Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Policy frameworks for shared print collections
1 / 15

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections. Constance Malpas OCLC Programs & Research North American Storage Trust Planning Meeting Seattle, Washington 21 January 2007 malpasc@oclc.org. Managing the Collective Collection. RLG Programs is working with partners to

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Policy frameworks for shared print collections

Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections

Constance Malpas

OCLC Programs & Research

North American Storage Trust Planning Meeting

Seattle, Washington

21 January 2007


Managing the collective collection

Managing the Collective Collection

RLG Programs is working with partners to

  • Develop cost-effective solutions to collection management

  • Shape the future of research library services

    Related Work Areas

  • Shared Print

  • Mass Digitization

  • Repository Certification

  • Explore new models for resource sharing

Rlg programs

RLG Programs

  • Collaborative agenda

    • Developed in coordination with OCLC Office of Research, Program Council, Partner Institutions

  • Community partnerships

    • 147 leading research institutions

  • Dedicated professional staff

    • 10 program officers, plus VP and administrative staff

    • New positions to be added in 2007

  • Robust infrastructure to support program development

    • Funding

    • Opportunities to leverage OCLC service environment

    • Established communications channels

Work to date

Work to date

  • Review of existing policy frameworks for shared print management

    • Identify minimum policy requirements to support collaborative collection management

  • Structured interviews with managers of shared print collections

    • Five Colleges Library Depository (FCLD)

    • Minnesota Library Access Center (MLAC)

    • Orbis Cascade Alliance Regional Library Service Center (RLSC – still in planning stages)

    • Research Collections Access and Preservation (ReCAP)

    • Toronto Tri-university Group (TUG)

  • “Round Robin” responses from technical services heads at 20 partner libraries

    • Would your institution contribute to a registry of last copies and/or titles in storage? Would your institution use such a registry to inform collection management decisions?

Preliminary findings

Preliminary Findings

  • Overwhelming support for “last copy” registry

    • Opportunity costs of maintaining institutional print collections are prohibitive

    • E-journals and JSTOR have fundamentally altered value proposition of collaborative collection management

  • Concerns about costs/benefits of de-duplication, especially for monographic titles

    • Sparse bibliographic data  spurious measure of uniqueness

    • Differing definitions of core collection

  • Ownership vs. access

    • Robust discovery/delivery system with high level of patron satisfaction are a critical component: need to overcome faculty and selector inhibitions to de-accession

    • Title counts are a “red herring” – but still a persistent concern for institutions large and small

Are research libraries ready to share

Are Research Libraries Ready to Share?

  • “We are very interested in the concept of coordination of efforts around shared storage” (University of Michigan)

  • “We are concerned that libraries may decide to withdraw local copies unless there is a “persistence” policy so that we can really depend upon one another. Another concern is that larger libraries will bear most of the burden” (UC Berkeley)

  • “We would be interested in exploring this; need a tool to evaluate collection strengths of various institutions by subject area, language, date and place of publication” (University of Pennsylvania)

  • “We would certainly want access to information about the condition of the materials, assurance of long-term access, availability of ILL services” (University of Chicago)

  • “We are interested to explore this idea … might choose to de-dup (or even retain multiple copies) if usage data were available; might make joint decisions about digitization based on shared collection strengths” (NYPL)

Current policy frameworks

Current Policy Frameworks

  • Documentation to support collaborative management is relatively sparse

    • Collection development and retention policies

    • Model workflows

    • Best practices

  • Tacit agreements prevail

    • Provide desired flexibility in an uncertain environment

  • “Last Copy” agreements are the exception

    • JSTOR archives

    • Gov’t docs

  • Competing institutional interests thwart policy formulation

    • Provosts and access managers see benefits of institutional collection sharing

    • Collection development managers less sanguine – professional self-preservation, faculty reprisals

    • Need to quantify benefits of collection sharing, create new incentives

Initial recommendations

Initial Recommendations

  • Build on existing frameworks

    • CRL Distributed Print Archive

    • UK Research Reserve

  • Embrace acceptable minimums: inspire confidence in collective management without imposing onerous participation requirements

    • Data contribution: maximize return on existing data sources and workflows

    • Preservation commitments: realistic and transparent

    • Lending agreements: leverage existing networks

  • Seek continuing community input & participation

    • NAST Advisory Board

    • Working Groups

    • Early Implementers

Minimum requirements

Minimum Requirements

Initially, participant libraries should agree to:

  • Provide OCLC with current (and updated) holdings data for collection analysis reports

  • Share access, preservation and collection development policy documentation with fellow participants (contribute to online policy directory)

  • Supply verifiable data about preservation attributes of repository

    Ultimately, a common policy regime with commitments to:

  • Retain titles identified as “last copies” in the aggregate participant collection

  • Provide (non-exclusive) access to these titles to fellow participants in a preferential borrowing scheme

  • Periodic audits to verify “last copy” inventory and preservation status

Next steps proposed

Next Steps (proposed)

  • Convene working groups to establish shared policy framework; common terms and tools

    • Seek participation from current NAST participants, RLG Program Partners, and OCLC Programs & Research

    • Staffed by RLG Programs

  • Leverage SHARES network as early implementers

    • 80 RLG Program Partners with a long history of innovation and success in inter-lending, resource sharing and policy development

    • Existing annual agreement could be amended to include minimum requirements for shared print initiative

  • NAST Advisory Group

    • Reconvene at ALA Annual 2007 to assess progress and advise on next steps

Working groups proposed

Working Groups (proposed)

  • Model documents - policies and workflows

    • Collate existing policy documentation; identify gaps

    • Model “best practice” workflows for de-duplication of shared print collections; collaborative collection development (selection/acquisition of local holdings)

  • Terminology

    • Establish shared vocabulary for shared print management (last copies, etc)

  • Registry data requirements

    • Identify existing sources (LHRs etc); opportunities to leverage existing data-loading workflows

  • Quantify benefits of collection sharing

    • Work with ARL New Measures to promote alternative indicators of library leadership; draft statement for community endorsement

Project timeline 2007 q1

Project Timeline (2007) – Q1






















 Completed

Needs assessment

NAST Planning Meeting

Convene working groups

Collate policies & workflows


Project timeline 2007 q2

Project Timeline (2007) – Q2

Model Docs


Value Stmt.



















Draft model policy and workflow documents


Draft statement of value for ARL

Evaluate sample reports

NAST Advisory Group

Policy frameworks for shared print collections

Questions? Comments?

Constance Malpas



  • Login