This article was downloaded by: [2.50.38.197]On: 13 June 2012, At: 03:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Interlibrary Loan,DocumentDelivery & Electronic ReservePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wild20

A New Paradigm for Networked ResourceSharing in the United Arab EmiratesUniversitiesAhmed Taha aa United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

Available online: 15 Nov 2010

To cite this article: Ahmed Taha (2010): A New Paradigm for Networked Resource Sharing in theUnited Arab Emirates Universities, Journal of Interlibrary Loan,Document Delivery & ElectronicReserve, 20:5, 293-301

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1072303X.2010.522944

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery& Electronic Reserve, 20:293–301, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1072-303X print / 1540-3572 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1072303X.2010.522944

A New Paradigm for Networked ResourceSharing in the United Arab Emirates

Universities

AHMED TAHAUnited Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

Library and Information Web Access (LIWA) is the first systematicinterlibrary cooperative activity among three universities under theumbrella of the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Higher Educa-tion and Scientific Research. LIWA was born in 2007 after the shiftof the partner libraries to Web-based information services. Inter-library book lending is the current achievement of Library andInformation Web Access with the aim to expand resource sharingand incorporate more e-services soon. This paper aims at gainingsome insights into potential success factors for further developmentof the library consortium in a networked environment. Some keyissues, such as metadata standards, acquisitions, licensing, accesssecurity, and governance are discussed.

KEYWORDS networked consortium, academic library, resourcesharing, success factors, United Arab Emirates (UAE)

INTRODUCTION

The immense developments in information and communication technologies(ICT) have spurred academic libraries to graduate from their traditional roleas storehouses of printed materials to become vigorous disseminators ofscholarly information and research. Two ICT developments have significantlychanged the pattern of academic library functions: first, the emergence ofdescriptive standards (Metadata, MARC21, Dublin Core, etc.), and second,

This work is dedicated to my late parents Taha and Maryam. Special thanks are due toNabaweiya, Muzna, and my sons Amr, Omran, Ghufran, and Ghayth who cheered me up soI could complete the manuscript.

Address correspondence to Ahmed Taha, Research Information Specialist, Jimi Businessand Engineering Library, Libraries Deanship, United Arab Emirates University, PO Box 17555,Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: Jazraby@uaeu.ac.ae.

293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

294 A. Taha

the ubiquity of Web-based applications and knowledge intelligence systems.However, the phenomenal explosion of digital information has raised basicquestions about the capability of academic libraries to compete with freeWeb resources in providing a wide range of reliable academic and researchinformation in different forms and formats.

At the same time, the proliferation of higher education and researchactivities throughout the world has raised interest in creating interlibrarycooperation, using resource sharing to provide cost-effective collection de-velopment and access to both printed and electronic resources. The sky-rocketing cost to purchase and subscribe to print and electronic academicresources has combined with limited budgets and interrupted the ability ofthe academic libraries to answer adequately the needs of their respectiveacademic communities. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the time wasright for a resource-sharing initiative among different types of libraries thatwould collectively build their base of available resources and make themconveniently accessible via a virtual union catalog and would reduce thecost of their operations.

The state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven emi-rates with eight major cities, which accommodate three federal universitiesunder the umbrella of the UAE Ministry of Higher Education and ScientificResearch and many other private and branches of foreign universities. Thefederal universities are the High Colleges of Technology (HCT) consisting of16 gender-separate campuses, each two located in a major city; the UnitedArab Emirates University (UAEU), consisting of two campuses located at Al-Ain; and Zayed University for Women (ZU) consisting of two campuses eachin Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

This paper is intended to describe the advantages of and potential suc-cess factors for building an academic library consortium in a networkedenvironment. Library and Information Web Access (LIWA), which moves thelibrary functions and services of the UAE federal higher education institu-tions to the Web, serves as a case study. Some of the critical foundationalissues of interlibrary cooperative activities, such as creating a central uniononline public access catalog (OPAC), access and technical service standardsand criteria, acquisitions budgets, collection development policies, copy-right, licensing, staffing, and remote access security, are examined. Somepractical approaches to solving the problems that are likely to be encoun-tered in building an effective academic library consortium are outlined. Thesuggested success factors could be a helpful reference for expanding LIWAfunctions and services.

RELATED LITERATURE

A review of the literature revealed a scarcity of published studies on inter-library resource sharing among the universities in the United Arab Emirates

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

A New Paradigm for Networked Resource Sharing 295

(UAE). In this section, we review the scholarly works that are pertinent es-pecially to the aggregation of libraries into a networked consortium in anacademic computing environment.

A consortium is defined as an alliance providing solid bargaining and ne-gotiation power for members to reduce acquisitions costs and to obtain betterlicense terms from vendors (Alberico, 2002). The economic gains, copyrightand licensing issues, management of collaborative collections, shared fi-nance, and compatible library systems have long been the focus of specialattention in many scholarly research works about academic library consortia.Alidousti, Nazari, and Ardakan (2008) extracted about 58 aspects identified inprevious studies as success factors in resource sharing and library consortia.

In the digital era, a considerable amount of the academic library budgethas moved from infrastructure to acquisitions of electronic content, in par-ticular e-journals (Alberico, 2002). Therefore, the primary economic benefitof the consortium lies with the capacity of library members to take theirbudget further, by getting more content with less expenditure. Sharing ofelectronic resources is a central focus and nonprofit objective of consortialmembership. Partner libraries can effectively reduce duplication and main-tain remote access to a wide variety of core collections, as a by-productproviding opportunities for creating common policies and standards andenhancing professional development (Westmoreland & Shirley, 2004).

Maskell (2008) described such activities of the academic consortiumas a direct challenge to commercial publishers’ control over the scholarlypublication market. Anglada and Comellas (2002) outline the advantages ofconsortial purchasing for both publishers and libraries in Table 1.

Copyright and licensing are also primary concerns of both consortiamembers and publishers. To protect intellectual property rights, many coun-tries have legislated copyright laws to avoid any violation of terms and con-ditions of access to scholarly works and to permit the use of these materialsfor learning, academic, and research purposes (Case, 2004). Since networkedconsortia of academic libraries have been established relatively recently, inparallel with the advent of the Internet, the continuing evolution of library

TABLE 1 Advantages of Consortial Purchasing

Aspects Publishers Libraries

Joint agreement Long-term purchase stability Overcome budget restrictionsAcquisitions Warranty of exclusive vendor Enjoy discountsNegotiation expenses Low without intermediaries One voice and strong positionProduct visibility Guarantee greater uses and

increases in citationsMore information would be

accessible (marketing place)Turnover Increases Significant money savingLicensing Guarantee against misuse and

violationGuarantee stable access and

perpetual archiving

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

296 A. Taha

cooperation within consortia has been focused on identifying, acquiring,and managing the collaborative collection, particularly e-resources (Nfila &Darko-Ampem, 2002).

The creation of union OPACs and shared cataloging standards wereamong the first cooperative ventures in consortia, followed by remote accessservices such as circulation and interlibrary document delivery (Scigliano,2002). Remote access to collections and services have made it imperative todesign interfaces that meet end user expectations, allowing them to searchthe OPAC and navigate easily from there to the ILL portal (Gaffney, 2009).Detlor and Lewis (2006) furnished practical recommendations for better user-centered Web site design:

• Package information content and online services to meet user needs.• Focus the library interface on searching and retrieval capabilities.• Support information use and information access equally.• Allow the end users to customize and personalize their own access.

Randall (2006) recommended federated searching and interface usability test-ing as a means to assess the user-friendliness of the central consortium portalinterface. In summary, many works list important incentives to the formationof academic library consortia, including cooperative acquisitions at signifi-cant savings, economic gains and stronger negotiating position with vendors,expedited sharing of existing holdings through interlibrary lending, supportof the learning process and research activities, potential for integration withother university library portals, and exchange of staff experience and exper-tise.

LIWA: PURCHASE VERSUS RESOURCE SHARING

Katsirikou (2003) highly values the role of knowledge management (KM) infacilitating the establishment of an academic library consortium with mem-bers of various ages, strengths, collections, facilities, staff experience, spe-cialized services and functions, and community relations. In 2000, the vicechancellors of the three UAE governmental universities (HTC, UAEU, andZU) proposed an initiative to develop a model of strategic library allianceamong their respective libraries. The initiative was further affirmed by theprovosts in their meeting convened in April 2010 to establish a national dig-ital library consortium. The initiative cites the formation of the consortiumas an attractive practical alternative to single libraries for solving many long-standing problems as well as encouraging the creation of shared processesassociated with acquisitions budgets, collection development, copyright, li-cense restrictions, increased range of access, and exchange of experienceand technical assistance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

A New Paradigm for Networked Resource Sharing 297

FIGURE 1 LIWA Web Portal. Source: http://liwa.ac.ae

The advanced network facilities at the three institutions and a sharedlibrary automation system were the platform for building consortial aca-demic resource sharing in the UAE. The first fruit of this cooperative projectwas LIWA, a shared virtual catalog that would undertake a limited range ofcirculation activities using Innovative Interfaces’ Millennium ILS and its INN-Reach module. INN-Reach allows a library to check out materials to patronswhose home library is a different site in the INN-Reach System. LIWA, as aone-stop searchable OPAC, went into operation in January 2007 to facilitateinterlibrary document delivery for existing printed book materials (Figure 1).

Although the initial cooperative library activity focused on interlibrarybook lending and document delivery, the aim is to expand cooperation inthe near future to cover a wide range of library e-services. By joining efforts,the partner libraries hope to form a reliable networked library consortiumand have greater impact in the process of negotiating e-resource licenses.

CIRCULATION POLICY

The affiliated students, faculty, and administrative staff at UAEU, ZU, andHCT are eligible to participate in the consortial circulation service. The localcirculation policies of each partner library determine how many items el-igible patrons can check out at a time. Most items in the shared catalogcan be borrowed. Exceptions include reference books, special collections,reserve material and faculty collections, manuscripts, and rare books. Non-circulating items have a status indicating internal use only. Although recordsfor electronic resources are included in the shared catalog, there are access

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

298 A. Taha

TABLE 2 Interlibrary Lending Between UAEU, HCT, and ZU Libraries

Checkouts from Checkouts toUAE University UAE University Total

Higher colleges 950 6 956Zayed University 18 9 27Total 968 15 983

restrictions on viewing and downloading full text. Circulation statistics forthe operating period between 2007 and 2010 provide strong evidence ofsuccessful interlibrary lending (Table 2).

SWOT ANALYSIS

Together, HCT, UAEU, and ZU are the flagship of higher education in theUnited Arab Emirates. Their influence stems from government-assisted spon-sorship, which provides them with satisfactory funding along with effectiveadministrative and institutional support. Therefore, any integration betweentheir respective counterpart libraries would be potentially a successful coop-eration. In this section, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, andthreats) analysis of the first resource-sharing initiative will give a conceptualpicture for expansion into a potential UAE national digital library consortium.

Strengths

• Stable acquisitions budgets to answer the needs for core collections• Well-equipped library information commons and academic computing en-

vironments• Operating LAN and WAN facilities (on- and off-campus convenient access)• Rich variety of learning and research resources• Use of standard cataloging rules and formats• Use of similar OPAC software (III Millennium)

Weaknesses

• Member libraries have differing acquisitions policies.• Institutional collection development plans range from narrower subject

focus (HCT and ZU) to global acquisitions (UAEU).• Internal circulation policies restrict some document types from interlibrary

lending (e.g. dissertations, rare documents, etc.).• Digital resources are excluded from interlibrary circulation (due to copy-

right, licensing, etc.).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

A New Paradigm for Networked Resource Sharing 299

• Delivery of held and requested hardcopies not as efficient, resulting in along turnaround time to reach target requesters

Opportunities

• Advanced network facilities are instrumental to enhancing further interli-brary cooperation and consortial integrity.

• Government-assisted sponsorship would help administratively to run anefficient library consortium.

• Rich library holdings are an attractive motive for resource sharing.

Threats

• Ever-increasing costs of foreign learning and research materials limit ac-quisitions budgets.

• Changes in individual university curricula could have a negative impact onshared collection development plans.

• Libraries have different viewpoints regarding consortium management.

The SWOT analysis revealed critical issues to be considered by thepartners of the UAE Higher Education Library Consortium. The academiclibraries of the three institutions will need to agree on a set of standards andrequirements to address these issues, as outlined:

1. Administrative financial support: Strategic plan, budget stake, terms andrules, personnel, etc.

2. Technical services: Unifying criteria and standards for content analysis(metadata), acquisitions, collection development policy, etc.

3. IT requirements: User interface, Web browser, library systems, software,transaction, etc.

4. Access: Defining eligible authorized users, off-campus access, e-resourcesaccess after the possible discontinuation of a license agreement, and usersupport.

5. Usage of resources: Interlibrary lending, document delivery, informationretrieval, data analysis (statistics, logs, etc.), specifying information needs,etc.

6. Consortium users: Defining the responsibilities of each library toward itsconsortium users.

Figure 2 proposes a conceptual model for a fully-developed consortium.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

300 A. Taha

FIGURE 2 Proposed Networked Consortial Resource Sharing Model

CONCLUSION

The relentless developments in ICT and electronic publishing and the emer-gence of knowledge societies whose hallmark is information utilization havepresented academic libraries with unparalleled challenges and competition,forcing them to graduate from their traditional roles to become enterprisinge-information disseminators and scholarly knowledge distributors. Variouslibrary consortia have arisen in response to the increasing cost to purchaselibrary materials and to license access to content. The establishment of in-terlibrary cooperation strategies has become an attractive option to libraries,allowing them to keep satisfactory quality library service and resources with-out unduly increasing individual institutional budgets.

This study argues that the existing advanced ICT infrastructure in theUAE and other Gulf states could support a networked library consortiumthat would be an integrated part of the higher education computing en-vironment. Such a networked library consortium would be a value-addedinformation asset, promoting learning and research activities in the three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2

A New Paradigm for Networked Resource Sharing 301

partner libraries and encouraging the participation and partnership of otherprivate universities and research centers throughout the nation.

REFERENCES

Alberico, R. (2002). Academic library consortia in transition. New Directions forHigher Education, 120, 63–72.

Alidousti, S., Nazari, M., & Ardakan, M. A. (2008). A study of success factors ofresource sharing in Iranian academic libraries. Library Management, 29(8/9),711–728.

Anglada, A., & Comellas, N. (2002). What’s fair? Pricing models in the electronic era.Library Management, 23(4/5), 227–233.

Case, M. M. (2004). Information access alliance: Challenging anticompetitive behav-ior in academic publishing. College & Research Library News, 65(6), 310–26.

Detlor, B., & Lewis, V. (2006). Academic library websites: Current practices andfuture directions. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(3), 251–258.

Gaffney, M. (2009). Reflecting usability-engineering goals in interlibrary loan userinterface. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve,19(4), 291–298.

Katsirikou, N. (2003). Consortia and knowledge management: The functional contextand organisational model. Library Management, 24(6/7), 337–347.

Maskell, C. A. (2008). Consortial: Anti-competitive or in the public good? Library HiTech, 26(2), 164–183.

Nfila, M., & Darko-Ampem, K. (2002). Development of academic library consortiafrom 1960s through 2000: A review of literature. Library Management, 23(4/5),203–212.

Randall, S. (2006). Federated searching and usability testing: Building the perfectbeast. Serials Review, 32(3), 181–182.

Scigliano, M. (2002). Consortium purchases: Case study for a cost-benefit analysis.Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 393–399.

Westmoreland, T., & Shirley, B. (2004). The state of consortia: Promises to keep.Texas Library Journal, 80(2), 52–57.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

2.50

.38.

197]

at 0

3:07

13

June

201

2