1 / 44

Analysis of Collection Use in the OhioLINK Library Consortium

Analysis of Collection Use in the OhioLINK Library Consortium. Julia A. Gammon, University of Akron Anne T. Gilliland, OhioLINK Edward T. O’Neill, OCLC. In the beginning…. Ohio’s libraries & cooperation Ohio College Library Center (OCLC) OhioLINK. 1987 Library Study Committee Report.

snana
Download Presentation

Analysis of Collection Use in the OhioLINK Library Consortium

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analysis of Collection Use in the OhioLINK Library Consortium Julia A. Gammon, University of Akron Anne T. Gilliland, OhioLINK Edward T. O’Neill, OCLC

  2. In the beginning…. • Ohio’s libraries & cooperation • Ohio College Library Center (OCLC) • OhioLINK

  3. 1987 Library Study Committee Report • 3 Recommendations: • Create a book depository system • Create a statewide electronic catalog • Appoint a steering committee

  4. OhioLINK Planning Paper • Coordination in purchasing of shared collections • Expanded access to electronic information • Improved access to information infrastructure • Promotion of scholarly communications • Improved economies in purchase of electronic resources

  5. OhioLINK’s Philosophy • User Empowerment–No Mediation • Abundant--Not rationed access • Universal—Not selected access • Integrated—Not segregated access • Leveraged spending • Cooperation—Not parochial orientation

  6. Who belongs to OhioLINK? • 87 members • 16 public universities • 23 community/technical colleges • 47 private colleges • State Library • Testing Public and School Libraries

  7. What do we share? • 600,000+ Users • 46 Million Shared Catalog Records • 4,500 Simultaneous Users • 140 Electronic Research Databases • 12,000 Electronic Journals • 25,000 E-books • 14,000 Electronic Theses & Dissertation • Thousands of images, videos and sounds

  8. Circulation of Materials • 46 million items (27 million books) to pick from • 120 delivery sites • Patron initiated • Delivered to patron selected site • 48 hours

  9. Materials Delivered Around State

  10. OhioLINK’s Collection Building Task Force Charge • To reduce duplication • To increase local collection development activities • To expand the amount spent on cooperative purchases • To move beyond books…

  11. Collection Building Task Force History • 1997 Discussion began • 1998 Wrote statewide RFP • 1998 Selected vendor—YBP • 1999 Coordination projects began

  12. OhioLINK’s Current Tools for CCD YBP’s Gobi GobiTween “Not Bought” Lists Peer reports Management reports Subject groups Cooperative projects Road Shows

  13. Books: How Many Copies Do We Need?

  14. Collection Assessment • “Selling” CCD without data • Informed decisions • Questions: What do we want to know? • Commercial products • OCLC Office of Research

  15. Collection Analysis Information Needed • Is our OhioLINK collection getting more diverse? • Is duplication of titles increasing or decreasing? • What does the complete overall OhioLINK collection look like? • What books didn’t we purchase? (Not Bought in Ohio or ILL stats?) • Does the 80/20 rule (80% of users’ needs are satisfied by 20% of the collection) apply?

  16. OhioLINK-OCLC Research Project • Project Goal • Collect, analyze and compare book circulation data from all OhioLINK libraries • Use OCLC #, ISBN or LCCN to link circulation records to WorldCat bib records

  17. 2. Data Collection

  18. UCB Study vs. OhioLINK Study • Similar basic design • OhioLINK study includes items that do not circulate and more kinds of books • Neither could separate Inn-Reach transactions • Each is a snapshot

  19. WorldCat Linking • For records with a valid OCLC No., the OCLC No. is used as the link • For records with an obsolete OCLC No., the obsolete OCLC No. is replaced with current OCLC No. • For records without an OCLC No. but with either a LCCN and/or an ISBN the LCCN (preferred) or the ISBN to identify the corresponding WorldCat record and find the OCLC No. • Records lacking an OCLC number, LCCN, or ISBN could not be validated

  20. Design for Data Collection • Keep output simple for libraries • Libraries output circulation information • OCLC matches with richer bibliographic information from World Cat • OCLC filters some records

  21. Testing • Testing throughout much of 2006 and early 2007 • Wright State University and several community colleges • Refined instructions and matching techniques

  22. Publicity • Project needs widespread support • Sufficient notice and time to complete • Support from staff at many levels • Areas of concern

  23. Data Collection • April 29-May 27, 2007 • Excellent participation rate • 27,002,190 item records • Snapshot

  24. WorldCat Linking • Validating link • The title from the OhioLINK circulation record was compared to the title from the WorldCat record • If the title from the circ record was similar to the title in the WorldCat record, the record was validated • Determining material type • Only books and manuscripts were included • Material type was based on fixed fields codes in the WorldCat records (bib lvl = m and type = a or t)

  25. WorldCat Linking Records Received … 33,146,008 Records Validated … 30,718,454 (92.7%) Validated Books …… 27,002,190 (81.5%)

  26. 3. Analysis

  27. Caution! • Only first phase of the data collection is complete • Results are preliminary; revisions and corrections will occur

  28. Most Held Libraries: 68 Copies: 109 Circulations: 99

  29. Most Copies The National union catalog, pre-1956 imprints Libraries: 12 Copies: 9,542 Circulations: 9

  30. Most Circulated Libraries: 6 Copies: 92 Circulations: 6,023

  31. Group One FRBR Entities Work A distinct intellectual or artistic creation Is realized through The intellectual or artistic realization of a work Expression The physical embodiment of an expression Manifestation Is embodied in Item A single exemplar of a manifestation Is exemplified by

  32. Holdings vs. Circulations

  33. Subject Distribution Number of Items

  34. Duplication by Subject No. of Copies

  35. Circulation by Subject Circulation per Item

  36. Age of Subject Collections Median Publication Date

  37. Hot Subjects • Computer Science (QA 75-76) • Women, Feminism, Life Skills, Life Style (HQ 1101-2044) • Medicine: Special Subjects (R 690-920) • Buddhism (BQ) • Nursing (RT) • Broadcasting (PN 1990-1992)

  38. Language Distribution 24,386,814 Number of Items

  39. Usage Distribution 12.86% (788,483) % of Circulation % of Books

  40. Annual Collection Growth Max 114,375 (2000) No. of Manifestations Added Publication Date

  41. Duplication Rate Average No. of Copies Publication Date

  42. Circulation

  43. Median Publication Date

  44. Questions? This presentation is available at: http://platinum.ohiolink.edu/cbtf/oclcres.ppt.

More Related