Implications for HE libraries

1. Implications for HE libraries Martin Lewis Director of Library Services & University Librarian The University of Sheffield Evolution or revolution? 13 December 2005

2. photo: Sam Judson

3. The report • Welcome and timely • Option 4 is the correct one! • …but • Theoretical underpinning • Monographs • Researcher views and needs

4. Implications for HE libraries • Support for local zero net collections growth policies • ZnCG at the University of Sheffield Library • Monographs: grasping the nettle • The White Rose/BL CCM project: a platform for the NRR monograph service

5. Zero net Collections Growth • University of Sheffield Library full • ZnCG by 2005 adopted as policy in 1998 • Target is zero NET collections growth • Progress towards ZnCG has been slow • Current project management approach to achieving ZCG

6. ZnCG project • complete capacity audit • identify and quantify one-off disposal opportunities • revise and update departmental collection development policies • academic awareness and engagement • project group established 2003

7. One-off disposal options • de-duplication of store monograph stock • closed runs of journals • bound journals with e-archives (eg JSTOR, Elsevier) • journals backruns before a certain date (relying on document delivery)

8. collection size actual Gradient reduces as monograph disposals increase theoretical 2006 2003 t

10. print collection

11. print journal subscriptions monograph purchasing gifts greater selectivity e-only journal subscriptions print collection monograph disposals

12. print journal subscriptions monograph purchasing gifts greater selectivity e-only journal subscriptions print collection disposals from last n years only kept policy one-off disposals of bound journals monograph disposals journal disposals

13. Discussion points • 1.5M print vols in actively managed collections is enough for a large research-led civic university • you can’t write a convincing business case for investing in new print storage capacity at £2,500m-2 • biting the bullet on collections size has enabled us to prioritise investment in study space quality and quantity (new £24M Information Commons)

14. 1.5M print vols in actively managed collections is enough for a large research-led civic university • you can’t write a convincing business case for investing in new print storage capacity at £2,500m-2 • biting the bullet on collections size has enabled us to prioritise investment in study space quality and quantity (new £24M Information Commons)

15. Discussion points • journal disposals are generally nonrecurrent contributions to ZnCG – the baseload growth is from monographs • we are already starting to dispose of print journals, relying on the stability of e-journal archives • noncommercial backup of e-journal archives highly desirable – eg KB/Elsevier; LOCKSS

16. Discussion points • Greatest long-term gain (saving) comes from deduplication of the national monograph collection • Resilience of the national research reserve is a national security issue • National framework for storage crucial for underpinning local collection management • 9 out of 10 academics prefer the BL brand for this product

17. The White Rose/BL CCM project • White Rose : Leeds, Sheffield, York • report on WR website at http://www.whiterose.ac.uk/ProjectDetail.aspx?id=54 • project ran from December 2004 through August 2005 • Idea of the National Collection central

18. Concept BRITISH LIBRARY

19. Project aims The project aimed to test the practicality of the proposal to withdraw from WRC libraries and transfer to the British Library, research level materials in two categories: • Monographs no longer required by the academic institution but requiring preservation within the national collection because they are either not held by the British Library or were not available as a copy for loan. • Additional copies of monographs no longer required by the academic institution but heavily used at the British Library.

20. Two elements • Discussion of models • Pilot implementation and evaluation of preferred model

21. Models • BL does most of the work (“just take ‘em away”) • Work shared between WRC libraries and BL (pre-checking against BLIC, list compilation and submission by WRC, further checking of lists at BL, shipping of agreed items)

22. Project outcomes • It works! 2,300 items processed. • But it’s expensive • Importance for BL of retroconversion of UCB card catalogue (1950 – 1980 titles) • Cost at BL will reduce when UCB cc online • 90% of disposable titles not required by BL • BL did not need additional copies of titles not required by WRC libraries

24. Conclusions • The WR/BL CCM model is viable for monograph storage • The unit costs are high but not excessive and are capable of significant reduction • There is scope for extending the pilot, as a platform for inclusion of monographs within the NRR • The BL is likely to offer a WR-type last-copy acceptance capability in the near future • Involvement of the BL reassures academics (at least, those in Yorkshire)

25. Acknowledgements • Project officers • Chris Senior, Leeds (for WRC) • James Elliott, BL • Project managers • Brian Clifford (Leeds) • Kath O’Donovan (Sheffield) • Elizabeth Harbord (York)

28. Things are not revolutionised by making revolutions.

29. Things are not revolutionised by making revolutions. The real revolution lies in the solution of existing problems…

30. Things are not revolutionised by making revolutions. The real revolution lies in the solution of existing problems…