1. Collaborative Collection Development
Louise Jones
@Cuhklibrarian

2. “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)

3. 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)

5. 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

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

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

8. Dempsey, L

9. 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

10. 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…

11. 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?

12. 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

14. CASE Study – HONG KONG
The shared print collection
HKALL
JURA

16. 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

17. 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

18. JULAC – The Shared Print Collection

19. JURA Building – Architects Impression

20. The shared print collection

21. 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), 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.

22. 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?

23. 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

24. 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%

25. Use Distribution of Shared Collection

26. 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

27. Shared ILS NZ
Data
Dedup.

28. 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
(April 2017)
Kevin Smith
April 2017 blog in the open.net

29. 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?

30. CREDITS & Readings
Burgett, J. Haar, J & Phillips, L . Collaborative Collection Development: a practical guide for your library. American Library Association, Chicago,
Dempsey, L. The Library in the Life of the User: Two Collection Directions. Oct 25, 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
SCONUL Shared Services Toolkit
US Library Survey Ithaka S+R .