An overview of international library, national and state consortia with information regarding benefits, challenges, best practices, and the current status of the consortial efforts of Montana's academic libraries.

1. Library Consortia:
Abroad
&
At Home
Pamela Benjamin
Statewide Academic Libraries Coordinator
pamela.benjamin1@montana.edu

3. • Members from North and South
America, Europe, Australia, Asia, and
Africa.
• No bylaws or formal structure.
• Approximately 200 members.
• Not all consortia are members.

4. International Federation of Library Associations
• 1500 Members in approximately 150 countries.
• Promote high standards of provision and delivery of library and information
services.
• Encourage widespread understanding of the value of good library
& information services.
American International Consortium of Academic Libraries
• 25 Independent American liberal arts colleges and universities based throughout
Europe, North Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East.
• Advance learning, teaching and research through the collaborative development
of library and information services.
Electronic Information for Libraries
• 49 Countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, representing more than 3,000 libraries.
• Works in collaboration with libraries in over 60 developing and transition countries
in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

5. • Increase access for more people to more resources both in
scope and quality, while spending dollars more wisely
• Keep researchers, students, faculty in closer touch with
worldwide trends
• Promotes a systemization of world knowledge
• Promote inter-cultural understanding and encourage cross-
cultural knowledge
• Support distance education endeavors in developing areas
Global Consortial Benefits

6. • Support the production of a highly skilled global workforce
• Assist institutions with achieving greater quality assurance –
including accreditation processes
• Promote the application of new information technologies
• Allows institutions to be more internationally aware, more
internationally-focused, and more internationally recognized
Global Consortial Benefits

7. 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
Ways To Collaborate

8. U.S Consortia
Statistics
Of those, approximately –
32% Academic Libraries Only Consortia
Library Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and Sustainability
Horton and Pronevitz, 2015
• Most of which are statewide or regional
organizations
• Roughly 10+ groups are Multi-Stat
Library Consortia 2015
- Mixed/Mostly Public
- Multi-State Only
- Mostly Academic
How many consortia exist in the U.S.?
200 + United States
(multi-type: public, academic, and special)
Of those, approximately –
32% Academic Libraries Only Consortia
Library Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and Sustainability
Horton and Pronevitz, 2015
• Most of which are statewide or
regional organizations
• Roughly 10+ groups are Multi-State
As of 2007 -
• 65 Consortia
Closed or Merged
• At Least 28 Created
Library Consortia:
Models for Collaboration and Sustainability
Horton and Pronevitz, 2015

11. Montana’s Consortia ?

12. Current Status:
16 Institutions (MUS System)
7 Tribal Colleges
5 Private Institutions
28 Academic Institutions
MT State Library : 170 libraries (public & school)
Montana Shared Catalog
- Discover It
- MontanaLibrary2Go
- LYRASIS
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)

13. Benefits
Economies of Scale & Scope

14. 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

15. Percentage Saved Database Subscriptions
Benefits
http://www.tenn-share.org/membership/savingsandbenefits

16. $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
Article Downloads

17. 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

18. # 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
Benefits

19. Benefits
Eliminate Duplication

20. Benefits
Grants/Funding
Unique Collections

21. • Direct access is cheaper than ILL requests
• Allows faculty to better conduct research & rapidly develop new
curricula
• Supports national accreditation standards
Sharing Content
Benefits

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

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

24. Benefits
Shared Voice

25. Benefits
Leveling the Playing Field
Innovation
Ecosystem

26. Challenges
Money & Staff Cuts

27. Challenges
Autonomy

28. 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

29. Challenges
Self-Promotion
CBA
ROI

30. Challenges
Deep Committment
Clear Goals

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

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

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

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

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

36. Current Status:
• RFP for a new Library Service Platform
- MSU Symphony contract expires 12/31/16
- UM Voyager contract expired 3 years ago
- Both Primo contracts expire 9/30/2016
• Timeline
July, 2015 - Post RFP
August - Review and demos
September - Vendor has been selected
By November/December, 2015 – Migration has begun
By December 31, 2016 - Migration needs to be completed as MSU
Sirsi contract expires

37. • MALC Task Force
(MT Academic Library Collaborative)
Barry Brown, Barry.Brown@umontana.edu
Paula DeMars, demarsp@milescc.edu
Scott Juskiewicz, SJuskiewicz@mtech.edu
Bobbi Otte, otteb@rocky.edu
Laura Wight, laura.wight@gfcmsu.edu
• Feasibility Study - due 6/30/2015
http://guides.lib.montana.edu/academiclibrariescollaborative

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