Shirley Baker

Vice Chancellor for Scholarly Resources and Dean of Libraries

The Convergence of Reference and Resource Sharing

Purchase Anxiety

I am assuming that purchase anxiety is an affliction for librarians, particularly collection development librarians. That anxiety is caused by increasing emphasis on alternative methods of filling patrons needs and by worry about the rerouting of funds. How should we deal with this purchase anxiety? I suggest, the same way we would deal with any anxiety. Assuming there is no library equivalent of Prozac for this affliction, we'll have to settle for non-chemical means. I suggest the following: First, get some perspective. Then, take sensible action.

Getting perspective

For starters, we must recognize that there never was a golden age of ownership without reliance on access. There was just less to be had and what existed wasn't so easy to find. Ever since the first library director sat down to write a gentlemanly letter to his colleague in support of a scholar's need for an esoteric item likely to be held in that colleague's library, we have been dependent on other libraries' collections for our users needs. Letters of introduction have always been written for scholars traveling to distant cities to hunt for relevant works in likely collections.

What is different now is a matter of degree. There is much, much more being published and we make it SO easy for our patrons to find out that it all exists. Then, even if we are buying more every year (as some surely still are) it will never be enough. The result is the dramatic increase that we are seeing in the volume of borrowing and lending! Not to mention the alarming trend to buy articles from document suppliers and giving away to our patrons!

But... PERSPECTIVE. How much are we really talking about? For most libraries, interlibrary borrowing is just a few percentage points of local circulation. This is a comparison that is seldom made in this context, but it is an important one. We as librarians are often more aware of the magnitude of the exceptions than the rule. If the volume of interlibrary borrowing and document delivery is so comparatively small, why do we get so upset about it? Because the increase is a change, and change is often uncomfortable. And because interlibrary borrowing and document delivery are currently labor-intensive. Circulation is not cheap, but a good portion of the work in the circulation transaction is done by the patron. Not only do most interlibrary loan and document supply require staff assistance, but, until recently, we have given only modest attention to making either fast and easy.

What else makes us anxious? Having publishers misread our struggles to do the best we can within limited budgets makes us anxious. Publishers imagine we are massively redirecting funds away from them, canceling journals, putting all the money into access, and, of course, violating copyright right and left. Publishers are treating resource sharing as a cause of the crisis in scholarly publishing. It is actually only a modest side effect and has no driving power on the imminent and totally unpredictable transformation of the publishing process. Publishers seem incapable of understanding that what we spend on access pales beside the amounts we spend every year putting more and more items on our shelves (perhaps foolishly).

So how much do we spend on access? And, where does the money come from? (Time for some of that PERSPECTIVE.) The most generous library (or irresponsible library, depending on one's point of view) may spend an amount equal to 10% of its acquisitions budget on access, generously defined. That percentage may grow, and I try to get used to the idea that it could well become 25% one day, and that probably will not be the end of the world. We are still spending millions in purchasing materials and a fraction of that buying access to materials.

Where do we get this money? Some lucky ones get new money for these services. Some of us, in desperate straits, take it out of our collections budget. Most, I think deflect a part of a modest budget increase (already inadequate to keep up with maintaining our level of purchasing) into borrowing or purchasing copies on demand. For some of us who provide easy access, the amount of money we spend on all of document provision remains no more than the cost of a few outrageous science titles.

So, granted it is a small amount of money we are spending on access (relative to what we spend on acquisitions), who is spending this money? Probably interlibrary loan staff (or in some cases, because of their intermediary roles, reference staff). Should collection development librarians be upset? In PERSPECTIVE, probably not. Controlling 90-95% of the budget still sounds like control to me. Is it a problem that those responsible for our collections are not making every single decision about what gets 'purchased'? I don't think so.

In most libraries, for every book that is bought on demand, twenty books are purchased on speculation. Perhaps we agonize too much on the on-speculation titles. To treat access - real demand standing right in front of us - as secondary to guessed demand seems high-handed in the extreme. To quote panelist Bill Potter, "We owe it to our users to meet this demand, and to meet it graciously (in ways) that emphasize our willingness to serve." Thoughtful and reflective collection development librarians will acknowledge the truth of this.

What makes many collection development librarians anxious is the realization that we have pretty much abandoned the ideal of comprehensive collections and complete journal runs. These comprehensive collections and complete journal runs suited our sense of order (after all, we are librarians). And the predictability they provided was important when there was no easy way to find out what existed or where it was. Putting this in PERSPECTIVE: We need to remember that it is now relatively easy to find out what is where and to get access to it. We will realize that we are far richer than we were, if we can take the larger view.

An enticing thought is that the golden age of comprehensive and coherent collections may in our future; the present may be a temporary aberration, on the way to a near-utopian future. Experiments in retrospectively digitizing our collections are currently being sponsored by the Mellon Foundation and by OCLC. If these experiments show that such digitizing is economical and supportable over time, we may reach a new golden age. Then, collection development librarians will be creating comprehensive and coherent collections for their patrons by getting their unique collections digitized, by creating the links for their patrons to appropriate resources, and by working out the payment schemes for access to those resources. Thus, our current anxieties may be short-lived. But, for the interim, we can allay our anxieties by acting sensibly.

Acting Sensibly

We must use the most efficient and cost-effective processes for interlibrary loan. We must bring our library's best workflow and cost/benefit expertise to bear on our resource sharing operations. We must model interlibrary loan and document delivery on the circulation model, making the largest share of the process in the patron's hands. We must demand that our vendors create systems to improve speed and lower cost. We must have interlibrary loan subsystems that automatically check circulation status and pick up local call numbers before putting a request in our in-boxes. We must have more purchasing options along with our borrowing options.

We must budget for access and be willing to pay for copies, so that decisions can be made rationally. Collections librarians must determine the amount and let the interlibrary loan staff spend it. Without a budget, interlibrary loan staff waste money (in the form of time) trying to save money (in the form of payment to a supplier). Much more of this goes on than we care to admit. A close look at the 1993 cost study done by the Research Libraries Group and the Association of Research Libraries shows that the purchase of an article from a cost-recovery supplier is quite often cheaper (in overall cost) than 'borrowing' a 'free' copy. We library administrators should make sure that our collections and interlibrary loan staff work together to allocate money and time most effectively.

Collection development librarians must focus on choosing the supply routes for our constituents. They need to be developing consortial agreements and selecting the library catalogs and document suppliers to put on the electronic face we present. Selecting access points to electronic and remote resources and guiding patrons to them is comparable to establishing profiles with book jobbers. This is the right level of work for collection development staff.

At Online '95, Johannah Sherrer of Lewis and Clark University gave a terrific description of the role of the collection development librarian in today's world. Her paper was so searching and succinct that people rushed the stage for copies. She could have been Elvis! Watch for the proceeding of that conference or contact her at for a copy.

We must allow our interlibrary loan staff not only to pay for articles but to purchase books on demand. Some libraries already do this, without obvious calamity. We must work to create systems that make the purchase easy. Our vendors must make information on the titles they can ship immediately easily available, in some place that fits into an effective workflow.

And yet, when we think of doing these things, we are fearful. What if these services are TOO popular! This strikes terror in our hearts. We should, however, bravely resist the urge to create upfront restrictions on use. Instead, we must deal with abuse as it occurs. Put some message - Some restriction may apply; consult staff for details - on the request form or screen. Monitor use and deal with problems as they arise. After some initial over-consumption, use should settle down. What we don't often talk about is that we sometimes offer services and they are not used. My library, as a pilot project, allowed some faculty free access to document suppliers. Few used this blank check!

We must respond sensibly, and with data, to publishers' unfounded idea that resource sharing is taking money out of their mouths. Get the data on what is being borrowed and lent (OCLC can help here). Where the data show publishers may be right, we should change our practices. Use cost-recovery suppliers and pay royalties in those cases, or purchase those items.

We must consider using cost-recovery suppliers whenever possible, to avoid burdening other libraries with requests that cost-recovery suppliers can fill. About half of what we need still must come from other libraries. By using non-library suppliers when we can, we make it easier for libraries to respond quickly when we really need them.

Collection development staff must monitor, but not obsess on, information about what is being obtained through interlibrary loan or document delivery. Don't, however, use monitoring this traffic as a substitute for staying in close touch with your user community. That close touch is necessary for tailoring our broader collections decisions to their needs. Worry only intermittently and not seriously about the individual books and articles coming through interlibrary loan and document delivery. Ask our interlibrary loan subsystem vendor to give us reports that we can scan quickly. Feel good that users are getting their hands on what they need.

If you have rich or unique collections that are in high demand but you are loathe to respond, become a cost-recovery supplier. Create an operation that can respond quickly and cost-effectively; then charge enough to recover your costs. To date, many large libraries have dealt with unmanageable demand by charging a discouragement fee, combined with that most effective discouragement: slow response. A discouragement fee is different from a cost-recovery fee, but then many of our operations are so inefficient that we are embarrassed to charge real costs.

Also, we must recognize that a perfectly valid interlibrary loan transaction may involve a scholar picking up an item at the interlibrary loan desk, skimming through the item, and handing it right back. The scholar now knows that the item is not relevant. We can, however, work to avoid these transactions by getting tables of contents and plot summaries into our online catalogs.

Finally, should we worry about how accrediting agencies will view us, if we are serious about access? In my experience, accrediting agencies are much less concerned about access than some people would like them to be. Remember that there is usually only one librarian on the accrediting team. None of the accreditors are likely to be publishers, so the accreditors will likely see the percentages we spend on access as the small potatoes they are.

Our investments in access should not be grounds for worrying about accreditation. The accreditors may argue that the libraries should have more resources overall, but accreditors are not, in my experience, likely to quibble over arrangements that make economic and service sense. Experience shows that some level of access seems reasonable to accreditation teams in most disciplines. Running an academic program on the resources of a neighboring library without recompense is wrong, but running a program supported by agreements worked out among the institutions - this kind of access can be supported. In truth, it may make much better sense than duplicating resources unnecessarily. Remember, what looks like heresy to librarians may look like common sense to non-librarians.

Summary

I've told you that you can alleviate your purchase anxiety by getting some perspective on your situation and by acting sensibly. I've shared with you some of my thoughts on how to do that. I leave you with advice I often silently give myself, when I am anxious or unsure. That advice is: Do the best you can; it will have to be good enough.

Shirley K. Baker
Vice Chancellor for Scholarly Resources
and Dean of Libraries
E-mail: shirley.baker@wustl.edu
Washington University
Campus Box 1061
St. Louis, MO 63130
Phone: 314-935-5400
Fax: 314-935-4045