Enhancing Collection Development and Catalog Sharing at Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin Libraries
The partnership between Ladd Library at Bates, Hawthorne-Longfellow Library at Bowdoin, and Miller Library at Colby, known as CBB, has significantly contributed to the effective coordination of collection development and catalog sharing for over two decades. Retention agreements, standardized loan policies, digital acquisitions, and improved search interfaces have been pivotal in optimizing library services and user experience. The transition to web-based catalog access and efficient item handling processes have streamlined operations, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the CBB collaboration.
- Collection Development
- Catalog Sharing
- Academic Libraries
- Library Collaboration
- Digital Acquisitions
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in Collection Development and Catalog Sharing
Ladd Library Bates Hawthorne-Longfellow Library Bowdoin Miller Library Colby CBB has been committed to complementing one another s collections for more than 20 years.
Retention agreements for some large historic sets, government documents, reference materials, 19th century journals. Purchase decisions consider CBB holdings. For music, coordinate purchases of M2s and M3s. Since 1995, CBB group e-purchases (databases, e-books).
CBB standardized loan periods. Standardized policies reserves, renewals, recalls, billing, replacement. Patron types, patron blocks, consistent coding. Fast, reliable delivery mechanisms needed to be in place; Saturday deliveries, commitment to turnaround time.
Pre-CBB and WebOpac Summer 1998 library website Access to catalog was via telnet, to character- based catalog
Sept. 1998 shared CBB search interface Used request functionality within Innovative Needed to load each schools patron records Loan rules aligned
Requestable / not requestable Item types became very important Record cleanup No more loading of patron records! (Maine Info Net is now Maine Cat)
Returnables Non-Returnables (Articles), also direct patron requests
New version of the local catalog Implementing AquaBrowser Shared CBB discovery system No circulation, etc., functionality Still request through MaineCat and NExpress
Goals Expand CBB collection through reduction of duplication Build campus culture that views CBB collection as shared Facilitate budget and space sharing
Similar Size, undergraduate programs, budgets, staff size Loan rules, delivery service in place, history of cooperation, willingness to experiment Not so similar Separate catalogs Different budget approaches Library cultures for collection development Multiple vendors Campus cultures Data reporting, fund codes
Starting May 2008 Library separate accounts Shipments rotated every three months Common profile and publisher list Cooperative plan, all subjects except Art and Architecture
% Duplication (48% decrease) % Duplication of Titles 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2009 Collective Cost Savings (71% decrease) Duplication Cost 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2007 2009
2009-CBB Music Librarian meeting Book plan provides framework
2010-Meet with Christine Clark from Theodore Front Billing/Invoicing Timing of shipments Distribution of shipping lists Separation of firm orders from approval shipments?
Other Score Considerations Binding Cataloging (MARC records) Research and performance needs of each College Standing orders
Contemporary Composers Popular Music/Jazz Women Composers Score Format Ensembles Max cost
Type of binding Exclusion of publishers Popular music/Jazz Exclusion of instruments Difficulty of music Decreased max cost Colby-25% popular
After approval of CBB Collection Development Committee, first shipment to Bates (July 2010) Shipments totaling $1000 received on rotating basis once a month Approximately 935 total scores received to date Current collection
E-resources eBooks eBrary Oxford Database negotiations
Discovery for CBB Collection Records are loaded nightly from the 3 local Innovative catalogs Serials holdings from Serials Solutions are loaded monthly Each school has it s own skin Includes scopes Includes advanced searches
Search methods 13,495 (48%) searches from homepages 11,418 (40%) search box 2,144 (7.6 %) advanced search No stats on usage of Scopes Facets
AQB did not replace local catalog, even with Advanced Search and Scopes About 50/50 Percentage of Local use increases as end of semester looms Most likely AquaBrowser, unknown, discovery Local, known, specific formats
Contract signed Sept. 3, 2008 3 catalogs and customization, so we strongly suspected it would be more than 90 days April 2, 2010, meeting with Jane Burke July 6, 2010, Phase 1 implementation complete. Oct. 4, 2010, Phase 2 implementation complete.
Customization Media Lab did not scale up Individual implementations SASS model, Dec. 2012 end date Serials Solutions into cloud, no end date for AQB
Your search has been expanded by ... is limited to 3 expansion terms. AQB could not limit the number of terms included in any meaningful way. In short record display, when checking boxes and choosing the print option in the pull-down menu, AQB has associated locations and call numbers in the best way they can. Sometimes the back button does not work. AQB has solved this to the extent that they can. AQB could not give us exact documentation on how relevancy ranking works. The server has not been moved to the U.S. Phrase searching is not an option. CBB does not have the ability to manually force re-indexing apart from the automated schedule, and we no longer want that capability. My Discovery does not use LDAP. Hiding the word cloud cannot be configured at the skin level. The web crawler is not implemented, per a decision from Shared Catalog Committee. Federated search is not integrated, per decisions from CBB.
World Cat Local / World Share Management System ??? When changing systems, we always ask the question, 1 catalog (i.e., 1 system) or 3? Band width had been a problem Cost had been prohibitive Do users really want a CBB view, separate from a Nexpress/MaineCat view
Sharon Saunders, Associate College Librarian for Systems and Bibliographic Services Bates College ssaunder@bates.edu Karen Jung, Music Librarian Bowdoin College kjung@bowdoin.edu Special thanks to: Joan Campbell, Bowdoin, Collection Development Librarian Mary Macul, Bowdoin, Cataloger Toni Katz, Colby, Assistant Director for Technical Services Peggy Menchen, Colby Julie Retelle, Bates, Access Services Chris Schiff, Bates, Music and Arts Librarian Margaret Ericson, Colby, Music and Art Librarian
