Presentation given to the SCELC Board of Directors, February Meeting, Claremont, CA

1. SCELC Board of Directors
OCLC Data
John McDonald
CIO, Claremont University
Analysis
Consortium
February 8, 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
500,000
100,000
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 Theology
Golden Gate Baptist Theological…
Mills College
American Jewish University
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 Studies
Sierra Nevada
Western University of Health…
City of Hope
Alliant San Diego
Wright Institute
Charles Drew
Palo Alto University
Alliant - SF
San Francisco Conservatory of…
Alliant International University
Alliant - Fresno
Inst of Transpersonal Psychology
Notre Dame de Namur
Total Books Held, by Library
SF Center for Psychoanalysis
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. Potential for this data
• Data has proven to be valuable in modeling collections
sharing, preserving, and collaboration potential
• 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

16. Next Steps
• Need data from members directly
▫ 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