We had a spirited debate this morning over whether or not there is any one title that every public library should own. The suggestions ranged from The Very Hungry Caterpillar to the Bible. For every title suggested someone came up with a type of public library that might not carry it. So is it our responsibility to have a collection of items that people might read? Most libraries have written collection development policies but are those policies really in line with the priorities of the library and the actual use of the collection? This is a tough thing. Many of our collections have been built with materials that represent a wide range of view points, genres, and demographics but are never checked out. How many libraries still have the budgets and space to maintain Just in Case collections? Just in Time collections rely on providing what is actually in demand, i.e. what your patrons want not what we think or hope they want. Identifying your service response priorities and aligning them with your collection development policies and practices increase the chance that you are using your dollars effectively and meeting your patrons demands.
There are 2 Comments to "Collection Development – Just in Case v Just in Time"
I’d like to see individual public libraries take more advantage of the networks they belong to in deciding their acquisition strategy. I probably borrow a couple of science fiction books a month, but I’d have no particular problem if my local public library decided that it was going to focus on romances and murder mysteries, and I had to use ILL for science fiction. The same goes for the non-fiction I read.
What makes this feasible is the fact that the OPAC covers the whole network, so ILL is a click away. Availability used to mean what was sitting on a shelf in the library, but the OPAC+ILL has changed the equation. I can reserve a book in a second or two, and I get an email when it arrives. I can pick it up from the checkout desk in a minute or two. It would actually take more of my time to borrow something from the shelves.
In fact the OPAC has reduced the (relative) availability of books on shelves. If I do a search on, say, hydroponics, I’ll get a list of books in the entire network, with no indication of what’s available in the local library. If I’m IN the local library, it makes sense to go look, but if I’m at home it’s easier to ignore shelf availability, click on the first entry I like, and request it.
The weakness of ILL is that I don’t know when the book will arrive. If I’m going on vacation in a week, will it arive by then? You could improve service by letting me know, when I request an item, when I should expect it, even if that wasn’t a guarantee.
In Massachusetts, there’s an ILL consortium with a web interface called the Virtual Catalog, but the user interface is so bad that I use it rarely and reluctantly. The weakness of the interface has the effect of making all the material less available.
When you’re deciding what should be available, you need to decide what you mean by available. You can improve availability by improving the web interface, as well as by putting more books on shelves.
Part of the problem is that people still like to browse and have something fun to take home with them that day or need an item immediately for a report or a particular project. I work in a library where the ILL department must routinely refuse requests because they cannot find any lenders for the small-press produced books that my patrons request.
I do virtual browsing for myself and then order books, but if it is something that my system doesn’t own and I really want to read it and think I’ll keep it, then I’ll buy the book.