Something's Gotta Give: Is There a Future for the Collection Development Policy?

Many libraries and library types utilize collection development policies as the standard for guiding the content and format of current and future collections. While these documents retain value as a summary of departmental desires and acquisitions planning, the multidisciplinary nature of teaching and publishing may be diminishing their use and effectiveness as a means of disseminating library intent. The on-demand nature of new purchase and approval plans, along with the advent of patron-driven acquisitions, has affected much of the ability to engage in the same year-to-year planning best complemented by the traditional collection development policy. If these policies are to remain the standard, or part of a continuing comprehensive collections plan, they must be relevant, available, and understandable in the context of the entire process. Adding to the fun are new models of budget and acquisitions planning used at the University of South Florida, as well as many other institutions, such patron-driven and purchase on demand acquisitions, the development of an overall (or comprehensive) collections policy, and other elements of the new economic paradigm shift. Other new and updated concepts from the literature also contribute to the discussion on collection policy changes, as well as other ways in which these documents may be altered to adapt to new fiscal and environmental realities. Much has changed over the last decade with regard to the format, selection, and acquisition of library materials. At the University of South Florida Tampa Library in 2004-5, $2,092,304 was spent on print monographs and serials and $2,566,404 on their electronic counterparts. Fast-forward to 2008-9 and that figure has gone through an accelerated transition; $1,662,524 is now spent on print monographs and serials and a drastically higher number of $4,236,350 goes to new electronic resources and other materials (USF Libraries Academic Resources Annual Statistical Summary). Despite this increasingly radical shift in spending, which is mirrored by other libraries and consortia, collection development policies have remained largely unchanged at many institutions. The conspectus model, long the standard of proactive and well-planned collection building, may not apply directly to the other important facets of developing and maintaining a research-rich library. To put it more succinctly, is there a future for the collection development policy? A few moments pondering this question leads to other discussion points related to this exploration: • Do the changes in format and economics require policies that address these shifts? • If policies remain integral to building collections, does the continued effective use of this type of document require minor tweaks, or massive changes? • Is the conspectus model relevant/upgradeable? • Can we use new and other tools to supplement, or replace current policy formats (i.e. comparative tools, such as WorldCat Collection Analysis and GoldRush) • What types of policies or methods are needed for balanced collections? For collections of distinction? A quick review of the literature finds experts and publications on both sides of the fence. In 2005, Kennedy makes the argument that these documents are important in the planning of new collections, regardless of format, and that they are needed now more than ever (p. 241). He also makes the argument that the ever-changing format and platform for digital materials makes collection decisions even more important as "preservation implications" are much larger than in the print universe (Kennedy, p. 242, 2005). Is a standard collection development policy the right weapon for this future battle, or are other more comprehensive changes required?