370 likes | 438 Views
ALA PAN Meeting June 28, 2013 “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald The Crack-Up. ConnectNY as a Consortium. Resource Sharing Context
E N D
ALA PAN MeetingJune 28, 2013“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”F. Scott FitzgeraldThe Crack-Up
ConnectNY as a Consortium • Resource Sharing Context • Retrospective Cooperative Collection Management • Prospective Demand-Driven Cooperative Collection Development • Group Functionality and Project Management
Who We Are Membership driven academic consortium:Adelphi University Libraries, Garden City, New York Bard College Libraries, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York Canisius College Libraries, Buffalo, New York Cazenovia College Library, Cazenovia, New York Colgate University Libraries, Hamilton New York Hamilton College Library, Clinton, New York Hobart & William Smith Colleges Library, Geneva, New York Le Moyne College Library, Syracuse, New York Medaille College Libraries, Buffalo, New York Pace University Libraries, New York, New York Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Research Libraries (RPI), Troy, New York Rochester Institute of Technology Libraries (RIT), Rochester, New York St. Lawrence University Libraries, Canton, New York Siena College Library, Loudonville, New York Skidmore College Library, Saratoga Springs, New York Union College Library, Schenectady, New York United States Military Academy Library, West Point, New York Vassar College Libraries, Poughkeepsie, New York
Our History • Initially a grant-driven project started in 2003 with Mellon funding • Grew from 5 to 10 libraries during 2003-2005, 15 libraries by 2010 • Recently added 3 non-III libraries that use the Voyage ILS system • Incorporated within NY as a non-profit – formal 501(c)3 status • Formal legal bylaws, Memorandum of Understanding
Our Mission “The mission of Connect NY is to share collections, leverage resources, and enhance services through cooperative initiatives and coordinated activities.”
Success in Print World Common union catalog, powered by Innovative Interface’s Inn-Reach system Combined collection of over 9 million books High “uniqueness” factor Direct consortial borrowing (DCB) feature in all member catalogs, patron initiated resource sharing, LAND delivery 2009/2010 – shared over 40,000 books CNY RapidILL article delivery
ConnectNY Year-to-Date • Number of Participating Institutions 18 + CRL • Total Bibliographic Records 5,710,129 • Total Item Records 10,612,194 • Total Requests 27,852 • Total Fulfillments 26,196 • Fill-Rate 94% • Value of Material Shared* $1,309,800 • Based on an average value of $50 per item to select, order, receive, pay for, process, and shelve an item.
2011/12 Fiscal Year Stats for CNY-Rapid Participants:Borrowing Requests Processed: 24,397 Filled: 23,270 Percentage filled: 95.4% Average turnaround time: 12.3 HOURS • Lending Requests • Received: 32,572 • Filled: 23,632 • Percentage filled: 72.6% • Average turnaround time: 12.2 HOURS • In 2012, Rapid has expanded to include book chapter requesting !
New Frontier • To investigate methods of purchasing e‐book content on a consortial level, thereby enhancing the group’s collective purchasing power. • To initiate and evaluate patron‐driven acquisition of e‐books and to determine its long term potential. • To explore the ways in which the union catalog could be utilized to provide access to electronic resources in general and in particular to identify the best way(s) that the ConnectNY system can be used as a platform for the acquisition of e‐book content. Ebooks Pilot Project
Pilot Project Outcomes • Gained a better understanding of patron behavior with regard to patron‐driven acquisitions. • Purchased a total of 581 titles with 75% used by more than 1 library. • Cost per Use: $23.00 (compares favorably to single ILL cost) • Broad range of subject areas purchased, including materials not anticipated by pilot members.
Lessons Learned • Data indicates that patrons have accepted e-books and will make selections that may have been overlooked in the traditional librarian selection model. • Disproved theory that liberal arts schools are tied to print and won’t accept e-books. Top fours users included Colgate and Vassar as well as RIT and RPI. • Disproved theory that readers do not read large portions of e-books online. There were several views of 40 pages or more, including sessions where over 100 pages were viewed. • PDA project management requires a broad range of expertise, including collection development, reference, systems, acquisitions and cataloging. • Preferred business model will support short term loans as well as triggered purchases.
Next Phase Selection of vendor 4 potential vendors Coutts, EBL, ebrary, Ebsco Timeframe for selection – about 5 months Vendor selected: EBL Criteria • Competitive pricing. • Maturity of the product. • Flexibility in setting the purchase trigger. • Unlimited simultaneous use, particularly important in the consortial environment. • Perpetual access to the purchased books without any annual maintenance fee.
Technical Issues Implementation • Obtaining adequate records • Limiting selection pool to desired criteria • Loading records in a consortia environment • Varying experience levels with record loading • Insuring only 1 record shows up in union catalog
Communications • Wiki (documents) • BaseCamp (messaging) • FAQ on CNY website • ListServs
How’s It Going? 6,060 academic titles used by CNY patrons • Short term loans: $91,325 (5,610 titles) • Purchased books: $99,263 (450 titles) As of May 13, 2013
Use of Purchased PDA Titles by Number of Institutions As of 4/12/13
CNY Shared Print Trust • Group-wide approach to deselecting monographs • Analyze circulation and redundancy • Share preservation & archiving responsibility • Coordinate any action with development of retention commitments, last copies policies • Satisfy both archiving and service needs • Explore overlap with Cornell and CNY peers, and Hathi Trust public domain titles
CNY Shared Print TrustMemorandum of Understanding • Developed by Sam Demas, library consultant, working with a CNY steering committee • Principles in drafting: • Generous in spirit, broad in conception • Accommodate a range of future projects/genres • Try to make it possible for all members to sign • But not every member will participate in every project • Every CNY member will share in the benefits even if not every member opts in to become a Trust Participant
MOU Components • 1. Purpose and description: • Purpose: to provide new options for sharing the costs and effort of long-term retention of low use library materials • Official program of CNY • A cooperative framework based on • A Last Copy Policy • A series of future projects to which members can opt-in • Separate genre/project-specific guidelines • 2. Eligibility and participation • All members are eligible, but signing is not a requirement of CNY membership • Signing MOU makes one a Trust Participant (T.P.) • All members, T.P. or not, share in the benefits
MOU Components • 3. Governance • CNY Council is governing board • Council appoints a Steering Committee • 4. Selection • Guided by Last Copy Policy and project/genre specific guidelines and procedures that will be developed for each project. • Copies retained in trust are complete and in reasonable condition
MOU Components • 5. Location, ownership and retention commitment • Distributed archive • Contributing library retains ownership • 25 year retention commitment • 6. Withdrawal of materials from member collections • Members free to withdraw what they wish, • Those who opt in to become Trust Participants agree to follow the “Last Copy Policy”
Original Shared Print Scenarios CRITERIA 28
Allocation of withdrawal candidates (Scenario 1a) • 548,314 allocable withdrawal candidates • How many are on each library’s shelves? • How does that match each library’s withdrawal target? • How do we divide them equitably? • Proportionately to withdrawal candidates? • Proportionately to collection size? • How do we reconcile disparities? Sustainablecollections.com
Trading Allocation Slots • Some libraries have withdrawal targets that are higher than their allocable candidates (e.g., Adelphi) • Some libraries have withdrawal targets that are lower than their allocable candidates (e.g., Vassar) • Vassar could offer allocable candidate “credits” above its goal to others • Library receiving credit can only withdraw to its own Withdrawal Candidate ceiling
High-level project schedule You Are Here Sustainablecollections.com
Closing Thoughts “No technology, not even one as elegant as the book, lasts forever” Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO of Amazon.com From The Late Age of Print: Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control • Why Now? • Transitions • Stewardship • Cooperation • Challenges