Pergamon Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Voi. 20, No. 2, pp. 157-162, 1996

Copyright O 1996 Elsevier Seienca: Lid Printed in the USA. All fights reserved

0364-6408/96 $15.00 + .00

PII S0364-6408(96)00016.6

C O N F E R E N C E R E P O R T

SYMPOSIUM ON COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT: A REPORT

PEGGY JOHNSON

Planning and Special Projects Officer

University of Minnesota Libraries

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Internet: m-john @ maroon.tc.umn.edu

A b s t r a c t - The University of Minnesota Libraries- Twin Cities Campus and MINI- TEX sponsored a Symposium on Cooperative Collection Development: Planning, Funding, Practice, and Public Policy on May 15, 1995. The symposium was attended by over 100 people, mainly from the upper Midwest. Four speakers addressed the top- ics, supplemented by a panel of University of Minnesota faculty members.

Barbara McFadden Allen, Assistant Director, Committee on Institutional Cooperation, and Director, Center for Library Initiatives

Allen spoke on planning cooperative collection development. She introduced this topic by observ- ing that any cooperative venture is only as strong as its weakest length. Many forces are making cooperation an imperative for fibraries. These include rising costs of materials, shrinking budgets, new technologies for information management, the expanding universe of available information, rising costs of storage and retrieval, new information formats, and access replacing ownership. The old gap between what a library owns and what is published is being replaced with the gap between what a library owns and what its users know is available. Libraries must cooperate to cope with these pressures.

Allen described planning for cooperative library activities in the state of Illinois. The Illinois Library and Information Network involves 2,500 libraries. Some 40 academic and research libraries participate in the shared online system. A statewide information delivery system guaran- tees 24-hour document delivery. All the initiatives are heavily subsidized by the state.

The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) is an academic consortium of the Big Ten Universities and the University of Chicago. CIC aims to facilitate all levels of collaboration and

157

158 P. JOHNSON

cooperation among its members. Library cooperation is a high priority. In 1994, the provosts affirmed their commitment with funding for a Center for Library Initiatives. The goal is to provide all CIC institutional information resources as a seamless whole accessible to all. CIC is presently involved in a major project, the Vktual Electronic Library (VEL), which will move CIC members toward this goal. Components of the project include interlibrary loan, automation, public services, and collection development. A $1.2 million grant is funding the development of an infrastructure, which will be in place in 1996.

Cooperative collection development is an important component of the V E t Two docmnents lay the groundwork for cooperation. These are the "CIC Libraries Strategic Planning Initiative" and the "Proposal to the CIC Library Directors for Systematic Coordinated Collection Development," prepared by the CIC collection development officers. Projects under way include building a reposi- tory of electronic information, cooperative purchase of electronic resources, development (and management) of an electronic journal collection, and discipline-based selector task forces.

Planning for cooperative collection management must recognize common impediments. Among these are geographic barriers; resistance from faculty and staff; traditional notions of research col- lections as self-contained, comprehensive collections of physical items; the "bigger is better" com- parison syndrome; copyright considerations; vendor fears; misunderstanding of what cooperative collection management is; and fear of the conspectus. Much resistance can be defused by stressing the opportunities cooperation presents. Institutions can leverage investments in collections, infra- structure, and personnel. Cooperation can be proactive, not reactive. Participants have the chance to become part of the solution. Commitment to cooperation can lead to libraries working more closely with university faculty and administrators. Most important, cooperation can mean enhanced service to users. Possible areas for action are consortial license agreements, sharing bib- liographers (perhaps through "see you/see me" technology), sharing storage facilities, collaborat- ing on preservation, establishing new relationships based on interlocking collections, and building partnerships for the new wave of scholarly publishing.

Certain factors must be addressed or axe essential for success in cooperative collection manage- ment ventures. Someone must be in charge of the initiative and universities must buy in to the pro- jects. Access to resources, both bibliographically and virtually, is critical. Content may be through rapid, reliable document delivery or access to electronic full text. Copyright and ficensing issues must be resolved. Consortia members must participate and there must be parity. Members must be accountable for their actions or absence. Incentives must be in place. Participants need adequate training. Communication must be constant, but not continuous. Finally and most important, a cus- tomer focus should underlie the initiative.

Allen concluded by stating seven principles that should guide cooperative collection management.

• Local needs drive the collection policy of any library. • Cooperative collection management is one answer, not the answer. • Human interaction is a necessary component. • Cooperation exists on many levels - - local, state, regional, national. • The intent is to provide better, faster, easier access to more. • Cooperation should provide a framework to achieve locally determined goals. • Projects must be simply conceived and integrated into local planning.

Deanna Marcum, President, Council on Library Resources

Marcum spoke on funding for cooperative collection development. She introduced her talk by say- ing that it is getting harder to get money. One reason is that libraries have been poor in document-

Symposium on Cooperative Collection Development 159

ing progress and benefits of cooperative projects. In addition, the current political climate pro- motes reduction of human services. The present reductionist mode or attitude of government means that agencies are competing to see who can reduce program~ the most. Such an attitude leads to troubling times for libraries. While outside funding is shrinking, technology has us on the verge of new opportunities that we are struggling to pursue.

Marcum gave an overview of federal funding prospects. Both the Library Services and Construction Act and the Higher Education Act Title 2 are recommended for elimination by the While House. The Administration stance is that all libraries will be connected through the NII and all information will be universally available. Thus library collections are not needed. The NEH has reduced funding for libraries. Congress is very interested in partnerships with the private sector. Marcum predicts that the only federal money available will be in grants for new technologies and that effective proposals will require both much creativity and a different way of working.

Other funding prospects also are becoming scarce. Private foundations (such as Mellon, Pew, Getty Trust, and Kellogg), which used to fund cooperative collection development, are placing emphasis on K-12 education. Libraries should keep this is mind and consider how they can stress the role that libraries have in how people are educated. Kellogg is interested in helping make larg- er collections available to smaller institutions. Other areas in which foundations are interested are strengthening human resources to manage cooperatively and possibilities of cooperative collection management to help individuals better their lives.

The Council on Library Resources has one of 15 Kellogg grants to explore human resources and information systems management. This provides three years of funding for emerging programs. If successful, these programs will move to regular funding. Kellogg is interested in ideas that move toward new models for how people are educated, how they work together, and what they need to know on a day-to-day basis. CLR's Kellogg grant is intended to bring together people, who do not normally see each other, to find new ways of shaping information policy. CLR will invest money in innovative partnerships already underway. Marcum observed that most effective collection man- agement programs must come from within and be funded by the libraries themselves, which means committing their own resources. Once institutions have some success in cooperative ventures and have demonstrated their effectiveness, foundations are much more likely to fund them.

Libraries need to pare down the list of agencies and foundations from whom grants are request- ed. They must be prepared to answer key questions that foundations will ask. These include:

• Does the proposed project help advance the funding agency's mission? • Will the results of the project make the funding agency proud it participated? • Will local institutions be helped in easily demonstrated ways? • Is this project the beginning of something that can be sustained after external funds are gone?

And if the foundation is national in scope:

• Does the project address an important national problem? • If the project is successful, will other institutions be able to learn and emulate? • Do project participants understand their responsibility to distribute information and demon-

strate accomplishments to the education and library communities?

Mareum provided additional advice for libraries seeking grants. It is essential to study carefully the funding agency's guidelines. The key is to make clear that the library will help the agency reach its goals. Never oversell what the library can do. The problem is that many foundations have become convinced that digital technology will solve all problems. Libraries should try to make

160 P. JOHNSON

clear that digital technology is a supplemental tool to existing location-based collections developed by knowledgeable people. It is people that make information comprehensible. Just putting it "out there" is not enough. Foundations want to give money to transform organizations. Libraries must show that cooperative collection development can transform how libraries do business. Libraries must show a commitment to change, how cooperation can save money, and what they can really do.

David Farrell, Assistant University Librarian for Collections and Information Resources, University of California/Berkeley

Farrell built on the morning's presentation as he discussed the practice of cooperative collection development with examples from California. He presented a macro view of cooperation - - experi- ences from a consortium in which cooperation is working. Farrell noted that arguments against cooperation are valid. It is expensive, difficult to manage, and hard to sell. However, it can be rewarding and provide cost avoidance. The most compelling argument for cooperation is that, in today's stringent environment, the alternative may be no access to many information resources.

The California Plan for cooperation originated in 1977. It had three early objectives: coopera- tive selection, cooperative cataloging (resulting in ~ VYL), and cooperative housing (establish- ing two regional storage facilities). A statewide collection development plan has yet to be written, but a shared purchasing fund has been in place for several years. The dollars initially were used to purchase traditional library resources. Decisions about what to buy and where to locate these materials were troublesome.

Compelled by the serials pricing crisis and new electronic information resources, the UC cam- puses' collection development officers met in 1989 and revised the mission of the cooperative col- lection development initiative. The new program is called the Shared Collections and Access Program (SCAP). The stated purposes of this program are to reduce unnecessary duplication of collections, to enrich and diversify the total research resource available in the UC libraries, and to make the best possible use of collection funds. The most important aspects of this revised approach to cooperation are (1) cooperation embraces all formats, (2) selectors, not collection development officers, are responsible for deciding cooperative purchases, (3) objectives must be clear and measurable, and (4) decisions are made in consultation with technical services, public services, and systems people. Current cooperative selection and acquisitions decisions are focused on widely accessible electronic resources.

Farrell stressed practical consideration as critical to successful cooperative projects. Decisions about print resources must consider geographic proximity and ease of physical access. Cooperation involves mere than cooperative selection. Additional collection management decisions (preservation, binding, storage, etc.) are essential components. Satisfactory document delivery is a cornerstone. Common interlibrary loan protocols and poficies, expedited transportation services, extended loan periods, and use of telefacsimile and Ariel are integral to success. Uniform standards for bibliographic access are important. Finally, communication is a fundamental factor. This encompasses communication among selectors at the cooperating institutions and between sele~ors and staff members in other library units as well as regular reports. Cooperative collection development without communication is impossible.

PANEL DISCUSSION

Bill De, John, Director of MIN1TEX moderated a panel consisting of W. Phillips Shively, Provost for Arts, Sciences and Engineering, University of Minnesota - - Twill Cities, Thomas McRoberts,

Symposium on Cooperative Collection Development 161

Continuing Education Specialist, University of Minnesota - - Morris, and Michael Hancher, Professor of English Language and Literature, University of Minnesota - - Twin Cities. Shively is a strong proponent of cooperation and is working on collaborative projects with neighboring uni- versities. He identified two powerful forces that must be in play and two needs that must be met in order for faculty to accept cooperative collection development. The most important forces are sharp cutbacks in funds, which concentrate the mind wonderfully, and a clear, fh-m directive from university administrators to cooperate. The two needs that must be addressed are really easy access to information (through catalogs and delivery of electronic and print resources) and conve- nient, easy access to bibliographers and subject specialists wherever they are located.

Hancher, who described himself as a typical heavy library user, expressed reservations about cooperative collection development. He is concerned that libraries will starve the goose (publishers) who lays the golden egg ff they reduce acquisitions. He encouraged libraries to keep the needs of students uppermost in mind in all decisions and to interview users periodically. He fears reduction of access and warns libraries to protect and extend access to electronic bibliographic finding aids.

McRoberts, because of his experience with new technologies in support of distance educations, was more optimistic about cooperative initiatives. He sees a parallel in getting faculty to accept new approaches to collection management in getting them to accept new educational technologies. He, also, cautioned libraries to involve users in planning and decisions. Cooperation only takes on meaning when the people who are supposed to benefit from the cooperation are involved in it.

Elaine Albright, Dean of Cultural Affairs and Libraries, University of Maine

Albright was the final guest speaker of the symposium. She considered public policy as it relates to cooperative collection development. Her presentation stressed the importance of paying attention to the environment in which libraries operate. The stance taken by the federal government is central to the position of libraries. The new Congress is using a new vocabulary to reflect priorities. Terms like devolution, empowerment, individual responsibility, populist, procedural reform, technology, shrink- ing federal budget, and shrinking federal ro/e are telling indicators of what the new Congress values.

Albright identified federal programs and initiatives that are threatened with funding cuts. These include LCSA, HEA library programs, school library media resources programs, ESEA EDI tech- nology, NEH and NEA, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Library Program, and NREN. However, all is not bleak for libraries. Albright believes that libraries fit the new govern- ment vocabulary. Libraries are about self-help and empowerment of the individual. They are in an ideal position to use technology to get information to people.

Vice President Gore's principles for guiding development of the NII are important considerations for libraries as they seek to find their role within the NII. Libraries must attend to the First Amendment (intellectual right of the individual and censorship), privacy, ubiquity, equitable access, and interoperability. Albright concluded by referring to a document prepared by the ALA Washington Office in October 1994 that identifies ten areas of public poficy needed by libraries. If libraries attend to these areas, they will be positioned to play an important and crucial role in the NIL

Thomas Shaughnessy, University Librarian, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities

Shaughnessy provided a wrap-up of the symposium. He sees a rising expectation across the land for increased cooperation among libraries. This is especially true for the land grant and other public

162 P. JOHNSON

institutions. Shaughnessy identified the views of university administrators as an important force in the acadenuc library environment. Administrators feel libraries should develop research collections in a rational way and that cooperation will help leverage investments. They believe that technology facilitates and makes cooperation simpler. They believe libraries can and will address issues relat- ing to cooperative selection and sharing materials. They believe librarians somehow will solve intellectual property and copyright issues. In fact, administrators seem to believe that librarians own this issue, They are confident libraries will solve interlibrary loan and document delivery problems, reducing turnaround time and costs simultaneously.

Not only are libraries expected to solve these problems because solving them is a good idea N libraries m u s t solve them because they cannot afford not to do so, Libraries will need support and protection from university administrators as they work toward solutions. Not all changes will be easy, though the results are beneficial. Moving forward to changed behavior requires taking a uni- versity perspective versus a library perspective and moving beyond an innate competitiveness. Libraries need to be assured they will not be penalized for being good corporate citizens. If they are successful with cooperative collection development, then they can begin to look at other areas

technical services, public services and reference, storage, and so on. The symposium was recorded on videotape and will be available for purchase on a cost-recov-

ery basis from the University of Minnesota Libraries.