weeding with robots: managing collections in an automated retrieval system

WEEDING WITH ROBOTS: Managing Collections in an Automated Retrieval System

Charleston Conference 2010

Linda Masselink, Patricia Bravender & Hazel McClure Grand Valley State University

Robert Kelly Eastern Michigan University

Why Automated Retrieval?

Space

Cost $$$$$

To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before

Challenges

Content inventory

Weeding

Steelcase Library’s ARS

Random Access

Sets

Government documents

Videos

Microfilm

GVSU Loading Up

3 sizes of bins 10” 12” 15”

Barcodes

Numbering by hand

ARS Bin

WEEDING THE GVSU BUSINESS COLLECTION

Weeding

Getting started…

Rick Lugg R2 ConsultingLegacy Print Collections

From the Kent Study:40% of books never circulated if they did not circulate within the first 2 years of purchase

No circulation in 6 years = potential use is 1 in 50

Aggressive De-Selection

No impact on users

Content available at other places

Susan Gibbons “user driven collection”

Core Collection

Core collection = books used

Noncore collection = books not used

WEED noncore

What holds us back from weeding?

Weeding Business Books

Request for book information

Target a small collection to start

Pull each item from the retrieval system

Discoveries

Weeding can guide future purchase decisions

Discover “mistakes”

It is hard to weed good books that are not used!

Considerations

Key indicator - number of circulations

Books checked against: Bowker Book Analysis for relevance

Web of Science for citations

Choice Outstanding Academic Titles

Other Considerations

World Cat listing for holdings at other libraries

Condition

Cost of replacing

Next Group

“No Circs” brought out first

Slow process

Weeding

Not a “someday” activity

Schedule

Limit your time

UNHAND ME YOU MECHANICAL MORON:

WEEDING THE GVSU LAW COLLECTION

The Steelcase Library in downtown Grand Rapids was to become the home of GVSU’s 3,000 volume law collection.

GVSU accepted the Grand Rapids Bar Association’s 35,000 volume, 120 year old law collection.

Bar collection accepted in its entirety - was not weeded.

Part of the collection put in the reading room - majority stored in the ARS where…

it became invisible to the human eye.

GVSU updated and added new material to the collection for next six years

By 2007 apparent that:

Use by the Bar was declining Use by GVSU students was low Many items duplicated (and paid for twice)

in on-line services such as Westlaw Cost of legal materials were skyrocketing A lot staff time required to keep updated

Why was use of law collection declining?

The following may have contributed:

Relevance of materials to GVSU students- too

specialized

Location of Steelcase library w/respect Bar

members

Availability of materials on-line

New barriers between users and the

collection

Difficulty of using law materials stored in an

ARS New law school library built within ½ mile of Steelcase Library

GVSU and GR Bar Association agreed that GVSU could dispose of the collection.

The Bar did not want the collection returned.

Titles that GVSU did not want were to be offered to Bar members and new law school library in Grand Rapids.

Any titles that remained after this procedure would be shredded according to GVSU’s policy.

How the Robot Retrieved the BarCollection from the ARS

When collections were merged, it was noted in the catalog record of each item that it had come from the Bar.

This was done because the merger was to be a three year trial – if it didn’t work Bar had the option of reclaiming its collection.

First Weeding

GVSU generated a list of every Bar donated item from its catalog.

GVSU determined which titles to keep and which to discard according to its weeding policies.

The discard list was then circulated to the local law library and members of Bar who selected books.

Shelving designated for holding selected items.

Monographs requested from the ARS, reviewed and placed on a shelf for de-accession from the collection by circ staff.

If requested item was a multi-volume set, only one volume was requested for review.

Circ staff pulled multi-volume sets during evening, low patron use times.

Law books often consist of more than one volume (often many) and each volume might be located in a different bin.

Minimum one minute per item, often longer if many items are in queue.

Second Weeding

Canceled and outdated materials next priority –some from Bar list and some not.

Worked from list of canceled material generated by technical services by call no. range

Items processed in the same manner as described earlier

All items shredded

6 months - 14,000 volumes

Third Weeding

Remaining volumes from the original Bar list being pulled and discarded using this process as time and space permit.

Majority out-of-date material collected over a period of many years by Bar Association.

FULL STEAM AHEAD:Weeding the GVSU Social Work Collection

Social Work Collection

Had been weeded in past few years

Still had a lot of chaff

New librarian & turnover

Weeding 101

Librarian was new to the profession & to weeding Academic preparation Practical experience

Jumped into weeding out of necessity

What I Did…

Made lists based on Call number ranges Circulation stats Core lists Availability of quick/easy/inexpensive

replacement

Used this list to “pull” and withdraw books from collection

& Why I Did It

Provided a way to weed collection without ready physical access

Circ stats are a good predictor of future use

Had to be cruel to be kind; weeding had to happen

I didn’t have many choices

Weed or Seedling?

Encountered books from other collections Johnson Collection Criminal Justice Government Documents

Multiple copies Books that were owned by many other

schools Books that were in areas that weren’t

very well represented in the collection

Strengths of This Method

Gets the job done

Easily sectionable

Lends itself to Automation Record keeping

Weaknesses of This Method

Making lists was time consuming Dependent on circulation staff to pull

items and systems librarian’s team to get lists

Making & manipulating lists was boring work

Impossible to determine condition of items Maintains/encourages distance between

librarian & collection

Mistakes Made, Lessons Learned

Failed to consider some usage stats

Didn’t have a nuanced enough LOC call number list Some areas relevant to Social Work weren’t

covered List included many titles irrelevant to Social

Work

Back to the Future: Ongoing Plans

Refining LC Call number list Solution to perpetual problem of lack of

weeding Periodic generation of lists & storage or

withdrawal Able to use some information gathered

to assist other librarians Method (with appropriate record

keeping) offers window into usage trends Using method with other collections

Possibility For Other Collections Public, Nonprofit and Health

Administration Will need LC ranges Need to consider changing curriculum Need to be mindful of overlap of other

collections Future possibility of

automation/expanding method across disciplines

Relationship of weeding via this method to Subject Collection policies

LOST IN SPACE10 years later looking in all the wrong places

Why Inventory?

Robert G. Kelly 2010 Charleston Conference November 6, 2010

Reconcile bin holdings with online catalog Reduce ILL requests Clean up catalog records (none,

incomplete, inaccurate) Accurate count of items Fill rate of bins Space Preparation for weeding of ARC

Material Types in ARC


Type # of Items % of holdings Book 401,599 76.35 Periodical 109,189 20.76 Visual 9,229 1.75 Nocirc 3,271 .62 Audio 1,381 .26 Video ref 1,223 .23 Misc items 134 .03

Inventory time requirements & processing


Quick Visual To date inventoried X number of bins 30 to 45 minutes depending on

size/format of the bin materials and problem items

Sequence of how bins are being called (need to identify) and why this method

http://brand.emich.edu/video/thelibrary/storage/

Arc Item Processing


PC is set up to inventory mode and bin called & delivered.

Remove and scan each item within each section and receive confirmation that the item is in the correct section and bin.

Will move items to different section within the bin to ease space constraints.

Once all items scanned, bin returned to rack and another called.

Typical Issues


Item not found Section displayed on screen as full but

actually has room. Requires high level of attention. System

will warn but easy to miss warnings. Needs to be improved.

Prognosis/Results


Most items are in correct bins Problems so far are items not linked

to bins (i.e. lost in space). Flexible…can start/stop as needed. Long term process: Will take a year

to do. Hands on inventory provides

opportunity to also assess condition of materials.

Closing thoughts


Hands-on real time inventory provides opportunity to: Update linking to catalog so that correct

item is retrieved. Accurate determination of holdings and

their location. Assess condition of materials which may

need conservation. Inventory of the available space as well as

materials.

Recommendations

Completely and aggressively weed collections before moving them into an ARS.

Ensure cataloging records contain information necessary to isolate discrete collections if such exist.

Develop procedures for weeding an ARS on a regular basis, including periodic review of the holdings in an ARS by call numbers and subject headings.

Recommendations

Examine the feasibility of programming an ARS to keep multi-volume sets in the same bin.

Consider carefully whether an ARS is the proper location for storage of multi-volume sets and high-use items.

“We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies.” -- Marshall McLuhan

Resources

Atkins, S., Weible, C. “Lost is Found”, Collection Management, 31:3 25-32, 2007.

Bullard, R., Wrosch, J. “Eastern Michigan University’s Automated Retrieval System, 10 years Later”, Journal of Access Services, 6:388-395, 2009.

Gibbons, S. “Time Horizon 2020: Library Renaissance”, http://hdl.handle.net/1802/10051 2010.

Kent, A. “Uses of Materials: The University of Pittsburgh Study”, Books in Library and Information Science (v. 26). New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979.

Schonfeld, R.C. & Housewright, R. Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies. Ithaka S + R: http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%2520Study%25202009.pdf

Young, D.J. “Get to Effective Weeding”, Library Journal, 134:19 36, 2009.

http://hdl.handle.net/1802/10051

http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%20Study%202009.pdf

http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%20Study%202009.pdf