1. Examples of Uses of Data Gleaned from OCLC’s WorldCat Collection Analysis Service
Paul D. Callister, JD, MSLIS
Director of the Leon E. Bloch Law Library
& Associate Professor of Law
©2008, Paul D. Callister, All Rights Reserved

2. A note about what follows: I have put together a sampling of charts and tables illustrating uses I have made from WorldCat Collection Analysis Service. The data is two years old. In candor, I did a lot of data manipulation after downloading the data. I wanted more specific information about what we contributed to the four MOBIUS law schools (i.e., the four law schools in Missouri) in percentages of available titles to our students (assuming that everything in MOBIUS can be intra-library loaned) and in terms of what we offered as a percentage of titles held by only one library. I also had to down load data based on LOC class ranges that I selected as important (452 in total). The service does provide data that is easier to use and download, without manipulation, namely Overlap and Uniqueness figures. However, Uniqueness really means what you have that the other members of the group in totality do not have, and not how many titles do you have that are held by one library, which is a better comparison for sensing your contribution. Overlap also isn’t the figure that tells you what you really contribute to a consortium. However, these figures are easier to use. Because this data is sensitive, I asked that the members of the group keep it among themselves. Thanks.

3. 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 (really just the legislative histories that fall in the law class). 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.

4. 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.

5. Here’s another example of granularity from the “Law – U. S
Here’s another example of granularity from the “Law – U.S., Federal Classes. Not only can I see our weaknesses, but our strengths (e.g., 35.5% of the “Equity”).

6. 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.

7. Using the data about percentage deficiencies, it is possible to determine the number of titles UMKC’s Law library would need to “carry its weight,” with respect to the school’s areas of emphasis and the Tax, LL.M. program, among the four Missouri law schools in the MOBIUS consortium. Collection planning, with estimates for growth, can be based upon these numbers.

8. Another use is to understand the allocation of your own collection by LOC classes. Note the 24% Gov. Document sector and this doesn’t include the Legislative Histories provided by the GPO, which are included in law

9. In comparison to the last slide, not that MOBIUS, the four Missouri Law Schools, only devotes 5% of its collection to Gov. Docs. This helps me make the case to our faculty that too much of our growth and title count has depended up free, government documents.

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. This slice 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.

14. 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.”

15. Things With Which WorldCat Collection Service is Helpful
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 time.
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.
A vehicle for collaborative collection development within consortia.
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.
If circulation statistics become available, this is another way to measure your library’s impact.