It's a question that probably won't go away for awhile, especially for books. However, for journals I had thought perhaps that question had been answered. At least it seemed so at my previous job. There we had a collection development policy that clearly stated that for journals the preferred format was electronic. While it was the preferred format, it was also acknowledged that electronic isn't necessarily the best format. In many disciplines, Art comes to mind, electronic isn't always the best format and in some cases isn't an option.
So, I start the new job. Budget is looking static for the coming year (something I'm used to) and one of the ideas to reduce spending is to drop the print journals. It seems that for most titles we had electronic and print subscriptions and in some cases (as in newspapers) also receive the microfilm. Up to three formats for some titles and two for most. By going electronic only (mircofilm was addressed separately), the savings weren't as great as I'd hoped, but they were fairly substantial. My big surprise, though, was the response of the reference librarians. The term cancellation was bandied about as if they were losing content rather than a format, which is how they viewed it. Several pointed out that they showed the journal in instruction sessions. The actual journal. While I applaud this, the question I wanted to ask was if they also showed them the online version. We're not open 24/7 and I think it's just as important for the student to know how to access the online version as it is to see the print version.
For me it was a no brainer, if you subscribe electronically drop the print. I'd just gone through this exercise before leaving my old job (converting many print subscriptions to online and a few that were print+online to online only). There was concern for how the faculty would take it. So, it was decided that we would send a letter to faculty advising them of what were doing because we couldn't "cancel" subscriptions (read: formats) without telling them. I gently reminded them that we weren't going to be losing any content. In the end one faculty member requested that one title be retained in print. The majority didn't even respond to the letter. I'm betting a good number of them didn't even know we were still getting some of those titles in print.
We only cancelled titles that we have electronic subscriptions to or that we could subscribe to electronically. I've always thought that one should think twice before cancelling a title held in an aggregator's database and it's because of a lesson learned the hard way. However, as it appears the budget will be tight this year, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe there aren't some titles held in an aggregators database that could be cancelled. There's always the risk the aggregator will drop the title (as happened with lesson learned the hard way) yet many aggregators are fairly stable with their content and some titles, while nice to have, are not core to our programs. Other titles in the same aggregators database or another database could probably fill the need if the title in question was dropped. It's something I'm still mulling over, but I wonder if that would be a better solution that not purchasing books, which I know some libraries have been forced to do due to budgets.
Showing posts with label collection analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collection analysis. Show all posts
November 28, 2008
June 23, 2008
Library Statistics...
I'm in the process of writing an evaluation for my assigned areas based on the usage statistics we recently did (see Evaluating Usage). While I was writing this up, I got off on a semi-tanget to find out if there were any standards for percentages of collections that should circulate. If there are, I couldn't find them.
Among the places I looked was ACRL and their standards for Academic Libraries. They basically aim for comparison with peers rather than setting a number or a goal to aim for, so to speak. And, they suggest ratios. Several of them actually. When applied to a small sub-set such as what I'm looking at, well, it's sad and a little depressing.
Then I came across the Library Statistics Program from the National Center for Education Statistics. Interesting website. I did compare my library with several others. Not sure what to do with it, but it is late on a Monday afternoon. It will come to me.
I still don't know if there is a benchmark I should be aiming for or if it really matters. Maybe what matters is knowing how much is circulating, especially since I'm looking at a very specific set of titles. Unofficially, I've selected 30% for my benchmark. If anyone else is doing anything like this, I'd like to hear from you regarding what your library considers good circulation, i.e. 30%, 40%, 50%.
Among the places I looked was ACRL and their standards for Academic Libraries. They basically aim for comparison with peers rather than setting a number or a goal to aim for, so to speak. And, they suggest ratios. Several of them actually. When applied to a small sub-set such as what I'm looking at, well, it's sad and a little depressing.
Then I came across the Library Statistics Program from the National Center for Education Statistics. Interesting website. I did compare my library with several others. Not sure what to do with it, but it is late on a Monday afternoon. It will come to me.
I still don't know if there is a benchmark I should be aiming for or if it really matters. Maybe what matters is knowing how much is circulating, especially since I'm looking at a very specific set of titles. Unofficially, I've selected 30% for my benchmark. If anyone else is doing anything like this, I'd like to hear from you regarding what your library considers good circulation, i.e. 30%, 40%, 50%.
June 05, 2008
Evaluating usage....
Gads. I didn't expect it to be this long between posts. However, the job does sometimes take over. The past several weeks I have been working on usage statistics. Bascially, the question is: how well are we doing with regards to what we are ordering? We started last year with FY 2005/06 and this year ran those stats again as well as for FY 2006/07. We run them by department, then I compile overall (or summary) stats for the collection as a whole. I was especially pleased this year because the report was modified to indicate whether a title was recieved on approval or from a firm order. I wasn't able to look at this last year.
The results are interesting. FY 2005/2006 is looking at two years of data. Overall, we have thus far circulated 45% of the materials ordered during that FY. That was up a little over 10% from the first year. For FY 2006/2007 we circulated about 1% less than the previous year, but we also ordered less. The interesting statistic, to me anyway, is that while a small number of titles seem to circulate, a high number of them circulate multiple times. This was almost across the board for all departments.
Approval vs. firm order. How did we fare? Well, in most cases firm orders ciruclated more than the approvals. Interestingly, in several departments where overall firm orders circulated more than approval, the titles with the highest circulation had more approval than firm order. We also saw this in reverse.
I'm not sure what one should hope for. More approvals circulating? More firm orders circulating? Or, maybe 50/50. Anyway, what does one glean from this? Well, several of my funds had approvals circulating more than firm orders. What I took away was that my approval plan was good. No tweaking needed. Perhaps, though, I should tweak my firm orders. I'm still working on a plan for this. Where approvals aren't circulating as much as firm orders, I'm thinking those plans need to be reviewed. It's my understanding that the approval plans haven't been reviewed in several years, so it's time to do that anyway.
For the curious, we ran the initial reports in Voyager and did the analysis in Excel. Fortunately, I'm fascinated by statistics, so it's somewhat of a fun exercise for me.
The results are interesting. FY 2005/2006 is looking at two years of data. Overall, we have thus far circulated 45% of the materials ordered during that FY. That was up a little over 10% from the first year. For FY 2006/2007 we circulated about 1% less than the previous year, but we also ordered less. The interesting statistic, to me anyway, is that while a small number of titles seem to circulate, a high number of them circulate multiple times. This was almost across the board for all departments.
Approval vs. firm order. How did we fare? Well, in most cases firm orders ciruclated more than the approvals. Interestingly, in several departments where overall firm orders circulated more than approval, the titles with the highest circulation had more approval than firm order. We also saw this in reverse.
I'm not sure what one should hope for. More approvals circulating? More firm orders circulating? Or, maybe 50/50. Anyway, what does one glean from this? Well, several of my funds had approvals circulating more than firm orders. What I took away was that my approval plan was good. No tweaking needed. Perhaps, though, I should tweak my firm orders. I'm still working on a plan for this. Where approvals aren't circulating as much as firm orders, I'm thinking those plans need to be reviewed. It's my understanding that the approval plans haven't been reviewed in several years, so it's time to do that anyway.
For the curious, we ran the initial reports in Voyager and did the analysis in Excel. Fortunately, I'm fascinated by statistics, so it's somewhat of a fun exercise for me.
January 18, 2008
Comparing Collections....
One of the best sessions I attended in Charleston was presented by three librarians from Charleston College, Michael Phillips, Robert Neville, and Marth Stackel. The session: How Different Are You? Analyzing/Comparing Your Collection with Others: WorldCat Techniques in the Expert Mode. To be honest, I'd never thought of using the Expert Search in WorldCat - that blank box can be scary. Not only did they use it, but they used it to compare their collections in various subject areas with other similar or "goal" institutions.
As noted in previous postings, MPOW was evaluating collection analysis tools (Library Dynamics and WorldCat Collection Analysis). My concern with the expenditure was that we hadn't defined how we were going to use said product once we got it. So, I loved this session. Using the Expert Search mode will help me to get my feet wet and determine exactly how I would want to use such a tool.
After returning from the conference, I wasn't sure where to start with my new found knowledge. Then, opportunity presented itself. We received funding from our county to house a second county law library (in addition to the one at the court house). That funding is being withdrawn (everyone has budget issues). So, our directive was to evaluate what we have versus what we need to support our programs and our faculty and staff. It was decided to evaluate the legal collection as whole once our collection development policy for this area was defined. One of the things we decided to do was compare our legal holdings with those of peer institutions in the state. I narrowed the subject area to LC range KF and identified a couple of peer instituitons with Criminal Justice programs (there are other areas, but I started with this one). I followed the basic formula from the examples given in the Charleston Conference session as these parameters fit my needs, though I will be exploring the other limiters available. The one thing that doesn't seem to work for me is limiting by a year range. If I use or (i.e. 2007 OR 2008), that works, but not 2007-2008. However, once the results are listed, I am able to go in a limit the results further by date, which lets me enter a date range or pick from a date list. The date list also shows the number of titles that match the query for each year, which I like. I found that if I compare to more than two schools, it appears to handle date range differently, but I can't be sure. I've done a couple of different versions of my query and have gotten some strange results, but I'm chalking that up to operator error.
Overall, I'm happy with the search results. I would recommend writing out the query in advance (as the presenters also recommended) due to the time out feature in WorldCat. I'd also recommend creating a personal WorldCat account to save the searches. The one thing you can't do (which WorldCat Collection Analysis does do) is export to Excel. As a matter of fact, the export is tied to a text file (very messy and not delimited) or EndNotes or RefWorks. Basically, citation exporting. I did export to RefWorks and then exported from RefWorks to Excel. Kind of clunky. I also discovered that you must pay attention to what you're exporting in both programs and that RefWorks exports a lot.
If you've been thinking about comparing your collection to others, but haven't yet purchased a collection analysis tool, I heartily recommend giving this a go.
As noted in previous postings, MPOW was evaluating collection analysis tools (Library Dynamics and WorldCat Collection Analysis). My concern with the expenditure was that we hadn't defined how we were going to use said product once we got it. So, I loved this session. Using the Expert Search mode will help me to get my feet wet and determine exactly how I would want to use such a tool.
After returning from the conference, I wasn't sure where to start with my new found knowledge. Then, opportunity presented itself. We received funding from our county to house a second county law library (in addition to the one at the court house). That funding is being withdrawn (everyone has budget issues). So, our directive was to evaluate what we have versus what we need to support our programs and our faculty and staff. It was decided to evaluate the legal collection as whole once our collection development policy for this area was defined. One of the things we decided to do was compare our legal holdings with those of peer institutions in the state. I narrowed the subject area to LC range KF and identified a couple of peer instituitons with Criminal Justice programs (there are other areas, but I started with this one). I followed the basic formula from the examples given in the Charleston Conference session as these parameters fit my needs, though I will be exploring the other limiters available. The one thing that doesn't seem to work for me is limiting by a year range. If I use or (i.e. 2007 OR 2008), that works, but not 2007-2008. However, once the results are listed, I am able to go in a limit the results further by date, which lets me enter a date range or pick from a date list. The date list also shows the number of titles that match the query for each year, which I like. I found that if I compare to more than two schools, it appears to handle date range differently, but I can't be sure. I've done a couple of different versions of my query and have gotten some strange results, but I'm chalking that up to operator error.
Overall, I'm happy with the search results. I would recommend writing out the query in advance (as the presenters also recommended) due to the time out feature in WorldCat. I'd also recommend creating a personal WorldCat account to save the searches. The one thing you can't do (which WorldCat Collection Analysis does do) is export to Excel. As a matter of fact, the export is tied to a text file (very messy and not delimited) or EndNotes or RefWorks. Basically, citation exporting. I did export to RefWorks and then exported from RefWorks to Excel. Kind of clunky. I also discovered that you must pay attention to what you're exporting in both programs and that RefWorks exports a lot.
If you've been thinking about comparing your collection to others, but haven't yet purchased a collection analysis tool, I heartily recommend giving this a go.
July 20, 2007
Journal review
It's nearing our fiscal year end. Add to this the fact that several publishers have drastically increased subscription prices and, you guessed it, we're reviewing journal subscriptions. About the lists: one list is for a move to print only; one list is standing orders for titles that are not available electronically, so we are reviewing to see if we should keep the subscription.
Naturally, usage and cost come into play for both. For those available full-text, the consideration is merely is the usage there. At MPOW, we're definitely moving toward electronic, so print only isn't really an option, even if it is less expensive. In most cases yes, the usage is there. In a couple of cases, no it isn't. For those titles with low usage, I considered where else it was held and given the current usage, is ILL an option. Well, one title had four uses. In addition, I looked at the title's value to the field. So, even though a journal may have low usage, it might not get marked for cancellation if it is considered a top journal in the field.
The second set of journal reviews is the one that was more interesting. Up until now, I'd never really considered stats for journal titles from an indexing and abstracting database, just overall database usage. However, when reviewing journal usage for print subscriptions, it helps to know if it's being used. My OPAC shows "historical browses" for titles, but there is some debate as to how accurate it is. So, I pulled usage stats by title. I was surprised by the results. Titles that seemed obscure in name and had very few browses in the OPAC had heavy usage in the database. Since the stats were returning abstract requests, it doesn't tell if the user actually went to the print journal, but it does tell me that the title is appearing in searches run in these databases. And, most were fairly high, even the "obscure" title.
I've also got one or two titles that don't appear to be indexed in any database we subscribe to, but that have fairly high browses in the OPAC. I'd prefer that my print titles be indexed somewhere, but the OPAC stats tell me that there are people looking for this title. I'm not ready to stop the subscription, but I can't really say I should look at purchasing a database for one title.
Overall, the exercise has been a good one. I think a couple of titles can be cancelled and I have a better feel for the usage on other titles.
Naturally, usage and cost come into play for both. For those available full-text, the consideration is merely is the usage there. At MPOW, we're definitely moving toward electronic, so print only isn't really an option, even if it is less expensive. In most cases yes, the usage is there. In a couple of cases, no it isn't. For those titles with low usage, I considered where else it was held and given the current usage, is ILL an option. Well, one title had four uses. In addition, I looked at the title's value to the field. So, even though a journal may have low usage, it might not get marked for cancellation if it is considered a top journal in the field.
The second set of journal reviews is the one that was more interesting. Up until now, I'd never really considered stats for journal titles from an indexing and abstracting database, just overall database usage. However, when reviewing journal usage for print subscriptions, it helps to know if it's being used. My OPAC shows "historical browses" for titles, but there is some debate as to how accurate it is. So, I pulled usage stats by title. I was surprised by the results. Titles that seemed obscure in name and had very few browses in the OPAC had heavy usage in the database. Since the stats were returning abstract requests, it doesn't tell if the user actually went to the print journal, but it does tell me that the title is appearing in searches run in these databases. And, most were fairly high, even the "obscure" title.
I've also got one or two titles that don't appear to be indexed in any database we subscribe to, but that have fairly high browses in the OPAC. I'd prefer that my print titles be indexed somewhere, but the OPAC stats tell me that there are people looking for this title. I'm not ready to stop the subscription, but I can't really say I should look at purchasing a database for one title.
Overall, the exercise has been a good one. I think a couple of titles can be cancelled and I have a better feel for the usage on other titles.
June 04, 2007
Collection Development effectiveness...
A couple of weeks ago, we (the librarians in my department) were tasked with running reports that would show how many books we ordered in the previous fiscal year, the lag time till checkout, the number of times the title circulated, and the number of times the title was placed on reserve. Then, we were told to go figure usage statistices. We weren't given any specifics, just to go figure what we thought was reasonable and bring it to the librarian's meeting in two weeks.
I love Excel and am fascinated with statistics. So, another librarian and I sat down and did some quick stats. What we chose to look at were the the total items circulated, total circulations, average lag time for an item to circulate, percent of items ordered that circulated, and the number/percent of items that circulated in 30, 90, 120 and more than 120 days. We also looked at the number of video recordings that were ordered and that circulated (number and percentage). For music, we also looked at the number of sound recordings that were ordered and circulated. The numbers were looked at by department and for the last fiscal year.
The results were interesting. In all cases, the circulation numbers were higher than the the total of the items circulated. What this told us was that while a certain percentage circulates (average was about 30% of items ordered circulated), those items generally circulated more than once. In some departments, 50% of the items that circulated circulated more than once. And where videos were ordered, in most cases a high percentage of the videos circulated; 100% circulation in some cases and in one case 0% of the videos ordered circulated. Our highest three departments circulated 67% and 61% of the ordered items. Our lowest circulation for a department was 11%. Overall, 35.41% of what was ordered circulated; 25 out of 42 departments circulated more than 30% of items ordered, three departments circulated more than 50% of ordered items. The average lag time for an item to circulate is about five months. 58.07% of circulated items circulated in 120 days or less. 51.78% of videos ordered circulated - videos accounted for 1.39% of materials ordered, but 2.03% of materials circulated.
I am fascinated by these results and a little heartened. I had stepped up the number of vidoes and multi-media for some of the collections I develop. The numbers show me that the videos that have been ordered in the past are circulating, so ordering more is probably a good thing. What I'm not sure of is if these numbers are good. I did pull the ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004). At a glance they don't give any numbers for circulation, but rather suggest looking at "Ratio of circulation (excluding reserve) to combined student and faculty FTE," and "Ratio of volumes added per year to combined student and faculty FTE." Again, nothing is given as to what would consitute a good number here, but at least it's a guideline. Unfortunately, I don't have the faculty and student numbers for last year, but I'm thinking that it wouldn't be bad to see how those ratios look against what we've already done.
I love Excel and am fascinated with statistics. So, another librarian and I sat down and did some quick stats. What we chose to look at were the the total items circulated, total circulations, average lag time for an item to circulate, percent of items ordered that circulated, and the number/percent of items that circulated in 30, 90, 120 and more than 120 days. We also looked at the number of video recordings that were ordered and that circulated (number and percentage). For music, we also looked at the number of sound recordings that were ordered and circulated. The numbers were looked at by department and for the last fiscal year.
The results were interesting. In all cases, the circulation numbers were higher than the the total of the items circulated. What this told us was that while a certain percentage circulates (average was about 30% of items ordered circulated), those items generally circulated more than once. In some departments, 50% of the items that circulated circulated more than once. And where videos were ordered, in most cases a high percentage of the videos circulated; 100% circulation in some cases and in one case 0% of the videos ordered circulated. Our highest three departments circulated 67% and 61% of the ordered items. Our lowest circulation for a department was 11%. Overall, 35.41% of what was ordered circulated; 25 out of 42 departments circulated more than 30% of items ordered, three departments circulated more than 50% of ordered items. The average lag time for an item to circulate is about five months. 58.07% of circulated items circulated in 120 days or less. 51.78% of videos ordered circulated - videos accounted for 1.39% of materials ordered, but 2.03% of materials circulated.
I am fascinated by these results and a little heartened. I had stepped up the number of vidoes and multi-media for some of the collections I develop. The numbers show me that the videos that have been ordered in the past are circulating, so ordering more is probably a good thing. What I'm not sure of is if these numbers are good. I did pull the ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004). At a glance they don't give any numbers for circulation, but rather suggest looking at "Ratio of circulation (excluding reserve) to combined student and faculty FTE," and "Ratio of volumes added per year to combined student and faculty FTE." Again, nothing is given as to what would consitute a good number here, but at least it's a guideline. Unfortunately, I don't have the faculty and student numbers for last year, but I'm thinking that it wouldn't be bad to see how those ratios look against what we've already done.
April 27, 2007
How much overlap?
I'm currently in the process of reviewing a database and it's usage for renewal while looking at a new product from the same company, and upgrading another database from a different company. Same discipline, but different areas.
The information in the renewing database is specific to a certain group, but I think it is also available in other database's, but the user would have to do a more specific (advanced) search. So, I've looked at several of the other database's we have in this field to see where the overlap might be, while taking into consideration what is offered in other database's we are considering. The questions that are coming to mind: a) how many different ways do you offer the same information (i.e. DataMonitor reports), b) is there a way to define what type of different information or feature would justify the overlap, and c) what criteria should we use to determine what we can drop, taking into account we might lose features and or information, or d) should we not lose anything and go with the overlap?
At previous job, we used Serials Solutions, thus I had access to their wonderful Overlap Analysis tool. Alas, not so here. So, now I'm stuck with the question of the best way to compare overlap of one of the databases under consideration with two other databases, which we subscribe to, offering the same type of information. This time, the database is rather specialized, so it may not be as much of an issue, but what about the next time? After using SS, I really hate think that I might have to go in and (gasp) manually compare the full-text holdings for each database. Gads. It just seems so archaic to me. But, we do what we gotta do and I just may have to.
The information in the renewing database is specific to a certain group, but I think it is also available in other database's, but the user would have to do a more specific (advanced) search. So, I've looked at several of the other database's we have in this field to see where the overlap might be, while taking into consideration what is offered in other database's we are considering. The questions that are coming to mind: a) how many different ways do you offer the same information (i.e. DataMonitor reports), b) is there a way to define what type of different information or feature would justify the overlap, and c) what criteria should we use to determine what we can drop, taking into account we might lose features and or information, or d) should we not lose anything and go with the overlap?
At previous job, we used Serials Solutions, thus I had access to their wonderful Overlap Analysis tool. Alas, not so here. So, now I'm stuck with the question of the best way to compare overlap of one of the databases under consideration with two other databases, which we subscribe to, offering the same type of information. This time, the database is rather specialized, so it may not be as much of an issue, but what about the next time? After using SS, I really hate think that I might have to go in and (gasp) manually compare the full-text holdings for each database. Gads. It just seems so archaic to me. But, we do what we gotta do and I just may have to.
November 02, 2006
Weeding
We have moved forward with our weeding/deselection project. This project is being done working with the departments. We are using WorldCat Collection Analysis to identify titles held in the areas we are weeding. While I think this is a good tool for collection analysis (with lots of patience as it's still not intuitive), I'm not sure if it's good for weeding. I'm not sure it's bad, either.
You can only search by broad subject area, i.e. Sociology. From the matches you can drill down even further. It is easier than building a query in Millenium (III); the problem is there are subjects that may actually fall under a different program area, which means that each "sub" subject area must be exported separately. For example, I limited my query to Sociology and the 1960's (1960-1969). Not all areas were appropriate for my project. I wound up with 10 different spreadsheets since you can only either export at the top level or at each individual level. And, speaking of export, you can only export from WorldCat itself after viewing the list and it only does it in batches of 500. I find this a bit inconvenient. You also can't identify which fields you want to export.
My only other option at this point is to identify the call number areas and build the query in Millenium and then export from Millenium. However, query building in Millenium can be tedious itself and it does have some quirks. Plus, I believe the output in Excel from WorldCat Coll Analysis is cleaner. And, limiting by publication date is easier in WorldCat Coll Analysis.
I had a chance to chat with Bowker about their upcoming product while at the Charleston Conference. I think it will be better at identifying missing recommended titles, but I'm not sure it would be anymore useful for weeding.
Bottom line, this is my first major weeding project. I've had to review the titles pulled from our first round because they overlapped with other departments or we felt they should remain in the collection. I'm limiting areas to consider more, but winding up with a LOT of spreadsheets in the process. WorldCat Coll Analysis makes running the report easier, but it doesn't take all of the work out of the whole project. However, there probably isn't any tool that would do that. After about a month of this, I've decided that WorldCat Coll Analysis provides a good starting point for the weeding projects.
technorati tags: collection analysis weeding deselection
You can only search by broad subject area, i.e. Sociology. From the matches you can drill down even further. It is easier than building a query in Millenium (III); the problem is there are subjects that may actually fall under a different program area, which means that each "sub" subject area must be exported separately. For example, I limited my query to Sociology and the 1960's (1960-1969). Not all areas were appropriate for my project. I wound up with 10 different spreadsheets since you can only either export at the top level or at each individual level. And, speaking of export, you can only export from WorldCat itself after viewing the list and it only does it in batches of 500. I find this a bit inconvenient. You also can't identify which fields you want to export.
My only other option at this point is to identify the call number areas and build the query in Millenium and then export from Millenium. However, query building in Millenium can be tedious itself and it does have some quirks. Plus, I believe the output in Excel from WorldCat Coll Analysis is cleaner. And, limiting by publication date is easier in WorldCat Coll Analysis.
I had a chance to chat with Bowker about their upcoming product while at the Charleston Conference. I think it will be better at identifying missing recommended titles, but I'm not sure it would be anymore useful for weeding.
Bottom line, this is my first major weeding project. I've had to review the titles pulled from our first round because they overlapped with other departments or we felt they should remain in the collection. I'm limiting areas to consider more, but winding up with a LOT of spreadsheets in the process. WorldCat Coll Analysis makes running the report easier, but it doesn't take all of the work out of the whole project. However, there probably isn't any tool that would do that. After about a month of this, I've decided that WorldCat Coll Analysis provides a good starting point for the weeding projects.
technorati tags: collection analysis weeding deselection
August 03, 2006
Figuring out what you need
I've blogged previously (albeit breifly) about WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA). When it came out a year ago, I was excited. I needed something to help weed our collection and appreciated the fact that WCA would sort holdings by publication date. For many subject areas this isn't really an issue, but for those that out date fast, it is. It's also proved helpful when running reports for departments seeking accreditation for new or existing programs.
WCA recently added the ability to compare your holdings to title lists. I was very pleased to see that and excited to give it a go. Well, it does tell me what titles I have that are on the title lists. I believe it also tells me what I don't have. Problem is, I'm having a hard time interpreting the data as WCA is presenting it. This just makes me more anxious to get a peek at Bowker's Book Analysis System for Academic Libraries.
The more I use, the more I realize that WCA does not present results in a intuitive fashion. They do provide documentation, but the examples are of comparisions between peer institutions and not those that are comparisons of title lists. They say it works the same. Then I view the results and, sadly, I'm not sure what I'm looking at.
In talking with another Collection Development Librarian, we discussed it a bit and why some other institutions have chosen not to go with WorldCat Collection Analysis. They weren't sure that the peer comparison was all that beneficial to them, which is a big piece of WCA. I tend to agree. So, now I start to wonder if WCA is redundent. I've been very successful at pulling holdings for my reports from my ILS system. It's a bit more tedious, but I also have the added ability to determine what fields I include in the exported Excel report. It's all standard with WCA.
I'd really like to use the same system to determine what I weed and what recommended titles I'm lacking. The goal is to beef up areas that aren't quite up to par. I'm still not sure WCA won't do this; I'm going to keep plugging away and see what I can come up with.
technorati tags: collection development, book analysis, collection analysis
WCA recently added the ability to compare your holdings to title lists. I was very pleased to see that and excited to give it a go. Well, it does tell me what titles I have that are on the title lists. I believe it also tells me what I don't have. Problem is, I'm having a hard time interpreting the data as WCA is presenting it. This just makes me more anxious to get a peek at Bowker's Book Analysis System for Academic Libraries.
The more I use, the more I realize that WCA does not present results in a intuitive fashion. They do provide documentation, but the examples are of comparisions between peer institutions and not those that are comparisons of title lists. They say it works the same. Then I view the results and, sadly, I'm not sure what I'm looking at.
In talking with another Collection Development Librarian, we discussed it a bit and why some other institutions have chosen not to go with WorldCat Collection Analysis. They weren't sure that the peer comparison was all that beneficial to them, which is a big piece of WCA. I tend to agree. So, now I start to wonder if WCA is redundent. I've been very successful at pulling holdings for my reports from my ILS system. It's a bit more tedious, but I also have the added ability to determine what fields I include in the exported Excel report. It's all standard with WCA.
I'd really like to use the same system to determine what I weed and what recommended titles I'm lacking. The goal is to beef up areas that aren't quite up to par. I'm still not sure WCA won't do this; I'm going to keep plugging away and see what I can come up with.
technorati tags: collection development, book analysis, collection analysis
July 17, 2006
Book Analysis Tools
I do collection development, so I'm always interested in tools that will help me evaluate what I have or don't have. One of the new tools soon to be available to academic libraries is Bowker's Book Analysis System. You must subscribe to the Books in Print database to use this tool. It will compare your library's holdings to ACRL's Resources for College Libraries (which is the update to Books for College Libraries and which will also be available in print and database formats). I've been able to look at the public library version and like what I've seen so far. Not only does it give you results by subject, but you can also view them by call number. You also have many options for limiters, such as award winners, or you can just run the analysis without limiters and take it by sujbect area. While it's Dewey for the public library product, Library of Congress call numbers will be available for the academic product.
I'm comparing this a bit to OCLC's WorldCat Collection Analysis system, which my library subscribes to, and which at times isn't as intuitive as the Bowker product appears to be (remember, I haven't seen the academic version yet). You must have holdings in WorldCat and subscribe to WorldCat. WorldCat Collection Analysis now runs comparisons against Choice Magazine's Outstanding Academic Titles, titles reviewed in Booklist , and Books for College Libraries (1988 ed.). Not sure if they'll upgrade this to the upcoming Resource for College Libraries or not.
WorldCat Collection Analysis also allows you to set up comparison groups, which could be particularly useful when doing accreditation reports for departments. I'm not sure about the Bowker product, but the unfortunate thing about WorldCat Collection Analysis is that a lot of the set up, i.e. which title list to compare to, which schools or institutions to compare to, is all done in the Administration module for WordCat as a whole. Advanced search does allow quite a bit of latitude for limiting the search, but you can't view the results by call number, just by subject heading.
Administration is also a bit awkward. It seems (as far as I can tell), that you can't get to the set-up from the module, which has proved frustrating to me. Maybe not to others. I've finally signed up for their e-mail, but I was a bit puzzled that as the point of contact for our purchase of the WorldCat Collection Analysis, I wasn't automatically put on some list to get product updates. I've found it frustrating to keep up with what they are doing; apparently enhancements are being done on a monthly basis, but unless you get the e-mail or make a habit of going into the admin module or visiting the website, you'll never know. I know it's a powerful tool - I've seen others show it. But, keeping up with it has been hard and it many ways, it's not intuitive. Still, I'm forging ahead because I think this will be an invaluable tool in analyzing my collection.
technorati tags: collection development book analysis
I'm comparing this a bit to OCLC's WorldCat Collection Analysis system, which my library subscribes to, and which at times isn't as intuitive as the Bowker product appears to be (remember, I haven't seen the academic version yet). You must have holdings in WorldCat and subscribe to WorldCat. WorldCat Collection Analysis now runs comparisons against Choice Magazine's Outstanding Academic Titles, titles reviewed in Booklist , and Books for College Libraries (1988 ed.). Not sure if they'll upgrade this to the upcoming Resource for College Libraries or not.
WorldCat Collection Analysis also allows you to set up comparison groups, which could be particularly useful when doing accreditation reports for departments. I'm not sure about the Bowker product, but the unfortunate thing about WorldCat Collection Analysis is that a lot of the set up, i.e. which title list to compare to, which schools or institutions to compare to, is all done in the Administration module for WordCat as a whole. Advanced search does allow quite a bit of latitude for limiting the search, but you can't view the results by call number, just by subject heading.
Administration is also a bit awkward. It seems (as far as I can tell), that you can't get to the set-up from the module, which has proved frustrating to me. Maybe not to others. I've finally signed up for their e-mail, but I was a bit puzzled that as the point of contact for our purchase of the WorldCat Collection Analysis, I wasn't automatically put on some list to get product updates. I've found it frustrating to keep up with what they are doing; apparently enhancements are being done on a monthly basis, but unless you get the e-mail or make a habit of going into the admin module or visiting the website, you'll never know. I know it's a powerful tool - I've seen others show it. But, keeping up with it has been hard and it many ways, it's not intuitive. Still, I'm forging ahead because I think this will be an invaluable tool in analyzing my collection.
technorati tags: collection development book analysis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)