mapping medicine: collaborative collection management for biomedical resources. review of the...

226

copy Blackwell Science Ltd 2002

Health Information and Libraries Journal

19

pp226ndash229

Blackwell Science Ltd

Brief communication

Brief communication Alez Stutz

Brief communication

Alez Stutz

Mapping medicine collaborative collection management for biomedical resources Review of the literature

Alex Stutz Collaborative Collection Managementfor Biomedical Resources The Wellcome TrustLondon UK

Introduction

Collection development is an activity

carried out within libraries for the purpose ofproviding the library with holdings that most meetthe requirements of the libraryrsquos user base Tobreak the process down it involves planninggoal-setting decision making budgeting andacquiring materials and evaluating them

1

However the term collection developmenthas increasingly been challenged on the groundsthat it no longer accurately represents the morecomplicated tasks librarians are required to carryout It is not enough for libraries to simply developand expand collections they are now required toassess their collections using various techniquesMosher confirmed this view as early as 1981 at thefirst Collection Management and DevelopmentConference He suggested that librarians movefrom the more traditional collection developmentrole to a much broader one with a remit of policyplanning analysis and co-operative activities

2

While it is important to maintain an individualcollection development policy (CDP) in thecurrent climate libraries are increasingly havingto look externally before formulating a collection

policy Indeed one only needs to consider thechanging role of the British Library to illustratethis Geoff Smith Director of the Co-operationand Partnership Programme writes

The British Library believes the time has neverbeen better to explore and implement sharedapproaches to our common concerns and to builda framework of agreements and a network ofcollaborations to lead to an improved co-ordinated and increasingly distributed nationaland international library resource

3

One of the factors influencing this trend arefinancial considerations For some time librarieshave been experiencing lsquoreal termrsquo budget cutsparticularly in the academic environment TheAssociation of Research Libraries (ARL) suggestedthat the average research libraryrsquos share of universityexpenditure has declined from 392 in 1983 to326 in 1995 representing a substantial drop

4

Yet the costs of library materials have in no waymirrored this decline In the lsquosciencemedicinetechnology (SMT)rsquo field where journals are ofparticular importance costs have spiralled In thebiomedical environment alone there are close to30 000 journal titles published internationallymany with subscription costs increasing at signi-ficantly higher than the rate of inflation Many ofthese titles often have a very limited audience andthus it is often difficult to justify purchase for anindividual library

As well as financial considerations physicalspace is often a very real problem Librarians arehaving to become increasingly ruthless in theirannual weeding exercises to maintain enoughspace for their growing collections Although thedigital electronic medium may offer potentialsolutions libraries are hesitant to commit them-selves to this route until formal standards forarchiving have been established

Correspondence Alex Stutz Project Manager Mapping MedicineCollaborative Collection Management for Biomedical Resources TheWellcome Trust 183 Euston Road London NW1 2BE UK E-mailastutzwellcomeacuk

Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

227

Thus libraries are looking to one another in anattempt to address these problems As JosephBoisse wrote

The phrase lsquolibrary co-operationrsquo has becomesomething of a mantra in the library world in thelate 20th Century hellip In our Herculean efforts toovercome many of the enormous obstacles whichwe face we look to lsquolibrary co-operationrsquo as apanacea

5

Collaborative collection management is nota new concept there have been a number ofattempts both on the regional and national scaleoften in the US to address these issues with forthe most part disappointing levels of successThe high proportion of failures would suggest thatcollaborative collecting can be troublesome anddifficult to achieve In fact with the exception ofNorth Carolinarsquos Research Triangle these schemeswere largely unsuccessful The most obviousobstacles to closer co-operation can be summarizedin two words lsquofearrsquo and lsquouncertaintyrsquo There isa distinct fear that committing to a formalcollaborative collection management programmeis in effect irreversible Uncertainty arises aroundseveral issues most notably about the perceivedcost of such a venture Will closer co-operationlead to an increase in overall costs

Allied with this fear is the issue of accessLibrariansrsquo foremost concerns are their users Inorder to join a shared programme librarians needto be confident that if their users cannot physicallyaccess resources then it should be available quicklyand cost effectively using some form of documentdelivery Simpson suggested that the followingpoints need to be addressed for a successful scheme

What impact will sharing (electronic) resourceshave in cooperating libraries and the librarycooperative what are the costs of sharing (electronic)resources and are there cost advantages in doing so

6

Developments in the United Kingdom

Within the UK the last few years have seen aconcerted effort to revisit these areas and try totackle the barriers that have limited the success ofearlier projects Smith writes

There appears to be a general consensus that inprinciple there should be increased and improvedco-operation on collection development Thedifficulties lie in establishing effective andeconomic ways to achieve this hellip

7

Within the United Kingdom there have beentwo main sources of funding concerned withco-operative initiatives the British Libraryrsquos Co-operation and Partnership Programme (CPP)and the Research Support Libraries Programme(RSLP) The CPP programme has its origins inits 1998 Strategic Review which stated the needto lsquoencourage and facilitate partnerships andcollaboration in the key areas of access collectiondevelopment preservation retention and otherassociated areasrsquo

8

Already 28 projects havebenefited with funding from this organizationAlthough not all are purely concerned withcollection management most are collaborativeventures highlighting the importance that it nowplays within libraries

RSLP originates from the findings of both theFollett Review (1993) and the Anderson Report(1996) RSLP was intended to improve sustainedaccess to resources and to extend collaborativearrangements for collection management Thereare 16 funded projects alone looking at the area ofcollaborative collection management (CCM) TheCCM funding strand was designed to

Move the community nearer the lsquoholy grailrsquo ofcollective collection management in the form ofco-ordinated priority setting and co-ordinatedacquisitions policies

9

As RSLP is close to completion other initiativesare now underway including the establishment ofthe Research Support Libraries Group (RSLG)This group has the aim of lsquodeveloping a nationalstrategy to ensure that UK researchers in alldisciplines have access to world class informationresourcesrsquo

10

In effect RSLG has the role of con-tinuing the work of RSLP in looking to improveaccess for the end user through closer linksbetween the academic and library communityFour areas of collaborative support have alreadybeen identified to achieve this aim These shareseveral of the key themes of Mapping Medicine

Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

228

including mapping research collections (identifyingscope depth and range of holdings) and establishingformal subject-based collaborative agreements basedon co-operation

Mapping Medicine project collaborative collection management for biomedical resources

The purpose of this project is to map collectionstrengths to examine collection retention disposaland access policies along with the factors affectingthese policies The overall aim of the project is toestablish a formal collaborative collection policybetween the eight partner libraries However beforethis can be done it is necessary to establish thenature and size of resources partners have withinthe field Completing this will allow the projectto not only identify lsquospikes of excellencersquo withincollections but to build a framework for futurecollaborative collecting based on these strengths

It is difficult to establish which collectionsare strong in which subject area as all partnerlibraries have different users are different sizesand have substantially different collecting remitsThe first task therefore is to devise a methodologyfor collection assessment This can be done intwo ways using either a qualitative or quantitativebased methodology

Qualitative approaches

Several of the RSLP funded collaborative projectsare using a qualitative approach to investigateand map collection strengths relying onquestionnairesurvey based methodologies Insome instances this is due to the sheer size of thesample in others the diversity of partner locationsHowever Mapping Medicine is primarily con-cerned with a statistical objective approach ratherthan a more descriptive style therefore this approachwas not deemed suitable for the project

Quantitative approaches

Empirical bases analysis of collections are rareTraditionally Conspectus has been the mostwidespread tool to carrying out collection analysesConspectus designed by the RLG (Research

Libraries Group in the US) is based on a subjectframework of 25 divisions subdivided into 250categories covering approximately 7000 subjectsWhen an analysis is undertaken each subject isgiven a lsquogradersquo to represent one of six possiblelevels of collecting from 0 (out of scope) to 5(comprehensive)

11

Completing a Conspectusanalysis can provide an approximate summaryrather than precise assessment of a libraryrsquos collectionincluding strengths and weaknesses

However carrying out a manual Conspectusexercise is considered somewhat lsquoold fashionedrsquo andthe disproportionate amount of time the exercisetakes is being questioned Consequently in theearly 1990s the Western library Network workingin tandem with OCLC designed a computer basedversion of Conspectus called ACAS (AutomatedCollection assessment and Analysis Service) whichallows the user to establish a database for one ormore libraries to display collection level activitywithin their libraries This powerful product isdesigned to give the user access to considerableamounts of data including subject analysis titleoverlap and levels of uniqueness faster and moreaccurately than the original manual Conspectusever did However to date UK libraries have beenslow to take up this software Currently there is onlyone project iCAS Collection Analysis Project fundedjointly by RSLP and CURL (Consortium of UniversityResearch Libraries) evaluating this software

12

Conclusions

Although there are problems associated with asurvey-based approach qualitative analysis doesof course have its uses The ACAS system appearsto be the most accurate way to proceed with aquantitative approach to collection assessmenthowever cost implications still do not necessarilymake this product the lsquopanacearsquo for librariansinterested in collection analysis

Adopting the most appropriate methodologyfor Mapping Medicine is the easy part To datethere has been very little evidence of earlier projectshaving made the jump from a formal commitmentto collaborative collecting to actually implementinga fully tested model for closer co-operation Con-sequently in the UK a number of approaches arebeing investigated by groups such as RSLP RSLG

Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

229

consortias (including M25 and CURL) and indeedMapping Medicine If this project can establish afully tested model it will show that a link betweenquantitative analysis and a working model is infact attainable It would also suggest that there ispotential for expanding the scheme nation-wideand could be considered one of the pioneers in theUK library environment

References

1 Gessesse K Collection development and management in the twenty-first century with special reference to academic libraries an overview

Library Management

2000

21

365ndash72

2 Brannin J Groen F amp Thorin S The changing nature of collection management in research libraries

Library Resources and Technical Services

2000

44

81ndash953 Smith G Co-operative collection development a UK

national perspective

Collection Management

1999

24

251ndash63

4 Association of Research Libraries statistics and measurement programme httpwwwarlorgstats arlstatsindexhtml

5 Boisse J Library co-operation a remedy but not a panacea

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Journal

1995

21

89ndash936 Simpson D Electronic resources a new set of questions for

resource sharing efforts


1996

21

61ndash2

7 Smith G Co-operative collection development a UK national perspective


1996

24

251ndash63

8 British Library co-operation and partnership programme httpwwwblukaboutcooperationconcordhtml

9 Research Support Libraries programme httpwwwrslpacukAboutUsdefaulthtm

10 Research Support Libraries Group Co-ordinating the distributed national collection of research resources 2001 June Report httpwwwrslgacukaboutbackgrndasp

11 Research Libraries Group A brief history of the RLG Conspectus 1997 httpwwwrlgorgconspechisthtml

12 Consortium of University Research Libraries httpwwwcurlacukprojects icashtml

Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

227

Thus libraries are looking to one another in anattempt to address these problems As JosephBoisse wrote

The phrase lsquolibrary co-operationrsquo has becomesomething of a mantra in the library world in thelate 20th Century hellip In our Herculean efforts toovercome many of the enormous obstacles whichwe face we look to lsquolibrary co-operationrsquo as apanacea

5

Collaborative collection management is nota new concept there have been a number ofattempts both on the regional and national scaleoften in the US to address these issues with forthe most part disappointing levels of successThe high proportion of failures would suggest thatcollaborative collecting can be troublesome anddifficult to achieve In fact with the exception ofNorth Carolinarsquos Research Triangle these schemeswere largely unsuccessful The most obviousobstacles to closer co-operation can be summarizedin two words lsquofearrsquo and lsquouncertaintyrsquo There isa distinct fear that committing to a formalcollaborative collection management programmeis in effect irreversible Uncertainty arises aroundseveral issues most notably about the perceivedcost of such a venture Will closer co-operationlead to an increase in overall costs

Allied with this fear is the issue of accessLibrariansrsquo foremost concerns are their users Inorder to join a shared programme librarians needto be confident that if their users cannot physicallyaccess resources then it should be available quicklyand cost effectively using some form of documentdelivery Simpson suggested that the followingpoints need to be addressed for a successful scheme

What impact will sharing (electronic) resourceshave in cooperating libraries and the librarycooperative what are the costs of sharing (electronic)resources and are there cost advantages in doing so

6

Developments in the United Kingdom

Within the UK the last few years have seen aconcerted effort to revisit these areas and try totackle the barriers that have limited the success ofearlier projects Smith writes

There appears to be a general consensus that inprinciple there should be increased and improvedco-operation on collection development Thedifficulties lie in establishing effective andeconomic ways to achieve this hellip

7

Within the United Kingdom there have beentwo main sources of funding concerned withco-operative initiatives the British Libraryrsquos Co-operation and Partnership Programme (CPP)and the Research Support Libraries Programme(RSLP) The CPP programme has its origins inits 1998 Strategic Review which stated the needto lsquoencourage and facilitate partnerships andcollaboration in the key areas of access collectiondevelopment preservation retention and otherassociated areasrsquo

8

Already 28 projects havebenefited with funding from this organizationAlthough not all are purely concerned withcollection management most are collaborativeventures highlighting the importance that it nowplays within libraries

RSLP originates from the findings of both theFollett Review (1993) and the Anderson Report(1996) RSLP was intended to improve sustainedaccess to resources and to extend collaborativearrangements for collection management Thereare 16 funded projects alone looking at the area ofcollaborative collection management (CCM) TheCCM funding strand was designed to

Move the community nearer the lsquoholy grailrsquo ofcollective collection management in the form ofco-ordinated priority setting and co-ordinatedacquisitions policies

9

As RSLP is close to completion other initiativesare now underway including the establishment ofthe Research Support Libraries Group (RSLG)This group has the aim of lsquodeveloping a nationalstrategy to ensure that UK researchers in alldisciplines have access to world class informationresourcesrsquo

10

In effect RSLG has the role of con-tinuing the work of RSLP in looking to improveaccess for the end user through closer linksbetween the academic and library communityFour areas of collaborative support have alreadybeen identified to achieve this aim These shareseveral of the key themes of Mapping Medicine

Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

228










11



12

Conclusions



Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

229


References


Library Management

2000

21

365ndash72



2000

44




1999

24

251ndash63




1995

21




1996

21

61ndash2



1996

24

251ndash63






Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

228










11



12

Conclusions



Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

229


References


Library Management

2000

21

365ndash72



2000

44




1999

24

251ndash63




1995

21




1996

21

61ndash2



1996

24

251ndash63






Brief communication



19

pp226ndash229

229


References


Library Management

2000

21

365ndash72



2000

44




1999

24

251ndash63




1995

21




1996

21

61ndash2



1996

24

251ndash63






mapping medicine: collaborative collection management for biomedical resources. review of the...

Documents