Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
• Members from North and South America, Europe, Australia, Asia, and Africa.
• No bylaws or formal structure.
• Approximately 200 members.
• Not all consortia are members.
International Federation of Library Associations• 1500 Members in approximately 150 countries.• Promote high standards of provision and delivery of library and information
services.• Encourage widespread understanding of the value of good library
& information services.
American International Consortium of Academic Libraries• 25 Independent American liberal arts colleges and universities based throughout
Europe, North Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East.• Advance learning, teaching and research through the collaborative development
of library and information services.
Electronic Information for Libraries• 49 Countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, representing more than 3,000 libraries. • Works in collaboration with libraries in over 60 developing and transition countries
in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America.
• Increase access for more people to more resources both in scope and quality, while spending dollars more wisely
• Keep researchers, students, faculty in closer touch with worldwide trends
• Promotes a systemization of world knowledge
• Promote inter-cultural understanding and encourage cross-cultural knowledge
• Support distance education endeavors in developing areas
Global Consortial Benefits
• Support the production of a highly skilled global workforce
• Assist institutions with achieving greater quality assurance – including accreditation processes
• Promote the application of new information technologies
• Allows institutions to be more internationally aware, more internationally-focused, and more internationally recognized
Global Consortial Benefits
Joint CatalogCataloging
Bound Collection or E-Resource SharingLibrary Print Repository
Inter-Library Delivery SystemAcquisitions – Shared Purchases, Subscriptions/Licenses, and
Price NegotiationILS/URM
Cooperative Collection DevelopmentReferenceShare Staff
Digitization of Library HoldingsJoint Data Storage
Continuing Education & TrainingConsulting & NetworkingInstitutional Repository
Ways To Collaborate
U.S Consortia Statistics
Of those, approximately –
32% Academic Libraries Only Consortia Library Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and SustainabilityHorton and Pronevitz, 2015
• Most of which are statewide or regional organizations
• Roughly 10+ groups are Multi-Stat
Library Consortia 2015
- Mixed/Mostly Public- Multi-State Only- Mostly Academic
How many consortia exist in the U.S.?
200 + United States (multi-type: public, academic, and special)
Of those, approximately –
32% Academic Libraries Only Consortia Library Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and SustainabilityHorton and Pronevitz, 2015
• Most of which are statewide or regional organizations
• Roughly 10+ groups are Multi-State
As of 2007 -• 65 Consortia
Closed or Merged
• At Least 28 CreatedLibrary Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and Sustainability Horton and Pronevitz, 2015
Montana’s Consortia ?
Current Status:
16 Institutions (MUS System) 7 Tribal Colleges 5 Private Institutions28 Academic Institutions
MT State Library : 170 libraries (public & school)Montana Shared Catalog
- Discover It -
MontanaLibrary2Go- LYRASIS
MSU and U of M : NWDA (NW Digital Archives)LYRASISMontanaLibrary2Go
AIHEC : 7 Tribal Colleges(Amer. Indian Higher Education Consortium)
NN/LM : 58 Multi-Type Libraries(Nat’l. Network of Libraries of Medicine)
U of M: 7 Libraries sharing Voyager
OMNI Consortium : 10 Libraries sharing Sirsi(Outreach MT: Networked Information)
Primo Implementation : OMNI Group + U of M (Missoula) MT Tech Helena College U of M (Western)
Benefits
Economies of Scale & Scope
Leveraging Power
“[PASCAL] leverages by more than five times the overall purchasing power of each dollar spent through cooperatively and collaboratively sharing resources and costs”
PASCAL (Partnership Among South Carolina Academic Libraries)
“Because of the collaborative approach to purchasing library resources, and through sharing technology and expertise, for every $1 spent, LOUIS provides $8 worth of value for Louisiana’s colleges and universities.”
LOUIS (Louisiana Library Network)
From PASCAL website as noted in Assessing the Value of Academic Library Consortia by Faye A. Chadwell
https://utils.training.louislibraries.org/~Louis/FlipBooks/brochure2013/index.html
Benefits
Percentage Saved Database Subscriptions
Benefits
http://www.tenn-share.org/membership/savingsandbenefits
$5.25 lowest available price for one article if downloaded outside of GALILEO vs.
$0.14 in GALILEO
GALILEO (Georgia Library Learning Online)2010-2011 Fact Sheet at http://about.galileo.usg.edu/site/galileo
Benefits
Article Downloads
Cost Avoidance
TexShare members (645 libraries)
spent $7,286,620 for databases that would have cost
$84,158,212 collectively.
TexShare https://www.tsl.texas.gov/texshare/facts_ataglance.html
(updated October 2014)OhioLINK
Consortial Borrowing
Benefits
# of Institutions
Total (one year average)
Total(last ten years)
Avg/per Institution
over Decade
Public Universities
and Charters
17
$31,124,383.93
$311,243,839.30
$18,308,461.14
2 Year Institutions
17
$3,342,107.79
$33,326,476.90
$1,960,380.99
Private Institutions
49
$13,681,123.85
$123,372,511.52
$2,517,806.36
Cost Avoidance, cont.
OhioLINK
Benefits
Benefits
Eliminate Duplication
Benefits
Grants/Funding
Unique Collections
• Direct access is cheaper than ILL requests
• Allows faculty to better conduct research & rapidly develop new curricula
• Supports national accreditation standards
Sharing Content Benefits
BenefitsSharing Technology
Fully integrated library systems, URM, digitized institutional repositories, etc.
Benefits
Sharing ExpertiseCataloging, Delivery Service, Technology Issues, Reference, License Negotiation, Etc.
"Great ideas don't appear in isolation"
Formal Informal
Benefits Shared Voice
BenefitsLeveling the Playing Field
Innovation Ecosystem
Challenges
Money & Staff Cuts
Challenges
Autonomy
ChallengesInefficiencies
Are you lonely?Tired of working on your own?Do you hate making decisions?
HOLD A MEETING!
You can:• See people• Show charts• Feel important• Point with a stick• Eat donuts• Impress you colleagues
All on company time!
MEETINGSThe practical alternative to work
Challenges Self-Promotion
CBA
ROI
Challenges
Deep Committment
Clear Goals
Best Practices:
• Be Relatively Small in Size
• Be Flexible & Mindful of Financial & Staff Limitations
• Allow Members to Maintain Identity & Autonomy
• Deep Commitment to Shared, Clear Goals and Strategies
• Maintain Good Communication Using Most Efficient Means
• Acquire an Appropriate Technological Infrastructure
• Use Self-Analysis Tool for Promotion
How To Get There
• ID potential members and stakeholders
• Meeting(s) to discuss desirability
• Feasibility study
I. Exploratory Phase
Information provided by: Stephen Marvin, MLS FH Green Library
West Chester University, PA
How To Get There
• ID members and the consortium’s objectives
• Determine amount of financial support needed
• Make legal agreements necessary
II. Planning Phase
How To Get There
• Assign personnel and committees to projects
• Create schedules
• Define methodology for evaluation
III. Development Phase
How To Get There
• Implement each activity/project in a trial operational mode
• Evaluate each activity/project
• Create marketing plan
IV. Operation & Evaluation Phase
Current Status:• RFP for a new Library Service Platform
- MSU Symphony contract expires 12/31/16- UM Voyager contract expired 3 years ago- Both Primo contracts expire 9/30/2016
• Timeline
July, 2015 - Post RFPAugust - Review and demosSeptember - Vendor has been selectedBy November/December, 2015 – Migration has begunBy December 31, 2016 - Migration needs to be completed as MSU Sirsi contract expires
• MALC Task Force (MT Academic Library Collaborative)
Barry Brown, [email protected] Paula DeMars, [email protected] Scott Juskiewicz, [email protected] Otte, [email protected] Wight, [email protected]
• Feasibility Study - due 6/30/2015
http://guides.lib.montana.edu/academiclibrariescollaborative
