1. IntroductionMethodology Background When reviewing the literature, we found that libraries were concerned with at least 1 of the 4 following topics: should we purchase electronic resources, which resources should be transitioned to electronic format, how can we digitize our print materials, and how can digital collections fit in our budget. As of 2007, 90% of university libraries owned or subscribed to e- books; recent estimates are around 94-97%. University libraries spend less than 6% of acquisitions funds on e-books; one in twenty spend 25% or more (Walters 2013). Using key terms, we searched various databases for peer- reviewed and trade articles published during in 2010-2015. We synthesized the results from those case studies in our conclusions. The emergence and prevalence of electronic resources opens a new world of knowledge to patrons, who were once limited to physical collections. The Crawfords group felt that an important aspect of librarianship was the subject of electronic resources under the heading of collection management in university libraries. The key goal of this study is to explore the problems and possible solutions of e-resources. Results and Analysis Digital Resource Pros:  Frees Library Space  Access to more resources  Easy to search Digital Resource Cons:  Expensive databases  Limited note-taking  Limited titles for some subjects  Licensing Issues  Varying content development policies  Patrons prefer print Collaboration is Key! Staff/Patrons: Staff should examine patron wants and needs. Ease of access often overcomes other issues (Premchand-Mohammed 2011). Information literacy is an issue (Bevis et al. 2010). Newer Librarians/Established LibrariansSome librarians in management positions are reluctant to change. (List 2011) Policies must address changes in collection management (Mangrum and Pozzebon 2012). Large Universities/Smaller SchoolsCan electronic resources be combined? What consortium options are available? (Webb 2014) Librarians/Staff: Staff should conduct trial reviews of databases throughout the year to determine purchases. (Bevis et al. 2010) Training necessary to assist patrons in the use of new electronic resources. (Premchand- Mohammed 2011) Assessment necessary to aid staff in maintaining electronic resources (Walters 2013). Preferences for Print: Various studies have concluded that scholars of the social sciences, fine arts, and STEM prefer print books. (Cummings, Larrivee, and Vega 2015) Budgets: Licensing costs are often prohibitive. (Mangrum and Pozzebon 2012) Possible options include the use of electronic resource management systems to track patron usage and determine what materials to purchase (Bevis et al. 2010). Digital Collection Management John Dettinger, Lauren Devoe, Anna-Alexandra Fodde-Reguer, Margaret Foreback University of Pittsburgh Conclusions The relevance of electronic resources continues to grow and has become a standard part of collections management. Collaboration and communication between staff and patrons and staff and other libraries is key to transforming collections. Where are we now? Where do we want to go? How do we get there? These are the questions libraries need to ask themselves regarding the transition to the use of electronic resources. The future could be grim if libraries are reluctant to evolve to the use of or integration of electronic resource methods. References Bevis, Mary, Bethany Latham, Jodi Poe, and Kimberly Stevens. 2010. E-resources workflow management: keeping things simple when managing e-resources requires addressing the many challenges that these materials present. Information Outlook, 14 (6), 24. Cummings, Lee, Anne Larrivee, and Leslie Vega. 2015. Comparing Electronic vs Print Book Preferences Between Students in the Social Sciences, the Arts and STEM. Library Hi Tech News, 32 (4), 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2014-0088http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2014-0088 Demas, Samuel, and Mary Miller. 2012. Rethinking collection management plans: Shaping collective collections for the 21st Century. Collection Management, 37 (3-4), 168-187. Husted, Jeffrey, and Leslie Czechowski. 2012. Rethinking the Reference Collection: Exploring Benchmarks and E-Book Availability. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 31 (3), 267-279. DOI:10.1080/02763869.2012.698166 http://www-tandfonline- com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/02763869.2012.698166http://www-tandfonline- com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/02763869.2012.698166 List, Cara, and Faye Chadwell. 2011. What’s next for collection management and managers?. Collection Management, 36(4), 198- 202. Mangrum, Suzanne, and Mary Ellen Pozzebon. 2012. Use of collection development policies in electronic resource management, Collection Building, Vol. 31 (3), 108 - 114. DOI: http://dx.doi.org.pitt.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/01604951211243506 http://dx.doi.org.pitt.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/01604951211243506 Mills, Alexandra. 2015. User Impact on Selection, Digitization, and the Development of Digital Special Collections. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21 (2), 160-169. http://www-tandfonline-com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/13614533.2015.1042117http://www-tandfonline-com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/13614533.2015.1042117 Mindel, David. & Kate Russell. 2014. Building Digital Collections On A Budget. Computers in Libraries, 34 (9), 4- 10. http://go.galegroup.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=upitt_main&id=GALE%7CA389175778&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon &userGroup=upitt_main&authCount=1http://go.galegroup.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=upitt_main&id=GALE%7CA389175778&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon &userGroup=upitt_main&authCount=1 Premchand-Mohammed, Sharon. 2011. Bridging the Gap between Print and Electronic Resources at a Multi-Campus University Library. VINE, 41 (3), 315-333. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.tulane.edu:2048/10.1108/03055721111171591 Walters, William. 2013. E-books in Academic Libraries: Challenges for Acquisition and Collection Management. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 13 (2), 187-211. https://muse.jhu.edu/ Webb, Heidi. 2014. Managing E-Resources. Computers In Libraries, 34 (8), 16-20. CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed October 6, 2015).