In the Interest of Cooperation :

1. In the Interest of Cooperation: The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in Collection Development and Catalog Sharing

2. Undergraduate, four-year liberal arts colleges

3. CBB Library Consortium 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. CBB Collection • Retention agreements for some large historic sets, government documents, reference materials, 19th 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. With Automated Systems--Policies & Infrastructure • 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. Library Website/Catalog Snapshots • Pre-CBB and WebOpac • Summer 1998 library website • Access to catalog was via telnet, to character-based catalog

8. Sept. 1998 & Sept. 1999 • Sept. 1998 shared CBB search interface • Used request functionality within Innovative • Needed to load each schools patron records • Loan rules aligned

11. Maine Info Net, January 2001 • Requestable/ not requestable • Item types became very important • Record cleanup • No more loading of patron records! • (Maine Info Net is now Maine Cat)

13. NExpress(2004-2006) • Returnables • Non-Returnables (Articles), also direct patron requests

15. Aug. 2009 • New version of the local catalog • Implementing AquaBrowser • Shared CBB discovery system • No circulation, etc., functionality • Still request through MaineCat and NExpress

17. CBB Mellon Cooperative Collection Development Planning Grant (2006-2009) • Goals • Expand CBB collection through reduction of duplication • Build campus culture that views CBB collection as shared • Facilitate budget and space sharing

18. Apples, Oranges and Pluots • 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. YBP Book Joint Approval Plan • 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. 2009 Report to Mellon • % Duplication (48% decrease) • Collective Cost Savings (71% decrease)

21. Score Joint Approval Plan • 2009-CBB Music Librarian meeting • Book plan provides framework

22. Score Planning • 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. Apples, Oranges, and Pluots(Handel, Higdon, and Herbie Hancock) • Other Score Considerations • Binding • Cataloging (MARC records) • Research and performance needs of each College • Standing orders

24. Score Approval Profile • Contemporary Composers • Popular Music/Jazz • Women Composers • Score Format • Ensembles • Max cost

25. Profile Revision • Type of binding • Exclusion of publishers • Popular music/Jazz • Exclusion of instruments • Difficulty of music • Decreased max cost • Colby-25% popular

26. The Results • 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. Other Collaborative Collection Development • E-resources • eBooks • eBrary • Oxford • Database negotiations

28. CBB Cat (AquaBrowser) • 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

29. Bowdoin (All)

30. Bates, Music, Advanced Search

31. Colby, Scores, M1630

32. Bates, All, Basic search

33. Sept. Stats (CBB level only) • 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

34. Facets (Sept.)

35. Local Catalog vs. AquaBrowser • 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. Implementation • 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. Fundamental issues • 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. Systems Future • 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. THANK YOU! Sharon Saunders, Associate College Librarian for Systems and Bibliographic ServicesBates Collegessaunder@bates.edu Karen Jung,Music LibrarianBowdoin Collegekjung@bowdoin.edu Special thanks to: Joan Campbell, Bowdoin, Collection Development Librarian Mary Macul, Bowdoin, Cataloger Toni Katz, Colby, Assistant Director for Technical ServicesPeggy Menchen, ColbyJulie Retelle, Bates, Access Services Chris Schiff, Bates, Music and Arts Librarian Margaret Ericson, Colby, Music and Art Librarian