OCLC’s WorldCat Collection Analysis Service Presentation for MAALCO Paul D. Callister, JD, MSLIS Director of the Leon E. Bloch Law Library & Associate Professor of Law UMKC School of Law © 2008, Paul D. Callister, All Rights Reserved http://www1.law.umkc.edu/faculty/callister/presentations/worldcat.col.analysis.3.ppt

Consortium Value How many titles would be “accessible” in a proposed or existing consortium? How many titles does our school have that other schools don’t have? How many titles are held by only one library? What are they? What titles do the top ten law schools have that we collectively don’t have? What do we have that the top ten don’t have? That no one has? How many titles before 1900? How do things look if we just look at titles published in last five years? What do we collectively have for foreign law? For China? For Cuba? What is available in English? What are each school’s strengths? How does our school do against consortium benchmarks with respect to its areas of emphasis? I 29 (2 more schools + 16) I 80 (5 schools) I 70 (7 schools) I 40 (4 schools)

Total Law Class Titles Available How many law class (non-electronic) titles do we have access to? How many are held by only one law library? Total Titles Available Total Law Class Titles Available Comparison of Law Titles Held by One MOBIUS Library Total Law Class Titles Held by One Library

How many law class (non-electronic) titles held by only one library?

This slide compares UMKC to holdings of eight of the Top Ten Law Schools (based on U.S. News & World Report). It is helpful in understanding whether we provide a “core” collection.

To improve our “core” collection, I downloaded all 3742 titles held by eight of the top law schools that we don’t hold. We discovered that there were some significant omissions in our cataloging items (as reported by WorldCat). They provided a free audit to help us upload the missing titles. We also had a great list of titles to consider for our “core.”

This chart compares UMKC Law Library holdings as a percentage of the four law school libraries in Missouri. UMKC has 20% of the students so it should carry 20% at least in some areas. For this slide, Gov. Docs have been excluded. The blue bar represents UMKC’s percentage compared to the four schools as a whole. The red bar considers the titles that are held by just one school among the four, and how many UMKC holds. The next few slides all exclude electronic titles, which do not receive LOC Class call nos.

Example of “granularity” of service Example of “granularity” of service. I “drilled down” into Law of Countries, Except the U.S. We have a China overseas program but only 2.8% (34 of 1197) of the titles, and almost no title that any other law school in Missouri has.

This slide is based upon categories that correlate to the law school’s areas of emphasis, Tax LL.M program and Foreign and International Law. The data was gleaned from 459 LOC Classes (based on call nos.). Various LOC Classes were assigned to the different categories. The thinking was that UMKC should at least carry its weight (20%) with respect to its areas of emphasis and its Tax LL.M program. Furthermore it needed to catch up in Foreign, Comparative and International Law. Gov. docs are again excluded.

UMKC’s overreliance on Gov UMKC’s overreliance on Gov. Docs is again noticeable when ranking the classes that have the highest percentages among the four Missouri Law Schools. Note again the heavy reliance on Gov. Docs. UMKC has 57.2% of the Gov. Docs titles among the schools and 46.4% of the Gov. Docs held by only one of the four schools. Also note that UMKC has 42% of the “Legislative History” documents (which are also supplied by the GOP).

Another use of the Service is to understand the age of the collection Another use of the Service is to understand the age of the collection. In this case I have also have a yellow bar for “All Titles” (which means that microfiche, MOML, Hein-On-Line and LLMC are weighing in). I can see that in the 90s, UMKC fell far short in print titles in relation to the 20% benchmark, among the four Missouri Schools. During that period, it relied more heavily on electronic and microfiche titles. I believe this slide also excludes Gov. Docs.

In this chart, I’ve limited the evaluation to titles published in the last five years (as well as excluding government and electronic titles). This is helpful to see how recent collection practices compare.

Individual Benefits A “granular” look at the collection and the ability to match it with law school strategic planning. This is an effective way to show how your collection meets critical law school needs. An understanding of your collection mix, including strengths, weaknesses and areas that are over-relied upon (like GPO publications). An understanding of what you have that is really unique and what you contribute to your consortia that isn’t held by any other library. A look at the collection over time, including granular analysis for the last five years (or any period). Transforming how you look at your collection to consider its relationship to consortia and how you “carry your weight.” This can be a powerful argument with your dean and faculty. Comparing and contrasting your collection with Top Ten Schools to determine a “core” and identifying specific titles that are commonly held by top schools that you should acquire. An ability to compare your collection to the “Google Nine” and show that not everything is on the Web. Wash U. did this (the main library against the “Google Five”) and found that 35% of its collection was unique. This caught the attention of the administration.

The End