Reducing Unintentional Duplication

Reducing Unintentional Duplication: Adventures & Opportunities in Cooperative

Collection Development

Charleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial AcquisitionNovember 4, 2011

Leslie Button, UMass AmherstRachel Lewellen, UMass Amherst

Kathleen Norton, Mount Holyoke CollegePam Skinner, Smith College

Five Colleges Consortium

• Amherst• Hampshire• Mount Holyoke• Smith• University of Massachusetts Amherst

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 users

within 24 hours (M-F)

Project Impetus

• Five Colleges Presidents and Chancellor sought increased cooperation between institutions

• Five Colleges Library Directors defined cooperative collection development as a strategic priority in 2008.

• Five Colleges Collection Management Committee assigned the implementation

• Interest in maintaining overlap where appropriate and retain flexibility to expand base of resources available to library users

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 books

purchased

Implementation

• Required cooperation of selectors at all five campuses as well as engagement of the faculty

• Widely divergent campus sizes, acquisitions budgets, and collection development practices

Hampshire College

• Smallest (FTE = 1,450) and newest of the Five College campuses

• Purchases mainly support 100- and 200-level classes, duplicating local holdings as necessary

• For upper level courses, HC relies heavily on the other FC collections

• Views the FC Library collections holistically • No faculty selectors; no question of “buy in”• Moved to YBP; GobiTween facilitates selection

Amherst College

• Student FTE = 1,800• Librarians & faculty members place premium

on “browsability”• Very generously funded; often duplicates

purchases made by other Five College libraries• Amherst faculty & librarians pushed back re:

initial “one copy” proposal• Like Hampshire, moved to YBP

Mount Holyoke College

• Student FTE = 2,100• Librarians & instructional technologists main selectors

(merged organization)• Orders flagged “DN” (designated need) if the book needs

to be at Mount Holyoke, regardless of other Five College locations

• Level of faculty purchasing is low (< 15%); faculty requests are always considered “designated need”

• Faculty members voluntarily add notes to orders, stating either that another copy in Five Colleges will suffice—or that there is a local need

Smith College

• Student FTE = 2,600• Academic depts. receive annual book allocation

(approx. 55% of total monographs budget)• Policy change required endorsement of the Faculty

Committee on the Library• Orders flagged “SC copy essential” when title is

needed 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

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 check

GobiTween 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 Faculty Senate Research Library Council; liaisons; Dean’s Council

• Most faculty members very supportive of this new policy

The Data

• Duplication, circulation, and cost• Shared Oracle database• OCLC number basis for determining

duplication

Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% of Duplicated titles Purchased

FY08FY11

Duplicated Titles – FY08 and FY11

Unique Titles – FY08 and FY11


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% of Unique Titles Purchased

FY08FY11

Titles Owned by 3-5 Libraries

Monograph Duplication within the Five Colleges Consortium

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Owned by 2 Libraries 24% 26% 29% 29% Owned by 3-5 Libraries 38% 35% 26% 21% Total Duplication 61% 61% 56% 51%

Overlap – Titles Purchased


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of Titles Purchased by 3-5 Libraries

FY08FY11

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

unique titles 58% 55% 49% 46% 29%

duplicated titles 69% 65% 61% 55% 33%

all titles 66% 62% 56% 51% 31%

unique titles 72% 69% 77% 62% 45%


all titles 80% 73% 73% 62% 44%

unique titles 56% 56% 58% 50% 34%


all titles 64% 64% 61% 53% 36%

unique titles 55% 52% 49% 41% 23%


all titles 63% 58% 55% 45% 26%

unique titles 63% 64% 62% 55% 31%


all titles 70% 69% 67% 64% 44%

unique titles 59% 58% 54% 46% 28%

duplicated titles 71% 67% 63% 55% 36%all titles 67% 63% 60% 51% 32%

the time of purchase through August 2011.

Five College Circulation Analysis as of August 26, 2011*

* Includes circulation of unique items, duplicated items and overall circulation from

Five Colleges Total

UMass

Smith

Mount Holyoke

Amherst

Hampshire

Five College Borrowing as a % of Total Borrowing

Amherst Hampshire Mount

Holyoke Smith UMass

FY08 11% 44% 14% 18% 16% FY09 11% 46% 15% 17% 18% FY10 10% 49% 17% 18% 19% FY11 11% 49% 20% 19% 20%

Amherst Items % $ Items % $ Items % $ Items % $

unique 4,824 34% $241,026 5,608 41% $294,076 6,462 44% $296,767 6,314 49% $317,656

duplicated 9,335 66% $393,383 8,095 59% $313,247 8,122 56% $416,081 6,589 51% $318,039

Total 14,159 100% $634,409 13,703 100% $607,323 14,584 100% $712,848 12,903 100% $635,695

Hampshireunique 456 21% $12,602 223 16% $7,735 437 22% $16,444 451 26% $21,301

duplicated 1,767 79% $50,644 1,215 84% $48,692 1,594 78% $60,752 1,254 74% $42,644

Total 2,223 100% $63,246 1,438 100% 56,428 2,031 100% 77,196 1,705 100% $63,946

Mount Holyokeunique 1,551 23% $65,735 1,638 24% $75,085 2,472 36% $125,996 2,027 35% $107,827

duplicated 5,181 77% $221,876 5,093 76% $231,359 4,449 64% $182,568 3,786 65% $159,621

Total 6,732 100% $287,611 6,731 100% 306,444 6,921 100% 308,563 5,813 100% $267,448

Smithunique 6,685 41% $495,232 5,634 44% $455,779 6,276 52% $491,028 6,852 54% $549,321

duplicated 9,714 59% $475,546 7,315 56% $324,446 5,821 48% $282,633 5,837 46% $276,696

Total 16,399 100% $970,778 12,949 100% 780,225 12,097 100% 773,661 12,689 100% $826,017

UMassunique 8,294 50% $464,695 5,265 45% $389,824 1,594 47% $95,377 5,420 55% $335,900

duplicated 8,167 50% $338,794 6,522 55% $261,108 1,821 53% $73,282 4,431 45% $208,756

Total 16,461 100% $803,489 11,787 100% 650,931 3,415 100% 168,660 9,851 100% $544,656

Five College Total unique 21,810 39% $1,279,290 18,368 39% $1,222,500 17,241 44% $1,025,612 21,064 49% $1,332,006

duplicated 34,164 61% $1,480,242 28,240 61% $1,178,852 21,807 56% $1,015,316 21,897 51% $1,005,756

Total 55,974 100% $2,759,532 46,608 100% 2,401,352 39,048 100% 2,040,927 42,961 100% $2,337,762

* Intentional reduction of duplication began FY10

Five College Collection Analysis - Monograph Purchasing for Unique and Duplicated Items - FY08 - FY11FY2008 FY2009 FY2010* FY2011

Future Areas for Cooperation

Print resources

• Print standing orders• Art approval plans • Foreign language books

What is the “right” balance of duplication?

Future Areas for Cooperation

Electronic resources • Intentional, coordinated• Reduce barriers to access– Purchase eBooks for heavily requested print

monographs– R2 recommendation to jointly license electronic

resources– Patron-driven acquisitions

Applying Lessons Learned

• Allowed for institutional philosophies and priorities

• Worked within existing committee structures – no additional overhead

• Details of implementation were local - parameters were not prescriptive

• Importance of ongoing analysis

Questions?

Leslie Button, Associate Director for Library Services, [email protected]

Rachel Lewellen, Assessment Librarian, [email protected]

Kathleen Norton, Head of Collections , [email protected]

Pam Skinner, Reference and Electronic Resources Librarian, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Education

Reducing Unintentional Duplication