The Colby, Bates and Bowdoin Journey in
Collection Development and Catalog Sharing
Ladd Library
Bates
Hawthorne-Longfellow
Library Bowdoin
Miller
Library
Colby
CBB has been committed to complementing
one another’s collections for more than 20
years.



Retention agreements for some large historic
sets, government documents, reference
materials, 19th century journals.
Purchase decisions consider CBB holdings. For
music, coordinate purchases of M2s and M3s.
Since 1995, CBB group e-purchases (databases,
e-books).




CBB standardized loan periods.
Standardized policies – reserves, renewals, recalls,
billing, replacement.
Patron types, patron blocks, consistent coding.
Fast, reliable delivery mechanisms needed to be in
place; Saturday deliveries, commitment to
turnaround time.



Pre-CBB and WebOpac
Summer 1998 library website
Access to catalog was via telnet, to characterbased catalog




Sept. 1998 shared CBB search interface
Used request functionality within Innovative
Needed to load each schools patron records
Loan rules aligned
Requestable / not requestable
 Item types became very important
 Record cleanup
 No more loading of patron records!
 (Maine Info Net is now Maine Cat)



Returnables
Non-Returnables (Articles), also direct patron
requests


New version of the local catalog
Implementing AquaBrowser
Shared CBB discovery system
 No circulation, etc., functionality
 Still request through MaineCat and NExpress


Goals

Expand CBB collection through reduction of
duplication

Build campus culture that views CBB collection as
shared

Facilitate budget and space sharing

Similar


Size, undergraduate programs, budgets, staff size
Loan rules, delivery service in place, history of
cooperation, willingness to experiment
Not so similar







Separate catalogs
Different budget approaches
Library cultures for collection development
Multiple vendors
Campus cultures
Data reporting, fund codes

Starting May 2008

Library separate accounts

Shipments rotated every three months

Common profile and publisher list

Cooperative plan, all subjects except Art and
Architecture

% Duplication
(48% decrease)
% Duplication of
Titles
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007

2009
Collective Cost Savings (71% decrease)
Duplication Cost
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2007
2009

2009-CBB Music Librarian meeting

Book plan provides framework

2010-Meet with Christine Clark from Theodore
Front

Billing/Invoicing

Timing of shipments

Distribution of shipping lists

Separation of firm orders from approval shipments?

Other Score Considerations

Binding

Cataloging (MARC records)

Research and performance needs of each College

Standing orders

Contemporary Composers

Popular Music/Jazz

Women Composers

Score Format

Ensembles

Max cost

Type of binding

Exclusion of publishers

Popular music/Jazz

Exclusion of instruments

Difficulty of music

Decreased max cost

Colby-25% popular


After approval of CBB Collection Development
Committee, first shipment to Bates (July 2010)
Shipments totaling $1000 received on rotating
basis once a month

Approximately 935 total scores received to date

Current collection

E-resources

eBooks



eBrary
Oxford
Database negotiations






Discovery for CBB Collection
Records are loaded nightly from the 3 local
Innovative catalogs
Serials holdings from Serials Solutions are
loaded monthly
Each school has it’s own “skin”
Includes scopes
Includes advanced searches

Search methods





13,495 (48%) searches from homepages
11,418 (40%) search box
2,144 (7.6 %) advanced search
No stats on usage of Scopes
Facets




AQB did not replace local catalog, even with
Advanced Search and Scopes
About 50/50
Percentage of Local use increases as end of
semester looms
Most likely
AquaBrowser, unknown, discovery
 Local, known, specific formats






Contract signed Sept. 3, 2008
3 catalogs and customization, so we strongly
suspected it would be more than 90 days
April 2, 2010, meeting with Jane Burke
July 6, 2010, Phase 1 implementation complete.
Oct. 4, 2010, Phase 2 implementation complete.





Customization
Media Lab did not scale up
Individual implementations
SASS model, Dec. 2012 end date
Serials Solutions into cloud, no end date for
AQB











Your search has been expanded by ... is limited to 3 expansion
terms. AQB could not limit the number of terms included in any
meaningful way.
In short record display, when checking boxes and choosing the
print option in the pull-down menu, AQB has associated locations
and call numbers in the best way they can.
Sometimes the back button does not work. AQB has solved this to
the extent that they can.
AQB could not give us exact documentation on how relevancy
ranking works.
The server has not been moved to the U.S.
Phrase searching is not an option.
CBB does not have the ability to manually force re-indexing apart
from the automated schedule, and we no longer want that
capability.
My Discovery does not use LDAP.
Hiding the word cloud cannot be configured at the skin level.
The web crawler is not implemented, per a decision from Shared
Catalog Committee.
Federated search is not integrated, per decisions from CBB.



World Cat Local / World Share Management
System
???
When changing systems, we always ask the
question, 1 catalog (i.e., 1 system) or 3?



Band width had been a problem
Cost had been prohibitive
Do users really want a CBB view, separate
from a Nexpress/MaineCat view
Sharon Saunders,
Associate College Librarian for Systems and
Bibliographic Services
Bates College
ssaunder@bates.edu
Karen Jung,
Music Librarian
Bowdoin College
kjung@bowdoin.edu
Special thanks to:
Joan Campbell, Bowdoin, Collection Development Librarian
Mary Macul, Bowdoin, Cataloger
Toni Katz, Colby, Assistant Director for Technical Services
Peggy Menchen, Colby
Julie Retelle, Bates, Access Services
Chris Schiff, Bates, Music and Arts Librarian
Margaret Ericson, Colby, Music and Art Librarian