Patron Initiated Acquisitions:

An Overview

Show Us Where You Are!

On the toolbar,

click on the yellow star, then click on your location!

Using this software

• Microphone• Raising your hand• Green / Red X• Stepping out

• Text chat• Audio• Full Screen• Exiting

Centra opened on your desktop

Centra opened in your browser

Centra text chat

Please introduce yourself in text chat

• Your name will appear automatically in your post.

• Where do you work?• What is your position?

Objectives• After this class, you will: • Know what types of data are used for decision

making in a patron initiated acquisitions program• Understand the assessment of patron initiated

collection development• Cite the positive and negative impacts of patron

driven acquisitions on collections• Apply the ideas of model patron driven

acquisitions programs to your own program• Understand how patron initiated acquisitions

effects different areas of the library    

Background: Why PIA?

• Technology makes it easier– Detailed resource sharing stats (WRS, ILLiad, etc.) – More advanced ILS reports – Collection analysis tools (WCA, IDS, etc.)– Easier to access cataloging records and update holdings

quickly• Greater potential for use

– Direct response to user need– Move from “just in case” to “just in time” acquisitions

• Increase efficiency• Deal with staff reductions

Background: Who uses PIA?

• Libraries of all types• Public• Academic• Special

Key goals of PIA

• Get materials faster• Reduce the number of ILL

transactions• Save $$$ • Increase completion rate• Increase user satisfaction level with

service• Increase viability of overall collection

Getting it in the queue: how patrons ask for it

• ILL• Web or paper form submitted to

library• Faculty orders (academic libraries) • Holds queue • ?

Evaluation criteria: Making the acquisitions

decision• Public Libraries:– “Purchase all” – $$$– Subject matter/appropriate to collection– How quickly can we get it via ILL?– Age– Availability – Demand– Format

Evaluation criteria: Making the acquisitions

decision• Academic Libraries:• Most impose criteria—examples:

– Things that are “wearing out” ILL (series, papers, $)– Items that can only be acquired via an international ILL

transaction– Language– $$$– Format– Publication date (<5 years)– Who requested it? Priority to faculty and grad students– Its coming anyway (approval plan)– Cannot be easily acquired via ILL; uniqueness

Measures of success: public libraries

• Subsequent use (Circulation)• Cost (vs. ILL)• Fit • Savings vs. ILL borrow

Measures of success: academic libraries

• Objective: • Turnaround time (vs. ILL)• Cost (vs. ILL borrow)• Subsequent use (Circulation)• Administer collection surveys

Measures of success: academic libraries

• Subjective: • Review of purchases by faculty

experts, subject librarians, and/or bibliographers

Impact: ILL

• Increased workload added • Workflows extended• Closer ties to the acquisitions and

sometimes cataloging process established

• Updated training/cross training needed

Impact: Acquisitions

• Funds can be spent quickly!• Funds may be spent unevenly across

the disciplines• Added struggle to balance the needs

of users• Closer ties to ILL• Changing workflows• Cross training

Impact: public services

• Impacts how reference librarians may be used as subject librarians

• Circulation statistics become an even more important assessment tool

• Circulation of newly acquired materials may well increase!

Case study: large academic library

• University of Nebraska-Lincoln• What they did:

– Managed a small purchase on demand program out of the ILL office

– Over a 5 year period, acquired about 2 percent of their collection this way

• What they learned: – Found materials generally met the

needs of their patrons and circulated more frequently

UN-L: PIA purchase criteria

• Cost—Initially $75 limit, raised to $175

• Published in last 3 years• No textbooks, popular lit,

computer/lab manuals, fiction, plays, etc.

Case Study: smaller academic library

• Grand Valley State University• What they did:

– Set up a 1 year patron initiated program in ILL

• What they learned: – That PIA was a good complement to traditional

acquisitions, and 36% of the items acquired circulated at least once more during the year. Titles were generally appropriate, and in demand after purchase

GVSU: PIA purchase criteria

• In print monographs• Published in the last 3 years • $75 or less• Used WCA ILL stats from previous

year to set budget for trial of $5,000

GVSU: assessment

• Took a few more and more interesting steps: • Used OCLC® WorldCat Collection Analysis

– Generated a list of previous year’s ILL titles to check fit and assess the viability of trial before going forward

– After the trial, used WCA to determine ownership of titles purchased via PIA by peer institutions

Case Study: public libraries--

• Akron-Summit County Public Library (OH)

• With a well established selector program in place, ASCPL decided to generate more user involvement in selection of e-books

Public libraries

• e-books are a primary PIA target for public libraries

• In high demand• Vendors are creating use=purchase

models that help control costs and manage collections

Case study: Consortia--The IDS Project

• The IDS Project (NY) is working to create many workflow efficiencies across multiple public services (ILL) and acquisitions processes.

• Technology is the answer…

IDS: What they have done-and made available for you-free.)

• GIST (Getting It System Toolkit) • Merges ILL and acquisitions

processes in one place• System brings information like price,

holdings info, and review info together in one place

• http://www.gistlibrary.org/

Gifts and De-selection Manager

• Designed to allow staff to search by ISBN, OCLC number, or title and get a quick decision based on pre-set criteria.

• http://www.gistlibrary.org/gdm/#.UT8mcdE6Vmc

Case study: Consortia--Orbis-Cascade Alliance

• 37 academic libraries in Washington State• What they did: • Created a patron driven electronic book

purchase pilot

• What they learned: • It was economical to share the burden of

e-book collection development across 37 libraries and the content they gained was well used.

Orbis-Cascade Alliance: How they did it

• All member libraries provided $$$• Collaborated with vendors—YBP and EBL to

create access • Patrons select from a pool of books for use• Consortium is charged for patron use, then the e-

book is added to the consortium’s collection• Many technical services workflows are automated• Overview:

– coill.cvlsites.org/files/2012/04/Greg-Orbis-Cascade.pptx

Ultimately, there are pros…

• Cost effective vs. ILL-not always cheaper-but

• Titles acquired often meet the needs of multiple users/Good ROI

• Favorable patron response, creates involvement

• Increases staff morale• Increases efficiency

…and cons• We write collection development policies for a reason!• Librarian’s knowledge and key role—book selection

– We know collection priorities– We are familiar with existing academic programs

• Collections could become too wacky• Can be difficult and more expensive to set up purchase

programs outside of the traditional mode• Patrons abuse the service• Patron monopolizes the title (NO one could want this except

me!)

Summary: How PIA programs are assessed

• Circulation data—how often are items acquired this way circulating?

• Fit--do titles fit our collection development policy? Did peer institutions collect similar titles?

• Cost--when compared to the cost of ILL for the same items, did we at least break even?

• ROI—if it costs more than ILL, are we still getting more use out of PIA selected items?

Summary: Keys to successful implementation

• Assess potential impact on collections– Review ILL statistics – Set budget

• Start small and experiment– Specific collection area– Small % of overall collection

• Identify vendor partners that help the process • Identify selection criteria

– $$$, material type, age, language, disciplines etc.

Assessing success• Consider assessment measures—for your institution, what

does success with PIA look like?– Did PIA acquired books circulate more?– What was the cost? Does increased use negate

the higher price paid to get items on demand? ROI!

– Were PIA purchases in line with my collections policies, and Similar to acquisitions by my peer institutions?

– Were my patrons pleased with the service? Did it increase engagement and goodwill in a meaningful way?

Overall…

• Most libraries are starting small• 1-6 % of budget used for PIA• Testing specific subject areas as a

pilot• Beyond that, there are some

concerns about scalability• This works at 1%, but what about

50%?

Questions?

Resources• Doyle, G. Interviewed by Cory Tucker. (2011). Patron-driven

acquisition – Working collaboratively in a consortial environment: An interview with Greg Doyle. Collaborative Librarianship 3 (4) 212-216.

• Fister, B. (11 November 2011) Problematizing patron driven acquisitions. Library Journal Online. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/communityacademiclibraries/887739-419/problematizing_patron-driven_acquisitions__peer.html.csp

• Nixon, J.M, Freeman, R.S. & Ward, S.M. (2010). Patron driven acquisitions: Current successes and future directions [Special issue]. Collection Management, 35 (4-5).

• Perdue, J., & Van Fleet, J. A. (1999). Borrow or buy? Cost-effective delivery of monographs. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 9(4), 19-28.

Resources• Tyler, W.C. “Patron driven purchase on demand programs for

printed books and similar materials: A chronological review and summary of findings.: (2011). Library Philosophy and Practice. http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/tyler.htm

• Tyler, David; Xu, Yang; Melvin, Joyce C.; Epp, Marylou; and Kreps, Anita M., "Just How Right Are the Customers? An Analysis of the Relative Performance of Patron-Initiated Interlibrary Loan Monograph Purchases" (2010). Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries. Paper 230. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/230

• Way, Doug, "The Assessment of Patron-Initiated Collection Development via Interlibrary Loan at a Comprehensive University" (2009). Scholarly Publications. Paper 5. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_sp/5

More Resources

• “The Scholarly Kitchen” <blog>– http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/tag/pa

tron-driven-acquisitions/• “Off the Shelf” <blog>. Sue Polanka,

“Patron Driven Acquisition.”– http://www.booklistonline.com/Off-the-S

helf-Patron-Driven-Acquisition-Sue-Polanka/pid=3226359

Thank You for Attending!

Questions/Comments• 1.800.999.8558, ext. 4916• Email: russell.palmer@lyrasis.org

We’d very much appreciate your thoughts about the class.

http://www.lyrasis.org/Classes-and-Events/Class-Evaluation.aspx