Neapolitan Session presented at the 2014 Charleston Conference by Jennifer Duncan and Carol Kochan, Utah State University

1. 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

2. What is the impact of local
collection development decisions
on consortium resource
sharing agreements?

3. MY COLLEAGUES ARE BUYING
MATERIALS 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….

4. 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.

5. MY COLLEAGUES ARE BUYING
MATERIALS THAT WE ARE
ABLE TO BORROW….
RS Assumption
And then the realization that this may no longer be true….

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Large Scale Sharing

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. $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

18. 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

19. 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
Fall
2006
Fall
2007
Fall
2008
Fall
2009
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
Fall
2012
Fall
2013
Total GWLA Undergraduate
Full Time Enrollment
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Fall
2006
Fall
2007
Fall
2008
Fall
2009
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
Fall
2012
Fall
2013
Total GWLA Full time
Graduate Enrollment

20. 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

21. CD Concern: Are We Building Diverse Collections?
2
3
8
13
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
5--Vast majority of
acquisitions are through
PDA/DDA
4 3 2 1--We are not using
PDA/DDA
Level of Demand Driven Activity
(27 Responses)

22. CD Concern: Are We Building Diverse Collections?
Thinking about priorities in
terms of :
• Out of Print
• Duplication
• Uniqueness
Photo by: Gary H. Spielvogel
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gaspi/7971252

23. E-Preferred
12
39%
Neither
10
32%
Varies by
Discipline
9
29%
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.

24. 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

25. 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 consortium
may supply a single copy of an individual document,
chapter or book derived from the Licensed Materials to
an Authorized User of another library UTILIZING THE
PREVAILING TECHNOLOGY OF THE DAY. Consortium
agrees to fulfill such requests in compliance with Section
108 of the United States Copyright Law (17 USC 108,
‘Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by
libraries and archives’)”

26. 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%

27. RSDD: Do Patrons Want E-Books?
(If not, will you accommodate them?)
Yes, 67%
No, 12%
Only
Faculty, 4%
Other, 17%

28. 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%

29. 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%

30. 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!

31. 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)…..”

32. 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?

33. 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

34. Just How Big is the Difference?
7039
1754
6035
1486
5227
1388
1374
1310
1241
1239
1225
818
795
771
735
726
722
471
316216194187130
1579
1 2
Recent 5 month OCLC ILL borrowing activity within
GWLA
Top 3 libraries borrow totals = Bottom 21 libraries

35. Are there solutions to these
dilemmas?
Image by Julia Manzerova: https://www.flickr.com/photos/julia_manzerova/2757851927/

36. 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

37. “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

38. 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

39. More consensus on what the
cooperative collection looks like is
needed…

40.  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

41. 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?

42. Take Away
Image by FutureAtlas: https://www.flickr.com/photos/87913776@N00/5129625865

43. We would like to thank
Our GWLA Colleagues
For participating in our survey
and being great partners

44. Thanks So Much! Discussion?
Questions?
Jennifer Duncan
Utah State University
Collection Development
Carol Kochan
Utah State University
Resource Sharing
Lars Leon
University of Kansas
Resource Sharing
Image by Vladimer Shioshvili: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vshioshvili/229207037/