WEEDING WITH ROBOTS: Managing Collections in an Automated Retrieval System
Dec 05, 2014
WEEDING WITH ROBOTS: Managing Collections in an Automated Retrieval System
Charleston Conference 2010
Linda Masselink, Patricia Bravender & Hazel McClure Grand Valley State University
Robert Kelly Eastern Michigan University
Why Automated Retrieval?
Space
Cost $$$$$
To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before
Challenges
Content inventory
Weeding
Steelcase Library’s ARS
Random Access
Sets
Government documents
Videos
Microfilm
GVSU Loading Up
3 sizes of bins 10” 12” 15”
Barcodes
Numbering by hand
ARS Bin
WEEDING THE GVSU BUSINESS COLLECTION
Weeding
Getting started…
Rick Lugg R2 ConsultingLegacy Print Collections
From the Kent Study:40% of books never circulated if they did not circulate within the first 2 years of purchase
No circulation in 6 years = potential use is 1 in 50
Aggressive De-Selection
No impact on users
Content available at other places
Susan Gibbons “user driven collection”
Core Collection
Core collection = books used
Noncore collection = books not used
WEED noncore
What holds us back from weeding?
Weeding Business Books
Request for book information
Target a small collection to start
Pull each item from the retrieval system
Discoveries
Weeding can guide future purchase decisions
Discover “mistakes”
It is hard to weed good books that are not used!
Considerations
Key indicator - number of circulations
Books checked against: Bowker Book Analysis for relevance
Web of Science for citations
Choice Outstanding Academic Titles
Other Considerations
World Cat listing for holdings at other libraries
Condition
Cost of replacing
Next Group
“No Circs” brought out first
Slow process
Weeding
Not a “someday” activity
Schedule
Limit your time
UNHAND ME YOU MECHANICAL MORON:
WEEDING THE GVSU LAW COLLECTION
The Steelcase Library in downtown Grand Rapids was to become the home of GVSU’s 3,000 volume law collection.
GVSU accepted the Grand Rapids Bar Association’s 35,000 volume, 120 year old law collection.
Bar collection accepted in its entirety - was not weeded.
Part of the collection put in the reading room - majority stored in the ARS where…
it became invisible to the human eye.
GVSU updated and added new material to the collection for next six years
By 2007 apparent that:
Use by the Bar was declining Use by GVSU students was low Many items duplicated (and paid for twice)
in on-line services such as Westlaw Cost of legal materials were skyrocketing A lot staff time required to keep updated
Why was use of law collection declining?
The following may have contributed:
Relevance of materials to GVSU students- too
specialized
Location of Steelcase library w/respect Bar
members
Availability of materials on-line
New barriers between users and the
collection
Difficulty of using law materials stored in an
ARS New law school library built within ½ mile of Steelcase Library
GVSU and GR Bar Association agreed that GVSU could dispose of the collection.
The Bar did not want the collection returned.
Titles that GVSU did not want were to be offered to Bar members and new law school library in Grand Rapids.
Any titles that remained after this procedure would be shredded according to GVSU’s policy.
How the Robot Retrieved the BarCollection from the ARS
When collections were merged, it was noted in the catalog record of each item that it had come from the Bar.
This was done because the merger was to be a three year trial – if it didn’t work Bar had the option of reclaiming its collection.
First Weeding
GVSU generated a list of every Bar donated item from its catalog.
GVSU determined which titles to keep and which to discard according to its weeding policies.
The discard list was then circulated to the local law library and members of Bar who selected books.
Shelving designated for holding selected items.
Monographs requested from the ARS, reviewed and placed on a shelf for de-accession from the collection by circ staff.
If requested item was a multi-volume set, only one volume was requested for review.
Circ staff pulled multi-volume sets during evening, low patron use times.
Law books often consist of more than one volume (often many) and each volume might be located in a different bin.
Minimum one minute per item, often longer if many items are in queue.
Second Weeding
Canceled and outdated materials next priority –some from Bar list and some not.
Worked from list of canceled material generated by technical services by call no. range
Items processed in the same manner as described earlier
All items shredded
6 months - 14,000 volumes
Third Weeding
Remaining volumes from the original Bar list being pulled and discarded using this process as time and space permit.
Majority out-of-date material collected over a period of many years by Bar Association.
FULL STEAM AHEAD:Weeding the GVSU Social Work Collection
Social Work Collection
Had been weeded in past few years
Still had a lot of chaff
New librarian & turnover
Weeding 101
Librarian was new to the profession & to weeding Academic preparation Practical experience
Jumped into weeding out of necessity
What I Did…
Made lists based on Call number ranges Circulation stats Core lists Availability of quick/easy/inexpensive
replacement
Used this list to “pull” and withdraw books from collection
& Why I Did It
Provided a way to weed collection without ready physical access
Circ stats are a good predictor of future use
Had to be cruel to be kind; weeding had to happen
I didn’t have many choices
Weed or Seedling?
Encountered books from other collections Johnson Collection Criminal Justice Government Documents
Multiple copies Books that were owned by many other
schools Books that were in areas that weren’t
very well represented in the collection
Strengths of This Method
Gets the job done
Easily sectionable
Lends itself to Automation Record keeping
Weaknesses of This Method
Making lists was time consuming Dependent on circulation staff to pull
items and systems librarian’s team to get lists
Making & manipulating lists was boring work
Impossible to determine condition of items Maintains/encourages distance between
librarian & collection
Mistakes Made, Lessons Learned
Failed to consider some usage stats
Didn’t have a nuanced enough LOC call number list Some areas relevant to Social Work weren’t
covered List included many titles irrelevant to Social
Work
Back to the Future: Ongoing Plans
Refining LC Call number list Solution to perpetual problem of lack of
weeding Periodic generation of lists & storage or
withdrawal Able to use some information gathered
to assist other librarians Method (with appropriate record
keeping) offers window into usage trends Using method with other collections
Possibility For Other Collections Public, Nonprofit and Health
Administration Will need LC ranges Need to consider changing curriculum Need to be mindful of overlap of other
collections Future possibility of
automation/expanding method across disciplines
Relationship of weeding via this method to Subject Collection policies
LOST IN SPACE10 years later looking in all the wrong places
Why Inventory?
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
Reconcile bin holdings with online catalog Reduce ILL requests Clean up catalog records (none,
incomplete, inaccurate) Accurate count of items Fill rate of bins Space Preparation for weeding of ARC
Material Types in ARC
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
Type # of Items % of holdings Book 401,599 76.35 Periodical 109,189 20.76 Visual 9,229 1.75 Nocirc 3,271 .62 Audio 1,381 .26 Video ref 1,223 .23 Misc items 134 .03
Inventory time requirements & processing
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
Quick Visual To date inventoried X number of bins 30 to 45 minutes depending on
size/format of the bin materials and problem items
Sequence of how bins are being called (need to identify) and why this method
Arc Item Processing
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
PC is set up to inventory mode and bin called & delivered.
Remove and scan each item within each section and receive confirmation that the item is in the correct section and bin.
Will move items to different section within the bin to ease space constraints.
Once all items scanned, bin returned to rack and another called.
Typical Issues
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
Item not found Section displayed on screen as full but
actually has room. Requires high level of attention. System
will warn but easy to miss warnings. Needs to be improved.
Prognosis/Results
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
Most items are in correct bins Problems so far are items not linked
to bins (i.e. lost in space). Flexible…can start/stop as needed. Long term process: Will take a year
to do. Hands on inventory provides
opportunity to also assess condition of materials.
Closing thoughts
Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010
Hands-on real time inventory provides opportunity to: Update linking to catalog so that correct
item is retrieved. Accurate determination of holdings and
their location. Assess condition of materials which may
need conservation. Inventory of the available space as well as
materials.
Recommendations
Completely and aggressively weed collections before moving them into an ARS.
Ensure cataloging records contain information necessary to isolate discrete collections if such exist.
Develop procedures for weeding an ARS on a regular basis, including periodic review of the holdings in an ARS by call numbers and subject headings.
Recommendations
Examine the feasibility of programming an ARS to keep multi-volume sets in the same bin.
Consider carefully whether an ARS is the proper location for storage of multi-volume sets and high-use items.
“We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies.” -- Marshall McLuhan
Resources
Atkins, S., Weible, C. “Lost is Found”, Collection Management, 31:3 25-32, 2007.
Bullard, R., Wrosch, J. “Eastern Michigan University’s Automated Retrieval System, 10 years Later”, Journal of Access Services, 6:388-395, 2009.
Gibbons, S. “Time Horizon 2020: Library Renaissance”, http://hdl.handle.net/1802/10051 2010.
Kent, A. “Uses of Materials: The University of Pittsburgh Study”, Books in Library and Information Science (v. 26). New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979.
Schonfeld, R.C. & Housewright, R. Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies. Ithaka S + R: http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%2520Study%25202009.pdf
Young, D.J. “Get to Effective Weeding”, Library Journal, 134:19 36, 2009.