The University of Memphis
University Libraries

Memorandum

To: Tennessee Academic Library Collaborative Board

From: Annelle R. Huggins, Leader, Commonly Held Resources Project

Subject: Report of Project Findings

Date: July 24, 1998

Project Charge: To identify commonly held resources, primarily electronic resources and microforms, and to attempt to negotiate more favorable group prices with vendors.

Activities to date:

• Contact persons at 23 institutions were named. (See attached TALC Commonly Held Resources Project Participants)

• Lists of all currently received electronic databases and large microform sets were received from 16 of the 23 institutions.
  • Electronic resources statistics (without differentiating access-format) from the 16 responding institutions:

    Total individual databases reported: 158
    Total databases received by single institution: 102
    Total databases duplicated in at least 2 institutions: 46
    

    See attached: Electronic Databases Duplicated in TALC Libraries

    Disclaimer:
    

    If duplicate titles do not appear in the list, it is due to personal interpretation of the individual institutional listings, which carried various titles for some databases. Further clarification may be necessary.

  • Statistics on duplication:

    # of libraries # of databases

    2 libraries have 23 databases
    3 libraries have 7 databases
    4 libraries have 2 databases
    5 libraries have 2 databases
    6 libraries have 4 databases
    7 libraries have 1 databases
    8 libraries have 1 databases
    9 libraries have 0 databases
    10 libraries have 2 databases
    

  • Top four duplications

    10 libraries have CINAHL and ERIC
    8 libraries have PsychLit
    7 libraries have Newsbank
    

• Appropriate microforms resources information received from 4 of the 23 libraries.

• Proposed activities:
  • Seek clarification of questionable duplicates not yet listed on Electronic Databases Duplicated in TALC Libraries
    
  • Establish policies and procedures for seeking group pricing
    
    • Points to consider:
      
      • Contracting authority / office
        
      • Databases: priority / access / format
        
      • Formula for dividing cost, if necessary
        
  • Seek further information from all participants on microformat materials appropriate for pricing

  Request to the TALC Board:

  Of the 23 institutions that indicated a desire to participate in the Common Resources Project, only 16 responded with the requested listing of databases microformat sets. While these 16 should be continually involved in all future the Project, the establishment of a Standing Committee (3-6 members fro' guide and implement the Project through the use of Sub-Committees chosen institutions, would insure the efficiency of the Project. I urge the TALC Board to name a Standing Committee (with a named Chair) from the 16 participants who responded to the original call for database/microformat listings and to pass to this Committee charge for the Project, the information gathered to date, and the proposed outlined above.