Upload
dayna-osborne
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
It’s Not Just About Weeding
Using Collaborative Collection Analysis to Develop Consortial Collections
Charleston Conference 2014Leslie O’BrienGenya O’Gara
Anne C. Osterman
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.
Introduction and Background
Virtual Library of VirginiaVIVA Steering Committee
Collections Committee Monographic Collection Analysis Task Force
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
Task Force Proposal
• Proposal to Collections Committee, approved by Steering Committee
• Pilot group• 12 libraries• Private & public, 2 year & 4 year
• Sustainable Collection Services selected to analyze data• 6 million records
• All circulating print monographs• English language only• Main library (no law libraries,
medical libraries, etc.)• LC classification only
Included in the Analysis
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
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.
Converting Widely Held Print to Ebooks?
ProQuest’s 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
Conducted Survey of Collection Development Contacts
• Satisfaction with current e-book collections• Interest in acquiring from particular publishers• Preferences for acquisition models
Holdings and Usage for Top Publishers
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'
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
1 or More Recorded Uses 0 Recorded Uses
Holding and Usage for Top Publishers
UP 'A'
UP 'B'
Comm
Pub
'A'
Comm
Pub
'B'
Comm
Pub
'C'
UP 'C'
UP 'D'
Comm
Pub
'D'
Comm
Pub
'E'
Comm
Pub
'F'
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Avg Recorded UsesAvg Holdings
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
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average VIVA-Wide Holdings by Title by Publica-tion Year for a Given Publisher
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 >= 1980• Record add date >= 1990• Last charge date not null
• Focused on three LC classes• H, Social Sciences• N, Fine Arts• Q, Science
Examining shelf life
H N Q1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8.1
9.2
7.54
Average number of years between Publication Year and Last Charge Year
Examining shelf life
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 320%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Relative Shelf-Life by LC Class (Years of Difference between Publication Year and Last Charge Year)
H
N
Q
Examining shelf life
H HBHD HF HJ
HN HS HV N NBND NK Q
Q
BQ
DQ
H QL
QP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Average number of years between Publication Year and Last Charge Year
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
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
Comparison of Print and E Usage
Print Electronic Print Electronic Print ElectronicPublisher A Publisher B Publisher C
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
65%69%
35%
64%
43%
62%
Proportion of Available 2013 Titles Used
Comparison of Print and E Usage
Q R S T0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Print and E Usage: Analysis by Discipline
Print and E UsageOnly Print UsageOnly E UsageNo Usage
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
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?
Results – Subject DistributionClasses where the percent distribution of total collections is
widely (more evenly) shared
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%Class E
% of shared collection
B – Philosophy, Psychology, ReligionC – Auxiliary Sciences of History (General)D – World History (except American History)E – American HistoryF – Local History of US & British, Dutch, French, & Latin AmericaG – Geography, Anthropology, RecreationH – Social SciencesJ – Political ScienceL – EducationM – MusicN – Fine ArtsU – Military Science
Results – Subject DistributionClasses where the distribution of total collections is not as
widely (less evenly) sharedA – General WorksP – Language and LiteratureQ – ScienceR – MedicineS – AgricultureT – TechnologyV – Naval ScienceZ – Bibliography, Library Science
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35% Class Z
% of shared collection
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.
Results – Local Strengths
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Class B
% of shared collection % of unique titles
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
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)!
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.
Results – Local Strengths
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Class N
% of shared collection % of unique titles
Results – Local Strengths
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Class S
% of shared collection % of unique titles
Results – Local Strengths
Georg
e M
ason
Jam
es M
adiso
n
Old D
omin
ion
Radfo
rd
Richm
ond
UVaVCU
Germ
anna
Reyno
lds
Mou
ntai
n Em
pire
VA Tec
h
Was
h & L
ee0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Class L
% of shared collection % of unique titles
Results – Local Strengths• Consortial confidence in building on existing subject
strengths
• Potential for formal collection development on behalf of other institutions
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
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”
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
Recommendation 3: Collaborative Publisher-Based E-book Acquisition
● Strong patterns, coupled with surveys, led to the identification of key-publishers
● Currently held titles and circulation patterns inform negotiations moving forward
Future:
● Implementation of recommendations over this next year● Issues!
• Data freshness
• Expanding the data set beyond pilot libraries
• Costs
● Path forward for collaborative collecting