Presentation given by UCD Library's Collections Support Librarian Catherine Ryan at 'Collection Management: Sharing Experiences' Joint Seminar organised by CONUL Collections and CONUL Training and Development, 24th October, 2018 at the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

1. Leabharlann UCD
An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile
Átha Cliath,
Belfield, Baile Átha Cliath 4,
Eire
UCD Library
University College Dublin,
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Defining Collections
Collection Management and
GreenGlass at UCD Library
Catherine Ryan
Collections Support Librarian
Collection Services

2. Background
• Review (and weed!) of print book collections
• Began life as the GreenGlass project in December
2017
• Collections curation and management project
– Defining what our users need on the shelves
– Defining what we want in our collections
– Weeding
– Purchasing new materials
– Long-term, sustainable approach to managing
collections and library spaces

3. Why are we doing this?

4. Why are we doing this?

5. Why are we doing this?
70%
of what our readers
are actually using
is less than
30 years old

6. Why are we doing this?
• Increases user satisfaction
• Can actually find relevant books
• Shelves look better, more pleasing to browse
• Less staff time maintaining shelves means more time
with users
• Better use of space
• Competing requirements for space and money, more
strategically deployed on services that users want
• Study spaces, social spaces, events
• Strategic alignment
• UCD Library strategic plan 2016-2020
• 2015 Quality Review Report

7. GreenGlass
• Sustainable Collection Solutions (SCS) and OCLC
• Collection analysis and decision support tool
• Usage data, acquisition data…
• Ebook alternative, duplicates
• Authoritative lists (Choice)
• Comparison to holdings in other institutions in
Ireland, UK, and Europe
• Available in HathiTrust

12. Literature Review
• Quantitative and qualitative criteria
– Typically projects start with quantitative criteria like usage data
and then apply more locally specific qualitative criteria
• Core Collections
– Percentage of the collection that would satisfy a given
percentage of user demand
• Large scale rules based projects
– More data is now available
– In theory, can weed at scale
• Rightsizing
– Core collection
– Systematic, rules-based approach
– Shapes collection to user needs
– Providing access v. ownership
– Collaborative collection management
* See end of presentation for list of reference sources

13. Our Approach
– Core or retention approach
– Determining ‘value’ of our collections
• To our user communities
• To UCD Library, UCD
– Revitalising and updating collections through weeding
and purchasing of new resources
– Defining a long-term, sustainable approach
• Managing library spaces
• Collection management policy and workflows
– Evidence-based: user behaviour, user needs, collections
• Classed analyses of collections
• Subject profiles

14. Our Approach
• Define discrete sections to prepare in advance of
main review
– Duplicates
– Multi-editions
– Separate locations – short loan, reference
• Application of conservative quantitative criteria to
the open shelves, on-site store.
• Generate candidates for withdrawal list.
• Application of qualitative criteria to candidates for
withdrawal

15. Our Approach
Curating, not weeding*
*Held, T. (2018). Curating, not weeding. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 133–143.

16. Defining Parameters for Open Access
• Used in the last 13 years.
• Purchased in the last 6 years.
• Age range
– Retain copies of all titles within an age range likely to satisfy the majority of teaching
and research requirements.
• For example, 80% of all recorded use in the 330 (Economics) range over the last
6 years was of materials published after 1997. So, all books published in 1997
and later will remain on open access.
• Material with open access requirements.
• Reading list materials.
• Selected titles or collections of important material to be determined on a
school by school level.
‘Sliding window’ of up-to-date resources that are most likely to satisfy
the current teaching and research needs of the communities.

17. Defining Parameters for On-Site Stores
• No usage in the last 13 years.
• Not purchased in the last 6 years.
• Age range
– Unused titles within an age range less likely to, but could still satisfy the teaching and
research requirements over the last 6 years.
• For example, 90% of all recorded use in the 330 (Economics) range was of
materials published in the last 31 years. As books 26 years old and under
remain on open access, unused books between 26 and 31 years old would go to
Store.
• Any items requested from Store and checked out would be moved to the open
access shelves.
‘Sliding window’ of resources less likely to satisfy users’ information
needs, housing them where they do not block access to more relevant
materials.

20. Defining Guidelines for Off-Site Store
• Materials to be retained over the long term
– Seminal works
– Irish academic publishers
– Choice reviews
– National significance
– International significance
– Institutional affiliation (past or current member of staff, UCD as
subject)
– Historical interest
– Provenance
– Many, many more!
• Scarce materials unavailable elsewhere in Ireland (subject specific,
of relevance to the University’s teaching and research, national
interest, institutional strength)
• Legal deposit material.

21. School Profiles
Inform both weeding criteria and selection of new materials
• Review of each School’s current teaching and research
– Current modules
– Current research
– Emerging graduate programmes
• Review of subject area
– Key titles
– Key authors
– Key viewpoints
– Areas of interest to UCD
– This will be added to as we go through the collections

22. School Profiles
• Collection Evaluation
– Size
– Age
– Growth areas
– Usage and use patterns (part of retention criteria)
– Physical condition
– Collections of interest to the School
– Collections of institutional or historical interest
• Collection Recommendations
– Where to develop
– Where to weed (with evidence)
– Identification of source materials for the subject

23. Withdrawal
Any title that does not meet
the quantitative and qualitative criteria
developed for each School
Only retain a title where there is a reason to do so

24. Long-Term Integration
• Ensure that the open access shelves contain, and continue to
contain, the most current and relevant resources and that these
resources are not hidden away by unused, irrelevant, or out-dated
material
• Give full consideration to resources of historical, national, or
institutional interest
• Better planning and managing of the collections and the spaces that
they inhabit by ensuring that stock levels in open access and on-site
store areas will remain approximately the same size over the
medium-term.

25. Project Timeline
Stage 1: Project Set-Up
– December 2017
– Data extraction from Sierra
• Create Lists – Bib data, MARC format
• SQL – Item data
– Data cleaning by SCS
– Access to the GreenGlass platform in February
2018
Complete

26. Project Timeline
Stage 2: Project Definition and Planning
– Define our approach
– Define project plan
– Approval for approach and project plan in May
2018
Complete

27. Project Timeline
Stage 3: Communication
• Summer 2018
– Development of communication documentation
» Rationale for the project
» Project methodology
» FAQ
» Libguide
– Internal communication
– Communications with University Management Team
• End September - October 2018
– Libguide, social media, other outreach launch
– Emails to Heads of School
– First contact with five selected Schools (one for each
collections librarian)

28. Stage 4: Development of School Profiles
and Criteria
Stage 4: Development of School Profiles and
Criteria
• Summer 2018
– Collection evaluation
– Development of draft profiles and criteria
– Input from Client Services team
• October – December 2018
– Discussions with School, in collaboration with Liaison
Librarians
Stage 4: Implementation
• December 2018 – January 2019

29. References
Weeding
• Ackerman, E., & DeLuca, L. (2018). Weed ’em and reap? Deselection of political science books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1),
88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.10.003
• Baba, K., Minami, T., & Nakatoh, T. (2016). Predicting Book Use in University Libraries by Synchronous Obsolescence. Procedia Computer
Science, 96, 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.082
• Buckland, M. K. (1975). Book availability and the library user. New York: Pergamon Press. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/details/bookavailability00buck
• DeMars, M., & Roll, A. (2016). Weeding out in the open: what will the neighbours think? In Where Do We Go from Here?: Charleston
Conference Proceedings 2015. Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284316252
• Dubicki, E. (2008). Weeding: facing the fears. Collection Building, 27(4), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913689
• Fussler, H. H., & Simon, J. L. (1961). Patterns in the use of books in large research libraries. Chicago: University of Chicago Library. Retrieved
from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003908643
• Handis, M. W. (2007). Practical advice for weeding in a small library. Collection Building, 26(3), 84–87.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950710761643
• Held, T. (2018). Curating, not weeding. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 133–143.
• Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of collection development and management. (3rd ed.). London: Facet.
• Joswick, K. E., & Stierman, J. P. (1994). Systematic reference weeding: A workable model. Collection Management, 18(1), 103–115.
• Lugg, R. (2012). Data-driven deselection for monographs: a rules-based approach to weeding, storage, and shared print decisions. Insights,
25(2), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.25.2.198
• Lugg, R., & Fischer, R. (2008). Future tense--The disapproval plan: Rules-based weeding & storage decisions. Against the Grain, 20(6).

30. References
Weeding, cont’d
• Lugg, R., & Fischer, R. (2013). Future tense--doing what’s obvious: Library space and the fat smoker. Against the Grain, 21(1), 47.
https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.2530
• McHale, C., Egger-Sider, F., Fluk, L., & Ovadia, S. (2017). Weeding without walking: a mediated approach to list-based deselection. Collection
Management, 42(2), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1318729
• McKee, P. (1981). Weeding the Forest Hill Branch of Toronto Public Library by the Slote Method: A Test Case. Library Research, 3(3), 283–301.
• Metz, P., & Gray, C. (2005). Perspectives on public relations and library weeding. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(3), 273–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.01.005
• Murphy, E. (2013). Assessing University Library Print Book Collections and Deselection: A Case Study at The National University of Ireland Maynooth.
New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(3), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.808252
• Oliva, V. T. (2016). Deselection of print monographs in the humanities and social sciences in the digital age. Collection Building, 35(2), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-02-2016-0002
• O’Neill, J. L. (2016). Weeding with ADDIE: developing training for deselection at an adacemic library. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(2), 108–
115.
• Osheroff, S. K., & Knittel, M. C. (1990). Team weeding in a university library. College & Research Libraries News, 51(8), 723–725.
• Perrault, A. H., Madaus, R., Armbrister, A., Dixon, J., & Smith, R. (1999). The Effects of High Median Age on Currency of Resources in Community College
Library Collections. College & Research Libraries, 60, 316–339.
• Poller, M. (1976). Weeding Monographs in the Harrison Public Library. Collection Management, 1(1), 6–7.
• Reed-Scott, J. (1985). Implementation and evaluation of a weeding program. Collection Management, 7(2), 59–67.
• Slote, S. J. (1997). Weeding library collections : library weeding methods. (4th ed.). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

31. References
Weeding, cont’d
• Snyder, C. E. (2014). Data-driven deselection: multiple point data using a decision support tool in an academic library. Collection Management, 39(1),
17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2013.866607
• Soma, A. K., & Sjoberg, L. M. (2010). More than just low-hanging fruit: A collaborative approach to weeding in academic libraries. Collection
Management, 36(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2011.529241
• Trueswell, R. (1964). User behaviour patterns and requirements and their effect on the possible applications of data processing and computer techniques
in a university library. (PhD). Northwestern University, Illinois.
• Ward, S. M. (2015). Rightsizing the academic library collection. Chicago: ALA Editions.
• Way, D., & Garrison, J. (2013). Developing and implementing a disapproval plan: One university library’s experience. College & Research Libraries News,
74(6).
• White, B. (2017). Citations and circulation counts: data sources for monograph deselection in research library collections. College & Research Libraries,
78(1). https://doi.org/doi:10.5860/crl.78.1.53
• Williams, P. C., & Halvonik, Brent. (2004). Collection management: assessing and weeding the foreign language collection. College & Undergraduate
Libraries, 11(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v11n02_09
• Zuber, P. (2012). Weeding the collection: an analysis of motivations, methods, and metrics. Presented at the American Society for Engineering
Education / Engineering Libraries Division Annual Conference, Texas.

32. References
Collection Evaluation and Development
• Agee, J. (2005). Collection evaluation: a foundation for collection development. Collection Building, 24(3), 92–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604950510608267
• Borin, J., & Yi, H. (2008). Indicators for collection evaluation: a new dimensional framework. Collection Building, 27(4), 136–143.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913698
• Bushing, M. C. (2001). The evolution of conspectus practice in libraries: the beginnings and the present applications. In CASLIN 2001: Popis a
zpřístupnění dokumentů : nová výzva. Czech Republic: Czech and Slovak Library Information Network. Retrieved from
http://klement.nkp.cz/Caslin/caslin01/sbornik/conspectus.html
• Calvert, P. J. (1997). Collection development and performance measurement. In Collection Management for the 21st Century: A Handbook for Librarians
(pp. 121–133). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Chipp, J. (2018). Developing a collections review framework at the University of Southampton. SCONUL Focus, 70. Retrieved from
https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/28.Developing%20a%20collections%20review.pdf
• Rowley, G., & Black, W. K. (1996). Consequences of change: the evolution of collection development. Collection Building, 15(2), 22–30.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01604959610113879

33. Thank you!