Report to the Board of the Texas Council of Academic Libraries (TCAL)
TCAL Task Force on Shared Print Collections
June 2, 2014
Contents
I. Introduction
II. Four Models for Shared Print Collections
III. Recommendations
IV. Addendum: Education / Advocacy
I. Introduction
The TCAL Task Force on Shared Print Collections is composed of ten academic librarians and
was given a charge by the TCAL Board in March 2014 to: “propose a structure, or a process for
developing a structure, for a shared print solution appropriate for TCAL member libraries.” Our
recommendation was to be completed by July 1, 2014, and was to remain at a “theoretical”
level, identifying possible processes or structures for implementation by subsequent TCAL
groups and efforts.
In proposing a “shared print solution,” we have investigated models for “print consolidation”
among TCAL libraries, by which we mean “strategies undertaken by a group of institutions to
achieve a mutual purpose by imposing some degree of integration across their local print
collections.”1 There are two primary goals for such print consolidation: 1) maintenance of
archival copies, which provide libraries with a shared back-up collection of print originals,
accessed primarily or exclusively through digital surrogates; and 2) maintenance of service
copies, which creates a shared resource for use by selectively aggregating print holdings of
multiple libraries for a broader user base.
We conducted a survey of TCAL members (anonymous PDF linked here, and full data
speadsheet here), and an Environmental Scan.
A. Primary findings of the survey (n=89) are the following:
i. 37% of respondents were members of TCCJCL; 33% were TSCUL; 30% were TICUL.
ii. 82% of the libraries are reducing print monographs through deselection in the next
five years, and 82% of libraries are not coordinating deselection with other libraries.
1
Lavoie, Brian, Constance Malpas and JD Shipengrover. 2012. Print Management at "Mega-scale": A
Regional Perspective on Print Book Collections in North America. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research.
http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2012/2012-05.pdf.
1
iii. 63% of respondents stated that coordination of deselection and retention activities
among TCAL libraries would be “very important” or “somewhat important” to their library.
37% stated that this is “not very important” or “unimportant.” Regarding this question,
there was significant difference between the responses of: 1) community colleges and
junior colleges (TCCJCL), 33% of which think TCAL coordination of deselection and
retention is very important or somewhat important, and 2) the other two divisions of
TCAL (TSCUL and TICUL), 80% of which think it is very important or somewhat
important.
TCCJCL
TSCUL
TICUL
Very important
1
5
7
Somewhat important
10
18
15
Not very important
19
3
4
Unimportant
3
3
1
TOTAL
33
29
27
iv. There was almost equal interest in, 1) distributed, and 2) centralized shared
collections.
v. There was a preference for a focus on sharing monographs that are rarely held in the
region (29%), versus monographs that are widely held (9%) , though many libraries
expressed no preference (51%).
vi. The two most important factors for libraries’ participation and support of such a
program are: 1) the contents of the shared collection, and 2) the type and speed of
access/delivery provided. Geographic proximity to their home library is the least
important factor.
vii. Two-thirds (66%) of respondents indicate that their institution would potentially be
willing to designate part of their monograph collection to be retained in their library or
storage facility as part of a shared print monographs program.
viii. A significant number of the responses signaled concern for the financial costs of any
program that might be implemented.
B. The primary findings of the task force’s environmental scan are as follows:
i. There is a variety of models for shared print collections on the national scene. Texas is
such a large and diverse state that no single shared print solution may sufficiently
address the entire region’s needs.
ii. Member libraries’ needs should be adequately assessed and prioritized prior to
assigning one or more solutions.
2
iii. Some characteristics seem to be common amongst successful existing shared print
solutions:
a. Dedicated centralized funding and ongoing individual institutions’ financial
commitment;
b. A focus on either archival/preservation of rare/unique materials or accessoriented, widely held collections;
c. A need for a centralized collection analysis (often costly);
d. Formats/types of materials scoped/defined in a limited way;
e. Leveraging of already established, trusted networks (costs, agreements,
common institutional memberships, material delivery);
f. Phased projects;
g. Utilization of third-party services.
II. Four Models for Shared Print Collections
We recommend that the following models be considered as structures for a shared print solution
appropriate for TCAL member libraries. All of these models are more or less feasible options for
TCAL member libraries.
Model #1: National
TCAL advocates for the utilization of existing national or regional shared print collection
programs.
As seen in the environmental scan, a number of other state, regional, and national groups have
shared their print collections, or otherwise facilitated the sharing of print collections, often with
different models and goals. One model for supporting a shared print solution among TCAL
libraries is for TCAL to raise members’ awareness of these regional and national structures and
processes, and to promote them among TCAL libraries, perhaps even through formal
collaboration and alliance. One promising development is the OCLC Shared Print Management
Program, which might enable TCAL libraries to identify, describe, and retain archival print
copies at a statewide level.
We have compiled a list of the most relevant regional and national organizations and
collaborations, many of which are currently connected to a number of Texas academic libraries.
We initially considered the Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST) to be a promising
candidate for possible partnership with TCAL, both because of participation among TCAL
libraries, and because of its developed model for shared print collections. Further investigation
indicates that TCAL could learn from this collaborative effort to store and share archival print
copies, but that the best timing for partnership may not be at the present. We have provided a
report and conclusion about the potential partnership with WEST here.
3
If TCAL were to pursue this model, we recommend a two-prong strategy of: 1) education of
TCAL membership (see the addendum at end of this report) about possible partnerships that
individual TCAL libraries or regional TCAL consortia might develop with initiatives deriving from
outside Texas focused on standardized description and sharing of print collections; and, 2)
strategic engagement of WEST, ASERL, SCELC, CIC, and/or other large-scale shared print
programs underway around the nation and world, with a view to TCAL-wide adoption and
expansion of an already existing program.
Model #2: Centralized Texas
TCAL helps to advance and utilize the Joint Library Facility (JLF) in Riverside, Texas, or
develops another central repository, for state-wide sharing of print collections. The JLF
would be for sharing of service-copies for regular usage, and would not immediately
address the need for shared collection(s) of archival print copies, which might be a
future development of the centralized model.
About JLF. The Joint Library Facility (JLF), which accepts materials from member University of
Texas and Texas A&M institutions, could warrant further investigation as a statewide shared
print solution. The facility utilizes the ‘resource in common’ model to allow members to share a
single, common copy while retaining the ability to make independent local deselection
decisions.
Materials accepted include serials, monographs, on-end multimedia, and microfilm. Preference
is given to materials held by multiple member institutions. Duplicate materials are not accepted.
JLF is designed primarily to provide access to widely held materials with some digital
equivalents, not as a facility for archiving rare or unique materials. Its specifications meet
ambient human conditions, rather than more stringent environmental specifications used for
archival facilities.
Materials donated to JLF by member institutions become the collective property of the facility
and cannot be returned to the donating libraries. In general, imprints of materials submitted to
JLF are typically somewhat older and circulate less often than other high-demand volumes. If
members anticipate high use of materials, it may be better to rely on access to local copies or
digital equivalents.
Worldwide Access to Materials. Non-member libraries throughout the world also benefit from
JLF’s holdings. JLF provides no-cost interlibrary loan article scanning to libraries worldwide.
Libraries in Texas who use the TExpress Courier can receive physical materials at no charge.
Materials borrowed from JLF outside the delivery network are mailed at cost through USPS or
FedEx.
Elective Deselection of Common Copies Held at JLF. Member libraries may choose to
deaccession common copies of locally held materials based on JLF’s ‘resource in common’
4
holdings. As some of JLF’s holdings include widely held materials that are securely archived
digitally, non-JLF member Texas libraries may also elect to locally deaccession the same
materials, essentially relying on JLF as a regional print repository.
Recommendation to Explore Possible Expansion of JLF Membership. For JLF’s initial
phase, UT and A&M flagship institutions were allocated state funding to build the facility, and
each contributed its own additional system resources. Member institutions who contribute
volumes to the facility pay per-item processing fees, as well as the cost of shelving supplies, to
JLF. Members are also responsible for paying the cost of shipping materials to the facility.
If this model is selected, the task force recommends that the TCAL Board engage in a dialog
with JLF leaders to gauge potential UT/A&M interest in exploring a broader partnership beyond
the original UT and A&M members.
Other possible considerations include:
● Pricing/cost structure
● Possible pilot projects (starting small)
● Possibilities for extending the original vision and funding sources of the JLF
● Opportunities for joint funding models, fundraising proposals, and/or collaboration in
Texas government lobbying.
Whether with JLF, or another centralized collection solution, an important consideration and
opportunity for a centralized model is the existence of the TExpress courier, which might serve
as a link between a centralized shared print collection and many, if not all, of the TCAL libraries.
A current list of TExpress participants is provided here. According to the Amigos TExpress
manager, most academic libraries in Texas participate. Exceptions are some junior colleges and
community colleges. Another consideration is specialty academic libraries, such as law libraries.
The main campus library may participate but the specialty library does not.
If the JLF approach to a centralized print repository of service copies for TCAL libraries gains
traction, TCAL should also explore the feasibility of a centralized print repository of back-up,
archival copies.
Model #3: Regional Texas
TCAL supports the incremental development of distributed, regional consortia in which
libraries share service and archival copies through a pilot program that develops a
scalable collection analysis and program framework.
Recognizing the potential costs and complexities of a centralized model, an alternative
approach is to create new, and/or to develop existing, regional consortia of TCAL libraries in
support of print consolidation. In exploration of this model, we identified existing consortia of
academic libraries within Texas, as well as “multi-type” consortia that include both academic
5
and public libraries. A membership list of these consortia, as well as public library, medical, and
special consortia, is provided here.
As an alternative to leveraging existing consortia, TCAL might seek to create: 1) new regional
groups (e.g., based on TLA districts or existing storage library capacity), 2) larger OCLC megaregions (e.g., Dallas-Austin and Houston-New Orleans), or 3) an ambitious, statewide region
linked by document delivery and TExpress courier service, or some other communication and
transportation systems.
Similar to a recent SCELC report regarding the feasibility of a shared print program among its
member libraries, we recommend that, if this model is selected, TCAL pilot a regional program.
This pilot program would develop: 1) a scalable process for collection analysis, and, 2) a
scalable framework for a shared print program, including policies, services, business model, and
governance.
The process for developing this pilot structure would include: 1) identification of a potential
group of institutions to participate in a regional or statewide pilot program; 2) RFI distribution
(see draft copy here) and selection for a vendor to conduct collection analysis among pilot
institutions; 3) scoping and funding of collection analysis through external grant or institutional
resources; 4) identification of collection resources to be included in the pilot; 5) development of
framework (e.g., operating, business, and governance model) that might either be scaled to
other regional groups or expanded beyond local regions to mega-regions or statewide print
consolidation programs; and 6) expansion or transfer of this framework to include most TCAL
libraries.
Two key initial considerations will be: 1) how the pilot is funded, and 2) whether the pilot will
include sharing of archival and service copies, or only one of the two. We recommend an initial
grant application for funding. We also recommend the inclusion of both archival and service
copies in the pilot program, whereby both archival and service copies are held or distributed
among the participating libraries, but are linked through an electronic management and
discovery system.
Model #4: Hybrid Texas
In this model, TCAL would pursue both a centralized model (for archival or service
copies) and also regional model (for archival or service copies).
As TCAL proceeds in support of its member libraries’ various needs, it is important to keep in
mind that a centralized structure for shared print collections is not antithetical to a distributed
virtual collection, and that both might be pursued in tandem, e.g., a centralized print collection of
service copies, and a distributed virtual collection of archival copies aggregated from
participating libraries, or vice versa.
6
III. Recommendations
1) The TCAL Task Force on Shared Print Collections recommends that the TCAL Board explore
a centralized shared print collection by first engaging with JLF leadership, with a view to a
centralized service-copy print collection (Model #2). If successful, TCAL should explore the
possibility of a similarly centralized archival-copy print collection, providing back-up print copies
for digital surrogates. If this second step is not possible, TCAL should move to a hybrid model
(Model #4), developing a distributed system of archival print copies connected by digital
management and discovery systems.
2) If the centralized service copy model (Model #2) proves not to be possible, we recommend
that TCAL pursue and pilot a regional consortium model for shared print and archival print
collections (Model #3). However, the number of libraries holding archival copies may be
significantly smaller (and more centralized) than the distributed libraries holding service copies,
and this may lead to a hybrid model (Model #4), which is the inverse of the hybrid option in
recommendation #1.
3) For both potential models -- whether centralized or distributed -- TCAL should adopt and
promote a standard for identification, description, and retention of archival print copies (e.g.,
OCLC Shared Print Management), and should actively seek to educate members about the
options for, and potential of, shared printed collections.
IV. Addendum: Education / Advocacy
The survey of TCAL libraries indicated that while 82% of respondents are currently reducing
their print holdings or planning to do so within the next five years, 82% are not coordinating
deselection with other libraries. A substantial number of respondents (37%) considered the
coordination of deselection and retention activities among TCAL libraries to be “Not very
important” or “Unimportant.”
It is possible that more TCAL libraries are not interested in a shared print collections solution
because there is not enough general awareness of existing shared print collection initiatives and
their value to participating libraries.
Accordingly, the task force recommends that TCAL encourage opportunities for TCAL members
to learn more about the value and options for shared print solutions.
The degree of involvement in shared collections might vary with the needs of each library. For
example, community and junior colleges tend to have dynamic collections that closely track the
programs of study being offered at the college. Their mission does not require them to develop
or maintain comprehensive research collections. For this reason they are more ready to
deselect print materials as soon as these become obsolete. The less frequent requests for older
or more esoteric materials are usually satisfied through interlibrary loan.
7
In any case, 66% of TCAL survey respondents expressed interest in a shared print collection
solution by indicating that they would be willing to designate part of their monograph collection
to be retained in their library or storage facility as part of a shared print monographs program.
Hence, it would be of service for TCAL to foster initiatives to provide information to member
libraries on the benefits of shared collection initiatives, ways in which members can take
advantage of existing shared collection solutions, and ways in which they can participate in any
TCAL shared collection initiative. Sharing the findings of this task force with member libraries
might be a good place to start.
Another way in which TCAL could foster these outreach activities is by collaborating with the
Texas Library Association (TLA). For example, the TCAL webpage on the TLA website could be
used to provide information on existing shared collection resources. TCAL might also
collaborate with TLA to offer a program on the topic of shared collections at the next TLA
Conference.
Respectfully Submitted,
The TCAL Task Force on Shared Print Collections:
Posie Aagaard, UT-San Antonio
Jesus Campos, South Texas College
Beatrice Caraway, Trinity University
Beth Farwell, Baylor University
Dana Hendrix, Southwestern University
Selene Hinojosa, Texas State University
Kris Reed, Texas Womans University
Jeanne Standley, University of Texas at Tyler
Cristina Thomsen, Southwestern Adventist University
John Weaver, Abilene Christian University (Chair)
8