1. Assessing our collection strengths
Maureen Pinder
COSEELIS Conference
28th June 2011

2. Why categorise collections?
Need to develop a coherent strategic approach to collection management and development at a time when resources are limited
Need to be able to prioritise the use of scarce resources

3. What are the drivers? Space / the pressure to weed
Physical condition of stock and need for preservation and conservation
Prioritisation for digitisation
Budget pressures
Aid decision making for collaborative collection management

4. And the scale of the problem?
Space:
Libraries are full, new store will give only a few years’ growth
Leeds survey of open access collections:
At least 55% are printed on acid paper
10% at immediate risk, many more slowly crumbling
Poor quality of manufacture of many foreign publications
Particularly acute for material published
Major research collections at risk almost in their entirety

5. We know about our collections, don’t we?
We’ve always assumed we knew our ‘best bits’
But spread and pace of relegation and weeding has increased
And staff have changed over the years
So we decided we needed to take this seriously and act now

6. Group set up to concentrate on the issue
First priority: to define ‘types’ of collection: Heritage: Significant and distinctive collections which continue to be developed Legacy: Significant and distinctive collections: historic strengths but no longer added to Self-renewing: Supporting current research & teaching Finite: No longer relevant - can be considered for withdrawal

7. Issues around describing collections
A collection can be dispersed around various classmarks, and on both open and closed access, not just in one place
It might contain material from Special Collections and the open shelves, for example
Terminology confusing – collection, subject, sequence, classmark?
All opinions are subjective
Can the status change at a later stage?

8. The process Access database created to store findings/decisions
Methodology and workflow worked out for information gathering
Criteria established to judge collections against
Used old Anderson returns as a rough guide to get us started
Beginning to gather information from ‘experts’ – current and retired staff and academics
Using pilot COPAC collection management tool to benchmark collections against other libraries
Identified ILL data as another useful source
Still looking for more data sources and methods of assessment

9. To sum up At the early stages of a long process
Is essential and valuable work to direct our resources to the right areas
Will raise our profile, define our distinctiveness, evidence our impact
Might lead to bids for external funding, promotional activities
Contribute to the University’s status and attract scholars