RLG Programs Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections Constance Malpas OCLC Programs &...

RLG Programs

Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections

Constance MalpasOCLC Programs & Research

North American Storage Trust Planning MeetingSeattle, Washington21 January 2007

[email protected]

RLG Programs Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Storage

North American Storage Trust Planning Meeting, 21 January 2007

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 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



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

8

Req’ts

ALA-MW

Convene

Collate

ACRL

FEBRUARY

1 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 5 12 19 26

Completed

Collate policies & workflows

JANUARY MARCH

Convene working groups

Needs assessment

NAST Planning Meeting

ACRL



13

Project Timeline (2007) – Q2

9

MAY

2 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25

Evaluate sample reports

APRIL JUNE

Draft model policy and workflow documents

Model Docs

ICOLC

Value Stmt.

Evaluate

ALANAST Advisory Group

Draft statement of value for ARL

ICOLC



14

Questions? Comments?

Constance [email protected]



15

RLG Programs Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections Constance Malpas OCLC Programs &...

Documents

Transcript of RLG Programs Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections Constance Malpas OCLC Programs &...