Search results

Using three university library consortia China Academic Library and Information System (CALIS) (China), Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) (USA) and Joint University Librarians Advisory Committee (JULAC) (Hong Kong) as examples, the purpose of this paper is to compare the administration of three university consortia and to explore the cultural, educational and geopolitical forces that produce and shape university library consortia.

The methodology used reviewed published and proprietary documents, interviews and observation.

While the stated objectives are similar, the three vary markedly in size, funding source, and whether programming is a bottom-up decision or emanates from the central government. CALIS was started by China ' s Ministry of Education, who also helps in setting programmatic agendas and appointing managers; GWLA came into existence through the efforts of a small group of university librarians, elect their own board and set programming in response to member needs and suggestions; JULAC, initiated by the university librarians in Hong Kong has some support from the government through bodies charged with the oversight of the universities. The differing educational systems also influence programming, for example in the relative importance member libraries place on preferential inter-library loan.

There are few comparative studies of library consortia found in Asia and the US comparative studies of consortia encourage an understanding of the benefits of different consortia models.

The Queensland Government Libraries Consortium can claim to be one of Australia's more successful special library consortia in recent years, with a stable core membership of 14 library services, and combined savings to the Queensland Government of over A$1M in the 2002‐2003 financial year. This paper identifies critical success factors for the consortium to date, and looks to present and future challenges at a time when no organisation can afford to take continued existence, let alone success, for granted. In 2002, consortium members began looking strategically at how their organisation should be working to future‐proof services, and expertise. This process of internal review is still very much a work in progress, and continues to pose as many questions as it answers. It has, however, focused the attention on four issues of critical concern to the consortium: corporate governance, size, scope of functions, and recognition. Solutions implemented to date may serve as useful case studies for other consortia.

Are library consortia agile organizations? That is, do they have the leadership capacity to respond quickly to or drive change in complex environments? To explore the related issues of library consortium agility and leadership, the author developed a case study of the Ohio Private Academic Libraries (referred to hereafter as OPAL) consortium, 1998–2007. This chapter describes the OPAL experience and summarizes her findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

The paper explores library cooperation in Zimbabwe and gathers views from librarians on the need for a library consortium model to underpin national development. This study aims to investigate the development of library consortia in Zimbabwe and then propose a model that will both accelerate their development and support the country’s national development agenda.

The paper opted for an investigative study using a multi-method research design. Data on existing library consortia, namely, Zimbabwe University Library Consortium (ZULC) and College and Research Library Consortium (CARLC), were collected through questionnaires and interviews. The data were complemented by documentary analysis including primary sources of information, for example, annual reports and brochures. Data were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively.

The paper provides empirical insights on how ZULC and CARLC are transforming the provision of library services in several ways, for example, providing for the dynamic needs of users and strategizing on overcoming rising costs of scholarly content through resource sharing. The proposed model effectively elevates the fundamental library consortium principles of cooperation and sharing onto the national development stage, and it is novel and pioneering. The gestures and general remarks made recently by Zimbabwe Library Association and some ZULC members about national development and ZIMASSET are given rigorous and scholarly expression in this model.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability beyond Zimbabwe. It is therefore imperative for researchers to test the proposed propositions further.

The paper includes implications for the development of a library consortia model to underpin national development in Zimbabwe. The existing academic sector library consortium still excludes other types of libraries from participating in resource sharing and promoting access to information on a national development scale. The proposed library consortium model providing for nation-wide access to information is critical in realising national development goals in Zimbabwe. Currently, academic library consortia are contributing immensely through supporting learning, teaching and research in their respective institutions. Such benefits can also be extended to all institutions through a national library consortium to support development in Zimbabwe.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study how the development of a nation-wide library consortium model can be realised. There is relatively little researched information on library cooperation and library consortia and national development in Southern Africa with specific reference to Zimbabwe. The paper seeks to close the gap by providing information on library cooperation and library consortia and national development in Zimbabwe.

At what stage and under what circumstances does an informal consortium need to think about changing from an alliance of non‐ affiliated institutions to a formal legally incorporated body? This paper draws on research funded by the Western Australian Group of University Librarians (WAGUL). It provides an analysis of 11 small to medium‐sized consortia of primarily academic libraries in five countries. The aim is to canvass the range of different models that currently exist for library consortia and from that to identify the factors that determine when and how incorporation should be considered. The factors identified are the joint ownership of assets, payment for services, provision of joint services and protection under the law.

Traces the term “library consortium” as a form of co‐operation among libraries. Focuses on reasons for forming consortia and types, ranging from highly decentralised to highly centralised. Literature on consortia is mostly reported in four sources. Highlights the formation of the International Association of Library Consortia in 1997. The current trend is one of sharing integrated library systems and computer databases, collection development, purchasing of electronic journals, and staff development. What has been achieved is the provision of resources to patrons that did not have them before the consortia, as well as increased levels of services and convenience of patrons. By libraries banding together, cost savings come through reduced cost per unit as the group of libraries in the consortium shares the expenditure.

The purpose of the paper is to provide information and analysis of a national purchasing consortium for Australian libraries, Electronic Resources Australia (ERA).

The paper outlines the political and library community factors, which influenced the development of a national approach to purchasing. It outlines the needs of users as expressed to a parliamentary inquiry, the four‐year national consultation and results of the first two years of operation of the consortium.

ERA now provides access to quality online resources for approximately 8.5 million Australians. The work has led to careful consideration of issues including subscription periods, governance, funding models, “best price” and collaboration with vendors for marketing and promotion. Further work needs to continue on marketing and product range to ensure the long‐term success of the consortium.

While a comparison is made with the New Zealand model, EPIC, comparisons are not made with other consortia models.

Key issues in consultation could be applicable to library sector or national collaboration.

The paper provides insight into a model for which very detailed policy and practical development was required.

This is a case study on the opportunities provided by Open Source library systems and the experience of delivering these systems through a shared service.

This chapter derives from desk research, interviews, and direct involvement in the project. The format is a case study, setting out a detailed timeline of events with information that can be applied in other settings.

This chapter presents reflections on the value and limitations of collaboration amongst libraries and librarians on an innovative approach to library systems and technologies. It also presents reflections on lessons learned from the processes and detailed discussion of the success factors for shared services and the reasons why such initiatives may not result in the outcomes predicted at the start.

Libraries and IT services considering Open Source and shared service approaches to provision will find material in this study useful when planning their projects.

The nature of collaboration and collaborative working is studied and observations made about the way that outcomes cannot always be predicted or controlled. In a genuine collaboration, the outcome is determined by the interactions between the partners and is unique to the specifics of that collaboration.

The case study derives from interviews, written material and direct observation not generally in the public domain, providing a strong insider’s view of the activity.