Reducing Unintentional Duplication

  • View
    486

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Text of Reducing Unintentional Duplication

  • 1. Reducing Unintentional Duplication:Adventures & Opportunities inCooperative Collection DevelopmentCharleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition November 4, 2011Leslie Button, UMass Amherst Rachel Lewellen, UMass Amherst Kathleen Norton, Mount Holyoke CollegePam Skinner, Smith College

2. Five Colleges Consortium Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith University of Massachusetts Amherst 3. 5C Libraries Cooperation Long history dating back to 1950s Strong resource sharing philosophy Geographic proximity 15 mile radius 5C committees Single shared ILS Shared print repository Delivery system that gets materials to userswithin 24 hours (M-F) 4. Project Impetus Five Colleges Presidents and Chancellor soughtincreased cooperation between institutions Five Colleges Library Directors definedcooperative collection development as a strategicpriority in 2008. Five Colleges Collection Management Committeeassigned the implementation Interest in maintaining overlap where appropriateand retain flexibility to expand base of resourcesavailable to library users 5. Defining Policy and Project Goals Increase number of unique titles purchased Utilize YBP as common supplier Implement by July 1, 2009 Needed data to inform subject areas High duplication with low circulation Shift from 10 subject areas to all bookspurchased 6. Implementation Required cooperation of selectors at all fivecampuses as well as engagement of thefaculty Widely divergent campus sizes, acquisitionsbudgets, and collection development practices 7. Hampshire College Smallest (FTE = 1,450) and newest of the FiveCollege campuses Purchases mainly support 100- and 200-levelclasses, duplicating local holdings as necessary For upper level courses, HC relies heavily onthe other FC collections Views the FC Library collections holistically No faculty selectors; no question of buy in Moved to YBP; GobiTween facilitates selection 8. Amherst College Student FTE = 1,800 Librarians & faculty members place premiumon browsability Very generously funded; often duplicatespurchases made by other Five College libraries Amherst faculty & librarians pushed back re:initial one copy proposal Like Hampshire, moved to YBP 9. Mount Holyoke College Student FTE = 2,100 Librarians & instructional technologists main selectors(merged organization) Orders flagged DN (designated need) if the bookneeds to be at Mount Holyoke, regardless of other FiveCollege locations Level of faculty purchasing is low (< 15%); facultyrequests are always considered designated need Faculty members voluntarily add notes toorders, stating either that another copy in Five Collegeswill sufficeor that there is a local need 10. Smith College Student FTE = 2,600 Academic depts. receive annual book allocation(approx. 55% of total monographs budget) Policy change required endorsement of theFaculty Committee on the Library Orders flagged SC copy essential when title isneeded regardless of other FC holdings Shelf-ready approval books for some subjects(15% of all YBP orders/year) 75% of monographic titles come from YBP 11. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst Student FTE = roughly 26,000 Erratic funding from state played major role in policy shift Acquisitions staff relies heavily on selectors to checkGobiTween for other FC orders Limited exceptions to the policy: Automatic orders for books receiving major reviews in the NYT Two small art & music approval plans New policy shared with campus community via FacultySenate Research Library Council; liaisons; Deans Council Most faculty members very supportive of this new policy 12. The Data Duplication, circulation, and cost Shared Oracle database OCLC number basis for determiningduplication 13. Duplicated Titles FY08 and FY11% of Duplicated titles Purchased90%80%70%60%50% FY0840%FY1130%20%10%0% Amherst HampshireMount Holyoke SmithUMass Total 14. Unique Titles FY08 and FY11% of Unique Titles Purchased60%50%40%30%FY08 FY1120%10%0%Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke SmithUMass Total 15. Titles Owned by 3-5 LibrariesMonograph Duplication within the Five Colleges ConsortiumFY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Owned by 2 Libraries 24% 26% 29% 29%Owned by 3-5 Libraries 38% 35% 26% 21%Total Duplication61% 61% 56% 51% 16. Overlap Titles Purchased % of Titles Purchased by 3-5 Libraries70%60%50%40%FY0830%FY1120%10%0%Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke SmithUMassTotal 17. Five College Circulation Analysis as of August 26, 2011*FY2007 FY2008FY2009 FY2010 FY2011Amherstuni que ti tl es 58%55%49%46%29% dupl i ca ted ti tl es69%65%61%55%33% a l l ti tl es66%62%56%51%31%Hampshireuni que ti tl es 72%69%77%62%45% dupl i ca ted ti tl es83%74%73%61%44% a l l ti tl es80%73%73%62%44%Mount Holyokeuni que ti tl es 56%56%58%50%34% dupl i ca ted ti tl es67%66%62%55%37% a l l ti tl es64%64%61%53%36%Smithuni que ti tl es 55%52%49%41%23% dupl i ca ted ti tl es68%62%59%50%30% a l l ti tl es63%58%55%45%26%UMassuni que ti tl es 63%64%62%55%31% dupl i ca ted ti tl es77%74%70%72%44% a l l ti tl es70%69%67%64%44%Five Colleges Totaluni que ti tl es 59%58%54%46%28% dupl i ca ted ti tl es71%67%63%55%36%all titles 67%63%60%51%32%* Includes circulation of unique items, duplicated items and overall circulation fromthe time of purchase through August 2011. 18. Five College Borrowingas a % of Total Borrowing Mount Amherst Hampshire Holyoke Smith UMassFY0811%44%14%18% 16%FY0911%46%15%17% 18%FY1010%49%17%18% 19%FY1111%49%20%19% 20% 19. Five College Collection Analysis - Monograph Purchasing for Unique and Duplicated Items - FY08 - FY11FY2008 FY2009 FY2010* FY2011Amherst Items% $Items%$Items% $Items%$unique4,824 34% $241,026 5,60841%$294,076 6,46244% $296,767 6,31449%$317,656duplicated9,335 66% $393,383 8,09559%$313,247 8,12256% $416,081 6,58951%$318,039 Total14,159 100% $634,40913,703 100% $607,323 14,584100% $712,848 12,903 100%$635,695Hampshireunique 45621% $12,60222316%$7,735 43722%$16,444 45126% $21,301duplicated1,767 79% $50,6441,21584% $48,692 1,59478%$60,752 1,25474% $42,644 Total2,223100% $63,2461,438 100%56,428 2,031100%77,196 1,705 100% $63,946Mount Holyokeunique1,551 23% $65,7351,63824% $75,085 2,47236% $125,996 2,02735%$107,827duplicated5,181 77% $221,876 5,09376%$231,359 4,44964% $182,568 3,78665%$159,621 Total6,732100% $287,611 6,731 100% 306,444 6,921100%308,5635,813 100%$267,448Smithunique6,685 41% $495,232 5,63444%$455,779 6,27652% $491,028 6,85254%$549,321duplicated9,714 59% $475,546 7,31556%$324,446 5,82148% $282,633 5,83746%$276,696 Total16,399 100% $970,77812,949 100% 780,22512,097100%773,661 12,689 100%$826,017UMassunique8,294 50% $464,695 5,26545%$389,824 1,59447%$95,377 5,42055%$335,900duplicated8,167 50% $338,794 6,52255%$261,108 1,82153%$73,282 4,43145%$208,756 Total16,461 100% $803,48911,787 100% 650,931 3,415100%168,6609,851 100%$544,656Five College Totalunique21,81039% $1,279,29018,36839% $1,222,500 17,24144%$1,025,612 21,06449% $1,332,006duplicated34,16461% $1,480,24228,24061% $1,178,852 21,80756%$1,015,316 21,89751% $1,005,756 Total55,974 100% $2,759,53246,608 100% 2,401,35239,048100% 2,040,92742,961 100% $2,337,762* Intentional reduction of duplication began FY10 20. Future Areas for CooperationPrint resources Print standing orders Art approval plans Foreign language booksWhat is the right balance of duplication? 21. Future Areas for CooperationElectronic resources Intentional, coordinated Reduce barriers to access Purchase eBooks for heavily requested printmonographs R2 recommendation to jointly license electronicresources Patron-driven acquisitions 22. Applying Lessons Learned Allowed for institutional philosophies andpriorities Worked within existing committee structures no additional overhead Details of implementation were local -parameters were not prescriptive Importance of ongoing analysis 23. Questions?Leslie Button, Associate Director for Library Services, button@library.umass.eduRachel Lewellen, Assessment Librarian, rlewellen@library.umass.eduKathleen Norton, Head of Collections , knorton@mtholyoke.eduPam Skinner, Reference and Electronic Resources Librarian, pskinner@smith.edu