I've been anxiously awaiting this presentation for awhile -- pretty much since I got the email announcement a couple months ago!
Moderator: Steven Harris, University of New Mexico
Panelists: Rick Anderson, University of Utah
Jonathan Nabe, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Martha White, Lexington Public Library
Is 2.0 too trendy? Is it real -- will it last? Doing things in a library that are innovative as well as engaging users. It could be about exploiting technologies to engage and interact with users. Putting information in the hands of the users, the way they want it.
Many changes ongoing; # of people doing CD is diminishing. 3 CDLibrarians were hired for "meta" subject areas. Liaisons have an advisory role only. Pass along suggestions, but do not do selection, analysis of collections.
*To achieve better balance across all fields; dependent on strengths and weaknesses of particular liaisons.
*Establish comprehensive oversight. Wanted to create more designated focus for CD activities. Needed to have dedicated CD librarians to study and incorporate developments in the field. Conduct statistical analysis.
*Allow for new activities for liaisons
*Increased oversight, including collection development policy, withdrawal policy, change in approval plan, detailed evaluation of "big deals", allocation formula
*Better balance of spending
*Better collection? seems too early to tell
Is it the wave of the future?
*gives CD a new outlook and increased attention
*an opportunity to transform liaision jobs
What are the negatives?
*heavy workload, diverse fields of responsibility
*Liaisons lose entree with faculty
More on the Future:
*What do we collect? No longer just what the publisher offers (we can't afford that -- budgets don't match cost and the sheer output of material published) need to look at what our faculty are publishing and Institutional Repositories
*Trends such as "Patron-driven Acquisitions", Pay-per-view models of access, ILL cooperation, cooperative collection development
Is your Library a repository?
*Current Trends work against libraries' role as archival authority
--Patron driven acq --> who are you leaving out in this process?
--ILL --> unsustainable model
--Pay-per-view --> what about the patrons of the future
*Give the customer what they want -- gotta have it when they want it
*Show customers what you have -- on your website, in displays (may need to train staff) -- merchandising is huge; signage
*Centralized selection -- get buy-in from staff, give them collection analysis responsibilities, librarians with selection responsibilities did get out to "the floor" to see what was going on --> replacement database was set up so people could report their gaps
*Statistics -- must look at your reports
Stock Turnover Formula:
total circ of all items in a specific call # for a specific period of time
________________________________________________________________ = Stock Turnover
total # of items owned in the call # area
e.j. = 500 titles
_________ = 5 STR
*Weeding strike team and weeding parties
*Hold queue clustering
*Charging for non-pickup of holds ($1.00 one-time fee for each item) and changing the hold period
*Self-service holds -- why not?!?
Rick Anderson "Rethinking Library Collections":
Why did we collect in the past?
B/c printed materials were...
*hard to identify/locate
And despite the fact that they were...
*Usable by only one person at a time
*Usable only in the library, when the library is open
Should we still collect?
Online materials are...
*not physically constrained
*much easier to identify/locate
And they can be...
*purchased on demand
*used by (virtually) all, anytime, anywhere
*stored very cheaply
We speculate badly...
Pittsburgh study: 40% don't circulate in first six years
Tri-College Consortium: 57% never circulated
University of Utah: 50% don't circulate in first ten years
Usage of print is down generally
University of Utah: circ rate down 53% since 1997; reshelvings down 47%
Other ARLs % change since 1998
Florida State -44
GA Tech -25
Yale -28 (was 60% in 2006)
SUNY Buffalo -58
What about ILL requests -- have they gone up???
The collection is a guess
Guessing has always been wasteful and expensive
Guessing now is much more expensive (esp. with print)
Point-of-need purchasing is now an option
Alternatives to the collection:
*ILL as CD
*In-house printing (e.j. Ingram booth, Espresso book machine)
*Expedited patron requests
Cooperative CD where permanent, in-case collections are necessary
This raises tough questions?
*Why do we need librarians? Patrons don't care; we need to find new ways to be useful
*Do patrons really want what's best? Yes, of course they do!
*Who will preserve and safeguard collections?
*Why are we rewarding laziness? Should we care?
The Just-in-Case model is not valid, because we simply don't have the time and resources.
Principles may differ in degrees at your institution.
What about for auditing purposes? Each state is different, so billing, invoicing and payment can be handled differently.
The library catalog is mainly used for users who have a "known title", users use Amazon or Google to find out if a book exists.