Collaborative Collection Management Workshop
Carnahan House, Lexington, Kentucky
Thursday, June 13 and Friday, June 14, 1996

Table of Contents

|Background| |Progress|
|Humanities Group 1| |Humanities Group 2|
|Science and Technology Group|
|Social Science Group 1| |Social Science Group 2|

Background

In October, 1995 Russ Clement, Jane Row, Flora Shrode, Diane Perushek and Sandra Leach traveled to Kentucky to meet with Kentucky librarians interested in developing cooperative collecting initiatives. Subsequently, 20 UK librarians, 2 Eastern Kentucky librarians and 10 UTK librarians attended a two day workshop at Carnahan House in Lexington, KY. These librarians developed various collaborative scenarios and explored some sample methodology for collaborative collection management. The workshop was facilitated by George Soete (ARL). The librarians were organized into 5 groups. There were two social science groups, two humanities groups and one science and technology group.

This page contains some of the results of the workshop. We are also including an e-mail page to help librarians more easily keep in touch with collaborators. Progress on any projects will be posted on this page.

Progress

Several projects are currently being investigated by UK and UTK that directly resulted from the collaboration workshop.

The projects are:

• Investigating some method to share standards collecting responsibilities and/or sharing information about availability.
• Exploring a means for sharing responsibility for collection of juvenile and childrens literature.
• Examining the curriculum and research needs of German language and literature to establish collecting responsibilities.
• Collaborative and coordinated purchase of replacement for micro-opaque collections.

Humanities Group 1

Compiled by James Burgett

These are ideas for coop projects from one of the humanities discussion tables:

CAN DO	NEED	BOTH
18th cent french(T) Approvals eval(T) Central Asia(K) Elec. engin.(K) Fire science(EKU) Judaica(K) Law enforcement(EKU) Manufactur.(K) Med. ethics(T) Military sci(EKU) Mining (K) MLA monographs(T) Music Playscripts(T) Robotics(K) SE artists (T) Serials eval(T) Womens Studies Films (K)	African studies(K) Earthquake engr.(K) Energy prod(K) Engr. econ.(K) Engr. ethics(K) History/sci.(K) LatinAmer. film(K) Oceanography(K) Patents(K) Philos./sci.(K) Power prod(K) Prod.catalogs(K) Robotics(EKU) Theatre history(T)	Comp. lit. Contem. fiction Contemp. poetry Dance Francophone Lit Japanese studies Standards Womens Studies small presses

Below is the list of ideas generated by the humanities group during the 'brainwriting' exercise. These items have been transcribed. Only minor editorial revisions to clarify the content or pull comments together were made. The slashes (/) designate division of input.

1. Begin sharing resources in Francophone literatures (North African, Carribean, Polynesian, Quebecois, etc). / Look at MLA, Livres disponibles, Libres du Mois, etc. for geographical or chronological divisions and allocate collection responsibility to each university based on funds available. / There is a need to divide the collection and this sounds feasible. Perhaps could be further refined by date of publication. / Partner with faculty and develop links between teaching depts. on both campuses. / Perhaps divide by format?

2. Start a foreign language video/film collection to support cinema and foreign language courses and research. Divide areas/languages between UT-K and UK after surveying existing strengths and weaknesses. / UT alread has fairly strong Latin American, Asian, Romance Language film collections to contribute.

3. There is an interest in strengthening collections in Japanese studies. This might be a good area to start cooperative collection development as outside grant funds are available from the Japan Foundation and elsewere. / Introduce Japanese faculty members to each other and partner with teaching faculty on collection development. / UK could pursue the grant options, sincere there are a number of Japanese companies (feeders for Toyota) in the Lexington area. / Talk also with Kodansha and Ashahi-Shimbun (publishers).

4. (Much of the info about Japanese studies also applies to Judaic studies.) Look at areas where we both have needs (Japan, Judaica, etc.) and strategize about how to 'divide and conquer' in these new areas, e.g., journal subscriptions.

5. I'd like to explore cooperative development of a small/alternative press collection for women's/gender/GLB studies. We could either divide the universe of small presses or identify sub-topics that each institution would be responsible for. / Because interests overlap, I would suggest a simplistic division based alphabetically on publisher (one takes A-L, the other M-Z). / I second the notion and would suggest (in the interest of saving time) the construction of a tracking database with data entered and maintained by library/information school students at either/both institution(s).

6. Divide cost of replacing microcard sets (Early American Imprints, Landmarks of Science, etc.) by splitting responsibility with UT. Shared decision making on which institution replaces which set. / Consider in-house reproduction at UK (Reprographics microfilm Lab) on microfilm (if technology feasible). /Alternatively, could compare holdings as part of this project, to avoid duplication, divide responsibility along subject lines or content type. / Assign retro. set collection by discipline or collection strengths to complement and reinforce current levels. / Involve faculty and grad students in selection priorities.

POSSIBLE PROJECTS AND THEIR EASE/IMPACT RATINGS

SAMPLE PROJECT: Alternative small press project

Humanities Group 2

During the Brain Writing session on Friday, a group of Humanities librarians (including from UK -- Faith Harders, Paula Hickner, and Judy Wiza, and from UTK -- Anne Bridges, Sandy Leach and Deborah Thompson-Wise) identified six possible areas for collaborative collection development and management. These possibilities when subjected to an ease/impact analysis ranked as follows:

Humanities Backfile 3 (i.e. coordinating purchase of serials backfile in order to reduce costs, improve coverage)

Juvenile 3 (i.e. identifying and sharing collection strengths and professional expertise)

Latin American 2.5 (i.e. investigate division of collection responsibilties by region/country)

Music 2 (i.e. consider sharing print facsimiles of music manuscripts. Divide by date/geography/composer)

Professional Ethics 2.5 (i.e. building on UTK's strength, identify and assign primary collection duties to UK and UTK based on the professions taught at each institution)

The next part of the workshop involved practice for the development and organization of one of the possible projects identified in the brain writing exercise. For purposes of this exercise, the group of humanities librarians produced the following description of a hypothetical agreement for the collaborative collecting of materials related to professional ethics.

"This agreement provides for the coordinated collecting by the university of Kentucky Libraries and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville Libraries, of print, audio-visual and electronic materials related to professional ethics. Both libraries will explore the provision of appropriate electonic access to collections and services in order to facilitate the location and use of professional ethics materials.

Each library will inventory the programs of professional study offered by their respective institutions. In cases where a professional program is offered at only one institution, that library will have primary collecting responsibility for identifying and providing access to ethics materials related to that profession. Particular attention will be given to appropriate publications and services of professional organizations. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Libraries will assume responsibilty for developing a representative film collection for the study of professional ethics.

The parties to this agreement commit to conduct the inventory of professional programs and identification of appropriate publications and services of professional organizations within one year. The agreement will be reviewed, evaluated and modified as necessary every two years."

Science and Technolog Group

Brainwriting results:

1. Share Engineering standards
   • Each institution make a list of standards titles and holdings.
   • Explore on-line versions.
   • Engage in budget negotiations for efficient spending.
   • Educate selectors on statistical methods for collection development.
   • Collections could be broken down by type of industry with some housed in one location while others are with the partner.
   • We should look at what each institution needs, what they have, and see if what is held meets the need. Then assign collecting responsibilities. Also need sharing agreements.
   • UK has ANSI and needs ISO and international standards.
2. Sharing of electronic texts
   • What about the legal hurdles and would it be cost effective? Is it easier access? What about document delivery and copyright?
   • Full-text access to research journals would be great.
   • What about technology requirements?
   • A joint taskforce might speed up digitization projects.
   • Oak Ridge National Labs has a developed digitization project. They could maybe give us both some expertise.
   • UTK's experience with Busoni (sp!) project may lend itself to a group presentation.
3. Share Collection Development policy statements
   • In addition share the conspectus levels of the individual collection.
   • Devise new collection development policy statements for each institution based on results obtained from conspectus.
   • Also revise collection development policies to reflect new technologies and formats. Rewriting together would ease the burden of writing two separate policies and would include the collaboration aspects.
   • We need faculty interest profiles in addition to conspectus so that we know what major programs are going on at each university.
4. Shared training/development programs.
   • This would enable the institutions to develop workshops for joint attendance or individuals to travel to the other institutititution to provide training.
   • Address policies and expertise of librarians in areas such as collection development, subjects, web, etc.
   • Social events to develop working relationships also help.
   • These programs also release stress. They give a fresh outlook and change of pace.
   • Will help in other collaborative activities.
   • Gives us an opportunity to hear first-hand problems with collections at the reciprocal institution and also can hear some of their concerns and needs.
5. Share historical journals (backfiles) and share union list.
   • Improve document delivery equipment and procedures between the libraries for access.
   • Investigate courier options, share training experiences with SUMO.
   • Avoid duplicating backfile purchases.
   • First step would be to identify what titles each institution has and what the holdings are. UK is surplusing some materials--does UTK need/want these?
   • A union list would be helpful.
6. Share personnel and jobs for enrichment.
   • Mini-internships.
   • May help cross-train people in cataloging, web development, systems/PC troubleshooting.
   • How do we manage the costs?
   • Institutions can still pay the individual but they would spend time at the other institution. Or one person shared by both institutions.
   • Attempt to schedule mini training sessions perhaps quarterly and of course trainers would be from one of the instutions involved. Locations could vary. Could share electronically through e-mail.
   • Training in collection development

Sample Project Plan

UK/UTK will attempt to provide shared access to comprehensive collection of standards. We will attempt to share the cost and burden of collecting these standards. In order to fulfill this need we will:

1. Investigate sharing full-text electronic access to current standards provided by the IHS. This investigation will include archival access.
2. Identify a host institution to manage/house/maintain the files.
   • Each institution is responsible for local access.
3. Make a group decision regarding the best most efficient time to cancel local subscriptions.
4. Investigation/Information gathering period will last no longer than 6 months.
5. After the initial 6 month period of investigation the group will make a decision regarding the feasibility of the project. If the project is approved, each institution will commit to participating for two years. The project will be re-evaluated after two years. The following methods will be used for evaluation:
   • access logs
   • $ savings analysis
   • space savings analysis
   • saving in processing resources
   • ?? Other evaluation methods
6. If electronic access is not possible the CCM group will attempt to divide responsibility of purchasing and providing access to the materials to the other institution. The group will also investigate sharing micorfiche backfiles if electronic archiving is not available or possible.

Social Science Group 1

(Jill Buckland, Carla Cantagallo, Thura Mack, Kandace Rogers, Kim Smith, Sarah Vaughn)
The reporter for this group is Sarah Connelly Vaughn.

IDEA: Write polices for Collaborative Collection Management (CCM)

• Actually start new program
• Must first identify needs and areas of strength for both institutions, then plan a session to actually write policies.
• Should possibly be a small group from each institution which meets at this session -- this type of work needs to be very focused to meet the goal.
• Then identify a finite number of areas to begin the process -- perhaps some for the most frequently cited subjects/programs listed in the last activity today. The most needed areas are likely to be the most successful and will lead the way for trying other subjects.

• Are there any indexes to Japanese periodicals? Do they need to include only English language articles?
• Collaborate with our (UK's) Japanese language program and any support UK provides with the Toyota community.
• Is there another area that would be more useful for our communities?
• Perhaps share the responsibility of purchasing journal subcriptions. Discuss the emphasis of each new program & then divide the responsibilities.

• Maybe we need to share our conspectus results first -- get a "baseline" reading of what we each have currently.
• Concentrate on periodicals rather than monographs -- popular material being ephemeral.

• With UT our interest would be more football and a joint effort to enhance our university's football history would be fun. What would our administration think of our first effort being popular rather than scholarly?
• With the kind of money the programs generate, why would they mind?