CONFERENCE REPORT

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT IN THE ELECTRONICENVIRONMENT: SHIFTING PRIORITIES:

A CONFERENCE REPORT

JAN ROBERT ANDERSON

Marketing Representative

Ambassador Books & Media

42 Chasner Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

E-mail: jan@absbook.com

On March 4 and 5, approximately 84 participants gathered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for the1999 Oklahoma Conference, sponsored by the University of Oklahoma Libraries and the Univer-sity of Oklahoma Foundation. Sul Lee, Dean, University Libraries, opened the conference andwelcomed the participants. Eight speakers presented papers on the conference theme of collectiondevelopment in the electronic environment and answered questions from the audience. Briefsummaries of those presentations follow.

Developing New Models for Collection Development—presented by Carla Stoffle, Dean ofLibraries, University of Arizona

According to Stoffle, a major challenge in the shifting of priorities for collection developmentis identifying collection development goals while identifying available resources. And there is notmuch experience in outcomes under the new environment for comparison. The prevailing philos-ophy in the past has been the idea that more money equals a better outcome. However, the trendnow in the industry is toward doing more for less money. Libraries must maintain collections,acquire and manage new technology, recruit staff with new and different skills, and do this withfewer resources.

Libraries exist in, and are products of, their respective institutional settings. They are centralresources for the whole institution. Libraries must demonstrate added value to the outcomes that aresought by their institutions. If they cannot lead in doing this, they will likely become irrelevant. Thenecessary transformation comes from conscious changes in core areas. It is not something that willhappen of its own accord. Attitudes must be flexible, and librarians in most instances must takeaction without knowing all the data and all the possible outcomes.

Libraries must be at the forefront of the changes in their institutions. There should be a

Pergamon

Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 443–449, 1999Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science LtdPrinted in the USA. All rights reserved

1464-9055/99 $–see front matter

PII: S1464-9055(99)00087-1

443

conscious effort to move away from things that have been done a certain way just because it hasbeen successful in the past. Everything must be questioned. The primary goal should be in meetingcustomer needs in the shortest amount of time possible. Consequently, changes in organizationalstructure that would enable the library to meet its goals most efficiently should be considered.

The librarian’s roles of information provision, educational design, assessment, and knowledgemanagement need to be weighed with the library’s values of offering continuous learning oppor-tunities, diversity, customer focus, integrity, and flexibility. At the University of Arizona, thelibrary has organized into teams, rather than departments, to maintain this perspective. Streamliningand re-thinking established procedures and methods has brought about opportunities to effectchange and increase efficiency that were heretofore unseen. Each library’s mission and values mayvary from another’s, but each must respond to the new opportunities and challenges to retain itscentral position to the institution.

Budgeting for Collection Development in the Electronic Environment—presented by FredLynden, Associate Librarian, Technical Services, Brown University

Lynden began by examining the library’s budget planning, presentation, and implementation inthe electronic environment. There are seven libraries at Brown University, with approximately$13.8 million in expenditures. Budgeting for electronic library materials adds to both the difficultyand the complexity of the process. Because the electronic format is still in some early stages, manyfactors contribute to the complication of the budgeting effort. Among these are the following:

1. CD-ROM or Web versions of a title may be available only to subscribers of print versions.2. Different format versions are sold at different prices, e.g., one price for CD-ROM, another

for print, another for online access, etc.3. Often an electronic product is part of a total package or bundled plan, and it is hard to isolate

the specific cost of the electronic version.4. Variations exist between full- and partial-text versions.5. Libraries often must purchase an entire bundled package of titles rather than individual

ones.6. Prices may be computed according to the years of coverage.7. Costs may vary according to the type of product, database, or electronic journal.8. Prices are reckoned according to the version of an electronic product, e.g., whether ASCII

or bitmapped images.9. Prices may be based on the number of users or the number of ports requested.

10. Prices may be calculated according to a specific number of passwords issued.11. There may be additional charges for printing or downloading.12. Prices are computed according to whether the product is networked or stands alone.13. Other access fees may be added to the regular price.14. Interlibrary loan rights may be restricted.15. There can be special conditions regarding backfiles.16. Sometimes sales promotions are geared to consortia. Prices vary from consortium to

consortium.17. Subscription conditions differ. Consortia libraries may be forced to purchase total bundled

packages of titles at first. Later they may be able to customize purchases.

444 J. R. ANDERSON

Electronic sharing and intercollegiate sharing is a good idea, but usually costs much more. Thelibrary has had to make trade-offs in purchasing. At Brown, they do not purchase print versions ofthose titles that have electronic versions.

Use budgeting as an opportunity for fostering better contact with the faculty. Explore options forassisting in dealing with the complications that arise. For example, make use of a nice brochure tosend to past and potential donors, outlining goals that the library has for the collection. This way,faculty and others can be kept aware of the library’s collection goals and its budgetary require-ments.

Staffing for Collection Development in the Electronic Environment: Toward a New Definitionof Roles and Responsibilities—presented by Deborah Jakubs, Director, Collections Services, DukeUniversity

The role of a bibliographer has undergone great changes in recent years. In general, libraryorganizational structures have not kept pace with the bibliographer’s functions. In the 1960s and1970s, there was a lot of writing and discussion on the roles of subject librarians. Jakubs pointedout that subject specialists in research libraries are more necessary now than ever before. No longerlimited to selection of materials only, their responsibilities often include the creation and manage-ment of web sites, teaching, faculty contact, and fund raising. The question of what constitutes acollection development librarian is a weighty one. Budgets have become increasingly static, whilemore demands have been placed on resources than ever before.

Collection development work is poorly understood. Responsibilities have expanded from whatwas considered largely solitary work, to a much wider scope, with involvement in many differentareas. For example, subject specialists can serve as an information conduit between library andfaculty. Also, approval plans require a great deal of monitoring and must be carefully supplementedby firm orders. Changes must be effected in the image and perception that others have of the libraryand its functions. Jakubs says that there is no reason for collection development librarians tofunction wholly behind the scenes. They should cover all formats of information for their subjectareas. They can have a visible and significant public service role. However, a combination ofcollection development with reference responsibilities is not usually in the best interest of eithergroup. Subject specialists should seek, and be provided with, opportunities for continued educationin their areas, whenever possible.

Jakubs also explored the question of what skills should be sought or developed in collectiondevelopment staff to meet the needs of their redefined responsibilities. Perhaps the library shouldconsider creative combinations of knowledge and experience, instead of the traditional require-ments for this position. The value of bibliographers and their job performance can be measured insuch areas as peer opinions, faculty perception within the subject area, teaching, budget manage-ment, Web page management, working with committees and university standing committees, andrelationships with other librarians. Create a fluid environment where lines are available foradministrative purposes, but where people who have knowledge and ability to help the collectiongrow in desired directions can work together.

Setting Journal Priorities—presented by Karen Hunter, Senior Vice President, Elsevier Science

Hunter made the point that there are tumultuous times afoot in the journal publishing industry.The electronic environment has challenged all traditional aspects of journal publishing. Priorities

445Collection Development In The Electronic Environment

have changed radically in the last 8 years. Survival for publishers will not be easy if no care istaken. Authors and editors, purchasers, owners, and users can all be affected. Getting and retainingcustomers is the goal of any enterprise. For authors and editors, building traffic and visibility is key.Areas, such as content and refereeing, authors’ rights, and copyrights, will be important. Theposting of articles on the Web has become an issue of late.

Purchasers (namely libraries) seek the following:

1. Reasonable, realistic, and predictable pricing.2. Product flexibility and the ability to purchase title-by-title.3. Clearly defined licensing.4. Permanent archiving and digitalization.

Publishers have lately not been so responsive to librarians’ concerns about pricing, but this iscertain to change. The major issue of concern to users (readers) is access anywhere and anytime.This expectation is becoming more and more prevalent. Finally, the owners, naturally, seek a returnon their investment. With the advent of the electronic environment, all of these priorities combineto promise dramatic and widespread changes in the journal publishing industry.

Negotiating the Soul of the Library: Change Management in Information Access and LocalCollection Development—presented by Paul Kobulnicky, Director of Libraries, University ofConnecticut

Kobulnicky began with an examination and definition of change management. Change man-agement does the following:

1. Requires an informed community.2. Begins with a shared vision and a case for change.3. Is framed by well-articulated and critical issues.4. Uses opportunities for open debate.5. Appreciates complex systems.6. Recognizes that conflict drives growth.7. Involves shared power and shared risk.

All of the above aspects must be involved for the best changes to be effected. Within theinstitution, all groups must share in the vision and be sold on the need for change. All parties musttake responsibility and ownership in the change.

In recent years, growth in higher education has slowed, especially as it is measured in funding.Therefore, research universities must invest strategically, to make each dollar count. Thecollection-based library model is no longer as applicable as it once was and cannot be sustained.The information marketplace is unstable. Technology is popularizing information access, but theresearch university culture has not kept pace. There is little consensus on the future of collectionsand access. Faculty determines the culture in the research university. For this reason, it is essentialthat they are involved in changes in information access and collection development.

At the University of Connecticut, a process has been followed in implementing changemanagement.

1. Create a philosophy and interpret it for each program.

446 J. R. ANDERSON

2. Use a representative faculty group to begin.3. Frame the issue for discussion.4. Summarize and restate the philosophy.5. As awareness increases, build a document around the philosophy.6. Be patient with the developments.

Kobulnicky next examined four questions, first among which is, to what degree is changeoccurring in research universities? He maintains that it is occurring more slowly than is advertised.Change is the slowest in the liberal arts and sciences. Innovation is in the professions. There is littlenet change in teaching style, and reasons and motivations have not changed. Generally, the impactof libraries as a strategic investment is soft.

Second, what are the measures of success in research libraries? Access is growing in importance.The change is driven by the philosophy of access anytime and any place. Collections are regardedas “access,” and the limitations of collections are becoming more evident. But old perspectives arehard to change. Is the concept of the core collection meaningful? There is no consensus on the“core” in “core collection.” Local collections are to support academic priorities. They shouldsupport nationally excellent collections. Local collections should be well rounded. It is importantto recognize that great collections correlate with long-term academic excellence.

Finally, what is the library’s responsibility to act as responsible consumers? Kobulnicky pointedout that the marketplace is positioned to take advantage of the research institution’s culture. Thefacts of cost-effectiveness are not known. Although academic research libraries spend approxi-mately $1 billion annually, their power in the marketplace is not well understood. It is a complexissue, and there are no simple answers. It is not simply a matter that can be solved with moremoney, but involves having the will to say “no” to unwise decisions and knowing when to say“yes” to others.

In summary, Kobulnicky emphasized that the library must engage the faculty, and especially thebest faculty, in the changes that face the library. Faculty must have power and share in theresponsibility for the changes and their outcomes. Frame the questions and generate discussion,forcing choices from the group. Demand consensus, and then repeat the process at a finer grain.

From Journal Cancellation to Quality Access—presented by Olivia Madison, Dean of LibraryServices, Iowa State University

Madison recounted a budgetary situation at the university whereby the library was forced tocancel a large segment of its journal subscriptions. What would be viewed as a negative necessityturned out to have positive results. The project helped in making a case for budget increases inelectronic resources. By adding discussion of library resources to discussions of new universityprograms and budget increases, the library was encouraged to provide better management data onthe costs and use of the library’s journals. This brought up the issue of quality access. Thecancellation project at the library was a catalyst for aroused concern over a loss of access toscholarship. Give them the information that is needed, and faculty will arrive at the best conclu-sions, Madison maintains. Faculty members were thoroughly involved in the decision process ofweeding out the journal subscriptions. Broader management and use of data demonstrating the useand quality of access is needed to make the best decisions.

447Collection Development In The Electronic Environment

Consortia and Collections: Achieving a Balance between Local Action and CollaborativeInterest—presented by Barbara McFadden Allen, Assistant Director, CIC Director, Center forLibrary Initiatives

Allen emphasized the need for libraries to change or be left behind. There are changes in societalattitudes toward higher education. Along with that, there are increasing budget and servicepressures. The costs of maintaining and growing collections are constantly and dramatically goingup. Some of these changes in expectations are reflected as follows:

1. Library ownership of information changing to access of information on demand.2. The library as a physical entity changing to the library as an information system accessible

from the user’s multifunction workstation.3. Collection building in anticipation of needs changing to collection building to meet identified

essential needs.4. The library as a provider of information changing to the library as an intermediary facilitating

access for the individual to local and external information resources.5. Large, central databases changing to distributed databases with mechanisms to make them

widely accessible to users and staff.

Many factors weigh in when deciding where to draw the line between access versus ownership.How does one translate area specialists’ methods to the electronic environment? How do youreconcile what is available locally to what users know is available elsewhere? Within a consortium,investments can be leveraged in collections, infrastructure, and personnel. The library can approacha more proactive role, rather than a reactive one. With the goal being better service and access toa broader array of resources, the library must build the correct infrastructure for access anddelivery, both physical and digital.

Allen then laid out the initiatives of the 13 CIC libraries in three categories.

1. Collaborative management of and access to traditional collections.2. Collaborative management of and access to electronic information resources.3. Collaborative development of entirely new kinds of digital information systems.

What is the librarian’s role within all this?

1. Defining the level of access for collaboration.2. Realizing that if your library does not do it, someone else will fill the vacuum.3. Identifying and removing obstacles to your staff, such as lack of infrastructure and obstruc-

tive attitudes of staff members.

All the member libraries must be perceived as partners. The process is a metamorphosis, not anevolution. The future of libraries, to some degree, rests on their inclination toward collaboration.

How Booksellers are Employing Electronic Innovations to Enhance Collection DevelopmentProcedures—presented by Jack Walsdorf, Vice President, Library Relations, Blackwell’s BookServices

448 J. R. ANDERSON

Walsdorf set out a brief history of approval book selling, beginning in the 1890s. Blanket orderplans originated in the 1940s, and the first computer-assisted approval selling programs began inthe 1960s. In 1995, the book selling was a $19.5 billion industry. Timely, comprehensive, balanced,computer-assisted collection development is now the accepted norm for the industry. At one time,it was sufficient for vendors to outline for libraries what services they had to offer and ask librariesto conform to their systems. That is no longer the case. Vendors now tailor their systems andservices to suit the needs of library clients in nearly every fashion.

Walsdorf sent a survey to the heads of five major vendors, asking first of all how electronictooling aids libraries in collection development procedures. Responses included the aid in thefollowing areas:

1. Identification of titles.2. Elimination of paper, allowing for more space for data.3. Selection.4. Acquisitions.5. Receipt and cataloging.6. Retrieval.

Many companies are now supporting electronic ordering, status reporting, electronic invoicing,claiming, and approval management reports. Systems can help client libraries create a moreefficient collection development workflow by providing access to these several different functionsfrom one workstation or at one time. Cataloging services are offered in many cases, and catalogingrecords can be downloaded electronically or delivered electronically. Even notification slips can bedelivered electronically, cutting down on the chance of loss and easing routing within the library,etc.

In the course of questions and discussion that followed, the group pointed out that the speed ofinternet connections can sometimes affect the efficiency of the workflow when using suchelectronic systems. There was also a brief discussion in which it was concluded that vendors havebeen too reactive to some things within the industry and should not be afraid to suggest ways inwhich libraries can save money by doing things differently and more efficiently.

449Collection Development In The Electronic Environment