HIGHLIGHTS
COLLECTION MANAGERS' FORUM
October 15, 2003
122 Main Library, 9:30-11:30

Handouts distributed:

• Agenda
  
• Graph: Distribution of the Materials Budget
  
• Proposal: Funding of Duplicate Continuations Available in Both Print and Electronic Form
  

Topics Discussed:

1. Materials Budget Update (Bracken)

   Referring to the graph distributed to attendees, Jim Bracken summarized the current state of the Libraries' materials budget. He cautioned collection managers not to become overly optimistic about the state of the budget based on comments made at the recent faculty meeting. He noted that the categories mentioned in that context, money from Trademarks, Friends, and Endowments, only account for approximately 3-5% of the budget, and thus any increases from those sources would not significantly impact the health of the Libraries' materials budget. Since these sources are inconsistent from year to year they were not included on the graph. He noted the two broad categorieson the graph, monographs and continuations, further broken down into "1" and "2" funds for monos and "3" and "4" funds for continuations. The roughly 70/30% split, considered the Libraries" annual goal for the distribution, was only achieved thanks to the serials cancellation projects. Without the last round of cancellations the continuations would have taken up at least 75% of the total materials budget. Since "the Index" has not been honored in the past two years it does not look promising for next year. Collection managers need to consider another round of cancellations or an alternative plan.

   
   

2. Funding of Duplicate Serials Available in Both Print & Electronic Format (Bracken)

   Jim submitted a proposal for changing the way duplicate serials available in electronic form are funded. He would like to see CAC develop a policy.

   By way of background Jim noted that OSUL does not currently have an electronic product development policy, and really needs to make some decisions and create one. OSU has been working hand in hand with OhioLINK to purchase electronic titles, since OhioLINK offers such tremendous buying power. However, the OhioLINK member libraries have not been making arrangements for having one archived print copy of each title in the state, Some fear that other members are relying too heavily on OSU's ability to retain print subscriptions, which OSU cannot guarantee, due to budget constraints.

   The key points of Jim's proposal:
   

   1. Central -3 funds will cover the costs of one electronic copy of a serial if that electronic copy is permanently available/archived.

   2. Central -3 funds will cover the costs of one electronic copy and one print copy of a serial if the electronic copy is not permanently available/archived.

   3. Any print copies of a permanently available/archived electronic serial will be regarded as duplicates and will be funded with -4 funds of the requesting collection manager(s).

   Jim asked the collection managers to consider whether the OSU Libraries should rely on having only an archived electronic version available through OhioLINK. A great deal of discussion ensued. Some of the comments:

   • no, too often archived e-versions are missing pieces
   • no, really need one print version in the state archived
   • keep one print version archived in the Depository
   • what do our patrons need?
   • really can't afford to do what is best for our patrons
   • ILLOAN issue: most institutions will not loan an entire issue, but only photocopy article - where could one get a full issue to look over
   • e-versions not really electronic if patrons print out the articles in order to read them
   • suggested: can't CIRM discuss asking Tom Sanville to negotiate for one print copy with each electronic subscription? (already discussed, other member libraries did not share OSU's strong feelings on this matter)
   • noted: State Archives focusing on microfilm as the archival format, not electronic. Should we consider?

   
   S/ER was asked to prepare a list of duplicate subscriptions for collection managers to look over.

   
   

3. MOD's Handling of Added Volumes at the Approval Shelves (Hamilton)

   Marsha Hamilton submitted an idea proposed by some collection managers for changing the policy on handling added volumes in the approvals flow. Added volumes are currently displayed for review, with the other materials, thus slowing down the acquisition process for those items. Attendees at the forum voted in favor of the policy change. The following was sent out to collection managers via the "libcolmn" list:

   Summary: If one location has all previous volumes of a multi-volume monograph, future volumes received on approval will automatically be processed for that location and fund without being displayed on the approval shelves.

   Details: Added volumes must meet ALL these criteria to be auto-processed (processed without collection manager review)

   1. All volumes of a multi-volume monograph set are in just one location
   2. All volumes of the set are the same subject
   3. There is nothing unusual (e.g. extremely high price, location owns misc. volumes only, etc.)
   4. Piece is a single title monograph (mono set) with multiple volumes; procedure does not apply to numbered series

   New Procedure:

   • Piece is searched and identified as an added volume to an existing OSCAR monograph set
   • Piece is automatically processed for the location holding the previous volumes
   • Piece is charged to "2" fund that paid for previous volumes
   • Piece is processed on OSCAR and sent to Labeling
   • Expenditure and title appear on the Fund Activity Report

   Advantages:

   • Collection manager does not have to pay attention to pick up subsequent volumes on approval
   • Saves approval staff time to display and refer items
   • Added volume get to your shelves and patrons 2 - 3 weeks faster

   Exceptions: Not all added volumes will be auto-processed. The piece will be displayed for collection manager review if previous volumes are split between multiple locations, the subject changes from previous volumes, the location has only purchased some of the previous volumes (not a complete run), the item seems over-priced, or there are other questions.

   Examples:

   "American history in the 20th century"	v. 1-3 were previously selected for Main using HIS2 funds
   	v. 4 will be auto-processed for Main using HIS2 when received on approval
   "Notable people of the 19th century"	v. 1 on musicians was selected for MUS on MUS2
   	v. 2 on African Americans was selected by BSL on BSL2
   	v. 3 on women will be displayed on the review shelves

   
   

4. Evaluating Shelf-Ready Approval Processing (Hamilton)

   Test group: Marti Alt, Susan Logan, Mary Scott, Susan Wyngaard

   Progress report:

   Goals

   • Assume collection managers will not physically review approvals during Main Library renovation period
   • Could free staff for other work
   • Could speed processing
   • Could save money

   Findings/Comments

   • Needs varied considerably, even within the small test group
   • Most interested in the option of keeping the book jackets (actually an additional expense, not a savings; could see whether vendor might put jacket information into the bib record
   • A suggestion made to create a new book boolean for YBP shelf-ready approvals weekly
   • Asked to investigate creating a file where collection managers could indicate only those titles not to be sent
   • Current profiling is quite successful, but there is a 6% return rate. Need to tighten up profiles so we will receive fewer unwanted titles shelf-ready. It was noted that many current returns are due to duplication. Ordering practices could be modified so that current year imprints would not be ordered until we are sure they will not come in as approvals.

   What would it mean to move to shelf-ready approvals?

   • Vendor does not have access to OSCAR; would not use a copy # or local cataloging practices
   • Analytics would need to be removed from the approval plan.
   • No call # on the verso of the title page (not a service provided; there is added expense for extra services vendor does provide)
   • If no record available at the time book is sent, we will still be charged for shelf-ready processing. (should account for less than 20% of receipts)
   • Machine selection clearly not as sophisticated as the human brain, selects records that may not be best match, books out of profile, etc.
   • Shelf-ready is an all or nothing move - cannot pull out only certain subject areas to be handled that way unless a separate approval account is established for those subjects

   For consideration:

   • What is the real cost comparison? If vendor does not supply some services provided in-house (e.g. copy numbers, call numbers, etc.), then we need to compare the cost of doing the same (lesser service) in-house. Otherwise we are comparing dissimilar products. Would a streamlined process performed by OSUL staff create equivalent cost savings over vendor shelf-ready services?
   • How long would contract be for? Could we have an evaluation period?
   • Some titles currently referred by subject-specific collection managers to Penny for consideration. How would these be handled?

   
   

5. Local Cataloging Practices (El-Sherbini)

   Magda El-Sherbini presented a PowerPoint show (available here) outlining the policy of handling duplicate call numbers that has been in place for the past ten years, and asked collection managers to consider changing this policy.

   There was no consensus that the practice should be modified at this time.