J E N N I F E R D U N C A N , U T A H S T A T E , C O L L E C T I O N D E V E L O P M E N T
C A R O L K O C H A N , U T A H S T A T E , R E S O U R C E S H A R I N G
L A R S L E O N , U N I V E R S I T Y O F K A N S A S , R E S O U R C E S H A R I N G
We Sincerely Regret to Inform You That the Material You Have
Requested is Unavailable Via Interlibrary Loan
What is the impact of local collection development decisions
on consortium resource sharing agreements?
MY COLLEAGUES ARE BUYINGMATERIALS THAT WE AREN’T
BUYING AND THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SHARE THEM WITH US….
CD Assumption
And then the realization that this may no longer be true….
Are There Lendable Copies?
We have more to buy and less to spend.
As the overall growth of the corpus of our collection slows, are we duplicating the right titles?
As libraries rapidly move away from prospective buying and ever more rapidly toward DDA purchasing, which titles are we missing—in the shared collection?
As schools move ever more quickly toward e-book acquisition our partners may have the book we need, but not in a lendable format.
MY COLLEAGUES ARE BUYING MATERIALS THAT WE ARE
ABLE TO BORROW….
RS Assumption
And then the realization that this may no longer be true….
CAN I Borrow a Copy?
There is not a copy in my consortium, it will take longer to arrive and most likely have a shorter loan period.
Patrons want to borrow a book that my colleagues only have in e-format and I CAN’T get it (or my patron doesn’t want it)
There are material types that people want to borrow that we just CAN’T GET
People are discovering more than ever and we literally CAN’T KEEP UP (internal and external customers)
Question & Methods
Schools in Group A have tiny budgets
Schools in Group A will be our heaviest borrowers
Schools in Group B have cut their approval profile
Schools in Group B will be heavy borrowers
Schools in Group C have very restrictive ILL borrowing policies
Schools in Group C will not draw on the system as heavily
Schools in Group D heavily market their ILL service
Schools in Group D will end up being heavy borrowers
Schools in Group E rely more on other cosortia partners
Be heavy lenders in this group
What Types of Questions Did We Ask?
Is PDA/DDA central to your library's collection development strategy? Does your library have an approval plan? Does your library have an e-preferred or e-only policy for acquiring new scholarly
monographs? Will you purchase print copies of titles you own in electronic format if a patron
makes a specific request? Do you purchase textbooks for your collection? Do you consider GWLA collections, accessed via resource sharing, to be a part of
your library's collection development strategy? Does your discovery layer and/or library catalog prompt patrons to request
returnable materials not available at your library? Do you have any type of marketing strategy to encourage your patrons to borrow
nonreturnable items not available at your library? What is your policy on borrowing textbooks and/or required course materials? What is your policy on borrowing popular titles? Do you allow patrons to borrow items that are checked out at your library? Do you allow your patrons to borrow print copies of books your library owns
electronically?
ACRL & IPEDS Data
In addition to surveys we used ACRL and IPEDS Data
Budgets
Collection Size
Collection Growth
Number of Faculty, Grad and Undergraduates
Consortium Borrowing Activity Reports
Who/What is GWLA?
33 Academic Libraries, primarily west of the Mississippi River
25 ARL Members and 8 Non-ARL Members
5 Private Universities and 28 Public Universities
More than 652,000 Undergraduate Students
Over 152,000 Graduate Students
More than 41,000 Instructional Faculty
Materials budgets vary from around $4M to over $20M per year (combined to over $310M/year)
Together we have over 130M Volumes
GWLA Members
Arizona State University
Baylor University
Brigham Young University
Colorado State University
Iowa State University Library
Kansas State University
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Rice University
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Southern Methodist University
Texas A&M University
Texas Tech
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of Colorado, Boulder
University of Hawaii at Manoa
University of Houston
University of Illinois, Chicago
University of Kansas
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of New Mexico
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
University of Southern California
University of Texas, Austin
University of Utah
University of Washington
University of Wyoming
Utah State University
Washington State University
Washington University in St. Louis
History of Resource Sharing in GWLA
Long history of sharing = great
Speed and longer loan periods = great
History of sharing ideas, technologies = great
No policies on balance of sharing = challenge
History of Resource Sharing in GWLA
Transmitted requests through OCLC
New Relais tool – “BorrowItNow”
1/3 Borrow
Almost all Lend
Not true shared catalog
GWLA – no policy related to balance of sharing
2/3 of GWLA libraries borrow whomever they like
Shared Philosophy – Treat other member library patrons as our own
CD Concern: More to Buy, Less to Spend
• 8% overall increase for North American Academic Books
• 23% increase for e-books• Increasing production every year
Year Non-Serial Expenditures Change # Libraries Reporting
FISCAL YEAR 2012 $450,995,636.00 4% 285
FISCAL YEAR 2010 $434,162,296.00 -8% 275
FISCAL YEAR 2008 $474,046,700.00 17% 275
FISCAL YEAR 2006 $405,322,538.00 9% 255
FISCAL YEAR 2004 $372,415,605.00 255
CD Concern: More to Buy, Less to Spend
Academic Library Survey Responses 2004-2012, National Center for Education Statistics
$49,663,572
$54,424,722
$48,670,720 $50,395,359
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2006 2008 2010 2012
Expenditures for 31 GWLA Schools
Change in Expenditures for Books and Other One-Time Print Purchases
CD Concern: As the overall growth of the corpus slows, are we duplicating wisely?
Year Number of units held in paper
Change Number of e-books held
Change # Libraries Reporting
FISCAL YEAR 2012 681,988,378 5% 111,152,494 50% 285
FISCAL YEAR 2010 652,093,855 5% 74,084,948 60% 275
FISCAL YEAR 2008 623,013,219 5% 46,340,847 66% 275
FISCAL YEAR 2006 593,989,731 5% 27,868,625 140% 255
FISCAL YEAR 2004 567,547,485 11,618,244 255
Academic Library Survey Responses 2004-2012, National Center for Education Statistics
CD Concern: As the overall growth of the corpus slows, are there sufficient copies to share?
520,000
540,000
560,000
580,000
600,000
620,000
640,000
660,000
680,000
Fall2006
Fall2007
Fall2008
Fall2009
Fall2010
Fall2011
Fall2012
Fall2013
Total GWLA Undergraduate Full Time Enrollment
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Fall2006
Fall2007
Fall2008
Fall2009
Fall2010
Fall2011
Fall2012
Fall2013
Total GWLA Full time Graduate Enrollment
CD Concern: Are We Building Diverse Collections?
Print Only Approval, 15, 48%
E-Preferred Approval, 7, 23%
No Approval, 2, 6%
Mixed E/Print Approval, 7, 23%
Approval Plan Status
CD Concern: Are We Building Diverse Collections?
2
3
8
13
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
5--Vast majority ofacquisitions are through
PDA/DDA
4 3 2 1--We are not usingPDA/DDA
Level of Demand Driven Activity(27 Responses)
CD Concern: Are We Building Diverse Collections?
Thinking about priorities in terms of :
• Out of Print• Duplication • Uniqueness
Photo by: Gary H. Spielvogelhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/gaspi/7971252
E-Preferred12
39%
Neither10
32%
Varies by Discipline
929%
Distribution of E-Preferred Acquisition
CD Concern: As we increase e-book acquisition, partners may have the book we need, but not in a lendable format.
How Many E-Books are in Our Collections?
9% 9%
14%
19%
15%
17%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Average Percentage of E-Books in a GWLA Collection
CD Concern: As we increase e-book acquisition, partners may have the book we need, but not in a lendable format.
“…Interlibrary Loan must be allowed. The consortiummay supply a single copy of an individual document,chapter or book derived from the Licensed Materials toan Authorized User of another library UTILIZING THEPREVAILING TECHNOLOGY OF THE DAY. Consortiumagrees to fulfill such requests in compliance with Section108 of the United States Copyright Law (17 USC 108,‘Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction bylibraries and archives’)”
CD: Do Patrons Want E-Books? (If not, will you accommodate them?)
Yes, we will
purchase it, 16, 52%It depends
on the patron & title, 14,
45%
They can ILL it, 1,
3%
RSDD: Do Patrons Want E-Books? (If not, will you accommodate them?)
Yes, 67%No, 12%
Only Faculty, 4%
Other, 17%
CD Policy RS Policy
Policies on Obtaining Popular Books
Do Not Purchase ,
40%
Very Limited Purchasing,
40%
Limited Purchasing,
5%
Actively Purchasing,
5% Very Actively Purchasing,
10%
Do Not Restrict
Borrowing, 80%
Policy Not to Borrow
(unenforced) 10%
As Long as it is not
Excessive, 5%
Attempt 1 String, 5%
CD Policy RS Policy
Policies on Obtaining Textbooks
Purchase some but
not all, 9%
Purchase very
selectively, 24%
Do not purchase,
67%
Try not to Borrow (using
bookstore info), 59%
Do Not Restrict ,
27%
Policy Says No--Not
Enforced, 14%
RS Concerns: There is not a copy in my consortium and I’m concerned about turn around time, loan periods, etc.
Libraries belong to a variety of consortia and/or groups
Strong Groups such as GWLA, have agreed to expedited delivery, longer loan periods –Preferred partners
Patrons expect quick turnaround and longer loan periods!
RS Concerns: There are material types that people want to borrow that we just CAN’T GET
“Increasing number of unique item requests (hard to find, rare, not ‘regular’ books --special collections)…..”
RS Concern: Patrons are discovering more than ever
Yes , 13, 45%
No, 14, 48%
Other, 2, 7%
Does your discovery system include returnable titles (e.g books, a/v, etc.) not held at your library?
Is Our Work Sustainable?
-60000
-50000
-40000
-30000
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
GWLA OCLC Net Loans Supplied
CY08 CY09 CY10 CY11 CY12 CY13 Jan-Mar2014
Just How Big is the Difference?
7039
1754
6035
1486
5227
1388
1374
1310
1241
1239
1225
818795771735726722471316216194187130
1579
1 2
Recent 5 month OCLC ILL borrowing activity within GWLA
Top 3 libraries borrow totals = Bottom 21 libraries
Are there solutions to these dilemmas?
Image by Julia Manzerova: https://www.flickr.com/photos/julia_manzerova/2757851927/
Significance of the Shared Collection
1
2
3
12
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
5 The GWLA Collections are Central to My CD Strategy
4
3
2
1 I do not think abou the GWLA Collections in terms of my strategy
“Whither ILL?” Not so fast….
Year Books Loaned
Change Books Received
Change # Libraries Reporting
FY2012 3,288,676 -5% 2,926,683 -4% 285
FY2010 3,448,454 3% 3,034,217 7% 275
FY2008 3,333,160 9% 2,836,010 13% 275
FY2006 3,054,989 10% 2,499,105 8% 255
FY2004 2,779,353 2,320,353 255
GWLA Borrowing Activity
98,569
105,829
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
FY10 FY14
Total Change in Book Borrowing
Spring 2011 - GWLA Launches E-Book Lending Task Force
Spring 2014 - Springer Partnership Announced
April 7, 2014 - First Transaction Recorded
October 1, 2014 - Over 441 Transactions Recorded
The First Steps in E-Book Sharing
Purchase on Demand as Local Solution
ILL POD, 15, 56%
Limited, 6, 22%
NO, 6, 22%
Does your library have an interlibrary loan purchase on demand program?