Already a member?
Sign in
Notes - Ed Shepherd's Collection Development Presentation |
Version 11 - view current page
Adapt & Adopt: responding to new challenges in the age of Library 2.0
Changes in the business side
1. Cost shifts: Publishers and librarians have both shifted from physical to electronic models in publishing, delivery, storage, processing, maintenance
Library type often drives decision making in the print vs. electronic debate. While a large research institution will typically want to maintain a solid archive of electronic resources, small community colleges are much more concerned with providing the most access @ the least amount of money.
Library 2.0: Ramifications for Collection Development
- Academic libraries are much slower to respond than public and school libraries
- 2.0 networking, tools such as RSS feeds and blog review sites provide collection development librarians with an updated way to keep current with literature
1. On-Demand provision: document delivery, automatic purchasing, catalog population
Summing up
Some Links:
Wishlist Input Form
Electronic Resources Review
Changes in the business side
1. Cost shifts: Publishers and librarians have both shifted from physical to electronic models in publishing, delivery, storage, processing, maintenance
- Staffing shift from "checking in" to "checking up" -- workflow moves from physical maintenance to troubleshooting and and testing.
- For example, our libraries have moved from $14k in print to subscriptions to $4k. Print journals rarely even make it to the shelf; they go straight to the warehouse and can be retrieved upon request if the print copy is needed.
- Considerations include site licensing, seat numbers, consortial bundling, multiple users, remote access...
- Ownership vs. access model: how can me maintain access to electronic resources we have paid for?
- ILL licensing arrangements: providers want to limit rights, limit e-delivery of articles. We are often forced to print out and scan back in to deliver elsewhere.
- NY is pursuing perhaps too many paths to access at the state level.
- Politcal issues often grow tricky when related to package deals
- Deal often force you to take items you don't want.
- Bundling makes it hard to ensure consistent access to core items and keep track of what content is entering or leaving the bundle
- Some publishers are pulling out of bundles to go solo and sell independently
- "Exclusive" deals and author permissions effect content and costs
- Staff must invest time to keep track and index them
- Can we rely on the content? WIll it stick around?
- Will multiple formats converge?
Library type often drives decision making in the print vs. electronic debate. While a large research institution will typically want to maintain a solid archive of electronic resources, small community colleges are much more concerned with providing the most access @ the least amount of money.
Library 2.0: Ramifications for Collection Development
- Academic libraries are much slower to respond than public and school libraries
- 2.0 networking, tools such as RSS feeds and blog review sites provide collection development librarians with an updated way to keep current with literature
1. On-Demand provision: document delivery, automatic purchasing, catalog population
- Parameters: how is the library-vendor relationship? What are turn-around times and budgetary restrictions?
- Mediation vs. non-mediation: ILL, circulation, etc are automated. Should purchasing go this route, as an automated curricular-based "automatic buy" list? Some libraries automatically purchase items requested through ILL.
- What level of review/approval is required for this? How involved will subject specialista and their administrators be involved?
- Trust is based on solid criteria, role assingments in decision-making actions
- KEY ISSUES:
- Availability vs. cost controls
- We must balance just in case with just in time collection development
- Archival maintenance: in library or publisher's hands
- Pros
- User needs as central
- useful, relevant, transparent, and user-friendly compared to typical catalogs in use
- Cons
- Current systems may not support customization
- If left unmediated, the lack of controlled vocabularywill lead to confusion and decreased usefulness
- The bottom line: We need to maintain a balance by permitting user participation, but mediating it to mitigate negatives.
- Perhaps the best method is to support a system that allows users to tag for their own use, without imposing their tags on the public catalog.
- Issues of manpower to keep track of e-books, serials and preservation, upkeep costs.
- Loss of browsability
- Users may find browsing loss acceptable if title page/table of contents are available electronicially. However, this grows costs of book scanning.
- Archive availability: How long will vendors keep archives available? Will archives disappear with cost-cutting measures?
- Fiscal constraints
- Self-imposed restraints (we would rather use IP authentitcation, not a login/password model for remote access to reduce need for tech support)
- Federated searches can provide a single interface to search multiple resources, but have limitations b/c each database uses different search vocabulary
- What do users see as the best interface for finding information electronically?
Summing up
- The future: Will we still be building a physical collection in the future?
- Content vs. services
- Permanancy is not a certainty
- Financial sustainability
Some Links:
Wishlist Input Form
Electronic Resources Review
