CRIV BLOG

By: Guest Author Emilie Menzel, Collections Management and Strategies Librarian, Goodson Law Library, Duke Law School.

In the world of collections and e-resources librarianship, shepherding a purchase request through the collection development cycle can often resemble coordinating a field day relay race. Lap 1: Faculty shares a resource need with their liaison librarian, who then forwards it to collections. Lap 2: Collections reviews selection options with the full reference team, sometimes including communications to the vendor for activating a trial. Lap 3: Collections passes to acquisitions, who then works with the vendor to negotiate a license and sign invoices. Lap 4: Acquisitions hands off to cataloging, and cataloging returns it to collections when all is activated and in order. Finally, Lap 5: Collections shares the resource with reference and access services, who ensure access for faculty and users.

At each handoff, clarity is paramount. Runner A must convey to Runner B the specific details about the desired resource name, access method, user group, license terms, and contact information for inquiries. These exchange points can be tricky; while the pertinent information is in many ways consistent across parties, different groups’ objectives necessitate different levels of detail or presentation. For example, the title of the resource used by the faculty who submits the purchase request is rarely the name of the package requested for purchase with the vendor and rarely the name used in the catalog entry. In other words, there is often a translation process happening any time the information is passed between departments.

An additional layer of complexity stems from historical workflows and overlapping roles within library structures. Unexpected handoff points between departments may reflect historical divisions of labor, intersecting responsibilities, or simply individuals’ personal interests and skills. For instance, the delineation between reference and collections may have evolved over time, resulting in distinct responsibilities for resource identification and selection review. These organizational structures can inadvertently contribute to information discrepancies during the procurement process.

Importantly, the relay race extends beyond the library. Vendors often deploy specialized representatives for different stages of the collection process, such as trials, licensing negotiations, and routine troubleshooting. Large vendors, like Wolters Kluwer, may assign dedicated representatives depending on the specific resource package under consideration. This segmentation can introduce confusion, as different vendor representatives may have varying levels of familiarity with the initial resource request or the evolving negotiation details.

To address these challenges, it helps to keep a consolidated record of the purchase request. This record should include the initial request, licensing agreements, and vendor contact information, ensuring accessibility to all involved librarians. Minimizing unnecessary handoffs and streamlining workflow transitions can further enhance efficiency. Assigning a dedicated point person to oversee the acquisition process fosters accountability and coordination. Regular check-ins and status updates help address potential issues promptly, ensuring smooth progress. These strategies can enable both libraries and vendors to more efficiently manage the baton race elements of the collection process, improving resource delivery to end users.