The document discusses library consortia in Montana. It notes that there are over 600 consortia worldwide and over 200 in the United States. In Montana, academic libraries collaborate through various consortia including the Montana Shared Catalog, NW Digital Archives, MontanaLibrary2Go, and OMNI Consortium. Consortia provide benefits like reducing costs, increasing resources available, and leveraging purchasing power. Challenges include funding cuts, maintaining autonomy for members, inefficiencies, and ensuring deep commitment to shared goals. The document outlines a four phase process for developing a new consortium: exploratory, planning, development, and operation/evaluation.

1. Montana
Academic Library
Cooperative
Pamela Benjamin
Statewide Academic Libraries Coordinator
pamela.benjamin1@montana.edu

2. Consortia Statistics
How many consortia exist
in the world?
At least 600 groups
worldwide served by OCLC
(mix – public, academic, and special)
200 + United States
(multi-type: public, academic, and
special)
Of those, approximately –
32% Academic Libraries Only Consortia
Library Consortia: Models for Collaboration and
Sustainability by Horton and Pronevitz, 2015
• Most of which are statewide or regional
organizations
• Roughly 10+ groups are Multi-State
65 Consortia
Closed or Merged
&
At least 28 were created
Library Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and Sustainability
Horton and Pronevitz, 2015
Since 2007 –

3. MT State Library : 170 libraries (public & school)
Montana Shared Catalog
- Discover It
- MontanaLibrary2Go
- AMIGOS
MSU and U of M : NWDA (NW Digital Archives)
LYRASIS
MontanaLibrary2Go
AIHEC : 7 Tribal Colleges
(Amer. Indian Higher Education Consortium)
NN/LM : 58 Multi-Type Libraries
(Nat’l. Network of Libraries of Medicine)
U of M: 7 Libraries sharing Voyager
OMNI Consortium : 10 Libraries sharing Sirsi
(Outreach MT: Networked Information)
Primo Implementation : OMNI Group +
U of M (Missoula)
MT Tech
Helena College
U of M (Western)
2 State Systems (made up of 14 institutions)
3 Community Colleges
7 Tribal Colleges
7 Private Institutions
31 Academic Institutions

4. Ways To Collaborate
Joint Catalog
Cataloging
Bound Collection or E-Resource Sharing
Library Print Repository
Inter-Library Delivery System
Acquisitions – Shared Purchases, Subscriptions/Licenses, and Price Negotiation
ILS/URM
Cooperative Collection Development
Reference
Share Staff
Digitization of Library Holdings
Joint Data Storage
Continuing Education & Training
Consulting & Networking
Institutional Repository

5. Benefits
Eliminate Duplication
Cost Reductions
Economies of Scale & Scope

6. Grants/Funding
Unique Collections
Benefits

7. Sharing Content
Databases, e-books, journal subscriptions, print collections,
institutional repositories, joint catalogs, joint data storage
Increasing the scope and quality of resources
available to researchers and students
• Despite their geography
• At a reduced cost
Benefits

8. Percentage SavedDatabase Subscriptions
Benefits
http://www.tenn-share.org/membership/savingsandbenefits

9. Articles
$5.25 lowest available price for one article if downloaded outside of GALILEO
vs.
$0.14 in GALILEO
GALILEO (Georgia Library Learning Online)
2010-2011 Fact Sheet at http://about.galileo.usg.edu/site/galileo
Benefits

10. Leveraging Power
“[PASCAL] leverages by more than five times the
overall purchasing power of each dollar spent
through cooperatively and collaboratively sharing
resources and costs”
PASCAL
(Partnership Among South Carolina Academic
Libraries)
“Because of the collaborative approach to
purchasing library resources, and through sharing
technology and expertise, for every $1 spent,
LOUIS provides $8 worth of value for Louisiana’s
colleges and universities.”
LOUIS
(Louisiana Library Network)
From PASCAL website as noted in
Assessing the Value of Academic Library Consortia by Faye A. Chadwell
https://utils.training.louislibraries.org/~Louis/FlipBooks/brochure2013/index.html
Benefits

11. Cost Avoidance
TexShare members (645 libraries)
spent $7,286,620 for databases
that would have cost
$84,158,212 collectively.
TexShare
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/texshare/facts_ataglance.html
(updated October 2014)
OhioLINK
Consortial Borrowing
Benefits

12. # of
Institutions
Total
(one year average)
Total
(last ten years)
Avg/per
Institution
over Decade
Public
Universities
and
Charters
17 $31,124,383.93 $311,243,839.30 $18,308,461.14
2 Year
Institutions
17 $3,342,107.79 $33,326,476.90 $1,960,380.99
Private
Institutions
49 $13,681,123.85 $123,372,511.52 $2,517,806.36
Cost Avoidance cont.
OhioLINK
Consortial Borrowing cont.
Benefits

13. • Allows faculty to better conduct research & rapidly develop new
curricula
• Supports national accreditation standards
• Innovation ecosystem
Sharing Content
Benefits

14. Benefits
Sharing Technology
Fully integrated library systems, URM, digitized
institutional repositories, etc.

15. Benefits
Sharing Expertise Cataloging, Delivery Service, Technology
Issues, Reference, License Negotiation, Etc.
"Great ideas don't appear in isolation"
Formal Informal

16. Benefits
Shared Voice

17. Challenges
Money & Staff Cuts

18. Challenges
Autonomy

19. Challenges
Inefficiencies
Are you lonely?
Tired of working on your own?
Do you hate making decisions?
HOLD A MEETING!
You can:
• See people
• Show charts
• Feel important
• Point with a stick
• Eat donuts
• Impress you colleagues
All on company time!
MEETINGS
The practical alternative to work

20. Challenges
Self-Promotion
CBA
ROI

21. Challenges
Deep Committment
Clear Goals

22. A Consortium
Should :
• Be Relatively Small in Size
• Allow Members to Maintain Identity & Autonomy
• Deep Commitment to Shared, Clear Goals and Strategies
• Maintain Good Communication Using Most Efficient Means
• Be Flexible & Mindful of Financial & Staff Limitations
• Acquire an Appropriate Technological Infrastructure
• Use Self-Analysis Tool for Promotion

23. How To Get There
• ID potential members and stakeholders
• Meeting(s) to discuss desirability
• Consider a feasibility study
I. Exploratory Phase
Information provided by: Stephen Marvin, MLS
FH Green Library
West Chester University, PA

24. How To Get There
• ID members and the consortium’s objectives
• Determine amount of financial support needed
• Make legal agreements necessary
II. Planning Phase

25. How To Get There
• Assign personnel and committees to projects
• Create schedules
• Define methodology for evaluation
III. Development Phase

26. How To Get There
• Implement each activity/project in a trial operational
mode
• Evaluate each activity/project
• Create marketing plan
IV. Operation & Evaluation Phase

27. “…it is evident that any single library,
even the largest,
is really too small to compete successfully in
today’s information technology and publishing
marketplace.”
Gary S. Lawrence
Director of Library Planning and Policy Development
University of California

28. Thank You
for
Listening
Pamela Benjamin
Statewide Academic Libraries Coordinator
pamela.benjamin1@montana.edu