Download to read offline
![• Circulation & other use
data (ILL, in-house)
• Holdings in other libraries
(peer, regional, national)
• Secure digital copy (Hathi)
• [Commercial availability]
• Authoritative title lists
• Library-defined rules
• Interactive rule sets](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/directorsfeb20122-24-12-120313164734-phpapp02/75/Michigan-Shared-Collection-Project-7-2048.jpg)
Michigan Shared Collection Project
Michigan academic libraries are collaborating with MCLS and SCS to develop a shared print collections program. The program aims to reduce redundant print holdings across libraries, free up shelf space, and lower maintenance costs by collectively retaining a minimum number of copies of low-use print titles. SCS will analyze holdings data to identify titles held by multiple libraries with low circulation that can be withdrawn from all but two retaining libraries. Over 500,000 titles are projected for withdrawal under this collaborative program.
More Related Content
Similar to Michigan Shared Collection Project
Michigan Shared Collection Project
- 2. Michigan academic libraries,in conjunction with MCLS and Sustainable Collection Services (SCS), have developed a collaborative approach to shared print collections.
- 3. • Wayne State • Western Michigan • Central Michigan • Eastern Michigan • GVSU • Michigan Tech • SVSU
- 4. • Michigan librarieshave long recognized the advantages of working collaboratively, as COLD, MeLCat, Michicard and other initiatives attest. • It is clear that a shared regional approach to print retention and storage of low-use monographs would be valuable.
- 5. • Stacks areovercrowded • Use of print books is low and declining • Library space is wanted for other purposes • Print redundancy is significant • The cost of keeping books on shelves is high • Alternatives exist, but data is scattered • Traditional approaches to deselection are costly and time-consuming
- 6. • OHIOLINK Study:80/6 rule • Cornell University: 55% of books purchased since 1990 never circulated • National studies indicate 13% of volumes stored in open stacks circulate per year • Cost: $4.26 per book per year to keep on the open shelves
- 7. • Circulation &other use data (ILL, in-house) • Holdings in other libraries (peer, regional, national) • Secure digital copy (Hathi) • [Commercial availability] • Authoritative title lists • Library-defined rules • Interactive rule sets
- 8. • Selection anddeselection are essentially the same function, performed at different points in a book’s lifecycle • Same techniques could work • Profiles: consistent and customizable treatment • Of new titles: approval • Of older, low-circulation titles: disapproval
- 9. • Low-use orno-use titles • Total charges • Length of time titles held • Acquisition date; date item record created • Titles widely held elsewhere • WorldCat; US; State; consortial partners; peers • Titles that will be kept regardless of use • Authoritative title lists
- 10. • Service copyor copies • Regional service center • Availability of alternate editions • Availability of eBook editions or PDA records • Print on Demand • Used book market
- 11. • Construct query to test results of rules • Iterate until satisfied • Produce withdrawal candidate lists • Produce preservation candidate lists
- 12. • SCS toidentify monographic titles in respective library collections, and to compare overlap results across the group • Identify titles that are commonly-held with low to no circulation history • Agreed minimum number of copies of each title to be held collectively • Project does not count multiple copies in individual libraries
- 13. • Monographs only • Multi-volume monographic sets • No serials • No “Special” collections • No Gov Docs, Reference, Reserves, etc.. • Timeline
- 14. • Unique titlesheld ONLY by one library within group • Commonly held but little used titles • Retention List
- 15. • Unique locallyheld titles varies by library • Criteria for identification: • Pre- 2005 • Zero circs since 1999 • More than 50 US holdings in OCLC or Hathi Trust match • Individual library decides how to handle
- 16. • Books with: o 3 or fewer circulations since 1999 o Pub date or add date prior to 2005 o Held by more than 2 libraries o Projected withdrawal total is 534,039
- 17. • A listfor each participating library, generated by SCS’s algorithm, identifying titles to be retained on behalf of the “collective collection” • Retention assignments tied to circulation as much as possible
- 18. • Two copiesto be held by group – Allocation criteria to be determined by MCLS group – Timeline to be determined • In discussion – 15 year commitment to the project • MOU terms also in discussion
- 19. Library Retention Count Withdrawal Count CMU 204,686 37,438 EMU 172,423 67,221 GVSU 45,497 49,654 MTU 24,899 48,655 SVSU 30,094 53,724 WSU 86,633 165,858 WMU 172,004 111,607
- 24. “The crowding outof readers by reading materials is one of the most common and disturbing ironies in library space planning.” --Scott Bennett
- 25. • Reduce thephysical collections foot print • Improve study space, promote library as place • Help to identify potential titles for digitization and inclusion into HathiTrust • Continue to build “collective collections” in Michigan and US