Multi-consortial obligations: too much of a good thing?

Citation

Alexander, A.W. (2000), "Multi-consortial obligations: too much of a good thing?", Library Consortium Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/lcmij.2000.24702gaf.001

Multi-consortial obligations: too much of a good thing?

Adrian W. AlexanderBig 12 Plus Libraries Consortiumhttp://www.big12plus.org

I completed my second year as a consortium director last spring and a colleague recently asked me two questions: how I liked the consortium management business, and what was the most challenging aspect of the job. "Oh, it's great," I replied. "Beats the heck out of being a vendor (which is what I had done previously)."

"Is this what you're going to do for the rest of your career?", she then asked. "Probably, but it's actually preparing me for something else entirely different at the same time," I replied. I then answered her second question by observing that navigating among the multitude of overlapping cooperative endeavors in which my respective members were involved was the most challenging part of my job. "After about five years of this," I added, "I should be well-equipped to become the next US ambassador to the United Nations."

I got my first dose of the "diplomatic" side of consortium management almost immediately upon my arrival at the Big 12 Plus Libraries Consortium (http://www.big12plus.org) in late March, 1998. My colleagues in the USA will recall that this was when the negotiations for a multi-consortial deal for the Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe product were in full swing. One of the first e-mail messages I received from a member library during my first week on the job was a query about whether the Big 12 Plus (BTP) libraries, as a group, could take advantage of this. I was all for it and immediately made the point on our directors' listserv that, as a group of 17 (then) research libraries, we could generate a large volume of student FTEs and qualify for a very favorable price. I thought this would be a very positive way to get the consortium up and running. Previously, the BTP, operating entirely on a volunteer basis, had developed an effective and popular reciprocal borrowing agreement and was ready to build on that base.

The mistake that I made in attempting to "jump-start" our first licensing initiative, was to adopt a "sales" approach and suggest to my directors that the BTP could possibly get them a better "deal" on the product than their other consortial connections. For one of my larger members, this "competitive" posture was considered highly inappropriate, but this was a library that was already deeply involved in at least three other "buying clubs" and perhaps they considered a fourth player overkill of sorts. At the same time, however, I had several other members that were quite interested in seeing the BTP do something as a group in licensing the Academic Universe product. In the end, however, it was better for everyone to steer all of my members to their regional networks, since that was where the deal was developing already (and rapidly). It was a valuable exercise, nonetheless, because it helped me realize early on that the BTP could be "competing" with other consortia to which my member libraries belonged, even if some of those members preferred not to characterize the relationship in those terms.

The Big 12 Plus now consists of 30 research libraries in 15 states in the central and western USA. All but one of our members are academic libraries and 23 of them belong to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Many of these libraries are located in less populous states where they are the primary research library. This means that they typically belong to at least one (and sometimes two) statewide academic consortium for which they serve as the "flagship" member. Without their active support of these local initiatives, those consortia could not accomplish their missions. Also, my members' participation in their respective statewide cooperative programs extends further back in time than their participation in the Big 12 Plus.

My largest member, The University of Texas at Austin, is a prime example of this multi-consortial "dilemma" that large research libraries (especially the state-supported ones) face. In addition to the BTP, UT-Austin is a key player (it hosts the databases that are licensed through this cooperative) in the successful TexShare initiative that was launched in Texas in the mid-1990s and which involves all of the academic libraries in that state. They also serve as the linchpin for a licensing initiative throughout the entire University of Texas System, including its medical libraries as well as its general academic libraries. On top of TexShare and the UT System project, they also license some products, such as Academic Universe, through their regional network, Amigos Library Services. To top it all off, they have joined with the other ARL member libraries in Texas (Texas A&M, Texas Tech, University of Houston, and Rice University) to develop some digital library projects for the state.

My members must be involved in more than one consortial endeavor for a variety of reasons. Some of them are strategic, while others are strictly political, but those political reasons shouldn't be underestimated, because they are frequently tied to funding, especially for state-supported institutions. This is particularly true when they are dealing with more than one "buying club." At the state level, those initiatives probably can't succeed without the participation of these larger "flagship" libraries. But the purchasing decisions made by these cooperatives, which may include everything from community colleges to very large research universities, must reflect the common needs of the entire consortium and the larger members may find that only a few of their electronic information needs are being met. For many of my members, that situation is exactly what has fueled interest in the Big 12 Plus, and is a major reason for our growth, in only two and a half years, from 17 members to 30. They are seeking to satisfy unmet needs for certain types of information resources, as well as to develop other cooperative programs, by developing links with other large research libraries that have more in common with them than their smaller colleagues within a state or regional consortium. The challenge for these larger libraries, then, is to achieve some kind of reasonable balance among all of their respective cooperative programs. They must find ways to ensure that these programs all receive the attention and the resources that they deserve while at the same time working to avoid conflict, if possible, between their various cooperative endeavors.

For us as consortium directors, the challenge is even greater, in many respects. Our very existence depends on the commitments that our members are willing to make to our organizations and the priorities they place on our organization vs other consortia to which they belong vs local imperatives. Keeping members focused on "our" issues is an ongoing task; it's easy for them to get distracted, especially by the "tyranny of the urgent" in their own shop. At the same time, we have to respect the commitments that they have made to other cooperative programs and avoid creating a perception that we want them to pay more attention to our programs to the detriment of those other obligations. In fact, we can help ourselves most by helping our members succeed with all of their consortial obligations, not just the one they have made to our particular organization. Here are some keys:

1. 1.

   Develop a strategic plan for your organization that makes clear to members and others what you plan to achieve and how you plan to do it.

2. 2.

   Familiarize yourself with the strategic plans of the other consortia to which your members belong. If no strategic plan exists, learn all you can about the other consortium's programs from your colleagues. We're all in this together and there are very few secrets kept. Make sure that the plans and programs of overlapping consortia are an essential ingredient in the environmental analysis that you conduct as part of your strategic planning process.

3. 3.

   Use ICOLC meetings and other conferences to develop good "diplomatic relations" with consortial colleagues. Better yet, look for opportunities to visit them on their own turf if you travel to their locale when visiting members.

4. 4.

   Avoid working at cross purposes or potentially "competitive" situations by looking for opportunities to cooperate with other consortia to which your members belong. A joint licensing agreement doesn't always have to be done on a national basis; it can be done on a regional basis by two or three consortia with common members, extending your combined buying power to the benefit of more libraries and further strengthening your bonds with your consortial colleagues.

Most important, in my opinion, is keeping channels of communication open between you and the other consortium directors who work with your member libraries. Know as much as you can about their organizations and let them know about yours. Obviously, some methods work better than others, depending on the circumstances. Let's hear from other consortium directors about how they handle this important issue.