levine-clark, michael, “analyzing and describing collection use to inform storage decisions at the...
DESCRIPTION
Levine-Clark, Michael, “Analyzing and Describing Collection Use to Inform Storage Decisions at the University of Denver,” Statistics & Reports: Data Driven Decision Making Pre Conference, ALCTS Acquisitions Section. Invited. American Library Association, Las Vegas, June 27, 2014.TRANSCRIPT
ANALYZING AND DESCRIBING COLLECTION USE TO INFORM STORAGE DECISIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Statistics & Reports: Data Driven Decision Making Pre-Conference
Las Vegas
June 27, 2014
Michael Levine-Clark
Timeline
• Penrose Library, 1972• Planning for new library, 2002-2008• Authorization for project, 2010
• Smaller collection footprint• ALL collections to high-density storage during project
• Permanent storage = size-sorted• Temporary storage = call number sorted
• Break ground, July 2011
Timeline
• Penrose Library, 1972• Planning for new library, 2002-2008• Authorization for project, 2010• Planning for collections, 2010• New vision – smaller collection footprint, spring 2011• New collection plan by library• Faculty committee charged with recommending a third collection plan
Timeline
• Penrose Library, 1972• Planning for new library, 2002-2008• Authorization for project, 2010• Planning for collections, 2010• New vision – smaller collection footprint, spring 2011
• Break ground – July 2011• Project completion – March 2013
Collection Locations Pre-Renovation
• Penrose Library• Built in 1972
• PASCAL • Shared storage facility with University of Colorado System
• Campus storage (Mary Reed Building)
• Music Library• Law Library
Collection Size – Linear Feet
Penrose; 108,502
Mary Reed; 3,187
PASCAL; 27,397
Collection Locations Post-Renovation
• Anderson Academic Commons• (The renovated, renamed Penrose Library)
• Hampden Center• High-density storage• 10 miles from campus• 3-hour delivery
The Initial Plan (until Spring 2011) • Renovated library
• 75% of monographs• Excluding monographs with 0 circulations (post-1997) published before
• 1950 (humanities)• 1980-2000 (social sciences, science, technology)
• 10% of serials (mostly image-heavy)
• New storage facility• 25% of monographs• 90% of serials• 100% of government documents• 100% of microforms• 95% of boxed archival collections
The Big Picture (original plan)
Upper level• 25000 sf of books• Perimeter seating
Main level• All services and seating• Staff areas
Lower level• 25000 sf of books• Some seating
Upper level• Seating and staff areas
Main level• Seating and service points
Lower level• 15K – 20K sf of Collections• Seating
Pre-renovation After completion
The Big Picture
Upper level• 25000 sf of books• Perimeter seating
Main level• All services and seating• Staff areas
Lower level• 25000 sf of books• Some seating
Upper level• Seating and staff areas
Main level• Seating and service points
Lower level• 15K – 20K sf of Collections• Seating
Pre-renovation After completion
The Library Plan, orHow Do You Plan for 20%
•Assumptions:• Need recognizable rules• Provide collections for all disciplines• Take usage into account• Require minimal maintenance
Library Recommendation (20%)
•Core collection:• Imprint date of 2003 and later in most disciplines
• Except those available as e-books.
• Five or more circulations since 1997, any imprint date
• 2900 LF of the art and art history books and journals
• Total: 19,900 LF
A Faculty Committee
Charge: to make a data-driven decision about the right mix of seating and collections on the lower level of the renovated library.
Representatives from (mostly) humanities and social sciences.
The questions:
• What is the purpose of an on-campus collection?• What criteria should be used to shape an on-campus collection?
• (Why) should it be larger than 20% of the monographs proposed by the Chancellor and the Board?
• Which data should be considered in supporting recommendations?
COLLECTIONS DATA
Collection Size – Volumes/Items
Books; 1,186,211
Journals; 252,512
Spec Coll Books; 35,407
Gov Docs; 604,702
Microforms; 1,367,533
Penrose Collection – Linear Feet
78,919
17,591
2,163
2,2513,883 3,695
BooksJournalsGov DocsSpec Coll BooksSpec Coll BoxesMicroforms
Digital Collection Size
eBooks; 1,060,043
eJournals (ti-tles); 95,570
Gov Docs; 594,431
Other eResources; 30,189
Collections Budget, FY 2010Expense Type Expenditure Percentage
Databases/Journal Packages $1,965,042.00
eJournals $842,737.00
Print/Electronic Journals $130,043.00
Total Electronic Subscriptions
$2,937,822.00 89.2%
Total Subscriptions $3,294,652.00
One-Time Electronic Purchases
$721,896.00
Total Electronic Spending $3,659,718.00 67.3%
Print Monographs $883,167.00
Special Collections $343,013.00
Videos $59,626.00
Total Collections Budget $5,439,134.00
Volumes AddedFY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10
Volumes Added
27,442 29,240 26,406 24,804 21,356
Vols Withdrawn
11,035 9,201 1,915 988 1,327
Net Increase 16,407 20,039 24,491 23,816 20,029
Types of Use, FY 2010• Circulation 125,886• ILL Borrowing 4,094• Prospector Borrowing 14,675
• Total Checkouts to DU 144,655• ILL Lending 4,015• Prospector Lending 26,339
• Total Resource Sharing 30,354• Reshelving 15,758
Circulation of Monographs
• Circulation of entire collection, 1997-present• % Circulated 44.8%• Avg Circ/Title 1.22• % Circulated FY 10, FY 11 2.6%
Circulation, Books Cataloged 2000-2004 (n=126,953)
0 Circ; 40%
1 Circ; 21%
2 Circ; 13%
3 Circ; 8%
4+ Circ; 19%
Circulation, Books Published 1950(n=4,036)
0 Circ; 71%
1 Circ; 19%
2 Circ; 6%3 Circ; 2% 4+ Circ; 3%
Highest Circulation by LC Class (1997-Present)LC Class Items % Circulated Avg
Circ/Title% Circ FY10, FY11
R (Medicine) 25,565 59.6% 2.17 2.8%
B (Philos, Psych, Religion)
65,275 55.3% 1.65 3.9%
N (Fine Arts) 35,103 54.7% 1.48 3.2%
L (Education) 28,487 52.8% 1.48 3.1%
K (Law) 7,254 52.3% 1.64 2.7%
E (History - Americas)
32,734 50.6% 1.34 2.6%
G (Geog, Anthro, Rec)
26,035 50.5% 1.50 4.0%
S (Agriculture) 4,309 49.8% 1.18 3.6%
U (Military Science) 6,715 48.5% 1.20 3.3%
H (Social Sciences) 161,244 47.9% 1.50 2.6%
F (History – Americas)
21,130 45.1% 1.09 2.7%
Lowest Circulation by LC Class (1997-Present)
LC Class Items % Circulated Avg Circ/Title
% Circ FY10, FY11
A (General Works) 15,538 12.4% 0.30 0.7%
Z (Bibliography, Lib & Info Sci, Info Resources)
21,978 26.0% 0.76 1.1%
M (Music) 912 32.2% 0.74 0.9%
V (Naval Sciences) 1,058 37.0% 0.66 1.3%
Q (Science) 80,876 37.0% 0.81 1.7%
C (Aux Sciences of Hist)
6,311 39.6% 1.06 2.9%
P (Lang & Lit) 206,636 40.9% 0.97 2.1%
T (Technology) 40,321 43.0% 1.01 2.5%
D (History – World) 80,024 43.7% 1.08 2.5%
J (Political Science) 38,681 43.9% 1.32 3.3%
70,054 titles lent in 2010, by publication date
1900-1999
1910-1919
1920-1929
1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2011
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70,054 titles lent in 2010, by publication date
1900-1999
1910-1919
1920-1929
1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2011
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70,054 titles lent in 2010, by publication date
1900-1999
1910-1919
1920-1929
1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2011
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
On-Site Collection Goals?
• A starting point for undergraduate research papers• Serendipitous discovery (browsing) that will result in some material
• Immediate access for people who can’t wait to get something
• Something for everyone across all disciplines, supporting teaching
• Something for heaviest users: AHSS • Material to support research when only browsing works
THE SURVEY
Faculty: why do you visit the print collection?
• Two dominant browsing patterns for faculty:• A known item search, then find additional material on the
shelf • Go directly to “your” shelf location to browse for materials
• In addition, it is common (48%) for faculty members to visit in order to look up something specific in a specific title.
Students: Why do you go to the stacks?
• 14% do not use the print collection• 6% always use Request It• 67% browse for a course assignment• 44% browse for creative inspiration• 74% are going after a specific book• 41% need to look up a fact or passage in a book• 13% described other reasons
• Look for one book and find a lot of others• Reading for pleasure• Personal reading• Practicing language skills• To relax
Faculty: collection use for research
• 65% say books are primary research resources.• 68% use books to find specific information • 66% use books to update or refresh knowledge and 80% use books to expand knowledge
• Comments illustrate very high levels of concern about these modes of inquiry becoming so inconvenient that
inquiry itself will be disrupted, reduced, or even impossible.
How many Linear Feet for assignments?
• Clearly, all books in each call number would not be needed, but that’s how we counted.
• We did not include responses such as “all collections” or “all literature.”
• We added up linear feet for topics specified by respondents.• All areas of the collection are used in teaching.
73,000 LF
Faculty: What (specifically) should be returned to the new library?
70,041 LF
• Responses range from “everything” to “all literary criticism” to works by a specific author.
• Many responses show the extent to which teaching and research is interdisciplinary: gender studies, race studies, multicultural therapy, history of literacy, or church/art/social history.
• We excluded responses such as “all collections” or “all literature.”
Faculty: when is a 3-hour delivery OK (i.e. what can be stored?)
• Some respondents said there is nothing for which a 3 hour delivery time is OK; it diminishes browsing.
• 49% said we could store anything that had never been checked out.
• 49% said low use books were OK to store. • 60% approve storing the paper version of an e-book.• 34% thought we could store the book if the catalog record includes a table of contents online.
Key concepts from comments
• For some students and faculty little concern about storing collections.
HOWEVER• The vast majority of respondents, both students and faculty, very unhappy, worried, angry, upset, or concerned about the decision to store most of the book collections.
• Few worry about turnaround time; most regret loss of browsing.
Key concepts
• Some collection uses CANNOT be done by requesting known items. Examples from the survey are:• Image/photo/illustration searching within books (hence our
recommendation that we return the art books)• Assessment of degree of difficulty of non-English Language fiction• Choosing older volumes on the basis of presentation (font, format)
THE DISCUSSION
What would a subject collection look like?
50% Scenario
• Would accommodate 39,500 LF• Subtracting the core collection of 19,900 leaves 19,600 for flexible collections.
• Seating loss (compared to the 30% scenario) of about 120 seats.
• Which 19,600 LF?
What data support this scenario?
Data Points
• 80% of circulation = books published in last 30 years• 40% of recent books will circulate 2 or more times• Users of visually-heavy material (especially art history) browse in ways that other disciplines don’t
Recommendation• Books published since 1983, excluding e-books, duplicates,
older editions 32,000 LF
• Books published before 1983, checked out 2 or more times
4,419 LF
• Heavily-illustrated materials, excluding the above two categories
3,000 LF
• Total size of on-site collection 39,419 LF• Percentage 50%
1972 2013
• Finite space, tightly packed
• Code records for storage based on criteria• Allows for
shifting when needed
MANAGING A SMALLER LOCAL COLLECTION
iCode Disposition Action
0 Needs evaluation Periodic review based on criteria
10 Storage Can be stored when needed
12 Academic Commons, but needs review for ebook, edition (could move to storage)
Check for ebook availability, newer editions
20 Academic Commons Review on broad criteria (age, circulation)
29 New Book Area Can move to 10, 12, 20
EVERY BOOK IN ITS PLACE
• Easy: When it’s time to shift, search for iCode 10
• Fast: Allows staff to quickly meet space needs
• Policy-Driven: Based on established criteria
• Flexible: Code and note can be revised based on faculty or selector input
PRE-CODING ALLOWS FOR EFFICIENT STACKS MANAGEMENT
THANK YOU
Michael Levine-Clark
Associate Dean for Scholarly Communication and Collections Services
University of Denver Libraries