1. Building Strong Collections for Less Money Through Collaboration
2019 ACRL–NEC Conference Fred Folmer, Connecticut College Katie Bauer, Trinity College Aaron Sandoval, Wesleyan University Lorraine Huddy, CTW Consortium

2. Cross-searchable ILS, can request from each campus
Connecticut College
FTE: 1834
Trinity College
FTE: 2152
Wesleyan University
FTE: 3069
Cross-searchable ILS, can request from each campus
History of in/formal collection development (including CCD)
GOBItween to see purchases across C-T-W
Consortial eResource subscriptions/purchases

3. CTW Collection Practices: past and present
Firm Orders by Selectors
eBook Subscriptions
STL- DDA programs (MyiLibrary & EBL)
DRM free ebooks
EBA programs: JSTOR, Project Muse, Cambridge, Oxford
Shared Print Approval Plan

4. Expenditures: Books vs. eResources/Journals

6. Refocusing Collection Priorities
For eBooks: now prefer EBA, DRM-free titles
Refocus on Print: new title availability vs. e -embargoes
Print preferred for in-depth, academic use
Print is more economical, even when bought in duplicate
Unique print titles are more easily shared
Print on demand = long term availability

7. Desired Outcomes
Offer a high quality core collection from significant UPs
Create a broader collection with more unique titles
Provide more stable workflows, offer new titles more quickly; fewer duplicate purchases
Reduce selection time; free up time for other responsibilities

8. The Collaborative Profiling Process: Identifying Publishers & Content Parameters

9. Shared Print Plan (a la Colby-Bates-Bowdoin)
Broad profile in terms of subject areas
Focus on University Presses
1 copy of new titles to share across CTW (duplicates on request)
Rotate shipments on weekly basis
CTW’s ILL to deliver titles across the consortium
Minimum 3 years :: anticipate spending $100K per year

12. The Collaborative Process
Importance of enthusiasm and buy-in from managers, directors, and selectors
Required shift in thinking from individual collection building & ownership to consortial access
Not everyone immediately accepted the plan; selectors like to choose titles and/or worried about getting the “right” titles for their campus
Adjustments made to profile based on campus needs/budgets/ endowments

13. Evaluating Success Ease of set up and rotating shipments
Titles received match expectations?
Ability to quickly fulfill title requests across CTW
Usage over time across CTW
Requests for & cost of duplicates (P & E)

14. Results

15. Overlap Reduction: Pre- and Post- Plan

16. GOBI Duplication Levels Pre- & Post- Plan
# Copies
across CTW
# Titles
Pre-Plan
Post-Plan 4 1 3 70 5 2
480
210
2078
2995
Total Unique Titles
2629
3211
+582 titles
22% increase
Total Copies
3252
3434
Total Cost
$137,752
$137,155
-$597

17. Cost per Title Reduced 24%

18. Books from Publishers in Shared Plan vs. Not in Plan
Publishers In Plan
Publishers Not in Plan
# Publishers 23
1240
Titles
3211
10,140
Top Publisher
University of Chicago/ 465
Oxford University Press/ 1129
Top Subject
E--History of Americas
N--Art
Total Spend
$137,155
$543,998

19. Spend: In Shared Plan vs. Out of Plan

20. Post-Plan Circ Data: On Home Campus, Across CTW

21. Campus Perspectives

22. Trinity College Budget cuts and demand for new formats.
Spend about 10% of budget on print books.
Do relatively little individual selection.
We are totally out of DDA, embracing EBA for ebooks.
Collaboration is necessary and shows good stewardship.

23. Wesleyan University
Concern about efficacy of ebooks in research process, very strong culture of valuing print
Selection distributed among 14 librarians
Print approval plan was institutional annual goal with aim of reducing time demands on selectors; initial Wesleyan pilot merged into CTW plan
Attractiveness of plan remains near comprehensive coverage of valued academic publishers
Changing library culture to rely on shared CTW collection as core; campus copy always purchased upon request

24. Connecticut College
Still have DDA but greatly reduced profile; exists to fill in a few gaps.
Key purpose of the print approval plan was to reduce staff selection time. Selection happening largely due to highly specific gift funds, and long-standing culture of book selection.
Library culture changing due to reorganization/merger with instructional technology. Librarians increasingly asked to develop new skills. Print approval program helps us move in this direction.
Growth in streaming video use; few individual selections of DVDs.

25. Evaluating Success - Results
Ease of set up and rotating shipments? (Yes)
Do titles received match expectations? (Yes)
Ability to quickly fulfill title requests across CTW? (Yes)
Usage over time across CTW? (Jury still out)
Requests for & cost of duplicates? (Print duplication has dropped dramatically, from 79% t0 93%)

26. Shared Print Plan - Take Aways
Successful in reducing duplication and costs
Successful in reducing selection time BUT…
Buy-in continues to be needed! This takes more effort depending on institutional culture.
We see the plan as a long-term initiative, but will need to monitor usage across CTW over time.
Should be easy to increase the plan to include more publishers; we’re now in discussion to do so
Project led to better understanding of our collections

27. Challenges Can we be a shared collection? Change is hard!
What does it mean for “ownership”?
Reserves have been a challenge
Budgets for print are very different among the three schools.
Monitor shared profile to make sure it meets content needs over time

28. Future of Collaboration
Improve requesting process — too many clicks in Primo!
Improve ability to share circulation & usage data
Engage in more collaboration, negotiate more group deals with vendors when possible.
Made headway - JSTOR EBA, possibly Oxford
HathiTrust? requires more formal incorporation of CTW
ILL changes, all of us potentially joining RapidR this summer.
Will shared print plan become obsolete if titles held within Rapid?

29. Questions?

30. Thank You! Fred Folmer – FFolmer@conncoll.edu
Katie Bauer –
Aaron Sandoval –
Lorri Huddy –