Copyright (c) 2013 Purdue University All rights reserved. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions Recent Events in Acquisitions/Collection Development en-us Wed, 15 May 2013 19:49:06 PDT 3600 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/28 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/28 This nautically tinged talk explores what happens when two academic libraries begin reshaping their approach to collection evaluation and management by designing programs for large‐scale, systematic collection review. At both libraries, methodical and comprehensive weeding had not taken place for decades, if ever. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga restructured its collection practices by implementing a subject liaison program and creating a carefully phased review process in which discipline faculty were an integral part. Northern Michigan University set out to halve the size of its circulating collection within five years, as part of the library’s response to a campus‐wide strategic plan. Librarians, technical‐services and systems staff, and student workers in circulation and technical services collaborated on workflows for large‐scale review, withdrawal, and disposal of books, using patron input and careful analysis of acquisitions and circulation data. Both libraries developed new online avenues for soliciting active communicating with stakeholders and found common‐ground solutions to the inevitable conflicts. This program presents each library’s methods and early results, discusses the projects in the context of each respective library’s development and growth, and explores some of the logistical, philosophical, and political lessons learned.

]]> Valarie Prescott Adams et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/27 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/27 Texas A&M University‐Commerce was founded in 1889 as East Texas Normal College, and since that time has gone through five name changes. Each name change brought about a change in focus for the university. Since the university’s founding, an intensive weeding of the James G. Gee Library print monographs collection has never been undertaken. A January 2011 age of collection report from the ILS showed that the greatest growth in the collection took place in the years between 1970 and 1990. Many of the monographs contained obsolete information and/or supported programs and courses that are no longer offered by the university. While librarians were in the midst of completing a literature review of best practices for weeding and constructing weeding policies and procedures, a major event changed the entire direction of the library’s weeding goals. The Director of Libraries received word that a United States senator was considering donating his congressional papers to the library, and an entire floor of the library must be cleared to receive the documents. This paper outlines how the library weeded more than 70,000 items between June 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011.

]]> Gail Johnston et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/26 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/26 Connie Stovall et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/25 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/25 Tim Devenport et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/24 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/24 University of Missouri – Kansas City Built a storage facility adjacent to the main library with automated retrieval and designed it to hold approximately 80% of its physical collection. Formulas using date of purchase and frequency of circulation and/or date of last circulation were used to determine which books were stored in The Robot. Issues raised by the unusually large percentage of materials going into storage and by the quick retrieval time are discussed.

]]> Steve Alleman http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/23 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/23 Eleanor Cook et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/22 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/22 This paper will provide an adaptable roadmap for weeding a monograph collection at a small academic library. When starting straight out of library school as the first Collection Development Librarian for the St. Edward’s University library in July 2010, I was confronted with a monograph collection that had never been weeded in any systematic way. As a small liberal arts university library, it is not our mission to collect comprehensively but rather to support the current curriculum, which is focused on social issues in a global context. Yet, there we were with a dusty, dated, unused collection filling the shelves. The original goals of the weeding project were to remove outdated and unused materials from the collection and to discover areas where materials should be replaced or built upon. As will be discussed, a new more pressing goal presented itself during the course of this project. I will outline the process I went through to develop criteria for weeding the collection and how these criteria were adapted to different subject areas based on the curriculum of a given department. I will highlight the tools I used to generate lists of items to be weeded after the criteria were set and how to keep track of progress using SpringShare Lib-Guides. Lastly, I will cover the most unanticipated challenge in managing this project: the human element, in the form of both faculty and librarian colleagues reluctant to weed. The project is ongoing with the goal of having an entire collection review completed by May 2012.

]]> Kady Ferris http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/21 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/21 Organization of electronic resources work flow and operations are critical in the increasingly complex world of library management. The way in which this management process is structured differs according to the type of library and organizational structure within. A common goal, though, is strategically sustaining access and availability to electronic resources over time and the effective management of the library staff that maintains them. In this joint session, librarians from George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia and the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) in Adelphi, Maryland showed two effective approaches to electronic resources management (ERM) processes. At GMU, automation of the acquisition process for new electronic resources has greatly improved work flow coordination and communication between library departments. At UMUC, the application of business process management principles to ERM has enabled the electronic resources staff to optimize overall operations.

]]> Betsy Appleton et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/20 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/20 Selden Lamoureux et al. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/19 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/19 Brian Norberg et al.