1. Collection development with the falling $AUD
Ali Nearn, Manager Access Services Trisha Farnan, Application Administrator Discovery Services
Hi, me again…
In this presentation I’m going to set the scene by giving you a bit of context around how we manage this complex landscape at Notre Dame & then talk a bit around what we do in practice

2. A context… Collection development ePreferred
greater access = reduced spend
Negotiate
fixed exchange rates
Flexibility
move funds
Collection development> The Library’s collection development focus is on resources that support the University’s teaching programmes and research interests nationally, with a preference for electronic resources.
ePreferred
Click >Last year we spent approximately 80% of our total resources budgets (capital and recurrent) on e-resources and in relation to our subscriptions alone, this figure is closer to 99%.
As a consequence of this emphasis on acquiring electronic resources, only about 23% of our recurrent & capital budget expenditure is now in AUD
Click, click > Negotiate,
The University doesn’t hedge funds
So as part of our annual budget submission we negotiate with our Finance Office on agreed exchange rates & an overall annual price increase for the coming year’s subscriptions
This allows us to manage our recurrent budget with some identified tolerances with which to negotiate with vendors should we receive some unexpected price increases
Click, click > Flexibility
Given the cancellation of subscriptions is likely to have greater impact & therefore represents a greater risk we also have some flexibility to move funds from capital budget lines to recurrent budget lines on an ongoing basis
Click > Next page

3. What do we do? Review…review… review Annual review recommendations
collection review
In practice
DDA
purchase vs subscribe
Resource sharing
Annual Review
Click >Each year we invite staff and students to submit recommendations for new eresources, this seems a bit counter to the need to tighten spending, it remains an important mechanism in identifying gaps in the collection.
Click >Our Liaison Librarians each have an account liaison role for a number of e-resource collections in their subject area. We established these roles a year or so ago in response to a growing need to better understand the collections and their use. Each year they undertake a detailed review of a third of their assigned collections, against criteria such as demonstrated use, cost per use, evidence of gaps in collections through turnaway statistics and alternate resources that might have been recommended through staff and student recommendations & from vendor alerts.
We also undertake regular reviews of our demand driven acquisitions, to ensure our expectations meet reality
Click > In Practice
So in practice…
Click, click > Across our ebook acquisitions, we’ve developed tight subject profiles for both our EBL and JSTOR DDAs
And this year, given the unprecedented short term loan increases in EBL DDA we’ve removed STLs from the DDA profile & implemented an unmediated purchase model with a price cap of $200USD
we’ve also set a limit of 3 auto-purchases per day per user, this is an attempt to slow any potential indiscriminate downloading of ebooks
In relation to purchase vs subscription models, we review these on a case by case basis & purchase collections rather than subscribe where we think there is more value in doing so
And last year we cancelled a couple of ebook collections and instead purchased the high use titles
Where we see evidence of good use and the value of a collection we participate in multi year licences, this allows us to more effectively manage the costs associated with these collections
We also expect more from the vendor account managers now in terms of delivering transparent useful information about our resources and their use, some are great at this and others not so…
Click > Resource sharing
Where we’re unable to meet specialist information needs within our own collections, we of course seek to do so through doc del & interlibrary loans.
And as we start to see an increase in our research output we have been giving more thought to other options such as pay per view
Click > usage stats

4. Usage stats Intota Assessment Top resource usage
Cost per use reporting
Turnaways and zero usage
Change in use
Thanks Ali.
To evaluate statistics we use:
Intota Assessment
Reports in Intota harvested monthly (SUSHI) or twice-yearly (COUNTER)
Must do manual uploads for some vendors
Some not yet available
We can use Intota Assessment to:
Review top usage for ejournals, ebooks & databases
Review turnaways & zero usage
Investigate ‘change in use’ for resources
Review cost per use

5. Top usage Top usage, for e.g. – top databases: Our top 3:
CINAHL Plus with full text
Academic Search Premier
Newswires

6. Cost per use - high ‘Cost Per Use’ – high cost, relatively low use
Dollar amounts are shown in $AUD
Single eJournal title subscription
Comparatively very high sub cost compared to other single titles
Used by a small cohort of students (Physiotherapy) on Fremantle campus only
Cost per use is quite high, particularly in 2015
Cancel? Need to consider:
It is a vital resource
Cited a lot in our Research repository
Is it required for accreditation?

7. Cost per use - low ‘Cost Per Use’ – lower cost, higher use
Dollar amounts are shown in $AUD
Single eJournal title subscription
Lower sub cost than the other journal we just looked at
Used by a much larger cohort of students across schools and campuses
Cost per use increase from 2014 to 2015, in accordance with sub cost increase
This report doesn’t raise any red flags
An e.g. of a journal being used as you’d hope

8. Turnaways ‘eJournal Turnaways’ Turnaways for 2015
AMA – we only have the top 2 as subs, our users want the rest too
As Ali mentioned, this is evidence of gaps in our resources
Common reasons for turnaways:
No access to archives
(eBooks) Limited user licenses
*I’ve used American Medical Association (we only sub JAMA & the archives). Why did Jama have turnaways?? Only between Jan & August though.

9. What next? Closer evaluation Complications
Connections to monitor / maintain
‘Conclusions’
Starting to look at more complex things
Turnaways – COUNTER reports are quite limited, e.g. no indicator of what years archives you should acquire
OTHER COMPLICATIONS:
Counter changes – e.g. v3 to v4, more emphasis on user actions rather than just searches
Some vendors not yet on v4;
Some not even COUNTER compliant
So many connections to monitor & maintain
Vendor Stats > Intota > Intota Assessment
Vendor Metadata > Summon
Summon > Links to Databases
Vendors > up to date with COUNTER
Library monitoring all this
We’re keen to hear what other libraries are up to!

10. Thank you