Santa Clara UniversityScholar Commons

University Library Information Services

3-27-2015

Print Reference Collections Never Die, They JustFade Away: Or Do They?Tina ChrzastowskiSanta Clara University, tchrzastowski@scu.edu

Jessica HarrisSanta Clara University, jaharris@scu.edu

Sophia NeuhausSanta Clara University, sneuhaus@scu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/library

Part of the Collection Development and Management Commons

Conference: ACRL 2015 (Portland, OR) Date Presented: Friday, March 27, 2015

This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Information Services at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity Library by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact rscroggin@scu.edu.

Recommended CitationChrzastowski, Tina; Harris, Jessica; and Neuhaus, Sophia, "Print Reference Collections Never Die, They Just Fade Away: Or DoThey?" (2015). University Library. Paper 41.http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/library/41

z

Z`

Introduction As all libraries know, print collections don't fade away. It takes a great deal of effort and time to review a collection, make decisions, and implement those decisions. Santa Clara University Library staff reviewed and relocated over 7,800 titles in a reference weeding project. Twin goals were to make the reference collection more relevant to current research needs and to redesign the library's first floor in order to create more high-demand user space. The project began in July 2013 by gathering a complete list of reference titles in the Library’s catalog, reference standing orders, titles from three reference databases, and in-house and circulation usage data. The information was compiled in a Google Docs spreadsheet that could be viewed and edited by all relevant staff. The final preparatory step was to work out procedures with the departments responsible for processing the changes - Access & Delivery Services and Technical Services. Understandably, a host of issues arose. These included locating missing books, discovering additional volumes shelved in the circulating collection, identifying all volumes associated with title changes, plus other glitches that involved cataloging and access. In addition to weeding the collections, library staff found that this project provided a great opportunity to update the holdings in the Library’s catalog and review relevant standing orders. Not only did the project involve multiple library units with multiple workflows, but staff ranging from librarians to paraprofessionals to student workers all touched this project along the way. The project was finished in December 2014, approximately 18 months after starting.

Literature Cited

Average library wages were computed to provide a national look at costs representative of any library in the United States. Salary information was derived from: Library Workers: Facts & Figures: Fact Sheet 2014. The Department for Professional Employees (DPE), http://dpeaflcio.org/. Accessed February 27, 2015.

Acknowledgments Design by Judy Rodriguez.

Special thanks to Rice Majors, Jane Skoric, and Phong Truong for the original creation of the Access Services & Technical Services workflows.

Cost of Weeding by Staff Type

Project Timeline

Conclusions •! Communication across departments is vital to the success of this project. Include

all stakeholders when planning the workflow and setting goals. •! Understand – and communicate – the purpose of weeding this collection and

assign deadlines that align with these goals. •! Keep an accurate count of titles & volumes reviewed, relocated, and discarded.

Also, request that staff track the number of hours spent on this project. This will allow you to set benchmarks for future weeding projects.

•! Determine your method for collecting, distributing, and sharing data, then create guidelines for its use.

•! Assign each selector to create weeding criteria for their collection prior to beginning this project. Once these criteria have been set, provide the selector with as much information as possible to allow them to make data-driven decisions.

•! Plan for issues to arise. This project allowed us to find many missing volumes and to correct cataloging errors. It also inspired a standing orders record cleanup and weeding project.

•! Assess the success of this project at every milestone and make adjustments as needed to improve efficiency.

Subject

Librarians Review titles

Keep &

Relocate Weed

Student Assistant retrieves volumes

for processing

Technical Services Staff prints list of weeded volumes

with locations

Technical Services Staff scans all titles into Rapid Update to

give them a unique ID

Technical Services Staff creates bib &

item record lists in the ILS from unique ID

Technical Services Staff globally updates all bib & item records for discarded volumes

Log statistics and update Reference Weeding spreadsheet

Remove holdings from OCLC

Mark each item as discarded & add to

discard shelf

Technical Services Staff sends volumes to

Better World Books

Student Assistant

globally updates Staff

for discarded volumes

Access Services Staff prints list of titles by location destination

Student Assistant retrieves volumes and creates book truck for

each location

Reference Locations Prior to Weeding: •! First floor reference •! ARS, circulating •! ARS, non-circulating •! Lower-level reference

Reference Locations Post Weeding: •! ARS, circulating •! ARS, non-circulating •! Lower-level reference Student Assistant

scans all titles into Rapid Update to give

them a unique ID

Technical Services Staff creates bib & item record

lists in the ILS from unique ID

Technical Services Staff globally updates all bib & item records for relocated volumes

Access Services Staff emails Technical Services Staff with the following:

•! Location destination •! Title count •! Volume count

Item Records:

•! When applicable, change to circulating (ITYPE)

•! Add note with project name, initials, and date (variable length field)

•! Remove unique identifier (ICODE1)

Access Services Staff updates Reference Weeding spreadsheet when notified

Student Assistant relocates volumes

Access Services Staff changes item location &

physically relocates material

Item Records: •! Suppress (ICODE2) •! Add note with project name, initials, and

date (variable length field) •! Discard (IMESSAGE) •! Remove unique identifier (ICODE1)

Bib Records:

•! Purge/Suppress (BCODE3)

Total staff cost to review material •! Total number of hours spent: 232 •! Total cost in staff time: $6,461.20

July 2013: Project planning began

Dec. 2013: Weeding started

Sep. 2014: First floor & Lower-

level reference completed

March 2015: ARS reference completed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

General Business Humanities Social Sciences Sciences

Moved to circulating Retained in reference Discarded

Santa Clara University Library, Santa Clara, California

Sophia Neuhaus Social Sciences & Government Information Librarian

Tina Chrzastowski Head of Access & Delivery Services

Jessica Harris Head of Electronic Resources & Serials

Total staff cost to relocate material •! Total number of hours spent: 1,320 •! Total cost in staff time: $12,187.44

Total staff cost to discard material •! Total number of hours spent: 464 •! Total cost in staff time: $9,042.00

Total

$27,690.64 Wages $ 8,307.19 Overhead (30%) $35,997.83 TOTAL COST

$4.60 Per Book Reviewed

STUDENTS $7.25 PER HOUR

$7,598.00 1048 Hours Spent

STAFF $15.04 PER HOUR

$8,061.44 536 Hours Spent

LIBRARIANS $27.85 PER HOUR

$12,031.20 432 Hours Spent