Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections

1. Policy Frameworks for Shared Print Collections Constance Malpas OCLC Programs & Research North American Storage Trust Planning Meeting Seattle, Washington 21 January 2007 malpasc@oclc.org

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 Req’ts ALA-MW Convene Collate ACRL JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 5 12 19 26  Completed Needs assessment NAST Planning Meeting Convene working groups Collate policies & workflows ACRL

13. Project Timeline (2007) – Q2 Model Docs ICOLC Value Stmt. Evaluate ALA APRIL MAY JUNE 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 Draft model policy and workflow documents ICOLC Draft statement of value for ARL Evaluate sample reports NAST Advisory Group

14. Questions? Comments? Constance Malpas malpasc@oclc.org 650-691-2207