Policy frameworks for shared print collections
1 / 15

Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections. Constance Malpas OCLC Programs & Research North American Storage Trust Planning Meeting Seattle, Washington 21 January 2007 [email protected] 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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections' - dai

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

[email protected]

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

Questions? Comments?

Constance Malpas

[email protected]