Presentation at SCELC Colloquium 2013 on an analysis of print book holdings at 56 SCELC institutions from a data file provided by OCLC in 2012. Implications for shared print, resource sharing, and collaborative collection development are explored.

1. What OCLC data analysis reveals
about SCELC libraries
SCELC Colloquium
John McDonald
CIO, Claremont University
Consortium
March 6, 2013

2. SCELC’s Need for DATA
• Nascent resource sharing program (CAMINO)
 What can I get out of this if I join?
• Interest in shared print preservation program
 What will I be obligated to keep if I join?
• Some have interest in closer collaborative collection
development
 What can I stop buying or what else can I buy?

3. OCLC Data Analysis
• SCELC officially requested provision of print book
holdings from OCLC for a portion of its members
• 56 SCELC schools requested (50% of membership)
• Simple Data provided:
 By OCLC Number
 Holding Libraries by Symbol

4. OCLC Data Analysis
• 2.2 Million Books (or 2,190,464 to be exact)
• 5.5 Million Holdings (or 5,558,921 to be exact)

5. Data looks a little like this…

8. 600,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
100,000
500,000
0
Claremont
Santa Clara
LMU
USF
Oxy
Fuller
Pepperdine
Caltech
University of the Pacific
Biola
La Sierra
Azusa Pacific
Loma Linda
St. Mary's
La Verne
Pacific Union College
Point Loma Nazarene
California Lutheran
Claremont School of…
Golden Gate Baptist…
Mills College
American Jewish…
Westmont College
Simpson University
Vanguard University
Cal Arts
Cal Baptist
Monterey Institute
Dominican
Mount St. Mary's
Whittier
Woodbury
San Diego Christian
Golden Gate
Hope International
John F. Kennedy
Menlo College
William Jessup
Holy Names
Marymount College
Cal Inst of Integral…
Sierra Nevada
Western University of…
City of Hope
Alliant San Diego
Wright Institute
Charles Drew
Palo Alto University
Alliant - SF
San Francisco…
Alliant International…
Alliant - Fresno
Inst of Transpersonal…
Notre Dame de Namur
Total Books Held, by Library
SF Center for…
Alliant - Irvine

9. So what? What will the data tell us…

10. Who makes a good resource sharing partner?
Who makes a good shared print partner?
Who do is best to collaborate with on
collections in the future?
What traits can influence a Library to join a
program or start a partnership?

11. Shared Print: Find Unique Holdings to Maximize Preservation
30%
25% Claremont, 180K
Total Portion of Collection
20%
LMU, USF, Santa
Clara, 70-80K each
15%
Occidental, 50K
Fuller Theological Seminary, 100K
10% Caltech, 75K
5%
American Jewish
University, 50K
0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Unique across all Libraries

12. Shared Print: Find Overlap Holdings to Maximize Deselection
Books also held by Claremont

13. Shared Print: Find Overlap as a % of Collection
70.0%
% of Collection held by Claremont
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

14. Resource Sharing: Find Libraries Most Unlike Us
20%
18% LMU, USF, Santa
Clara, 200-250K each
Total Portion of Collection
16%
14%
12% Fuller Theological
Seminary, 230K
10% Caltech, 150K
8% Biola, 135K
6% Loma Linda, 120K
4%
2%
0%
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Unique from Claremont

15. CUC
Resource Sharing: CAMINO Collections
LMU
Oxy
Pep
UOP
CST
Wstmt
CalArts
CBU
Dom
WJU
WUHS
AJU
HNU
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Books held only by library Books held by BOTH library and the rest of Camino Books held only by the rest of Camino

16. Percentage of Each Library's books that are Unique to Camino
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CUC Resource Sharing: CAMINO Collections
LMU
Oxy
Pep
UOP
CST
Wstm
t
CalAr
ts
CBU
Dom
WJU
WUH
S
AJU
HNU

17. Resource Sharing: Prospective CAMINO Collections
Santa Clara 119012
394706
USF 115071
377476
Fuller 149023
270988
Caltech 96352
226332
Biola 68159
182984
La Sierra 49731
150355
Azusa Pacific 47403
148658
Unique to
73435
Loma Linda 136616 Library
St. Mary's 32632
129135
La Verne 33712
116530
Total
35796
Pacific Union 101624 Books
Point Loma 30527
Nazarene 100582
Cal Lutheran 23506
94953
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000

18. Resource Sharing: Prospective CAMINO Collections
Loma Biola
Linda 32%
35%
Fuller
54%
Caltech
60% Both
Both 14%
5%
USF Santa
38% Clara
40%
Both
22%

19. Potential for this data
• Data has proven to be valuable in modeling potential for resource
sharing, print preservation, and collaboration
• Additional areas of analysis:
▫ Overlap and uniqueness by publication year and subject area (LC
Call Number)
▫ Paired and multiple modeled scenarios
• OCLC Data is just a snapshot in time (and already outdated)
• OCLC is hard to work with and can be expensive

20. Potential Next Steps
• Need data from members directly
▫ Could include circulation
▫ Simple data extraction should be easy and can be supplemented by
OCLC API
• Find appropriate permanent home for database
• Develop self-service tool with (close to) real time data
• Determine if new OCLC Collection Analysis tool will provide the
same or similar information