Collaborative Collection Development Louise Jones @Cuhklibrarian louisejones@lib.cuhk.edu.hk

“How important are the following types of collaborative agreements with other libraries, established through bilateral agreements, library systems, or consortia?” Percentage of respondents who indicated that each is very important. (Ithaka Survey 2016)

Please use the 10 to 1 scales to indicate how well each statement below describes your point of view. Percentage of respondents who strongly agreed with each statement. (Ithaka Survey 2016)

Why collaborate? Exponential information growth Limited resources - $ and space Expand resources expensive, specialized materials Access to materials outside the scope of local collections e.g. multi-type collaborations Reduction of overlap – collective deselection and storage Cooperative ethic - impact on staff efficiency and expertise Political incentives but fundamentally… ‘Rightscaling and conscious collaboration’ in a networked/digital environment

THE Networked ENVIRONMENT Library consortia proliferated in 1990s parallel with Not just scale Data driven analytics

Library consortia proliferated in 1990s parallel with web based digital resources Dempsey, L. 2016

Dempsey, L. 2016.

Barriers Organizational complexities Financial disincentives Sacrifice of autonomy Local money should be spent on local needs? Risk Aversion What happens if partners withdraw? Will we lend more than we receive? Can we rely on selectors at other libraries to build collections for my library? Organizational complexities Will my library find suitable partners? Can we develop clear and equitable workloads? Financial disincentives Will the costs of organizing and administering collaborative collection development outweigh the benefits? Can we measure collaborative collection development costs and benefits ? Emotional – rational

Making it Work - Prerequisites Committed Library Leadership Robust technological infrastructure catalogues that display holdings of all consortial partners Infrastructure enables users to make online ILL requests Expedited document delivery Commitment to share information such as budgets, collection policies, collection management data such as shelflist counts…

MAKING It WORK II - FRAMEWORK Select partners – a trust network Policies and services – especially for shared print collections Which holdings will be included? What is the retention commitment? A central repository or not? Ownership Validation Discovery and delivery Business model What costs are incurred? Which costs are shared? How are shared costs divided among members? Informal agreement or formal MOU?

MAKING IT WORK III – Collaborative digitized Collections Complexity and number of resources e.g. photos, maps, correspondence, oral history, ephemera, 3-D… + multicultural heritage network Shared Digital Asset Management System? Digitisation standards Metadata standards and creation Copyright and intellectual property, attribution, commercial use Digital preservation issues Discoverability, accessibility issues and UX Community engagement Examples Oceania PRRLA

CASE Study – HONG KONG The shared print collection HKALL JURA

JULAC Top Strategic Directions 2017-2020 Goal 1: Ensure Access to a Rich and Diverse Collection Collaboratively Fully establish JURA (Joint Universities Research Archive) to reduce duplication of print and guarantee access to retained copies (Explore a joint temporary storage) Joint consortia purchasing Collect research data Explore a common platform for research output Digitization initiatives Preservation and conservation issues  Goal 2: Deliver Innovative Services and Operations Together Implement a shared ILS system Explore collaborative opportunities through the shared ILS Embed Information Literacy MOOC and other project outcomes into curriculum Promote Open Access Establish a JULAC research support group Review common operations to maximize efficiency Review and enhance JULAC statistics   Goal 3: Shared Staff development Establish JULAC Deputies Group

JULAC COnsortiall Leverages member libraries’ collective purchasing power to obtain savings on e-databases, e-books, e-journals and print monographs Libraries propose e-resource products to negotiate - two or more libraries can form a consortium Different business models – one-off, subscription, EBA, joint DDA Non UGC affiliates may join to increase spending power (13 affiliates in Hong Kong and Macau) In 2013, membership fee introduced for affiliated libraries who wish to participate in consortiums negotiated by Consortiall. Flexibility and equity in the packages negotiated The shared print collection HKALL JURA - Due to the building delay, Initiated a Joint Distributed Print Journal Project JURA Board of Directors is currently exploring a temporary joint storage

JULAC – The Shared Print Collection

JURA Building – Architects Impression

  The shared print collection

JULAC – Shared Digital Collection Shared DDA Pilot Project Rationale a common collection for resourcing sharing in an electronic environment 1 copy shared by 8 libraries buy more with less Subjects Emphasis on social sciences & humanities Also open to sciences, law, etc. Budgets. By the JULAC standard formula 33% basic cost 67% based on the Block Grant ratio of each institution Electronic Resources Academic Library Link (ERALL), 2007 the JULAC libraries purchased over 16,000 English language e-books with perpetual access for multiple simultaneous users. The purchased e-books cover a wide range of subjects to support the UGC funded programmes.

Implementation Criteria Subject & publishers coverage Pricing DDA triggers in a consortium environment Cataloging Dedup against existing holdings? New loads frequency Administration 8 separate admin. accounts? One JULAC central account Project Time Launched on Feb 28, 2014 Special announcement on this new initiative?

Distribution of cost and use Member   # of Views % # of Titles Viewed and/or Downloaded % of 318 Purchased Cost % and/or Downloads A 19.70% 35,915 33% 285 90% B 20% 22,848 21% 254 80% C 11.90% 18,455 17% 238 75% D 14.90% 12,742 12% 244 77% E 8.10% 7,837 7% 176 55% F 5.80% 4,286 4% 95 30% G 3,984 159 50% 13% 2,451 2% 151 47% 108,518

Viewed and/or Downloaded Collective use On average, purchased titles have been viewed and/or downloaded by 5 members # of Members Viewed and/or Downloaded # of Titles % 8 29 9% 7 42 13% 6 65 20% 5 66 21% 4 50 16% 3 34 11% 2 22 7% 1 10 3%

Use Distribution of Shared Collection

What these figures tell us？ Publisher/package Average cost per book US$ Average cost per use US$ Time period (months) Evidence based selection CUHK 124 3.2 43 Aggregator DDA CUHK 80.4 0.67 12 Aggregator Package CUHK 1.8 0.04 Aggregator firm order CUHK 133 134.66 Shared DDA JULAC 40.2/201* 0.5 9 * for all eight libraries

Shared ILS NZ Data Dedup.

Collaborative Collection Development and OPEN ACCESS Consortia need to redefine their roles every bit as much as libraries do, as the movement away from commercial publishers accelerates Consortia are well placed to develop the infrastructure to connect our institutional repositories and develop services on top of them Consortia could help broker a coordinated approach to library publishing Consortia could organize conversations amongst provosts and presidents about how scholars and scholarship are evaluated Kevin Smith, Dean of University of Kansas Library, blog post https://intheopen.net/ (April 2017) Kevin Smith April 2017 blog in the open.net

ExerCise What are the characteristics of successful collaborative collection development? Identify collection development collaborations that each of you have. Are there common themes? Identify challenges each of you is facing around collaborative on collection development. Are there common themes? Are there opportunities for you to overcome the challenges? What do you see as the most important future development for collaborative collection development? Are there common themes?

CREDITS & Readings Burgett, J. Haar, J & Phillips, L . Collaborative Collection Development: a practical guide for your library. American Library Association, Chicago, 2004. Dempsey, L. The Library in the Life of the User: Two Collection Directions. Oct 25, 2016. www.slideshare.net/lisld/the-library-in-the-life-of- the-user-two-collection-directions Dempsey L, Malpas, C & Lavoie, B. Collection Directions: Some Reflections on the Future of Library Collections and Collecting. portal: Libraries and the Academy Volume 14, Number 3, July 2014 Education Advisory Board. Redefining the Academic Library: Managing the Migration to Digital Information Services, 2011. Hale, D (ed.). Shared collections: collaborative stewardship. American Library Association, Chicago, 2016. Horton, V & Pronevitz. G. Library consortia: models for collaboration and sustainability. American Library Association, Chicago, 2015. NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Library Edition www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2017-library-edition/ SCONUL Shared Services Toolkit https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/1611%20Toolkit_for_Library_Collaboration.pdf US Library Survey 2016. Ithaka S+R . www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/us-library-survey-2016/