Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:19:32 +0000
From: P.Jansen@AUCKLAND.AC.NZ
Subject: CD-ROM efficacy

Dear All

Over the past few years we have considerably increased our spending
on CD-ROMs. Although quantitively small, we thought our collection
had considerable quality.

Unfortunately usage patterns indicate that our users do not agree
with our assessment. Many titles are rarely, if ever used.

A proportion of our titles, are simply an electronic version of a
textbook. An example of this is the "Interactive atlas of human
anatomy", which is the electronic equivalent of the "Atlas of human
anatomy". These sit side-by-side on our Desk copy shelves. Virtually
the only time the electronic version is requested is when the paper
copies are unavailable. Based on casual observation, whatever merits
CD-ROMs have, our patrons still prefer paper in these situations.

Outside factors also clearly contribute. Lecturers leaving these
titles off recommended reading lists, is probably a factor.
Similarly, the stand-alone nature of some of these CD's may inpinge
on usage.

To the point of this email. Could people advise on any studies which
have been done to study the efficacy of different content types of
CD-ROMs. Which situations do users prefer the electronic over the print ?

Where is networking a cost-effective advantage. Although
everyone probably prefers networked over single workstation, does the
extra cost of network licenses bring with it the neccesary added
benefits. If so, which types of CD material does this apply too ?
Indexes and databases may be more usefully networked than monograph
publications ?  We have Ovid Medline networked, clearly this is very
advantageous. I doubt whether the same level of advantage applies to
many single work titles.

I look forward to your replies.

Regards

Peter Jansen
Acquisitions Librarian
Philson Library
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Phone (+64 9) 373 7599 ext 6131
Fax (+64 9) 373 7491