Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections

1
Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections

• Constance Malpas
• OCLC Programs Research
• North American Storage Trust Planning Meeting
• Seattle, Washington
• 21 January 2007
• malpasc_at_oclc.org

2
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

3
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

4
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?

5
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

6
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)

7
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
• Govt 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

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
Project Timeline (2007) Q1
Reqts ALA-MW Convene Collate ACRL
FEBRUARY
JANUARY
MARCH
8
1
15
22
29
5
12
19
26
5
12
19
26
? Completed
Needs assessment
NAST Planning Meeting
Convene working groups
Collate policies workflows
ACRL
13
Project Timeline (2007) Q2
Model Docs ICOLC Value Stmt. Evaluate ALA
MAY
APRIL
JUNE
9
2
16
23
30
7
14
21
28
4
11
18
25
Draft model policy and workflow documents
ICOLC
Draft statement of value for ARL
Evaluate sample reports
NAST Advisory Group
14
Questions? Comments?
Constance Malpas malpasc_at_oclc.org 650-691-2207
15
(No Transcript)