1. Best Practices in Cooperative Collection Development: A Panel Discussion

2. Panelists Bruce Leach, Ohio State Univ.
Eric Carpenter, Oberlin College
Rob Kairis, Kent State Univ. - Stark
Gerald L. Newman, Univ. of Cincinnati
Margo Warner Curl, CONSORT Colleges
Paul Jenkins, College of Mount St. Joseph
Joyce Baker, Belmont Technical College
Linda Brown, Bowling Green State Univ.

3. Goals for Panel Discussion
Review current theory and practice of cooperative CD in OhioLINK
Create synergy necessary to develop new models and practice
Generate additional topics for luncheon and/or group discussions this p.m.
Stimulate grass roots development of additional cooperative projects in months ahead

4. A Simple Step Any Selector Can Take
Bruce Leach
Head Biological Sciences/Pharmacy Library, Ohio State University

5. Monograph Duplication in OhioLINK: a College Library Response

6. Eric J. Carpenter Collection Development Librarian
Oberlin College Library
Oberlin, OH

7. OUTLINE
Background
Needs
Goals
Project Description
Guidelines
Results

8. BACKGROUND Oberlin: liberal arts college + conservatory of music
Oberlin live on pcirc in 1995
Budget reductions at Oberlin - subscription cuts, 97-98

9. NEEDS Raise faculty awareness of OhioLINK, promote use of pcirc
Reduce acquisitions budget, spend $$ wisely
Respond to Feb. 97 CIRM discussion - monograph duplication
Enrich local and OhioLINK collections

10. GOALS
Consider # of copies in OhioLINK available before ordering monograph
Write guidelines for purchasing monographs in view of new OhioLINK membership

11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sample orders: # OL copies, availability
German - 3, History - 8, Math - 4 copies
Wrote Guidelines for Purchasing Monographs in View of OhioLINK
Distributed Guidelines to relevant teaching departments
Selectors indicated levels of availability (L, A, D)

12. GUIDELINES
L - LOCAL: Needed at Oberlin regardless of OhioLINK availability
A - ACCESSIBLE: Must be readily accessible, via OhioLINK availability or purchase
D - DESIRABLE: Availability is desirable via OhioLINK or purchase if funds permit

13. RESULTS Concept endorsed by Faculty Library Committee
Limited success with faculty selectors - History Dept.
Success with library selectors - concept integrated into selection decisions
Project never implemented on large scale due to budget and workload pressures

14. OhioLINK Duplication: Statistics/Software
Rob Kairis, Library Director
Kent State University-Stark

15. Cooperative Collection Development Summit
Not Bought in Ohio
Cooperative Collection Development Summit

16. Gerald L. Newman Assistant Dean for Collection Development
University Libraries
University of Cincinnati

17. Why the “Not Bought” Project?
To enrich the state collection with items that have not been purchased
By shifting purchasing to items not held in the state
In the meantime also reducing unnecessary duplication

18. A Question for YBP
As YBP had a record of the purchases of many of the institutions in the state
YBP was the logical place to uncover our buying patterns
Especially items covered by YBP but that no school in Ohio purchased

19. CBTF to YBP: “Can You Help?”
As the chosen approval vendor for OhioLINK
And having made a commitment to help Ohio in its agenda
YBP was willing and interested in providing data that the CBTF could use

20. YBP to CBTF: “Yes”
YBP provided the CBTF data in several formats over several months
First, in computer sheets detailing titles YBP had not sold to Ohio schools
Later, slips looking like approval notifications slips
Both paper trials had their drawbacks
The CBTF hoped for an online solution

24. GOBI 2
As GOBI2 developed, consortial reports became part of YBP’s plan
The reports are designed not only to show consortial purchases, but also to show what Ohio has not bought – as in “not bought in Ohio”
Reports can be generated by individuals on many of the standard parameters for report generation

25. A user would define Consortial Report parameters on this screen
A user would define Consortial Report parameters on this screen. This screen is set to focus on titles acquired by the group. (Under Report Type.)

26. And this screen shows the not acquired option
And this screen shows the not acquired option. Here, ‘Display As’ can only be a list (not a graph).

27. Limitations
The “not bought in Ohio” reports are based on the YBP universe only
These reports do not show activity on the same materials from other vendors

28. Positive Features Flexible search parameters to meet selector needs
Easy identification of titles that the major approval vendor to the state has not provided
Provision of a list “de-duped” across many of our collections

29. What Uses?
To allow an individual selector to funnel some selection to titles not already bought in the state
This can apply to selectors at any size library
To allow two or more selectors to cooperate more easily on purchases
For a subject group to gather and distribute efficiently potential purchase information to the group for consideration
Others . . .

30. “Not Bought in Ohio” For Your Consideration and Action!

31. Cooperative Collection Development: Walking the Walk December 8, 2003
Using GOBI2 to Facilitate Cooperative Collection Development through a Shared Approval Plan
Cooperative Collection Development:
Walking the Walk
December 8, 2003

32. Grant for CCD
CONSORT Colleges – Denison, Kenyon, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
Funding from GLCA of Mellon money
To run through June 2004
Together build a shared research collection

33. Shared approval plan Supplementary to individual institutional plans
Single profile for the four libraries
Accommodates local selection & acquisitions practices
Easy to implement and use

34. Important elements Dedicated coordinator
Committee members have decision-making authority
Financial commitment
Use plan for awhile before evaluating & revamping
Libraries and Vendor both involved

35. Selecting subjects Rejected notion of working with ‘core’ discipline
Interviewed selectors
Identified areas of strong common interest
Asian Studies, Africana, Play scripts, Museum & Gallery Publications

36. Qualities of successful areas
Are of great interest across the institutions
Span depth and breadth far greater than any individual library could manage individually
Do not require extensive involvement from other library staff or faculty
Are well suited to approval plan mechanisms

37. Moving into production
Based initially on interdisciplinary tags and format types
Includes entire universe of publishers covered by the vendor
Written as though books would be sent automatically, but operates in a ‘virtual’ mode
Evaluation without having to deal with managing actual books

38. Outline of the Plan
Applied to A-GA, GE-PZ, SB , TR , Z-ZA
DEN & OWU more interested in East Asia (fund DEN OWU)
KEN & WOO more interested in South Asia (fund KEN OWU)
Some exceptions in B & N classes (e.g. fund OWU WOO)
Include all African Books Collective from L&H

39. Use of Gobi2 Features Slip Views or GobiAlerts Shared Folders
GobiTween – separate CONSORT info
Order Templates
Export Cart
Approval and Expenditure Reports

40. Technical Services
Services provided for each sub-account mirrors those of each standalone account
Each library exports records from GOBI and loads them to III to support order generation
Each export action creates a separate file so that the individual library can pick up and process the appropriate files

41. Merits of the Plan
Customizable – can alter to individual library specifications
Flexible – can add other subject areas
Adaptable – framework can be used by other consortia
Assessable – can monitor use, refine profile

42. Presented by Margo Warner Curl (with thanks to Michael Zeoli)
Coordinator of Cooperative Collection Development
CONSORT Colleges
C/o The College of Wooster Libraries
1140 Beall Avenue
Wooster OH 44691

43. SWORCS: A Modest Proposal
A Lesson In Patience
Paul O. Jenkins
College of Mount St. Joseph

44. Members of SWORCS College of Mount St. Joseph Xavier University
Cincinnati Bible College
University of Dayton
Cedarville College (added)
Athenaeum of Ohio (unable to join)
Miami University (added upon request)

45. Finding Our Mission Non-Christian religions Islam Buddhism Judaism
Hinduism

46. Bringing YBP Into the Picture
GOBI Approval Plan
Establishing Approval Plan Profiles

47. Reexamining the Mission
to apply cooperative collection development principles in our libraries in order to reduce duplication of titles and better cover peripheral areas of Religious Studies;
specifically, to create a shared slip approval plan profile in the area of non-Christian religions (specifics yet to be determined) that can serve as a model for larger OhioLINK groups in other disciplines.

48. Getting to Specifics
Begin with retrospective purchases

49. Dividing Up Responsibilities
Confucianism—XU
Tenrikyo and Shinto—Miami.
Taoism—UD.
Bahai, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism—MSJ.
Unitarianism, Scientology, Atheism—Cedarville
Sikhism, Jainism—Cincinnati Bible.

50. Making a Financial Commitment
$500 commitment from each school

51. Lessons Learned This is possible but difficult.
Don’t expect it to be perfect.
Be patient.
Start small.
Be flexible.
Be prepared to compromise.
Vendor participation essential.

52. Questions? Contact Paul O. Jenkins 513-244-4351

53. Are We Really a Subject Group?
2 Year Colleges:
Are We Really a Subject Group?
Joyce Baker
Belmont Technical College
Director of Library & Learning Resource Operations
December 8, 2003

54. Who are the 2-Year Colleges?
17 Community & Technical Colleges
20 Branches of Akron, BGSU, Cincinnati, Kent, OSU, OU
Less than 1000 – over 14,000 FTE
1 to 4 campuses
Collection Development Staff 1- 10

55. Differences in Mission
Several offer 4 year degrees
Several offer graduate programs
Many provide first 2 years of 4 year degree
Programs range from liberal arts transfer module to technical studies with job placement as goal

56. Similarities in Mission
All offer a 2 year degree
Focus is on teaching/learning; not research
Most offer open enrollment
Most offer basic skills/remedial programs

57. Similarity in Libraries
Most selection is accomplished by 1-2 staff with some faculty input
Library materials are used in a similar manner
Keep faculty current
Student papers & projects
Self help/Student success/Career Placement
Support the curriculum
Support the teaching/learning mission

58. YBP Participation in 2Year Colleges
28 Firm Order Accounts or 76%
18 Approval/Slip Plans or 49%
20 Gobi2 Accounts or 54%

59. Survey to further assess similarities & differences
37 surveys distributed
19 completed
51% response rate
79% YBP Accounts

60. Common Curriculum Areas
100% Business Management
89% Accounting
84% Early Childhood Education
73% Criminal Justice
63% Mental Health/Social Service
58% Administrative Assistant
47% Paralegal
31% Real Estate

61. Nursing/Allied Health
63% Medical assisting
63% Radiology
53% Medical Assisting & Coding
47% EMT/Paramedic
37% Physical Therapy

62. Engineering 84% Engineering Program 58% Electrical 53% Mechanical
26% Electronics
26% Drafting & Design

63. Computer/IT 79% Computer Programming 79% Computer Networking
74% Computer Applications
68% Computer Science
63% Web Design
63% Computer Graphics/Multimedia

64. Teaching/Learning Interests
79% Information Literacy
58% Assessment
53% Basic Skills
53% Distance Education

65. 34 Unique Programs Environmental Health & Safety
Building Preservation & Restoration
Golf Course Management
Sports & Fitness Management
Recording Arts
Equine/Back Country
Travel & Tourism

66. Specialties/Strengths/Interests
Amish
Appalachia
Local History/Culture/Geography
Allied Health/Nursing
Paralegal
Education/Teaching
Culinary Arts/Hospitality Management

67. Collection Weaknesses
Dated
Lack Depth
Need Coverage for New Programs
Lack Coverage in Specific Subject Areas
Science/Engineering
Business
Computer/IT
Nursing
Reference
Social Sciences

68. Collection Analysis
Comparison to lists (Books for College Libraries, Best Books, Brandon Hill)
Check against other catalogs
Faculty input
Accreditation & Curriculum Review
Weeding Projects (3 over ten years)

69. Faculty Notification
79% New book lists, newsletters, displays, web pages
74% /mailbox notification
37% personal contact informally & at meetings
16% YBP Approval Plan w/ faculty selectors

70. Current Ventures Routinely check OhioLINK/YBP before ordering
4 regional campuses recently reviewed periodicals lists to eliminate unnecessary duplication
2 libraries casually looking at Amish Materials
1 library has a causal arrangement with local rural hospitals & medical journals
1 library hosts a Masters in Ed program & professional education journals

71. Suggestions
Share collection responsibilities for print copies of e-books
Explore potential cooperative areas such as Appalachian resources, Nursing
Develop a circulating reference collection
Participate in other subject groups & subgroups
Weeding: check for last copy; offer to discard list
Check OL/YBP when ordering

72. Questions/Considerations
What method can be used to assess the collection?
How can we share profiles?
How do we develop an awareness of what is purchased elsewhere?
How can we test Gobi2 features?
What Gobi2 features can be used to enhance the selection process?
How can we coordinate efforts?
Should we join other subject groups?

73. Making Collaboration Happen Subject Connections
We’ve heard from colleagues of some innovative ways of thinking collaboratively. Now we all need to take the next step and make the connections necessary for collaboration to blossom.
Linda A. Brown
Collections Coordinator
BGSU

74. Opportunities Develop your leadership skills
Build new relationships with colleagues
Start small… and act innovatively
Why get involved in cooperative collection development?
Opportunities abound…..
…recruit colleagues to become involved
Others will join you!

75. More Opportunities… Build areas of collection strength
Spend scarce materials budget dollars strategically
Put your library on the OhioLINK map as an innovator and collaborative collection builder

76. Subject Group Survey Stronger, more effective leadership
More, and broader membership
Clear function or focus
Face-to-face meetings
Last summer, the CIRM Subject Groups Working Group surveyed OhioLINK librarians to gather information regarding the effectiveness of the subject groups. The survey indicated OhioLINK librarians believe that the groups need…
Task Force documents are posted on the OhioLINK Ostaff page.
To fulfill the OhioLINK vision for cooperative collection development will require everyone’s commitment and involvement

77. Join an OhioLINK subject group
Invent and design cooperative collection development projects
Share cooperative successes with colleagues
Post progress reports on Ostaff
Learn from others’ experience
OhioLINK has established 28 subject groups to facilitate communication among subject selectors. One of your handouts lists these groups, the CIRM liaisons, and brief instructions for subscribing to an OhioLINK listserv.

78. Health Sciences
Create a list of resources we all subscribe to independently and investigate pay-to-play group pricing
Weeding
Use the subject listserv for information sharing on current issues:
Vendor pricing models and policies
Public service issues -- Single public service desk
Publicizing BioMed Central and open access publishing
The Health Sciences subject group met in Columbus recently.
From Barbara McNamee at MCO
The Health Sciences list has had very little traffic on it in the past.
Shared discussion like this can build a comfort level  for collaboration I think.

79. OhioLINK Subject Groups
OStaff resources
Login: ostaff
Password: Available from any OhioLINK staff or committee member
Click on:
Collection Development
Subject Groups
Lastly, an unabashed plug for the OhioLINK Ostaff pages. Collection Development and Subject Group information is posted here.