• Q Is the browse element applied to all items
  used in the stacks or only to those processed
  through Room 2? Browses recorded in Voyager
  reflect in-building use of materials. At SML, all
  items not charged to a patron that are picked up
  (either on the various floors or at the Return
  Desk) are scanned and receive a browse. Use of
  the Voyager browse feature is uneven among
  circulation units elsewhere.
• QIs there documentation on the minimal level of
  acceptance for serial records? YES. See
  http//www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/lsf/lsfseri
  als.htm
• Q Do we need to revisit the way selection
  responsibilities are assigned? The concept of
  dividing responsibilities by call number ranges
  was established by CDC when the LSF project began
  and it still appears to be the best way to make
  assignments. However, selectors are invited to
  discuss overlapping areas with colleagues and
  also supervisors should let Mike know if specific
  ranges should be reassigned, especially if a
  selector leaves.

34
Comments continued

• There needs to be an easier way to transfer back
  to campus some items sent to the LSF.
• Last year, we developed a Web form and procedure
  for selectors to request permanent transfer of a
  few items from the LSF. (For more information,
  see http//www.library.yale.edu/lsf/lsf_transfer_
  form.html) Although we will try to improve the
  process in the future, we also will need to
  correlate the amount of transfers with the space
  available to re-shelve items on campus.

35
Commentscontinued

• Some faculty are complaining about transfers to
  the LSF. We urge selectors to work with
  individuals to explain the issues of space
  management and ask them to make Mike, Danuta or
  Alice aware of any negative feedback they
  receive.
• Will selection in the future accommodate
  differing growth rates in collections across
  different disciplines? This is an excellent
  question that we hope to address from a
  Collection Development perspective. The intent
  is that eventually we will have a holistic view
  of the SML stacks that might benefit from a
  description of content related to physical space
  limitations.

36
Thank you

• Please direct additional questions or comments
  to
• Mike DiMassa, Manager LSF
• 2-9140, michael.dimassa_at_yale.edu
• Danuta A. Nitecki, Associate University Librarian
  
• 2-1818, danuta.nitecki_at_yale.edu