Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in Collection Development and Catalog Sharing.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in Collection Development and Catalog Sharing."— Presentation transcript:

1 The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in Collection Development and Catalog Sharing


3 Ladd Library Bates Hawthorne-Longfellow Library Bowdoin Miller Library Colby CBB has been committed to complementing one another’s collections for more than 20 years.

4  Retention agreements for some large historic sets, government documents, reference materials, 19 th century journals.  Purchase decisions consider CBB holdings. For music, coordinate purchases of M2s and M3s.  Since 1995, CBB group e-purchases (databases, e-books).

5  CBB standardized loan periods.  Standardized policies – reserves, renewals, recalls, billing, replacement.  Patron types, patron blocks, consistent coding.  Fast, reliable delivery mechanisms needed to be in place; Saturday deliveries, commitment to turnaround time.

6  Pre-CBB and WebOpac  Summer 1998 library website  Access to catalog was via telnet, to character- based catalog


8  Sept. 1998 shared CBB search interface  Used request functionality within Innovative  Needed to load each schools patron records  Loan rules aligned



11  Requestable / not requestable  Item types became very important  Record cleanup  No more loading of patron records!  (Maine Info Net is now Maine Cat)


13  Returnables  Non-Returnables (Articles), also direct patron requests


15  New version of the local catalog  Implementing AquaBrowser  Shared CBB discovery system  No circulation, etc., functionality  Still request through MaineCat and NExpress


17  Goals  Expand CBB collection through reduction of duplication  Build campus culture that views CBB collection as shared  Facilitate budget and space sharing

18  Similar  Size, undergraduate programs, budgets, staff size  Loan rules, delivery service in place, history of cooperation, willingness to experiment  Not so similar  Separate catalogs  Different budget approaches  Library cultures for collection development  Multiple vendors  Campus cultures  Data reporting, fund codes

19  Starting May 2008  Library separate accounts  Shipments rotated every three months  Common profile and publisher list  Cooperative plan, all subjects except Art and Architecture

20  % Duplication (48% decrease)  Collective Cost Savings (71% decrease)

21  2009-CBB Music Librarian meeting  Book plan provides framework

22  2010-Meet with Christine Clark from Theodore Front  Billing/Invoicing  Timing of shipments  Distribution of shipping lists  Separation of firm orders from approval shipments?

23  Other Score Considerations  Binding  Cataloging (MARC records)  Research and performance needs of each College  Standing orders

24  Contemporary Composers  Popular Music/Jazz  Women Composers  Score Format  Ensembles  Max cost

25  Type of binding  Exclusion of publishers  Popular music/Jazz  Exclusion of instruments  Difficulty of music  Decreased max cost  Colby-25% popular

26  After approval of CBB Collection Development Committee, first shipment to Bates (July 2010)  Shipments totaling $1000 received on rotating basis once a month  Approximately 935 total scores received to date  Current collection

27  E-resources  eBooks  eBrary  Oxford  Database negotiations

28  Discovery for CBB Collection  Records are loaded nightly from the 3 local Innovative catalogs  Serials holdings from Serials Solutions are loaded monthly  Each school has it’s own “skin”  Includes scopes  Includes advanced searches





33  Search methods  13,495 (48%) searches from homepages  11,418 (40%) search box  2,144 (7.6 %) advanced search  No stats on usage of Scopes  Facets


35  AQB did not replace local catalog, even with Advanced Search and Scopes  About 50/50  Percentage of Local use increases as end of semester looms  Most likely  AquaBrowser, unknown, discovery  Local, known, specific formats

36  Contract signed Sept. 3, 2008  3 catalogs and customization, so we strongly suspected it would be more than 90 days  April 2, 2010, meeting with Jane Burke  July 6, 2010, Phase 1 implementation complete.  Oct. 4, 2010, Phase 2 implementation complete.

37  Customization  Media Lab did not scale up  Individual implementations  SASS model, Dec. 2012 end date  Serials Solutions into cloud, no end date for AQB

38  Your search has been expanded by... is limited to 3 expansion terms. AQB could not limit the number of terms included in any meaningful way.  In short record display, when checking boxes and choosing the print option in the pull-down menu, AQB has associated locations and call numbers in the best way they can.  Sometimes the back button does not work. AQB has solved this to the extent that they can.  AQB could not give us exact documentation on how relevancy ranking works.  The server has not been moved to the U.S.  Phrase searching is not an option.  CBB does not have the ability to manually force re-indexing apart from the automated schedule, and we no longer want that capability.  My Discovery does not use LDAP.  Hiding the word cloud cannot be configured at the skin level.  The web crawler is not implemented, per a decision from Shared Catalog Committee.  Federated search is not integrated, per decisions from CBB.

39  World Cat Local / World Share Management System  ???  When changing systems, we always ask the question, 1 catalog (i.e., 1 system) or 3?  Band width had been a problem  Cost had been prohibitive  Do users really want a CBB view, separate from a Nexpress/MaineCat view

40 Sharon Saunders, Associate College Librarian for Systems and Bibliographic Services Bates College Karen Jung, Music Librarian Bowdoin College Special thanks to: Joan Campbell, Bowdoin, Collection Development Librarian Mary Macul, Bowdoin, Cataloger Toni Katz, Colby, Assistant Director for Technical Services Peggy Menchen, Colby Julie Retelle, Bates, Access Services Chris Schiff, Bates, Music and Arts Librarian Margaret Ericson, Colby, Music and Art Librarian

Download ppt "The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in Collection Development and Catalog Sharing."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google