Implications for HE libraries

Evolution or revolution?13 December 2005

Martin LewisDirector of Library Services & University LibrarianThe University of Sheffield

photo: Sam Judson

The report

• Welcome and timely

• Option 4 is the correct one!

• …but• Theoretical underpinning

• Monographs

• Researcher views and needs

Implications for HE libraries

• Support for local zero net collections growth policies • ZnCG at the University of Sheffield

Library

• Monographs: grasping the nettle• The White Rose/BL CCM project: a

platform for the NRR monograph service

Zero net Collections Growth

• University of Sheffield Library full

• ZnCG by 2005 adopted as policy in 1998

• Target is zero NET collections growth

• Progress towards ZnCG has been slow

• Current project management approach to achieving ZCG

ZnCG project• complete capacity audit

• identify and quantify one-off disposal opportunities

• revise and update departmental collection development policies

• academic awareness and engagement

• project group established 2003

One-off disposal options

• de-duplication of store monograph stock

• closed runs of journals

• bound journals with e-archives (eg JSTOR, Elsevier)

• journals backruns before a certain date (relying on document delivery)

t2003 2006

collection size

theoretical

actual

Gradient reduces as monograph disposals increase

print collection

print collection

monograph purchasing

print journal subscriptions

gifts

monograph disposals

e-only journal subscriptions

greater selectivity

print collection

monograph purchasing

print journal subscriptions

gifts

monograph disposals

one-off disposals of

bound journals

e-only journal subscriptions

disposals from last n years only kept

policy

greater selectivity

journal disposals

Discussion points

1. 1.5M print vols in actively managed collections is enough for a large research-led civic university

2. you can’t write a convincing business case for investing in new print storage capacity at £2,500m-2

3. biting the bullet on collections size has enabled us to prioritise investment in study space quality and quantity (new £24M Information Commons)

1. 1.5M print vols in actively managed collections is enough for a large research-led civic university

2. you can’t write a convincing business case for investing in new print storage capacity at £2,500m-2

3. biting the bullet on collections size has enabled us to prioritise investment in study space quality and quantity (new £24M Information Commons)

Discussion points

4. journal disposals are generally nonrecurrent contributions to ZnCG – the baseload growth is from monographs

5. we are already starting to dispose of print journals, relying on the stability of e-journal archives

6. noncommercial backup of e-journal archives highly desirable – eg KB/Elsevier; LOCKSS

Discussion points7. Greatest long-term gain (saving) comes

from deduplication of the national monograph collection

8. Resilience of the national research reserve is a national security issue

9. National framework for storage crucial for underpinning local collection management

10.9 out of 10 academics prefer the BL brand for this product

The White Rose/BL CCM project

• White Rose : Leeds, Sheffield, York

• report on WR website at http://www.whiterose.ac.uk/ProjectDetail.aspx?

id=54

• project ran from December 2004 through August 2005

• Idea of the National Collection central

Concept

BRITISHLIBRARY

Project aimsThe project aimed to test the practicality of the proposal to withdraw from WRC libraries and transfer to the British Library, research level materials in two categories:

• Monographs no longer required by the academic institution but requiring preservation within the national collection because they are either not held by the British Library or were not available as a copy for loan.

• Additional copies of monographs no longer required by the academic institution but heavily used at the British Library.

Two elements

• Discussion of models

• Pilot implementation and evaluation of preferred model

Models

1. BL does most of the work (“just take ‘em away”)

2. Work shared between WRC libraries and BL (pre-checking against BLIC, list compilation and submission by WRC, further checking of lists at BL, shipping of agreed items)

Project outcomes• It works! 2,300 items processed.• But it’s expensive• Importance for BL of retroconversion of

UCB card catalogue (1950 – 1980 titles)• Cost at BL will reduce when UCB cc online• 90% of disposable titles not required by BL• BL did not need additional copies of titles

not required by WRC libraries

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700N

o.

of

Tit

les

Leeds Sheffield York

No. of Titles Rejected by WRC in Part 1No. of Titles Rejected by BL in Part 2No. of Titles Accepted by BL in Part 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700N

o.

of

Tit

les

Leeds Sheffield York

No. of Titles Rejected by WRC in Part 1No. of Titles Rejected by BL in Part 2No. of Titles Accepted by BL in Part 2

Conclusions• The WR/BL CCM model is viable for monograph

storage

• The unit costs are high but not excessive and are capable of significant reduction

• There is scope for extending the pilot, as a platform for inclusion of monographs within the NRR

• The BL is likely to offer a WR-type last-copy acceptance capability in the near future

• Involvement of the BL reassures academics (at least, those in Yorkshire)

Acknowledgements

• Project officers• Chris Senior, Leeds (for WRC)• James Elliott, BL

• Project managers• Brian Clifford (Leeds)• Kath O’Donovan (Sheffield)• Elizabeth Harbord (York)

Things are not revolutionised by making

revolutions.

Things are not revolutionised by making

revolutions.

The real revolution lies in the solution of existing problems…

Things are not revolutionised by making

revolutions.

The real revolution lies in the solution of existing problems…