The Sweet Spot

"A sweet spot is a place, often numerical as opposed to physical, where a combination of factors results in a maximum response for a given amount of effort." --Wikipedia

The term is most often used in relation to baseball, tennis, or (one hears but does not comprehend) cricket. But virtually every activity, including the humble task of responsible deselection, boasts an area of maximum effect for effort applied. In other words, it is easy to identify a substantial number of withdrawal candidates with a handful of conservative criteria. These data points are not only straightforward to decide upon and generate, they also demonstrate that even a highly conservative approach can yield appreciable results.

Consider these recent projects run by Sustainable Collection Services. In each case, the library chose a set of attributes to apply against its circulating monograph collections. All of these criteria were later refined or adapted by subject or location, or in response to the initial results. But the initial results themselves are quite instructive. (Please note that these are US libraries; the chosen factors reflect that perspective.)
=======================================

Library A chose these attributes for its first-pass deselection candidates:

• No circulations since1998
• Publication date: 1999 or earlier
• More than 100 holdings in US libraries (WorldCat data)
• Not listed in Resources for College Libaries
• Not reviewed in CHOICE

 
Library A Result: 17% of circulating monographs, yielding approximately 47,000 withdrawal candidates.

========================================
 
Library B chose a slightly different set of attributes:

• No circulations
• Publication date: 1999 or earlier
• Last use: 1999 or earlier
• More than 100 holdings in US libraries (WorldCat data)
• At least one other holding in consortium
• Not listed in Resources for College Libraries
• Not reviewed in CHOICE

Library B Result: 31% of circulating monographs, yielding more than 60,000 candidates.

========================================

Library C chose an even simpler variation:

• No circulations
• Publication Date: 1999 or earlier
• More than 100 holdings in US libraries (WorldCat data)
• 2 or more other copies in consortium

Library C Result: 10% of circulating monographs, yielding more than 70,000 candidates. 

========================================

Although the same criteria are not universally applied, they are similar and consistently conservative. Candidates are indisputably little-used. They are indisputably widely available, and definitely available locally. There is no reliance or even reference to digital versions of this content. This combination of factors involves virtually no risk, but nonetheless creates a "maximum response." Although the percentage of the total collection varies from 10% to 31%, tens of thousands of books are identified as candidates in each case. The result: a zone of immediate action. A sweet spot.

Some caveats apply. (After all, baseball bats can also break only inches from the sweet spot.) For one thing, all disciplines are not equal, either in book use or in the importance of monographs to their users. Deselection criteria in Art will need to vary from those in Chemistry. On the other hand, project managers may want to know what happens if titles that have circulated once since 2000 are included, or how many more titles may be eligible if the number of US holdings is set at 50 rather than 100. The ability to interact with the data to model different scenarios can help refine the withdrawal/storage criteria.

It is also critical to understand the context before acting on data, even if it is this compelling. It is important to understand the commitment of consortial partners and other libraries to these same titles. It is equally important to share that responsibility by retaining some of them. On a regional level, last-copy commitments are being worked out now in many places. On a national level, the movement to use the MARC 583 Preservation Action Note to disclose such commitments is growing. The eventual inclusion of separate holdings symbols for shared print storage facilities will make the context clearer still.

WTF?

But we shouldn't wait too long. Some action is possible now. Look again at the criteria outlined above. We're talking about books that have remained untouched for more than ten years. All of them were published more than 12 years ago. With more than 100 copies (often many more) in the US. With at least 1-2 other copies in the region. Tens of thousands of books that fit this very conservative description, in library after library. Yes, we need to be careful. We need to base decisions on data. But if this isn't a sweet spot, then... I'm an expert on cricket.