It’s Not Just About Weeding Using Collaborative Collection Analysis to Develop Consortial...

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.

V

www.vivalib.org

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

Looking for Intersections

Top publishers

Highly circulated titles

Widely held titles

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

Title Count By Publisher

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

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


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


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


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


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


UVA has all the unique stuff

(just kidding – but they have a lot)!


• 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.


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



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



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


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

Questions?

It’s Not Just About Weeding Using Collaborative Collection Analysis to Develop Consortial...

Documents

Transcript of It’s Not Just About Weeding Using Collaborative Collection Analysis to Develop Consortial...