Essay On Library Preservation

We can therefore attest to the many benefits of a written CDP in a library; however, this document is not without its drawbacks. The information needs of the community and the various formats used to provide information are constantly changing. However, the library’s CDP may not have the necessary provisions to adapt to these changes; hence, making it impractical to use for collection development in the future. In times of change, for example, when a new course is introduced in a university, it is expected that the academic library will respond instantly to provide the resources needed (Snow, 1996). However, Cargrill (1984) states that an inflexible CDP would make it difficult to respond quickly to these new demands (as cited in Vickery, 2004). Therefore, as situations change a CDP should be updated otherwise it would be of little or no use to collection development. As Funas (1995) states a CDP should be “a living, breathing entity that is always thought of, always lived with, always tinkered with and never quite finished” (as cited in Vickery, 2004, p. 339).

Some professionals also believe that a CDP can be overly idealistic and theoretical instead of being practical enough to use in

Although some librarians overlook this task, it is an essential requirement for determining the current state of the library and the extent to which the collection satisfies users’ needs in order to establish future collection requirements (Snow, 1996). This activity involves a lot of data gathering and it requires the involvement of persons, both internally and externally (Snow, 1996). Collection evaluation can be a librarian’s most challenging task; however, the information acquired from this evaluation is needed to ensure the library’s CDP is effective for collection development. Therefore, librarians may spend a considerable amount of time on this evaluation, which would delay the development of a