report of the alcts new england collection management and development institute, july 27–29, 1995

Pergamon Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 163--176, 1996

Copyrigat © 1996 l ~v i e r Seimee Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights r e ~ e d

0364-64(}8/96 $15.00 + .00

Pll S0364-6408(96)00017-8

CONFERENCE REPORT

REPORT OF THE ALCTS NEW ENGLAND COLLECTION MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE,

JULY 27-29, 1995

MAGGIE BARTLEY

Collection Management Specialist/Analyst

Wellesley College Library

Wellesley, MA 02181

Internet: mbartley @ wellesley.edu

INTRODUCTION

Collection managers, subject specialists, and library administrators braved a record-breaking nationwide heat wave to attend the Association of Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) New England Collection Management and Development Institute held at Wellesley College on July 27-29, 1995. Planning Committee Co-chairs, Florence Doksansky (Brown University) and Eileen Hardy (Wellesley College), and planning committee members, Jennifer Banks (MIT), Joan Campbell (Wellesley College), Anthony Ferguson (Columbia University), Carol Fleishauer (M1T), Marilyn McSweeney (MIT), William Monroe (Brown University), Jeanne Sohn (Central Connecticut State College), Ross Wood (Wellesley College), and Karen Whittlesey (ALCTS staff) continued the Institute's stimulating tradition of integrating panel presentations on selected topics, issues sessions focused on practical problems of collection management, and spir- ited wrap-up sessions summarizing each day's proceedings.

This year's Institute theme was collection management in a rapidly changing and challenging environment. Presentations of invited speakers explored key features of this environment, including collecting in electronic formats, issues in scholarly communication, and developments in doe- ument delivery and cooperative collection programs. Within this range of topics, common themes recurred, most notably, the importance of understanding user needs, the necessity for creative use of human and technological resources, and the importance of continued stewardship of existing print collections. Issues sessions complemented these presentations by focusing on the practical aspects of communication with users, collection evaluation and preservation, and staffing and budgeting. As several presenters observed, discussions of the changing library environment have all too often been carried out in terms of the "information superhighway," and "virtual libraries." At this conference, however, participants eschewed these familiar metaphors. Instead, they chose

163

164 M. BARTLEY

to explore the image of the collection manager as river pilot. Innovative metaphors can suggest unexpected insights and foster lively discussion, as this convening showed. Perhaps equally important, the river pilot image appeared to signal librarians' rejection of such familiar dichotomies as "electronic vs. print" or "access vs. ownership" in favor of an intention to negoti- ate and balance "both-and."

GENERAL SESSIONS

Keynote Address: The Shape of the River: Collection Development in an Age of Change, Merrily Taylor, Brown University

It was her reading of Samuel Clemens' Life on the Mississippi that initially prompted Merrily Taylor to propose river imagery for collection management. In her keynote address, Taylor offered some of Clemens' observations on the art of fiver piloting and then drew some interesting and pointed analogies for collection managers navigating continuous change. The good river pilot, Clemens wrote, must learn the shape of the fiver even though it is constantly changing. Like Clemens' fiver pilots, librarians too must learn to navigate a poorly charted fiver, which is "deep, complex, murky, somewhat dangerous, but which holds incredible riches." A key for librarians learning the shape of their river involves a clear understanding of the purposes of the communities they serve. At the same time, we need to distinguish between the image of the library as a stable building or repository and the idea of a library as a dynamic "collection of collections with a relationship to the life of the community." Librarians can continue to rechart the changing shape of the fiver by reaffirming their heritage and professional values. As Taylor reminded the group, it is the profession's core values - - assisting users, organizing and preserving information to create knowledge, and providing unhindered access to information - - that def'me the library as an institution. An entity that does not meet these values is not a library.

In keeping with the river analogy, we might view the proliferation of electronic resources, trends in scholarly publishing, and the problem of static or declining revenue bases as a series of perilous rapids. In the face of these challenges, we must continue to carry out our mission, regardless of the form information takes. Taylor argued that the creation of detailed up-to-date collections policy statements can play a crucial role in collection managers' efforts to uphold their responsibility for scholarly resources in all formats, because collection policies force us to exam- ine our strengths and weaknesses and to relate this information to monetary resources.

A collection policy does not underwrite any easy choices between investment in traditional print resources and electronic resources, nor does it predict inevitable trade-offs. Collection policies, however, can provide guidelines for these difficult choices by incorporating weU-conceived criteria for choosing electronic resources. One might consider where electronic resources can effectively substitute for traditional resources, their potential value for high enrollment courses, and the ways they may benefit the highest number of users. Collection policies can also highlight subject strengths in traditional print collections. An appreciation of subject strengths is fundamen- ted for developing resource sharing ventures and in sup .ITorting the specialized academic programs of the parent institution. Despite the possibilities generated by new technologies, Taylor stressed that we must remain aware that there is "an ethical responsibility to maintain these collections."

Collection policies can also serve as tools for communicating with the user communities we serve and the administrators with whom we work. Many users will look to librarians for leadership in organizing and using electronic resources. They will want to know what we are doing and why. Their expectations, of course, will increase. In turn, librarians will need to know what academic programs are doing, what resources they use or need, and how the technical infrastructure is dis-

ALCTS New England Collection Management and Development Institute 165

tributed on campus. Information services planning will necessarily be specific to institutions, and academic librarians must be concerned with continually monitoring user satisfaction. This could take the form of focus groups or surveys. But most importantly, "we need routine contact and feedback from users." It may be time, too, to rethink traditional models of library quality. It might be better to abandon the notion of quality based on title counts and instead, develop criteria of quality based on response to the question, "how well am I serving my community7"

The river pilot's job is important, respected, and stressful. But as we know, Clemens' river pilots were eventually outmoded because their skills were not transferable. We are in better shape because our skills are more flexible, and we can adapt our values and ethos to an environment of constant change. Librarians are going to have to become more familiar with HTML, for example; at the same time, they must not be afraid "to speak for the book with confidence." If we are to remain central to the system of scholarly resources and information, we can neither "wait for stability nor achieve perfection." Like the river pilot, we can approach our task with a spirit of adven- ture and a willingness to take risks.

Turbulent Waters: Scholarly Communication and Publication Issues, Ann Schaffner, Brandeis University and Eugene Weimers, Bates College

The crisis in scholarly journal publishing and the migration of various forms of scholarly communication to electronic media are major factors driving change in the library environment. For collection managers committed to maintaining the library's role in the system of scholarly communication, this shift represents a twofold challenge. Managers must anticipate and plan for future developments at the same time as they strive to adapt rapidly evolving information genres and technologies to the needs of the present. In her presentation, Schaffner responded to these issues by drawing out some of the lessons of the past that might help us better understand current and future changes in scholarly communication. Wiemers, in turn, explored some of the ways in which electronic technologies and resources affect scholars as consumers of information resources and services.

In keeping with the spirit of river pilot imagery, Schaffner suggested that sometimes it is necessary to get out of the boat, walk along the riverbank; and "scout the river." The current state of scholarly communication is an area much in need of "scouting." Studies of scholarly communication carded out by William Garvey and others during the 1960s can serve this purpose, because they offer us a "benchmark" description of the structure and characteristics of scholarly communication against which we can assess changes brought by electronic media. A key finding of this research is that scholarly communication flows through two channels - - informal and formal - - with the informal channel carrying the largest portion of communication. The informal mode is meant to serve authors, for communication here is largely oral, directed toward a highly specialized peer group, and information is fluid and unstructured. As research findings stabilize, scholarly communication moves to the formal, reader-oriented channel of print publication. In this scenario, libraries are central to the formal channel where they perform the vital services of archiving and facilitating access to scholarly communication for less specialized, more general audiences.

What are the implications for the informal-formal distinction when elecla~onic media are intro- duced into the scholarly communication system? At one level, it appears that the dual track is becoming embedded, largely because the informal channel is especially well-served by electronic media such as the Internet. At the same time, print publication continues to meet scientists' requirements for stability of information, copyright protection, and other advantages of the formal channel. However, there are also signs of a breakdown or blurring of the channels, as evinced by the growing popularity of preprint databases, with their variant versions of a scholarly work.

166 Id. BARTLEY

Schaffner suggested that we will see the development of a continuum rather than the continuation of a sharp distinction between the formal and informal modes.

For the time being, traditional genres will exist side by side with newly emerging genres such as the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), Homepages, and Intemet discussions such as "Threads" and "Flames." As new genres evolve, though, there are likely to be interesting and possibly prob- lematic implications for our concepts of authorship, readership, documents, and the nature of knowledge itself. Traditional genres are associated with a stable concept of authorship supported in turn by ownership and copyright law. Intemet discussion groups and lists challenge these traditional views - - who, for example, is the author of a Thread? Our notions of readership depend on people sharing a book. Will a common knowledge base and sense of community be lost, when readers are drawn to increasingly customized information packages? Electronic genres offer the possibility of "publishing" variant versions of a single document. How will this fluidity affect sci- entific practice when 'qaistory shows that stability has been key to building knowledge?" Electronic genres also offer powerful new tools for displaying information, yet we know very little about how people use computer models and interactive electronic images, or how these practices may be changing the representation of knowledge.

But, Schaffner concluded, some things won't change. We will still have a diversity of information resources, knowledge will remain discipline-based, and new forms of access will evolve to tap new kinds of documents. Regardless of information format, libraries, with their new tools, will still be charged with the traditional goals of collecting, preserving, and organizing information resources.

While Schaffuer considered the uses of the past in charting future directions, Wiemers focused on scholars' current use of new information media and the importance of librarians' leadership in adapting these resources to present needs. Wiemers offered three typical collection management situations as loci for exploring these issues.

1. The Team, an interdisciplinary social science research group who are leading experts in their field, in the process of constructing a database of shared information, and who rely on con- ferences as a primary channel of communication;

2. The Young Scholars, a group of junior faculty trying to establish a top notch neuroscienee program on a small campus struggling to remain competitive in the academic marketplace; and

3. The Browsers, a group of older Geography faculty, well supported by a strong historical collection, but who seek material located around the edges of this collection in order to foster serendipitous discoveries.

"How does the revolution in electronic technology and resources affect these groupsT' Despite the possibilities conjured by images of the virtual library, the fact remains that all three groups have a stake in the continuation of the traditional library. The Team needs help archiving their projects, the Young Scholars are going to be dependent on journals, and the Browsers will rely on finding aids and the physical arrangement of material. At present scholars and librarians alike are caught in a situation where new services and systems of scholarly communication are incomplete, fragmented, and sometimes threatening. Scholars nevertheless want and expect to be served in the ways they are accustomed. Should librarians champion what works today or what will replace it?

Wiemers argued that we cannot advocate one or the other. The current system is bound to fail because future revenue streams are not likely to grow and in some cases are declining, yet serial costs will continue to consume greater portions of library budgets, at the expense of monographs and staffing. Economic and market forces would appear to preclude a choice to continue support- ing serials. On the other hand, it is unclear what the replacements can or should be.

AI_L-~S New England Collection Management and Development Institute 167

Given this situation, "How can librarians influence the development of scholarly communication?" The answer involves developing and providing choices for scholars and a willingness to see what works and to revise when necessary. We cannot tell scholars how to work nor can we impose choices that they will perceive as losses to their research and communication practices. Our role will involve advising individual scholars on their options and then working to provide those options as best possible. Our efforts will require ongoing analyses of users' needs, a commitment to listen to their responses, and a willingness to fmd better ways. Disciplinary differences will probably become more important in the design of information systems and models of service. For the Team, this might mean archiving their work and developing the indexing that would make their work accessible. The Young Scholars will need advanced document delivery services and access to preprints, and they will want this service for their students as well. A browsable text and image server that covers their own field but which allows them to quickly and easily cross over to other fields may be the most promising option for the Browsers.

Wiemers emphasized, however, that larger social and economic forces will continue to have an influence on scholarly communication. New technologies may be just as expensive as old technologies. There is no reason to believe that the same market forces affecting print media won't operate in the field of electronic media, as publishers' initiatives around copyright and licensing suggest. Despite these hard realities, librarians must continue to work at laying the technological and political groundwork in support of options that will serve our users. The work of bringing new services into place will require commitment to an ongoing process of experimentation, creativity, tolerance for risk, and persistence.

Flycasting in Cyberspace: Document Delivery and Beyond, Florence Doksansky, Brown University; David Ferriero, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Sally Linden, Wellesley College

Developments in computerized indexing, networking capabilities, and text transmission are hastening the evolution of traditional interlibrary loan into a full document delivery system with multiple options. The possibifity of providing comprehensive access to documents from a variety of sources suggests that ILL and document delivery will no longer be adjuncts to collection management, but rather integral components of this function. In this session presenters considered various aspects of the evolving relationship between document delivery and collection management. Ferriero depicted a vision for the future and some possible stepping stones on the route there. Linden addressed user perceptions of the quality of document delivery services. Doksansky discussed budget and staffing issues.

Ferriero prompted some laughter when he suggested that collection managers working on a vision for document delivery might follow hockey player Wayne Gretzky's maxim for success: "I skate to where I think the puck will be." In making our calculations as~to where our puck will be, librarians will need to create vivid, rich, and emotionally exciting descriptions of future document delivery services. Ferriero proposed a description in which the user has desktop access and is able to recognize information needs and to use and evaluate information. The library staff are able to anticipate users' needs so effectively that the library becomes a factor in driving commercial information enterprises. This vision of a seamless, one stop delivery service, however, entails a set of assumptions about technology, costs, copyright, users and staff. Our ability to influence these factors will affect the prospects for putting vibrant descriptions into place.

With respect to technology, we assume an infrastructure that supports storage and retrieval with "seamless integration and facile navigation." In this scenario, technology is driven solely by user needs. In terms of costs, we assume rational prices, shared costs, and that everyone will be

168 M. BARTLEY

"haves." Copyright and the continuation of fair use provisions will be crucial. Despite careful wording in sections 107 and 108 of the current copyright law, some publishers are using the issue of electronic access as a vehicle for challenging fair use. As a profession, we have the responsibility to protect the right to fair use. As for users, we assume they will be comfortable with technology, are information literate, and are willing to enter collaborative relationships with library staff. Library staff in turn will be focused on customer service and will have articulated a strong service ethos for their organiTations.

Linden expanded on the theme that a highly developed understanding of user needs and behav- ior is crucial for effective document delivery, both for the present and for evolving relations with collection management. If there are any rules for ILL and document delivery, they refer to service excellence and clients' perceptions of quality. She reviewed a recent study of user satisfaction with ILL and described Wellesley's experiment with just-in-time delivery of journal articles for bioscience faculty. Both offer lessons relevant for understanding users' perceptions of need and satisfaction with document delivery.

Conventional views of the quality of ILL services usually focus on turnaround time as a chief measure of success. However, public service librarians and collection managers alike need to look more carefully at the relationship between perceived quality of service and the measurement of turnaround time in ILL. A 1993 study of ILL and customer satisfaction reported by Wilbur Stolt, Pat Weaver-Meyers, and Molly Murphy found that the time elapsed between initiation of a request and its actual delivery did not correspond with clients' perception of timeliness. Instead, perceptions of timeliness appeared to be more strongly related to convenience, quality of interaction with staff, and the use of telephone notification.

Wellesley's experiment with expedited document delivery of articles from five bioscience journals also offers some insight into the relation between timeliness and users' perceptions of their needs. Annual subscriptions to the five journals would have required an expenditure of over $7,000, yet the science faculty were insistent about the importance of these journals. In lieu of subscriptions, the expedited delivery project proposed trying a "just-in-time" approach that would bypass the central ILL office and allow users (faculty only) to place requests with department library staff who would communicate directly with vetted suppliers. The turnaround time agree- ment was worded cautiously, promising only that at least 80% of the time, requests would be titled within 48 hours. This proved acceptable to the scientists, and they were persuaded to give the just- in-time model a chance. The program has served as a device that allows staff to evaluate delivery and timeliness and to assess these factors against demonstrated need. Thus far all requests have been t'filed and turnaround time has been good. There has, however, been one quite unexpected but very interesting outcome. Linden reported that since the inception of the program, there have been only a total of six requests, and no materials from one of the five journals was requested at all! As ILL migrates to expedited document delivery, we need to continue to focus on customer perceptions and satisfaction, while recognizing that this may require other negotiations between staff and demanding user groups.

In her presentation on budget and staffing, Doksansky highlighted issues that librarians must confront as document delivery and ILL come to play larger roles in collection management. Analysis of these issues requires some real time assumptions. The volume of transactions and costs will increase. The budget will remain static. The electronic paradigm is incremental rather than transitional, yet the speed, access, and text delivery capabilities of electronic media will pro- mote development of unrealistic user expectations.

ILL is not free; as of 1991, the average cost per transaction had risen to $30. Since many libraries are forced to support ILL from their materials budgets, rising costs in this area have a direct effect on other collection development resources. Given the i n ~ in ILL traffic, many


libraries may also be forced to charge users, but this is not an ideal solution. Surveys suggest that patrons won't pay for document delivery; we can't charge high-volume users only; and many faculty lack grant funding. The fact that ILL is highly dependent on student labor obscures the potential effects of stalTmg costs on materials budgets. On the other hand, collective figures on actual library usage suggest that the purchase of materials borrowed through ILL would have necessitat- ed a great increase in materials budgets. At the same time, just-in-time models do not necessarily meet all types of user needs and may serve to divert attention from preserving the knowledge base and achieving a balance between access and ownership.

Issues generated by budgets, staffing, technology, and user expectations mean that the "politics of document delivery" will continue to be a challenge. Some scholars will have misgivings about document delivery, for example, while college administrators will be prone to see it as an effective substitute for ownership. Our task is to educate everyone involved and to be sure they understand that document delivery has to be balanced with the need to archive knowledge. More communication and coordination between collection management staff and ILL staff would also help. At present ILL services are housed within public services, circulation, or reference rather than collection management. Yet collection management is involved with many decisions affecting the demand for document delivery - - the selection of citation and full-text databases, decisions about serial can- cellations, and decisions to participate in consortial agreements, for example. Collection managers need to learn more about all aspects of ILL and to understand the effects of each department's choices. The willingness to coordinate our efforts in balancing collections and access services will be essential for successful "flycasting in cyberspace."

Sharing the Raft: Cooperative Collection Development, Jutta Reed-Scott, Association of Research Libraries and Hannah Stevens, Boston Library Consortium

Developments in interlibrary loan and document delivery services allow us to think about acquisitions and service models that build on access rather than ownership. At the same time, it is clear that if this model is to work, access and ownership must be balanced and ownership coordinated. Resource sharing in the context of cooperative collection development is a promising approach, but one that poses some major challenges. How are responsibilities to be equitably allot- ted? What practical steps are necessary for implementing cooperative ventures? What factors underwrite success? In this session, Reed-Scott and Stevens addressed these issues by describing the projects with which they are involved. Reed-Scott works with three AAU/ARL demonstration projects concerned with nationally networked, distributed programs for coordinated acquisitions of foreign language materials. Stevens directs a local program for cooperative collection development comprised of 15 academic and research libraries in Eastern Massachusetts.

"Sharing the raft," Reed-Scott commented, "implies a helmsman, a choice, a map, a course, and a safe arrival." Viewed as "a raft," however, electronic resource sharing portends a more crisis-rid- den ride, for "there is no choice, no known course, and survival depends on teamwork and the ability to take advantage of what the course offers." Nevertheless, we need to turn to electronic resources and technologies if only to ensure that investments in collections made over centuries are secure. Resource sharing ventures in this time of transition conjure up four broad themes, each of which has been integral to the genesis and development of the AAU demonstration projects. The f'Lrst is, how did we get to this state of crisis? The answers here are familiar. We are all in dire economic straits. There have been enormous increases in serials expenditures and decreases in the acquisition of monographs. Within this context, foreign acquisitions have suffered enormous cut- backs, even though international publishing has increased dramatically. Second, what is the state of technology? Technology is transforming the ways research libraries will work in the future, as

170 M. BARTLEY

studies supported by the Mellon Foundation have argued. Correspondingly, a common concern of the AAU Task Force on Foreign Acquisitions has been how to capitalize on technology and the electronic dissemination of information. At the same time, there are still many technical difficul- ties and concerns over copyright that must be resolved. The implications of technology, however, go beyond fibraries and heighten the need to partner with scholars, users, and other libraries.

The importance of partnership with other libraries, then, is the third theme. The AAU Task Force Report on foreign language and area studies materials, for example, recognized that partner- ships would be essential in remedying the decline of foreign acquisitions. The Demonstration Projects recommended by the Task Force for Latin American, Japanese, and German materials thus call for a networked, distributed program of coordinated acquisitions. The model is based on multi-institutional agreements on collecting responsibilities and the use of digitization and rapid delivery of texts.

There are strategic concerns about strengthening the infrastructure, integrating structures, and maintaining equal access. These issues, among others, suggest the fourth theme, what will ensure the success of cooperative ventures7 Here we need to look at the lessons offered by past resource sharing projects. The past suggests that circumstances must be conducive to cooperation, leadership must be shared, participation must be active, and balance must be established between local priorities and institutional goals. To these principles, she added several others. It is clear that the human resources component is also crucial. Bibliographers, collection managers, and technical support staff all need to be involved. In addition, we need to set standards and service policies and to look at internal operating procedures. She suggested that libraries may need to be reengineered if they are to function in more collaborative and networked environments. AAU's demonstration projects have "conceived an overarching goal to be met by small steps." They are building blocks to a vision of interconnected, distributed, networked systems that provide global access. The projects are drawing on the past and changing current behaviors to take advantage of new technology

- - all in an atmosphere of complete uncertainty. Risks and decisions will have to be taken. Perhaps, she concluded, Thoreau offered good advice when he wrote, "We must walk consciously only part way to our goal and then leap consciously to our success."

Resource sharing, Hannah Stevens suggested, is a sign of our success, for through it we've been able to create and foster the concept of the library without walls. Having captured the interest and imagination of users, can we be sure that by luck alone we will have what people need? Libraries will need to focus on coordination if they are to be able to guarantee access. While national cooperative programs are essential, Stevens pointed to the reasons to pursue regional and local programs. Proximity, familiarity, and shared environments present important values and enhance resource sharing ventures. Librarian networks are usually already in place. State grants and funding may be available. The shared benefits of collective negotiation with vendors and pub- fishers are also an incentive.

Cuts in acquisitions budgets, the introduction of new academic programs, the rise of interdisciplinary approaches, and chronic space constraints are common problems for academic libraries. Libraries engaged in cooperative efforts can meet these challenges by providing networking opportunities for collection development staff to enhance their knowledge of institutional collection strengths and local collection policies. In addition, cooperative programs offer opportunities for enhanced coverage of topic areas, for reduction and deaccession of duplicates, for coordinated decisions about serials retention, and can lead to joint action on storage and preservation. Cooperative collections programs cannot become realities without substantial support, however. Some major challenges include obtaining the commitment of staff time for the analysis of needs and negotiation of agreements, securing monetary support for noulocal priorities, and cultivating the good will and confidence of patrons.


There are many examples of local and regional program~ for cooperative collection development; among them they exemplify a variety of models and strategies. These include the Research Triangle University Libraries in North Carolina, the University of California Shared Collections and Access Program, the RLG Conspectus Model, and the statewide network concept in Ohio and Illinois. The Boston Library Consortium Cooperative Collection Development Project has drawn on elements from several of these other programs.

The BLC has been in existence for 25 years. Past projects have included facilitating access to ILL, the development of a union list of serials, and joint buying programs. The Cooperative Collections Plan is the BLC's most recent endeavor. The development of this plan through the BLC Cooperative Collection Development Project took 16 months and relied on LSCA funding, administered through the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. The Project Planning Committee, made up of collection management otticers and librarians, was formed to develop a structure and philosophy for the project, which would result in pilot projects that would test the Plan. The process of finding the right projects, however, drew on the broad involvement of these officers and individual selectors from each institution. Selectors are key to any plan's success, for they must envision that success and work toward it. The criteria guiding selection of pilot projects were (1) that they be simple and understandable; (2) that they offered demonstrable benefits to patrons; and (3) that they would require no new funding. After a period of discussion and planning, members agreed on three pilot projects, which are now underway: a Latin American Women's Studies project that collects interdisciplinary, Spanish language monographic materials; a project to collect English language monographs and bank reports in Asian Business and Economics; and a project to coordinate the acquisition and retention of neuroscience journals. The planning and implementation of the pilot projects has been a learning experience. Factors corr- tributing to the BLC's success include propitious circumstances, committed individuals, supportive organizations, staff participation and supportive technologies, bibliographic and physical access, a history of success, and outside funding.

Cooperative collection programs can have a significant impact on library staff, and it is important to monitor these effects. In the BLC experience, selectors have benefited from working together, but they also bear the brunt of any conflict over the apportionment of selecting responsibilities and coordination of journal acquisitions. Cooperative collection projects have to consider as well the role each library department plays and must incorporate evaluation as an ongoing aspect of their programs. Despite these challenges, Stevens concluded, "enlightened self interest says we will do better by patrons."

Running the Rapids and Avoiding Snags: Developing the Electronic Library, Samuel Demas, Cornell University

Electronic resources and technologies are reconfiguring scholarly communication, document delivery, and resource sharing projects. They also have far reaching implications for the theory and practice of collection development within individual libraries. An emerging consensus calls for the integration of print and electronic resources and proposes that collecting efforts should focus on information content and utility regardless of format. Yet it is not clear how this is to be accom- plished, for the means of delivering, storing, and gaining access to electronic materials are not readily encompassed by protocols long since established for print. In this session, Demas described a conceptual and organizational model for the integration of electronic resources into collection development.

Demas framed his presentation with the observation that this is an extraordinary time to be a librarian. We now have the tools to carry out our traditional mission with greater facility. At the

172 M. BARTI~Y

same time, we face a set of issues ranging from the future of journals to problems with brittle paper. These problems are larger than librarianship, yet society will look to us for leadership. Whether the issue is digital libraries or selection for preservation, collection development will be at the center. However, the evolution of electronic resources and the effort to mainstremn them also portend major changes in the traditional organization and practice of collection development.

At present we do not know how libraries are managing the selection of electronic resources. There is little literature describing and comparing the practices and policies of libraries of varying types and sizes. In any event, the process of adapting the principles and practices of collection development to new forms will probably take a generation, as we work through a process of research and experimentation. During this period of transition, we will have to confront and get past several potential "snags and rapids." The first two, confusion of mission and abandonment of selectivity, are interrelated. There is a lot of junk on the Internet, Demas point out. We need to avoid taking it just because it is there and free. Librarians' major contribution has always been to emphasize quality, currency, and reliability. In prospecting the Net we need to reassert the same collecting paradigms that guide selection of print material, otherwise we risk losing the intellectual coherence of our collections. Territoriality is another "big eddy in the river." We tend to look at resources through our own narrow departmental interests. If libraries are to integrate electronic resources, they will need to reward flexibility and foster cross-departmental collaboration. Problems with territoriality are in turn related to another pitfall, the failure to mainstream. Demas argued that everyone must be brought up to speed, and libraries will need to adjust many of their practices and policies to take advantage of new formats. The plethora of electronic resources point to another potential snag. Without careful planning and organization, we risk creating a patchwork of collections and systems that is confusing to patrons. Finally, we need to budget for content.

Effective responses to these challenges must inform any model we devise for malnstreaming electronic resources. The project seems daunting, but Demas recommended breaking it into small pieces and a series of steps. He then described a conceptual and organizational model developed over a 10-year period by staff at Cornell's Mann Library. The model is based on the concepts of "information genres," "genre specialists," and "tiers of access." It incorporates assessment of organizational impacts through the oversight of an Electronic Resources Council, which is composed of administrators from various library divisions. Finally, the model encompasses a range of selection considerations.

Information genres represent a broad taxonomy of electronic resources that help staff organize their thinking. At present the genres include bibliographic, numeric, full text, applications soft- ware, multimedia, and sound and image resources. A genre specialist is an expert on the publica- tions in all formats in a genre. The tiers of access have been designed to respond to the question, what do we want to accomplish with different resources? Demas fisted five tiers currently employed at Mann Library: (1) gateway accessible, with many simultaneous users; (2) gateway accessible, but with fewer simultaneous users; (3) gateway accessible, but mounted on request only; (4) available on a LAN in the Library; and (5) available on single-user station in the library.

Genre specialists select resources, decide on the most appropriate format for a given resource, and assign it to one of the levels of access. Selections are then referred to the Electronic Resources Committee, who assess their potential impacts on the entire library organization. The Committee also considers any changes that might be necessary to support a given resource. Genre specialists are not necessarily subject specialists. Most campuses do not lack for subject experts, while technological expertise is usually in shorter supply. Genre specialists, therefore, have worked to achieve a high level of technological expertise with respect to their assigned genre. However, genre specialists' responsibilities should be related to other roles they play in the library. Genre specialists must also evaluate resources in terms of such traditional criteria as content, quality,

New England Collection Management and Development Institute 173

authority, publisher, and reliability, as well as new criteria, such as value-added qualities presented by different formats.

Staff at Mann continually evaluate what, and where, a given genre is and track the general progress of the program. Demas envisioned a point when selection activities would be integrated into the daily life of the selector. Selectors will have developed skills necessary to make a range of judgements. Selection strategies will be in place. Acquisitions will have worked out copyright and licensing issues. Catalogers will have resolved issues of bibliographic control. At that point, a genre will have been mainstreamed. Mainstreaming is one of the biggest challenges we face. We need to begin looking at and sharing our models for meeting this challenge.

Panel Discussion: "Casting a l~rute Net: The Future of Collection Development, " Florence Doksansky, Moderator, Samuel Demas, Jutta Reed-Scott, and Eugene Wlemers

Throughout the Institute's proceedings, participants discussed the difficult problems con- fronting collection managers and debated the merits and feasibility of various solutions. Everyone was acutely aware that choices made now, as well as our ability to affect economic, technical, and social factors, will in turn influence the shape of the future. The river pilot image resonated through these discussions, for like the river pilot, librarians need a vision of the destination. In this final session, the panel offered some "snapshot" views of what the future could be like. Reed-Scott contrasted two possible future environments; Demas anticipated changes in the organization of human resources; and Wiemers focused on user needs.

Reed-Scott drew on the mission statement mounted on ARL's gopher to depict a millennium vision. By the year 2000 libraries will have extended resources to desktop access. There will be 24-hour access to all resources in all formats. Libraries will emphasize access rather than quantity of volumes. Print will still be important, but more of the budget will go to electronic resources. The dream millennium, however, may not come to pass. It could all too easily be supplanted by the "information supermarket" model, where new technologies are continually pressed on us, in a "flavor of the day" approach. Information will be a commodity, with the meter always running. There will be more emphasis on limiting access and licensing. Collections will become more homogenous. There will be little or no investment in archiving or preserving print materials. Many will be closed out of the "supermarket" by a lack of resources. Libraries will be gateways, but access will be controlled by commercial interests. If we are to preserve the possibility of the millennium vision, we must take the needed steps now.

One way to counter the supermarket's vices, Demas argued, is to recognize that the need for selectivity will never go away. Society will require discrimination and selectivity more than ever. New models for the organization of human resources will evolve to support collection development's responsibility for intellectual content. We will see a move to part-time selectors, as well as greater involvement by acquisitions and ILL. Selection activities will have to be sensitive to the organization as a whole. Human resources will also be crucial. What kind of people will we need in the future? Librarians of the future will combine a number of competencies and strengths. Subject knowledge, an identification with the scholarly enterprise, and the ability to work with faculty as equals will be important. The librarian of the future will understand the publishing world and be able to work with authors, editors, and marketing people. Comfort with technology, sophistication in using information resources, business savvy, and an entrepreneurial spirit on behalf of constituents will also be essential attributes. Librarians of the future will have a sense of the rightness of their mission and approach it with confidence.

If selectivity is the distinguishing feature of the profession's mission, then we need to ask, what will users need? The possibilities of what we can do for users, Wiemers pointed out, are expanding.

174 M. BARTLEY

What, then, should we be doing for users? He reviewed some possibilities highlighted in previous days' presentations and discussions. Reduce the time users need to get what they want. Treat users with understanding and compassion. Users need to believe we ate working hard for them. Users need to see that technology is not a panacea. The theme is to be involved with users so they can get what they need in a reasonable time. This is a part of the future that we can control. We can use our knowledge of users to develop collaborative programs. We can evaluate "tiers of access" within the library from the user's point of view, not the library's point of view. We can help users respond to market forces, because we know how to select, and we know how to listen.

It is not surprising that this panel, like the previous two days' presentations, drew many questions and responses from participants in the audience. Some of the issues that engaged panel and audience included the problem of the information poor, unequal distribution of computer literacy, concerns about the future of the book, and methodologies for identifying and understanding users' needs. The session ended on an upbeat note. Wiemers suggested that the future could be fun. Reed-Scott proposed that we should see opportunities rather than challenges, for we have a crucial role to play in shaping the future. Demas noted that academic libraries have evolved over centuries as information resources moved from offices to departments to central libraries. This move may be recapitulated in the Net environment, as more people seek a central organization to fund and organize the plethora of new resources.

ISSUES SESSIONS

Changing Organizational Patterns, Jeanne Sohn, Central Connecticut State College Sohn observed that collection management must now contend with more choices, issues,

and people than ever before. Given changes in the library environment, traditional organizational models are no longer working. In traditional forms of organization, the Collection Management Officer is placed below the director; technical services and public services are then placed to the left and right of the CMO respectively. Sohn explored an alternative organizational form in which the CMO works at a point where the three units a administration, technical services, and public services - - intersect (as in a Venn diagram), and selectors are organized in subject-based teams. Strengths and weaknesses of the model were discussed. The model allows responsibilities to be shared and fosters a concentration of knowledge and skill. Problems arising from potential territorial conflicts and the need for more meetings, however, may be possible drawbacks.

Selection Issues, William Monroe, Brown University Monroe framed his presentation with the observation that there is a universe of information; the

role of the selector is to identify that portion of the universe that the library will provide and make available to its users. He reviewed elements of the categories of selection - - current (very recently published materials), retrospective (materials at least 5-10 years old), and occasional materials (gifts, auctions, etc.) - - and discussed selection problems specific to each category. Models and flowcharts meant to portray the selection decision are often too burdensome for actual practice. Instead, Monroe proposed an approach for simplifying selection criteria, in which demand, as reflected in policy statements and user recommendations, is matched against item features, such as type of material, quality, level, format, and price. The issue of negotiating selection with the faculty and the impact on selection of review sources, approval plans, and interlibrary loan data were also covered.

ALC'TS New England Collection Management and Development Institute 175

Preservation of Current and Future Formats, Nancy Carlson Schrock, Conservator and Consultant, Winchester, MA

Emphasizing that preservation should be a process carried out "from the point of view of the object," Schrock reviewed the basics of establishing a preservation program and the elements of an overall preservation strategy - - monitoring the environment, care of new materials, and appropriate treatment of retrospective materials. She discussed the varying characteristics of items that affect preservation decision models for print items and then examined some of the problems and techniques involved in the preservation of nonprint and magnetic media. As they evolve, new techniques in preservation will always have implications for collection management. As a case in point, Schrock examined the pros and cons of digitization and described digitization projects underway at Yale and Cornell.

Weeding and Storage, Jennifer Banks, Massachusetts Institute of Technology The growth of library collections and increased pressures on library space often necessitate

decisions about weeding and storage of materials. These decisions affect users' experience of service, influence the use and planning of space, and bear direct and indirect costs. Banks reviewed each of these factors and presented a range of criteria for predicting use, making storage decisions, and weighing the relative costs of weeding for storage and weeding for discard. She discussed Stanley Slote's method for predicting use by measuring "shelf time period," the length of time a book remains on the shelf between circulations. Issues for the future will revolve around improv- ing methods for assessing impacts on users, measuring costs, and employing "continuous quality improvement" techniques for analyzing the net effects of weeding and storage decisions.

Collection Assessment and Evaluation, Gayle Garlock, University of Toronto Collection evaluations can serve a variety of purposes, framed in terms of users or of the collec-

tion itself. The key to an effective evaluation is planning ahead by clearly defining one's objec- fives - - perhaps the most difficult and political aspect of the entire process. Developing familiarity with relevant subject areas, exploiting previously available data such as circulation statistics, and selecting the most appropriate technique for the evaluation are the next steps in the process. Techniques, like objectives, are either user-oriented (circulation studies, in-house use studies, focus groups, etc.) or collection-oriented (checklists, examination of the collection by a specialist, use of comparative statistics, etc.). Garlock discussed the use of sampling, the merits of combining techniques, and the use of triangulation of techniques in achieving maximum efficiency and accu- racy in the evaluation. The strengths and weaknesses of electronic evaluation tools such as OCLC/Amigos collection analysis tool were also covered. When preparing a report on the evaluation, one should revisit the initial objectives and keep in mind that the reports often play a role in the political process of gaining support for the library. After the report is completed, the data gath- ered can often be exploited for other purposes.

Budget and Allocation, Carol Fleishauer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fleishauer reviewed the concepts, processes, and special problems involved in managing collec-

tions budgets. Ideally, budget requests respond to the need to maintain buying power as well as to accommodate new users, new programs, and growth in publishing. She discussed the types of choices and decisions entailed in fund allocation, including allocation units, methods of allocation, and the influence of supply, demand, and library-specific issues on fund allocation. Fund allocation

176 M. BARTLEY

methodologies were of greatest interest to participants, but Fleishauer dissuaded them from looking for the perfect allocation formula, and offered comfort in the form of a quotation from Eugene Wiemers: "An allocation process that relies solely on the judgement of the collections officer probably has most or all factors typical of formulas buried within it." Coping with fluctuations in serial prices and establishing appropriate ratios for traditional and new formats were among the special problems given consideration.

Communication and Liaison with Users, Lynda Leahy, Northeastern University In this session "users" meant faculty. Since the 1960s when major responsibility for collection

development shifted from academic depamnents to libraries, librarians have been concerned with fostering faculty involvement in collection development. The fact that faculty are often under great pressure and, in some cases, may be threatened by technological change in the library, makes liaison work with them especially challenging. The solution lies in convincing faculty of the benefits of a relationship with the library through many small, repeated contacts initiated by the liaison. Leahy offered a range of suggestions for creating or taking advantage of existing opportunities to inform the faculty and to involve them with collection development. Knowing one's department and cultivating subject expertise are also essential ingredients in the relationship-building process, for these activities serve to establish the liaison as a peer with special expertise vis-a-vis the library.

Collection Development Policies, Tony Ferguson, Columbia University In this session, Ferguson reviewed the basics of writing collection policies. Collection managers

need to appreciate why a collection policy is needed. He cited its use as a communication tool, a budgeting tool, and its role in providing continuity in collecting efforts. The contents of a good policy statement follow from its uses. At minimum, a good policy statement contains introductory information on the mission of the library, a description of the collection, a statement outlining what materials are collected and at what level, and a detailed analysis of the subjects covered. Subject analysis can be done either through a narrative or a Conspectus approach, both of which have their respective merits. The key problems of actually producing a policy statement were also discussed. Ferguson suggested treating the project as a campaign and offered an outline of steps and procedures for enlisting cooperation, putting the campaign into action, and completing it.

CLOSING

Tony Ferguson closed the Institute by encouraging participants to think about what they had learned and bow they would put this to use when they returned home. Some things to consider included the need for continuing education programs, so that selectors can adapt to their evolving roles. New technologies can isolate people but they also enlarge the sphere of interaction. We need to think about whether we really want all that information just because we can get it. Resource sharing and collaboration appear to be promising approaches to some of our problems. Libraries that aren't doing this might want to try it. As support for higher education decreases, libraries will compete with other segments. Our best bet is to partner for win-win.

report of the alcts new england collection management and development institute, july 27–29, 1995

Documents