User-Driven Acquisitions: Allowing Patron Requests to Drive Collection Development in an Academic Library

Effective Selectors? Interlibrary Loan Patrons as Monograph Purchasers: A Comparative Examination of Price and Circulation-Related Performance

“…With respect to programs' overall costs, one program study noted that the budget for its pilot test had to be doubled (Bombeld & Hanerfeld, 2004), and another reported that its budget had to be tripled (from $5,000 to $15,000) over a 4-year interval (Gee & Shirkey, 2010). On the other hand, a study of another program reported that a sizeable percentage of librarians said that their initial fears of overspending had proven to be unwarranted (Reynolds et al, 2010). On the whole, it seems that POD programs have been successful in adding high-use and collection-appropriate materials to their libraries' collections.…”

“…The numerous usage studies that the authors were able to locate, most of which focused specifically on ILL POD, reported that POD items circulated or were otherwise used more frequently than items acquired through traditional channels, effecTive SelecTorS? inTerlibrary loan PaTronS a S MonograPh PurchaSerS 59 experienced comparatively higher amounts of multiple use, or both (Anderson et al, 2002;Bombeld & Hanerfeld, 2004;Brug & MacWaters, 2004;Campbell, 2006;Gibson & Kirkwood, 2009;Hodges, Preston, & Hamilton, 2010;Houle, 2003Houle, , 2004Hussong-Christian & Goergen-Doll, 2010a;Nixon & Saunders, 2010;Perdue & Van Fleet, 1999;Reynolds et al, 2010;Stowell Bracke, 2010;Tyler et al, 2010;Ward, 2002;Way, 2009;Zopfi-Jordan, 2008). In fact, one recent study even reported that ILL POD books maintained a significant circulation advantage over traditionally acquired books a decade after their having been added to the collection, even when the initial circulation to the requesting ILL patron was controlled for (Nixon & Saunders, 2010).…”

“…Unfortunately, to add fuel to this anti-patron prejudice, there is also evidence in the library literature that ILL patrons often fail to assess the adequacy of their libraries' holdings prior to initiating requests (Bombeld & Hanerfeld, 2004;Houle, 2003Houle, , 2004Ingold, 2004;Jackson, 1989). Finally, there is a sense expressed in the literature that patrons, as selectors/purchasers, are unaware of or less influenced by book prices than are budget-bound librarians, and so there is a fear that patrons will be less cautious in their spending (Levine-Clark, 2010;Reynolds et al, 2010). In essence, librarians contemplating the adoption of a POD program seem to fear that allowing patrons to add books to the collection will result in a library larded with expensive materials that do not fit the library's collection priorities, are of narrow interest, and see relatively little use (Comer & Lorenzen, 2006).…”

What Cost and Usage Data Reveals About E-Book Acquisitions: Ramifications for Collection Development

“…The Smathers Libraries spent the most funds on STEM e-books ($304,858) representing slightly more than half (53 percent) of the total amount spent ($573,493). STEM disciplines also showed the most e-books purchased (10,272), the most usage (75,891), the lowest average cost ($29.68), and an excellent cost per use ($4.02). This dominance in expenditures, e-books purchased, and usage can be explained by the fact that STEM disciplines were the recipients of large, often expensive package purchases.…”

“…9 An interesting 2010 analysis was conducted by Reynolds et al of the user-driven acquisitions program at Texas A&M University Library demonstrated many advantages of the use-driven acquisitions model related to user satisfaction, librarian perception, budgeting and accounting, and return on investment. 10 The Texas A&M study utilized a "suggest a purchase" form that students, faculty, and staff could use to request monographs or media resources in any format. The Texas A&M study showed that 78 percent of materials purchased from the "suggest a purchase" form were used, with 40 percent of the titles being used more than once.…”