This paper identifies and reviews some of the currently relevant components of collection development which contribute to the need for having a written collection development policy (CDP) in place. The requisite elements for a pertinent and usable CDP are identified, keeping in mind the need to customize these policies to each library’s unique needs. A literature review is presented to demonstrate the long-standing purposes of collection development policies (CDPs), quantitative studies of existing CDPs, and some of the inherent drawbacks in the creation and application of these policies. The author presents a case study which demonstrates the processes undertaken to create a CDP for a medium-sized academic library. This includes more current and relevant considerations for a modern day CDP. The paper also includes the best practices identified throughout the policy creation process and which has the potential to be applied to other similarly situated libraries.

As academic libraries continue to face acquisition budget challenges, collaborative collection development (CCD) offers greater opportunities to fulfill the core role of library collecting and collection management, namely, to provide enhanced access to the widest variety of relevant resources in the most cost-responsible manner possible. Libraries have successfully implemented CCD projects of various types, and as a result, have achieved these needed cost savings. The authors conducted survey research to investigate current CCD activities and librarians' perceptions of its benefits, drawbacks, elements contributing to successful CCD programs, and possible obstacles to success. Library collections consist of a variety of material formats and librarians have applied CCD models to maintain needed access to these resources, shifting from ownership to access, all in support of building collective collections. The survey results found that, although challenges can exist, application of CCD activities have realized substantial benefits, financial and otherwise, for academic libraries overall.

No abstract

All academic libraries strive to have the highest quality collections which their acquisition budgets can support. However, the cost of quality resources continues to regularly increase, typically without corresponding increases in acquisition budgets. Additionally, print resources come with associated storage costs which are less tangible to measure than acquisition costs but which nonetheless have impact on overall library operations and expenditures. Storage and retention costs can have a substantial negative impact on general library usage, relevancy, and budget allocations. This chapter will focus on the management of retaining and weeding print monographs within the medium-sized public academic library and what a group of Michigan public academic libraries are doing to collectively address weeding and retention issues through the preliminary phase of a program called the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI).

All academic libraries strive to have the highest quality collections which their acquisition budgets can support. However, the cost of quality resources continues to regularly increase, typically without corresponding increases in acquisition budgets. Additionally, print resources come with associated storage costs which are less tangible to measure than acquisition costs but which nonetheless have impact on overall library operations and expenditures. Storage and retention costs can have a substantial negative impact on general library usage, relevancy, and budget allocations. This chapter will focus on the management of retaining and weeding print monographs within the medium-sized public academic library and what a group of Michigan public academic libraries are doing to collectively address weeding and retention issues through the preliminary phase of a program called the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI).