Montana Academic Library Consortium Presentation
•
1 like•521 views
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.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to Montana Academic Library Consortium Presentation
Similar to Montana Academic Library Consortium Presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Montana Academic Library Consortium Presentation
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 17. Challenges Money & Staff Cuts
- 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
- 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