Key Issues of Trends Promoting a More Generic Approach to Collection Development Mary Othic November 3, 2010

In todays libraries, there are many decisions that need to be made every day that affect the development and management of the collection. It is important to take a look at these key issues and make sure that libraries are headed in the appropriate direction. Privatizing libraries, vendor selection, library consortia and inter-library loan all lead to more generic collections in one way or another. This is not necessarily a bad or good thing but something to be monitored and adjusted to make sure that it is what is best for the individual library. This paper will focus on the key issues regarding the current trends that promote a more generic and less customized approach to collection development and management. I will look at the key issues of privatizing libraries, vendor selection, library consortia and inter-library loan and the roles they play in promoting generic collections. I will also consider the forces that are driving these issues and causing libraries to adopt these trends. The idea of privatized libraries is one that has slowly been creeping into the consciousness of librarians especially in our current economy. Privatized libraries happen when an outside company comes in and takes over the operation of a library. The most often talked about company to do this is Library System & Services (LSSI). It may not be an awful thing to have a company that specializing in managing libraries running your operations, but it begs a few different questions: What happens to the collection? Are there still librarians who specialize in managing that collection? As the budget gets cut and reallocated does the variety and individuality of the collection suffer? This system sounds very much like the model a Barnes & Noble or Borders runs on. There is one large management company that runs all of the branches. In my experience, when this happens a model is set up and each branch begins to look exactly like the next. It seems that it would be difficult for an organization based in Germantown, Maryland to know what each of the ever-changing patrons needs are in one of the

34 Riverside County, California libraries that it manages. It is possible to see an outside management company implementing a vendor selection system which would only add to the generic feel of a library. Vendor selection in any library can lead to collections that dont match a librarys demographics or patron needs. A perfect example is the class presentation we heard regarding Hawaiis outsourcing issues. Issues can arise when complete control is given to a vender to choose the materials sent to a library. One issue is differentiating between the needs of multiple branches as illustrated by Kathleen Sullivan, Phoenix Public Librarys Collection Development Coordinator. Being branch specific throws off the entire collection observes Sullivan. The vendor is going to be selecting for a system, and a title that may not seem of interest to one branch will be of interest to the whole. Other concerns are that collections become one dimensional because materials are coming from only one vendor who has connections with only so many publishers. What about the items that arent being reviewed or are from small independent or topic specific publishers? This idea also applies to serials vendors who often bundle together groups of in-demand journals with things that your library may not need or want. The price is discounted but is your collection suffering because of it? Vendor selection can and has worked for some libraries but as stated in the Hoffert article, In the end, every library is unique, with circumstances that could make vendor selection problematic. Similar arguments that can be made about library consortia can also be made for vendor selection. Library consortia such as CARLI or ILLINET are defined by our text as two or more libraries that have formally agreed to coordinate, cooperate in, or consolidate certain functions. Two main benefits often offered by a consortia are e-resources brokering and integrated library systems. E-resource brokering is beneficial to libraries because it offers a substation discount in

price due to the large number of libraries who are participating in the deal. With this price break often come unwanted or unnecessary serials and a similar collection as other CARLI or ILLINET members. Another issue is that a library is often at the mercy of its consortia when journals are added or dropped, prices are changed or the terms of availability of past journal articles change. These things can all be changed by the consortia and there is little a single library can do to stop the changes from happening. The idea of banning together to save money is understandable but libraries certainly need to be aware of the toll this can have on the individuality of their collections. Integrated library systems are an online catalogue of a librarys holdings and the holdings of all the other members of the consortium. This is certainly a benefit to patrons but libraries need to be aware of negative effects this can have on their collection. It is important not to strip down your own collection just because the same materials are available through another library that is a part of your consortium. Borrowing from another library may work for some sources but it is necessary to look carefully at a collection development policy and keep the integrity of your collection in tact. Patrons who are used to integrated library systems and consortia, even if they dont know that they are using them, have come to expect inter-library loan as a provided service. With interlibrary loan it is again important to walk the fine line between relying on other branches or libraries to fill the holes in your collection and having a well-rounded and customized collection in your library. Why is it that libraries are even dealing with the issue of a more generic, universal collection versus a customized, local collection? The main factors driving this issue are the economy, technology and the publics expectations. Our textbook discusses the financial affects

the economy is having on libraries, Financial stringency has had a profound impact on the growth of library collections. Interlibrary lending became essential in response to libraries inability to meet users needs locally. Collection librarians in all types of libraries are now seeking to cope with scarce financial resources, preservation and conservation needs, cooperation in collection building and resource sharing, serials cancellation projects and weeding and storage decisions. As this excerpt so perfectly states, the economy is pushing libraries to consider each of the options I have discussed. Privatizing, vendor selection, consortia and interlibrary loan all have financial savings attached to their implementation in a library. In the current economy, libraries are looking at every possible way to make their budgets work. These four ideas have become appealing not only for their financial benefits but also due to the advanced technology that is behind them. As technology has improved, things like integrated library systems and interlibrary loan have become easier to use and beneficial to the patron. Also, patrons expectations have change from their use of online searching at websites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble. The want to be able to see all the places a book is available and have it sent to the location of their choice. Economy, technology and the publics expectations have each had an affect on how collections are managed. Collection development librarians have many issues to deal with in todays libraries. Collections becoming less localized and more generic is an important one. Privatizing libraries, vendor services, library consortia and inter-library loan can not be regarded as useless because of fear that the collection will lose its customized feel. With work, libraries can use the best parts of these concepts to benefit their libraries and can keep the customization that is so important to the character of each individual library.

Works Cited

Chadwell, Faye A. Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers? Successful Collaboration. Collection Management 34.3 (2009): 151-156. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. Hoffert, Barbara. Whos Selecting Now?. Library Journal 132.14 (2007): 40-43. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. Johnson, Peggy. Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. American Library Association Chicago: 2009. McElfresh, Laura Kane. 21st Century Collection Management and the Small College Library. Technicalities29.5 (2009): 4-5. OmniFile Full Text Mega. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.