1 / 11

UC Libraries Systemwide Collaborations

UC Libraries Systemwide Collaborations. Review of Initiatives Financial Implications. Ginny Steel SLASIAC Meeting May 7, 2012. Current UC library collaborations. Integrated services ( Melvyl , NGTS) Shared facilities (NRLF, SRLF) Shared licensed collections

jalia
Download Presentation

UC Libraries Systemwide Collaborations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UC Libraries Systemwide Collaborations Review of Initiatives Financial Implications Ginny Steel SLASIAC Meeting May 7, 2012

  2. Current UC library collaborations • Integrated services (Melvyl, NGTS) • Shared facilities (NRLF, SRLF) • Shared licensed collections • Digital collections (OAC, Calisphere) • Scholarly communication (eScholarship) • Applied research and expertise (EAD, METS, HathiTrust)

  3. New initiatives • UC digital collection: digital asset management; discovery and display; aggregation; preservation; long-term curation, support, and management • E-books • Shelf-ready services • “Good enough” record standard • Elimination of backlogs in processing of archival and manuscript collections

  4. New initiatives, continued • Systemwide Collections Service Centers • Transformed collection development practices • Shared print in place

  5. “Toward a financial model and process in support of UC library collaboration” (Proposal currently under consideration by CoUL.) • To sustain ongoing services and long-term initiatives • To enable the effective use of budgetary resources • To ensure effective governance and organization

  6. Funding issues • No funding model for non-collection collaborations • No identified discretionary funding for systemwide initiatives • No process to transition from development/start-up to production • Campus and UCOP financial systems not interoperable

  7. Current Funding ModelsUC Systemwide or Multi-Campus Non-collections Initiatives • Campus in-kind • CDL in-kind • Campus in-kind and CDL in-kind • CDL funded • Campus funded • CDL and campus funded • Grants

  8. Current funding models, continued • Centrally funded originally; funds transferred to campuses hosting service and now absorbed by campus (NRLF, SRLF) • Vendor funded (mass digitization) • Fee for service (EZID)

  9. Options for future funding models • Pro-rated campus/CDL shares based on size • Annual “mixed” funding from campus/CDL annual contributions or Resource Sharing Fund • Equal shares • Hybrid cost shares using both funding and in-kind campus/CDL contributions • Single campus, “mixed” or CDL funding for one-time start-up with ongoing annual costs shared

  10. Options for funding models, continued • One or several campuses invest one-time for systemwide benefit • Grants/external funding • CDL funds

  11. Questions for discussion • What systemwide initiatives are or would be beneficial enough to warrant additional central funding? • In addition to measuring inputs and outputs, what metrics would be most useful as a basis for evaluating current and proposed systemwide services?

More Related