1. Reducing Unintentional Duplication:
Adventures & Opportunities in
Cooperative Collection Development
Charleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition
November 4, 2011
Leslie Button, UMass Amherst
Rachel Lewellen, UMass Amherst
Kathleen Norton, Mount Holyoke College
Pam Skinner, Smith College
2. Five Colleges Consortium
• Amherst
• Hampshire
• Mount Holyoke
• Smith
• University of Massachusetts Amherst
3. 5C Libraries Cooperation
• Long history dating back to 1950s
• Strong resource sharing philosophy
• Geographic proximity – 15 mile radius
• 5C committees
• Single shared ILS
• Shared print repository
• Delivery system that gets materials to users
within 24 hours (M-F)
4. Project Impetus
• Five Colleges Presidents and Chancellor sought
increased cooperation between institutions
• Five Colleges Library Directors defined
cooperative collection development as a strategic
priority in 2008.
• Five Colleges Collection Management Committee
assigned the implementation
• Interest in maintaining overlap where appropriate
and retain flexibility to expand base of resources
available to library users
5. Defining Policy and Project Goals
• Increase number of unique titles purchased
• Utilize YBP as common supplier
• Implement by July 1, 2009
• Needed data to inform subject areas
• High duplication with low circulation
• Shift from 10 subject areas to all books
purchased
6. Implementation
• Required cooperation of selectors at all five
campuses as well as engagement of the
faculty
• Widely divergent campus sizes, acquisitions
budgets, and collection development practices
7. Hampshire College
• Smallest (FTE = 1,450) and newest of the Five
College campuses
• Purchases mainly support 100- and 200-level
classes, duplicating local holdings as necessary
• For upper level courses, HC relies heavily on
the other FC collections
• Views the FC Library collections holistically
• No faculty selectors; no question of “buy in”
• Moved to YBP; GobiTween facilitates selection
8. Amherst College
• Student FTE = 1,800
• Librarians & faculty members place premium
on “browsability”
• Very generously funded; often duplicates
purchases made by other Five College libraries
• Amherst faculty & librarians pushed back re:
initial “one copy” proposal
• Like Hampshire, moved to YBP
9. Mount Holyoke College
• Student FTE = 2,100
• Librarians & instructional technologists main selectors
(merged organization)
• Orders flagged “DN” (designated need) if the book
needs to be at Mount Holyoke, regardless of other Five
College locations
• Level of faculty purchasing is low (< 15%); faculty
requests are always considered “designated need”
• Faculty members voluntarily add notes to
orders, stating either that another copy in Five Colleges
will suffice—or that there is a local need
10. Smith College
• Student FTE = 2,600
• Academic depts. receive annual book allocation
(approx. 55% of total monographs budget)
• Policy change required endorsement of the
Faculty Committee on the Library
• Orders flagged “SC copy essential” when title is
needed regardless of other FC holdings
• Shelf-ready approval books for some subjects
(15% of all YBP orders/year)
• 75% of monographic titles come from YBP
11. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst
• Student FTE = roughly 26,000
• Erratic funding from state played major role in policy shift
• Acquisitions staff relies heavily on selectors to check
GobiTween for other FC orders
• Limited exceptions to the policy:
– Automatic orders for books receiving major reviews in
the NYT
– Two small art & music approval plans
• New policy shared with campus community via Faculty
Senate Research Library Council; liaisons; Dean’s Council
• Most faculty members very supportive of this new policy
12. The Data
• Duplication, circulation, and cost
• Shared Oracle database
• OCLC number basis for determining
duplication
13. Duplicated Titles – FY08 and FY11
% of Duplicated titles Purchased
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
FY08
40% FY11
30%
20%
10%
0%
Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total
14. Unique Titles – FY08 and FY11
% of Unique Titles Purchased
60%
50%
40%
30% FY08
FY11
20%
10%
0%
Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total
15. Titles Owned by 3-5 Libraries
Monograph Duplication within the
Five Colleges Consortium
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Owned by 2 Libraries 24% 26% 29% 29%
Owned by 3-5 Libraries 38% 35% 26% 21%
Total Duplication 61% 61% 56% 51%
16. Overlap – Titles Purchased
% of Titles Purchased by 3-5 Libraries
70%
60%
50%
40%
FY08
30%
FY11
20%
10%
0%
Amherst Hampshire Mount Holyoke Smith UMass Total
17. Five College Circulation Analysis as of August 26, 2011*
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
Amherst
uni que ti tl es 58% 55% 49% 46% 29%
dupl i ca ted ti tl es 69% 65% 61% 55% 33%
a l l ti tl es 66% 62% 56% 51% 31%
Hampshire
uni que ti tl es 72% 69% 77% 62% 45%
dupl i ca ted ti tl es 83% 74% 73% 61% 44%
a l l ti tl es 80% 73% 73% 62% 44%
Mount Holyoke
uni que ti tl es 56% 56% 58% 50% 34%
dupl i ca ted ti tl es 67% 66% 62% 55% 37%
a l l ti tl es 64% 64% 61% 53% 36%
Smith
uni que ti tl es 55% 52% 49% 41% 23%
dupl i ca ted ti tl es 68% 62% 59% 50% 30%
a l l ti tl es 63% 58% 55% 45% 26%
UMass
uni que ti tl es 63% 64% 62% 55% 31%
dupl i ca ted ti tl es 77% 74% 70% 72% 44%
a l l ti tl es 70% 69% 67% 64% 44%
Five Colleges Total
uni que ti tl es 59% 58% 54% 46% 28%
dupl i ca ted ti tl es 71% 67% 63% 55% 36%
all titles 67% 63% 60% 51% 32%
* Includes circulation of unique items, duplicated items and overall circulation from
the time of purchase through August 2011.
18. Five College Borrowing
as a % of Total Borrowing
Mount
Amherst Hampshire Holyoke Smith UMass
FY08 11% 44% 14% 18% 16%
FY09 11% 46% 15% 17% 18%
FY10 10% 49% 17% 18% 19%
FY11 11% 49% 20% 19% 20%
20. Future Areas for Cooperation
Print resources
• Print standing orders
• Art approval plans
• Foreign language books
What is the “right” balance of duplication?
21. Future Areas for Cooperation
Electronic resources
• Intentional, coordinated
• Reduce barriers to access
– Purchase eBooks for heavily requested print
monographs
– R2 recommendation to jointly license electronic
resources
– Patron-driven acquisitions
22. Applying Lessons Learned
• Allowed for institutional philosophies and
priorities
• Worked within existing committee structures
– no additional overhead
• Details of implementation were local -
parameters were not prescriptive
• Importance of ongoing analysis
23. Questions?
Leslie Button, Associate Director for Library Services, button@library.umass.edu
Rachel Lewellen, Assessment Librarian, rlewellen@library.umass.edu
Kathleen Norton, Head of Collections , knorton@mtholyoke.edu
Pam Skinner, Reference and Electronic Resources Librarian, pskinner@smith.edu