Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 Resource Sharing Context  Retrospective Cooperative Collection Management  Prospective Demand-Driven Cooperative Collection Development  Group Functionality.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: " Resource Sharing Context  Retrospective Cooperative Collection Management  Prospective Demand-Driven Cooperative Collection Development  Group Functionality."— Presentation transcript:


2  Resource Sharing Context  Retrospective Cooperative Collection Management  Prospective Demand-Driven Cooperative Collection Development  Group Functionality and Project Management

3 Membership driven academic consortium: Adelphi University Libraries, Garden City, New York Bard College Libraries, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York Canisius College Libraries, Buffalo, New York Cazenovia College Library, Cazenovia, New York Colgate University Libraries, Hamilton New York Hamilton College Library, Clinton, New York Hobart & William Smith Colleges Library, Geneva, New York Le Moyne College Library, Syracuse, New York Medaille College Libraries, Buffalo, New York Pace University Libraries, New York, New York Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Research Libraries (RPI), Troy, New York Rochester Institute of Technology Libraries (RIT), Rochester, New York St. Lawrence University Libraries, Canton, New York Siena College Library, Loudonville, New York Skidmore College Library, Saratoga Springs, New York Union College Library, Schenectady, New York United States Military Academy Library, West Point, New York Vassar College Libraries, Poughkeepsie, New York Who We Are

4  Initially a grant-driven project started in 2003 with Mellon funding  Grew from 5 to 10 libraries during 2003-2005, 15 libraries by 2010  Recently added 3 non-III libraries that use the Voyage ILS system  Incorporated within NY as a non-profit – formal 501(c)3 status  Formal legal bylaws, Memorandum of Understanding Our History

5 “The mission of Connect NY is to share collections, leverage resources, and enhance services through cooperative initiatives and coordinated activities.” Our Mission

6  Common union catalog, powered by Innovative Interface’s Inn-Reach system  Combined collection of over 9 million books  High “uniqueness” factor  Direct consortial borrowing (DCB) feature in all member catalogs, patron initiated resource sharing, LAND delivery  2009/2010 – shared over 40,000 books  CNY RapidILL article delivery Success in Print World

7  Number of Participating Institutions18 + CRL  Total Bibliographic Records5,710,129  Total Item Records10,612,194  Total Requests27,852  Total Fulfillments26,196  Fill-Rate94%  Value of Material Shared*$1,309,800 Based on an average value of $50 per item to select, order, receive, pay for, process, and shelve an item.

8 2011/12 Fiscal Year Stats for CNY-Rapid Participants: Borrowing Requests Processed:24,397 Filled:23,270 Percentage filled:95.4% Average turnaround time:12.3 HOURS Lending Requests Received:32,572 Filled:23,632 Percentage filled:72.6% Average turnaround time:12.2 HOURS In 2012, Rapid has expanded to include book chapter requesting !

9  To investigate methods of purchasing e‐book content on a consortial level, thereby enhancing the group’s collective purchasing power.  To initiate and evaluate patron‐driven acquisition of e‐books and to determine its long term potential.  To explore the ways in which the union catalog could be utilized to provide access to electronic resources in general and in particular to identify the best way(s) that the ConnectNY system can be used as a platform for the acquisition of e‐book content. New Frontier Ebooks Pilot Project

10  Gained a better understanding of patron behavior with regard to patron‐driven acquisitions.  Purchased a total of 581 titles with 75% used by more than 1 library.  Cost per Use: $23.00 (compares favorably to single ILL cost)  Broad range of subject areas purchased, including materials not anticipated by pilot members. Pilot Project Outcomes

11  Data indicates that patrons have accepted e-books and will make selections that may have been overlooked in the traditional librarian selection model.  Disproved theory that liberal arts schools are tied to print and won’t accept e-books. Top fours users included Colgate and Vassar as well as RIT and RPI.  Disproved theory that readers do not read large portions of e-books online. There were several views of 40 pages or more, including sessions where over 100 pages were viewed.  PDA project management requires a broad range of expertise, including collection development, reference, systems, acquisitions and cataloging.  Preferred business model will support short term loans as well as triggered purchases. Lessons Learned

12 Selection of vendor 4 potential vendors Coutts, EBL, ebrary, Ebsco Timeframe for selection – about 5 months Vendor selected: EBL Criteria  Competitive pricing.  Maturity of the product.  Flexibility in setting the purchase trigger.  Unlimited simultaneous use, particularly important in the consortial environment.  Perpetual access to the purchased books without any annual maintenance fee.

13  Obtaining adequate records  Limiting selection pool to desired criteria  Loading records in a consortia environment ◦ Varying experience levels with record loading ◦ Insuring only 1 record shows up in union catalog Implementation



16  Wiki (documents)  BaseCamp (messaging)  FAQ on CNY website  ListServs



19 6,060 academic titles used by CNY patrons  Short term loans: $91,325 (5,610 titles)  Purchased books: $99,263 (450 titles) As of May 13, 2013

20 As of 4/12/13


22  Group-wide approach to deselecting monographs  Analyze circulation and redundancy  Share preservation & archiving responsibility  Coordinate any action with development of retention commitments, last copies policies  Satisfy both archiving and service needs  Explore overlap with Cornell and CNY peers, and Hathi Trust public domain titles

23 LibraryILSTotal Bib Records (Books) AdelphiMillennium475,602 BardMillennium480,603 CanisiusMillennium258,469 CazenoviaMillennium70,623 ColgateMillennium962,531 HamiltonVoyager468,322 LeMoyneMillennium258,451 MedailleMillennium48,552 PaceMillennium567,301 St. LawrenceMillennium396,792 UnionMillennium603,148 VassarMillennium876,174 TOTAL5,466,568

24  Developed by Sam Demas, library consultant, working with a CNY steering committee  Principles in drafting: ◦ Generous in spirit, broad in conception ◦ Accommodate a range of future projects/genres ◦ Try to make it possible for all members to sign ◦ But not every member will participate in every project ◦ Every CNY member will share in the benefits even if not every member opts in to become a Trust Participant

25 ◦ 1. Purpose and description:  Purpose: to provide new options for sharing the costs and effort of long-term retention of low use library materials  Official program of CNY  A cooperative framework based on  A Last Copy Policy  A series of future projects to which members can opt-in  Separate genre/project-specific guidelines ◦ 2. Eligibility and participation  All members are eligible, but signing is not a requirement of CNY membership  Signing MOU makes one a Trust Participant (T.P.)  All members, T.P. or not, share in the benefits

26 ◦ 3. Governance  CNY Council is governing board  Council appoints a Steering Committee ◦ 4. Selection  Guided by Last Copy Policy and project/genre specific guidelines and procedures that will be developed for each project.  Copies retained in trust are complete and in reasonable condition

27 ◦ 5. Location, ownership and retention commitment  Distributed archive  Contributing library retains ownership  25 year retention commitment ◦ 6. Withdrawal of materials from member collections  Members free to withdraw what they wish,  Those who opt in to become Trust Participants agree to follow the “Last Copy Policy”

28 TITLE-SETS with -Pub Year < 2000 TITLE HOLDINGS with -Last Add Date < 2000 -Total-Charges = 0 -Last Add Date < 2000 -Total-Charges = 1 or less -Last Add Date < 2000 -Total-Charges = 3 or less Keep 1 Title Holding 599K withdraw843K withdraw1,085K withdraw Keep 2 Title Holdings 389K withdraw 538K withdraw 680K withdraw* Keep 3 Title Holdings 255K withdraw346K withdraw430K withdraw Original Shared Print Scenarios 28 CRITERIA

29  548,314 allocable withdrawal candidates  How many are on each library’s shelves?  How does that match each library’s withdrawal target?  How do we divide them equitably?  Proportionately to withdrawal candidates?  Proportionately to collection size?  How do we reconcile disparities? 29

30 Library Withdrawal Candidates on Shelves Allocable Withdrawal Candidates (allocated by proportion of candidates) Allocable Withdrawal Candidates (allocated by collection size) Withdrawal Targets Adelphi 91,404 56,172 48,74460,000 Bard 39,781 24,447 26,91140,000 Canisius 71,746 44,091 37,838100,000 Cazenovia 19,166 11,778 10,76132,819 Colgate 101,413 62,323 80,00860,000 Hamilton 104,432 64,178 57,31925,000 Le Moyne 50,500 31,035 28,3938,650 Medaille 8,993 5,527 5,4742,730 Pace 111,316 68,409 58,69960,000 St Lawrence 98,228 60,366 54,94720,000 Union 87,225 53,604 51,51180,000 Vassar 108,020 66,383 87,71025,000 TOTAL 892,224 548,314 514,199 ALLOCATION PICTURE FOR REVISED SHARED PRINT SCENARIO 1

31  Some libraries have withdrawal targets that are higher than their allocable candidates (e.g., Adelphi)  Some libraries have withdrawal targets that are lower than their allocable candidates (e.g., Vassar)  Vassar could offer allocable candidate “credits” above its goal to others  Library receiving credit can only withdraw to its own Withdrawal Candidate ceiling 31

32 Sustainablecollections.com32TaskDescription Tentative Dates Planning Meetings Key players discuss data extracts, anomalies, peers, etc. October 2012 Data Preparation Libraries prepare and deliver extracts to SCS. SCS validates, normalizes, matches, and performs holdings lookups. November 2012 Group Collection Summary Categorical overview of the group data set. Used to gauge opportunities and guide scenario development. January 2013 Scenario Development Project leaders suggest preliminary withdrawal and preservation criteria. SCS iterates and revises. Begin February 2013 Candidate Lists Detailed Excel spreadsheets for review, bases on finalized criteria for withdrawal. Modify as necessary.2013 Discussions Facilitation This will be needed at many points – but especially around scenario development, allocation, and policy development. Through- out Allocation Assignment of withdrawal opportunities and retention commitments – based on many factors. 2013 2013 Production of Picklists and Keeplists Once allocation decisions have been made, SCS will derive title/item lists for use by individual libraries.2013 Ongoing Data Management SCS will maintain (but will not update) the CNY dataset for 2 years, which can be used for additional projects. … You Are Here





37 “No technology, not even one as elegant as the book, lasts forever” Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO of From The Late Age of Print: Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control  Why Now?  Transitions  Stewardship  Cooperation  Challenges

Download ppt " Resource Sharing Context  Retrospective Cooperative Collection Management  Prospective Demand-Driven Cooperative Collection Development  Group Functionality."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google