Collection Management

Memo

Subject: Science Reference (ANY Subject) Collection Management

To: Louise, Michael and Katherine

From: David

Date: March 19, 2007

This is a corrected and expanded version of a collection management memo, which Louise and I discussed briefly and previously sent to Michael, Louise and Katherine. It is posted to the Blog to pique discussion!

On the broadest possible practical and conceptual level—what do we want to do across the disciplines with core reference holdings that are important enough for a large number or a majority of CUNY campuses to subscribe to the resources with the usual consortial pros and cons? Also do we want a “new-fangled” digital version rather than paper version considering all of their pros and cons? The memo concentrating on only one important resource is below.

Perhaps we should modify the method of acquisition of the “family” of the Mc-Graw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology?

All campuses get the Concise version of the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology in digital format. Eleven campuses in CUNY acquire the full length version of the encyclopedia (2002 edition) not to mention other editions. Maybe all campuses through the CUNY consortium can cost effectively acquire the full length electronic version of the encyclopedia expanding access at a modest increase or for the same or even a lesser cost and saving of space. If we can not convince other CUNY divisions to buy this as a money-saving consortium we alone should consider buying this fundamental resource in the latest electronic version.

To this Louise and I (added) raised many related questions, a few of which are repeated here also for response. What is our true cost, capital investment and operating cost for paper on the shelves vs. digital forms of the same sources? Can anyone in-house provide us with an econometric template, which we non-quantitative librarians can use? Alternately does anyone know of such a math model? Also do we, for example, want a great pdf version of Scientific American with all of its superb and famous quality illustrations despite disadvantages of shallow backlist; duplicates holdings in html only. Do we want—and are we able—to weed with this set of goals as well as the goal of creation of an info. commons on the second floor?

Thank you. We look forward to your responses.

David