Cooperative Collection Management Survey

1. Cooperative Collection Management Survey ARL Membership Meeting October 19, 2006 Chip Nilges Vice President, New Services OCLC Chip_nilges@oclc.org

2. Survey Objectives • Understand current practice • Collection management • Remote storage • Digitization • Evaluate 3 service concepts • Registry & reports • Resource sharing • Shared storage & digitization

3. Methodology • Web-based survey with 500 OCLC governing member Academic, ARL, and Public libraries • 204 libraries completed survey (response rate=41%) • Report focuses on the Academic library and ARL respondents results

4. Collection Management • Half of the Academic library respondents use collection analysis tools. • Users tend to have more than 1 million items in collection (68%). • These users employ several tools.

5. Cooperative Collection Development Groups • More than one-third of Academic library respondents belong to a cooperative collection development group. • Here are a few of the groups: • CRL Cooperative Collection Development Group • CARLI • CARL

6. Remote Storage • One-third of Academic library respondents move materials into remote storage. • Most move materials into storage due to: • Lack of space (91%) • Lack of circulation (81%)

7. Storage Filling Up • More than half of Academic library respondents have more than two-thirds of their storage full. • Stored items are used: • Most respondents (81%) circulate stored items but facility is not open to patrons. • Most respondents (84%) make most stored items available for ILL

8. Where are your library’s storage facilities located? (N=32)

9. Digitization • Half of Academic library respondents digitize materials. • Most respondents who digitize process archival materials (84%). • During 2005, digitization activity increased for more than half of respondents (55%).

10. 3 Service Concepts Concept A – Registry & Reports • Create a shared database of collections in storage • Offer tools and reports for comparing stored collections across institutions/groups • Libraries could use this information to inform their collection development decisions

11. Investigate 3 Concepts Concept B – Resource Sharing In addition to all services associated with concept A, participating libraries would also be able to . . . • indicate the following for the items that they register: • preservation policies • lending policies at item level • use this database to borrow items from other libraries

12. Investigate 3 Concepts Concept C – Shared storage, preservation, digitization In addition to all services described in Concept B . . . • Participating libraries could agree to send their selected items to an off-site, independent organization for storage, preservation & access. • The independent organization would identify candidate for central storage based on ILL and circulation data. • The independent organization would provide delivery service for all stored items. • Where it has the rights to do so, the independent organization would digitize heavily requested items.

13. Investigate 3 Concepts • Concepts are in the early stages of development and no pricing was available to test in the questionnaire. • Without pricing, respondents could not be asked to evaluate their likelihood to subscribe to each concept. • Respondents were asked to rate how desirable the concept would be to their library by using a scale that ranged from "0" (Not At All Desirable) to "10" (Very Desirable).

14. Top Box Concept Evaluations Note: Top box score analyzes the percent of respondents who indicate a score of 8 or higher.

15. Preferred Concept • Without knowing price, half of Academic library respondents prefer Concept C. • In open-ended question, respondents stated why prefer concepts: • Digitizes items for preservation • Provides document delivery • Provides remote storage

16. Conclusions • Half of Academic library respondents are involved in collection management and digitization. • Two-fifths are using remote storage which is filling up. • Community seems ready for cooperative collection management service. • Additional market research is recommended on 3 concepts to determine feasibility of service. • OCLC next steps include supporting concepts A and B

17. Borrowing System National Storage Trust NetworkConcept A: Ad Hoc Shared Information ILL ILL Storage Facility Retrieval Registry Participating Library Policies Nonparticipating Library Holdings Collection analysis reports Collection analysis reports WIthdrawals WIthdrawals • Participating libraries provide data on stored holdings and access policies • Participating and nonparticipating libraries may analyze collections compared to registry • Libraries make independent local decisions about acquisition, retention, digitization, storage • Assume individual local risk

18. Borrowing System National Storage Trust NetworkConcept B: Cooperative Management Priority loans ILL Shared Virtual Collection Storage Facility Commitments Retrieval Registry Participating Library Policies Nonparticipating Library Holdings Collection analysis reports Collection analysis reports WIthdrawals WIthdrawals • In addition to providing data on holdings and access policies, participating libraries make preservation and access commitments to fellow participants • Libraries make local decisions in the context of mutual collection management policies

19. Borrowing System National Storage Trust NetworkConcept C: Federated Collection Management Priority loans ILL Shared Preservation Collections Storage Facility Federation Coordinator(s) Retrieval Registry Commitments and Policies Participating Library Nonparticipating Library Holdings Collection analysis reports Collection analysis reports WIthdrawals WIthdrawals • Independent entities administer collection analysis and preservation responsibilities to achieve system-wide benefits • Libraries cede some control to the network in return for greater stability of the system