It's Not Just About Weeding

  • Published on
    26-Jun-2015

  • View
    71

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

2014 Charleston Conference Friday, Nov 7, 3:15 PM

Transcript

<ul><li> 1. Its Not Just About Weeding Using Collaborative Collection Analysis to Develop Consortial Collections Charleston Conference 2014 Leslie OBrien Genya OGara Anne C. Osterman </li></ul> <p> 2. What is the Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA)? 72 academic libraries (39 public, 32 private, Library of Virginia), including doctorals, four years, two years, and specialized institutions. Central funding provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, additional cost-sharing by members. Grounded in the coordinated collection development of online resources and an extensive resource sharing program. 3. V www.vivalib.org 4. Introduction and Background Virtual Library of Virginia VIVA Steering Committee Collections Committee Monographic Collection Analysis Task Force 5. Collection Development was one of the Project Goals: Pilot a coordinated, consortial approach to collection assessment Use the data and analysis to inform future, collaborative collection development Identify scarcely-held titles in need of protection Begin a discussion about the possibility of reducing unnecessary duplication and saving local space through strategic weeding Provide remediated and enhanced records back to the participating schools 6. Task Force Proposal Proposal to Collections Committee, approved by Steering Committee Pilot group 12 libraries Private &amp; public, 2 year &amp; 4 year Sustainable Collection Services selected to analyze data 6 million records 7. All circulating print monographs English language only Main library (no law libraries, medical libraries, etc.) LC classification only Included in the Analysis 8. Collection Development Areas Widely Held and Highly/Recently Circulated Books Print Book Shelf Life Comparison of Print and Electronic Usage Patterns Common Themes and Local Disciplinary Strengths 9. Looking for Intersections Top publishers Highly circulated titles Widely held titles 10. Examining Widely Held/Highly Circulated Books Defined as: held by 10 or more VIVA libraries 10 or more recorded uses last charge date after 2007 Resulted in a list of just over 175,000 books. 11. Converting Widely Held Print to Ebooks? ProQuests Title Matching Fast service compared widely held print to their ebook offerings identified a few key publishers gave options and basic pricing for multiple options of ebook access The ISBNs were also matched to a standardized list of publishers using an in-house approach matched all books to publishers 12. Title Count By Publisher 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 13. Conducted Survey of Collection Development Contacts Satisfaction with current e-book collections Interest in acquiring from particular publishers Preferences for acquisition models 14. Holdings and Usage for Top Publishers 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Univ Press 'A' Univ Press 'B' Comm Pub 'A' Comm Pub 'B' Comm Pub 'C' Univ Press 'C' Univ Press 'D' Comm Pub 'D' Comm Pub 'E' Comm Pub 'F' 1 or More Recorded Uses 0 Recorded Uses 15. Holding and Usage for Top Publishers 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Avg Recorded Uses Avg Holdings 16. Practical Application in Negotiations This data aided a discussion and negotiation with a publisher about a shared purchase because it could show how many copies have historically been held by all of VIVA in print 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average VIVA-Wide Holdings by Title by Publication Year for a Given Publisher 17. Examining Shelf Life Could be used to inform lease vs. purchase of e-books Average number of years between publication year and last charge date, where Publication year &gt;= 1980 Record add date &gt;= 1990 Last charge date not null Focused on three LC classes H, Social Sciences N, Fine Arts Q, Science 18. Examining shelf life 8.1 9.2 7.54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H N Q Average number of years between Publication Year and Last Charge Year 19. Examining shelf life 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 Relative Shelf-Life by LC Class (Years of Difference between Publication Year and Last Charge Year) H N Q 20. Examining shelf life 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 H HA HB HC HD HE HF HG HJ HM HN HQ HS HT HV HX N NA NB NC ND NE NK NX Q QA QB QC QD QE QH QK QL QM QP QR Average number of years between Publication Year and Last Charge Year 21. Conclusions about Shelf Life This shelf life approach could be useful in informing future acquisition model decisions In a demand driven acquisition e-book program, different trigger-to-purchase levels could be set for different subjects As the publisher-based discussions progress, the subjects areas that a publisher is strongest in could inform a lease vs. purchase decision 22. Comparison of Print and E Usage Focused on three STEM-H publishers acquired recently in e-book format by the consortium Matched up print holdings from collection analysis to shared e-holdings using the ISBN Represented a total of around 800 titles held in both e and print format within VIVA 23. Comparison of Print and E Usage 65% 69% 35% 64% 43% 62% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Print Electronic Print Electronic Print Electronic Publisher A Publisher B Publisher C Proportion of Available 2013 Titles Used 24. Comparison of Print and E Usage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q R S T Print and E Usage: Analysis by Discipline Print and E Usage Only Print Usage Only E Usage No Usage 25. Conclusions about Print and E Usage This could show user preferences for a given format in a given discipline It might inform future directions for purchasing e-books 26. Looking for Local Strengths What does the subject distribution of the whole collection look like distributed across the pilot libraries? What do our uniquely held titles tell us about our collections? 27. Results Subject Distribution Classes where the percent distribution of total collections is widely (more evenly) shared 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Class E % of shared collection B Philosophy, Psychology, Religion C Auxiliary Sciences of History (General) D World History (except American History) E American History F Local History of US &amp; British, Dutch, French, &amp; Latin America G Geography, Anthropology, Recreation H Social Sciences J Political Science L Education M Music N Fine Arts U Military Science 28. Results Subject Distribution Classes where the distribution of total collections is not as widely (less evenly) shared A General Works P Language and Literature Q Science R Medicine S Agriculture T Technology V Naval Science Z Bibliography, Library Science 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Class Z % of shared collection 29. Distribution is Key! Pilot libraries had wide distribution of subject areas across the state! Distribution of collection depth was the second piece of the puzzle. 30. Results Local Strengths 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Class B % of shared collection % of unique titles 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Class C % of shared collection % of unique titles UVA has all the unique stuff (just kidding but they have a lot)! 31. Results Local Strengths Wide ranging examples of institutions with high percentages of unique titles by LC class! If unique titles is an indicator of collection depth, this was great news for consortial collection development. 32. Results Local Strengths 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% George Mason James Madison Old Dominion Radford Richmond UVa VCU Germanna Reynolds Mountain Empire VA Tech Wash &amp; Lee Class N % of shared collection % of unique titles 33. Results Local Strengths 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% George Mason James Madison Old Dominion Radford Richmond UVa VCU Germanna Reynolds Mountain Empire VA Tech Wash &amp; Lee Class S % of shared collection % of unique titles 34. Results Local Strengths 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% George Mason James Madison Old Dominion Radford Richmond UVa VCU Germanna Reynolds Mountain Empire VA Tech Wash &amp; Lee Class L % of shared collection % of unique titles 35. Results Local Strengths Consortial confidence in building on existing subject strengths Potential for formal collection development on behalf of other institutions 36. Progression of Collection Development Discussion Three recommendations were approved by the Steering Committee: Collaborative retention of widely-held monographs Establish a recommended threshold for VIVA holdings as new purchases Collaborative publisher-based e-book acquisition 37. Recommendation 1: Collaborative retention of widely-held monographs Initial result of the project led to an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for unique and rare titles 72,000 unique titles within circulating collections of VIVA pilot libraries, and held by less than 10 libraries in the United States Extend the project to include an MOU for widely-held monographs Allows for safe de-duplication, could incorporate subject strengths for retention copies Model with no shelf verification or catalog tagging holdings are simply divided into safe to weed and not safe to weed 38. Recommendation 2: Establish a recommended threshold for VIVA holdings as new purchases Purchase monographs in consultation with one another Prevent future duplication Investigate common acquisition system and shared discovery layer Enable a cross-consortium view for collection development 39. Recommendation 3: Collaborative Publisher-Based E-bookAcquisition Strong patterns, coupled with surveys, led to the identification of key-publishers Currently held titles and circulation patterns inform negotiations moving forward 40. Future: Implementation of recommendations over this next year Issues! Data freshness Expanding the data set beyond pilot libraries Costs Path forward for collaborative collecting 41. Questions? </p>