Mergers and Alliances : The Wider View 9781781904800, 9781781904794

Citation preview

Volume 36

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW Advances in

Librarianship

Editorial Advisory Board Barbara Genco, BAGenco Consulting Kenneth Haycock, University of Southern California Maureen L. Mackenzie, Molloy College Pat Molholt, Columbia University Marie L. Radford, Rutgers University Robert A. Seal, Loyola University Chicago Barbara K. Stripling, Syracuse University

Volume 36

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW Advances in

Librarianship Edited by

Anne Woodsworth Glen Cove, New York, USA

W. David Penniman Columbus, Ohio, USA

United Kingdom  North America  Japan India  Malaysia  China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected]

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-479-4 ISSN: 0065-2830 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

Contents

Contributors

xi

xiii

Preface

Lessons from Language and Literature Analyses Characteristics of Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service Initiatives: Emergent Patterns and Lessons Learned 3 David A. Jank I. II. III. IV.

Introduction 4 The Research Strategy and Methodology Research Findings and Discussion 11 Conclusion 24 References 25

Lessons from the Corporate World

9

29

Maureen L. Mackenzie, W. David Penniman and Anne Woodsworth I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

Introduction 29 Reasons for Mergers and Collaborations 31 The Landscape of Mergers and Acquisitions 34 Overview of Library-Related Mergers and Acquisitions Nonprofit Mergers and Collaborations 44 Globalization Forces 46 Financial Considerations 46 Human Aspects and Impacts 47 The Impact of Communication and Culture 50 Conclusion 54 References 56

43

v

vi

Contents

Roles and Impact of Overarching Agencies With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment—A View from the Council on Library and Information Resources 63 Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

Introduction 63 Constraints to Collaboration 65 Programs in Collaboration 67 An Emerging Information Ecology 76 Committee on Coherence at Scale in Higher Education Conclusion 82 References 82

80

Regional Library Networks and OCLC: From Collaboration and Interdependence to Conflict and Divorce 85 Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII.

Introduction 85 Network Numbers, Definitions, and Differences History and Development 87 Developing Tensions 89 Issues 90 Changing the Relationship 92 Dissolutions and Mergers 94 Technology and Demise of the Networks 97 The Losses 97 Uncertain Futures 99 What If? 102 Alliance No More 103 Authors’ Note 105 References 105

86

Consortia Initiatives in Higher Education Libraries in India: A Reconnaissance of the National Landscape 107 Manorama Tripathi I. Introduction 107 II. Advantages of Consortia

109

vii

Contents

III. IV. V. VI.

India’s Policy and Higher Education Context Policies of the Government of India 115 Library Consortia in India 118 Conclusion 131 Appendix: Questionnaire for Consortia 132 References 133

113

In LIS Education International Collaboration for a Master’s Degree Program in Library and Information Science 139 Elena Corradini I. Introduction 139 II. The NMPLIS Project 141 III. Observations and Findings from the Field: A Supplemental Evaluation 153 IV. Background Literature, Research, and the EU Context 153 V. Methodology for the NMPLIS Case Study 155 VI. Student Survey Results 157 VII. Staff Survey Results 159 VIII. Discussion 165 IX. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research 170 Acknowledgments 170 Appendix A – NMPLIS Work Plan Summary by Year 171 Appendix B – Survey Administered to NMPLIS Students 176 Appendix C – Survey Administered to NMPLIS Staff 177 References 178

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education 185 David A. Jank, Heting Chu and Michael E. D. Koenig I. II. III. IV.

Introduction 185 Mergers in LIS Education 187 Collaborative Alliances in LIS Education 193 Descriptions and Interactive Directory of iSchools for Education Collaboration 198 V. Collaborative Partnerships in LIS Education 205

viii

Contents

VI. Conclusion References

219 220

In Academic Libraries Reinventing the Academic Library and Its Mission: Service Design in Three Merged Finnish Libraries 225 ´n and Jarmo Saarti Arja Juntunen, Ari Muhonen, Ulla Nygre I. II. III. IV. V.

Introduction 225 Strategic Work and Organization Building 226 Integration of Library Services and Processes 233 Best Practices and Tailored Solutions 238 Conclusion 243 References 244

Responding to Crises with Alliances: Evidence from an Academic Library Survey in Greece 247 Petros A. Kostagiolas, Eva Papadaki, Georgos Kanlis and Sozon Papavlasopoulos I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

Introduction 247 Theoretical Considerations 249 The Greek Economic Crisis and Higher Education Context A Survey of Greek Academic Libraries 258 Searching for Solutions 267 Conclusion 271 Appendix: Interview Schedule 273 References 275

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

256

281

Mark Sullivan, William Jones, Micquel Little, Shannon Pritting, Chris Sisak, Adam Traub and Maureen Zajkowski I. II. III. IV.

Introduction 282 The IDS Project Organization 283 Project Support and Training 288 Syracuse University Library as a Case Study

296

ix

Contents

V. Conclusion 299 Appendix A: Innovative Components of the IDS Project 299 Appendix B: IDS Project Membership Agreement 302 Appendix C: Teams 305 Appendix D: Mentor Program 307 References 310

Index

313

Contributors

Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the author’s contributions begin.

Heting Chu (185), Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA Elena Corradini (139), Biblioteca Comunale di Ala, Trentino, Italy Charles J. Henry (63), Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, USA David A. Jank (3, 185), Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA William Jones (281), Milne Library, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, NY, USA Arja Juntunen (225), Library, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland Georgos Kanlis (247), Library and Informational Center, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece Michael E. D. Koenig (185), Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA Petros A. Kostagiolas (247), Department of Archives and Library Science, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece Micquel Little (281), Lavery Library, St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY, USA Maureen L. Mackenzie (29), Division of Business, Molloy College, Rockville Centre, NY, USA Ari Muhonen (225), Helsinki University Library, Helsinki, Finland Ulla Nygre´n (225), Library, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Eva Papadaki (247), Municipal Library of Viannos, Crete, Greece Sozon Papavlasopoulos (247), Department of Archives and Library Science, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece W. David Penniman (29), Consultant, Columbus, OH, USA Shannon Pritting (281), Library, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

xi

xii

Contributors

Jarmo Saarti (225), Library, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland Jordan M. Scepanski (85), Jordan Wells Associates, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Chris Sisak (281), Library, Nazareth College, Rochester, NY, USA Kathlin Smith (63), Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, USA Mark Sullivan (281), Milne Library, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, NY, USA Adam Traub (281), The Wallace Center, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA Manorama Tripathi (107), Central Library, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India H. Lea Wells (85), Jordan Wells Associates, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Anne Woodsworth (29), Consultant, Glen Cove, NY, USA Maureen Zajkowski (281), SUNY Office of Library Information Services, Albany, NY, USA

Preface

The response to the call for chapters about mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, partnerships, and joint ventures proved to be rich and resulted in an unprecedented number of proposals. Furthermore, the range of proposals illustrated both variety in scope and a broad range of topics. As a result, the material accepted for publication was split into two volumes. This volume includes those chapters deemed broadest in nature, while Volume 37, to be published later this year, will present material of a narrower and more focused nature and mostly in the form of case studies at the operational level. At a time when the volatile nature of the world economy calls for new approaches to business, these volumes provide an interesting panorama from the nonprofit sector of libraries and information services about the world of mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s) as well as the less riskier, but equally dramatic, activities of collaborations, partnerships, and joint ventures. Libraries and information service providers are but part of a larger information industry and can be significantly affected by related industries and their M&A activities. Take for example, the pending merger of Penguin and Random House, likely to occur in late 2013, subject to U.S. and European regulatory approvals. Penguin is owned by Pearson, a British media conglomerate, and Random House by Bertelsmann in Germany. The merger is in part an attempt to deal with challenges arising from the growth of e-books and the competitive pricing power of Internet retailers like Amazon and Google. Cost savings are foreseen by analysts in operations such as editing, marketing, and supply chain distribution, despite claims that the new company ‘‘is not about cost efficiency, but about efficiency in better services’’ (Chozik & Pfanner, 2012, para. 4). The merger will create the largest consumer book publisher in the world, with a global market share of more than 25%. Bertelsmann is to hold a 53% controlling interest in Penguin Random House, as the new company is to be called, and Pearson, 47%. Buyouts, consolidation, and mergers are not new in the publishing world, with the result that the field globally is currently dominated by a group called the Big Six, all owned by large media conglomerates. Reactions to the Penguin Random House merger have come from literary agents who fear that it will result in fewer imprints, and freeze out

xiii

xiv

Preface

authors who do not write for the mass market. Analysts speculate that Penguin Random House could squeeze out smaller houses, reduce the number of bidders vying for authors, and that authors might be affected both financially and artistically. Lipscom (2001), writing about the impact of mergers in science, technology, and medicine, stated that M&A ‘‘concentrates the power to set prices in fewer hands’’ (p. 307). Research by Munroe (2000) found there were 60 publishing merger and acquisition events in the years 1998 and 1999, with more than $20 billion spent by companies to buy other companies. According to Munroe, publishing companies merged in order to broaden product offerings, control a niche in the market, achieve economies of scale, and increase market share. Closer to home is the recent sale of Neal Schuman to the American Library Association (ALA) on December 23, 2011. What impact will that have on authors who signed contracts with Neal Schuman? One prominent author in the field of library, information science, and communications, speaking on condition of anonymity, had a long-standing experience with Neal Schuman’s editorial staff and found them to be attentive and highly responsive to authors. Unhappily the opposite experiences have been encountered with ALA’s staff and some authors have requested cancellation of their contracts. Another acquisition in the LIS field was that of the Greenwood Publishing Group in 2007 by ABC-CLIO which included the Libraries Unlimited imprint. Linworth was acquired in 2009, changing the name of the imprint to Linworth/Libraries Unlimited. Another small but flexible and dedicated library publisher was Scarecrow, begun by the venerable Ralph R. Shaw in his basement, issuing its first book in 1950. Later, giants in our field like Eric Moon and Norman Horrocks operated Scarecrow until it was purchased in 1995 by Rowan & Littlefield. Were there changes? Yes, Scarecrow used to publish Festschrifts in honor of leaders in librarianship. As of 2010 it no longer accepted those kinds of manuscripts. At least Scarecrow has kept its wonderful namesake logo. Is bigger better? Sometimes, yes—sometimes, no. Yet, M&A and various shades and permutations of them are also evident in our operations in the world of library and information services. Testament to this phenomenon lies in some of the chapters in this work, particularly the ones by Jank, Chu, and Koenig about library and information science (LIS) programs, by Scepanski and Wells who write about the growth and contraction of U.S. regional networks, and from Finland, authors Juntunen, Muhonen, Nygre´n, and Saarti who are dealing with radical and far-reaching consolidation in their higher education systems and their libraries.

Preface

xv

Testimony also lies in a number of headlines in journals, on web sites, and other media in librarianship, to wit:  Consolidation of Illinois library systems approved [Five to become one: RAILS]  Academic and public library networks join forces in Ohio [OhioLINK and SearchOhio]  If approved, merger could create largest library consortium west of the Mississippi [Amigos and the Missouri Library Network Corporation]  LYRASIS and CERN to collaborate on SCOAP3 [To convert peer-reviewed literature on particle physics to open access]  Cornell and Columbia Prepare for Library Collaboration – 2CUL [To improve efficiency and effectiveness in collection development, acquisitions, and processing]  University of Florida and University of Miami libraries collaborate on shared collection  Center for Research Libraries and Linda Hall Library strike print preservation partnership  Collaborative customization: Tutorial design across institutional lines  Powerful partnerships: Integrated service – library by design  Sister library, where art thou? [10 county libraries across Kentucky partnering]  Joint libraries: Models that work – combining town and gown

In this volume readers will find two chapters at the beginning which provide both background and an overarching analysis of the theme of the volume. The first, by David A. Jank from the Palmer School of Library and Information, Brookville, New York, provides a unique and excellent metaanalysis of the literature to determine what both practitioners and scholars have found to be important in the areas of technology project management and web-based initiatives. Using bibliometrics, domain analysis, and grounded theory techniques and approaches, he developed a taxonomy of topics and themes referring to collaboration. He uncovered five key areas of concern: information technology management; information retrieval protocols; user-specific applications; user education; and strategic planning. Following this is a general review of largely corporate and business literature by Maureen L. Mackenzie, professor of business at Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York, W. David Penniman and Anne Woodsworth, consultants and editors of Advances in Librarianship, in Columbus, Ohio, and Glen Cove, New York, respectively. Their chapter sets the stage for the volume by offering lessons (maybe) to the nonprofit world of libraries about what can be gleaned from successes and failures in other sectors: reasons for M&A; cases which illustrate reasons for successes and the factors which lead to dissolution and divorces; and last but not least the human factors such as cultural differences, managing integration of practices, policies, communicating a clear mission and vision and ensure that executive actions align with them. Following this are three chapters which deal with the roles and impact of broad-based organizations, one by Charles J. Henry, president, and Kathlin

xvi

Preface

Smith, communications director, at the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) and a second on regional networking by Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells, principals in Jordan Wells Associates, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The third on collaborative purchasing is by Manorama Tripathi, deputy librarian at the Central Library of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. The Henry and Smith chapter covers the evolving interests of CLIR and how and where it has invested its support as the information sector and its technologies have changed and will continue to change over the decades. CLIR’s current work fostering collaboration across institutions, disciplines, and professions is described in detail. It focuses on the context of a broader group of emergent collaborative activities that, in aggregate, could support a new and vital digital environment for research, teaching, and the public good. It then discusses a new CLIR activity designed to address the prerequisites for collaboration, and for coherence at scale. The following chapter, by Scepanski and Wells, reviews the historical impact of the growth of OCLC, particularly as it resulted in the growth of regional networks to serve as middle agencies between libraries and OCLC’s products and services. OCLC implemented significant changes in how it would price its products and services and how it would govern itself. The chapter documents the result of this on merging regional networks, and in some instances, their demise. As with other chapters, the impact of one organization on many others illustrates the effects of M&A even in the nonprofit sector. Their research found that there were 18 such networks in 1989 while only seven existed as the year 2013 was rung in. Is bigger better? Will these survive? Perhaps another study will need 12 years hence to answer that question from a perspective informed by posterity. A nation-wide picture of networks in place in India is provided by Dr. Tripathi. After a description of them she presents the results of research on the costs of e-resources (journals, databases, and texts) for individual libraries vs. the cost of access to them through networks. The chapter demonstrates that consortia agreements can lead to more judicious expenditure by libraries (saving as much as 75% on some subscriptions). The chapter also suggests areas for further research to gain deeper insights into the activities and functions of various consortia. It further suggests exploring the formation of a nation-wide collaboration to maximize savings and avoid overlapping access by multiple consortia. This section is followed by one that deals with education for librarianship and information science first from a European (EU) and Middle Eastern perspective by Elena Corradini, from Biblioteca Comunale di Ala, Trentino, Italy. The second chapter is by Assistant Professor David A. Jank,

Preface

xvii

and Professors Heting Chu and Michael E.D. Koenig, all faculty members at the Palmer School of Library and Information Science at Long Island University, Brookville, New York. Their research involved an extensive review of LIS literature and the web sites of more than 100 organizations, associations, and LIS schools. Corradini provides a description of how the four EU universities (UK, Latvia, Italy, and Spain) and their LIS programs formed a collaboration with six higher education institutions in Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The formation of the group, their plan for the project, and their working methods are analyzed from a quasi-sociological perspective over a 3-year period. Plans included not just development of courses for the program which met the Bologna Process standards, but also how to teach the faculty who would teach courses in the new program. While the project included regular evaluation, Corradini subsequently conducted an independent evaluation by being an active participant in the last stages of the project, and by interviewing students and faculty. As a result, methods were identified to better meet student expectations and how best to provide ongoing evaluation of courses at the international level. In their chapter ‘‘Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education’’ Jank, Chu and Koenig set out to follow up on an earlier study by Hildreth and Koenig (2002). Through review of the literature and the web sites of more than 100 organizations, associations, and LIS schools, they found that three distinct patterns were emerging in both organizational structure and collaboration: changes in the nature of LIS program partnerships within parent educational institutions; the impact on LIS education by prominent academic associations that are not reliant on ALA accreditation recognition; and the growth in the number and type of academic offerings in LIS schools themselves. Some notable changes that they found were the establishment of a Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), along with continued growth in the iSchool caucus and its increasing international membership. The authors examined a wide range of aspects within the field:      

organizational structures of academic institutions that house LIS programs; joint degree offerings and academic programs; LIS schools participation outside of their institutions; the roles of partnerships between LIS schools and a broad spectrum of academic departments; the changing nature of course offerings and degree programs; and the growing presence of both online and face-to-face classes in collaborative LIS education.

In their chapter Jank, Chu, and Koenig provide empirical evidence of shifts in both traditional MLS education and new LIS offerings at all levels, and offer a comprehensive view of the dynamics affecting LIS education.

xviii

Preface

The last section of this volume contains three chapters which stress the contraction and expansion of collaborative initiatives in the face of finding cost-savings, all in academic libraries. The first chapter is about the radical and continued contraction of higher education libraries in Finland, in part as a follow-up to a chapter in volume 34 of Advances in Librarianship by Muhonen, Nygre´n, and Saarti (2011). This chapter by Arja Juntunen, Ari Muhonen, Ulla Nygre´n, and Jarmo Saarti continues the saga of two university libraries from that earlier volume (Eastern Finland and Turku) and introduces a new one—the University of Helsinki Libraries. Of the authors, Arja Juntunen and Jarmo Saarti are head of services and library director, respectively, at Eastern Finland, Ari Muhonen is library director at the University of Helsinki, and Ulla Nygre´n is library director at the University of Turku. Using various creative and innovative tools, they relate how they managed to integrate services, reallocate resources, all while in the midst of introducing new services and new organizational structures. Their stories will provide guidance for all types of libraries for decades to come. The second chapter provides a picture of contraction in Greece by Petros A. Kostagiolas, lecturer in the Department of Archive and Library Science, Ionian University in Corfu, Eva Papadaki, archivist-librarian at the Municipal Library of Viannos in Crete, Georgos Kanlis, librarian at Harokopio University in Athens, and last but not least Sozon Papavlasopoulos, assistant professor in the Department of Archive and Library Science, Ionian University. At the end of the fourth year of deep budget cuts in academic libraries, these authors present results of a literature review on the impact of the economic crisis on academic libraries in Greece, and internationally. They then continue to describe the results of a survey completed by 25 out of the 37 academic library directors in the country. After analyzing the survey results, the authors suggest strategies to sustain services and resources in order to adjust to a new fiscal reality. Their results indicate that solutions should include potential synergies and alliances for academic libraries with various agencies, both within their own educational institutions and externally. The last chapter is by eight authors with the first and second being IDS staff: Mark Sullivan, executive director, William Jones, assistant to the executive director, both at the Milne Library at SUNY Geneseo, New York. The remaining authors are also from NY institutions: Micquel Little (Access Services Librarian at St. John Fisher College); Shannon Pritting (Access and Resource Planning Librarian at Syracuse University); Chris Sisak (Head of Serials and Interlibrary Loan at Nazareth College); Adam Traub (Electronic

Preface

xix

Resources Librarian at Rochester Institute of Technology); and Maureen Zajkowski from the SUNY Office of Library Information Services in Albany. Their chapter focuses on a resource sharing cooperative, the Information Delivery Services Project, or IDS Project, which was founded by the Milne Library Director, Ed Rivenburgh, along with 11 other library directors. This cooperative has revolutionized how ILL processing, resource sharing, and collection development are done at its 73 New York library members (as of December 2012). It has influenced how other state systems and the nation approach their interlibrary and document delivery systems. The authors describe how IDS functions in terms of training and communication among members through mentoring of new member libraries, organize regional groups, and undertake regular training events. Key among their strengths are the external partners and technologies they use to continuously assess effectiveness and the need for new and more efficient processes and procedures. Also impressive are the tools which IDS developed to continuously improve the systems effectiveness. These include GIST (Getting It System Toolkit, and Peer Review and a Dashboard). As editors, our heartfelt thanks goes first and foremost to the authors for enabling our work through their promptness and their responsiveness to our questions and suggestions. Members of the Editorial Advisory Board deserve special thanks for giving us advice about the theme of the volume, for suggesting potential authors to us, and for reviewing submissions. The members are: Barbara Genco, editor of Collection Management at Library Journal, New York, New York; Tula Giannini, Dean of the School of Information and Library Science at Pratt Institute, Brooklyn and New York, New York; Kenneth Haycock, Professor Emeritus and Coordinator of the Center for Research and Innovations at San Jose’s School of Library and Information Science, San Jose, California; Maureen Mackenzie, Business Professor of Molloy College in Rockville Centre, New York; Pat Molholt, Columbia University, New York, New York (retired); Marie Radford, Chair and Associate Professor in the Department of Library and Information Science at Rutgers University’s School of Communication and Information in Newark, New Jersey; Robert A. Seal, Dean of Libraries at Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois; and last but not least, Barbara A. Stripling, President-Elect of the American Library Association and Assistant Professor of Practice at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies in Syracuse, New York. Once again, our gratitude goes to the staff at Emerald, initially Virginia Chapman who moved on to another part of the company, and most recently Wendy Lynch who replaced her. It is a delight to have had continuous support from them throughout the truly lengthy processes of receiving

xx

Preface

manuscripts, and shaping them into a single but cohesive yet topically diverse volume. Anne Woodsworth W. David Penniman Editors References Chozik, A. & Pfanner, E. (2012, October 29). Random house and penguin merger creates global giant. The New York Times (U.S. ed.). Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com/2012/10/30/business/global/random-house-and-penguin-to-becombined.html?pagewanted=all Hildreth, C. R., & Koenig, M. E. D. (2002). Organizational realignment of LIS programs in academia: From independent standalone units to incorporated programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43(2), 126–133. Lipscom, C. E. (2001). Mergers in the publishing industry. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(3), 307–308. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC34566/ Muhonen, A., Nygre´n, U., & Saarti, J. (2011). Bringing order out of chaos: Benchmarking tools used in merging university libraries in Finland. In A. Woodsworth, (Ed.), Librarianship in times of crisis: Advances in librarianship Vol. 34, pp. 183–205. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Munroe, M. H. (2000). Which way is up? The publishing industry merges its way into the 21st century. Library Administration & Management 14(2), 70–78.

Lessons from Language and Literature Analyses

Characteristics of Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service Initiatives: Emergent Patterns and Lessons Learned David A. Jank Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA

Abstract The emergence of new and integrated approaches to information technology projects and web-based service initiatives in libraries poses a number of challenges to those who manage them. Library managers must work closely with specialists in areas that are not always found within the library, yet there is no evidence-based data documenting the factors involved in doing so. The exploratory study summarized in this chapter documents much of what practitioners and scholars alike consider important in this arena, and contributes to the literature in two ways. First, a meta-analysis of what both practitioners and scholars have found to be important in the areas of technology project management and web-based initiatives is presented that can assist professionals currently developing web-based project launches. Additionally, by using bibliometric techniques as the basis of this analysis, a newly developed taxonomy of these approaches is provided that can assist LIS professionals with future cooperative web-based initiatives. Domain analytic techniques are utilized in the study to examine a selection (n ¼ 276) of published articles and papers to ascertain what library and information professionals have learned from embarking on such collaborations. A grounded theory approach is taken in order to develop a working taxonomy of topics and themes relating to collaborative online initiatives. The findings illustrate that library and information science project managers involved in online and web-based initiatives face five key areas of concern: information technology management, information retrieval protocols, user-specific applications, user education, and strategic planning. Keywords: Information management; web-based initiatives; library web services; taxonomy; ontology; collaborative information services

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036004

3

4

David A. Jank

I. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to analyze how librarians and information specialists in collaborative settings are managing the implementation and staffing of a variety of technology projects that involve operational partnerships outside of the library. In certain cases, responsibility for webbased project launches and service initiatives do not always reside exclusively with library management, and many professionals must rely on networking with their colleagues to compare strategies, techniques, and approaches to such activity. The research study summarized here utilizes the principles of grounded theory to identify patterns and practices employed, discussed, or otherwise considered by library and information professionals. This is done by examining what has been documented in the professional literature, and synthesizing these results in order to provide evidence-based summaries of common practices. This study also utilizes the principles of domain analysis to identify how both practitioners and researchers are approaching these situations, and it describes what concerns appear to be most prominent for them. Discussion of shared management, information platforms, budgeting, and staffing strategies are documented and described. Conceptual summaries of lessons learned are highlighted, as are techniques and practices viewed as both useful and not useful. Content analysis and bibliometrics are validated approaches to documenting how professionals in any number of domains view their work (Hjørland, 2002; Pejtersen & Rasmussen, 1997). Taxonomy and ontology construction are validated approaches to documenting how working professionals engage in their work (Jank, 2010). Together, these tools provide an epistemological view of issues and concerns that characterize work activity. In this study, both scholarly and trade publications are examined to identify patterns of discourse and idea sharing among practitioners in LIS technology initiatives. Additional source data is retrieved from professional online discussion communities and conference proceedings in order to determine what best practices have been documented empirically. The increased prominence of e-product support, access to legacy data, and the use of open source discovery tools in the semantic web environment suggest that many library technology specialists are required to reach beyond typical borders for assistance and partnerships. Rapidly deployed social media platforms have also challenged LIS professionals at all levels of professional experience. By using content analytic approaches to the study of collaborative technology project management discourse, and by modeling partnership patterns that have proved beneficial to them, this study can contribute to theory building in the area of library technology management both in the ‘‘2.0’’ environment and beyond.

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

5

A. Background and Historical Context Online database searching can be viewed as the beginning of the movement toward online library services. As far back as the 1960s, many special libraries in the science and industry sectors began implementing automated literature searching, particularly in military and government funded research labs. During this period, the US Department of Defense (DoD) funded research collections at NTIS, DTIC, and NASA were leading sources of online information to libraries. Although the delivery of these services was not particularly dependent on collaborations across departments within specific library organizations, collaboration between these information providers and the libraries they served was critical to ensure successful delivery of information services. Ironically, these services were operating on the early Internet backbone, DoD’s Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). There was no public access to the Net at that time. As these services began to expand into nongovernment settings, Lockheed Corporation’s DIALOGs information service helped bridge the online delivery of information services from one of exclusive government use in the 1960s to a broader commercial constituency in 1972. Subsequently, the emergence of such services as BRS and Lexis/Nexiss ensured that the idea of online information service delivery became the rule rather than the exception in the information service offerings at many types of libraries. While online literature search services grew more popular, their proprietary nature did not change. Libraries were still beholden to the operational vagaries of these services, and there was little, if any, direct input from librarians into the operation or functionality of these systems. B. Collaborative Databases and Integrated Systems Outside of the literature searching environment, a similar evolution was taking place on the bibliographic services front. When OCLC first became operational as the Ohio College Library Center, only libraries located in that state were able to benefit from the collaborative nature of online information services. In the 1960s, the bibliographic utilities market was limited to this sphere, and it was not until OCLC began opening its membership to all libraries in the 1970s that the benefits of online collaborative information sharing were realized at the level of internal operations. As with the online literature search industry, however, users of these services were unable to exert significant influence on the particular operational governance of these systems. The 1970s witnessed the growth of the integrated library system (ILS) movement. Online circulation systems (initially marketed by companies

6

David A. Jank

such as Computer Library Systems, Inc., Dataphase, and Data Research Associates) were commercially available at this time, and while MARCbased systems were not yet on the ILS horizon, libraries embarking on ILS installments were beginning to realize the benefits of online collaboration at the busiest of all library locations—the circulation desk. As the 1980s approached, library technology-based services became more commonplace in three distinct areas: the front desk (circulation systems), the ‘‘back room’’ (cataloging systems), and the reference desk (online literature searching). These three activities were limited to the functional areas mentioned here, and were rarely overseen by the same library personnel. The technical operations of all but the circulation systems were exclusively sited outside of the library, and librarians still had little influence over the actual technical operation of these systems. As the MARC standard for bibliographic information storage and transmission became more widely adopted in library settings in the 1980s, truly ‘‘integrated’’ library systems began to emerge, and external library partnerships started to be formed. It was at this point that collaboration became critical in order to ensure successful implementation of technology projects. In order for individual libraries to maintain meaningful knowledge organization schemas that met their own particular needs, it was important to exercise more local control over their bibliographic records. As the popularity of online public access catalogs (OPACs) grew during this decade, it was paramount that linked and shared parameters for circulation, acquisitions, cataloging, and patron data could be systematically and dynamically maintained. Arguably, this period of activity reflects the first large scale success stories in collaborative library technology projects across multiple organizational structures. The rise in the ILS movement promoted multitype library networking, technology resource sharing between both small and large libraries, and the emergence of libraries as influential players in partnerships between independent library systems and information providers all at the same time. As demand grew for the breadth of information delivery in the online searching industry, the increasing costs of these products gave birth to more affordable CD-ROM databases from such information providers as SilverPlatters and Ovids. The in-house operation of these products, in tandem with the expansiveness of ILS subsystems, led to increased demand for systems librarians and library technical support specialists. It was not until this time that technical operations of library technology products began to reside entirely within libraries themselves. Given limited staffing and funding resources, however, only libraries of certain economic means could maintain their own IT operations staff during these years.

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

7

Throughout this period of transition, those libraries that could afford to maintain CD-ROM towers and in-house Local Area Networks (LANs) were most likely to capitalize on the benefits of library networking and online information services. Typically, these libraries were smaller, special libraries with fluid financial resources. Examples of these included publishers such as McGraw-Hill and Scholastic, and the Wall Street market research firms, such as Gartner Group and Find/SVP. Often, however, larger academic libraries were able to maximize their operational effectiveness online by ‘‘piggy-backing’’ on IT networks already extant at their various campuses. Examples here were the more prominent universities, such as Buffalo, Chicago, Illinois, Stanford, Harvard, and Toronto. Only a handful of public libraries were able to benefit from these early launches of in-house library networking. These were primarily library centers in major metropolitan areas, such as the New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles public libraries. Generally speaking, the expansion of library networking during this period of change was linked to budgetary and other financial resources. Economies of scale provided for successful technology launches in library settings that shared resource availability with other departments within larger organizations, or with other libraries and information centers via consortium arrangements. In academic, special, and large public library settings, partnerships emerged that facilitated more complicated project launches. For the most part, these partnerships were limited to IT departments within the same institution or municipality as the library, or with other libraries that shared membership within consortia that sponsored joint initiatives. Prior to the emergence of the graphical user interface (GUI), however, virtually all of these activities could be generically viewed as shared data processing activities in time-sharing environments. With the emergence later in the 1980s of the desktop computer and the GUI movement, demand for web-connectivity and access to newer types of online information services grew. During the 1990s, the client-server movement led to operational environments in libraries that supported greater influence by individual users. Ultimately, user-driven information systems became the norm in most organizations, and enhanced telecommunications architectures required greater interoperability among systems of all types. Such evolution in library technology has necessitated that information providers streamline product offerings to better meet user needs; that libraries and information centers continually enhance their service models to meet user demands; and that IT specialists in all organizational settings become better equipped to support technology initiatives regardless of the departments in which information products are used.

8

David A. Jank

The desirability of, and need for, web-based service initiatives in library and information centers today might seem painfully obvious. Yet it is easy to forget that such services were not even on the information horizon during the formative years of library technology development. That the skills and expertise needed to facilitate these activities typically have not characterized library technology initiatives historically might give some context to the challenges faced by information service managers in today’s web platform environments. C. Managing Complex Networks Across Information Sectors As online LIS services emerge in the 21st century, it is clear that the boundaries (both literal and symbolic) that used to characterize compartmental approaches to library technology project initiatives are no longer in place. Today, cooperative projects have altered the manner in which library technology managers oversee online information services. Simply managing these initiatives can provide challenges that typically are not documented for library managers (Rapp, 2007; Youngman, 2006). Further, the oversight by libraries and information centers of web initiatives has served to integrate library operations across organizational departments. This is particularly true in academic libraries, where library web services have contributed to changing classroom instruction paradigms in the world of e-learning (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Kelly, Phipps, & Swift, 2004), and a redefinition of library service access in educational research (Liu, 2008; Salt, 2004). In other settings, use of web-based library services has facilitated integrated learning activities across entire organizations (Davis & Somerville, 2006; MacDonald & Uribe, 2008; Somerville & Howard, 2010) and has allowed for linking of metadata schemas across library catalogs and information products (Dahl, 2009; Ma, 2009). Additionally, the preeminence of mobile technology has led libraries to develop methods by which they may continually overhaul their approaches to online service delivery (DeSanto, 2011; Lampert, Dolski, & Egan, 2010) or redesign their earlier online information systems (Ballard & Teague-Rector, 2011; Pope-Robbins, Esposito, Kretz, & Aloi, 2007; Wilson & McCarthy, 2010). Beyond technical operations, however, the expanding e-publishing movement has redefined how libraries develop access protocols to electronic information. In some cases, libraries have entered into the publishing realm themselves (Biagioni, Castelli, & Zoppi, 2010; Johnson & Mandity, 2010). In other instances, libraries have embarked on cultural heritage initiatives that have shown benefits at both the public and technical services level (Liew, 2006; Pattuelli, 2011). These initiatives are particularly evident

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

9

in applications that support preservation of historical records (Cronin, Lage, & Long, 2005; Horrell, 2008) and oral history collections (Liu, 2007; Stevens & Latham, 2009). These constitute only a handful of examples where the launch of webbased initiatives has led library service managers to implement changes in their management of online information service delivery. In the aggregate, these examples – and many lime them – illustrate strategies taken by practioners in adapting to paradigmatic shifts that redefine the ways in which they approach their work. The purpose of this paper is not to discuss these shifts, however. Rather, the goal is to synthesize the comments, observations, and lessons learned that are documented in the professional sources representative of this domain of activity. In doing so, both practitioners and scholars will be able to see in the aggregate what library technology managers have learned, and the kinds of projects in which they are engaged.

II. The Research Strategy and Methodology The primary question driving this study asks what topics and concerns library services managers deem important when developing web-based initiatives and services. In particular, this question focuses on environments where collaboration outside of the library or information center is likely or required. Hjørland (2002) demonstrated that domain analytic techniques can be used to document the epistemological views shared by people working in similar activities that cross broader domains. White and McCain (1998) illustrated this technique specifically within the realm of library and information science, and Jank (2012) utilized this approach to illustrate taxonomy construction for such environments based on content and discourse analysis. Such strategies demonstrate that domain analysis, and content analysis in particular, can be powerful tools for painting a picture of the varied epistemological approaches taken to interdisciplinary, collaborative work. Three activities comprised the current study and were modeled following domain analytic strategies for documenting such trends (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995). First, online searching was conducted to collect publicly available literature dealing with web-based initiatives in libraries and information centers. Articles in the resulting data sets were downloaded and processed using Excel spreadsheets to parse field contents, and QDA data mining software was utilized to perform various analyses on keywords and text content (see, e.g., Jank, 2012; Sugimoto, Pratt, & Hauser, 2008). These data were processed using online dictionaries to group text content

10

David A. Jank

into topical categories. The resulting groupings were then utilized to construct a taxonomic breakdown of the managerial and operational concerns related to online and web-based project strategies in libraries and information centers (see, e.g., Jank, 2010; Weng, Tsai, & Liu, 2006). Finally, Jaccard correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the prominence of and relationship between terminology and themes common to this discourse. These prominent terms were utilized in ontology construction in order to formally identify the major parameters of research interest for those professionals working in the area of library web-based initiatives (Chen & Chen, 2005; Jank, 2012). Sources for data were limited to the following databases: Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Library Literature, and Conference Papers Index. Retrieval of material from archived discussion group postings dealing with the management of web-based library technology platforms was also conducted so as to ensure that as many logical places of related discourse as possible could be accounted for; further, research was limited to these sources in order to ensure that the discourse being analyzed was specifically from sources dedicated to LIS research. Searching across descriptors, abstracts, titles, and article texts was conducted utilizing both natural language retrieval techniques and thesauri available in these databases. Table 1 documents the search and retrieval parameters followed. Given the exploratory nature of this study, data collection was based on filtering the professional sources mentioned above and analyzing their content using established qualitative techniques. This method is typically used for identifying categorical themes in communities of discourse. It is particularly useful in the study of interdisciplinary scholarship in areas that are not formally viewed as a domain, as it offers bounding for crossdisciplinary research based on expertise (see Jank, 2010; White & McCain, 1998; McCain, 1995). Thus, adjustments to search terminology and field delimiter combinations were made during the online search process, based upon search retrieval results, while still adhering to the logic guidelines identified in Table 1. The purpose of this filtering technique (i.e., dynamically adjusting search retrieval language processing during information retrieval) is to ensure more precise evidentiary data content (McCain, 1995) and to better reflect changes in epistemological views shared by practitioners in cross-disciplinary domains over time (Jank, 2010). Upon completion of data collection, a variety of descriptive analyses were employed to help paint a better view of the professional terrain of web-based information services in libraries and information centers. These analyses, along with the completed taxonomy and preliminary ontology construction, are presented in the next section.

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

11

Table 1 Retrieval Logic Utilized in the Current Study Sources utilized for data collection

   

Limitations and parameters utilized

   

Search and retrieval terms used in descriptor searchinga

Free text search and retrieval themes used in natural language searchingb

a

    

LISTA Library literature Conference papers index Listserv and online discussion group archives: OCLC WorldCat, ALA Library Administration and Management Association, IFLA Library Management Forum, LITA Open Source ILS Interest Group Keyword and natural language searching Search conducted across all appropriate fields (descriptors, titles, abstracts, and free text) Materials limited to the year 2000 forward English-only materials were analyzed (although materials from all countries were included in search results) Project management Project launches Web services Information systems Management collaborat?, networking, web-based, project launch?, project management, integrated system?, discovery tool?, OPAC?, open source/ system?/software, training, users, online, database?, retrieval, legacy

Boolean combinations and alternate phrasing were utilized as necessary. ? ¼ Truncated search terms.

b

III. Research Findings and Discussion A. Discursive Themes Common to any domain analytic study is a preponderance of words and terms. The goal of this study was to parse these strings of text into meaningful groupings that would appropriately depict how they are used, and in what context. Fig. 1 offers an example of the kinds of subsets of words and terms evident in the professional discourse on web-based library initiatives in collaborative settings. The data there is in the form of a

12

David A. Jank

Fig. 1

Topics of focus in research on web-based library initiatives.

dendrogram, which illustrates the proximity of word usage, and the emergent themes which can be identified from them. Dendrograms illustrate not only how terminology is used coincidentally, but how terminology relates contextually to other word co-occurrences. The idea of grouping together branches of thematic discourse in order to describe the areas of concern to members of a discourse community is at the heart of domain

13

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

analysis. In Fig. 1, those words connected by brackets are thematically linked. The shorter the length of the bracket (in this case, the farther left it occurs) the more those terms co-occur, and the more meaningful they are when used together. Likewise, the longer the length of the bracket (in this case, the farther right it occurs) the stronger the relationship among word groupings as part of a theme. In Fig. 1, thematic groupings were conducted using online dictionaries. Sample themes are pointed out here with circles. These represent categorical breakdowns of the topics of discourse itemized in the dendrogram. These themes are determined only from those instances where the topics of discourse occurred in 10 or more different articles within the body of literature examined. Thus, it is possible to conclude that these concept groupings likely represent ‘‘prominent areas of interest’’ to professionals involved in web-based service initiatives. The bar graph extension on the left indicates the prominence of these words and themes throughout the entire body of literature examined. B. Collaboration Themes Table 2 provides the final breakdown of topical discussion categories that emerged from the research literature examined in the current study. Table 2 Categorical Breakdown of Prominent Discursive Threads in Research on Web-Based Initiatives in Libraries Topical categories of discourse

Management practices/Staffing/Budgets Large-scale systems/Cloud computing IT/Data processing management Scholarly literature and publishing Organizational training/User education Academic libraries Circulation apps Public affairs/Government information OPACS/Discovery tools Data Conversion Archives/preservation

Percentage of overall discourse on web-based initiatives 48 38 34 25 23 20 20 19 18 18 16

14

David A. Jank

Table 2. (Continued ) Topical categories of discourse

ILS management Open systems/Open source Data modeling/Visualization Systems analysis/Design Shared technical services Search and retrieval/Data mining Social computing applications Learning/E-learning/Instruction Storage/Repositories/Legacy data Telecommunications/Internet connectivity Arts/Museums/Popular culture Human–computer interaction (HCI)

Percentage of overall discourse on web-based initiatives 16 16 14 14 13 13 13 12 11 11 10 10

It summarizes the variant groupings of all words and terms processed using the procedures discussed for Fig. 1. The data in Table 2 (frequency distribution), as well as the corresponding Fig. 2 (a visualization model of this distribution), illustrate the prominence of topics discussed in the literature. These categorizations suggest activities most typically of concern to practitioners involved in launching web-based initiatives. Moreover, these data in particular suggest the most prominent areas of interest to both scholars and practitioners with respect to web-based initiatives in a variety of implementation settings. More detailed discussion follows these diagrams. Together, Table 2 and Fig. 2 help to illustrate what might be called ‘‘movements of interest’’ in the world of collaborative web-based information service offerings. It is possible to consider this listing as, simply, what librarians who are involved in web information services most often care about. This might be sufficient for simply identifying trends in the areas of research and practice. What is also useful, however, is to understand how these areas of interest can be mapped into an overall structure that could aid both scholars and practitioners in understanding how to study, prepare for, and ultimately oversee the launch and management of such services. In essence, an epistemological map of what it takes to coordinate collaborative web initiatives in today’s library or information center. Taxonomy construction can help with this process.

15

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Arts/Museums/Popular Culture Telecommunications/Internet Connectivity Storage/Repositories/Legacy Data Learning/E-Learning/Instruction Social Computing Applications Search and Retrieval/Data Mining Shared Technical Services Systems Analysis/Design Data Modelling/Visualization Open Systems/Open Source ILS Management Archives/Preservation Data Conversion OPACS/Discovery Tools Public Affairs/Government Information Circulation Apps Academic Libraries Organizational Training/User Education Scholarly Literature and Publishing IT/Data Processing Management Large-Scale Systems/Cloud Computing Management Practices/Staffing/Budgets 0

Fig. 2

20

40

60

Visualization of topical trends in research on web-based library initiatives.

Table 3 provides a taxonomic breakdown of the findings and themes emergent in this study. It is constructed so as to turn the ‘‘areas of research interest’’ documented above, into broader areas of management concern relating to such activity. While the Table 2 categories depict what people are doing, the Table 3 categories group these interests into higher level categories that can be more useful to strategic planners and project managers. The taxonomy presented here was built using axial coding, a content analysis approach that brings thematic groupings of text into broader categories of knowledge. These knowledge categories can be particularly meaningful to people more involved in oversight than in hands-on activity, and can

16

David A. Jank

Table 3 Taxonomic Breakdown of Discursive Themes of Partnership and Collaboration in Library Web Services Area of interest/research agenda

Prominent co-occurring themes of interest

Information technology and data processing

     

Cloud computing Legacy data storage Access Intellectual property Product functionality and use User aids, technical support

Database design and information retrieval

     

Indexing and database structure Data conversion/Migration/Modeling Open source software and systems Online searching OPACS, integrated library systems Visualization techniques

User-specific applications

    

Circulation Technical services Archives and records management Social computing Public affairs, government information, etc.

Education and training

   

E-learning Online tutorials and instruction Staff training, continuing education, etc. Support for classrooms, academics, faculty, etc.

Management and planning

     

Strategic planning Personnel Collaborative networking Contracts/Vendor relations Budgeting Licensing, access, digital rights management

assist quality assurance preparedness when embarking on joint initiatives (Hjørland, 2005). The co-occurring themes of interest documented above can aid in the construction of an ontology that more aptly would reflect a working vocabulary for the domain of interest studied here. A full ontology is beyond

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

17

the scope of this study; however, taxonomy construction can inform future ontologies that are both fluid and more reflective of the tasks constituting this domain of work activity. Although not constituting a full ontology, the next few tables discussed here provide a preliminary ontological view of what library web service managers most typically do. Tables 4–8 highlight the thematic terminology prominent in more than half of all the literature discussed within each taxonomic grouping. That is, the breakdowns included in these tables suggest the basis of ontology construction for all categories in the taxonomy. This preliminary ontology offers a valuable foundation from which to work, as it represents topics of interest evident in at least 50% of all published materials relating to each taxonomic theme (see Jaccard coefficient discussed below). These tables illustrate the proportional amount of particular terms and keywords utilized when discussing, studying, or analyzing the discursive themes identified in Table 1. The content analysis utilized in this study relies on interpretation of the Jaccard coefficient, a statistical measure that ascertains the extent to which certain words or concepts are referenced within the discourse of a particular topic. The greater the Jaccard value, the more prominent the idea within a community of discourse. For the themes identified in Table 1, only those term groupings with Jaccard values in excess of .50 are included here. These tables provide a strong description of the foundational concepts of each taxonomic category, and the keywords highlighted here can constitute the basis of ontology construction. The published literature on IT administration for web service management in libraries seems to have little variety of topical discourse. As might be expected, training and support for web service practitioners appears to be of primary concern. Discourse on the need for adequate technical support and help desk services is also prominent. Notably, many published articles distinguish between the need for both adequate support from vendors and internal support provided by library staff. Most research on document delivery in this instance relates to adequate technical support for management reports, interlibrary loan, and faculty reserves. Although discourse on database products and e-services dominate this segment of web service literature, the lion’s share of research appears to focus on actual testing and quality assurance of information products available via library web sites. Of relatively equal importance, however, is the focus on access to legacy data. This might suggest that web service managers are concerned about ensuring continual access to retrospective collections available solely online. Clearly, the web-scale Management Service provided by OCLC is of interest to many. Cloud computing and outsourcing contracts also appear to be prominent areas of interest to library web managers, which

0.71 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.59

Jaccard coefficient

Product reviews/analysis/testing Access issues and legacy data Licensing OCLC’s WMS (web-scale management services) ‘‘The Cloud’’ Outsourcing Contracting with vendors

Keyword categories 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.59 0.54 0.52

Jaccard coefficient

Table 5 Concept Grouping: Database Design and Information Retrieval

Training (library staff, not users) Cross-departmental staffing Technical support (external) Technical support (internal) Reports/EDI/Document delivery

Keyword categories

Table 4 Concept Grouping: IT and Data Processing

      

Data trend visualization

    

Data trend visualization

18 David A. Jank

Supporting student research (higher education) Support for faculty or classrooms (higher education) Libraries and e-learning, distance education, etc. Libraries as scholarly publishing repositories Supporting K-12 activities

Keyword categories

Table 7 Concept Grouping: Education and Training

Integrated library systems (ILS)—general discussions OPACs as discovery tools Use of social media, tagging, etc. Circulation activity Serials collections (including e-journals maintenance) Archives/preservation/etc. Accessing government information

Keyword categories

Table 6 Concept Grouping: User-Specific Applications

0.68 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.50

Data trend visualization

    

Data trend visualization

      

Jaccard coefficient

0.82 0.66 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.53 0.51

Jaccard coefficient

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

19

Strategic planning Personnel issues Collaboration (external) Training/Cont. ed. Collaboration (internal) Organizational behavior Budgets/Funding Contracts/Vendors

Keyword categories 0.82 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.56

Jaccard coefficient

Table 8 Concept Grouping: Management and Planning

       

Data trend visualization

20 David A. Jank

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

21

is especially evident in the literature relating to the outsourcing of OPAC discovery tools. Most of the published research on web-based project initiatives relating to applications focuses on broad discussion of ILS products across the board. This discourse includes such things as ILS management, integration with institutional web sites, and general analyses of those library operations that ILS products support. OPACs and circulation systems are mentioned quite a bit, which might make sense since they are directly related to user services. The same might be said about a focus on tagging and the integration of various social computing features into library web services. The discursive focus on unique activities such as Serials, Archives, and Government Information, however, suggests that many library web service professionals are concerned about specialized projects and services. Discussion of user training issues in this subset of the web service literature differs from those materials mentioned in Table 4. Here, the research focus is almost entirely on library web support in higher education. Supporting student needs seems to be of most interest to those involved in this research. There appears to be a somewhat equal level of interest in support for both classroom faculty and online learning programs. This likely reflects the growing movement toward e-learning programs in colleges and universities. Although discussion of web services at the elementary and secondary levels is not as prominent as higher education settings, it does appear to exist to a degree. It appears that both scholars and practitioners consider strategic planning of relative importance whenever web-based projects are initiated. This seems logical, as does prominent discussion of personnel staffing and training. It is interesting that while collaboration is also logically important, emphases on both external and internal partnering are evident here. The slightly greater discussion of external collaboration, however, suggests that library web managers seem to consider establishment of partnerships outside of their own settings to be of particular importance. While financing and budgeting might be expected to be prominent topics of discourse for library web managers, issues relating to these topics appear to be mentioned little more than half of the time. Finally, it is important to remember that collaborations and partnerships are of primary importance to this volume. In addition to understanding the factors that constitute the environments in which collaborations exist, it is useful to document in which directions these collaborations occur. Given that libraries and information centers are concerned with many different types of players—such as information providers, publishers, product vendors, and the user populations that are their clients—the data collected for this

22

David A. Jank

Outsourcing 5%

Administration (non-IT) 7%

Municipalities 8%

Vendor-based 36% Library Consortia 17%

Organizational IT 27%

Fig. 3 Collaboration strategies in library web-based initiatives.

study were parsed to determine the focus of partnering for professionals in this domain. Simplified axial coding was employed to categorize the types of collaborations and partnerships evident in the literature. This content analysis technique, as demonstrated by Jank (2010), Hjørland (2002), and Hjørland and Albrechtsen (1995), offers the ability to thematically identify research direction as well as research content. Fig. 3 provides a simplified visualization of the types of collaboration and partnership strategies that library web service professionals seem to pursue, as reflected in the published literature. The discussion following Fig. 3 is based on characteristics emergent from this axial coding. C. Partnership Patterns As with many collaborative library activities evident in recent decades, web service specialists seem to engage in patterns of partnership that have been long established. That is, most of these collaborations follow trends that library service managers have often pursued before. With respect to Fig. 3, the vendor-based collaborations in web-based services discussed in the literature seem to mirror what long has existed in the pre-online world. Many of these collaborations relate to subscription based services, such as

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

23

e-journals and online databases, and frequently include budgeting arrangements meant to maximize access to legacy information. These collaborations are less operations-oriented, and more financially based. A key exception in the web-only service sector, however, is an apparent increase in library ownership of retrospective collections. This seems to be more true in the e-books world rather than in the aggregator environment commonly encountered with database subscription services. The partnership research relating to organizational IT, as discussed in the web service literature, is heavily focused on technical operations. Among the trends discussed in this arena are shared staffing of web site services, shared support mechanisms for all users, and, perhaps most importantly, shared financial support for web site equipment. The collaboration discussions relating to this area also focus on managerial concerns, such as staffing and training. There does not seem to be much evidence of shared financing of web-based information products, however, as the literature does not provide evidence of partnership trends with respect to product purchases. Consortia-based partnerships in the web service environment appear to be similar to the consortia collaborations that have helped finance and support ILS projects in multi-type library networks in the past. Many of the partnerships discussed in this segment of the literature relate to shared discovery tools, such as OPACs and digital collections. They also include discussions of shared patron data, interactive social computing features, and integrated interfaces for multi-library networks. Newly emergent in these discussions, however, is the apparent growth of library consortia that are not based on shared collections, as is the case with ILS projects. These emergent consortia are particularly focused on special collections, and include an increasing movement toward cultural heritage and archival preservation projects. Only about one-fifth of web project partnerships do not mirror the historical practices of library collaborations. The use of departmental supports outside of IT, the reliance on municipal networks, and the move toward outsourcing (totaling 20% in Fig. 3) suggests that certain online information services emergent with library web initiatives are newly viewed as deserving cooperative assistance from parties not typically found in the library service paradigm. For example, there is evidence that academic libraries are partnering with other academic support offices in higher education (such as enrollment services and student activities) in an effort to establish themselves as key players in the online campus information network. Further, in many large public libraries, there is evidence in the literature that municipal offices outside of libraries may partner with them in order to support such activities as public records access, local oral history

24

David A. Jank

initiatives, and access to tax information. The evidence of outsourcing approaches to web initiative collaboration seems to be the newest emergent partnership trend. This approach to collaboration seems to revolve almost exclusively around ILS projects. Given the rise in popularity of ‘‘cloud’’ solutions for organizational IT projects, it is logical that many libraries have started examining this option. The materials reviewed in this study suggest that, at present, cloud computing solutions for library web initiatives are utilized only with OPACs and similar discovery tools. Only future research on this emergent practice will indicate whether cloud-based solutions will continue to prove popular as a new collaboration strategy for libraries involved in web-based initiatives.

IV. Conclusion The study was initiated as a result of a perceived need to aggregate and describe the cooperative partnership strategies utilized by library service managers involved in web information service initiatives. Given the rise of online initiatives today that follow collaborative strategies that differ from earlier management paradigms, it is useful to both document and organize these dynamics in a way that will inform strategic planning efforts of practitioners, both now and in the future. The findings reviewed here illustrate not only emergent patterns of operational concerns in libraries, but also how certain collaborative strategies continue to stand the test of time. This preliminary research followed a grounded theory approach because it examined empirically available information provided by practitioners in a given domain of work (Jank, 2010; Locke, 2001). This approach, when coupled with the varied techniques used in domain analysis, provides a documentable foundation for interdisciplinary theory development that is both valid and expansive (Hjørland, 2002), and it allows for adaptability to future research projects that would be meaningful for both scholars and practitioners (Chen & Chen, 2005; Jank, 2012). Given that this preliminary data is evidence-based and focuses exclusively on what both practitioners and scholars have contributed to the literature, an epistemological foundation now exists from which more detailed quantitative and qualitative research can be launched. It is hoped that these findings will inform future domain analytic research on the management of web-based services in libraries and information centers. This is particularly relevant for the current area of research because it appears that effective oversight of web-based and other technology activities

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

25

prominent in libraries and information centers today requires a broad spectrum of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Familiarity with emerging technology and social computing does not seem to be any more or less necessary than familiarity with staffing, budgeting, or employee training. Further, it is clear that expertise with information products and vendor offerings alone will not be enough to assure adequate oversight of online information services in web environments. It is safe to say that familiarity with information licensing practices, expert understanding of search protocols, and a solid foundation in intellectual property rights will continue to be just as important as product knowledge and management acumen in the skills set of web services information professionals. It is also clear that the successful library web service managers of the future will be far more successful if they understand how—and where—to focus their partnership and networking efforts. The taxonomic breakdown and analyses provided here can effectively assist them with planning and development efforts, while also helping them to accurately hone their own skills as they continue to develop online information services in the years ahead. References Ballard, A. F., & Teague-Rector, S. (2011). Building a library web site. College & Research Libraries News, 72(3), 132–135. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/ content/72/3/132.full Biagioni, S., Castelli, D., & Zoppi, F. (2010). Open access to grey literature on e-infrastructures: The BELIEF Project. The Grey Journal (TGJ), 6(3), 149–159. Chen, A. P., & Chen, M. Y. (2005). A unifying ontology modeling for knowledge management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3681, 318–324. Cronin, C., Lage, K., & Long, H. (2005). The flight plan of a digital initiatives project: Providing remote access to aerial photographs of Colorado. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(2), 114–130. doi:10.1108/10650750510598710 Dahl, M. (2009). The evolution of library discovery systems in the Web environment. OLA Quarterly, 15(1), 5–9. Retrieved from http://www.olaweb. org/assets/documents/olaq_15no1.pdf Davis, H. L., & Somerville, M. M. (2006). Learning our way to change: Improved institutional alignment. New Library World, 107(3/4), 127–140. doi:10.1108/ 03074800610654907 DeSanto, D. (2011). The mobile future of place-based digital collections. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 38(1), 10–13. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi:10.3102/0013 189X09336671 Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches— Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422–462. doi:10.1108/00220410210431136

26

David A. Jank

Hjørland, B. (2005). The socio-cognitive theory of users situated in specific contexts and domains. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 339–343). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 400–425. Horrell, J. L. (2008). Converting and preserving the scholarly record: An overview. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(1), 27–32. Jank, D. A. (2010). Toward a unifying ontology for human-information interaction. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 34(4), 403–432. doi:10.1353/ ils.2010.0006 Jank, D. A. (2012). Understanding user attitudes toward information systems: A grounded theory approach. In E. Curra´s & N. L. Romero (Eds.), Systems science and collaborative information systems: Theories, practices and new research (pp. 121–137). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Johnson, J., & Mandity, E. (2010). Real challenges to virtual reality: Realizing your collection through digital partnership. Computers in Libraries, 30(9), 18–22. Kelly, B., Phipps, L., & Swift, E. (2004). Developing a holistic approach for e-learning accessibility. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/138/131 Lampert, C., Dolski, A., & Egan, B. (2010). dmBridge: Building a collaborative solution for streamlined digital library design and development. OCLC Systems & Services [Special Issue], 26(2), 103–113. doi:10.1108/10650751011 048470 Liew, C. L. (2006). Online cultural heritage exhibitions: A survey of strategic issues. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 40(4), 372–388. doi:10.1108/ 00330330610707944 Liu, S. (2007). Learning objects: An expedition from archival collection to online collaboration. Technical Services Quarterly, 25(1), 1–17. doi:10.1300/J124 v25n01_01 Liu, S. (2008). Engaging users: The future of academic library Web sites. College and Research Libraries, 69(1), 6–27. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/69/1/ 6.full.pdf+html Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage. Ma, J. (2009). Metadata in ARL libraries: A survey of metadata practices. Journal of Library Metadata, 9(1/2), 1–14. doi:10.1080/19386380903094977 MacDonald, S., & Uribe, L. M. (2008). Libraries in the converging worlds of open data, e-research, and Web 2.0. Online, 32(2), 36–40. McCain, K. W. (1995). Biotechnology in context: A database-filtering approach to identifying core and productive non-core journals supporting multidisciplinary R&D. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 306–317. Pattuelli, M. C. (2011). Modeling a domain ontology for cultural heritage resources: A user-centered approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(2), 314–342. Pejtersen, A. M., & Rasmussen, J. (1997). Ecological information systems: Coupling work domain information to user characteristics. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer & P. V. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd edn., pp. 314– 346). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service

27

Pope-Robbins, L., Esposito, L., Kretz, C., & Aloi, M. (2007). What a user wants: Redesigning a library web site based on a card source analysis. Journal of Web Librarianship, 1(4), 3–27. doi:10.1080/19322900802111346 Rapp, J. (2007, August). Quality assurance at the University of Cape Town libraries: Do we make a difference? Paper presented at the 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ ifla73/papers/131-Rapp-en.pdf Salt, R. (2004, May-June). InfoServices: A multi-channel, multi-tier model for information service delivery. Paper presented at the 25th IATUL Annual Conference, Krakow, Poland. Retrieved from http://www.iatul.org/doclibrary/ public/Conf_Proceedings/2004/Rowan20Salt.pdf Somerville, M. M., & Howard, Z. (2010). ‘Information in context’: Co-designing workplace structures and systems for organizational learning. Information Research, 15(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/15-4/paper446.html Stevens, K. W., & Latham, B. (2009). Giving voice to the past: Digitizing oral history. OCLC Systems & Services, 25(3), 212–220. doi:10.1108/10650750 910982593 Sugimoto, C. R., Pratt, J. A., & Hauser, K. (2008). Using field cocitation analysis to assess reciprocal and shared impact of LIS/MIS fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1441–1453. Weng, S. S., Tsai, H. J., Liu, S. C., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Ontology construction for information classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(1), 1–12. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 327–355. Wilson, S., & McCarthy, G. (2010). The mobile university: From the library to the campus. Reference Services Review, 38(2), 214–232. doi:10.1108/0090732 1011044990 Youngman, D. C. (2006). Process flow analysis in academic libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 24(1), 37–44. doi:10.1300/J124v24n01_03

Lessons from the Corporate World Maureen L. Mackenziea, W. David Pennimanb and Anne Woodsworthc a Division of Business, Molloy College, Rockville Centre, NY, USA b Consultant, Columbus, OH, USA c Consultant, Glen Cove, NY, USA

Abstract An analysis of the factors and reasons for collaboration, partnerships, and mergers in the profit sector is undertaken in this chapter. All terms used are defined, particularly as they apply in the world of for-profit enterprises. Through a thorough review of the literature, the authors provide an outline of historically significant successes and failures of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the corporate world and derive lessons from them as they might apply to the nonprofit sector. The reasons that drive both sectors toward such initiatives are discussed with an analysis and comparison of similarities and differences. Both successful mergers and failures are described, primarily through case studies. In addition, human aspects and implications are addressed. Issues such as fear, trust, processes, and psychological challenges of M&A are examined in depth. The influence of communication—the good, the bad, and the ugly—are analyzed from the perspective of clients, regulators, employees, and stakeholders, with reflections on the importance of communication and careful management of change processes. The chapter concludes with a summary of the lessons which can be derived from the literature with a view to providing guidance for similar efforts for information and library organizations. Keywords: Profit sector; successes and failures; M&A; human impact; communications; resistance and change management

I. Introduction Generally speaking, the literature about mergers, alliances, collaborations, and partnerships is segmented by the divide between the profit and nonprofit entities. The corporate world largely talks about mergers and acquisitions (M&A) while nonprofits talk about partnerships, alliances, and collaboration. As McLaughlin (2010) points out, to many in the nonprofit world, the notion of mergers is considered distasteful, if not scandalous. Yet, as he notes,

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036005

29

30

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

it is occurring in areas ranging from the arts through social services, community development organizations, and health care agencies, largely for reasons of economic necessity or to make use of complementary strengths. Most of the research on mergers and alliances, however, has taken place within these two separate sectors, and seldom are profit and nonprofit alliances discussed. Yet they do exist. As Triplett (2008) noted, ‘‘as more and more nonprofits explore new avenues for revenue, many are weighing the benefits and challenges of collaborating with for-profit entities’’ (para 1). He described examples of licensing agreements, supplier contractual relationships, and what he termed is ‘‘smart lease’’ models that engage profit with nonprofit enterprises. The key factors that lead to failure in this kind of alliance are discussed later in this chapter. While there is a substantial body of literature on corporate M&A, a comparison of profit and nonprofit sectors from the perspective of successes and failures is scant. This chapter endeavors to examine both worlds and to derive lessons from the corporate sector which can usefully guide the nonprofit world. To do this, the chapter initially provides definitions of the most commonly used terms and then outlines what terms will be used throughout the chapter. The basic reasons for, and benefits of, undertaking partnerships/mergers are also compared between the two sectors, as are the difficulties likely to be encountered. Following that, an overview is provided outlining the historically large and successful mergers, particularly from the business world as well as some from the information and nonprofit arena. Failures are also analyzed and attention is given to the information industry. All are analyzed from the perspective of financial considerations and the ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘wherefore’’ of what worked and what did not. Following this, it is pointed out that it is not only processes and operations which are acquired/merged but people, who come to the table with psychological challenges that need to be addressed such as trust (or lack thereof), fears about security, creation/adoption of new or changed cultures, and the length of time needed to normalize operations. In the human sector, communication is identified as a key factor in successful mergers both within the new entity as well as externally. Not only do customers need to understand, internalize, and appreciate the new organization or service, but so do regulatory agencies, employees, stakeholders such as shareholders, boards of trustees, or parent organizations—in the case of libraries and information providers. Corporate literature on adapting to change, how best to manage it, and how to address resistance, provides guidance to nonprofit operations. The conclusion of the chapter summarizes all lessons learned and point to a rubric for application to help information and library organizations as

Lessons from the Corporate World

31

they undertake partnerships, be they for small projects or for outright mergers which have been happening in associations and library consortia. A. Terminology For the sake of simplicity, the common corporate definition of terms used in the field of mergers, alliances, collaborations, and partnerships is given in alphabetical order For the sake of simplicity and ease of reading, the rest of this chapter uses primarily ‘‘collaboration’’ and ‘‘mergers’’ to encompass the various nuances of those terms.

II. Reasons for Mergers and Collaborations The benefits of mergers can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise and the activities/operations/services which are involved, be they within the same sector or across the profit/nonprofit sector divide. Loan-Clarke and Preston (2002), for example, described a case in which collaboration between a Business School and a National Health Service Trust in the United Kingdom was designed to produce research which would be beneficial for both organizations through the joint appointment of an organizational development adviser/research assistant. The benefits they cited included the following:      

More effective use of individual talents Transfer of new knowledge, especially tacit knowledge not yet published Enhanced stimulation and creativity Provision of intellectual companionship Extension of individuals’ networks Enhanced dissemination of projects/results through more extensive networks

While these general benefits could apply to almost any collaboration or merger that involves human capital, there are other reasons which apply variously to nonprofit and profit sectors, some of which are inherent in the definitions in Table 1. Some are blatantly more applicable to profit-making enterprises than to nonprofits. La Piana Consulting (n.d.) gives two reasons for M&A in nonprofits: (1) enable administrative efficiency, and (2) advance the mission of organizations through shared, transferred, or combined resources or programs. Wikipedia (n.d.) has a long list of motives or reasons for companies to undertake M&A activities, largely for financial reasons such as reducing fixed costs, combining scarce resources, purchasing economies, acquiring talent,

32

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

Table 1 Definitions Term

Corporate definition

Acquisition

‘‘Takeover, the acquisition of a company; Mergers and acquisitions, strategy of buying and selling of various companies to quickly grow a company; Procurement, the acquisitions of goods and/or services at the best possible total cost of ownership.’’

Alliance, General

A union between families, states, or parties; a combination of common objects.

Alliance, Business

‘‘An agreement between businesses, usually motivated by cost reduction and improved service for the customer. Alliances are often bounded by a single agreement with equitable risk and opportunity share for all parties involved and are typically managed by an integrated project team. An example of this is code sharing in airline alliances. There are five basic categories or types of alliances:  Sales alliance  Solution-specific alliance  Geographic-specific alliance  Investment alliance  Joint venture alliance.’’

Collaboration

‘‘Collaboration is working together to achieve a goal. It is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals (this is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective).’’

Merger

Mergers and acquisitions (abbreviated M&A) is an aspect of corporate strategy, corporate finance, and management dealing with the buying, selling, dividing, and combining of different companies and similar entities that can help an enterprise grow rapidly in its sector or location of origin, or a new field or new location, without creating a subsidiary, other child entity, or using a joint venture. The distinction between a ‘‘merger’’ and an ‘‘acquisition’’ has become increasingly blurred in various respects (particularly in terms of the ultimate economic outcome), although it has not completely disappeared in all situations.

33

Lessons from the Corporate World

Table 1. (Continued ) Term Partnership

Corporate definition ‘‘A partnership is an arrangement where parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests. Since humans are social beings, partnerships between individuals, businesses, interest-based organizations, schools, governments, and varied combinations thereof have always been and remain commonplace. In the most frequently associated instance of the term, a partnership is formed between one or more businesses in which partners (owners) co-labor to achieve and share profits and losses (see business partners). Partnerships are also common regardless of and among sectors. Nonprofit, religious, and political organizations may partner together to increase the likelihood of each achieving their mission and to amplify their reach.’’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org

geographical and/or product diversification, increasing market share or entering a new market, and even taxation. The section also mentions nonfinancial motives for undertaking M&A such as diversification as a safeguard against economic downturns, management overconfidence, and empire building, or just outright greed for more management compensation with acquisition of a larger company. McLaughlin (2010) gives three major reasons for nonprofit decisions to collaborate: financial decline; merger of organizations with complementary strengths; and lastly what he called a rescue merger wherein weak organizations want relief by becoming parts of larger organizations. In the case of nonprofit collaborations the benefits envisioned can include those mentioned by Loan-Clarke and Preston (2002), as well as increased visibility, additional resources, future funding opportunities, and a sense of empowerment or satisfaction in participating in a wider span of activities than previously had been possible. As with profit enterprises, organizations that operate in the same region might seek partnerships/alliances in order to reduce the number of staff and consolidate administrative functions. Weiss et al. (2011) point to successful profit and public library collaboration such as small businesses and in which the library gains an ‘‘appreciative patron who can often be counted on to sponsor library events . . . ’’ and the business person ‘‘gains needed industry data and marketing assistance to strengthen

34

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

his operation’’ (p. 6). Ellis (2011) provides a rich array of partnership possibilities for public libraries through community agencies such as educational, penal, and governmental agencies, while Squires (2009) does the same about public and school library collaborations. In David and Handler’s (2001) volume, contributors provide descriptions of school–university partnerships in a variety of institutions. A broader approach is taken by Soska and Johnson Butterfield (2005) who document how universities forge community partnerships which enhance teaching and learning and provide research models, participatory research, and ‘‘high engagement’’ techniques for partnerships which focus on civic engagement that benefit faculty, students, as well as practitioners, community organizers, and urban planners. With cross-over partnerships between profits and nonprofits, the former might want to acquire the cachet or name of the latter as well as any licenses and physical assets the nonprofit might have. Table 2 compares the various reasons, financial and nonfinancial within the profit sector, in profit and nonprofit alliances and within the nonprofit sector.

III. The Landscape of Mergers and Acquisitions One could argue that the study of M&A, and even alliances, could benefit from a study of the Roman Empire. Despite its ultimate decline and fall, it is a wonder that such an ambitious empire spanning both east and west and encompassing over 1.6 million square miles survived as long as it did. If we took the time to study all that made this huge empire succeed, we might learn a thing or two about successful M&A (not to mention Roman military tactics). But we could also look at what led to its downfall and learn as well from such things as hubris, despotism, cultural conflicts, latent hostilities, and other internal forces working to demolish what had been built. The same forces apply when we delve into the current literature on mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and alliances. History, in fact, does have a way of repeating itself—and not always for the better. The most dominate characteristic that distinguishes strategic alliances from joint ventures and these two from M&A is governance and how it is shared—or not. As governance becomes more dramatically affected, the stresses upon the organization(s) increase. Consequently, the probability of failure also increases. While collaboration is not without risk, the benefits often appear to outweigh the downside and organizations are drawn into the game for good or not so good reasons. The assumption is that the corporate sector exercises these options to maximize their own profitability (Moatti, 2009). More naı¨ve organizations may choose a particular approach based on

35

Lessons from the Corporate World

Table 2 Reasons for and/or Benefits of M&A, Alliances, Partnerships, and Collaborations Reason/benefit Financial Reduce fixed costs by removing duplicate operations/functions Increase/decrease scope of marketing and distribution Increase revenue or market share Cross sell products to suppliers/nonrelated company Improve managerial specialization Economies from larger scale purchases Buy loss-leader to reduce tax liability Diversify products and/or geographic reach Reduce competition Acquire talent Improve management compensation Other More effective use of talent Career/promotion opportunities for employees Enlarged customer base and client reach Enhancement of brand and/ or reputation Improved visibility

Profit sector

Profit and nonprofit

Nonprofit

36

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

Table 2. (Continued ) Reason/benefit

Profit sector

Profit and nonprofit

Nonprofit

Acquire resources to solve problems Growth in networking opportunities Knowledge transfer and new ideas Empowerment and sense of self-worth Co-sponsorships of events Broadened or enhanced mission Improvement of service effectiveness

what competitors are doing (imitation behavior), assuming that these competitors have the experience to select the best option to expand (Moatti, 2009). It is little wonder then that the field is fraught with failures. The AT&T acquisition of NCR, or the myriad of pharmaceutical manufacturer mergers that continue to roil and bubble, is a prime example. In fact, a recent article in Science encourages budding career seekers in the Biotech/Pharma industry to roll with the punches and make lemonade from the ever-growing number of lemons (Oberst, 2012). This is not a new phenomenon, however. A careful study of M&A over a 35-year period beginning in the 1960s indicated that the companies (and shareholders) involved were hurt more than helped by such endeavors. Of 150 deals valued at $500 million or more which were studied, half destroyed shareholder wealth (based on stock performance) and an additional one-third provided only a small contribution to shareholder wealth. Furthermore, the findings concluded that many CEOs were making crucial multibillion-dollar decisions ‘‘in part by the seat of their pants’’ (Zweig, Kline, Forest, & Gudridge, 1995, p. 130). A. Success and Failure Climates So, what can be learned from past experience to help bring success to the process, be it the relatively benign strategic alliance or a full-blown merger or acquisition? There is no lack of research on the subject ranging from

Lessons from the Corporate World

37

understanding the conditions for constructively exploring differences in perspective (Gray, 1989) to the proper pace and timing of the process (Shi, Sun, & Prescott, 2012). In between is a wealth of work on selecting ‘‘trusted partners’’ (e.g., Lewis, 1999). There are powerful lessons embedded in both successful and failed mergers. Zweig et al. (1995, p. 122) provide a succinct summary of why mergers did not work based on a very comprehensive review. The factors found included:      

Inadequate due diligence by the acquirer or merger partner Lack of compelling strategic rationale Unrealistic expectations of possible synergies Paying too much Conflicting corporate cultures Failure to move quickly to meld two companies

The list varies according to the researcher, but there is much to be learned from such lists—and the underlying studies. For example, DiGeorgio (2002a) provides success (and failure) factors in terms of ‘‘climates’’ paraphrased here. 1. Success  Those responsible for major decisions are willing to discuss alternative opportunities to find the best ones.  Stakeholders who both make the buy decision and are responsible for integration success actually engage in working on the opportunity.  The reward system (in terms of incentives and long-term payoffs) encourages a balanced perspective on the part of the stakeholders.  Systems for measurement and feedback are in place so that the teams involved learn from their decisions.  In the case of a merger or acquisition, the target leadership is treated as a partner in order to build trust and give rise to sound data.

Rigsbee (2010) provides a helpful guide for what to do once the ‘‘marriage’’ has occurred, which can be summarized as follows:  Make expectations explicit, such as economies of scale resulting in cost savings.  Take an inventory of employee expectations which will undoubtedly include job security (for rank and file and middle management) and compensation parity (for executives).  Inventory the core competencies of each company. Look at similar products and markets and find potentials for synergy. Have a strategic plan for achieving economies of scale.  Inventory the cultures and policies of each company. Varying levels of formality can torpedo the marriage (see later discussion of Sprint and Nextel for evidence of this assertion). Each company must be prepared to ‘‘give a little’’ and not be married to the past.

38

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

 Find overlaps in circles of interest, expectations, and inventories from the above inventories. The greater the areas of overlap, the more likely the marriage will succeed.  Uncover (before the merger) potential roadblocks to the blending process. Not invented here is a significant one as are differences in focus (see Costco/Price Club discussed later as an example).  Communicate the findings of the above reviews to all employees of both companies. If this is not done, the gaps will be filled in by the employees’ own imaginations and erroneous information. Factual information can help to sooth fears and increase understanding of the underlying strategies.  Help employees at all levels to have ‘‘emotional ownership’’ in the success of the merger. Developing how to road maps will help in this area. Celebrate the first day of the merger and use symbolic tokens (with new company logo, etc.) as gifts to the employees.

Two companies that ‘‘did it right’’ are singled out by DiGeorgio (2002a) which are briefly summarized here. CISCO systems. Its growth strategy involved acquisitions of over 70 companies (as of 2001). Not since the turn of the century, when AT&T organized hundreds of small phone companies, has there been such a successful track record according to DiGeorgio’s analysis. Borrowing strategies from companies was part of their approach, including breaking the markets into segments, and being first or second in every competing market helped CISCO to develop a matrix of voids that could be filled via acquisitions. Moving rapidly into a market (time to market) was another key factor in making acquisition decisions and a rapid decision process gave them a competitive edge. They found that their perceived competitor, IBM, was too slow in making decisions to be the threat they first believed it to be. Two key elements used were (a) doing their homework to select the right companies, and (b) applying an effective and reliable integration process once the deal was struck The company also made every effort to keep the talent of the acquired company with a ‘‘no-lay-off pledge.’’ In May of 2011 CISCO announced its biggest layoff in history cutting nearly 4000 jobs or about 4% of its 73,000 permanent employees (Finkle, 2011). Times changed. GE Capital. This is a company with a record of success spanning a century and in 2000 GE Capital contributed 40% of GE’s profits. According to the then CEO of GE, selecting the right integration leader was 95% of the success factor for integration. This was based on no small experience in acquisitions—with over 1000 firms added as of 2002. According to DiGeorgio (2002a, pp. 139–140), the role of the integration leader is no small task either and includes the following practices:  Building an effective team of both GE people and those from the target company;  Conducting well-planned launch meetings for the integration teams which resulted in detailed plans;

Lessons from the Corporate World

39

 Using a web-based knowledge management system that allows any team member to access what GE already knows about making integrations work;  Establishing upfront in the integration process what is non-negotiable (e.g., GE’s values);  Developing measures and dashboards to monitor progress of the integration process; and  Conducting problem-solving meetings (called Work Outs) early in the process to generate quick wins for a climate of success.

Additional details on the integration process and the role of the leader are provided in Part II of DiGeorgio’s discussion of the topic (2002b). Part II also includes an elaboration on the role of culture in the process—a topic described in more detail later in this chapter. Contrasting GE and CISCO, DiGeorgio pointed out that ‘‘GE Capital . . . is acquiring assets, customers and other tangible things. They were not dependent on a few talented people to sustain a new innovation in the marketplace, as was CISCO’’ (DiGeorgio, 2002a, p. 139). The conclusion, then, is that GE pays less attention to culture fit because the loss of a few key people with technical know-how is not as crucial as for an organization like CISCO. This attention to the role of culture is important and warrants more attention later in this chapter. GE Capital is still ‘‘acquiring’’—with an announced acquisition of the bank deposits from MetLife in 2011 (Rusli, 2011)—even as GE pares back its reliance on this arm for profits (Lohr, 2012). Not all successes involve acquisitions. There is plenty of room for successful partnerships involving strategic alliances at the lowest level of complexity followed by joint ventures which generally entail the creation of a new entity. Interestingly, pursuing a strategic alliance is not a first step in the path to a merger or acquisition, but should such a merger occur it is more favorably received by the public if it follows an alliance (Marciukaityte, Roskelley, & Wang, 2008). A fine example of a strategic alliance is that of two giant rivals in the shipping industry, Maersk and SeaLand. There was no question that they offered identical services, yet they found that the best way to compete in a global market was to form an alliance. (they) combined their two hundred container ships in networks that span the globe. So smoothly do these links work that a customer who hires Maersk . . . might never know that for part of the journey the cargo passes through SeaLand terminals. (Lewis, 1999, p. 3)

Finding and keeping trusted partners is a science of its own and no one has studied this more thoroughly than Lewis, who authored three books on the topic.

40

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

2. Failure Again, turning to DiGeorgio’s (2002a) climate analysis had a similar list for creating a failure climate, which is summarized here:  Preconceived notions about the best opportunities may be considered sacred cows on the part of key decision makers.  The analysis group may be dominated by finance-oriented individuals who bring a limited perspective about integration.  Key executives, investment bankers, and others with self-interest may discourage dialogue that is unbiased.  Teams responsible for analysis and decisions may be isolated from the results of their decisions.  ‘‘Poisoning the well’’ can occur when leaders of the target organization are not treated with respect. This can result in many problems including poor data (p. 147).

His is not the only analysis of failure factors. Hefferman (2012) provided a complementary list of factors including:  ‘‘Momentum’’—once a merger of acquisition is contemplated, there are powerful forces to see that it proceeds, including the vested interests of lawyers, bankers, and accountants and, of course, the CEOs who fear appearing weak if they put on the brakes.  ‘‘Undue diligence’’—while intended to uncover truth, it is often done in haste and by people with no responsibility for subsequently making the process work once the merger begins. Bankers, in particular, often do not understand the business operations and have seldom been ‘‘operators.’’  ‘‘Debt’’—because mergers require cash, they are often followed by cost cutting and job losses. This can result in draconian restrictions on operations to meet the financial necessities.  ‘‘Fudge’’—no one ever admits it, but mergers aren’t usually mergers at all, they are takeovers. Brands and company names are casualties and power is not really shared by the CEOs even though they say they will. The cracks in the relationships usually emerge within a year (n.p.).

There are many examples of failure illustrating these, given the high failure rate of such endeavors. Two often-studied examples are the Costco Wholesale/Price Club and the Quaker Oats/Snapple mergers. Bringing Costco Wholesale and Price Club together looked fine on paper. This merger made the resulting organization second only to Walmart’s Sam’s Club in warehouse stores. Ultimately, however, this marriage failed for not taking cultural differences into account (Zweig et al., 1995). Undoubtedly such failures have prompted due diligence experts to argue for including analysis of ‘‘culture clash’’ in their tool kits (Carleton, 2009). In this case it was a contrast between a real estate strip-mall mentality in Price Club and an up-from-the-bootstraps grocery bagger’s work ethic in Costco. The marriage lasted less than one year. Quaker Oats and Snapple both sold drinks. With Gatorade as a major success, the Quaker Oats management was convinced it could do something with the Snapple line of drinks via its well-established distribution chain in supermarkets. They bought the smaller company for a price of $1.7 billion

Lessons from the Corporate World

41

which was much too high, according to Wall Street warnings (Dumon, 2008). So, there were problems from the outset. In addition, over half of Snapple sales were in convenience stores and gas stations (not supermarkets). Snapple had built a brand image via eccentric and quirky ads that Quaker Oats scrapped initially, and tried to reintroduce too late (Cashberry, 2006). The ending occurred 27 months later when Quaker Oats sold Snapple for $300 million. Furthermore, Snapple sales had declined by almost 30% during this period. Snapple has since rebuilt its image and sales, but it took a painful divorce to do so. Moving a little closer to the library arena, two significant failures in the information industry (broadly defined) are the AOL/Time Warner and the Sprint/Nextel mergers. Dumon (2008) indicated that the AOL/Time Warner marriage was perhaps the most prominent merger failure ever. America Online acquired Time Warner for $165 billion in 2000 just over a decade after Warner Communications and Time, Inc. had merged. The motive for the AOL/Warner union was noble, with executives from both organizations hoping to capitalize on the growing convergence of mass media and the Internet. The timing was bad however when the dot-com bubble burst that year, resulting in a loss of $99 billion for the merged organization. The failure of this union was attributed to several factors (Dumon, 2008): (a) failure to capitalize on emerging higher bandwidth technologies, (b) not capitalizing on the use of mass media content via the Internet (the very driving force for the merger), (c) lack of AOL senior executive expertise in running a media company, and (d) a turf protecting culture in Time Warner preventing realization of anticipated synergies. In 2003 the company dropped AOL from its name in recognition of the failed merger. Sprint acquired a majority stake in Nextel in 2005 making the combination the third largest telecom company surpassed only by AT&T and Verizon. Sprint marketed primarily to lay consumers while Nextel focused mostly on business applications. On paper it looked ideal with each company cross selling to the other’s market. What happened instead was an exodus of Nextel employees citing cultural differences stemming from Sprint’s highly bureaucratic approach which contrasted with Nextel’s more entrepreneurial culture. Add to that a poor reputation for customer service on the part of Sprint—a killer in what was becoming a highly commoditized business and you had the makings of failure. The two companies also maintained separate headquarters for a while following the merger—a highly symbolic factor that also made coordination more difficult. All of these impediments were creating a difficult situation for responding to the rapid change necessitated by evolving technology in the wireless and Internet domains. In 2008 the merged company wrote off $30 billion in losses—a sign that the merger did

42

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

not pay off (Dumon, 2008). Sprint continues to work to limit the financial loss of this union and is taking steps to shed the Nextel-based iDEN network as part of this effort. B. Alliances versus Mergers/Acquisitions—A Comparison As implied by two of the previous examples (AOL/Time Warner and Sprint/Nextel) the information industry is no different and in many ways emulates examples already covered (e.g., CISCO Systems), in that alliances and acquisitions are seen as a way to compete and grow. Like the other studies already described, such moves are often unsuccessful. In a study of 103 alliances in the packaged software industry over a four-year period (1999–2002), significant differences were found in success factors for alliances versus those for mergers or acquisitions (Gao & Iyer, 2009). While firms may enter into one of these processes for identical reasons (i.e., to obtain growth), balancing the desire to grow versus the risk involved can drive an organization to choose the common ownership of a merger (seen as less risky investment-wise). These choices also extend along a continuum of governance modes and force companies to face the challenge of rethinking their governance model and the relations of power and strategic decisionmaking (Meier, Missonier, & Soparnot, 2011). To minimize the risk of such choices, software companies may pursue partners that are complementary to their own core business. Gao and Iyer (2009) described the stack or layer concept to sort through the potential for success or failure in pursuing a particular strategy.. The layers begin at the base with hardware, then move through systems software, middleware services, application software, and, finally, service. They asserted that ‘‘ . . . companies acquire, merge, and enter into alliances with the purpose of achieving higher growth rates. The strategy is then either to reach for complementary products in adjacent layers of the stack, or to create scale effects and realize synergies in the same layer of the stack’’ (p. 288). The conclusions from their study included a distinction in value gained based on whether or not the companies involved were attempting a merger or merely an alliance and whether or not they were working at the same level in the ‘‘stack’’ or trying to work across adjacent layers. They concluded that same-layer complementarities and synergies are more readily realized (measured in financial return) in alliances, while adjacent layer complementarities return more value in M&A. These types of studies typically are statistically based and therefore depend heavily on sample size and composition. Despite these limitations, the results may point the way for evaluating potential successful ventures or mergers. In addition, the results indicated

Lessons from the Corporate World

43

that the service layer (the final one in the stack) might be better viewed as cutting across (and crucial to) all other layers, something that libraries have long recognized. In a study of alliances versus acquisitions spanning the period 1991– 2000, Wang and Zajac (2007) stated that firms with high levels of resource similarity are more likely to choose the acquisitions route while those with complementary resources will choose alliances. While success in alliances increases the likelihood of pursuing more alliances, success in acquisitions does not encourage alliance pursuits. In general, they concluded that ‘‘alliances seem to be more versatile than acquisitions in the sense that they provide sufficient general knowledge in addition to the specific knowledge to encourage firms to engage in other interfirm combinations’’ (p. 1313). They found that experience in alliances can lead to either alliances or acquisitions while experience in acquisitions alone leads to pursuit of other acquisitions. Alliances build a ‘‘trusting relationship’’ (see, e.g., Lewis, 1999) which provides greater depth of experience and broader options for these firms.

IV. Overview of Library-Related Mergers and Acquisitions No one has tracked the library world with respect to M&A more closely than Breeding (2012). His brightly illustrated chart tracks over 30 such events dating between 1968 and 2011. The acquisitive nature of OCLC is clearly illustrated in this chart as is the history of the Sirsi/Dynix merger, for example. No discussion of mergers in this arena would be complete without mention of the creation of LYRASIS from OCLC’s disbanding of the regional network distribution system which was created when it was founded. Following is a brief look at LYRASIS and Sirsi/Dynix as examples. A. LYRASIS This organization grew out of the ashes of the disbanding or the regional distribution system serving OCLC but it also functioned as a national cooperative library network structure for a variety of other important services to libraries of all types. The creation in 2009 of this new entity was built on the premise that there were other services beyond the access to OCLC that could sustain a large regional network. Both LYRASIS and Amigos operated on that premise. Other networks, such as BCR and NYLINK, closed their doors with the change in emphasis implemented by OCLC. Some smaller state-based networks continue today, but are vastly curtailed and are

44

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

struggling for viability. The bold move, made initially by SOLINET and PALINET, and subsequently joined by NELINET was challenging to say the least. They spanned wide and varied geographic regions, had strong leaders in each case, and were forced by events to develop ‘‘an entirely new vision and scope’’ (Anderson, 2010, p. 105). While the ultimate success of LYRASIS is yet to be determined, it has survived and gone through significant change. Leadership, while initially shared, now rests with one individual (Kate Nevins) who was the CEO of SOLINET prior to the merger. Synergies gained from expanded markets are not yet fully realized, but offer strong potential. Staff changes will undoubtedly continue as they have to find the right mix of marketing, technical expertise, products, and services. What must be factored into this equation is the financially changing landscape for libraries in general—both in opportunities and threats. B. Sirsi/Dynix This interesting creation has had a long and varied family tree of M&A dating back to the 1990s when Dynix began acquiring other merged organizations and ultimately encompassing Ameritech, Avatar, Dataphase, DRA, MultiLIS, NOTIS, part of OCLC, and Sirsi to name a few. The final merger in 2005 created a ‘‘super-sized’’ integrated library system (ILS) company with revenues in excess of $125 million at the time of merger (Breeding, 2005). As in many other instances, the merger resulted in one CEO taking charge and the other remaining on as a ‘‘consultant.’’ While promoted as a ‘‘merger of equals,’’ it was clearly more of a takeover with Sirsi’s investors owning 90% of the merged organization and the Sirsi board remaining with the addition of two representatives from Dynix (SirsiDynix interview, 2005). Leadership continued to change in this organization in 2007, in 2010, and again in 2011. Change happens and apparently especially at the top in this merged organization. Other changes include a partnership agreement with EBSCO in 2012 to provide a seamless interface between the EBSCO’s discovery service and the SirsiDynix eResource Central, intended to improve discovery and delivery of content, particularly e-book material (EBSCO Publishing, 2012).

V. Nonprofit Mergers and Collaborations No overview of organizations which merge or form alliances would be complete without a look at the nonprofit organizations. They are perhaps

Lessons from the Corporate World

45

closest in structure and governance to libraries. With the challenge facing nonprofits in a tightening economy, it is not unusual to see mergers as well as integrations and alliances on the increase. One of the leading experts in this area is David La Piana. His analyses of this sector is insightful and comprehensive in terms of the range of options (joint programming through full merger) and lessons learned (benefits, pitfalls, and optimization strategies). Capturing the crux of his findings is challenging, but some findings by Kohm and La Piana (2003) can be summarized as follows:  Benefits include increased and improved public relations, access to greater expertise, improved staff perquisites, increased financial leverage from economies of scale, and more room for opportunity and a greater sense of security for staff in a larger organization.  Pitfalls revolve around leadership (if it is not strong and has the trust and support of existing staff and board members, lack of sufficient resources in terms of time and money to sustain the demanding nature of restructuring including significant out-of-pocket costs (attorneys, consultants, etc.)) and time commitments for boards and staff.  Optimization strategies can include choosing a partner already known and respected by the organization, getting to know the other organization well (true even if they are already a known entity since there is always more to learn), questioning assumptions and setting realistic expectations, facing unexpected challenges and having processes in place to do the same, and having both a communication and an implementation plan in place.

A. Union of Profit and Nonprofit Entities As pointed out by Triplett (2008), many nonprofits are exploring avenues for new revenues by collaboration with for-profit entities, a source of capital not generally available to nonprofits. Such collaborations can benefit both organizations, provided they are built on real synergies from a business standpoint and do not (a) violate the mission of the nonprofit (which could end up jeopardizing its tax-exempt status) or (b) attempt to shelter the forprofit’s income taxation—an increasing concern of the IRS. Triplett itemizes seven reasons why failures can occur in this domain: 1. An imbalance in the strength of the two organizations, causing the weaker entity’s mission to be compromised. 2. Allowing the profit motive to become overwhelming, causing the nonprofit to lose sight of its mission (and possibly its nonprofit status). 3. The nonprofit being less entrepreneurial or hard-nosed than its for-profit partner (a culture mismatch). 4. Nonprofit leadership becoming too entrepreneurial, creating a ‘‘culture gap’’ between them and their own staff. 5. A business plan that relies too heavily on roles played by the parties that are foreign to their basic culture and personalities. 6. High costs despite high revenues make the net profit small. 7. Traditional philanthropic funders question continued financing of what now looks like a business organization.

46

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

VI. Globalization Forces As mentioned previously, and explored further below, many of the issues listed above revolve around culture and its key role in success or failure of organizational transformations. Attempting such endeavors across the cultural boundaries of nations offers significant challenges which are illustrated by the Daimler–Chrysler and BenQ–Siemens cases later in this chapter. Perhaps that is why in a study of global joint ventures and alliances between 1990 and 2000 it was found that nearly 70% of over 18,000 US strategic alliances sampled comprised solely domestic partners (Moskalev & Swensen, 2007). This may be changing as the forces of globalization, accelerated technical change, and disenchantment with mergers increase, and alliances between global competitors become more attractive. Such endeavors may take the form of equity joint ventures or more likely informal types of collaborations.

VII. Financial Considerations With overwhelming evidence that mergers do not provide the anticipated financial return on investment (ROI) for shareholders (see, e.g., Zweig et al., 1995), why would an organization in good conscience pursue such endeavors? The answer can only be found in both the promise and pitfalls documented here. On one hand, forces including financial pressures, disruptive technologies, and a globalization of markets create both opportunities and necessities to take a more adventurous view of one’s business. On the other, there is hubris on the part of senior executives, and vested interest on the part of bankers, attorneys, and consultants, and stockholders who see an opportunity for a ‘‘quick buck.’’ Due diligence now is broader than checking the financial status of the involved organizations. It also includes audits of the corporate cultures and assessment of risks and rewards both tangible (money) and intangible (reputation). The idea of measuring ROI of a venture along multiple dimensions is not new to libraries. In fact, the idea of a social return on investment (SROI) plays a prominent role in the Americans for Libraries Council’s report, Worth Their Weight (Imholz & Arns, 2007). The idea of measuring ROI across multiple dimensions can be applied to alliances, mergers, and acquisitions in both profit and nonprofit sectors. It takes into consideration the social, financial, and environmental factors and guidelines for SROI’s application, which are available via the Global Reporting Initiative (n.d.).

Lessons from the Corporate World

47

Naı¨ve? Well, what could be more naı¨ve than some of the case studies described already in this section that resulted in significant failures. Perhaps a new type of due diligence that looks at value (financial and otherwise) could provide a better chance for success.

VIII. Human Aspects and Impacts Although touched on earlier in this chapter, what follows is an expanded analysis of the human factors which are affected by all kinds of partnerships, alliances, or mergers, again illustrated by two actual cases in which culture and communication, or the lack of it, became highly significant. For-profit enterprises are bought, sold, or merged largely for economic reasons. While an acquired company may have a positive financial impact for shareholders, it may have a negative impact on employees. A business is a collection of tangible and intangible assets which include explicit knowledge such as patents, trade secrets, and trademarks, and tacit knowledge within the talents and minds of an organization’s employees. Underestimation of human elements such as corporate culture and employee knowledge has led to failure of the Quaker/Snapple merger described earlier. According to Krishnaveni and Sujatha (2012), knowledge management research demonstrates that it is a struggle to capture and secure tacit knowledge. For example, the customer relationships that employees have is not always easily identifiable nor is its value easy to determine. As several authors have pointed out (Bendapudi & Leone, 2002; Wulf & Singh, 2011), key employees may have knowledge that is controlled by the company as a result of a contract or a noncompete agreement, but the value of these employees can be compromised by a hostile takeover, or a merger of unequals. Therefore, an acquisition agreement may specify retention of these employees. The risk in doing this, however, can lead to other employees being shaken and their perceived value of the new organization being compromised. In addition, leadership focus could change, moving the organizational mission away from employees’ long held assumptions and beliefs and thereby damaging the organization’s intangible assets. As Buono and Bowditch (1989) point out, poorly executed postmerger integration has been a cause for acquisitions to end up as divestitures within two years. A. Corporate Culture Corporate culture is a primary variable underlying the success or failure of mergers. It comprises layers starting with the explicit and observable

48

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

artifacts such as banners, stories, and promotional processes, and moving to deeper and less explicit levels such as values and assumptions, which are the most deeply held and most difficult to change (Buono, Bowditch, & Lewis, 1985). Once a leader acts in opposition to espoused or established values, or establishes practices which conflict with the organizational mission, employee trust is shaken, fear is created, and security is compromised. Corporate culture is a pervasive influence on organizations which can increase or decrease their value, just like other intangible assets, such as company reputation, customer loyalty, and analyst confidence. Trust, fear, and security therefore become relevant in drawing lessons from the outcomes of for-profit M&A and are tightly tied to the influence of change on organizational culture. Change management literature offers a context within which to understand employee fear, trust, and security issues (see, e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 2000). While many employees will acclimate when change occurs, some may not. As suggested by Yang, Lin, and Peng (2011), acquisition research has emphasized economic and rationality theories, and therefore ‘‘falling short of uncovering the behavioral and relational drivers of acquisitions’’ (p. 1070). Clearly it is not only nonmanagement employees who struggle, but also at times, mid-level and senior leaders. B. Management Resistance A corporate noninvited takeover is often resisted by the target business’ employees, most often its managers. When managers become aware that their company is a target of a takeover, resistance can often occur. If the company is struggling, then the takeover may be perceived as an act for saving it, but often managers may realize their positions will be lost. In this situation nonmanagement employees may welcome the change in leadership, but controlling managers may still resist. Ruback (1988) discusses the reasons for resistance actions that can take place before or after the offer is presented. Since a takeover often significantly increases the stock price, the stockholders may welcome the financial reward. Managers, on the other hand, may resist because they feel that the company is worth more than the explicit assets reflect (e.g., future prospects, strategies, pending patents), or that their resistance may push the price up, or simply because they want to retain their management roles (Ruback, 1988). C. Workplace Trust When corporate leaders and shareholders benefit economically, employees may view themselves as unrewarded stakeholders, with an insecure future. Case studies have revealed that M&A can lead to forced early retirements or

Lessons from the Corporate World

49

layoffs at all levels. The outcomes can be loss of employee trust, which is closely tied to workplace health, which affects making optimum use of employees talents, employee productivity, turnover, and ultimately life satisfaction (see Helliwell, 2008; Mackenzie, 2010; Merriman, Schmidt, & Dunlap-Hinkler, 2007). This can lead to the erosion of work performance, increases in turnover, and a reduction in subordinate support for managers. Once lost, trust is difficult to regain (Jacobs, 2008). M&A often result in more than just processes being revised. Rather, according to Marks (1994), they ‘‘have a profound impact on the people who spend their working lives in these organizations’’ (p. vii). As employees see their coworkers lives damaged, their own fear increases and their trust in their leaders diminishes. Many authors agree that faith and trust affect the relationships among individuals and groups (Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007; Garavan & Carbery, 2007; Helliwell, 2008; Martins, 2002) and that it is necessary for individuals to effectively transfer knowledge, and can influence the workplace environment, particularly trust in leaders. Sadly, ‘‘senior executives generally score low on employee trust’’ (Krell, 2006). Quickly changing workplaces need to have employees trust in their ability and direction. They need to ‘‘manage expectations, monitor stress levels, and make every effort to know’’ (Lufkin, 2006, p. 3) what employees need. An essential lesson is that ‘‘trust takes a long time to build, it can be easily destroyed, and is hard to regain. Also, since breaking trust gives rise to distrust, maintaining trust requires careful attention from management’’ (Martins 2002, p. 754).

D. Employee Resistance Change for an organization must start to take place at the individual level. Employees understand their workplace environment by relying on mental models that simplify the influencing concepts and cause/effect relationships. They depend on the predictability of symbols and rituals. The social identity of the employee within a workplace allows employees to understand their roles and how to function effectively. Employees will reject, interpret, and even distort information based on these beliefs and mental models. Anger and insecurity can emerge when these models and symbols are altered without proper justification (Buono et al., 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 2000; Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Marks, 1994). According to Marks (1994), organizational change within a healthy work environment is viewed as a discrete path to a predictable and known state. It is described as orderly, incremental, and continuous. Marks further suggests that ‘‘its discrete nature

50

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

allows people to know exactly what to expect’’ (p. 17) so they can move on in their personal lives. On the other hand Marks sees transition as ‘‘a path to an unknown state . . . transition poses a break from the past . . . adapting to transition is much more psychologically taxing than is adapting to change’’ (p. 18). This clearly applies to M&A. Various stakeholders will respond differently to transitions required of a merger. An external stakeholder such as a shareholder may never experience the psychological stress of the transition. Yet, internal employee stakeholders will bring needs which are partially material and economic, and partly social and psychological according to Carson (1999). For them, including lower-level managers, ‘‘change is neither sought after nor welcomed. [Rather] it is disruptive and intrusive. It upsets the balance’’ (Strebel, 1996, p. 86a). A merger is ‘‘a source of high uncertainty and reduced job security’’ (Fitzgibbon & Seeger, 2002, p. 47), which may damage the economic benefit of the merger due to employee resistance. When two companies merge, ‘‘radically innovative change’’ may be especially intimidating to long-term employees. E. Leaders’ Roles The role of leaders in M&A situations is to help employees revise their mental models so that changing products, processes, and practices are accepted as good and necessary. Thinkers and authors have suggested that:  Leaders must espouse and support an explanatory vision for transitions (Deal & Kennedy, 2000).  Conversations must take place ‘‘deep in the enterprise . . . at every level in the organization’’ (Vlamis, 1999, pp. 14–15).  Employees will need to tell ‘‘different stories to one another to explain what is occurring around them’’ (Deal & Kennedy, 2000, p. 158).  Responsible leaders must foresee the changes so these shifts are perceived by the employees as skill-enhancing (Tushman & Anderson, 1986).  Employees should be actively involved in the change process (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003).

If change occurs without any employee involvement, managers will be judged more severely and proposed changes will be effectively neutralized and undermined by dint of the old culture (Deal & Kennedy, 2000; Strebel, 1996; Woodward & Hendry, 2004).

IX. The Impact of Communication and Culture Postmerger integration is essential for success, and can be a cause for failure, though masked by the economic fallout. It has long been understood that

Lessons from the Corporate World

51

employees take longer to relearn a changed process than what it took to initially learn the job; and ‘‘the resistance to change and the slow relearning is primarily a motivational problem’’ (Coch & French, 1948, p. 516). The acquiring firm has the upper hand and the responsibility in reestablishing a corporate culture for those who remain from the acquired firm. Unfortunately, research has shown that leaders who focus on sequential M&A activity may not learn from the past, even when ‘‘recurring problems between people . . . often result in performance outcomes that fell far short of expectations’’ (Buono & Bowditch, 1989, pp. 7–8). A study of employee communication patterns by Wulf and Singh (2011) three years after acquisition revealed that revised workplace routines change very slowly and that an employee’s communication pattern may persist, even after an acquisition. They suggest that, as workers’ tasks across the firms become more interdependent, communication will increase, but may peak and level-off as the employees continue to integrate across the company. Different communication styles and practices can be exacerbated by a cultural difference, which in turn, ‘‘is a factor that affects individual communication style’’ (Cheng & Seeger, 2012, p. 118). BenQ–Siemens and Daimler–Chrysler AG mergers illustrate well the results of failing to take these factors into consideration. A. BenQ–Siemens In 2005 the Taiwanese BenQ Corp. acquired Germany’s Siemens mobile phone, creating the fourth largest mobile phone brand, BenQ–Siemens. The German division of BenQ sought bankruptcy protection one year after the acquisition and closed its factory doors in January, 2007. According to analysts, the substantially different cultural roots were the primary cause of the failure (Cheng & Seeger, 2012; Hofstede, 1994). One represented oriental Confucian culture, which values tradition, perseverance, and social obligations; the other the Germanic European culture, strongly focused on a strong work ethic. Leaning to the engineering viewpoint BenQ is of a collective culture and Siemens was a highly individualistic one. Another influential cultural difference is how the employees view their relationship to their superiors. The Asian culture has a very high power distance, respectful and obedient, whereas the German culture is lower in the power distance dimension, viewing the manager role as equal to the worker (Hofstede, 1994). Another key factor in the failure of this acquisition was the management decisions emerging from the collectivist Taiwanese culture. With a view toward maintaining harmony, the Siemens division executive leader was

52

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

retained, along with 2800 research employees. Had the leadership been replaced, a rapid, less-obstructed restructuring could have occurred. Communication was also cited as a significant factor for so rapid a decline. Language proficiency and cultural interpretation added to waste and a poor perception of leadership’s intentions. Fear and suspicion clouded the merger and caused the Siemens workers to distrust their new leaders, viewing them as incompetent and totally unprepared to assume their role in the German market. Weak communication from the German led to uncertainty, distrust, and turnover. BenQ did little to establish strong internal communication processes which might have reduced the fear and uncertainty. According to Cheng and Seeger, ‘‘The organization should never have assumed that the employees would understand why these transitions and changes were taking place. Poor communication only confuses employees and undermines topdown implementation’’ (p. 123). This case provides a valuable lesson about the need to communication before, during, and after an acquisition as well as the severe, at times unforeseen, influence of cultural differences. B. DaimlerChrysler AG A merger, seemingly of equals, was born 1998 and ceased to exist in 2007. Chrysler Corporation and DaimlerBenz AG appeared to produce similar products within the same industry and were of similar size. Announcement of the merger touted a collaboration that would result in Daimler–Chrysler AG, with a truly global reach (Fitzgibbon & Seeger, 2002). A year after the merger the Chrysler group experienced a drop in both sales and market share which continued in following years. As in the BenQ–Siemens case, the influence of culture was underestimated. Both companies’ communication content had to reduce the doubt that major stakeholders had in this merger; each stating that the ability to gain a global presence would not have been realized without this merger (Fitzgibbon & Seeger, 2002). To manage the doubt, company leaders articulated three communication speaking points were frequently repeated: 1. The companies formed a perfect fit due to complementary strengths, no overlap, and a shared cultural mission; 2. A global entity was created as the result of economies of scale, but with the retention of each company’s markets and unique brands; and 3. It was a marriage of equals, which reinforced that ‘‘Chrysler would be allowed to maintain its uniqueness’’ even though the new entity would be incorporated in Germany (Fitzgibbon & Seeger, p. 49).

Lessons from the Corporate World

53

These communicated metaphors were not grounded in reality which led the merger to fail. For example, the Chrysler PR department was restructured so that ‘‘all communication post-merger had to be cleared through Stuttgart, Germany,’’ making Chrysler US clearly subordinate to Germany’s Daimler Benz. Chrysler’s culture was one of transparency with stakeholders strongly embedded in its transformation. Labor and leadership had an exceptional relationship with the president of the United Auto Workers Union sitting on its board, and employees made sacrifices with pride, to save their company. With Chrysler not only collaborating, but incorporating in Germany, these cultural beliefs were being damaged (Fitzgibbon & Seeger, 2002). Elimination of 26,000 US jobs in January, 2001 changed the Chrysler group from an equal partner to a subordinate business unit under the larger German organization. The confusion and lack of confidence in the ‘‘marriage of equals’’ was an influencing factor in the stock value drop from Daimler– Chrysler’s initial value of $70 to $48 early in 2001. The intentions of both firms were sincere, but the severe cultural differences could not be resolved once its strategic path did not align with the communicated metaphors. ‘‘In many instances, the initial metaphors were increasingly inconsistent with the emerging reality’’ (Fitzgibbon & Seeger, 2002, p. 53).

C. Employee Recovery Post Acquisition Following the merger or acquisition, leaders must embrace the reasons to help the survivors recover, but self-talk may include sentiments such as, ‘‘it’s a lousy economy out there, aren’t people glad to have a job?’’ ‘‘Aren’t there others waiting in line for their jobs,’’ ‘‘people don’t want to look to the future, rather dwell on the past,’’ and ‘‘haven’t people always dealt with change and transition in organizations?’’ (Marks, 1994, pp. 22–24). These rationalizations about the solely economic relationship between employees and employers neglect the human elements that makes the culture healthy and optimizes performance. Schuler and Jackson (2001) provide a roadmap to help employees return to normalcy. They suggest the company should have:  a clear vision of the postmerger organization;  predictability in its integration strategies; and  prominent human resources handling problems quickly and sensitively, recognizing that ‘‘unmanaged cultural differences will lead to miscommunications and misunderstandings’’ (Schuler & Jackson, 2001, p. 251).

54

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

Research by Johlke, Duhan, Howell, and Wilkes (2000) revealed the difference between informal and formal communication styles and indicated that employees need both. Therefore, an essential lesson is that leaders as well as frontline managers must select an appropriate communication style, based on the situation, to ensure that employees feel connected to the organization, their managers, and each other (Solomon, 2001). ‘‘The objective of organizational revitalization is not merely to recover from transition, but to rebound with a workforce that has an enhanced capacity to operate competitively’’ (Marks, 1994, pp. 24–25).

X. Conclusion This chapter has mined the literature of M&A to gather lessons applicable to the nonprofit arena. Mergers involving major corporations such as Quaker Oats, DaimlerChrysler, and COSTCO hold serious lessons to be heeded by any leader intent on growing the audience served or hoping to cut costs through such venues. In addition to the boldest moves of merging with or acquiring another entity, there is the path of forming an alliance, a partnership, or a joint venture. As in the case of M&A, this chapter took lessons from the literature of these endeavors as well. Summarizing all that has been covered here in a few paragraphs or lists is no simple task, and the authors urge readers to formulate their own lists of lessons from this review. There may well be some lessons more relevant to particular institutions buried in this chapter than was captured in herein. What follows however are the lessons learned, which the authors chose to highlight for readers. These lessons are placed into broad categories of before, during, and after to help readers digest some of the rich content of the cases evaluated in this chapter. A. Lessons to Heed Beforehand  Look for partners where this is possible and both parties stand to benefit. Trust between potential partners is essential.  Ensure that leaders prepare their employees for change and are open about changes throughout the process. This must begin as early as possible and involve open and candid communication. In short, develop a communication plan for all stakeholders.  Be cautious about using stakeholders to perform due diligence who have no ‘‘skin’’ in the game, or who stand to gain only if the merger proceeds (such as lawyers, accountants, and consultants). There must be a high level of accountability throughout the process.  Beware of a lack of realism in doing the assessment due to preconceptions or overriding selfinterest (see previous lesson).

Lessons from the Corporate World

55

 Keep in mind from the very beginning that a merger is not a takeover. Be honest about what is being planned and call it what it is. Also recognize that the language around this entire area is imprecise and go out of the way to define and elaborate it in all messages to employees.  Understand that choosing a path of alliance or joint venture is a good first step to other types of partnerships or even mergers, while choosing an initial path of M&A carries a higher risk with many examples of failures.  Look carefully at the cultures of the involved organizations to evaluate significant differences and to optimize on the strengths of all involved. Beware of conflicting cultures that may torpedo the effort.  Document the policies, competencies, and cultures of each organization and look for overlaps to exploit. Then develop an explicit plan for achieving the expected outcomes of the venture.  Clearly articulate, understand, and communicate the benefits of, and reasons for, the alliance, partnership, merger (or whatever it is called) to all stakeholders. Make certain that they are achievable and honest (unlike DaimlerChrysler AG).  Always keep in mind that the major acquisition in any of these ventures is talent (people) and that they must be the central focus of the effort.  If it is to be an alliance of unequal partners, ensure that plans are made to ensure support and maintenance of the lesser partner through future actions and resource allocation.

B. Lessons to Apply During  Ongoing communication is a key success factor, and managers at all levels and leaders need to select the best communication vehicles for a given message or situation.  In particular, communicate openly with employees about the evaluation of progress during the process as well as the expectations that employees may have had.  Engage key stakeholders in working problems that arise throughout the process and do not overly delegate at this stage.  Assure that management aligns actions with stated values and works to establish a revised or new sense of normalcy in the changing organization.  Be aware of any potential roadblocks that emerge during the process—a big one is the ‘‘not invented here or NIH’’ syndrome.  Implement ongoing evaluation and accountability with incentives and payoffs that encourage a balanced perspective and realism in the implementation process. Use an ‘‘integration leader’’ to help communicate key issues and enact accountability through measurement of progress.  Beware of poor treatment of a partner as the process unfolds. This may occur when a merger is between ‘‘unequals’’ or is really a takeover by another name.  Ensure that leaders work to retain employees’ trust in their ability, decisions, and intentions throughout the process (see previous related lesson).

C. And After  Work to reestablish trust where it has been lost. Provide a sense of security to reduce fear and anxiety. See some lessons above for ideas to do this. Open communication and explicit expectations are two key factors in success.  Beware of, and manage the backlash of cost and postmerger cost cutting to balance the books. Such drastic actions can torpedo the effort.

56

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

D. And in General  The price of not heeding the above lessons can be quite high (literally and figuratively). Key among these lessons is the need for a comprehensive ‘‘due diligence’’ process that looks well beyond the financial statement and focuses as well on such things as understanding culture and staff attitudes.  Many acquisitions, for example, involved way too much money being paid for the target organization. Others involved moving at the wrong speed in the process (either too fast or too slow). The tempo must match the needs of the environment.  The lessons here, while emphasizing the corporate sector, apply well to nonprofits, and there is a two-way learning opportunity between and among all organizations pursuing one or more of these opportunities.  Likewise, the reasons for undertaking these endeavors are similar, although profits may be looking for profit while nonprofits may be looking for savings or enlarged reach for their missions. Nonprofits may also focus more on the ‘‘soft’’ side of outcomes or benefits, including acquiring new knowledge, staff stimulation to learn, or enhanced career opportunities.

While this chapter opens a door to the world of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and alliances and the research literature surrounding such activities, it is the tip of the iceberg in that research. It is ongoing and, despite the poor ‘‘batting average’’ for most such ventures, more and more organizations are considering and embarking on some path involving partnerships with other organizations. Nonprofits are no exception. With a faltering economy across the globe and, at the same time, a move to a more global view of marketplaces and client bases, this trend is likely to continue and the body of knowledge will also surely grow—as will the list of lessons. References Anderson, K. (2010). LYRASIS: A collaborative success story. Collaborative Librarianship, 2(2), 105–108. Retrieved from http://collaborativelibrarianship. org/index.php/jocl/article/view/85/54 Ballinger, G. A., & Schoorman, F. D. (2007). Individual reactions to leadership succession in workgroups. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 118–136. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23463887 Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2002). Managing business-to-business customer relationships following key contact employee turnover in a vendor firm. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 83–101. Breeding, M. (2005, August). SirsiDynix: The new super-sized ILS company. Smart libraries newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=11880 Breeding, M. (2012). Library technology guides: History of library automation 1968– 2011. Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/automationhistory.pl Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lessons from the Corporate World

57

Buono, A. F., Bowditch, J. L., & Lewis, J. W. (1985). When cultures collide: The anatomy of a merger. Human Relations, 38(5), 477–500. doi:10.1177/00817268 503800504 Carleton, J. R. (2009). Cultural due diligence. Retrieved from http://www.vector groupinc.com/documents/CULTURALDUEDILIGENCE.com Carson, T. C. (1999). Organizational change and strategies for turbulent environments. The Journal of Modern Business. DCPress, Craft Systems, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.dcpress.com/jmb/jmb1999.htm Cashberry. (2006, November 21). Brand culture failures: Quaker oats’ snapple: Failing to understand the essence of the brand [Web log post]. Retrieved from http:// brandfailures.blogspot.com/2006/11/brand-culture-failures-quaker-oats.html Cheng, S. S., & Seeger, M. W. (2012). Cultural differences and communication issues in international mergers and acquisitions: A case study of BenQ debacle. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(3), 116–127. Retrieved from http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_3_February_2012/12.pdf Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. doi:10.1177/001872674800100406 David, R., & Handler, M. G. (Eds.). (2001). The many faces of school-university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: Perseus. DiGeorgio, R. M. (2002a). Making mergers and acquisitions work: What we know and don’t know—Part I. Journal of Change Management, 3(2), 134–148. doi:10.1080/714042529 DiGeorgio, R. M. (2002b). Making mergers and acquisitions work: What we know and don’t know—Part II. Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 259–274. doi:10.1080/714042539 Dumon, M. (2008, November 3). Biggest merger and acquisition disasters. Investopedia. Retrieved from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/ 08/merger-acquisition-disasters.asp#axzz21BjQsmK5 EBSCO Publishing and SirsiDynix sign partnership agreement to enhance discovery for mutual customers. (2012). Contact center solutions. Retrieved from http:// callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2012/06/22/6390287.htm Ellis, K. (2011). Partnerships and collaborations in public library communities: Resources and solutions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identify in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935–957. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0211 Finkle, J. (2011, May 13). Cisco braces for biggest layoffs in its history. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE74A78K20110513 Fitzgibbon, J. E., & Seeger, M. W. (2002). Audiences and metaphors of globalization in the DaimlerChrysler AG merger. Communication Studies, 53(1), 40–55. doi:10.1080/10510970209388573 Gao, L. S., & Iyer, B. (2009). Value creation using alliances within the software industry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(6), 280–290. doi.org/ 10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.009 Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2007). Managing intentionally created communities of practice for knowledge sourcing across organizational boundaries: Insight into

58

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

the role of the CoP manager [Special issue]. The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management, 14(1), 34–49. doi:10.1108/09696470710718339 Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.). Global Reporting Initiative’st website. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hefferman, M. (2012, April 23). Why mergers fail. CBS money watch. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57411239/why-mergers-fail/ Helliwell, J. F. (2008, August). Do your employees trust you? Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved from http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/109399/YourEmployees-Trust-You.aspx Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40(1), 4–13. Imholz, S., & Arns, J. W. (2007). Worth their weight: An assessment of the evolving field of library valuation. New York, NY: Americans for Libraries Council. Jacobs, G. (2008). Constructing corporate commitment amongst remote employees: A disposition and predisposition approach [Special issue]. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(1), 42–55. doi:10.1108/1356328 0810848184 Johlke, M. C., Duhan, D. F., Howell, R. D., & Wilkes, R. W. (2000). An integrated model of sales managers’ communication practices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 263–277. doi:10.1177/0092070300282007 Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 127–136. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/ 2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy/ar/1 Kohm, A., & LaPiana, D. (2003). Strategic restructuring for nonprofit organizations: Mergers, integrations, and alliances. Westport, CT: Praeger. Krell, E. (2006, June). Do they trust you? HR Magazine, pp. 59–65. Krishnaveni, R., & Sujatha, R. (2012). Communities of practice: An influencing factor for effective knowledge transfer in organizations. The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 26–40. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/1019306109?accountid¼12142 La Piana Consulting. (n.d.). Types of strategic restructuring. Retrieved from http:// www.lapiana.org/strategic-restructuring/faqs/types-of-strategic-restructuring Lewis, J. D. (1999). Trusted partners: How companies build mutual trust and win together. New York, NY: Free Press. Loan-Clarke, J., & Preston, D. (2002). Tensions and benefits in collaborative research involving a university and another organization. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 169–185. doi:10.1080/03075070220120001 Lohr, S. (2012, January 20). Finance business helps lift G.E. profits by 6%, but revenue falls short. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2012/01/21/business/general-electric-says-quarterly-profit-rose-6.html Lufkin, P. (2006, June). Technical communication managers face many challenges. Intercom. Retrieved from http://archive.stc.org/intercom/PDFs/2006/20066_3.pdf Mackenzie, M. L. (2010). Manager communication and workplace trust: Understanding manager and employee perceptions in the e-world. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 529–541. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010. 04.001

Lessons from the Corporate World

59

Marciukaityte, D., Roskelley, K., & Wang, H. (2009). Strategic alliances by financial services firms. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1193–1199. doi:10. 1016/j.busres.2008.07.004 Marks, M. L. (1994). From turmoil to triumph: New life after mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Martins, N. (2002). A model for managing trust. International Journal of Manpower, 23(8), 754–769. doi:10.1108/01437720210453984 McLaughlin, T. A. (2010). Nonprofit mergers and alliances (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Meier, O., Missonier, A., & Soparnot, R. (2011). The evolution of the governance model in instances of highly innovative strategic mergers. Corporate Governance, 11(3), 256–273. doi:10.1108/14720701111138689 Merriman, K. K., Schmidt, S. M., & Dunlap-Hinkler, D. (2007). Profiling virtual employees: The impact of managing virtually. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(6), 6–15. doi:10.1177/107191907304244 Moatti, V. (2009). Learning to expand or expanding to learn? The role of imitation and experience in the choice among several expansion modes. European Management Journal, 27(1), 36–46. doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008. 06.001 Moskalev, S. A., & Swensen, R. B. (2007). Joint ventures around the globe from 1990–2000: Forms, types, industries, countries and ownership patterns. Review of Financial Economics, 16, 29–67. doi:10.1016/j.rfe.2006.07.02 Oberst, J. R. (2012, June 8). Navigating Biotech/Pharma mergers and acquisitions. Science, pp. 1335, 1338, 1340. Rigsbee, E. (2010). Success strategies for recently merged organizations. Retrieved from http://www.rigsbee.com/ma6.htm Ruback, R. S. (1988). An overview of takeover defenses. In A. J. Auerbach (Ed.), Mergers and acquisitions (pp. 49–67). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rusli, E.M. (2011, December 27). MetLife to sell bank deposits to GE Capital. DEALBOOK. Retrieved from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/metlifeto-sell-bank-unit-to-ge-capital/ Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (2001). HR issues and activities in mergers and acquisitions. European Management Journal, 19(3), 239–253. doi:10.1016/So2632373(01)00021-4 Shi, W., Sun, J., & Prescott, J. E. (2012). A temporal perspective of merger and acquisition and strategic alliance initiatives: Review and future direction. Journal of Management, 38(1), 164–209. doi:10.1177/0149206311415858 SirsiDynix interview: LJ talks merger with Patrick Sommers and Jack Blount. (2005, June 27). Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/ article/CA621862.html Solomon, C. M. (2001). Managing virtual teams. Workforce, 60, 62–64. Retrieved from http://www.workforce.com Soska, T. M., & Johnson Butterfield, A. K. (Eds.). (2005). Binghamton, NY: University-community partnerships: Universities in civic engagement. Haworth Social Work Practice Press. Squires, T. (2009). Library partnerships: Making connections between schools and public libraries. Medford, NJ: Information Today. Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86–92.

60

Maureen L. Mackenzie et al.

Triplett, T. (2008, April 16). Collaborating with a for-profit: Some risks but huge potential. Retrieved from http://www.fieldstonealliance.org/client/articles/Articlecollab_with_forprofit.cfm Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organization environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465. Vlamis, A. (1999). Smart leadership. New York, NY: American Management Association. Wang, L., & Zajac, E. J. (2007). Alliance or acquisition? A dyadic perspective on interfirm resource combinations. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1291– 1317. doi:10.1002/smj.638 Weiss, L., Mcphillips, S. S., & Malafi, E. (2011). Small business and the public library: Strategies for a successful partnership. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Wikipedia (n.d.). Mergers and acquisitions. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions Woodward, S., & Hendry, C. (2004). Leading and coping with change. Journal of Change Management, 4(2), 155–183. doi:10.1080/1469701042000221687 Wulf, J., & Singh, H. (2011). How do acquirers retain successful target CEOs? The role of governance. Management Science, 57(12), 2101–2114. doi:10.1287/mns. 1110.1414 Yang, H., Lin, Z., & Peng, M. W. (2011). Behind acquisitions of alliance partners: Exploratory learning, and network embededness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1069–1080. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.0767 Zweig, P., Kline, J., Forest, S., & Gudridge, K. (1995, October 30). The case against mergers. Business Week, pp. 122–130.

Roles and Impact of Overarching Agencies

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment—A View from the Council on Library and Information Resources Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract Collaboration is essential to realizing the potential of the new digital environment for learning, teaching, and research. Yet successful collaboration often entails organizational changes, political realignments, and rethinking our most basic assumptions and habits. This chapter focuses on CLIR’s current work in fostering collaboration across institutions, disciplines, and professions. It considers these activities in the context of a broader group of emergent collaborative activities that, in aggregate, could support a new and vital digital environment for research, teaching, and the public good. It then discusses a new CLIR activity designed to address the prerequisites for collaboration, and for coherence at scale. Keywords: Collaboration; CLIR; leadership; higher education; libraries; digital environments

I. Introduction In discussions of the 21st-century research library, the concept of collaboration is often presented in positive terms. Many view it as an optimal outcome that rewards participants by allowing them to achieve goals unachievable by a single group or institution; they tout the value of the greater extensibility and the easier adoption of projects, as well as the more subtle perquisites of increased trust and deeper knowledge. There is no question that collaboration is essential in the new digital environment. But we need to keep in mind that although collaboration can open new ways of doing business, it often entails organizational changes, different political

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036006

63

64

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

alignments, and in the most extreme cases a thorough rethinking of our basic assumptions and habits. This chapter opens with an overview of several types of constraints to collaboration. It continues with an examination of three established CLIR activities that are designed to foster collaboration across institutions, disciplines, and professions. It then looks at a broader group of emergent collaborative activities that, in aggregate, could support a new and vital digital environment for research, teaching, and the public good. In this respect, collaboration has a distinctly transcendent quality. A new digital ecology for higher education can develop only within a complex social context of deferential behavior in pursuit of mutually agreed-to ends. An individual institution is incapable of such achievement; indeed, the insistence on the primacy of local benefit and the burnishing of a singular institutional ‘‘brand’’ so popular today render larger scale projects impossible. Finally, the chapter discusses a new CLIR activity that seeks to address the prerequisites for collaboration and for coherence at scale. CLIR was founded on the notion that the most vexing problems confronting academic and research libraries could be addressed only through collaboration among institutions, between professions, and across disciplines. The earliest expression of this idea may have come from Louis B. Wright, founder of CLIR’s predecessor organization, the Council on Library Resources (CLR). In correspondence with the Ford Foundation in 1954, Wright expressed his concern that university libraries were competing with one another and were spending large sums of money in the process (Marcum, 1995). In her study of CLR’s founding, former CLR and CLIR President Deanna Marcum writes, ‘‘The Council on Library Resources was born from his [Wright’s] conviction that research libraries faced serious problems that required a new overarching organization built on intellect and conviction, not on pretentious notions about professionalism or representation of the various segments of the population’’ (p. 2). Now, as then, CLIR works at the nexus of libraries, scholarship, and technology. Its values statement conveys this focus: CLIR promotes forward-looking collaborative solutions that transcend disciplinary, institutional, professional, and geographic boundaries in support of the public good. As noted in the CLIR publication, No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st Century (2008a), the future of the research library cannot be considered apart from the future of the academic community as a whole. Researchers are asking new questions and are developing new methodological approaches and intellectual strategies. These new methods may require new models of scholarly communication that, in turn, have profound

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

65

consequences for academic publications. It is difficult to imagine traditional printed books and journals adequately capturing these novel approaches. As methods of communication change, the procedures, skills, and expertise that libraries need to manage them, will change as well. The collaborative projects discussed in this chapter are elements of an emerging fabric of higher education that is often anchored in the library. Thus, the library in the 21st century will both profoundly influence and be profoundly influenced by the transformation of scholarship and research, as well as by changes in the traditional organizational structure of a university.

II. Constraints to Collaboration Higher education poses pervasive and longstanding challenges to the broadbased collaborations that will be necessary to realize a new, dynamic system of knowledge management. Fundamental aspects of higher education—its organization, its guilds, and its general academic culture—can run strongly counter to a functional interdependency. A. Organizational Constraints Universities and colleges often define themselves by exclusivity and singularity of purpose. They compete against each other; they compare and contrast themselves with one another; and they hold tightly to their idiosyncrasies as defining elements of their status. The tension between these inherited conceptual notions of separate, particular, and solitary and a networked infrastructure of information that has no ‘‘place’’ is palpable. At present, neither libraries nor universities are structured, organized, or funded to achieve the kind of federated and collaborative enterprise that the digital environment can provide. B. Societal Constraints In higher education, societal constraints on collaboration can involve key aspects of academic culture—features that have been tested and approved, and that represent some of the strengths of universities and colleges. Their widely shared methods of promotion and tenure are a good example. Individuals are promoted by virtue of their influence within a discipline or field of inquiry. The discipline has no single institutional basis, but is widely distributed in the form of departments, academic societies, and centers across

66

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

the world that are somewhat analogous to guilds or confraternities of a particular craft (e.g., literary theory, art history, genomics, computer science). The earliest universities at Paris, Oxford, and Bologna were originally guilds of students, and the model resonates today. Two aspects of the current disciplinary organization of higher education are notable in the constraints that they impose on the development of a new digital environment. The first aspect, under the heading of what might be termed ‘‘traditional knowledge,’’ is their conservatism. Although digital technology has been rapidly evolving since the 1960s, and the World Wide Web has been up for nearly 20 years, many academic disciplines, particularly in the humanities, continue to promote and reward their members primarily for analog productions (e.g., books, articles) with little acknowledgment of new or emerging forms of scholarly expression. The second aspect is the difficulty in identifying leadership. With such a diversified range of institutions, it is nearly impossible for anyone or even a small group to adequately represent and speak for a field of study. C. Industry Constraints Another constraint on an innovative, shared digital environment is the forprofit publishing industry. Decades ago, higher education outsourced its research production to corporate-owned journals and publishing companies. As a result, higher education is in a peculiar position. It spends billions of dollars on laboratories, libraries, and other aspects of physical infrastructure to conduct research. The research produced is given to the publishers of books and journals and then bought back by universities at an often exorbitant price. Thus, universities essentially pay many times over for the research that they originally funded. A well-managed digital environment in which research is conducted and published by the universities themselves would seriously threaten the current model, but would save higher education a tremendous amount of money over time. D. Technology Constraints The constraints posed by technology in building out a digital environment are not that complex. Correlating large projects at an early stage of development and focusing on interoperable architectures, with an eye to migration and planned obsolescence, would be productive and cost-effective. The social, cultural, and organizational constraints appear by far to be the most inhibiting.

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

67

III. Programs in Collaboration Wright’s observations at CLR’s founding are as relevant now as they were then. Today, we find ourselves in a constellation of academic villages that is redundant and expensive, highly competitive, and fragmented by deeply rooted local perspectives and objectives. In response, CLIR has sought to invest in larger scale consortial activities that can effectively reduce costs while enhancing the infrastructure and service provision for scholarship and teaching. Common to these efforts are strong regional coalitions that bring together diverse institutions within a national framework; the federation of shared resources and interests, including collections, technology, and expertise; and a genuine, volitional dependency on other participating institutions for the provision of what was once a locally owned and managed asset. CLIR’s three most significant established activities in this regard are the Digital Library Federation (DLF); the Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program; and the Postdoctoral Fellowship in Academic Libraries Program, including the specialized cohort on data curation. Each embodies intensive collaboration across many institutions, to the effect that each is a project of national scope and influence. While these programs have made progress in tackling the constraints noted earlier, it is important to emphasize that fundamental change takes time. The programs, especially DLF and the Postdoctoral Fellowship program, have evolved organically, and will continue to do so in response to the demands and opportunities of a changing environment.

A. Digital Library Federation Formed in 1995 by 15 of the nation’s largest research libraries and archives and the Commission on Preservation and Access,1 which served as its administrative home, the aim of the DLF (initially called the National Digital Library Federation) was to create a distributed, open, digital library. In support of that goal, the DLF was to ‘‘establish a collaborative management structure, develop a coordinated funding strategy, and formulate selection guidelines to ensure conformance to the general theme of U.S. heritage and culture’’ (Commission on Preservation and Access, 1995, p. 1). The DLF would also adopt common standards and best practices to ensure full informational capture and guarantee universal accessibility. 1 The Commission on Preservation and Access merged with the Council on Library Resources in 1997 to form the Council on Library and Information Resources.

68

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

By 2009, the organization had grown to an international membershipbased group of some 42 institutions and had broken away from CLIR to become an independent organization. Its agenda, which initially focused on digital content and systems, had grown to encompass emergent domains such as mobile access, the Semantic Web, moving images, and cyber infrastructure. In 2009, a survey of member directors was conducted in conjunction with a review of the organization’s focus and impact. Respondents highlighted the work that the DLF had conducted in the areas of standards and best practices—areas such as the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, the Electronic Resource Management Initiative, and integrated library system interoperability. They noted that the organization had ‘‘played a valued role as a convener and, occasionally, as a catalyst around digital issues, bringing senior leadership of research library and affiliated organizations together’’ (Digital Library Federation Review Committee, 2009, p. 3). The character of the organization was summarized in the following survey commentary: DLF is one of those places where we can as a community converge on best practices without a top-down approach. The organic growth of these best practices through experimentation, collaboration, and discussion is in this area generally much more effective than the ‘‘get a bunch of experts together to tell everyone else what to do’’ approach. DLF is instrumental in facilitating the former. (Digital Library Federation Review Committee, 2009, p. 4)

Although the convening and catalyst roles of the DLF were valued, there was pressure for the organization to do more with the results of its efforts; however, this would require more robust staffing. Recognition of this constraint, as well as an acknowledgment that the digital library landscape had matured and concerns about redundancy with other organizations’ strategic plans, led reviewers to conclude that ‘‘with the current governance structure and constitution of DLF as an independent organization, DLF is no longer positioned to fulfill the ambitious agenda it once set’’ (Digital Library Federation Review Committee, 2009, p. 6). It was recommended that the DLF move back into CLIR, where it would become an integral part of CLIR’s program agenda. Today, the DLF is a member-driven program within CLIR that aims to build and support a robust, engaged community whose members share an interest in advancing digital libraries. With a current membership of about 70, the DLF serves as a resource and catalyst for collaboration among digital library developers, project managers, and all who are invested in digital library issues. Its staff members are integral partners in a range of collaborative activities, including planning for the Digital Public Library of

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

69

America. The DLF has also forged collaborative working agreements with CenterNet, the Taiga Forum, and DuraSpace, among other organizations. Most DLF members are already active collaborators in numerous projects. The DLF seeks to leverage that engagement through a range of interest groups—from data curation to project managers to linked open data—for members. It seeks to bring these experiences and involvements to bear in facilitated conversations, thus exerting a traditional strength. The DLF Forum and the E-Science Institute are two examples of these approaches. 1. DLF Forum A signature activity of the DLF has been its annual Forum, described on the DLF web site as a working meeting where staff both from member institutions and from the larger community come together ‘‘to do better work through sharing and collaboration’’ (Digital Library Federation, n.d.). The Forum provides an opportunity for digital library practitioners to share experiences and practices. DLF Program Director Rachel Frick notes, ‘‘For successful collaboration, you have to know what people are doing. At what point do you contribute? When is the right moment in the song for your voice? The Forum provides that opportunity’’ (personal communication, July 30, 2012). As a result of DLF’s affiliation with CenterNet, there has been greater participation of the digital humanities community in the Forum, which has helped link that community with the digital library community. Each year, DLF members vote on topics to be covered at the Forum. For the 2012 Forum, the highest ranked proposal was titled ‘‘Landscape of Digital Humanities Librarianship,’’ evidence that the affiliation has had an impact on the awareness of the digital library community. Frick notes that the Forum is a place where participants are willing to talk openly about the challenges that they have encountered. ‘‘At conferences, people don’t always talk about failure,’’ she notes. ‘‘The Forum helps prepare the groundwork for successful conversations—to allow a conversation where we ask, ‘How can we improve?’’’ (personal communication, July 30, 2012). 2. E-Science Institute Initiated by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) with the DLF in the fall of 2011, the E-Science Institute is another example of preparing for successful conversations and subsequent action. The Institute aims to help libraries ‘‘develop strategies for engaging with e-science and digital research on their campuses and collaboratively’’ (Council on Library and Information

70

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

Resources, 2012a). Although the two organizations have many members in common, ARL’s main constituency is made up of library directors and administrators, whereas DLF’s is made up primarily of operational staff. Bringing the two communities together in the E-Science Institute has enabled participants to advance the conversation in a way that would not have been possible otherwise. The addition of DuraSpace as a sponsor this year will further enrich the collaboration by bringing in international and information architecture audiences. According to Frick, among the greatest rewards of facilitating a successful conversation is bringing members of diverse groups to a common understanding of vocabulary and to a shared understanding of a problem. Community-driven collaboration comes from the commitment and contributions of individuals. ‘‘The key is to have a continuity of conversation, so that everyone has an ‘aha’ moment at the same time. That is the ‘big win,’ ’’ she says (personal communication, July 30, 2012). Since its formation in 1995, the DLF has matured in its ability to support collaboration among its members. Frick notes, ‘‘In each of these collaborations, there is an added level of frustration, but the scale of things— publications, research data, preservation, access, discovery, visualization of data—require us to work together. You have to be more aware and intentional with communication and fully understand the other stakeholders’ investments. But if we go alone, we will fail’’ (personal communication, July 30, 2012). B. Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program Administered by CLIR with funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program supports the cataloging of unprocessed collections of high scholarly value for which there is no current means of intellectual access. The program made its first round of annual awards in 2008 and has since awarded more than $16 million to more than 65 projects at a variety of cultural heritage institutions. Awards have been granted to academic libraries, public libraries, historical societies, museums, and other types of organizations. The types of materials cataloged include books, manuscripts, audio and visual recordings, maps, artifacts, architectural or engineering drawings, data sets, and specimens. The new Hidden Collections Registry, built upon data received through the program’s request for proposals, reflects this diversity. The program was launched on the recognition that libraries, archives, and cultural institutions hold millions of items that have never been adequately described and are therefore unknown and inaccessible to scholars.

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

71

In its original proposal to Mellon for program funding, CLIR argued that the problem of hidden collections owes much to professionals’ rigid adherence to traditional approaches to description and their resistance to implementing new national standards, vocabularies, or web-based technologies that support federated searching of catalogs. CLIR noted, The shift to understanding the hidden collections problem as a national responsibility entails an acknowledgment that for the twenty-first century collaboration, coordination, and coherence of response of cultural institutions to the community of users is fundamental and takes precedence over local practice. (Council on Library and Information Resources, 2008b, p. 2)

The primary criterion the program has used to evaluate projects for funding is their potential national impact on scholarship and teaching. The second and third criteria are innovative or highly efficient approaches to description that could serve as models for others; and the adoption of workflow and outreach practices that maximize connections to scholar and other user communities. In addition, the panel requires application of description standards that would provide interoperability and longterm sustainability for project data in the online environment. Most U.S.-based, not-for-profit cultural heritage institutions are eligible for the program. The program emphasizes cross-institutional collaborations for the dual benefits of increasing project efficiency and broadening user access. In some cases, the program has enabled collaborations among institutions that previously would not have thought about collaboration (in such cases, the review panel may have suggested the collaboration when they evaluated applications that came from institutions with complementary materials). Collaborations have paired large and small schools, as well as academic institutions and historical societies. For example, Lehigh University paired with the Moravian Archives to process a selection of collections documenting the diversity of the Moravian community. Collaboration in Cataloging, a project managed by the University of Michigan Library, demonstrates a successful collaboration with the community. According to the project description, it centers on the ‘‘creation and deployment of a complex, database-driven web site that will provide unified access to bibliographic records and digital surrogates for 1250 Islamic manuscripts. It will also facilitate the gathering of informative and insightful commentary from scholars on campus, across the country, and around the world, and expose in real time the dynamic enrichment of bibliographic information as project staff and scholars interact with the system.’’

72

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

The Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries (PACSCL) was already established when it applied for the Hidden Collections award, but even so the award subsequently had a significant influence on the ways in which many of the participating institutions managed their archive and manuscript collections. According to PACSCL’s final report to CLIR, ‘‘More than half reported that they were either adopting or adapting standards for arranging and describing collections that were developed through the project’’ (University of Pennsylvania Libraries, 2012). While providing incentive and means for inter-institutional collaboration, the Hidden Collections Program has also sought to engage scholars with librarians and archivists. Through the work of the Scholarly Engagement Study Team, a small group of scholars have been working with CLIR program staff to document the ways in which recipient institutions reach out to scholars and other expert users of their collections. The program has helped draw attention to the need for national collaboration, coordination, and coherence of response to the challenge of hidden collections. Since 2008, librarians, archivists, and curators have become increasingly open to more efficient, standardized, and collaborative approaches to creating access to their collections. A survey of award recipients in May 2012 found that on the whole, the program is serving the needs it was designed to meet. One respondent noted, ‘‘The assessment methods put into place for the CLIR project have been used across our other functions with the result that we have improved the efficiency and effectiveness of our whole operation . . . [W]e are now teaching assessment methods to others regionally and nationally.’’ Another noted that the program had ‘‘unexpectedly allowed us to engage with a whole new part of the university and wider community by bringing in people with an interest in history, anthropology, art, and photography to offer their help with our project.’’ A respondent in yet another institution reported that ‘‘project funding has allowed us to partner with other institutions and show value in that collaboration’’ (Council on Library and Information Resources, 2012b, August 15). The Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program has been part of an even larger series of developments and changes that have moved the cultural heritage professions toward more sustainable, coordinated collections management. Most recently, the importance of incorporating digitized and born digital content into this management philosophy has gained recognition, along with an awareness that the blending of digital content, digital surrogates of analog content, and descriptions of analog content within an effective online research environment demands a rethinking of institutional priorities, funding patterns, and staffing strategies throughout the higher education and cultural heritage sectors.

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

73

CLIR has begun to reflect on the changes affecting the role of hidden special collections and archives in the digital research environment and to imagine how the Hidden Collections Program might respond to these changes in ways that encourage greater efficiency and coherence while decreasing redundancy across institutional and national borders.

C. Postdoctoral Fellowship in Academic Libraries and Digital Curation Fellowship CLIR launched the Postdoctoral Fellowship in Academic Libraries Program in 2004 to bring scholars with research, teaching, and technical experience into the academic library to forge and strengthen connections between academic library collections and their users. The program grew from a belief that it is necessary to educate scholars about the challenges and opportunities created by new forms of scholarly research and the information resources, both traditional and digital, that can support them. It also had as one of its key aims the development of a cadre of leaders with the potential to help undergird the aging library administrative community. During one- or two-year fellowship appointments at academic libraries, fellows have opportunities to develop new research and teaching resources, build digital collections, collaborate with information specialists, and explore new career opportunities. Host libraries benefit from the expertise of recent Ph.D.s who can suggest new approaches to collection use and teaching, contribute field-specific knowledge, and provide insight into the future of scholarship. ‘‘A Fellow is positioned to view the work of academic libraries from the invaluable perspective of one who is well-informed about research and instructional needs in the academy but not predisposed to favor traditional definitions of ‘librarian’ or ‘library work’,’’ notes former CLIR postdoctoral fellow Marta Brunner (2009, p. 3). As of May 2012, the project had supported 64 fellows, and 26 host institutions had participated, including not only academic libraries such as Yale, Princeton, and North Carolina State, but also the Appalachian College Association; the College of Physicians of Philadelphia; and the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. At their host institutions, fellows engage in a range of activities, the diversity of which is illustrated by the following examples of current fellows’ work:  At Bryn Mawr College, Jennifer Redmond is managing a digital project that will promote the use of archival materials on the history of women’s education in teaching and scholarship worldwide. She is creating a new research portal that will also provide a number of teaching resources.

74

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

 At the University of Pennsylvania, Mitch Fraas is assessing faculty-generated digital projects in order to establish relevant services to meet faculty needs. He is also working with faculty to gain a better understanding of their use of courseware and other educational technologies and to determine how the library can help implement and support those technologies.  At the University of California, Los Angeles, Peter Broadwell is planning and developing the delivery of collection content and information services to humanities and social sciences scholars as part of a major programmatic redesign for the Charles E. Young Research Library.  At McMaster University, Jason Brodeur is helping to oversee data management plans for the library, including how it acquires, codes, organizes, and distributes research data within its collection. He is also teaching a number of courses on earth and environmental sciences, the area of his expertise, and is working to develop Google Earth-based modules for outreach and education in physical geography and geology.

Fellows often mention that the opportunity to collaborate with library staff has had a profound impact on their understanding of the ways that research is organized and kept, and of the critical partnership between scholars and librarians. ‘‘During the period of the CLIR fellowship, I expanded my knowledge of digital projects and came to better appreciate the collaborative relationship between scholars and librarians as co-creators and as disseminators of knowledge,’’ notes 2008 fellow Wesley Raabe. Several CLIR postdoctoral fellows have written extensively about their collaborative experiences (see, e.g., Norcia, 2008; Rentfrow, 2007, 2008). Some fellows have gone on to obtain a master’s degree in library and information science. A key feature of the program is a one- to two-week summer seminar for new fellows. Led by Elliott Shore, chief information officer at Bryn Mawr College and CLIR Presidential Fellow for Leadership Programs, the seminar introduces the fellows to issues facing libraries today and to a cohort of colleagues who can share experiences and information. The seminar includes some former postdoctoral fellows and supervisors from host institutions as well. At the 2012 seminar, supervisors were asked to share their views on the program. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) has hosted postdoctoral fellows for the past four years. ‘‘CLIR postdocs bring a lot to the conversation,’’ says Katherine Walter, professor and chair of digital initiatives and special collections in the UNL libraries. ‘‘In the libraries we have a number of people who have Ph.D.s, but they tend more to be in the social sciences and in the sciences. By bringing in humanists, in particular, it has really helped us on humanities research projects.’’ She adds that the program ‘‘is important enough that we wanted to seek endowment funding to help support bringing in these fellows, and we have recently received an endowment from Lawrence and Susan Wood that will pay for a portion of the postdoctoral fellowship’’ (personal communication, July 25, 2012).

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

75

In the spring of 2012, CLIR initiated within the fellowship program a new track specifically focused on data curation for the sciences and social sciences. Although scholarship increasingly involves the creation and use of digital data, few scholars have formal training in data management practices, nor do they think about the long-term preservation of their data, according to a recent study by Jahnke and Asher (2012). Large-scale corpora require large-scale collaboration in their curation, design, and ongoing management as technical capacities and theories of knowledge organization evolve in tandem. The CLIR/DLF Data Curation Fellowship Program seeks to address the need for sound data management practices throughout the academic community. To establish good practices, it will be necessary for libraries and other research support units to develop expertise in planning, structuring, collecting, maintaining, and reusing research data on both large and small scales and across traditional disciplinary divides. ‘‘Having people who are interdisciplinary in focus is absolutely key to advancing the trust and collaborative relationships that are needed to really move things along,’’ notes Beth Plale, professor in the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University (personal communication, July 25, 2012). We tend to bring our own perspectives into things. I bring a perspective on scientific data; I know the data quite well. When I compare that with someone on the library science side that understands the limitations there, we together can develop a solution that satisfies the needs of both sides. That pairing is absolutely critical. This postdoc [program] satisfies that interdisciplinary expertise really well. (Personal communication, July 25, 2012)

Like most collaborative efforts, the fellowship program has faced its share of challenges. Shore notes, Because most CLIR fellows arrive at their host institution without library degrees, they are not surprised when members of the library professional staff approach them with skepticism. However, resistance invariably turns to collaboration once everyone focuses on the work to be done and the language, subject, information technology, and teaching skills that the fellow brings to the table. (2008, p. 6)

The culture of the library profession is different from that of academics, thus requiring adjustment on both sides. Jennifer Redmond, CLIR Postdoctoral Fellow and director of the Albert M. Greenfield Digital Center for the History of Women’s Education, says that the most challenging aspect of the fellowship has been ‘‘adjusting to a library culture and the way that people work . . . it is less free form than standard academic ways of working’’ (personal communication, July 25, 2012).

76

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

Host libraries must consider how and where the fellow will bring the most value to the organization and should involve other staff members in these discussions, according to Marta Brunner: Libraries need to think carefully about how to use CLIR fellows in ways that capitalize on their unique sets of expertise and perspectives. As with other library decisions that may challenge existing staffing expectations—e.g., reorganizing a unit or creating an entirely new position—a crucial factor in the success of such change is to give others in the organization an opportunity to buy into the project by allowing them to identify ways in which this new individual or position or reorganization could improve the work of the library, identifying projects or goals that could be accomplished with this new change in place that could not have been accomplished without it. (Brunner, 2009, p. 22)

Libraries are viewed as trusted and neutral institutions that serve all disciplines, but their challenge is to understand the research methods used by various fields of study. CLIR’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program aims to foster productive collaboration between the professions and disciplines for the benefit of libraries and scholarship.

IV. An Emerging Information Ecology Whereas the DLF, the Hidden Collections Program, and the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program represent major CLIR activities, CLIR has also contributed to an array of other projects that have the potential to create genuine interdependencies that could redefine our academic environment. These projects, summarized in the following paragraphs, offer educational organizations and institutions an opportunity to build new bases of support; reach new constituencies; cultivate funding agencies; and build lasting, mutually sustaining connections between the public and private sectors. A. Digital Public Library of America The aim of the Digital Public Library of America (n.d.) (DPLA) is to make the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity available, free of charge, to all. The DPLA planning initiative was launched in December 2010 with support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the secretariat is based at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. In October 2011, a twoyear process of extensive community involvement and organization began with the goal of creating a work plan to launch the DPLA, as well as identifying a prototype of the system with specially digitized materials. CLIR’s DLF program assembled one of 60 teams participating in a DPLA

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

77

‘‘beta sprint’’—a call for ideas and models of ways in which the DPLA might index and provide access to a wider range of broadly distributed content. The primary activities of the DPLA are taking place in six work streams to define (1) consensus-driven next steps in audience and participation, (2) content and scope, (3) financial and business models, (4) governance, (5) legal issues, and (6) technical aspects. DLF Program Director Rachel Frick cochairs the content and scope work stream, which addresses questions relating to the management of and access to distributed materials, research, and data curation in order to identify content and articulate a collection development policy for the DPLA. CLIR President Charles Henry serves on the DPLA steering committee. B. Linked Data Linked data offers libraries, universities, and scholarly projects an improved ability to cross-search, discover, share, and connect digital information. Linked data has the potential to align and federate digital resources across thousands of institutions and, therefore, is an aspect of large-scale solutions that CLIR has placed at the core of its mission. With funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, CLIR worked with Stanford University Libraries on a workshop and report analyzing projects and programs that use Semantic Web, Linked Data, and Resource Description Framework (RDF) Triples technologies—elements critical to a linked data environment that will enable improved discovery and navigation across multiple information genres and formats. The workshop and report aim to help focus the national agenda for developing Linked Data environments, reduce redundancy of effort, and create a more sophisticated context in which practitioners and planners can develop future projects. C. Digital Preservation Network Currently being created by a group of research-intensive universities to ensure long-term preservation of the complete digital scholarly record, the Digital Preservation Network (DPN) has three strategic objectives: (1) to ensure higher education’s ownership and control of scholarly production by engaging the community’s intellectual, personnel, and financial resources in the creation, curation, and stewardship of human knowledge; (2) to achieve efficiencies by leveraging existing expertise and investments of higher education in the preservation of and access to the scholarly record in all formats; and (3) to build and maintain robust infrastructure at scale for longterm data management, including preservation and access systems that are

78

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

able to keep pace with innovations in content, technology, and scholarly practices over time. CLIR contributed advice and strategic direction at the project’s inception and continues to support development of the DPN. D. Digging into Data Challenge A groundbreaking program initiated by the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities and cofunded by eight agencies in the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Digging into Data Challenge focuses on collaborations with humanists and engineers/computer scientists to explore new ways of using and conducting research with large data sets. The Digging into Data Challenge represents a leading edge of the digital humanities; research often entails new methodologies and intellectual strategies that are nonetheless grounded in traditional humanistic areas of focus (e.g., the nature of authorship, continuity of concepts over time, the social context of artistic expression). These projects often generate tremendous amounts of data, with questions about the preservation, maintenance, and curation of those data identical to the issues currently challenging the sciences. In 2012, CLIR published the first public appraisal of the Digging into Data Challenge, the result of two years of site visits, interviews, and focus group sessions to learn how these complex international projects were being managed, what challenges they faced, and what project teams were learning from the experience. E. Anvil Academic Publishing CLIR and the National Institute for Technology in Education (NITLE) cosponsor Anvil Academic Publishing, which was launched in February 2012. The venture is initially driven by the needs of humanities scholars and is largely devoted to publishing new forms of scholarly expression and research produced through new methodologies and intellectual strategies. The new press is concerned with the whole cycle of scholarly communication—from inception of ideas, through original research, the products of that research, the relationship of data to publishing, and the preservation of the scholarly record. Anvil Academic Publishing will also develop and test new revenue models for sustaining scholarly argument in an emerging digital world. All of Anvil’s scholarly works will conform to the standards and protocols articulated by the DPLA; Anvil’s works will also be consistent with the technical requirements of Europeana and Open Access Publishing in the European Network (OAPEN) guidelines.

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

79

F. Medical Heritage Library Digital Collaborative A partnership of nine institutions, the Medical Heritage Library Digital Collaborative strives to connect collections in the history of medicine in an open access digital environment. These institutions possess a wealth of physicians’ papers, correspondence, institutional records, books, and images integral to understanding the history and social context of Western medicine. The collections have been geographically and technologically isolated from one another, which has presented significant obstacles for researchers in the study of the medical humanities. Furthermore, the highly specific nature of medical language presents a challenge for linking primary sources, secondary literature, and data sets. The group plans to improve discovery across disciplines by using concept mapping and other semantic technologies. Digitally linking collections across institutions will expand access to underutilized materials and create a partnership model for engaging scholars in a multi-institutional collaboration. Former CLIR postdoctoral fellow Lori Jahnke was a chief organizer of the effort and served as committee chair, as did CLIR President Charles Henry and Presidential Fellow Elliott Shore. Although not directly involved with the following two activities, CLIR works closely with the organizing institutions and supports the projects as key components of an emerging national digital landscape. G. Kuali A growing number of universities and colleges have joined with commercial partners to form the Kuali Foundation, which builds and sustains open source software for higher education, by higher education. Kuali Foundation community members pool resources to develop and sustain many of the software systems needed for higher education in order to reduce costs and get systems that better fit collective needs. All submitted work is open to the world, fulfilling the public service mission of colleges and universities, and collaboratively sharing the best practices and insights that reduce costs beyond legacy approaches to purchased software. H. HathiTrust The purpose of the HathiTrust is to collect, organize, preserve, communicate, and share the record of human knowledge. To this end, the goals of the project include:  building a reliable and increasingly comprehensive digital archive of library materials converted from print that is co-owned and managed by a number of academic institutions;

80

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

 dramatically improving access to these materials in ways that, first and foremost, meet the needs of the co-owning institutions;  helping preserve these important human records by creating reliable and accessible electronic representations;  stimulating redoubled efforts to coordinate shared storage strategies among libraries, thus reducing long-term capital and operating costs of libraries associated with the storage and care of print collections;  creating and sustaining this ‘‘public good’’ in a way that mitigates the problem of free-riders;  creating a technical framework that is simultaneously responsive to members through the centralized creation of functionality and sufficiently open to the creation of tools and services not created by the central organization.

The foregoing activity descriptions embody almost all aspects of knowledge discovery, management, preservation, promulgation, access, and reuse. The Digital Public Library of America will make openly available much of the cultural record, including science data and research. The postdoctoral program will bring scholars productively into the process of data management. The Digital Preservation Network allows for information to be securely housed and preserved over time. Anvil Academic Publishing brings to light new forms of scholarly expression and segments of the entire set of information layers that are used to produce that scholarship; many of those informational strata can, in turn, be made secure through the DPN. The Hidden Collections Registry can be used to identify the collections and materials of highest import to scholars and to set priorities for digitizing those materials. The digital surrogates can then be made available through the DPLA, secured in the DPN, and used for new scholarship through Anvil. The digital scans created by the Hidden Collections Program can also be housed in the HathiTrust, as can objects published through Anvil. The history of science can be addressed through the Medical Heritage Digital Collaborative, providing an invaluable stream of information into these various repositories. The MHDC information can also be mapped onto new scientific and medical data sets for an especially rich historical digital library. The DLF can support the joint development of best practices and standards and through its community has direct involvement with many of these initiatives.

V. Committee on Coherence at Scale in Higher Education How can we efficiently manage the range of national level projects to communicate with one another, share design and architecture where appropriate, and over time evolve in a faceted, interrelated environment? CLIR’s initial

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

81

response is to form a small, flexible, and representative committee to study this phenomenon in detail. Such a committee can help ensure the coherent development of the various parts of the emerging digital environment in such a way that benefits higher education, improves scholarly productivity and teaching, and is cost-effective and sustainable. The committee has the following charge: Research: The projects noted in the previous section will be analyzed to better determine their technical platforms, architecture, logic of composition, goals, and rate of adoption. Problems and constraints will also be researched. In addition, other projects at scale (e.g., Europeana and various national digital libraries) will be analyzed. Modeling: Experts will be convened to model various options of multiple large-scale project integration and coherence. Technology: The technologies requisite for longer-term sustainability will be explored; application programming interfaces and methods of interoperable connectivity will be considered. Business Models: The initial costs of building the projects, the costs of interlinking them, and the savings to higher education over time will be modeled. Governance: Various governance models for the proposed environment, if appropriate, will be discussed. Governance of the project entities will also be assessed. Benefits and Transformational Aspects: The committee will articulate the perceived and, over time, the substantiated benefits to research productivity and pedagogy, organizational efficiencies, new methods of research, new fields of study that may be instigated by the digital environment, and related changes deemed to be positive outcomes. Promulgation: The committee’s work, its analyses, benchmarks, and studies will be made public. Essays on the importance of establishing a coherent digital ecology for higher education will be routinely shared. This work will likely involve the creation of new communities, virtual organizations that transcend geographic and institutional boundaries. The communities would be structured to facilitate new research and teaching in an environment that is not only locally grounded and independent, but also cooperative across the entire disciplinary enterprise. The multitude of stakeholders who will have a vested interest in the success of a coherently designed digital environment include young scholars conducting new modes of research, advanced programs in preservation and

82

Charles J. Henry and Kathlin Smith

interpretation, creators of new digital tools and resources, corporations and industry, university publishers, data curation centers, scholarly societies, liberal arts centers, programs in support of pedagogy, foundations, university presidents and provosts, public libraries, government document centers, science centers, social science centers, and library schools.

VI. Conclusion From a strategic vantage point, there is no ambiguity: The future of higher education rests on our ability to reconceive ourselves holistically, with the various components of scholarly information—discovering, reconstituting, publishing, and sharing knowledge, and keeping its various manifestations securely preserved and accessible—understood as interrelated and interdependent. The next two decades could witness great activity among universities and colleges focused on repositioning, consolidation, and convergence. Higher education could make enormous contributions to ensure its vitality, expanding its capacity for future discovery and reimagining our cultural heritage without compromising its exactitude and rigor. The skills to bring together dozens or hundreds of institutions, different professional perspectives, multiple disciplinary methods, and disparate stakeholders to achieve a cohesive ecology—in a word, leadership—are even more daunting. Without question, exceptional individuals have already stepped forward and have generously and tirelessly brought us to innovation and creative rethinking. But the greater challenge is to educate leaders who can sustain these efforts and help them evolve—individuals who can appropriate the complex methods of collaboration and foster the interdependency that is critical to our future. It may be that the most salient contribution CLIR can provide in support of future generations is to exemplify and pass on the qualities and character of leadership requisite for a startlingly new medium and context for the life of the mind. References Brunner, M. (2009). Ph.D. holders in the academic library: The CLIR Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/05j228r4 #page-3 Commission on Preservation and Access. (1995, June). National Digital Library Federation agreement signed. CPA Newsletter, (80). Retrieved from http:// www.clir.org/pubs/archives/cpanews/cpanews.html/cpanl80.html

With Other Minds: Collaboration in a New Environment

83

Council on Library and Information Resources. (2008a). No brief candle: Reconceiving research libraries for the 21st century. CLIR Publication No. 142. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub142/reports/ pub142/pub142.pdf Council on Library and Information Resources. (2008b). CLIR Proposal to The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation: Cataloging hidden special collections and archives: Building a scholarly environment. Washington, DC: Author. Council on Library and Information Resources (2012a, June 5). Announcing 2012 ARL/DLF/DuraSpace E-Science Institute [News release]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/about/news/pressrelease/escience-inst Council on Library and Information Resources. (2012b). Proposal to The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation: Cataloging hidden special collections and archives (Appendix 4). Washington, DC: Author. Digital Library Federation. (n.d.). DLF forums. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.diglib.org/forums/ Digital Library Federation Review Committee. (2009). Final report and recommendations. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: Author. Digital Public Library of America. (n.d.). About the DPLA. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://dp.la/about/ Jahnke, L. M., & Asher, A. (2012). The problem of data: Data management and curation practices among university researchers. In L. Jahnke, A. Asher & S. D. C. Keralis (Eds.), The problem of data (n.p.). CLIR publication No. 154. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved from http:// www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub154/contents Marcum, D. (1995, March). Reclaiming the research library: The founding of the Council on Library Resources. Paper presented at the Library History Seminar, Tuscaloosa, AL. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/about/history/CLRhistory DM95.pdf/view Norcia, M. A. (2008). Out of the ivory tower endlessly rocking: Collaborating across disciplines and professions to promote student learning in the digital Archive. Pedagogy, 8(1), 91–114. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type= summary&url=/journals/pedagogy/v008/8.1norcia.pdf Rentfrow, D. (2007). The content of collaboration. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(3), 8–9. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/content-collaboration Rentfrow, D. (2008). Groundskeepers, gatekeepers, and guides: How to change faculty perceptions of librarians and ensure the future of the research library. In Council on Research and Library Information Resources, No brief candle: Reconceiving research libraries for the 21st century (n.p.). Washington, DC: Council on Library Resources. Shore, E. (2008). CLIR Fellows share experiences as ‘hybrid’ professionals. CLIR Issues, 61(1), 5–6. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues61.html/ #fell University of Pennsylvania Libraries. (2012, May). PACSCL hidden collections in the Philadelphia area: A consortial processing and cataloging initiative: Final report to the Council on Library and Information Resources. Unpublished report. University Park, PA: Author.

Regional Library Networks and OCLC: From Collaboration and Interdependence to Conflict and Divorce Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells Jordan Wells Associates, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Abstract After decades of successful, if not always smooth, working relationships with regional library networks in the United States, Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), Inc., with approval of amended articles of incorporation in 2008, it implemented significant changes in how it would price its products and services and how it would govern itself. These changes proved to have profound impact on the networks, precipitating the merger of many and the dissolution of some. This chapter describes the results of many interviews with past and present leaders of OCLC and the regional networks, both existing and defunct, and other knowledgeable individuals. The contrasting opinions on how the changes came about and their consequences offer a perspective on the evolution and then decline of some of the powerful consortial relationships of the last four decades. Keywords: Library networks; OCLC; mergers; OCLC expansion; demise of library regional networks

I. Introduction The history of OCLC’s first forty years and the roles played by the US regional networks in its growth have been well documented. Maciuszko (1984) covered in great detail OCLC’s first decade of development, and compilations edited by OCLC presidents Smith (1998) and Jordan (2009a, 2009b) updated and elaborated upon the unprecedented success of the cooperative and the challenges facing it. Brunell (1998), in a chapter in the Smith volume, provides a useful summary of what he termed ‘‘The Strategic Alliance’’ between OCLC and the regional service providers and their areas of

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036007

85

86

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

cooperation and conflict. Bailey-Hainer’s (2009) piece for the Jordan review is an equally valuable contribution detailing the significant changes in OCLCnetwork relationships during a tumultuous decade. Revisiting the topic of OCLC and its affiliates, particularly only a few years after the last treatment, would seem excessive if not for the dramatic developments that have taken place recently and the upheaval in what was once a reasonably stable environment. While of necessity some of the history of the networks and their symbiotic connections with OCLC are found in the pages that follow, retreading old ground is not the intent here. Nor is the purpose to explore intricacies of the OCLC organization to explain how these affected relationships with former partners. Instead, this is a reporting, with some analysis, of the perspectives of individuals significantly involved in the changes or of knowledgeable observers of the OCLC scene. Leaders having long histories with OCLC and/or the regional networks were interviewed and their observations were compared with each other and set in context. The varying, and at times conflicting, views of a number of individuals instrumental in the creation, redefinition, and demise of the regional networks and in the development of OCLC into a global information enterprise are presented here.

II. Network Numbers, Definitions, and Differences In her review of the OCLC regional service providers Bailey-Hainer (2009) identified 15 independent organizations partnering with OCLC to provide its products and services. At various times and depending upon how an OCLC affiliate was defined, different authors have reported the precise number of regional networks differently. OCLC President and Chief Executive Officer Jay Jordan has written that, ‘‘since 1971, there have been 26 regional service providers that have contracted with OCLC to provide services to libraries in the United States’’ (2009a, 2009b, p. 759). He, too, cited 15 providers functioning at the end of the decade. By 2012 there were seven. Nine networks effected mergers resulting in three separate entities and one went out of existence entirely. One can no longer be considered a network in the normal use of that term. Four others remain, but along with their merged counterparts face what can be best described as uncertain futures. The story behind that significant reduction in network numbers in but three years, and the changes and consequences for these former OCLC affiliates, is one of controversy and conflict, and one still very much in dispute. Woodsworth (1991) defined regional networks as ‘‘organizations that facilitate the services of the bibliographical network . . . [serving] as distributors and mediators between [those] networks and their member libraries’’

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

87

(pp. 2–3). She observed that these regionals could be defined by library type, geography, political jurisdiction, and sometimes simultaneously as multi-type. In any consideration of the regional membership organizations that facilitated the delivery of OCLC services, it is important to understand their significant differences in structure, size, funding, governance, programming, and staffing, even at a time early in their relationships with OCLC. In the late 1980s, library membership in regional networks ranged from 1200 at one (approximately half that number were OCLC users and contributors) to 65 at another. Amigos, the multi-state collaborative based in the southwestern United States, and the Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) each had full-time equivalent staffs of 55. There were approximately five full-time equivalent (FTE) employees at the Nebraska Library Commission (NEBASE) (Woodsworth, 1991). Some of the regionals were single-state entities such as the Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority (INCOLSA) and the Minnesota Interlibrary Telecommunications Exchange (MINITEX); others, notably Amigos and SOLINET, serviced vast geographical areas. Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR) programs dated from 1935; the Missouri Library Network Corporation (MLNC) was established in 1981. Most were private nonprofits but others were units of government agencies. Thus none can be viewed as having identical characteristics, history, or even mission. What they did have in common was the provision of OCLC services, and, as OCLC pursued changes in the historical arrangements it had with these networks, the consequences of those changes were profound.

III. History and Development Regional affiliates either came into existence because the then Ohio College Library Center mandated their creation as a condition of providing its cataloging services to libraries outside of Ohio, or in the case of those networks in existence before OCLC was founded, distribution of OCLC services was undertaken because this was the only way their member libraries could obtain such. It is a bit unclear if it was OCLC’s founding President Fred Kilgour’s intent from the beginning to create a national (or even international) information utility centered in Ohio. Some say he saw the Ohio College Library Center as but one node on an interconnected network and that replication of OCLC’s operations and services elsewhere by other groups of libraries, organizations, or governmental entities was what was initially planned. Others argue that from the outset Kilgour had in mind a much larger, multi-state cataloging and resource sharing cooperative with an

88

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

Ohio hub (Maciuszko, 1984), but that economic, legal, and political constraints forced the path taken. ‘‘OCLC’s legal advisors had decided that the terms of the original charter made extending membership to individual libraries outside Ohio illegal’’ (Brunell, 1998, p. 22). In an article on governance of the cooperative, Larry Alford, current chair of the OCLC board of directors, flatly states that Kilgour ‘‘envisioned OCLC as a truly global enterprise from the beginning’’ (Alford, 1998, p. 571). He quotes Kilgour as saying ‘‘the awkward system of independent regional networks using the OCLC system’’ came into being because ‘‘membership . . . would not approve operation outside Ohio’’ and that three-year agreements with ‘‘several library networks already in existence and with new networks . . . ’’ anticipated these affiliates ‘‘operating independently by the end of the three years. Such was not to be.’’ Thus developed a system ‘‘that has plagued OCLC, the networks, and participating libraries ever since’’ (Alford, 2009, p. 572). Kilgour’s use of the words ‘‘awkward’’ and ‘‘plagued’’ in 1983 is rather telling given what was to occur two decades later. Early on, it became apparent that if libraries joined OCLC individually the organization would have an unmanageable number of members. Thus, when its charter was revised and approved by the Ohio membership, libraries outside the state seeking OCLC services were directed to form regional organizations or to join existing ones. This was done, some suggest, in order to ensure that the fledging organization didn’t overextend itself. Networks were made responsible for allocation of the limited number of terminals available for connecting via leased lines to Columbus, letting them sort out how many machines would go to which libraries, rather than having those determinations made in Ohio. Networks consolidated telecommunication traffic. They billed for services provided. Generally speaking, they mediated how OCLC services were made available to individual member institutions. According to one interviewee, libraries wanted to obtain services at a pace OCLC could not handle because of the time-consuming training that was necessary. The relatively small number of OCLC staff could not provide adequate training for the number of libraries clamoring to be brought on the system. Additionally, the MARC record format (released in 1968) was relatively new and most library staff members were unsophisticated users of technology. No infrastructure for billing existed, at least not on the scale that would have been necessary without network intermediaries. Direct billing by OCLC would have been very difficult. The regional networks were essential to permit OCLC to offer its shared cataloging to other libraries at a measured pace and in a manner that would not impact existing members in a negative way. A former OCLC staffer observed that capacity management was a major issue in those early years. Despite this cautious approach, due to the nature of

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

89

telecommunications at the time (dial-up modems) and cost considerations, rationing of terminals still was necessary and significant delays in response time were not uncommon occurrences over the first decade. Provision of products and services through regional networks proved a very successful arrangement for both OCLC and its affiliates for over the quarter century starting in the mid-1970s. OCLC’s growth was phenomenal and while relationships with their giant partner were at times rocky, the networks profited as well. Both large and small, they gained considerably from their association with the world’s largest information utility. As exclusive providers within their regions of OCLC products and services that were heavily and continuously in demand, the networks were able to levy surcharges on sale of those products and services, thereby realizing stable and ever growing revenues. (In the early days of affiliation with OCLC the chief financial officer of one of the larger regional networks was heard to laughingly remark that he didn’t know what FTUs were, but he surely liked what they did. He was commenting on the principal way through which the networks generated revenue, that is, by surcharges levied on their member libraries for first-time use of the OCLC-shared cataloging system.) At one network these charges ranged from 12–20 percent of what OCLC billed. Networks justified these add-on fees on the basis of the important and essential services provided by network staff in billing, marketing, training, technology, and other areas.

IV. Developing Tensions Despite the mutually beneficial arrangement between OCLC and these regional partners, tensions soon came to the fore. Two long-time network managers observed that conflict existed from the outset (‘‘battles from the beginning,’’ was a term used), particularly between the larger networks and OCLC. One person attributed this more to quality of leadership in the regional groups and at OCLC at the time, implying many of the contentious issues might have been worked through had there been more competent and conciliatory staff in positions of authority. Another indicated that a power imbalance existed initially in favor of the networks. Despite having been instrumental in creation of some of the networks, and certainly the cause of substantial revenue for them all, OCLC could not dictate its desires. It was not yet the cash-rich, multinational conglomerate it would evolve into in later years, and its early weaknesses made OCLC very dependent upon what might be termed its distributors or agents. This situation troubled early

90

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

OCLC management, but there was little that could be done to redress it at the time. In due course, however, the imbalance would be reversed. A former for-profit competitor, not unsympathetic to OCLC, suggested that clashes between the regionals and OCLC were inevitable. Any organization providing products and services through independent agents, over which it does not have direct authority, sooner or later seeks greater control of sales and service processes. Businesses, and in the view of many of those interviewed OCLC is a business, will always seek to penetrate markets in the most cost-effective ways possible. They want direct access to customers and to the profits derived through that access. While at first they might depend upon distributors and agents to be successful, ultimately they seek to maintain their own marketing message, to work more directly with those to whom they make sales, and to reap the benefits of doing so.

V. Issues Particular points of dispute over a number of years centered on competition and product offerings, pricing, and most especially, ownership of the database that was to become WorldCats. Regional network leadership and staff rightly saw the welfare of their members as primary. It was their first and foremost duty to advance the interests of their libraries. Initially, those interests centered mainly on provision of OCLC services and this effectively entailed the network functioning as a distributor. While the inherent conflict between the two roles—that of membership organization obtaining a service for libraries and distributor/agent for the provider of that service— may not have been evident, or even particularly significant, at the outset, it increasingly came to the fore as OCLC sought to grow the collaborative and as the regionals protectively asserted what they saw as the legitimate desires of their members. The conflict was made eminently more complex with those regionals receiving a goodly portion of their operating revenues through provision of OCLC products and services. OCLC’s income ultimately came from the library members of the networks and to further complicate matters; the libraries saw themselves as integral to the creation of the vast catalog of holdings that was the OCLC union catalog. Libraries were both customers of OCLC and creators of its principal resource. A. Copyright When OCLC asserted its intent to copyright the database of union holdings during the presidency of Rowland Brown in the 1980s, the dispute over

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

91

organizational ownership versus community property brought to a head one of the major differences in point of view between the regionals (and their library members) and OCLC management (Dougherty, 1985). The issues of ownership and conditions of use of the union catalog—later WorldCats— remained contentious into the presidencies of both of Brown’s successors. B. Pricing Clashes between OCLC and the networks over pricing of products occurred regularly. Consulting studies commissioned by OCLC suggested there was a real problem in having different libraries pay differing amounts for similar OCLC services (Oder, 2009c). Comparisons by libraries of what they were paying led to questions about why there were such differences. The variations were a consequence of the surcharges being levied, surcharges network proponents point out, that members in diverse networks with unique needs and interests levied upon themselves. C. Competition and Product Offerings A major area of conflict was the offering of products competitive with OCLC’s by some of the networks. They saw an obligation to make available whatever their members sought at the lowest price possible. If those products happened to be in competition with those of OCLC, so be it. They were not merely distributors for OCLC, they said, but organizations with a vested interest in the success of their libraries. And, went the argument, when OCLC used overseas representatives for sales, it did not insist on exclusivity. OCLC also argued with the regionals over which of its offerings might be made available directly to libraries without network involvement, thereby precluding markups. It was accused of using its size and financial clout to prevent networks from selling certain products and services of for-profit vendors or developing their own if they were possible alternatives to those of OCLC. Seen from the view of an early regional network board member, OCLC was very ‘‘heavy-handed in its relationships.’’ OCLC’s response was that the networks could provide competitive offerings if they wished; they should not, however, then levy surcharges on the basic OCLC services and thereby support an infrastructure that in part undercut the collaborative. A frequent refrain heard from the network people interviewed was that OCLC staff leadership did not understand the importance for OCLC of the regionals or their significant role in promoting interlibrary collaboration, something OCLC benefited from. Under appreciated as well, it was said, was the extent to which the regionals insulated OCLC from the many demands

92

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

and complexities of dealing with large and diverse library consumer groups. Networks mediated between OCLC and their members, at times making more palatable the programmatic changes that OCLC was instituting. In the words of a former network executive, they were protective of OCLC. These middlemen did not simply pass on products and services and impose charges for doing so. While always looking after the interests of their members, they kept before them their important partnership with OCLC.

VI. Changing the Relationship These and other differences inexorably led to changes in the long-standing and formerly productive, if not always amicable, relationship between the regionals and their partner. Kilgour’s comments about the ‘‘awkward system’’ plaguing his organization, the networks, and the libraries suggest that OCLC’s founding father would have changed the arrangements early on if he could have. Its current president Jay Jordan, well versed in OCLC history and Kilgour’s writings and work, encountered many of the same issues and conflicts, and along with his board sought to address them. Significant changes were instituted in the pricing and governance structures that were to have an enormously debilitating impact on all of the regional networks. A. Pricing and Billing National standardized pricing was announced as OCLC policy effective July 1, 2009. OCLC reported the new pricing model as fairer for all libraries and one that would lead to less expense for many. Indeed, one library reported its expenses dropped by as much as 10 percent when it dealt directly with OCLC. The networks viewed the matter in an entirely different light. With some of them greatly dependent upon the income realized from surcharges, their future was bleak. Even those with less reliance on this source of revenue would take major budgetary hits as the result of the new policy. SOLINET, for example, which had already diversified into income producing areas of activity such as database licensing and preservation programming, was reported to be projecting a 2010 budget cut of one third under the new pricing system (Oder, 2009b). With new pricing and other changes associated with the billing process, OCLC reportedly sought to address another potential problem it believed to be rooted in the arrangements it had with the networks. A senior OCLC staffer pointed out that OCLC had no ability to assess the financial stability of individual networks and that in the case of those that might have cash

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

93

flow issues, advance payment for OCLC services paid to the network, but not yet forwarded to OCLC, would be a tempting source of revenue to assist networks in any difficulty. While OCLC could deny service to the libraries for payments not rendered by a network, doing so likely would have significant public relation implications. Thus, OCLC identified another argument for a more direct relationship with the libraries. B. Governance and Representation Changes in OCLC’s governance and representational structure also were in the offing. A major thrust of the organization in the first decade of the 21st century was expansion of OCLC’s presence internationally. To become a truly global enterprise, penetration into every corner of the globe and growth of WorldCats to encompass all major languages, and many others, was essential. In 1979, the Alberta (Canada) Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission became the first member of OCLC outside the United States (Schieber, 2009). In 1997 OCLC had membership in 64 countries (Nevins, 1998). By 2012, member libraries could be found in 170 countries, almost a threefold increase in fifteen years. With international expansion came an effort to involve more librarians from other countries in OCLC work. In 2008 councils dividing the world into major regions were created: a Council of the Americas; a Council of Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and a Council of Asia and Australia and the Pacific. From these three groups representatives are elected to a Global Council, which replaced the former Members Council that had dated from 2001, itself having supplanted the previously named Users Council. Some have suggested that internationalization was a driving force, or even a root cause of the change and conflict that developed between OCLC and the regional networks. That may be reaching a bit far given the more compelling disagreements over pricing, surcharges, competition, and ownership, but as one leader in the new structure observed, OCLC’s international thrust was something of a catalyst for change and it certainly added to the complexity of governance. The move to new council structures effectively eliminated the regional networks from OCLC governance. US libraries went from dominating the Members Council to becoming participants in but one of three area-based councils. And election to even that body, the Council of the Americas, was on the basis of individual library membership in OCLC, not through affiliation with a network. No longer could US libraries influence OCLC direction by block voting based upon regional or other preferences, as they could when council slots were calculated based upon the number of libraries in the

94

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

network and their contributions to the OCLC database and use of OCLC services. Network dominance of governance was at an end. The refrain from all network proponents interviewed was that imposition of these changes—at least in the way they were carried out— showed that at a minimum OCLC did not understand the importance of what the networks did for libraries, for OCLC, and for collaboration generally. The aforementioned for-profit vendor said that in its search for new revenues OCLC changed decades-long relationships with the networks that had been born out of necessity but were no longer required. ‘‘They squeezed out the middle guys,’’ he said. Others were harsher in their assessment. OCLC’s intent, they said, was simply to rid itself of these unnecessary appendages and it did so without concern for the consequences. A former administrator of a now defunct regional said that OCLC sought nothing less than the destruction of the overall library network infrastructure in the United States.

VII. Dissolutions and Mergers So facing extinction or drastically reduced budgets, and not having the ability any longer to forestall changes through the governance structure, the networks began planning for significant downsizing of their operations, and merger talks among them ensued. Beginning in the spring of 2009 regional networks engaged in a series of unprecedented combinations resulting in decades-old organizations disappearing outright. From nearly twenty OCLC regional service providers extant in the 1970s, to sixteen or so in the 1990s, the number on July 1, 2012, was seven. The demise or merger of cooperative library organizations—both those which offered OCLC services and others—did not begin in 2009, of course. In the early 1990s the Pittsburgh Regional Library Center (PRLC), among the first group of libraries outside Ohio to contract for OCLC services, became part of PALINET (the acronym for the Philadelphia Area Library Network, although with its reach into Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, West Virginia, and other areas of Pennsylvania PALINET’s membership went far beyond the Philadelphia environs). The Washington Library Network (WLN) merged with OCLC in 1999. CAPCON (originally, the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area), having fallen into significant financial difficulty, ceased to exist in 2003. It was taken over by OCLC at the request of the CAPCON board. According to accounts of individuals on both sides of the arrangement, OCLC managed this acquisition in a professional way, and if not exactly in a disinterested

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

95

fashion, one certainly to the satisfaction of an organization that was in a highly precarious position. Another cooperative, The Research Libraries Group (RLG), while very different from the regional library networks of interest here, became an important part of OCLC’s growth and program development when the two organizations merged in 2006. However, the mergers and dissolutions that ensued following OCLC’s announcement of pricing changes proved to be unlike any that had come before. In February 2008 PALINET and SOLINET announced plans to combine their operations. Their merger on April 1, 2009 was termed ‘‘a regional powerhouse’’ by Library Journal’s Norman Oder (2009a, n.p.). Shortly thereafter the New England Library Network (NELINET) board voted to join LYRASIS, the newly formed organization resulting from the PALINET– SOLINET marriage. Nylink which shut its doors in 2011 (known as SUNY/ OCLC until 1999) was a State University of New York-based organization through which OCLC services were provided to libraries in New York and some institutions in nearby states. NEBASE discontinued operations on July 1, 2009. Its 141 members moved to BCR. With BCR’s dissolution at the end of 2010, LYRASIS extended its reach into the western United States by enlisting some of that consortium’s membership. The Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS) was formed through the merger of the INCOLSA and the Michigan Library Consortium (MLC) in February 2010. The most recent combination saw Amigos incorporated MLNC into its organization on July 1, 2012. Table 1 depicts network dissolution and mergers from 1995 through 2012. Note that PRLC merged with PALINET in 1995 which subsequently merged to form LYRASIS in 2008. It remains to be seen if further mergers or dissolutions will come about, particularly of the smaller, state-based entities. Further consolidation is possible for the same reason it has occurred in recent years: cost savings through the operational efficiencies that come about in mergers. Mackenzie et al. (2013) compiled a range of reasons for mergers and collaborations and their successes and failures in the corporate and nonprofit world, many of which are applicable to what happened among the regional networks. The library networks that merged touted benefits such as furthering collaboration, developing innovative technologies, expanding programming, leveraging a larger membership base, and generally, the strength in numbers that would come through combining their organizations. But in every case financial considerations were cited as a critical motivation prompting the change. With the large drop in OCLC-based revenues the regionals had little choice but to retrench, retool, grow bigger, or close up shop altogether. Mergers do not occur without demanding challenges for all involved and at significant cost for some. Prime among these is the necessity of combining,

96

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

Table 1 U.S.Regional Networks as of January 2013 with Merger Dates AMIGOS MLNC (2012) FEDLINK ILLINET/OCLC LYRASIS PALINET (2008) PRLC (1995) SOLINET (2008) NELINET (2008) MCLS INCOLSA (2010) MLC (2010) MINITEX OHIONET WiLS ------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -BCR discontinued operation in 2010 with many of its members joining LYRASIS. NEBASE dissolved in 2009 and its member libraries became part of BCR. CAPCON operations were merged into those of OCLC in 2003. ILLINET/OCLC is funded and managed by the Illinois State Library. MINITEX is a multitype, state funded network. Nylink (formerly SUNY/OCLC) was formally dissolved in 2011. OHIONET and WiLS are membership based networks which provide OCLC access.

and in most cases, eliminating staff. Operational efficiencies are realized in large measure by downsizing personnel. In mergers people lose jobs, and that has been so in the combination of networks that have taken place thus far. Such is likely to be the case for some time into the future. In bringing together two or more autonomous and long-standing organizations, difficult tasks have to take place: Differing financial and dues models have to be reconciled; Varied services and varying ways of providing similar services have to be considered; Distinctly different methods of operation have to be integrated; and Rallying—or energizing, as one executive put it—the combined set of employees (and in the case of the networks, the combined memberships) has to occur.

Whether big or small, be it a two-network linkage or the bringing together of multiple organizations, the changes that must occur are complex

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

97

and they frequently fail. See MacKenzie et al. (2013) for examples of mergers that did not succeed and the reasons for such. The combinations that have taken place among the regional networks are too recent to speculate about the likelihood of success or failure, but managers of the newly merged networks would be well advised to consider the lessons learned in the research identified on this topic.

VIII. Technology and Demise of the Networks An issue raised with a number of the library leaders interviewed was the impact technological developments had on network/OCLC relationships. An unequivocal response from one library director was that developing technology and consequent availability to OCLC of other options for delivering its products and services killed the networks. If that is something of an overstatement, it is safe to say that 21st-century technologies certainly enabled implementation of OCLC’s agenda in ways that would have been impossible in earlier decades. Technologies simply were not in place in the 1970s and 1980s for OCLC to perform its functions without intermediaries. By the end of the century it could communicate rapidly and directly with individual libraries worldwide. Libraries that had joined regional networks to obtain OCLC services and products were able to get them as easily, and in many cases more economically, directly from OCLC. Cataloging records could be shared and interlibrary loan could be conducted without network middlemen. Because of evolutionary technological change OCLC could conduct training online, manage its billing and other finances matters more inexpensively and efficiently, and market its products more effectively without involvement of agents, brokers, or other representatives not under its employment. Regional networks, vitally important, and the backbone of the OCLC system for more than three decades became redundant. Interviewee after interviewee cited the ability to go directly to obtain OCLC services, thereby foregoing costs of network membership, as central to network demise. Budgets, never large enough to meet all needs, made library management decisions to bypass the networks easier and defensible. While not the entire story, technology was certainly a central component of it.

IX. The Losses The question, ‘‘What has been lost as a result of the changed relationships?’’ was posed to interviewees. An obvious answer for the networks is revenue,

98

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

resulting in oblivion for some of them. But if that question pertains to libraries and librarians who formerly interfaced with OCLC through a network, one response is that in many places there no longer exists an organization of knowledgeable people relatively nearby who know your library and its needs, who can represent you well to distant Dublin, Ohio, and who have your interests first in mind. For OCLC one loss is something a number of people on both sides of the issue mentioned: there no longer is local touch. Despite deployment of an expanded sales team, by many accounts OCLC has not been able to match the effectiveness of former regional network staff members. And sales staff, some would add, even if they are local, are not the same as employees of a smaller organization committed to serving you. Another asset no longer available, though it might ultimately develop on a broader international scale through the new representational system, is what might be termed network ‘‘farm teams.’’ Again and again interviewees mentioned the value to OCLC of having highly capable individuals identified on the local or regional level, who can be elected or appointed to OCLC representative bodies, and go on to make important contributions in the upper councils of the collaborative. Without the networks, there is less opportunity for upcoming, talented librarians to prove themselves locally or regionally and be sent forward to the ‘‘big leagues.’’ The concept of membership, and of library commitment to a higher collaborative purpose, is something OCLC may have jeopardized, as well. An OCLC board member said flatly the organization had lost the loyalty of members. It would seem libraries are unlikely to embrace OCLC in the same way as they did through their regional networks. As far back as the 1980s, OCLC was viewed by many as a vendor (Woodsworth). A research library director said he has viewed OCLC as a for-profit company for many, many years. ‘‘It is a corporation, a facade of a not-for-profit.’’ The former chief administrator of another large academic library stated that member libraries were not invested in OCLC as they were in the regionals. He contrasted OCLC to the large organization that is the American Library Association, and to the smaller institutionally based Association of Research Libraries, both with obviously strong commitments to their memberships. There is a fine line between being viewed as a customer and being considered a member, he said, clearly conveying that OCLC views libraries as customers first. Finally, it is clear from conversations with many of those interviewed that OCLC has lost some degree of goodwill through the process that altered the arrangements with the regional networks. It is not an overstatement to say there is disappointment among everyone who had been close to the networks, and even bitterness for some, about how matters were handled.

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

99

Whether that ultimately matters and, if it does, whether OCLC can recover from its effects, remains to be seen.

X. Uncertain Futures In considering where the seven remaining regional networks that had offered OCLC services might now be headed, few interviewed were optimistic about the outlook. One person saw most of these networks going out of existence within five years, with the possibility that smaller ones, or those associated with state agencies, might survive, if they could come up with some unique product or service, unlikely in his view. The single-state networks might have to look for partnerships to remain viable. Similar to what occurred with OCLC, commissions to the remaining networks for sales of the products of other vendors are being cut, impacting revenue streams. There simply isn’t a market for these organizations. Others agreed. Only Amigos and LYRASIS remain as service providers to large regions. But neither of these, suggested one former executive, has truly viable business plans. They still hang on as middlemen. Another longtime observer said the only chance for Amigos and LYRASIS to survive is to become more entrepreneurial and offer increasingly unique value to their memberships. They need to study their competition, and at least in the case of LYRASIS, that competition is OCLC itself. The smaller networks, no longer having the financial base of surcharges for OCLC services, will have to continue to downsize and yet at the same time offer more meaningful and new products to their libraries. He too said that the larger ones (Amigos and LYRASIS) must either pursue drastically different business models or go up directly against OCLC. One interviewee said the verdict is still out. It is difficult to redefine roles and rebuild member loyalties, but offering products and services that fill needs can help do so. More optimistically, Kate Nevins, Chief Executive Officer of LYRASIS, suggests the possibility ‘‘of strong regional and local programming’’ resulting from the consolidations that have occurred and ‘‘the potential to be a national organization, with a series of regional hubs and regional programming’’ (Oder, 2009c, n.p.). Another executive said there is now a more manageable business relationship with OCLC. The networks have been released to think more broadly about how they might best serve their members. The CEO of one of the remaining networks answered a question about the future by saying these organizations are member-based and have to be member-focused. They will continue to exist only if their members support

100

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

them. But are those members already voting with their feet? A significant number of libraries that were members of regional networks solely to obtain OCLC services and products decided not to join one of the merged organizations. One director, when asked if his library would continue its membership in the newly combined organization, replied he was not sure. His library had been a founding member of one of the constituent networks making up the new organization, and he had represented it in the OCLC governance structure for many years. For now the library retained its membership in the merged entity out of old loyalties rather than the conviction there was local benefit in doing so. And therein lies a significant problem for the remaining networks. In tough economic times, library leaders generally have less of a commitment to collaborative endeavors, unless they see immediate local benefit. Also, as an OCLC board member suggested, there is significant competition coming from other organizations for the time and attention of librarians and for any financial resources that might support professional involvement. Many of these other organizations are deemed more important to the local library’s well-being. The library environment is far more complex and much more interconnected with other segments of the information community than was the case in the 1970s and the 1980s, and the demise of the regionals might in part be attributed to attention focused elsewhere. An insightful observation by an individual with experience at OCLC and at a regional network is that the current generation of library leadership seems to have less of a commitment to collaboration, at least to efforts that do not have measureable and relatively short-term local benefit. This may be an unfair characterization of a new crop of talented, well-trained library managers faced with difficult choices about where to expend limited resources, but when coupled with the observation about competing demands from other, possibly more locally relevant, organizations, it is worth considering in any assessment of the future of the former OCLC affiliates. If accurate, such a development should give OCLC pause, as well. The interviewee making the comment about newer library leadership suggested many current library directors have not had the heady history of participation in the revolutionary upheaval that OCLC represented decades ago. While OCLC is viewed as an important organization by this new generation, commitment of the type that earlier librarians had is less evident. How to revive that spirit of engagement in a common, very meaningful, high-minded, professional purpose is certainly something OCLC leadership should have as a high priority. OCLC also must deal with the necessity of retaining (or rebuilding) the ideal of membership that in the past was fostered and enabled by the

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

101

regionals. The old networks were in a much better position to promote the advantages of collaborative membership—not just what a library obtained from its regional but what it got from OCLC—because they had staff who were local and had the ability to understand individual library needs and to interpret those needs to OCLC. With the demise or reconfiguration of the networks OCLC needs to actively promote its value to individual libraries and to the profession. That is not an easy task. In creating its new representational structure OCLC is attempting replication of the former Members Council on an international scale. That is understandable and in keeping with its effort to provide products and services worldwide. In doing so, however, OCLC faces the challenge of developing a concept of membership familiar, and in the past reasonably acceptable, to US libraries, but one relatively unknown in the rest of the world. OCLC is viewed by libraries outside North America as simply a vendor. One network director stated that ‘‘membership’’ in OCLC is meaningless in an international context (and now only meaningful to those in US libraries who want to be involved in the OCLC hierarchy and governance). Librarians in other countries, it was said, understand for-profit corporations doing business in the library and information world and they know what non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are set up to do. What they have difficulty grasping are the purposes of a not-for-profit, tax-exempt, supposedly membership-based institution that in their view does make profits. OCLC president Jordan has pointed out that in those cases where OCLC is in competition with for-profit entities it pays appropriate taxes on revenues realized (End of an era, 2012, n.p.). But to many this suggests that OCLC operates as two separate—and what should be distinct—entities. It has been proposed that OCLC divide itself into a for-profit business and a not-for-profit membership organization (Fister, 2010). If OCLC is not to take this approach, then significant work has to be done to convince librarians outside the United States that these two aspects of its operations are not mutually exclusive, but indeed enhance one another. Carrying out these efforts will require a major and costly commitment to management of public relations and to customer service that cannot be merely an add-on to the sale of products and services. Simply sending out existing staff to extoll the value OCLC brings to libraries and to the profession while they seek sales will not work. An acerbic critic said OCLC views relationship management as marketing and customer service as closing a sale. Instead, a sustained and extensive effort by new or reassigned staff dedicated to the purpose of demonstrating the critical importance of OCLC to the advancement of libraries and librarianship will be necessary. In other words, what is needed is an ongoing commitment by the organization’s

102

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

senior management, its board, and staff to convey OCLC contributions to the profession and to society through what Alford (2009) termed its ‘‘pro bono’’ work. ‘‘Invest in the promotion of cooperation,’’ was the advice of a former leader involved in OCLC’s governance. This would be an expensive undertaking if done in the right way. Some interviewees doubt that OCLC is ready to make such an investment.

XI. What If? Whether the disappointment, ill will, and outright anger that surrounded implementation of the pricing and governance changes might have been avoided through some action on the part of the networks, or a different approach by OCLC, cannot be known. Participants in the process suggest things could have proceeded more amicably, even if no one believes everyone would have been totally satisfied. Some network partisans acknowledge change in the relationship was unavoidable. If that change had been carried out differently, though, there might have been less rancor. Some suggest OCLC management and staff were greatly frustrated in dealing with the network diversity in size, management, and operation. One of OCLC’s most vociferous critics conceded there was some validity to its claim of problems with inconsistent network management. Variation in levying surcharges and reluctance to negotiate differences on how products and services would be offered and priced were mentioned as issues. This critic said the networks might have been more understanding of the problems these differences caused and perhaps been more accommodating. Another person agreed that the networks might have attempted some standardization of the charges they added to OCLC products and said that they could have sought mergers among themselves prior to being required to do so. One suggested that the networks did not make the case for their importance and value to OCLC well enough, that instead of promoting and supporting OCLC as strongly as they could, they decided to move off in other directions, diversifying and thereby further complicating relationships. OCLC, however, was roundly criticized for how it implemented the changes it saw as essential. Again and again it was stated that had there been more and better consultation, painful change might have been accepted less grudgingly, even if not enthusiastically. Such criticism came not only from the networks, but also from inside the organization itself. It was said that OCLC could have done a better job of explaining why the offer of competing products by regional networks was harmful to OCLC and the profession. For-profit vendors take resources from librarianship, it was said, while OCLC

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

103

plows earnings back into it, not just through creation of products and services libraries need, but through research, development, analytic reports, and other contributions of great value to libraries and librarianship. Even OCLC president Jordan has acknowledged some ‘‘disappointments,’’ although his comments weren’t directed specifically at relationships with the networks. ‘‘We could have done better on communications—I think we could have done much better in communicating our positions and why we took them. And sometimes we took the wrong position’’ (End of an era, 2012, n.p.). A consultant very familiar with OCLC and its history offered the opinion that the networks had outlived their usefulness, that while important in an earlier time, their value to OCLC and to libraries had passed. He made the interesting observation, however, that OCLC might have avoided much of the controversy it became embroiled in had it attempted to acquire some of the regionals, perhaps turning them into service centers, thus merging their operations into its own. A former network executive agreed, saying that while this would have taken more time and effort, doing so would have paid off by avoiding the bad feelings resulting from network closures and forced mergers. Others said this view was unrealistic. OCLC was uninterested in acquisitions of any of the regionals, said one. The response from an OCLC official when the question about this possibility was broached was that no network approached OCLC to discuss a take-over as, for example, CAPCON had done in 2002. By and large, however, the commonly held view is that the breakup would have taken place regardless of how it was handled. In the words of one executive, ‘‘The marriage couldn’t be saved.’’ The networks valued their autonomy too greatly to submit to what they felt were OCLC’s unreasonable expectations of them. The series of clashes over the years, especially during the last decade, eroded the trust that would have been necessary to seek other solutions. Too many lines were drawn in the sand too early, said one person, and no one knew how to gracefully erase them. A network leader expressed sadness that the differences could not be worked out satisfactorily. She said it was a significant failure for all concerned and ironic that library professionals who pride themselves on collaboration and sharing, on reasonableness and concern for the greater good, could not reach common ground.

XII. Alliance No More Few would dispute that establishment of OCLC by the institutions of higher education in Ohio in 1967 was a milestone in the history of libraries. The

104

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

decision to rapidly expand the organization to encompass more than academic libraries and to reach beyond the boundaries of that single state led to creation of the largest information and scholarly database in the world. Resource sharing was enabled in an unparalleled way by the existence of that database and by systems fostering its use. Today, with the involvement of thousands of libraries around the globe, the OCLC collaborative continues to build an enormously valuable commodity that is essential to scholarship, teaching, information access, and recreation. OCLC, through its funding of research, disaster relief, awards, conferences, professional development, online learning, and ground-breaking reports on the positive impact of libraries on society, is certainly seen by most to be a force for good. It is also fair to say that the regional networks that facilitated the growth and expansion of OCLC in the last three decades of the 20th century were vitally important to what it ultimately has become. While the system of involving libraries in OCLC through networks may indeed have been ‘‘awkward,’’ it unquestionably succeeded in those early years. Whether some other approach might have functioned equally well or better cannot be known. At the conclusion of Brunell’s (1998) review of the OCLC-regional network relationships he writes that the partnerships ‘‘ . . . remain vitally important to all the regional networks, to OCLC and to our thousands of member libraries.’’ And further, ‘‘ . . . none of us can figure out better ways to do the business we need done without our existing partners’’ (p. 27). A decade later Bailey-Hainer (2009), reporting on the momentous changes affecting the regional service providers, observed that the ‘‘network model’’ (an important element of which was OCLC itself) ‘‘ . . . depended on the various components of the network recognizing their interdependence’’ (p. 622). With the new model governing relationships between OCLC and former partners now in place, it would seem that OCLC has decided it has figured out a better way to do business. The interdependent partnerships that created a global information utility have come to a close. A definitive assessment of the changes that have taken place and their consequences remains elusive; as does the effect they have had and will have on OCLC. Will any of the legacy networks survive? Will the combined entities created since 2009 remain viable? Will OCLC grow and prosper without the involvement of regional service providers? Can the philosophical and personal differences some of the profession’s most talented leaders have had over OCLC’s direction be surmounted? What lessons will be learned from the clashes and conflicts? The story of the US regional networks and their partnership with OCLC remains controversial and still very much in dispute.

Regional Library Networks and OCLC

105

Authors’ Note In preparing this chapter for publication, more than two dozen knowledgeable individuals were interviewed. Among them were present and past regional network staff and executives, leaders of their member libraries, current and former OCLC employees, members of its board of trustees and governing bodies, and others with insights into developments over the past decade. The controversy surrounding dissolution and merger of the former OCLC regional networks made it very difficult to interview on the record. While not everyone insisted on anonymity, most asked that all or significant portions of conversations take place without attribution. As a result a decision was made not to reveal the identity of any interviewee. It is recognized that in not doing so this investigation is less useful as a piece of scholarship. Our hope, however, is that what has been lost through assurances of confidentiality is adequately offset by relative completeness and candor. While we do not acknowledge here individuals by name, we express great appreciation for the willingness of these colleagues to share their views on an important topic.

References Alford, L. P. (2009). Governing a global cooperative. Journal of Library Administration, 49(6), 567–574. doi:10.1080/01930820903238438 Bailey-Hainer, B. (2009). The OCLC network of regional service providers: The last 10 years. Journal of Library Administration, 49(6), 621–629. doi:10.1080/019308 20903238792 Brunell, D. (1998). The strategic alliance between OCLC and networks. In K. W. Smith (Ed.), OCLC 1967–1997: Thirty years of furthering access to the world’s information (pp. 19–29). New York, NY: Haworth Press. Dougherty, R. M., et al. (1985). The ownership of bibliographic data—OCLC’s experience: A symposium. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 11(4), 195–205. End of an era. (2012, April 17), at OCLC: Jay Jordan reflects on his 14-year tenure. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/people/endof-an-era-at-oclc-jay-jordan-reflects-on-his-14-year-tenure/ Fister, B. (2010, August 19). We have to destroy sharing to save it. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/886422-264/we_have_ to_destroy_sharing.html.csp Jordan, J. (2009a). Journal of Library Administration, 49(6), 559–560. doi:10.1080/ 01930820903238354 Jordan, J. (2009b). OCLC 1998–2008: Weaving libraries into the web [Special issue]. Journal of Library Administration, 49(7), 727–762. doi:10.1080/019308 2093260648 Maciuszko, K. L. (1984). OCLC: A decade of development, 1967–1977. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

106

Jordan M. Scepanski and H. Lea Wells

Mackenzie, M. L., Penniman, W. D., & Woodsworth, A. (2013). Lessons from the corporate world. In A. Woodsworth & W. D. Penniman (Eds.), Mergers, alliances, collaborations, and partnerships: Advances in librarianship (Vol. 36, pp. 27–58). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Nevins, K. (1998). An ongoing revolution: Resource sharing and OCLC. In K. W. Smith (Ed.), OCLC 1967–1997: Thirty years of furthering access to the world’s information (pp. 65–71). New York, NY: Haworth Press. Oder, N. (2009a, February 5). SOLINET, PALINET merger approved: New organization: Lyrasis. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal. com/article/CA6635133.html Oder, N. (2009b, April 17). Newly created Lyrasis now set to add NELINET. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA665 2763.html Oder, N. (2009c, April 21). Growth of Lyrasis, revamp of regional networks tied to changing OCLC relationship. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.library journal.com/article/CA6652763.html Schieber, P. (2009). Chronology: Noteworthy achievements of the cooperative 1967–2008 [Special issue]. Journal of Library Administration, 49(7), 763–775. Smith, K. W. (Ed.) (1998). OCLC 1967–1997: Thirty years of furthering access to the world’s information. New York, NY: Haworth Press. Woodsworth, A. (1991). Library cooperation and networks: A basic reader. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.

Consortia Initiatives in Higher Education Libraries in India: A Reconnaissance of the National Landscape Manorama Tripathi Central Library, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the activities of various library consortia functioning across India. A questionnaire was used to collect information for the present study from Indian consortia and their web sites were also visited to collect data. The study ascertains that consortia approaches help libraries financially and save money through collective access to databases and e-resources as opposed to individual subscriptions. It also suggests that different consortia can be merged to form a single one across a country and provide services to the users. The analysis has been done on the basis of approximate subscription prices conveyed by vendors through oral communications. The chapter highlights how libraries can function in consortia mode to enhance their services to users in the face of dwindling budgets and spiraling costs of scholarly journals and databases. The chapter analyzes and demonstrates that consortia agreements can lead to more judicious expenditure by libraries and suggests areas for further research to gain deeper insights into the activities and functioning of various consortia. It also makes suggestions about formation of a nation-wide collaboration to maximize savings and avoid overlapping access through a number of consortia. Keywords: e-resources; databases; consortia purchases; India; cost savings

I. Introduction The word consortium has been derived from the Latin word ‘‘consors’’ which means partners. It is a group of individuals or companies formed to undertake an enterprise or activity that would be beyond the capabilities of the individual members. The concepts of consortia initiatives, library cooperation, and resource sharing are not novel ones. They have existed since the inception of libraries, which are said to be the oldest institutions under

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036008

107

108

Manorama Tripathi

the sun. Information institutions started some 5000–8000 years ago when priests were entrusted with the responsibilities of creating, preserving, and transmitting information. The scholarly literature refers to the royal library in Nineveh which, under Assyrian King Assurbanipal during 668–627 B.C., had a collection of 10,000 works (Noam, 1995). Consortia are deeply ingrained in information institutions which are responsible for generating, storing, and transmitting information and knowledge. The Great Library of Alexandria during its glorious days had a collection of 700,000 items. During those days scholars of Hellenistic culture like Ptolemy, Demetrius, and Euclid used to have group discussions and discourses with their disciples and apprentices. The pattern was very similar—knowledge was generated in a collaborative manner (in consortia) and transmitted collaboratively in consortium mode (Noam, 1995). But as society evolved from an agricultural to an information one, libraries and information centers gained stupendous prominence and so have their consortia initiatives. Now of course, concerted efforts are being made worldwide to develop a knowledge society. There were instances of cooperative ventures among the libraries even in 1876, when the American Library Association formulated a committee to cooperate in indexing and cataloguing. In 1898 the University of California announced that it would lend books to other libraries. Kopp (1998) mentioned that G.L. Campbell wrote about grouping of places for library purposes in 1879 and that Melvil Dewey, who was instrumental in establishing the American Library Association in 1876, encouraged the creation of a Cooperation Committee within the association shortly thereafter. The University of North Carolina and Duke formed the Triangle Research Libraries Network in 1933 (University of North Carolina, 2010). The U.S. Office of Education in the 1970s undertook a study which highlighted the importance of consortia endeavors (Kopp, 1998). Thus it is evident that the phenomenon of library consortia is not of recent origin and has been in existence for a very long time. The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC, n.d.) which has been in existence since 1996, is an informal self-organized group that, at present, comprises 200 library consortia from North America, South America, Europe, Australia, Asia, and Africa. Within India, a large number of consortia exist, as shown in the following list used as a basis for this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium (DeLCON) University Grants Commission (UGC)-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium (UGC-InfoNet) Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology (INDEST) National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content (NLIST) Developing Library Network (DELNET)

Consortia Initiatives in India

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

109

Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium (ERMED) Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA) National Knowledge Resource Consortium (NKRC) Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) Consortium Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics (FORSA) National Open Distance Learners’ Library and Information Network (NODLINET)

These wide-ranging national activities indicate that libraries functioning in a consortium mode are perceived as advantageous by stakeholders such as universities, libraries, and users. The chapter demonstrates with quantitative illustrations how member libraries do, in fact, save by joining and subscribing through a consortium. The chapter further illustrates the magnitude by which the price of a database per library declines as the number of individual libraries increases. Data for this study were collected by one or a combination of the following methods:  By visiting the web sites of vendors and the various consortia mentioned above.  By sending questionnaire to the coordinators of the consortia (see the appendix).  By attending the workshops where coordinators/directors highlighted the activities and services of their consortia.  By interacting with the vendors, and the representatives/publishers of various databases.

Price information for some databases was available from the consortia web sites. When this was not the case the prices were orally collected from vendors. This chapter illustrates in both quantitative and qualitative terms the advantages of consortia, presents the higher education and Indian policies which affect libraries and consortia, describes current consortia activities in India. It furthermore presents an analysis of the cost and benefit of obtaining e-resources through consortia as opposed to individual institutional purchase and concludes that consortium purchasing of e-resources does save money for member libraries.

II. Advantages of Consortia There are many advantages of library consortia which are discussed in the following section. The prominence of consortia shows that libraries have shifted from a self-sufficiency mode to collaborative survival mode. Libraries have often resorted to consortia modes of functioning for the purpose of sharing existing physical resources such as books, journals, e-books, and e-journals held by member libraries. The formation of any consortium is based on the fact that a group of libraries has a combined set of resources which is greater than the resources of any single member (Potter, 1997).

110

Manorama Tripathi

With the conveniences of information communication and telecommunication systems (ICTs), libraries have started forming consortia for providing common access to e-content across the Internet. The primary purpose of establishing a library consortium is to share physical resources including books and periodicals among members. However, the mode of cooperation has undergone transformation with the advent of ICTs (Arora & Agarwal, 2004). A. Consortia for Licensing of e-Content The consortia help in finalizing license agreements with vendors and publishers and getting discounts. The individual libraries may not have adequate staff or expertise to negotiate and finalize license deals with the publishers. Consortia purchasing of e-resources, e-journals, online databases, and e-books results in considerable price reductions for individual libraries; consortia also enable procurement of e-resources which might otherwise not be possible, especially for small libraries with limited budget. Consortia efforts help libraries deal with the increasing pressure of diminishing budgets, increase user demands, and rising journal costs (Rao, 2006). B. Consortia for Resource Sharing Cooperation and resource sharing have held a pivotal role in the functioning of libraries and are deeply ingrained in library environment. Libraries share reading materials, metadata, computing infrastructure, best practices, and expertise in different kinds of alliances—formal, informal at local, state, regional, and national levels (Webster, 2006). While libraries have been sharing cataloguing data among themselves for some time, at present, publishers include bibliographic records for e-journals and e-books which they supply. The bibliographic records can be integrated into union catalogues of libraries and links can be provided to the full texts. This will help all on and off campus learners. Hirshon (1999) has suggested that consultation services can be shared among libraries to cope with new resources and new ways of providing services. VIVA is a consortium of nonprofit academic libraries within the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virtual Library of Virginia, 2012). It includes 39 state-assisted colleges and universities, 6 doctoral universities, 24 community colleges, and 34 independent colleges and universities. VIVACAT has been developed to provide and share cataloguing details via metadata of the collections held at various member libraries of VIVA. The Cataloguing and Intellectual Access Task force of the Virtual Library of Virginia has worked closely with University of Virginia Library to create USMARC records for 8000þ electronic texts. The VIVA

Consortia Initiatives in India

111

consortium has adapted University of Virginia’s Sirsi records for the use of all the libraries in the consortium (Virtual Library of Virginia, 2000). The consortium approach may also help in offering virtual reference services to the learners. A consortium can employ reference librarians for a group of campuses with students contacting one central point for getting assistance instead of interacting with library staff from their own campus. Such models already exist for virtual reference desks, a form of collaborative reference service which is actively provided via Web 2.0 tools. Library consortia also help in training and sharing the expertise available in one library with all member libraries of a consortium with one library taking the lead and offering information, tips, and solutions to others so that they do not have to reinvent the wheel every time a member initiates a new activity (Subramanian, 2003). C. Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery Services Interlibrary loan and document delivery services are important tasks undertaken by any consortium. While electronic resources facilitate remote access, not everything is available electronically; furthermore, everything cannot be digitized due to cost and copyright issues involved. Libraries have developed the virtual union catalogue in order to facilitate interlibrary loan and document delivery services. D. Consortia and Distance Learners Consortia efforts also help in providing library support to distance learners by offering distance learners access to a wider array of resources and services. Library consortia blur the lines of demarcation of the collection and services of various libraries and remove the idea of individual libraries’ users (Landesman & Van Raeenen, 2000). Potter (1997) has aptly remarked that the consortium approach eliminates the distinction of ‘‘your,’’ and ‘‘my’’ users and instead focuses on ‘‘our users.’’ Bostick (2001) remarked that teleconferencing can be used by consortia for helping librarians and distance learners located at different places. Web tutorials on accessing various e-resources can be developed in collaboration and may be used for distance learners. E. Consortia and Change Management Libraries are evolving at an accelerated pace due to the advent of ICTs and are expected to adapt to the changes being introduced by ICTs. It is said that if libraries do not evolve or change, they will become extinct. Libraries have to make hard decisions and function amid manpower and financial crunches.

112

Manorama Tripathi

They have to make judicious use of limited resources. The libraries have to provide more innovative services and keep pace with the ever increasing demands and expectations of their users. With limited budgets they have to maintain a trade-off between procuring print and e-collections. The libraries have to cater to the information needs of users who are in the senior age bracket and prefer print resources while also satisfying netizens who want everything online; yet, of course, instant gratification is a mantra for both groups. Since the services and content are all technology driven, which evolves and is outdated very quickly, library staff have to keep abreast of the latest technological developments and upgrade their hardware/software infrastructure to survive in midst of tough competition from other service providers. At this juncture library consortia can play a pivotal role. Together, consortia can handle a wider variety of issues, identify problem areas and needs, chalk out strategies, and set standards for individual libraries to follow. Hirshon (1999) has observed that consortia can help individual libraries in coping with change. A consortium can develop a standard plan and service program to be followed by member libraries for need assessment, statistical analyses, user surveys, focus groups, and observational studies. A consortium can help to compare institutional data, and schema for improving internal operations. It can also help libraries to evaluate and decide the quality of electronic content. By and large, libraries lack architectural consulting services to its member libraries on various aspects including storage and renovation of public service areas, and consortia can help to provide such services at reasonable costs. Consortia can also help individual libraries in digitization projects which are currently being initiated on a large scale. Libraries can receive support in the form of training, technical knowhow, standards, and tools which need to be followed. Consortia can also play a pivotal role in helping libraries with change management. F. Collaboration for Preservation At present libraries and publishers are actively collaborating and taking efforts to archive and preserve e-content for future use. For instance M/S Elsevier has collaborated with the National Library of Netherlands and Yale University to digitize all print journals of Elsevier archiving and preserving them in order to ensure that they are accessible for use by posterity. G. Consortia for the Visually Challenged The consortia can prove a boon for visually challenged people. At present worldwide, there are 285 million people who are visually impaired (World

Consortia Initiatives in India

113

Health Organization, 2012). It is estimated that merely 7% of the world’s published output is made accessible in alternate formats for people who are partially sighted or blind or have vision disabilities .For example, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) has developed a union catalogue called AMICUS—it is a catalogue showing the reading materials held at LAC and also the holdings of 1300 libraries across Canada (Library and Archives Canada, 2004). The Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) Library’s Partners Program in Canada provides access to material including books, magazines, newspapers, and online services in alternative formats such as audio, Braille, and narrated video for people of all age groups. The CNIB Library has collaborated with 500 public libraries across Canada to provide access to materials in alternative formats; 700 frontline staff at various libraries have been trained in order to better serve users with print disabilities. In 2011, the CNIB Library circulated 2.6 million books magazines and newspapers to the visually challenged across Canada including audio books, Braille books, and e-books in DAISY format (CNIB, 2012). There are several examples from various countries about collaborative activities which have been initiated to meet the needs of the visually impaired (Epp, 2005; Library of Congress, 2012; Share the Vision, n.d.).

III. India’s Policy and Higher Education Context India is a land of 28 states, 6 union territories with a population of 1.22 billion, a literacy rate of 74.04% (Population of India, n.d.), and 22 major languages (Mallikarjun, 2004). India is growing very fast in diverse sectors of industries including information technology and the country is expected to be the world’s largest economy in purchasing power parity or PPP1 by 2050 reaching nearly $85.97 trillion (in U.S. dollars) from a 2010 level of $3.93 trillion (India likely to be world’s largest economy by 2050: Citi, 2011). The country has one of the largest educational systems in the world which is 1 PPP refers to the amount of adjustment needed on the exchange rate between countries in order for the exchange to be equivalent to each currency’s purchasing power. It means the exchange rate adjusts so that an identical good in two different countries has the same price when expressed in the same currency. It is based on the assumption that in absence of duties, transactions, costs, and other curbs, identical goods should have the same price in different countries when expressed in the same currency. In simple words, it means, that the same amount of money would be needed to purchase the same amount of goods and services in two different markets (ET explains, 2012).

114

Manorama Tripathi

expanding and evolving; especially the higher education sector which has witnessed continuous increase ever since India attained independence in 1947. The number of universities has increased from 27 in 1950 to 504 in 2009. The country has 42 central universities, 243 state universities, 53 state private universities, 130 deemed universities (a status providing autonomy of operation), 33 institutes of national importance (established under Act of Parliament), and 5 institutions, established under various state legislations. The number of colleges has grown up from 578 in 1950 to 30,000þ in 2011; more than 11,000 doctoral theses are awarded to the scholars every year (Government of India, 2012). Higher education is on the concurrent list which implies that it is the shared responsibility of both the central government and the states. The coordination and determination of standards is the constitutional responsibility of central government. The central government is also responsible for declaring educational institutions as ‘‘deemed to be universities’’ on the recommendation of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The commission was established as a statutory body of government by an Act of Parliament in 1956. UGC is responsible for promoting coordinating and maintaining standards in university education research and training. The Government of India is taking concerted efforts to promote higher education in the country. More than 50% of India’s current population is below the age of 25 and over 65% is below the age of 35. The labor force in India is expected to increase by 32% over the next 20 years. The young population can certainly prove to be a catalyst for the growth of the country if higher levels of education and skill development are achieved and ensured for them. An environment must be created which facilitates good quality employment to meet the requirements and aspirations of the youth. Education is the single most important instrument for social and economic uplift. Higher education is imperative in order to build a workforce capable of underpinning a modern and competitive economy. At present about 18.5% of all government education spending or about 1.12% of India’s gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on higher education. This has been suggested to be increased to 25% and 1.5% respectively in the 12th five year plan. An increase of 0.38% of GDP means an additional allocation of about Rs. 2,500,000,000,000 (about $46.5 billion in U.S. dollars) to higher education from the center and the states taken together (Government of India, 2011). Vision India 2020 (Government of India, Planning Commission, 2002) envisages transforming the country into a knowledge economy by 2020. Libraries play a tremendously important role in dissemination of knowledge and development of a knowledge society. They are expected to serve as local centers of information and knowledge and gateways to national

Consortia Initiatives in India

115

and international knowledge. Libraries facilitate access to knowledge through books, e-books, journals, e-journals, CD-ROMs, theses and dissertations, and other sources. But it is disheartening to note that barring few institutions and universities in the country, most of the libraries are not well equipped with scholarly journals; the reason being that the libraries face problems due to dwindling budgets and spiraling cost of the scholarly journals provided by the commercial publishers.

IV. Policies of the Government of India The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) was constituted in June 2007 with a timeframe of three years to serve as a high level advisory body to the prime minister of India. The NKC was given a mandate to guide policy and direct reforms in areas including education, science and technology, agriculture, industry, and e-governance for example. Easy access to knowledge, creation and preservation of knowledge systems, dissemination of knowledge, and better knowledge services have been the focus areas of the commission. The Commission succeeded in realizing the potential of libraries and on its recommendation an autonomous National Commission on Libraries was recently set up (Bhatia, 2009). It is intended to do the following:  Advise the Government of India on all library and information sector matters of national importance.  Prepare long-term plans and strategies for development of the library sector, including conceptualization and approval of projects and preparation of a ‘‘National policy on Library and Information Systems for India.’’  Interact with State Governments on all library matters, especially on public library matters.  Set standards, including quality standards, for library collections, services, technical work, and infrastructure, and devising in-built mechanisms to ensure compliance for all types of libraries.  Encourage and promote partnership with corporate sector, philanthropic organizations, as well as bilateral and international agencies in the development of the library and information sector.  Review and assess current status of library and information service education and in-service training facilities, and working with agencies such as the UGC and universities to address the identified issues.  Coordinate with stakeholder ministries such as the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Information Technology, Department of Panchayati Raj, etc., to ensure effective implementation of the NKC recommendations and management of the post-implementation scenario.  Coordinate with other national stakeholders of the library and information sector, such as the UGC, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation (RRRLF), Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Indian Council for

116

Manorama Tripathi

Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR), Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR), and so on, to ensure effective implementation of the recommendations and management of the post-implementation scenario.  Collaborate with counterpart agencies in other countries to explore areas for cooperation which will lead to strengthening of India’s library and information sector.  Secure public support through advocacy and media by providing evidence of delivery, usage, outcomes, and impact.  Help State Governments (that do not yet have library legislation) in formulating State Library Acts.

The National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technologies was launched in 2009. Its mission is to address the goals of access, equity, and quality in higher education; it also intends to bridge the digital divide between urban and rural as well as between the rich and poor strata of society. The Government of India allocated an amount of Rs. 461,200,000,000 ($8.6 billion U.S.) for it in the 11th Five Year Plan. The Government of India is committed to make the best possible use of ICTs for teaching, learning and research activities in all institutions of higher learning, by providing access to research articles, journals, and speedier interaction with their senior colleagues in various universities and premier institutions. The ICTs will facilitate the teaching, learning and research endeavors, reduce distance among researchers and faculty members within the country, and reduce the cost of education without compromising on the quality (Government of India, 2009). The objectives of the National Mission on Education through ICTs are to:  develop knowledge modules with the right content to meet the personalized needs of the learners;  conduct research in the field of pedagogy for development of efficient learning modules for disparate groups of learners;  follow and maintain international standards for contents, building connectivity and knowledge network among and within institutions of higher education;  provide e-knowledge contents, free of cost to Indians;  spread digital literacy for teacher empowerment, experimentation and field trial in the area of performance optimization of low cost access/devices for use of ICT in education;  provide support for the creation of virtual technological universities to identify and nurture talent;  certify competencies of the human resources acquired through formal or nonformal means; and  evolve a legal framework for it.

Under this mission, up to March 2012, virtual private networks and Internet connections have been provided to 392 universities and 18,189 colleges and polytechnics across the country. The Higher Education and Research Bill of 2011 for establishing an overarching authority called the National Commission for Higher Education and Research for deciding and

117

Consortia Initiatives in India

maintaining standards in higher education has been introduced in the upper house of Parliament and referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee (Government of India, Department of Education, 2012). The UGC has provided grants to various universities in India for establishing and upgrading computing infrastructures. During the last four years it provided grants to various universities as shown in Table 1. The passing of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009 was a great achievement for the children of India. This Act ensures that every child will have a right to get quality elementary education with the collaborative efforts of the government, families, and communities. The Act clarifies that compulsory education means an obligation of the government to provide free elementary education and ensure compulsory admission, attendance, and completion of elementary education for every child in the 6–14 years age bracket. There were an estimated 8 million 6–14 years old in India out of school. The world certainly cannot achieve its goal to have every child complete primary education by 2015 without India (UNICEF, n.d.). The right to education has been introduced as fundamental right in the constitution (iCBSE, 2012). The Government of India, MHRD has realized the importance of libraries and information centers’ networking; as a result they have initiated concerted efforts toward launching library consortia in the country. At present there are more than 10 consortia functioning across the country facilitating the universities, faculty members, scientists, researchers, and students in several ways. Universities have widened the range of resources to which they subscribe for their clientele. Table 1 Grants for University Computing Infrastructure Upgrades FY

2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2012

Budget allocated Rs: Indian rupees $: U.S. dollars

Grant released Rs: Indian rupees $: U.S. dollars

Number of beneficiary universities

Rs. 10,000,000.00 $185,850 Rs. 55,200,000.00 $1,025,900 Rs. 100,000,000.00 $1,858,500 Rs. 50,000,000.00 $929,250

Rs. 7,667,000.00 $142,490 Rs. 55,152,000.00 $1,025,000 Rs. 17,914,000.00 $332,900 Rs. 39,940,000.00 $742,290

19

University Grants Commission, p. 264.

20 06 16

118

Manorama Tripathi

Before the various consortia initiatives were launched the libraries had limited access to resources, as they suffered from the problem of dwindling budgets and spiraling costs of e-resources. Now, even the smaller universities and colleges located in remote and far flung areas of the country have access to the latest research and development trends in various disciplines. The user community has more e-resources at their disposal to access and browse. In a way it has contributed to their research productivity which has gone up in the recent years. The Web of Sciences showed that 37,201 papers were contributed by India until 2000; by September 2012 the number of papers had increased to 443,252 (Web of Sciences, 2012). .

V. Library Consortia in India The increased output or productivity could be attributed in part to library consortia efforts taken across the country. The following section highlights the activities of the various consortia functioning in the country. A. Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium (DeLCON) DeLCON came into existence in January 2009. The consortium has 33 institutions as its members (DeLCON, 2012). The Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Programme is also a part of DeLCON. The Consortium provides access to 917 journals of 17 various publishers. The objectives of DeLCON are: To promote better, faster, and more cost-effective ways of providing information resources to the officials/researchers at the member institutions. To avoid duplication of subscription of journals and e-resources and promote the rational use of funds among the consortia members. To ensure continuous subscription of e-resources and availability of these to the scientists working at the consortia member institutions. To ensure better rates and terms for purchase of e-journals. To ensure availability of a larger spectrum of journals to the institutions of DBT with lesser costs. (DeLCON, 2012, n.p.)

The scope and goals of the consortium are: To strengthen library resources and services, cooperation, and communication among the member libraries. To strengthen the pooling and sharing and electronically accessed the library resources. To provide access to worldwide literature to the users. To nucleate the culture of electronic access resulting into evolution of digital libraries. To ensure an efficient interlibrary loan system among member institutions. (DeLCON, 2012, n.p.)

Consortia Initiatives in India

119

The consortium is headquartered at the National Brain Research Center, Gurgaon, Haryana; Department of Biotechnology, Government of India provides funds required for subscription of e-resources. A DeLCON committee supervises all the activities of the consortium. The Consortium covers all the disciplines of Life Sciences, that is, Biotechnology, Bioinformatics, Biology, Chemical Biology, Immunology, Neuroscience, Plant Genome, Plant Biology, Microbiology, Physiology, Physiotherapy, Psychology, Genome, Gene, Genetics, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Radiology, Medicines, Computational Biology, Cell Biology and Cell Science, Molecular Biology, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Veterinary Science, Computational Neuroscience, System Neuroscience, etc. The consortium provides access to 900+ journals from 17 various publishers. B. University Grants Commission (UGC)-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium UGC-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium was set up in 2003 by the then president of India, after providing Internet connectivity to the universities under the UGC-InfoNet program, to provide access and promote the use of electronic journals among the researchers and academics of the country (UGC InfoNet Digital Library Consortium, 2012). In 2004, access to e-resources was provided to 50 universities which had Internet connectivity under UGC-InfoNet program. In the second phase, 50 more universities were added in the program in 2005. The universities that come under the purview of UGC have been provided differential access to subscribed e-resources. The objectives of the consortium are as follows: To provide access to scholarly electronic journals, full text, and bibliographic databases to large number of universities and colleges. To promote rapid and efficient access to scholarly content to the users. To create and promote the use of ICTs in teaching and learning activities of the country. To extend the benefits of consortium to its associate members. To impart training to the users, librarians, research scholars, and faculty members of the universities and colleges. To promote interaction and interlibrary cooperation among the participating universities. To bring qualitative change in teaching, learning, and research activities across the country. To enhance the research productivity of the universities and institutions.

The consortium gets highly discounted rates of subscription. The rates given to this consortium are lower by 60–90% depending on the category of institutions. It helps in improving the library services toward the users. The members of the consortium have the benefit of a cap on the annual

120

Manorama Tripathi

incremental increase in the rates of subscription. The usual increase in price of e-resources varies from 15% to 20%; the consortium has to pay an incremental increase in subscription price ranging from 5% to 8%. UGC bears all expenses for UGC-funded universities. The Information and Library Network Centre (INFLIBNET), an interuniversity center of UGC, subscribes to resources based on the recommendations of the National Negotiating Committee set up by UGC (INFLIBNET, 2012). The consortium provides journals and databases from all disciplines—pure sciences, arts, humanities, social sciences, computer sciences, physical sciences, etc. The Consortium initiated an Associate Membership program in 2009 with an aim to extend access to e-resources subscribed by it to private universities and other research institutions. According to this scheme, the private universities and other research institutions can enroll themselves as ‘‘associate members’’ of the consortium and subscribe to e-resources as per their requirements. This enables them to subscribe at a highly discounted price. UGC bears expenditure on subscription to e-resources, for universities, covered under 12B of the UGC Act. It charges an annual membership of Rs. 5000 from associate members. As an example of the savings delivered, the list price of Emerald-29 (package of 29 library science journals) is UK Pound 5500 (or Rs. 475,865 approximately) per annum. Associate members of INFLIBNET get it for Rs. 128,520. Thus they save Rs. 347,345 or 73% on the list price.2 The list price of Springer journals package is Rs. 2.5 million; an associate member gets it for Rs. 539,680 per annum. Thus, an associate member saves Rs. 1,960,320 or 78.41% on the list price. The discounted price of subject collections of Elsevier is U.S. $105,000 (or approximately Rs. 5,650,000) whereas the list price is $190,501 or approximately Rs. 1,025,000 (INFLIBNET, 2011). The UGC-InfoNet Digital Library consortium negotiates and finalizes the subscription cost of additional subject collections. If a university decides to subscribe to all additional subject collections (Business Management+Decision Sciences; Engineering+Chemical Engineering+Energy+Material Science; Earth+ Planetary+Environmental Science; Health Science Neuroscience+Nursing+ Pharmacology and Veterinary Science), it will save $85,501 (approximately Rs. 4,600,000) or 44.88% on the list price because the prices have been negotiated and finalized by the consortium. The web site mentions that the consortium offers the best possible discount which ranges from 12% to 95% through its pricing agreements 2 The exchange rate for one British pound is Rs. 86.5209 and for one US dollar is Rs. 53.8065 (Reserve Bank of India, 2012).

121

Consortia Initiatives in India

with publishers. The consortium also provides technical help and conducts training program, workshops for enhancing usage of e-resources among the users. InfoNet provides current as well as archival access to more than 7000 scholarly journals and 10 bibliographic databases from 26 publishers and aggregators in various disciplines. At present, it has 321 members (182 universities; 5 IUCs; 14 National Law Schools; and 118 associate members). The number of downloads during the last 5 years from the consortium is shown in Table 2 with the average cost per download in Table 3. The UGC-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium is being operated by the INFLIBNET Center under the overall guidance of a National Steering Committee constituted by the UGC that guides and steers the activities of the Consortium. The National Steering Committee (NSC) is responsible for making policy decisions as well as for execution of the plan. The Committee makes decision on e-resources to be subscribed from various publishers and their accessibility to beneficiary universities. The NSC is comprised of members from participating universities (one each from Central, State, and

Table 2 Number of Downloads from UGC InfoNet Digital Library Consortium Year

Number of downloads

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

3,153,628 4,687,776 6,093,511 7,479,060 12,765,817

Table 3 Average Cost Per Download Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Average cost per download in $ (and Rs. approx.) $2.06 $1.81 $1.35 $1.19 $1.14

(or (or (or (or (or

Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.

111 approx.) 97 approx.) 73 approx.) 64 approx.) 61 approx.)

122

Manorama Tripathi

Deemed universities), a nominee of Governing Board of INFLIBNET Center, a nominee of a university from the Northeastern Region, a nominee of Interuniversity centers, IITs, Indian Institute of Science, institutions of higher learning, and coordinators of NKRC, INDEST-AICTE Consortium. The Director, INFLIBNET Center is ex-officio convener of the NSC and Chief Coordinator of the Consortium. There is a Negotiations Committee (NC) which has been constituted for negotiating rates of subscriptions to resources with publishers. The NC has two members, each nominated by the Chairman, NSC, and Chairman, Governing Board of the INFLIBNET Center. Coordinators of the NKRC and INDEST-AICTE Consortium are ex-officio members of the NC. The NC also has representatives from the INFLIBNET’s Finance and Store Units, Director; INFLIBNET Center is ex-officio chairman of the NC. C. Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology (INDEST) INDEST was set up by Ministry of Human Resources and Development in 2003 (INDEST, 2010). It was renamed INDEST-AICTE in December 2005. The consortium has the following three types of members: Core Member Institutions (48) The MHRD provide funds for providing differential access to electronic resources for these institutions. Members (60) Government Engineering colleges or technical institutions which get financial support from the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). Self-Supported Engineering Colleges and Institutions (1246). These are self-supported engineering colleges and UGC-affiliated institutions which have joined INDEST to get access to e-journals at discounted price.

The consortium operates through its headquarters set up at IIT, New Delhi, under a National Steering Committee which has members from beneficiary institutions under the chairmanship of the Joint Secretary (technical education) with an overall responsibility for making policies, monitoring the progress, coordinating with UGC and AICTE for promoting the activities of the INDEST consortium. The consortium has the following objectives: To subscribe to e-resources for the members of the consortium at highly discounted rates. To extend the benefit of consortia-based subscriptions beyond the core members to other engineering and technological institutions. To find more avenues of cooperation and interaction among member libraries and other consortia. To increase the scientific productivity of member institutions in terms of quality and quantity of publications.

123

Consortia Initiatives in India

To help new engineering institutions and colleges to make the right choice of e-resources. (INDEST, 2011, p. 1)

Activities of the consortium include: To arrange subscriptions to identified electronic resources. To identify new resources. To interact with member libraries to ensure optimal utilization of subscribed electronic resources. To organize training programs for the member libraries as per their subscriptions.

The budget of INDEST for the last three years is shown in Table 4. Table 5 reflects savings ranging from 45.61% to 74.69% for subscriptions through the INDEST Consortium. The INDEST web site mentions that the consortium offers price advantages ranging from 12% to 95% through its pricing agreements with publishers for various electronic resources. The consortium also provides technical help and conducts training for optimal use of e-resources. In addition to the prorated subscription charges, INDEST charges an annual membership fee of Rs. 2000 (or about Table 4 Budget of INDEST During the Last Three Years Budget Rs. (and $ approx.)

FY 2010 2011 2012

Rs. 301,384,000.00 ($5,600,000) Rs. 276,820,000.00 ($5,145,000) Rs. 317,747,000.00 ($5,905,000)

Table 5 List Price of Databases versus INDEST Prices of Databases Name of database IEL ASME ASCE ACM Proquest Science Proquest ABI/INFORM

List price of database ($)

INDEST price ($)

Saving ($)

$140,995 $7,150 $12,228 $15,050 $15,000 $24,000

$35,681 $3,889 $4,680 $5,601 $6,000 $8,270

$105,314 or 74.69% $3,261 or 45.61% $7,548 or 61.73% $9,449 or 62.78% $9,000 or 60.00% $15,730 or 65.54%

124

Manorama Tripathi

$37) from its associate members. It provides access to journals from 20 publishers and 5 bibliographic databases. D. National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content (NLIST) NLIST is an initiative of the Ministry of Human Resources and Development under the National Mission on Education through Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) (NLIST, 2012). The users have to register before they can access, browse, and use the resources. The project operates through its headquarters set up at INFLIBNET Center, Ahmadabad, Gujarat. This project, the National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content, is jointly executed by the UGC-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium, INFLIBNET Center, and the INDEST Consortium, IIT Delhi for the following: Cross subscriptions to e-resources subscribed to by the two consortia, that is, subscription to INDEST-AICTE resources for universities and UGC-InfoNet resources for technical institutions. Access to selected e-resources to the students, researchers, and faculty members from 6000 government-aided colleges who get access to e-resources after they are authenticated as authorized users through servers installed at INFLIBNET Center. To impart training and promote usage of e-resources among colleges.

The NLIST has 2831 colleges as members and 372,507 individual users. Under this project, 100 universities of the UGC InfoNet Digital Library Consortium access Web of Sciences subscribed to by INDEST-AICTE for technical institutions; in addition, 34 technical institutions of INDESTAICTE consortium access e-resources of Annual Reviews, Project MUSE, and Nature subscribed to by the UGC-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium. All colleges covered under 12B/2F of UGC get access to more than 3100 ejournals and 75,000 e-books. Prior to launching NLIST, it was observed that the journals were accessed only by the topmost institutions or students through personal subscriptions, with costs ranging generally from $31 to $45 and in the extreme even $120 (Pandey, 2010). E. Developing Library Network (DELNET) DELNET came into existence as a registered society in 1992 (DELNET, 2012a). During the initial years it received support from NISSAT, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India National Informatics Center, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication

Consortia Initiatives in India

125

and Information Technology, Government of India, and the Ministry of Culture, Government of India. The main objectives of DELNET are: To promote sharing of resources among the libraries. To undertake scientific research in the area of information science and technology, create new systems in the field. To offer technical guidance to the member libraries on collecting, storing, sharing, and disseminating information. To coordinate efforts for suitable collection development and reduce unnecessary duplication. To establish/facilitate the establishment of referral and/or research centers. To facilitate and promote delivery of documents manually or electronically. To develop specialized bibliographic database of books, serials, and nonbook materials. To develop databases of projects, specialists, and institutions. (DELNET, 2012b, n.p.)

DELNET provides the following services: Undertakes retrospective conversion projects. Gives technical support to member institutions in selection of hardware, software, and database creation. Conduct tutorials workshops, lectures, training programs; annually organizes National Convention on Knowledge Libraries and Information Networking (NACLIN). Document Delivery services and Inter Library Loan are two important services offered by DELNET on a large scale. It maintains the following union catalogues and databases for providing Inter library loan and document delivery services: Union Catalogue of books (comprising 12,257,678 records), periodicals (comprising 33,931 records) Union List of Current Periodicals (33,931) Article Database (922,042 records) E-Books Database (1613 records) CD-ROM Database (22,234 records) Union List of videos (6000) and Sound recordings (1025) Database of theses and dissertations submitted to Indian universities (70,293 records) (DELNET, 2012c. n.p.)

In addition, DELNET has developed the following software: DELPLUS for small and medium size libraries with collection of 100,000 or so. KOHA, OSS has been customized for libraries.

DELNET has 4193 libraries in India and 23 libraries outside India as members. DELNET consortium of e-journals offers the subject collections to libraries shown in Table 6. Table 7 reflects that libraries may save 70.39–80.94% of list price by subscribing through the consortium.

126

Manorama Tripathi

Table 6 Databases Offered Through DELNET Name of the database

Number of journals

Info Tracs Engineering S&T Collection Info Tracs Management Collection Info Tracs Medical Collection Info Tracs Pharmacy Collection Health & Wellness Resource Center

587 743 938 112 592

Table 7 Cost Benefit Analysis Name of the database

Info Tracs Engineering S&T Collection Info Tracs Management Collection InfoTracs Medical Collection InfoTracs Pharmacy Collection Health & Wellness Resource Center

List price (Rs.) and $ (approx.)

DELNET Saving (%) price (Rs.) and $ (approx.)

Rs. 192,500.00 ($3,578)

Rs. 52,500 ($976) Rs. 247,500 Rs. 52,500.00 ($4,600) ($976) Rs. 275,500.00 ($5,111) Rs. 52,500.00 ($976) Rs. 143,000.00 ($2,658) Rs. 31,500.00 ($585) Rs. 478,775.00 ($8,898) Rs. 141,750.00 ($2,634)

72.73% 78.79% 80.94% 77.97% 70.39%

F. Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium (ERMED) The ERMED consortium was set up in 2008 by the Director General of Health Services and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in order to provide electronic information resources in the field of medicine (ERMED, 2009). The consortium is coordinated through its headquarters at the National Medical Library and has more than 100 government and private medical colleges as members. The consortium provides access to more than 1600 medical journals from 9 different publishers. The objectives of the Consortium are: To provide round the clock instant online access to multiple users through IP address and customer ID.

Consortia Initiatives in India

127

To provide access to users beyond the physical space and time of the library. To make online journal literature available to unreachable medical scholars working in the country. To facilitate better management of information resources in electronic environment.

ERMED invested Rs. 26,000,000 for e-journals in 2008. In 2009 expenditure on e-journals increased to Rs. 75,000,000. ERMED offers the best possible discount price ranging from 88% to 96% through negotiation with the publishers. The consortium provides training to the user community for optimal utilization of e-resources. G. Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA) CeRA was established in November 2007 by the National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) to facilitate access to scholarly journals to all researchers of the National Agricultural Research System (CeRA, 2010). The objectives of CeRA are: To upgrade the existing research and development information resource base of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutions/universities comparable to the world’s leading institutions. To subscribe to e-journals and create an e-access culture among scientists and teachers of ICAR institutions and agricultural universities. To assess the impact of CeRA on the level of research publications measured through the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) and the Science Citation Index.

The Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) central library houses the CeRA office and coordinates its activities. The library is regarded as one of the largest and best agro-biological libraries in Southeast Asia (IARI, 2010). The consortium has more than 120 ICAR libraries as its members and provides access to 1800 journals from 9 publishers. CeRA has been initiated by ICAR as a sub-project of NAIP funded by the World Bank. The activities of CeRA are governed by Steering, Monitoring and Negotiations Working Committees and is well supported by the Project Implementation Unit-NAIP. Other CeRA activities include provision of document delivery services to all member institutions and organizing training workshops and user awareness program for scientists and researchers in order to promote usage of e-resources. H. National Knowledge Resource Consortium (NKRC) The NKRC was established in 2009; it is a network of libraries of 40 CSIR and 25 Department of Science and Technology (DST) institutions (NKRC,

128

Manorama Tripathi

Table 8 List Price of Databases versus Consortium Price of Databases Name of the product

List price ($) per institution

Consortium price ($) total

Number of institutions subscribing

Expenditure per institution ($)

IEL ASME ASCE ACMDL

$140,995 $7,150 $12,228 $15,050

$1,000,000 $60,000 $65,000 $40,000

63 09 11 07

$15,873 $6667 $5909 $5714

Total

$175,423

$34163

2012). It was started as the Electronic Journals Consortium by CSIR in 2001 to provide its scientists access to 1200 Elsevier Science journals. Since then it has been growing in terms of the number of resources and users. The National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR-CSIR) coordinates and supervises the activities of NKRC. A budget of Rs. 10,000,000,000 (approximately $186 million) was allocated to the consortium for the 11th five-year plan (Report of the Working Group on CSIR, 2006). The consortium facilitates access to 5000+ journals from 25 different publishers. Table 8 shows the list price and consortium price of four databases accessible to different laboratories and institutions of CSIR through NKRC. Using subscriptions through the consortium, an individual institution pays $34,163; otherwise, individually, an institution would pay a total of $175,423. Thus there is a savings of $141,260 or 80.5%. Table 9 shows that through the consortium 90 laboratories/institutes spend a total across all institutions of $1,165,000. Without the consortium, the total expenditure across all the laboratories and institutions would be $9,186,893; thus there is savings of $8,021,893.

I. Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) Consortium The MCIT consortium was started in 2005 for resource sharing and networking among the organizations under the MCIT (2006). With over a dozen separate libraries housed in different parts of the organization, the need

129

Consortia Initiatives in India

Table 9 Cost Benefit Analysis of Databases Provided Through NKRC Name of the product

List price ($)

Consortium price ($)

Number of institutions subscribing

Expenditure across all institution ($) (without consortium)

IEL ASME ASCE ACMDL

$140,995 $7,150 $12,228 $15,050

$1,000,000 $60,000 $65,000 $40,000

63 09 11 07

$8,882,685 $64,350 $134,508 $105,350

Total

$175,423

$1,165,000

90

$9,186,893

for common purchasing and resource sharing was essential. The objectives of this consortium are: To To To To

create digital library of resources. share resources and network among the libraries. provide electronic services to the users. create a model for Government of India Libraries Networking.

The following services are provided through this consortium to the member libraries: E-journals such as the ACM digital Library, IEL library, Science Direct, SO/IEC Standards on ICT. E-news clipping service is provided online from the national dailies published in India though software known as NEWSNIC.

A union catalogue of complete library collection is generated using e-Granthalaya software developed by NIC. This software is also distributed to members in order to automate their libraries. J. Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics (FORSA) FORSA was launched in 1982 with a vision and mission to share resources held in participating libraries. At present, there are 11 institute members (National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, n.d.). FORSA objectives are: To develop a collection in an IT environment. To facilitate e-access to journals and books. To actively participate in resource sharing and ILL.

130

Manorama Tripathi

To provide document delivery services by Fax, e-mail, Speed post, courier, etc. To maintain a union catalogue of library holdings and electronic databases. To digitize archival materials of the institute and make them accessible for all. To support open access and to develop institutional repositories. To welcome new members of institutes where astronomy is one of the subjects of study and where a library has a collection pertaining to the subject. (FORSA, n.d.)

The FORSA libraries provide the following services: Access to automated book catalogue. Access to online journals (including those subscribed through institutional and consortia). Active participation by all members in resource sharing, interlibrary loan. Document Delivery (by e-mail, speed post, courier, and fax). (FORSA, n.d.)

The access to the following databases is provided through the consortium: ACMDL IEE JSTOR Optics InfoBase Science Direct Springer Link

K. National Open Distance Learners’ Library and Information Network (NODLINET) NODLINET was established in 2007 in order to provide distance learners access to the country’s library facilities at par with on-campus learners (NODLINET, 2012). The network involves all state open universities, distance education institutes (DEIs) of conventional universities, National Institute of Open Learning, and Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). The NODLINET is governed by an apex management body comprising the Vice Chancellor of IGNOU and other officials. The main objectives of NODLINET are: To provide library services to distance learners at par with on campus learners. To strengthen the open distance learning library set up of various regional centers (RCs). To liaise with other networks in order to enhance services and augment collections for distance learners. To automate the libraries and digitize content for RCs and study centers (SCs). To strengthen the physical infrastructure of the libraries of RCs and SCs. To prepare standards and guidelines for establishment of distance learning library facilities.

Activities performed under NODLINET include: Strengthening the physical infrastructure of the libraries by providing computers, scanners, TVs, LCD projectors, display racks, broadband/Internet connectivity.

Consortia Initiatives in India

131

Facilitating and extending the access of 60 online databases to RCs located across the country. Providing Internet access to the catalogues of libraries of RCs. Digitizing and uploading question papers of the university for anytime, anywhere access. Initiating information literacy programs and online training program.

VI. Conclusion It is said that a university is as strong as its library. In a similar fashion, it can be said that the intellectual strength of a country depends on the robustness (in terms of networking, collections, and services) of its library consortia. The chapter has described the various consortia which are functioning in India, their goals and services. These consortia aim at enhancing access to eresources to the user community, sharing of physical infrastructure and manpower among the member libraries. A consortium approach enables sharing of services and resources among many libraries which eventually results in a wide gamut of services for users which cannot be provided by a single library. Shared online services in libraries have grown in consonance with increased bandwidth and network reliability. Instant global communication at the click of mouse, RSS feeds, blogs, and wikis have become commonplace features for one and all (Webster, 2006). Libraries are embracing Web 2.0 tools for providing enhanced services to their users. The new services that are offered include federated searching, open URLs, and virtual reference are based on close cooperation among e-content vendors, publishers, and libraries. These services have also contributed to libraries becoming more interconnected and interdependent than they ever were in the past. The chapter has highlighted how libraries save a significant amount for e-journals and database access if they function in consortium mode, in some instances as much as 80% of list prices. Examples with detailed price comparisons provided in this chapter testify to that assertion. Within the same budget, libraries can widen access to e-resources for their users to the benefit of all of their stakeholders. It is evident that different group of universities and institutions have formed different consortia. As a result, there is overlap of content among different consortia. It is suggested that efforts be made to merge all the consortia and provide access to e-resources and other services to a user community that spans the country. In this way, more prudent deals (by way of discounted subscriptions) can be made. Furthermore, duplication of databases and dissipation of energy and efforts can be avoided across the various consortia. Further studies need to be undertaken in order to find out

132

Manorama Tripathi

to what extent individual libraries save, and how the government funds are utilized, and whether the money saved is nominal or considerable. The consortia also need to evaluate and analyze the use of electronic resources to which they subscribe for member libraries. It should also take into consideration whether the user community is satisfied with the resources and services provided to them. The evaluation of use and user satisfaction will certainly show how electronic content and its easy and enhanced availability has impacted the teaching, academic, and research activities in the country and eventually how society has evolved into an information empowered one. More studies need to be undertaken to find out if society has earned rich dividends in keeping with the huge amount of money invested in consortia activities and agreements. More return on investment studies needs to be executed to expand on the simple, though compelling, examples provided in this chapter. Furthermore, none of the consortia in India have taken any initiative to archive or preserve the content of electronic journals to which they subscribe. They need to initiate concerted efforts to archive and preserve e-content, or participate in on-going preservation projects at the international level. Clearly there is still much to be done. However, this chapter has demonstrated the savings incurred and value was delivered by consortia and has enumerated the variety of such organizations now existing in India. The detailed data provided for some of these endeavors illustrates in tangible quantitative terms the measureable value of consortia activities.

Appendix: Questionnaire for Consortia Name of your Consortium: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Total number of members: Funding body: Governing body: Year of inception: Staff involved in running: Total number of e-journals: Number of e-books: Annual budget: 2011–12——————— 2010–11———————————— 2009–2010———————— Usage data: i. 2011–12——————— ii. 2010–11———————————— iii. 2009–2010————————

Consortia Initiatives in India

133

13. Any policy for long term preservation or archiving of e-content: 14. Any other information which you would like to provide: 15. Price of databases (Market price and your consortium price):

References Arora, J., & Agarwal, P. (2004, February). Building digital libraries in a consortium mode: Towards a national consortium. Paper presented at International Conference on Digital Libraries 2004: Knowledge Creation, Preservation, Access, and Management (Vol. 1, pp. 292–311). New Delhi, India: TERI. Bhatia, S. (2009, October 12). National Commission on Libraries to be set up. The Times of India (n.p.). Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ 2009-10-12/education/28094048_1_academic-libraries-private-libraries-publiclibraries Bostick, S. L. (2001). Managing technology [Review of book The history and development of academic library consortia in the United States: An overview, edited by R.E. Dugan]. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 128–130. doi: 10.1016/ S0099-1333(00)00185-3. CeRA. (2010). CeRA: Consortium for e-resources in agriculture. Retrieved from http:// cera.iari.res.in/ CNIB Library. (2012). A library for the future: CNIB library year in review 2011–2012. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/library/ Documents/CNIB%20Library%20Year%20in%20Review_2011-12_EN.pdf DeLCON. (2012). DeLCON: Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium. Retrieved from http://delcon.gov.in/ DELNET. (2012a). DELNET: Developing Library Network. Retrieved from http:// delnet.nic.in/index.htm DELNET. (2012b). DELNET: Developing Library Network—Objectives. Retrieved from http://delnet.nic.in/objectives.htm DELNET. (2012c). DELNET: Developing Library Network—Services. Retrieved from http://delnet.nic.in/the-services.htm Epp, M. A. (2005, February). Access to academic materials for post secondary students with print disabilities. Ottawa, Canada: National Educational Association of Disabled Students. Retrieved from http://www.neads.ca/en/about/projects/atam/submissions_ caer.php ERMED. (2009). ERMED: Electronic resources in medicine consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmlermed.in/ ET explains the concept of purchasing power parity. (2012, April 30). The Economic Times. FORSA. (n.d.). FORSA: Forum for resource sharing in astronomy and astrophysics. Retrieved from http://ncralib1.ncra.tifr.res.in/library/?q=node/11 Government of India, Department of Education. (2012, March 9). University and higher education: Overview. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/over_test11 Government of India, Planning Commission. (2002). India vision 2020. Retrieved from http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/pl_vsn2020.pdf Government of India, Planning Commission. (2011, October). Faster, sustainable and more inclusive growth: An approach to the twelfth five year plan. Retrieved from http:// planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/12appdrft/appraoch_12plan.pdf

134

Manorama Tripathi

Government of India, Press Information Bureau. (2009). National mission on education through information and communication technology launched. Retrieved from http:// pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=47221 Government of the United Progressive Alliance [of India]. (2012). Report to the people 2011–12. Hirshon, A. (1999). Libraries, consortia, and change management. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(2), 124–126. doi: 10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80011-1. IARI. (2010). IARI: Indian Agricultural Research Institute Library Facility. iCBSE. (2012). Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 [India]: Right of children to free and compulsory education. Retrieved from http://www.icbse.com/right-toeducation-act ICOLC. (n.d.). ICOLC: International Coalition of Library Consortia. Retrieved from http://icolc.net/ INDEST. (2010). INDEST: Indian Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology. Retrieved from http://paniit.iitd.ac.in/indest/ INDEST. (2011). INDEST tutorial. Retrieved from http://paniit.iitd.ac.in/indest/ tutorial/pdf/main.pdf India likely to be world’s largest economy by 2050: Citi. (2011, February 24). The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/ 2011-02-24/news/28627987_1_largest-economy-citi-ppp-basis INFLIBNET. (2011). 2011 subscription pricing for additional subject collections. Retrieved from http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/econ/SD-Additionalsubjectpricelist.pdf INFLIBNET. (2012). INFLIBNET: Information and Library Network Centre. Retrieved from http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/ Kopp, J. (1998). Library consortia and information technology, the past, the present, the promise. Information Technologies and Libraries, 17(1), 7–12. Landesman, M., & Van Raeenen, J. (2000). Consortia vs. reform creating congruence. JEP: The Journal of E-Publishing, 6(2). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0006.203. Library and Archives Canada. (2004). About AMICUS. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/amicus/006002-122-e.html Library of Congress. (2012, September). That all may read . . . Washington, DC: National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/nls/ Mallikarjun, B. (2004, August 8). An exploration into linguistic majority-minority relations in India. Language in India, 4 (n.p.). Retrieved from http://www. languageinindia.com/aug2004/dlamallikarjun1.html MCIT. (2006). MCIT: Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Consortium. Retrieved from http://mcitconsortium.nic.in/ National Centre for Radio Astrophysics. (n.d.) FORSA members. Retrieved from http://ncralib1.ncra.tifr.res.in/library/members.htm NKRC. (2012). NKRC: National Knowledge Resource Consortium. Retrieved from http://124.124.221.7/index.php NLIST. (2012). NLIST: National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content. Retrieved from http://nlist.inflibnet.ac.in/ Noam, E. M. (1995). Electronics and the dim future of the university. Science, 270(5234), 247–249. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5234.247. NODLINET. (2012). NODLINET: National Open and Distance Learners’ Library & Information Network. Retrieved from http://www.ignou.ac.in/ignou/aboutignou/ division/ldd/Nodlinet

Consortia Initiatives in India

135

Pandey, V. (2010, June 8). Access top journals for free, thank HRD ministry. Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_accesstop-journals-for-free-thank-hrd-ministry_1393313 Population of India. (n.d.). India’s population, 2012. Retrieved from http:// www.indiaonlinepages.com/population/india-current-population.html Potter, W. G. (1997). Recent trends in state wide academic library consortia. Library Trends, 45(3), 416–434. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/ handle/2142/8099/librarytrendsv45i3f_opt.pdf?sequence=1 Rao, N. L. (2006). Knowledge-sharing activities in India. Library Trends, 54(3), 463–484. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/ 3622/Rao.pdf?sequence=2 Report of the Working Group on CSIR. (2006, October). Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007–2012. Retrieved from http://www.dst.gov.in/about_us/11th-plan/rep-csir.pdf Reserve Bank of India. (2012). Retrieved from http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/ PressRelease/PDFs/IEPR705RR1012.pdf Share the Vision. (n.d.). Welcome to the share the vision [website]. Bredbury, UK. Retrieved from http://www.share-the-vision.org.uk/index.htm Subramanian, J. M. (2003). The growing and changing role of consortia in providing direct and indirect support for distance higher education. The Reference Librarian, 37(77), 37–60. doi: 10.1300/J120v37n77_05. UNICEF India. (n.d.). The right to education. New Delhi, India. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/india/education_6141.htm University Grants Commission. (n.d.). Annual Report 2010–2011. New Delhi, India. Retrieved from http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/pub/annualreport/anualreport_ english1011.pdf University Grants Commission, UGC InfoNet Digital Library Consortium. (2012). About us. Ahmedabad, India. Retrieved from http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/econ/ about.php University of North Carolina, School of Library and Information Science. (2010). Partners. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://sils.unc.edu/research/ projects/archive/trln/partners#TRLN Virtual Library of Virginia. (2000). Using MARC.pm with batches of MARC records: The VIVA experience. Retrieved from http://marcpm.sourceforge.net/writings/ viva.html Virtual Library of Virginia. (2012). About VIVA. Retrieved from http://wokinfo. com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/ Web of Sciences. (2012). Data extraction and analysis (n.p.). Retrieved from http:// wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/ Webster, P. (2006). Introduction. Library Trends, 54(3), 343–345. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3623/Webster.pdf? sequence=2

In LIS Education

International Collaboration for a Master’s Degree Program in Library and Information Science Elena Corradini Biblioteca Comunale di Ala, Trentino, Italy

Abstract Using document analysis and surveys this chapter presents a case study about a new master’s degree program in library and information science and its curriculum which was developed cooperatively from 2009 through 2012 by four EU higher education institutions for, and with, universities in three former Soviet countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Events that led to the collaboration are presented along with how faculty members were taught to teach new courses. It also discusses findings and results of an assessment of impact and satisfaction levels of the project. Stated project objectives and anticipated outcomes were compared with student expectations in order to provide a better understanding of the critical factors that might determine success of the new program. Although the project’s documentation was extensive, analysis and conclusions from it were limited to education and knowledge transfer goals of the program. Results from the study shed light on how to adjust course content to better meet student expectations and how to implement ongoing evaluation of courses at the international level. Since cooperation between institutions is always highly demanding, in particular when it is among institutions from different countries, the evaluation of this project will be of interest to anyone trying to improve cooperative agreements for educational purposes. Low response rates to the surveys limit the conclusions on general indications of effectiveness. This chapter provides only an early look at the impact of the program, and outcomes analysis based on a larger sample remains to be done. Keywords: International master of library science project; European Union; Middle Eastern higher education; Bologna Process; NMPLIS TEMPUS Joint European Project

I. Introduction This chapter aims to illustrate the development of a relatively unique project in which seven universities and institutions from various countries (four from

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036009

139

140

Elena Corradini

the European Union (EU) and three from former Soviet republics in the Middle East) collaborated to establish a new master’s degree program in library and information science (LIS) in the Middle Eastern countries. The EU universities and institutions involved were from the United Kingdom, Italy, Latvia, and Spain. The Middle Eastern countries were Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The Middle Eastern participants had either signed up to the Bologna Process (European Commission, 2012) but had not yet implemented it, or were about to introduce it. The Bologna Declaration was an agreement signed in Bologna in 1999 with the aim of ensuring that European degrees would be comparable and compatible, and promote reforms so as to reorganize higher education in a three-cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate). It also promoted quality assurance and recognition of qualifications and periods of study in other EU countries. It also took into account other non-European countries that wished to extend similar benefits to their citizens, provided that they organize their education in accord with the EU standards (Council of Europe, 2010; European Commission, 2012a). Moreover, if they wished to participate in EU-funded projects such as the trans-European mobility scheme for university studies (TEMPUS) framework, they were required to partner with EU institutions and run the courses under conditions of adequate provision of human, technological, and financial funds, and to provide evidence of future sustainability (European Commission, 2009). To this aim, an overarching project for development of a new master’s degree in LIS was created to acquaint staff of the former Soviet republics with EU courses and programs, and to design, develop, and implement similar curricula in their home countries. The project which was developed, entitled New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science (NMPLIS), was submitted to the European Commission (n.d.) to obtain cofunding from its TEMPUS program (European Commission, n.d.). It was approved in 2009 for a three-year period, which was later extended to midJanuary, 2013, to allow completion of the program by all students in the first cohorts. The resulting degree courses in the three former Soviet republics were not identical, but were designed and tailored according to the specific conditions, requirements, and necessities of each country. In this respect, the overarching program was delivered primarily to the prospective academic staff and trainers, but just not with the aim of blindly passing over syllabi and procedures. Rather the explicit intent was to transfer the necessary expertise and background knowledge to achieve the best possible result in implementing new courses which could meet the need for LIS and consider local labor markets.

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

141

The project’s progress and results were evaluated internally at staff project management meetings approximately every six months, as well as by an external expert, as far as resource management was concerned. The external expert collected data about the satisfaction of participants. The NMPLIS program has also received visibility at conferences and other venues, as described later in the chapter. This chapter outlines the background and history of the project and the nature of the master program which was developed. It also presents the results of research done by the author to assess the impact of the project from the viewpoint of its participants. The results of the research are then compared to current literature on international curricula in higher education to determine whether this case could be considered a successful example of international cooperation among universities in the development of LIS masters programs. The collected data suggest that NMPLIS could be a model for respectful collaboration among institutions in countries with very different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. The primary reason for this was that the process of course development was devised step by step and considered the specific needs and conditions of each country. For this reason, the chapter should be of interest to all academics involved in the international development and delivery of LIS courses and programs.

II. The NMPLIS Project A. The Project’s Evolutionary Stage The NMPLIS project had its foundation long before the consortium was created. The first contacts between the future partners were as early as 1999, during a workshop held in Tbilisi, Georgia, where participants from Middlesex University met colleagues from various higher education institutions from Armenia and Georgia. Four years later, at the IFLA Conference in Berlin, Germany, there were further contacts between a representative from Middlesex University’s Alan Hopkinson, and two Middle Eastern universities. Hopkinson presented a poster session on an EU TEMPUS-funded project in Serbia which aimed to build a cooperative cataloguing system, but also had further contact with a representative from the Yerevan State University, Tigran Zargaryan, who was interested in finding an EU partner to develop a joint project on Virtual Learning Environment and Electronic Resource provision in Armenia, and possibly Georgia.

142

Elena Corradini

With the help of a consultant, Monika Segbert, an EU library partner was found in Hanover State University, Germany, and the project ‘‘Building Digital Educational Services and Content Creation Centre in Yerevan State University’’ started with a financial grant from European Commission’s TEMPUS funds from 2004 to 2006. That project’s final conference, held in Yerevan, brought to light an important conclusion: that Armenian and Georgian librarians needed to be better trained to implement LIS modules in digital library systems (NMPLIS, 2009a). It was felt that implementation of technology alone was not enough, but that an exchange of experiences was necessary to ensure professional growth and awareness of present and future needs of library staff. In 2006, Ian Johnson from Robert Gordon University (RGU) in, Aberdeen, UK invited Alan Hopkinson of Middlesex University to be a partner in a proposed project on library automation in Syria, which was subsequently approved for TEMPUS-funded implementation in 2007–2008 (NMPLIS, 2009a). Johnson had coordinated several projects in LIS education as well as more generally in electronic learning resource development that had been funded by TEMPUS and by the European Commission’s (2012b) ALFA program, and in 2006 had been assigned managerial oversight by his University of a TEMPUS-funded development program in business studies in Kazakhstan. Following discussions with Tigran Zargaryan at a conference in the United Kingdom in 2007, Hopkinson and Johnson developed the idea of a proposal for an LIS program for several former Soviet republics, from which they had a request for collaboration, incorporating approaches and insights which were developed during past projects. In particular, it included several features that had underpinned the success of the Kazakhstan project: A requirement for the participating Middle Eastern academics to have a good foundation in the English language; Intensive courses in Western Europe and the Middle Eastern partner countries, backed up by online instruction and support; and An injection of equipment and electronic media to improve the relevant learning resources available in the Middle Eastern partner institutions.

Personal contacts were important in building the project partnership, which grew out from previous acquaintances and mutual confidence developed throughout years of common sharing of working views, exchanged in international conferences at different venues. By 2008, their network of contacts between universities was already wide enough to allow for a multicountry proposal to emerge. The TEMPUS Joint European Project (JEP) was to involve further universities in Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan as

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

143

countries in which a new LIS program needed to be implemented, and EU universities from Italy, Latvia, and Spain as partners with the necessary expertise to guide and contribute to the project. Following approval of the proposal, the NMPLIS project started in January, 2009 with completion scheduled for January, 2012. Subsequently, a one-year extension was granted by the EU in order to complete the teaching and evaluate the new courses in all three partner countries. The reason for the extension was that the first cohorts of students began at different times because of differing processes for course approval and different academic calendars in each country.

1. The Participating Institutions The EU partners were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Middlesex University, London, UK, with Alan Hopkinson as Project Contractor; Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK; University of Barcelona, Spain; University of Parma, Italy; and University of Re¯zekne, Latvia.

The partner countries and institutions with which they would work were: 1. International Scientific Educational Centre of the National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia; 2. Fundamental Scientific Library of the National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia; 3. Ilia Chavchavadze State University, Tbilisi, Georgia; 4. Georgian Library Association, Georgia; 5. Tashkent Institute of Culture, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; 6. Tashkent University of Information Technologies, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

In addition experts from two other British universities, Thames Valley University in London, and King’s College London, also agreed to participate in particular events. Monika Segbert, an external expert accredited by the EU and an experienced multinational project manager, was appointed to monitor the project from inception through final evaluation. All of the universities were involved equally and participated in the project in ways illustrated in the following paragraphs. Generally, project management meetings took place every six months in the presence of at least one representative for each involved institution. These meetings were held at least once in each participating country. Other occasions for dialogue were provided through attendance at international

144

Elena Corradini

conferences such as IFLA’s World Library and Information Congress. An outline of the project phases is given in Appendix A. 2. The Context and Needs The first step in the project was to identify the basic conditions under which the new LIS program and courses had to be developed such as: Ongoing educational reforms: At the time of the kick-off meeting, education policies in Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan were under discussion, with the EU model under examination, in order to revamp studies in librarianship and information science which had a bad reputation among students and gave them little chance of getting appropriate jobs. b. Experience with the Bologna Process: In Georgia and in Armenia, and to a lesser degree in Uzbekistan, the Bologna Process was the catalyst for educational reform, and the implemented changes already showed some interesting features such as: b.1 the request for quality library services in higher education, including IT-based services, information analysis, looking for new sources of information and knowledge, as well as new user-friendly library services; b.2 introduction of Information Literacy curricula in several universities—mandatory courses for students of all subject categories; and b.3 reformation of LIS curricula. c. High demand for LIS professionalism: This came from national professional associations, librarians, archivists, academics, and students, who asked for education and training in new subjects and disciplines such as languages, information technology skills, electronic and digital resources, according to published works. Causes included the lack of a modern perspective in existing LIS programs and the need for retraining older generations of professionals (see Boguta, 2005; Brown, 2003; Katrandjian, 2010; Kazaryan, 1999; Shatirishvili, 1999). d. Need of establishing good technological infrastructures: as to enhance technology-driven and cooperative library systems, information resource centers, also at virtual level (see Chkhenkeli & Garibashvili, 1998; Rakhmatullaev, 2002; Zargaryan & Kirk, 1998). e. Need for expansion of international cooperation: This was needed to improve possibilities of education exchanges between countries that had more advanced experience and solutions in LIS education, and in library and archive services provision (see Garibashvili, 2004). f. Meeting economic, social, and labor market needs: Development of new and innovative LIS curricula would better fit the changing information environment and improve the reputation and quality of LIS degrees (see Brown, 2003; Sanyal et al., 1994). a.

The partners were well aware of the demanding tasks that would be expected of them. Nonetheless, could the valuable experiences of some of them in the provision of international LIS courses grant more chances of success than for other projects? Some staff from the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen and the University of Parma were highly experienced in international higher education as documented by the following authors and speakers (Johnson, 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011; Tammaro, 2002, 2005; Tammaro & Weech,

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

145

2008; Weech & Tammaro, 2009). This prior experience added a key dimension to the NMLIS project and its potential for success. B. NMPLIS Project Parameters Some important features of the project were linked to how the project itself was thought to be useful for the partner countries. All of them resulted from careful discussion of the specific needs of the partner countries. First, it was considered that the partner universities curricula in LIS and Archival Science had to be modernized in a way that was relevant and adaptable to each country’s national contexts and circumstances, without imposing inappropriate curricula on them. In short, they needed to continue to improve their research, teaching, and administration and to do so independently. This implied that they needed to understand how to implement curricular development, which had previously been centrally directed in the former Soviet Union, and adopt continual quality assurance processes. Second, it was agreed that staff from Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan would need to take master’s courses at EU universities, and that staff from these EU universities would teach Masters courses in the partner countries. This required that there be a common language in use between the stakeholders, and it was agreed that this would be English. Therefore, participants from the partner countries would need to demonstrate a minimum standard of competency in English. Third, in order to enable the new courses to use contemporary teaching methods, the infrastructure in institutions in the partner countries had to be strengthened to provide modem technology, including virtual learning environments and institutional repositories, that is, an online archive of documents documenting the project’s activities. This required adjustment of the project’s financial plan to provide the necessary equipment, assistance with its installation, and training in its effective use. Regarding educational aspects, a broad subject focus was established from the beginning to include archival studies, as a foundation for any civil society and part of the EU mission, as well as electronic libraries and digital libraries, as a bridge between libraries and archives. Some specific subjects, identified after a formal needs assessment, included Information Literacy and Economic Aspects of Library Management. For the entire duration of the project, each participating EU institution was to be in charge of organizing Study Tours for their faculties and offering modules in disciplines or topics where their expertise was undisputed as shown in Table 1. Whenever specific subject expertise or training was required, the EU partners were responsible for identifying potential faculty members and

Various projects

Projects with Estonia

University of Barcelona (UoB), Barcelona (Spain)

Re¯zekne Higher Education Institute (RHEI), Re¯zekne (Latvia)

CPD: Continuing Professional Development.

DILL Erasmus Mundus, various other projects

University of Parma (UoP), Parma (Italy)

*

Various TEMPUS projects, one of which in Kazakhstan for business schools

Projects

Robert Gordon University (RGU), Aberdeen (UK)

EU Institution

Table 1 EU University Partners and Their Expertise

M.Sc.

Bachelor, M.Sc. (also distance learning)

M.A. (also distance learning)

M.Sc., Ph.D.

Degrees offered

Archival Studies

Digital Content Management, School Libraries, Reading Promotion

Digital Libraries (Access, Use, Users), Digital Publishing

Information Literacy, Information and Society, Knowledge Management, CPD* for librarians

Areas of expertise

Virtual Learning Environment: Moodle

Virtual Learning Environment: Moodle

Virtual Learning Environment: Moodle

Virtual Learning Environment: Moodle

Technologies used

146 Elena Corradini

147

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

proposing them for discussion at management meetings before hiring them. This decision resulted in a relatively fair distribution of topics among the institutions involved, although the major burden fell to Robert Gordon University (RGU) where staff from three Eastern partner universities would attend two- to six-week workshops on curricular content and course management, with further support through the RGU’s Virtual Campus. RGU was the only university in the consortium that could offer all courses in English. A needs assessment to develop the curricula in each partner country took place in 2009. The long-term perspectives expected with the implementation of this project are illustrated in Table 2.

C. Aims and Objectives of the NMPLIS Project From its inception, the NMPLIS had to conform to the strict requirements imposed by EU higher education regulations, especially regarding how resources were allocated (European Commission, 2008). Another of the requirements was to have an external advisor and monitoring officer who ensures that all the steps taken are toward implementation of the project’s stated aims and objectives. Table 2 NMPLIS Project Long-Term Perspectives: Actions Required and Expected Results Action required

Expected result

Development of core skills, competencies, and abilities of staff

Partner country LIS faculties will be first class learning centers internally and sustainable source of further development of human capacity for the global labor market

Increasing the commercial, methodological, consultancy activities, philanthropic donations, and grants

Generating additional financial income streams to support the development of new academic programs

Establishing a Virtual Learning Environment platform in each partner country LIS faculty

Needs of students from other universities and other lifelong learners will be met

Course sharing between partner country LIS faculties

Saving of financial and human resources

148

Elena Corradini

One wide aim that was framed by NMPLIS was ‘‘To ensure that the Partner Country universities are offering new curricula in library and information studies and archives up to European standards and well-tailored to the demands and needs of the labor market’’ (Segbert, 2009, p. 3). The partners also agreed to specific project objectives which were:  ‘‘To bring curricula, teaching methods and associated learning facilities into line with recognised EU and international standards by February 2011 and test in the following 12 months  To introduce an infrastructure for a Virtual Learning Environment by December 2009  Join European cooperation in Life Long Learning  Set up training centres in Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan (one per country)’’ (Segbert, 2009, p. 3).

Moreover, specific tasks were identified to fulfill the stated objectives which changed periodically according to the stage of the project. Analysis of context made it clear that the project could develop along two complementary routes. The first possible route would be for library staff with a bachelor degree to earn a master’s degree. The second was intended as a retraining or updating of skills for qualified librarians, which could also be taken by the first group. In the end, . . . the project could do both but had originally been intended to modernize initial training for librarians. However the project did include an element of training for lifelong learning so there was a role for input from these advanced courses. (NMPLIS, 2009a, p. 5)

The project activities were carefully documented in minutes of regular meetings that included small comments on tasks to be completed or planned. Minutes were made publicly available through the official NMPLIS web site which also has a list of the experience and requirements of partner institutions as seen in Table 3. D. Educational Needs Assessment and Results A key step in the project was to establish the kinds of courses which students would take, and which should be based on actual needs. This was important for sustainability of the project, as well as being beneficial for a wider professional community in the partner countries. As a particular aim was to avoid imposing a western European curriculum on the partner institutions, the idea of ‘‘training the trainers’’ was incorporated in the planning and implemented smoothly. However, it was agreed that staff partner countries could enroll in courses at RGU to earn a Post-Graduate Diploma in LIS to provide them

Four international programs Trilingual teaching experience

Western standards and values already in practice Training center for lifelong learning No Data

No Data

International Scientific Educational Centre (ISEC), Yerevan (Armenia)

Ilia Chavchavadze State University (ICSU), Tbilisi (Georgia)

Georgian Library Association (GeLA), Tbilisi (Georgia)

Tashkent Institute of Culture (TIC), Tashkent (Uzbekistan)

Tashkent University of Information Technologies (TUIT), Tashkent (Uzbekistan)

Projects

Fundamental Scientific Library (FSL), Yerevan (Armenia)

Partner institution

Bachelor

M.Sc.

N.D.

Bachelor

M.Sc., Ph.D.

Not applicable

Offered qualifications

Table 3 Beginning Partner Countries and Institutions, Experience, Requirements

Information Science, Archival Science, Digital Libraries Technology

Information Literacy, Digital Libraries, Archival Science

Modern trends in LIS

Information Literacy, Information Architecture, Digital Libraries

Web 2.0, Library Management & Marketing

Information Literacy

Higher education areas of development

Virtual Learning Environment/ Electronic resources

Virtual Learning Environment/ Electronic resources

Not applicable

Partly Virtual Learning Environment/ Electronic Resources

Electronic Resources

Virtual Learning Environment

Technologies to be implemented

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

149

150

Elena Corradini

with credibility for teaching subjects at the graduate level, if they felt that they needed it (many already had higher degrees in other disciplines). Project funding did not cover the cost of dissertation supervision required to complete the University’s MSc in Library and Information Studies program, but two individuals who were externally funded successfully submitted their dissertations, and two more are expected to do so by the end of 2012. This addition, though, brought a different perspective to the project and the necessity of providing two levels of education: one for the staff, and the other for prospective students in LIS courses in partner countries’ institutions to teach and learn in either or both their mother tongue and English. These two aspects were merged in the planning of the courses and from this point of view the challenges in teaching English language and new subjects to colleagues resulted in a series of opportunities and strengths. It led to better understanding of the real needs, and invaluable insights and reflections that ‘‘one size doesn’t fit all,’’ and that careful adaptation of courses was needed to meet the skills, abilities, and knowledge of participants. This became a positive outcome of the project (NPMLIS, 2009b; Zargaryan, 2010). Broad training needs were covered in two summer school programs organized in Tbilisi, Georgia and Yerevan, Armenia during 2010 and again in Tbilisi in 2011. Participants earned credits for their professional and educational advancement. Broad topics in the two schools were related to digital libraries and archival science and included courses such as Users and Usage, Access to Digital Libraries, Information Architecture, Digital Preservation, Document Management and Systematization, Implementing Digital Libraries Management, Marketing Library and Information Services, and Information Literacy (NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a). E. Dissemination of the NMPLIS Project According to Segbert (2010), All participants of the project that I met, be they lecturers or students, from EU or partner countries, enthusiastically described the team spirit and the excellent understanding and collaboration. Communications between all partners look to be vivid, and productive. The summer school provided the frame-work for exchange of ideas and materials, and discussions of progress between partner countries. (p. 7)

From the very beginning, there was active attention to publicity and dissemination of information about the project, particularly on its web site which was implemented and maintained for the duration of the project by the Fundamental Scientific Library staff. Some Web 2.0 tools were included as links from the main page, such as presentations in Slideshare, the project

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

151

profile in Facebook, and other tools for use by project participants. Participation in conferences such as at the Classification at a Crossroads’ Conference in The Hague, October 29–30, 2009, and the Crimea and IFLA annual conferences, as well as the final conference in Uzbekistan were also considered a priority, as well as preparation of documentation to upload to the web site. During the first three years of the project over 20 articles and reports were published in different countries and in international journals, reaching a worldwide audience. At conferences, brochures were distributed in various languages, including English, Chinese, Russian, and French (NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b). Parallel to this ‘‘outbound’’ dissemination activity, ‘‘inbound’’ dissemination was also considered valuable, with partners translating from English into their mother tongues, thus ensuring accessibility of documents and course materials to colleagues in their countries. Indication of the importance of this process was present also in Segbert’s second report: The students that had taken part in the course in Robert Gordon University outlined their dissemination activities of what they had learnt to their colleagues in their countries through presentations at professional meetings, articles in journals, training sessions, and even a video about library modernization produced by the Uzbek team. This corresponds to a recommendation in the first monitoring report, namely that there should be systematic sharing of learning throughout the Georgian, Armenian and Uzbek communities. (2010, p. 7)

The dissemination activity which was carried out by various project team members was uploaded to the web site including the following reports, articles, and presentations by, for example, Bhimani, 2009; Hopkinson & Zargaryan, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Zargaryan, 2007; Zargaryan, 2010; Zargaryan & Hopkinson, 2009a, 2009b). F. Appraisal Almost all of Segbert’s reports concluded with positive comments on the completion of the project’s activities, The project, now 10 months into its timeline, is proceeding according to the work plan and can already show some positive and timely results. A solid core team has been formed between the EU partners and the three partner countries, and the indicators of progress as outlined in the description of work are being monitored. (2009, p. 3)

Segbert also carried out a series of interviews with many stakeholders in the partner countries and with staff and students, gathering a sense of satisfaction with the results of the cooperation with the EU countries, about different aspects: from technological advancements to taking higher

152

Elena Corradini

education courses for retraining, to aiding in disseminating information about the new LIS courses soon available in their home countries. Reception of the efforts made by the EU universities involved in the project in ‘‘training the trainers’’ can be better understood through a direct account of this process. One of the most comprehensive views about the process of acquiring new competencies and concepts, and integrating them into one’s own country of origin, is a report by Tatevik Zargaryan about her studies at RGU in 2009, along with other colleagues from the partner countries. She clarified the basic purpose of the training, which was to: . . . improve our theoretical and practical knowledge of Library and Information Services in order to develop curriculum back in our respective countries . . . Together we considered the state of libraries in our countries, and discussed the outdated soviet-type MSc and BA programs in the field. (Zargaryan, 2010, p. 1)

After taking LIS courses, the group visited the main libraries in Aberdeen and the Edinburgh Central Library, where they exchanged experiences with local colleagues. During a second stay in Aberdeen in 2010, the students and prospective trainers, took courses in E-Learning with Moodle (an open source course management system), Cataloguing and Classification, Information Studies, Knowledge Organization, Management Principles and Operations, Information Services, Library Planning and Development, Research Methods. She expressed satisfaction with the course stating that the delivered lessons, meetings, visits, and experiences were responding to needs that everything would be ‘‘put into use’’ and transferred to her own work environment (Zargaryan, 2010). Segbert (2010) indicated that the partners should work on developing research on market needs, and on the impact of LIS courses to enhance awareness about information transfer, and educational and infrastructural needs in each of the participating countries. This awareness would be connected to the sustainability of the project in the future. Part of the research process included piloting of master’s courses in LIS in each of the Middle Eastern countries involved. The pilot has been undergoing in Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. In order to evaluate completion of the pilot in all three countries, the consortium received approval for an extension of the project to January 2013, with meetings for final evaluation planned for September 2012 in Barcelona, Spain and for October 2012 in Yerevan, Armenia, before the last months of courses implementation in the three partner countries (NMPLIS, 2011b). Perhaps the overall observation of the project is an indicator of its success: A particular mention should be given to the excellent partnership in this project: EU and partner countries’ project leaders have established very good communications and a clear

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

153

common understanding. All partners show determination to achieve the intended results in time and budget, while recognizing that in order to maximize outcomes and impact of the project an extension would be valuable. (Segbert, 2011, p. 3)

III. Observations and Findings from the Field: A Supplemental Evaluation The author participated in the NMPLIS Summer School for 2011 in Tbilisi, Georgia as an external tutor. From the start, it was clear that this was an international program set up very differently from other programs or courses, and as such it stimulated reflection. Since the first part of this chapter focused on the program itself, this section dwells on observation and other findings from the field. These will be compared with existing literature and previous research on the topic in order to enrich the literature about issues and opportunities in the organization of international LIS programs. A. Research Questions The research reported here aimed to achieve the following:  assess strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the program;  enable project stakeholders to voice their personal views about the program and its implementation steps; and  compare the program’s objectives and expected outcomes with data collected from the field during the author’s participation in the program.

Overall, the study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. Did the NMPLIS project reflect the findings of other research and literature on LIS education? 2. If so, do the project and its resulting master’s program provide an example that could be transferred to other contexts?

The methodology used to answer these questions is explained in the following section, after a brief overview of the existing literature on international LIS educational experiences.

IV. Background Literature, Research, and the EU Context As recognized by Johnson (2009), education and training courses in the LIS sector have a long tradition, with the first examples of international

154

Elena Corradini

collaboration in higher education having its roots in ALA programs of the 1920s (Johnson, 2009). Since then, however, significant shifts have occurred in how the cooperative activities have been carried out. Initially for the most part, western universities, from a simple altruistic perspective, provided funds and loaned staff for periods of time to universities in developing countries. More recently cooperative projects have turned into agreements from which all participants can benefit. This is not an obvious process and it requires awareness of several issues by all involved parties. While a thorough examination of other projects is not the aim of this chapter, it will be useful to recount kinds of collaborative projects and programs which have been mentioned in the literature:         

provision of external support (Johnson, 2009); small-scale interchange on subjects of mutual interest (Johnson, 2009); international experience for staff development (Johnson, 2009); joint research and publication (Johnson, 2009), such as for the BOBCATSSS conferences; agreements for the recognition of equivalence of qualifications (Johnson, 2009; Tammaro & Weech, 2008), such as in the framework of the EU Erasmus program; joint coordination or recognition of modules (EU Erasmus program); joint coordination of courses (e.g., for parallel degrees); joint coordination of degrees such as the DILL Digital Libraries Learning (EU Erasmus Mundus) and the WISE (Web-based Information Science Education) Consortium; and joint coordination of programs and transfer of know-how (such as TEMPUS and ALFA Programs).

In the past collaboration would be unbalanced and sometimes result in dependency of the developing country on their stronger partners, without a common and diffused culture that could objectively evaluate the achieved results (Johnson, 2009). Recent efforts have tended, especially in Europe, toward building joint modules, courses, and programs which have had the positive effects of enhancement of student and staff mobility, and a growing interest in internationalization of higher education. Moreover, at present there are more stringent rules for funding. In the European Union (EU), for instance, current TEMPUS funds are awarded on the basis of the compliance with specific criteria such as the ‘‘4-I Change Management Approach,’’ wherein I refers to actions meant to Inform, Involve, Implement, Incentivize in the process of know-how or technology transfer (European Commission, 2008, p. 35). Examples of thorough critical, analytical accounts on educational activities are few, and reflections on policies of funding agencies are also rarely found in the literature, until very recent times according to Johnson (2009), when some scholars investigated possible changes in curriculum development (Large, 1991), the impact on staff development (Johnson,

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

155

1997a, 2001), and success factors (Johnson, 2005). Ramirez Leyva (2004) presented a description of possible strengths and weaknesses of regional collaboration. According to Stueart (1997), as cited by Johnson (2009), the barriers to international cooperation, could be summarized as:      

physical distance and economic costs; conflicting political ideologies; variations in technological sophistication; sociological, cultural, and education differences; legal restrictions; and lack of information policies, plans, and infrastructure (Johnson, 2009, p. 178).

Whereas in 1997 these barriers may have discouraged institutions from becoming involved in cooperative projects, nowadays growing global in many sectors provides strong reasons for higher education institutions to struggle for their visibility and prestige. Nonetheless, there are still a number of factors inhibiting international cooperation. To paraphrase Johnson (2009) they are:  Limitations in scope—in professional expertise, foreign language skills, perceived differences and attitudes toward partner countries, time and financial resources allocated for the project(s);  Failures to adapt—not recognizing local cultural values, beliefs, and norms as distinct from universal professional concepts, resulting in not tailoring curricula, teaching materials, management style;  Adverse reactions—staff, students, and employers’ perception of marginal significance of the project(s); unwillingness to adapt to change and share institutional or personal knowledge; and  Uncertainty about the balance between costs and benefits.

Johnson (2005) listed eleven Critical Success Factors for developing international cooperative projects and indicated 30 positive actions that contribute to success (Johnson, 2009) which were drawn from a thorough analysis of the literature. These will be reviewed in more depth later in this chapter.

V. Methodology for the NMPLIS Case Study The study was undertaken basically as an intrinsic case study, with the aim of reaching an instrumental level of understanding, and it follows three phases outlined below based on methodologies outlined by Pickard (2007), Stake (2003), and Yin (2002).

156

Elena Corradini

Orientation and overview: After stating the research question it was decided that this would be a single case study. It was deemed appropriate to analyze the case at the international level with the chosen unit of analysis being the NMPLIS program itself. The sampling technique used was purposive, including most of the teachers and selected students. Only those who attended management meetings and/or classes in more than one country were included in the sample. Data collection was performed through direct contact and unstructured interviews with stakeholders, a questionnaire, and frequent visits to the project’s web site. 1. Focused exploration: Given that the project staff lived and worked far from each other and met no more than three times a year for formal discussion of the project, it was decided that they needed an informal and individualized method of expressing themselves, as opposed to using formal interviews. An online questionnaire using SurveyMonkeyt was made available from October to December, 2011 for staff responses, and between September and October, 2011 for students’ responses. The author participated at three venues during 2011: in March at the Consortium Meeting in Parma, in June at the Study Tour in Parma, and in July at the Study School in Tbilisi. During these occasions the author was able to collect some valuable insights into organization of the program and the learning environment, which complemented document analyses, and served as a basis for additional knowledge accumulation about the case. To validate some of the patterns identified during the contacts with staff and students and through documentation analysis, the author thereafter decided to administer a questionnaire which would confirm participants’ views on the project. 2. Member checking: This step is described in the literature as a ‘‘vital component of the [case] study’’ (Pickard, 2007, p. 91), since it gives to the study participants the chance to comment on prior research results, thus enriching the final research report (see Stake, 2003; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). According to Pickard (2007), there are many ways in which this step can be achieved, two of which are by reading their own individual accounts, and the full case study report. In this instance, all the participants in the 2011 survey were given the results of the study, while two teachers from the United Kingdom and two students from Georgia were asked to comment on both the survey results and the study report to confirm that the case had been portrayed accurately and made sense to them.

The case was analyzed and written to take emerging patterns into account, mostly as a narrative story, as suggested by Pickard (2007). A. Participants The students involved in the project were all the students participating in the Summer School in Tbilisi, Georgia, in 2011. The intended population was about 50 subjects. To reach students, the author asked staff of Ilia Chavchavadze State University in Tbilisi, to send them a link to the questionnaire (see Appendix B) via e-mail. This was done and confirmed to the author. As for staff, the author contacted all 21 teachers, experts, and

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

157

lecturers from the various institutions involved in the NMPLIS project directly via e-mail. In fact, in order to reach them, the author obtained the e-mail address of each member of the staff from the project coordinator, and sent them the link to the questionnaire via e-mail. In this way, 100% of the total intended staff population of 21 was reached. The staff survey is given in Appendix C.

B. Coding To correctly attribute the answers to each participant in the survey, the author has labeled each questionnaire according to the provenance (e.g., GE=‘‘from Georgia’’), and a consecutive number according to how many people from each country answered the questionnaire, whenever possible. In the following paragraphs though, due to the few respondents, citations were not used in order to preserve confidentiality.

VI. Student Survey Results The number of students reached via e-mail was 35 (70% of the total) of which 8 students (22.9%) responded to the survey. Of the student respondents, five were Georgian, two Armenian, and one from Uzbekistan. Among them, there were four master’s students, two professionals participating for retraining, and one who was neither. Most of the student questions were aimed at gathering general impressions about the courses and lecturers. Open questions were aimed at assessing personal preferences and were exploratory in nature. Some of them were of secondary significance to the aims of the study and were administered to gather data on the overall experience.

A. Likes and Dislikes The first three questions were aimed at understanding how the intensive period of the Study School was received by students. This involved asking them their appreciation regarding the location, the teachers and lecturers, the topics and subjects, timetables, extra activities and open conferences. Respondents could state their preferences on a 5-item Likert scale (not at all, not really, no opinion, enough) with five being ‘‘very much.’’

158

Elena Corradini

B. Teachers and Lecturers Students appreciated teachers and lecturers very much (62.5% of respondents), or enough (37.5%). All answers concentrated on these two options, with a mean rate of 4.63 out of 5. As clearly expressed by one of the respondents, teachers were the driving force of the NMPLIS experience for them. C. Extra Activities and Conferences Extra activities and open conferences came in second place with a mean of 4.3 out of a scale of 5. All respondents indicated their first choice was open conferences, followed by the possibility of expressing thoughts more freely and exchanging comments in more informal meetings with international experts. It is also interesting to note that someone regretted that ‘‘the countries were not represented with similar numbers of participants.’’ D. Topics and Subjects Topics and subjects were considered very interesting by 37.5% of the respondents and good enough by 50% of them. They indicated interactivity as a positive experience in studying subjects. One of the answers was particularly illuminating: ‘‘The most useful experience for me was the opportunity to study in details several courses, particularly Information Literacy, Information Architecture, Marketing Library and Information Services, Users and Usage, Document Management and Systematization, Digital Preservation. The handouts and practical classes were very useful and helpful for me.’’ E. The Schedule and Favorite Topic The lessons schedule in the summer program was considered too short, and this reinforces the idea that lessons and those who delivered them were highly appreciated. All of the five students who answered this question mentioned, directly or indirectly, that Information Literacy and User Behavior were their favorite classes. Two students mentioned Marketing Library and Information Services. F. Challenges, Difficulties and What They Will Miss Respondents were asked to rate on a 5-item scale two challenges they faced during the courses. The primary one was their understanding of English,

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

159

which consortium members had been aware of from the beginning, namely, understanding the English language and, as a consequence of this, understanding the topics (NMPLIS, 2009). Two students indicated that understanding the language was straightforward, due to their previous international experiences, but only one said that understanding the topics was not a problem. The remaining respondents confirmed that understanding the topics was not an easy task. Regrettably, only one of the students with a good command of the English language gave comments on this question, indicating that ‘‘the level of English was understandable and relevant’’ which, on the other hand, is evidence of the respondent’s appreciation of the lessons. The question about what they would miss was meant to learn whether respondents were giving consistent answers. The results confirm that the atmosphere was friendly, and that lecturers and their courses were highly appreciated. One of the students put it in this way: ‘‘I will miss our colleagues and also our discussions and the way we were studying together. It was a good chance to meet all participants again and to share our experiences via presentations.’’

VII. Staff Survey Results A. Study Participants The author contacted all of the 21 teachers, experts, and lecturers from the various institutions involved in the NMPLIS project. Of these 12 (57%) responded. In this staff and expert group, three were from the United Kingdom, three from Spain, two from each of Armenia and Georgia, and one from each of Italy and Uzbekistan. Only four gave information about their role in the project: two were lecturers, one was an expert, and one was a professor. No response came from Latvian subjects. In total, from EU countries there were seven respondents, with five from the Middle Eastern countries.

B. Responses 1. The Challenges Knowledge of the English language was the major issue, indicated by four out of ten respondents to this question. Language barriers were perceived

160

Elena Corradini

both in the relationships among staff members, as well as with the students. One staff member wrote: Language was the biggest issue—as well as uncommunicated expectations. Sometimes, these expectations were not clear or voiced clearly so I was unsure about audience expectations, expertise, needs etc. It was all very muddy and I tried to make the best of it in the belief that whatever I said/taught would help open up minds!

Apart from the language, cultural differences were also perceived as a challenge. Various respondents called it a ‘‘lack of knowledge of the current situation in the partner countries,’’ and the presence of ‘‘different regional contexts, including existing systems, structures and infrastructures’’ was also perceived as a challenge. Backgrounds were so different at the beginning, as a respondent from Armenia indicated: ‘‘The hardest challenge in the beginning was to get people interested in this project and to explain its real objectives.’’ Educational systems were organized in such different ways that bringing everyone onto common ground was a big task. As another person stated: The most difficult thing at the beginning was to find a common viewpoint to compare curricula offered in the East and in the West. The Eastern curricula were organised according to different rules, non-compliant with the Bologna process, so it was hard to evaluate the needs and plan for developments.

Despite all these difficulties, in the end there was a positive outcome, to quote one of the staff, ‘‘After trainings, meetings with teachers and summer schools most of them have been overcome.’’ This opinion was shared by several other respondents. Besides the acknowledgment of differences, there were issues on which everybody agreed, for instance with regard to quality assurance. In fact, from both sides there were comments on the necessity to avoid poor presentations and lessons. 2. Challenges Overcome and Remaining The question about what could have been done better during the project offered four predetermined answers on a 10-point Likert scale along with the ability to add comments. The most used scores ranged from 6 to 10. Choices for respondents included cultural diversity, language, technological standards, and, finally, educational standards. As seen in Table 4, cultural diversity and language, which still remained an obstacle could have been handled better, according to staff as well as students. On the other hand, technological and particularly educational standards seem to have been better addressed during the project. Four additional comments were made; half by respondents who gave low scores, and were very critical about professionalism of some partners; but half came from

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

161

Table 4 Program Aspects That Could Have Been Tackled Better Aspects Cultural diversity Language Technological standards Educational standards

Score 50 52 68 70

points points points points

Mean 5.0/10.0 5.2/10.0 6.8/10.0 7.0/10.0

respondents who strongly believed in the project from the beginning and thus underscored the positive aspects of the undertaking. In their own words: Culturally and socially, the project group bonded well. There were natural differences between educational and technological standards of the different group members. Given that the aim was to transfer knowledge of how to do rather than what to do, these aspects were all treated reasonably satisfactorily. They are more significant as issues to be considered in the implementation and development of the new Master’s program.

A more thorough view on specific aspects was possible through the analysis of data emerging from answers to the SWOT question. 3. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) The SWOT question aimed at assessing whether critical issues raised in the meetings were perceived in the same way by all partners. The focus was directed toward those issues that should result in a positive achievement at the end of the project. Respondents could choose more than one option for each item. The items and results are illustrated in Table 5. Generally, respondents classified almost all the given aspects either as opportunities or as strengths, or both. At a first look, the most interesting data are those which are missing: Weaknesses and threats are nearly not at all represented in Table 5, except for a few occurrences. One team member indicated ‘‘Studying in a foreign country’’ as a weakness, but also as an opportunity. ‘‘Working in a foreign country’’ was checked once as a weakness and once as a threat. ‘‘Learning new evaluation methods’’ appeared to be a weakness for one respondent, while ‘‘Teaching new subjects’’ was both an opportunity and a threat for another one. ‘‘Teaching to future teachers’’ had the highest negative score, with two occurrences as a weakness and one as a threat. ‘‘Implementing new technologies’’ was also considered once as a threat as well as ‘‘Implementing new evaluation methods,’’ which was at the same

162

Elena Corradini

Table 5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: Number of Mentions Item Studying in a foreign country Working in a foreign country Speaking a foreign language Learning new technologies Learning new teaching methods Learning new evaluation methods Teaching new subjects Teaching to future teachers Implementing new technologies Implementing new teaching methods Implementing new evaluation methods

Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat 6 2 6 6 9 8 6 5 6 9 6

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

6 8 6 5 5 3 6 4 4 3 5

0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

time considered an opportunity. Altogether, though, only five respondents expressed themselves in a critical way toward these aspects. Therefore, the answers to this question can be taken as evidence of strong motivation of all staff involved. 4. Decision Making Making decisions at meetings was not at all easy for the partners, particularly when some issues were discussed such as the choice of partners, collaborators, and lecturers; defining priorities and/or selection of learning subjects, technical improvements, etc. Almost all of the topics identified through document analysis were submitted in a chart for respondents to choose on a five-point response scale with five representing ‘‘very difficult’’: namely ‘‘very easy’’ to ‘‘easy,’’ ‘‘difficult’’ and ‘‘very difficult,’’ or ‘‘no opinion.’’ The interesting thing here is, apart from the apparently high percentage of ‘‘no opinion’’ answers, the notably low scores for the options ‘‘difficult’’ or ‘‘very difficult,’’ which never exceed 30% of the answers. The scores are given in Table 6. It is worth noting that the aspect which presented fewest problems were definition of areas of interest and selection of learning topics—probably due to various activities that aimed at assessing needs and scrutinizing the context in which the courses had to be established (Johnson, 2011).

163

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

Table 6 Difficult Decisions in the NMPLIS Project Type of decision Choosing the partners Defining areas of interest Defining priorities for action Selecting learning topics Deciding on technical improvements Deciding on teaching methods Choosing venues for study tours Choosing teachers Choosing experts Choosing tutors Defining budgets

Very easy to easy (%)

No opinion (%)

Difficult to very difficult (%)

Mean

20.00 80.00 60.00

60.00 0.00 10.00

20.00 20.00 30.00

3.0/10.0

66.70 60.00

0.00 40.00

33.30 0.00

2.56 2.3

60.00

20.00

20.00

2.5

40.00

50.00

10.00

2.7

30.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

40.00 40.00 50.00 70.00

30.00 30.00 30.00 20.00

3 3.1 3.1 3.2

2.4

Also deciding on priorities for actions, teaching methods, and technical improvements was straightforward, because every partner country aimed to achieve the EU model. A bit more difficult was choosing the venues for the Study Tours, and most of all choosing teachers, experts, and tutors, although many of the respondents choose the ‘‘no opinion’’ answer in these. Nonetheless, one respondent gave a reason for this difficulty: ‘‘Availability determined who was involved. This sometimes presented problems.’’ Complaints about teachers rarely occurred, but were occasionally reported. Similarly, results of the student survey confirmed that lecturers and teachers were most appreciated.

5. Personal Impact Eight respondents answered the question of what they learned from the project. If grouped according to the countries of origin, it is evident that Western Europeans are more attentive to organizational issues and to the capability of transferring their values to other countries, such as the recognition of having undertaken a ‘‘large scale project management with multiple

164

Elena Corradini

partners,’’ or having had in the end a ‘‘good project management’’ experience. One of the respondents gave a rich and deep account of this experience, being himself a very experienced person about such projects: I have always believed that projects such as this provide an excellent opportunity for staff development. I was delighted to observe the generally high level of competence that was displayed by a new generation of staff in my School. Their evident ability to transfer that to the eastern partners suggests that they will in turn develop another new generation of similar ability.

This passage is crucial in defining how far the project had reached in terms of staff readiness to cooperate with partners from different countries. This also involved a mutual appreciation of professionalism, parallel growth of each person’s skills, and the anticipation of further collaboration, as stated by other experts and lecturers hired by the EU universities to teach in the program: I met some very interesting people who I have a lot of respect for and am able to network with them on an ongoing basis. I have [met] people from different cultural backgrounds which has been very enriching. I have also established links with other universities that can be useful in future projects.

The Eastern counterparts expressed very similar opinions, and in fact there was a general appreciation of how their European colleagues gave them ‘‘much information about LIS, the opportunities they provide, [and a] deeper insight into LIS’’ and the ‘‘Western approach [on] how to organize LIS education.’’ Another participant underlined the importance of having acquired skills to implement ‘‘new teaching methods, [further] cooperation with European colleagues, [within a] TEMPUS project development’’ and also ‘‘communicating skills in big consortia.’’ In fact, the only chances to inform the team members about needs and requests were in the three meetings per year: this meant that everybody had to express their views and be able to interact effectively with partners. 6. What They Will Miss This question was answered by seven respondents. It was asked in order to learn if there was anything else that respondents would like to add and to see if these additions were consistent with previous answers. Apart from recognizing again that the project enabled ‘‘learning new ideas,’’ five out of the seven respondents emphasized the contacts they had with people and colleagues. One of the lecturers affirmed very clearly that this was an unforgettable experience, for ‘‘the wonderful friends I have made—the experience

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

165

of learning myself as I taught and/or consolidating my learning as I prepared for the sessions.’’ The most significant evidence of personal impact was from someone who was particularly pleased, at the point when most of the preparation was already done for the courses to start in the partner countries: The sense that one has made a difference, however small, in contributing to the global development of the profession is always rewarding. This will probably be my last development project, but I shall not miss anything. I’ve done my bit over the last 30 years. Now, it’s up to others to find appropriate ways to make their own contribution— in circumstances that are continually changing.

VIII. Discussion At the beginning of this study, the author posed two research questions: 1. Does the NMPLIS project reflect the current literature and research on LIS education? 2. If so, is it an example that might be transferred to other contexts?

In the following sections the author will try to discuss and give answers to both questions referring to current literature and research on issues tackled during the NMPLIS project, as exemplified in the project web site in its bibliography section. A. NMPLIS and Current Literature and Research It has been stated that library and information professionals, whatever their country of origin, share similar needs in training or retraining (Tedd, 2003). This study reveals that this project’s strengths lay in tailored courses and attention to the specific needs of the countries involved (NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b). It also took into account what Weingand (1996) recommended as an essential point, that is, the ‘‘interaction between learner and instruction’’ (p. 80). This interaction has been a constituent part of the NMPLIS project, on the basis of related literature on different aspects tackled during the project, among which the following:  Curriculum standardization and internationalization issues (Avakyan, 1999; Boguta, 2005; Brown, 2003; Fazlollahi, 2006; Garibashvili, 2004; Hayrapetyan, 2002; Kazaryan, 1999; Menou, 1993; Rakhmatullaev, 2000; Ramı´rez Leyva, 2004; Tammaro, 2002, 2005; Tammaro & Weech, 2008; Tedd, 2003; Virkus, 2007; Virkus & Tammaro, 2006; Vodosek, 2002; Weech & Tammaro, 2009).  Technological, technical, and bibliographic standardization issues (Chkhenkeli & Garibashvili, 1998; Haavisto, 2005; Johnson, 1997c; Rakhmatullaev, 2002; Reed & Garcia, 2005; Shatirishvili, 1999; Zargaryan, 2007; Zargaryan & Hopkinson, 2009a, 2009b; Zargaryan & Kirk, 1998).

166

Elena Corradini

 Reflections on supportive actions (Dowling, 2005; Hopkinson & Zargaryan, 2009a, 2009b; John & Dowling, 2002; Johnson, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1997a, 1997b, 1988, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2009; Robinson & Glosiene, 2007; Sanyal et al., 1994).  Reports on the partner countries (Bhimani, 2009; Hayrapetyan, 2002; Katrandjian, 2010).  Reports on the project (Hopkinson, 2011; Johnson, 2011; NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b; Segbert, 2009, 2010, 2011; Zargaryan, 2010).

If the Critical Success Factors and the positive actions articulated by Johnson (2009), and given in Table 7, are considered, it is apparent that there are aspects debated in the literature which were truly ‘‘hot’’ issues during the project. Similarly, Table 8 demonstrates that Johnson’s positive actions were acknowledged early and acted on throughout the project. Table 7 Critical Success Factors Compared to NMPLIS Documentation Critical success factors

Presence in NMPLIS documentation

Thoroughly researched understanding of the professional context, underpinned by evidence of relevant developments Evident role of libraries and information services in facilitating access to networked information resources Existence of a funding agency established to operate in the specific geographic and occupational areas, and with potentially relevant priorities High-level professional network through which political support for the proposal could be enlisted Expansion of access to the WWW Regional political environment supportive of the development of the Information Society Supportive lead institution and supportive partner institutions Ability to accommodate the required funding within the agency’s guidelines Individual(s) required to undertake research, develop the proposal, lead the activity Individual(s) with well-developed network of potential collaborators with interests and expertise relevant to the proposed activity A group of individuals whose professional and institutional interests are related to the project goals, albeit differing in detail

NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b

Johnson (2009, p. 184).

NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2010a, 2010b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b

167

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

Table 8 Positive Actions Compared to NMPLIS Documentation Positive actions Evaluating the potential for collaboration before entering into a commitment Understanding the prospective partner’s readiness, capacity, motivation for the collaboration, and sense of shared purpose Recognizing political and other realities Defining and agreeing on aims, clear and attainable objectives, specific outputs, and the critical success factors Gaining attention and securing broadly based support from institutional managers, government, and the other ‘‘stakeholders’’ Creating and enabling environment with incentives and resources to collaborate Developing a realistic plan to achieve the required combination of organizational structures, activities, and funding Creating trust in the partnership, and developing mutual respect and a shared culture Identifying the key individuals to ‘‘champion’’ the collaboration, both students and staff Planning and managing activities systematically Creating flexible structures with a high degree of negotiation and appropriately dispersed decision making Sharing information, and monitoring progress against plan Involving the majority of the staff, including younger staff, operating through influence and consent, and recognizing all contributions Briefing staff and students on local arrangements and circumstances Mitigating differences between administrative systems Using pilot projects to demonstrate benefits and ‘‘quick wins’’ Committing to a medium- to long-term program of collaboration, sufficient to achieve demonstrable and lasting results

Presence in NMPLIS documentation NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2010 to 2012 NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b 2009 to 2012 NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2010 to 2011 2009 to 2012

168

Elena Corradini

Table 8. (Continued ) Positive actions Ensuring adequate opportunities for meaningful communication among potential participants to enhance understanding of the aims, organization, and potential benefits Acknowledging and surmounting cultural and ethical differences Ensuring regular communication between participants to achieve a balance in contributions, mutual support, and cohesion Ensuring that the technical infrastructure for communication or collaboration is adequate Providing any necessary technical support to ensure version control, to get participants registered, and to recover in case of disaster Investing in training to bring knowledge of any technology used in communication or collaboration up-to-date Including adequate provision for communications costs in the budget Evaluating staff and student participants’ perceptions of progress and responding appropriately to issues identified Communicating progress and celebrating success Ensuring local ownership of the outcomes

Presence in NMPLIS documentation 2009 to 2012

2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2010 to 2012 NMPLIS, 2009a, 2009b 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012 2009 to 2012

Johnson (2009, p. 184).

Thus, we can say that the first question can be answered positively, with respect to implementing international LIS courses and taking care of training a cohort of future trainers in countries where the LIS sector needs to improve. The literature was considered during the NMPLIS Consortium meetings because some of the decisions made touched on both old and recent trends, which was apparent in the bibliography shared with staff (see Douglas, 1987; Durrant, 2008; Robinson & Glosiene, 2007; Tammaro, 2002; Virkus, 2007; Virkus & Tammaro, 2006; Weech & Tammaro, 2008, 2009). One of the reasons for the NMPLIS project paying close attention to possible drawbacks, limitations, and barriers was because the people involved

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

169

in it had considerable experience with international course development, namely, Hopkinson, Johnson, and Tammaro. Under these circumstances, the possible inhibiting internal factors named by Johnson (2009) were well under control, so that:  limitations in scope were effectively reduced and under control in terms of professional expertise, foreign language skills, time, and financial resources allocated for the project, although managing perceived differences and attitudes toward partner countries was less successful;  adaptation was a must, recognizing local cultural values, beliefs, and norms as distinct from universal professional concepts, and thus curricula, teaching materials, management style were tailored to different situations;  positive reactions of staff, students, and employers about the perception of the high significance of the project consequently brought acceptance of change and sharing of institutional and/or personal knowledge. There was little uncertainty about the balance between costs and benefits.

B. Transferability of the Project or Model As for the second question, time and other projects related to the NMPLIS Master program will confirm the possibility of transferability of the model. Other current models are based on different approaches. For example, the WISE Consortium relies more on the granting of internationally valid degrees from a network of ‘Western-style’ education offered by universities in several countries around the world, but which share a common language and similar curricula. The European Commission’s TEMPUS-funded projects, on the other hand, and the collaboration reported by Landoy and Musoke (2009) offer other models for collaboration between developed and developing or emerging countries in the LIS arena. The NMPLIS project and its outstanding achievements provide yet another model, which is very different from others to date. C. Limitations The author is aware of some limitations in this study. The first was the impossibility of participating in all events organized by partners in different places. This could imply a partial knowledge of the project’s settings and also a superficial awareness of how the aims and goals of the NMPLIS project were implemented in the various stages. However, the rich documentation on the web site counterbalanced this limitation to some extent by providing a detailed picture of the meetings and activities. Second, the relatively low response rate on the questionnaires limits the usefulness of the results. Finally, the time in which this study was carried out did not cover the entire project period.

170

Elena Corradini

IX. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research In 2010 after the pilot phase, the first data about prospective students for the NMPLIS program were becoming available, with Georgia anticipating admission of 23 students to the new Master program, Armenia having eight interested students, and Uzbekistan counting on an enrollment of about 20–30 students. To ensure sustainability and continuing interest in the project and the new Master’s courses in LIS, the partners agreed that every member should give evidence of the impact that the project might have at the national level. As illustrated by Johnson in one of the Consortium meetings, this would be possible through the identification of context-level sustainability factors and project-level sustainability factors (NMPLIS, 2011a). Similar views were previously disclosed by Johnson (2005, 2009) and Hopkinson and Zargaryan (2009a, 2009b). Further research considering such factors could help to improve the achievements of this and similar projects, as well as enhance the assessment of Critical Success Factors and positive actions outlined by Johnson (2009). Even if it would be both untimely and hasty to indicate final recommendations from this study, it is evident enough from this chapter that the NMPLIS project has undoubtedly achieved what is a confirmation that ‘‘information professionals themselves are the channel of globalization of LIS education because . . . they are sensitive to the benefit of promoting communities of practice within and without their own country of origin’’ (Higgins, 2007, p. 1). Then, it becomes clear that, ‘‘surviving and thriving as a 21st century knowledge and information professional,’’ to cite the title of a recent article by Dale (Dale, 2011), requires networking with peers and exchanging experiences beyond one’s own country borders. This is what the NMPLIS Consortium sought to achieve, and from its documentation and the data collected for this study, it seems to have found the right path toward a real internationalization of education for the LIS profession. Further joint projects and the collaboration among other partners may confirm this view. Therefore, further studies of the type described in this chapter can achieve such confirmation—and enrich the research and literature about international collaborative education, not just in the LIS field, but in other professional disciplines.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank respondents to questionnaires, all parties involved in their dissemination to participants, and in particular Alan

171

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

Hopkinson, Tamara Janashia, Ian M. Johnson, Marat Rakhmatullaev, Tatevik Zargaryan, and Tigran Zargaryan, for their help in ensuring that this work was done in the best possible way.

Appendix A NMPLIS Work Plan Summary by Year Legends: Months are divided into quarters (e.g., October to December). Descriptions in bold are headings for the descriptions following. Symbols used: O: Starting and end date of Outcome E: Activity carried out in the EU country/ies X: Activity carried out in the Partner Country/ies * Activities that lasted until the end of 2012, after the extension of the grant

Activities Planned for 2009

Jan–Mar

Planning LIS and Archives Teaching in Line with EU Standards

O

Needs assessment for curricular development

E+X

Needs assessment for ICT infrastructures

E+X

Develop curriculum document Improve English language skills

X

Apr–Jun

Jul–Sep

Oct–Dec

E+X

E+X

E+X

X

X

Training of Partner Country/ies Academics and Students

O

Attendance on masters course in Library Studies and/or Archives

E

Development of Infrastructure

O

Implement servers for VLE and repository

X

X

X

Select and purchase electronic resources

X

X

X

Train library and archive staff in use and promotion of e-resources

X

Establish learning center

X

172

Elena Corradini

Appendix A (Continued ) Activities Planned for 2009

Jan–Mar

Dissemination

O

Set up and maintain web site

E

Publish press releases, project fliers, and leaflets

E

Attend conferences

E+X

Quality Control and Monitoring

O

Apr–Jun

Jul–Sep

E

E+X

Project evaluation by external expert

X

Project Management

O

Project kick-off meeting

E

E+X

E+X

Management meetings

E+X

X

Brussels meeting

Activities Planned for 2010

Oct–Dec

E

Jan–Mar

Apr–Jun

Jul–Sep

Oct–Dec

E+X

E+X

E+X

E+X

Attendance on masters course in Library Studies and/or Archives

E

E

Training in partner countries

X

X

Planning LIS and Archives Teaching in Line with EU Standards Needs assessment for curricular development Needs assessment for ICT infrastructures Develop curriculum document Improve English language skills Training of Partner Country/ies Academics and Students

Pilot one-year taught Masters

X

Development of Infrastructure

O

Implement servers for VLE and repository

X

X

Select and purchase electronic resources

X

X

X

Train library and archive staff in use and promotion of e-resources

X

X

X

173

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

Appendix A (Continued ) Activities Planned for 2010

Jan–Mar

Apr–Jun

Jul–Sep

Oct–Dec

Establish learning center Establishment of Life Long Learning (LLL) Modules in LIS and Archives

O

Training staff to use VLE

X

Implementing L15 modules on VLE and copying to each server

X

O

X

Establish Validation and Quality Control for Masters and LLL*

O

Develop and implement a quality assurance and enhancement system

X

Dissemination Set up and maintain web site

X

Publish press releases, project fliers, and leaflets Attend conferences Quality Control and Monitoring

E+X

E+X

E+X

Jul–Sep

Oct–Dec

O

Project evaluation by external expert Project Management

E+X

X O

E+X

E

X

Jan–Mar

Apr–Jun

Project kick-off meeting Management meetings Brussels meeting

Activities Planned for 2011 and the 2012 Extension Planning LIS and Archives Teaching in Line with EU Standards Needs assessment for curricular development Needs assessment for ICT infrastructures Develop curriculum document Improve English language skills

O

174

Elena Corradini

Appendix A (Continued ) Activities Planned for 2011 and the 2012 Extension

Jan–Mar

Apr–Jun

Jul–Sep

Training of Partner Country/ies Academics and Students

Oct–Dec O

Attendance on masters course in Library Studies and/or Archives Training in partner countries Pilot one-year taught Masters*

X

X

Pilot second-year of taught Masters* Student placements

X E

Development of Infrastructure

O

Implement servers for VLE and repository Select and purchase electronic resources

X

X

Train library and archive staff in use and promotion of e-resources

X

X

Establish learning center Establishment of LLL Modules in LIS and Archives* Training staff to use VLE Implementing L15 modules on VLE and copying to each server Establish Validation and Quality Control for Masters and LLL

O

Develop and implement a quality assurance and enhancement system Workshop on quality assurance and enhancement Study tour of EU partner institutions’ quality systems

X E

Dissemination*

O

Set up and maintain web site

E

Publish press releases, project fliers, and leaflets Attend conferences Final conference

E+X

E+X X

175

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

Appendix A (Continued ) Activities Planned for 2011 and the 2012 Extension

Jan–Mar

Apr–Jun

Sustainability: Final Report*

Jul–Sep

Oct–Dec

O E+X

E+X O

Quality Control and Monitoring*

O

Inter TEMPUS coaching

X

Project evaluation by external expert

X

Project Management*

E+X

X E+X

E+X

Project kick-off meeting Management meetings Brussels meeting Source: Adapted from the original plan.

E

X

E+X O

176

Elena Corradini

Appendix B Survey Administered to NMPLIS Students Questions

1. What did you like about the Study School?

2. What did you like most? 3. What did you dislike most? 4. What was most difficult for you?

5. Which was your favorite topic? Why? 6. What will you miss of the Study School in Tbilisi? 7. Can you please add these details?

Type of question and predefined answers (when applicable) Six items to be rated from 1=minimum to 5=maximum, meaning: Not at all (1), Not really (2), No opinion (3), Enough (4), Very much (5): The place where it was held The teachers/lecturers The topics/subjects The time of lessons The extra activities The open conferences Open question Open question Two items to be rated from 1=minimum to 5=maximum, meaning Not at all (1), Just a bit (2), No idea (3), Much (4), Very much (5) + space for comments: Understanding the language Understanding the topics Any comments? Open question Open question Choice of country and role from a menu, included options for ‘‘Other—Please specify’’

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

177

Appendix C Survey Administered to NMPLIS Staff Questions

Type of question and predefined answers (when applicable)

1. The NMPLIS Master has developed from the encounter of Western and Eastern expertise. Which do you think were the most hard challenges in the beginning? Have they been overcome? 2. Which aspects do you think have been better tackled during the Program? (1=minimum to 10=maximum)

Open question

3. I would like that you think now in terms of a SWOT Analysis Chart in respect to the NMPLIS Master. Which of the following could you consider Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, or Threats? You can also identify more options for each, but then please explain your choice.

4. How difficult was taking a decision about . . .

Four items, 10-point scale question + space for comments: Cultural diversity Language Technological standards Educational standards Any comments? 11 items, to be associated to the terms: Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat + space for comments: Studying in a foreign country Working in a foreign country Speaking a foreign language Learning new technologies Learning new teaching methods Learning new evaluating methods Teaching new subjects Teaching to future teachers Implementing new technologies Implementing new teaching methods Implementing new evaluation methods Other (please specify): 11 items, to be rated as very easy (1), easy (2), no opinion (3), difficult (4), very difficult (5) + space for comments: Choosing the partners Defining areas of interest Defining priorities for action Selecting learning topics Deciding on technical improvements Deciding on teaching methods

178

Elena Corradini

Appendix C (Continued ) Questions

5. What did you personally learn from this experience? 6. What will you miss after this experience comes to an end? 7. Would you please add these details?

Type of question and predefined answers (when applicable) Choosing venues for study tours Choosing teachers Choosing experts Choosing tutors Defining budgets Any comments? Open question Open question Choice of country and role in NMPLIS from a menu, included options for ‘‘Other—Please specify’’

References Avakyan, S. (1999, April). Standardization in the field of library science in Armenia. Paper presented at the 2nd South Caucasian Regional Library Conference, Tbilisi, Georgia. Bhimani, N. (2009). A report of a visit in Uzbekistan [Report]. Retrieved from http:// www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/Workshops/UZ_Visit_Nazlim.pdf Boguta, G. (2005). A strategy for libraries in Georgia. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Directorate General IV—Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport: Cultural Policy and Action Department. STAGE project: DGIV/CULT/ STAGE(2005)3. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/ Completed/STAGE/DGIV_CULT_STAGE%282005%293_en.PDF Brown, I. (2003). A polyphony of potential: Cultural training provision and needs in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Directorate General IV—Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport: Cultural Policy and Action Department. STAGE project: DGIV/CULT/STAGE (2003)7. Chkhenkeli, T., & Garibashvili, I. (1998). Implementation of the UNIMARC format in Georgian libraries. International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 27(1), 21–23. Council of Europe. (2010). Higher education and research: What is the Bologna Process? Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/EHEA2010/Bologna Pedestrians_en.asp Dale, S. (2011). Surviving and thriving as a 21st century knowledge and information professional. Business Information Review, 28(1), 30–37. doi:10.1177/ 0266382111398854 Douglas, D. (1987, August). Training of trainers. Paper presented at the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) Pre-session seminar on

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

179

international colloquium on education and training of library, information and archival personnel, London, UK. Dowling, M. (2005). Aid to struggling libraries in the South Caucasus. American Libraries, 36(8), 24–25. Durrant, F. (2008, June 1–6). UNESCO training-the-trainers ‘‘information literacy workshop, Montego Bay, Jamaica.’’ The International Information & Library Review, 41(4), 280–285. doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2009.09.022 European Commission. (n.d.). Education, audiovisual & culture executive agency: Tempus programme. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/ European Commission. (2008). Grant agreement for an action TEMPUS programme. Agreement Number-145021-TEMPUS-2008-UK-JPCR. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. European Commission. (2009). Beneficiaries space TEMPUS IV (2007–2013). Projects submitted in 2009. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/ beneficiaries/beneficiaries_tempus4_2009_en.php European Commission. (2012a). Education and training: The Bologna process—towards the European higher education area. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/ highereducation/bologna_en.htm European Commission. (2012b). Development and cooperation—Europaid: ALFA: Building the future on education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/ where/latin-america/regional-cooperation/alfa/index_en.htm Fazlollahi, B. (2006). Building higher education capacity for economic growth: A success story in Georgia. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Garibashvili, I. (2004). Ways for Georgian libraries today: Sharing of observations after IFLA 2003 Berlin. Buch und Bibliothek, 56(2), 112–120. Haavisto, T. (2005). Libraries in South Caucasus: A manual for managers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Directorate General IV—Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport: Cultural Policy and Action Department. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/Resources/Publications Culture_en.asp Hayrapetyan, N. (2002, August). Country report: Armenia. IFLANET activities and services: Public libraries section. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s8/annual/ cr02-arm.htm Higgins, S. E. (2007, February). LIS education and research areas for developing countries. In K. Manoj Kumar & V. K. Anand (Eds.), Information and knowledge management in networked [sic] world: Proceedings, Punjab University, Chandigarh (pp. 788–791). Ahmedabad, India: INFLIBNET Centre. Retrived from http:// ir.inflibnet.ac.in/dxml/bitstream/handle/1944/1453/788-791.pdf Hopkinson, A. (2011). New master’s programme in library and information science. Higher education European funding services (HEEFS) spring briefings. Retrieved from http:// www.heefs.ac.uk/documents/showdocument.asp?recordid=171&docsectionid=2& subsectionid=57 Hopkinson, A., & Zargaryan, T. (2009a). Developing a new master’s program in library and information science in Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan. International Leads, 23(2), 4. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/irrt/sites/ala.org.irrt/files/ content/intlleads/leadsarchive/200906.pdf Hopkinson, A., & Zargaryan, T. (2009b). Developing new master’s program on library and information science for the LIS faculties of Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan: ‘‘European Union–Eastern neighbouring Area–Central Asia’’

180

Elena Corradini

cooperation triangle in action. INFOtheca: Journal of Informatics & Librarianship (Serbia), 10(1/2), 45a–49a. Retrieved from http://www.unilib.bg.ac.rs/ zajednica01/english/izdanja/infoteka/br1_2_2009/INFOTHECA_X_1-2_June 2009_45a-49a.pdf John, N., & Dowling, M. (2002). Bodyguards and breaking down barriers: Fostering civil society in the South Caucasus. International Leads, 16(4), 4. Johnson, I. M. (1988, July). Multiple levels of education and training for library and information work in Hungary: Report on a visit, 23 April–7 May 1988. Unpublished report. Aberystwyth, Wales: College of Librarianship. Johnson, I. M. (1993a). Education for librarianship and information work in Eastern Europe: Report on visits sponsored by the European Commission TEMPUS programme, 1992 and 1993. Aberdeen, Scotland: The Robert Gordon University, School of Librarianship and Information Studies. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED364224 Johnson, I. M. (1993b). Librarianship and professional education in Hungary. Focus on International and Comparative Librarianship, 24(1), 14–17. Johnson, I. M. (Ed.). (1995). The education and training of librarians in the U.S.S.R.: Papers from a workshop arranged by the IFLA Section on Education and Training, during the 57th IFLA Conference, August 1991, Department of Library Studies, Moscow State Institute of Culture. Moscow, Russia: Moscow State Institute of Culture. Johnson, I. M. (1997a). Recent trends in cooperation between schools of librarianship and information studies. In R. G. Prasher & P. B. Mangla (Eds.), Library and information science. Parameters and perspectives: Essays in honour of Prof. P.B. Mangla (Vol. 1, pp. 75–80). New Delhi, India: Concept. Johnson, I. M. (1997b). SLISNET—UNESCO’s experiment in virtual networking between schools of librarianship and information sciences. The New Review of Information Networking, 3(1), 185–201. doi:10.1080/13614579709516907 Johnson, I. M. (1997c). Staff development in international technical cooperation programmes: The case of the TEMPUS Joint European Project ‘‘LISTEN’’. Information Development, 13(4), 197–202. doi:10.1177/0266666974238753 Johnson, I. M. (1998). UNESCO and human resource development for the ‘Information Society’. Education for Information, 16(3), 237–242. Johnson, I. M. (1999). New paradigms for professional education in Latin America? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 40(2), 114–117. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/40324122 Johnson, I. M. (2000). The role of associations of information and library education in teaching and research: Recent and potential developments in Britain and Europe. Education for Information, 18(2/3), 201–220. Johnson, I. M. (2001, August). Research and international technical cooperation programmes. In 67th IFLA council and general conference, theory and research forum. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla67/papers/055-165e.pdf Johnson, I. M. (2005). In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity: Using a case study to identify Critical Success Factors contributing to the initiation of international collaborative projects. Education for Information, 23(1–2), 9–42. Johnson, I. M. (2009). Enhancing development through international collaboration by schools of librarianship and information studies. Information Development, 25(3), 178–197. doi:10.1177/0266666909340788

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

181

Johnson, I. M. (2011). Rebuilding librarianship in the Caucasus and Central Asia: A bibliography for NMPLIS on the background to developments in Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/ Katrandjian, O. (2010). Rebuilding the libraries of Armenia, one step at a time. Civilitas foundation. Retrieved from http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/showthread.php? 244234-Rebuilding-The-Libraries-Of-Armenia-One-Step-At-A-Time Kazaryan, R. (1999, April). Continuing professional education activities of Armenian Library Association. Paper presented at the 2nd South Caucasian Regional Library Conference, Tbilisi, Georgia. Landoy, A., & Musoke, M. G. N. (2009). Skills acquired and passed on: The collaboration between the University of Bergen and Makerere University Libraries and their new partners in the North and South. Retrieved from https://bora.uib.no/ bitstream/1956/3597/1/Skills%20acquired_Musoke_and_Landoy.pdf Large, A. (1991). Curriculum development: Some reflections on UNESCO’s role. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 32(1/2), 77–83. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.cwplib.proxy.liu.edu/stable/40323349 Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London, UK: Farmer Press. Menou, M. J. (1993). Requirements for international cooperation in continuing education for library and information work. In B. Woolls (Ed.), Continuing professional education and IFLA: Past, present, and a vision for the future. Papers from the IFLA CPERT second world conference on continuing professional education for the library and information science professions (pp. 253–261). Mu¨nchen, Germany: K.G. Saur. NMPLIS. (2009a, February 18). Consortium meeting: Aberdeen, UK. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/Minutes_of_kick_off_meeting.pdf NMPLIS. (2009b, July 1). Consortium meeting: Yerevan, Armenia. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/Yerevan_minutes.pdf NMPLIS. (2010a, February 25). Consortium meeting: Re¯zekne, Lithuania. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/Rezekne_MINUTES.pdf NMPLIS. (2010b, October 6–7) Consortium meeting: Tbilisi, Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/MinutesTbilisi.pdf NMPLIS. (2011a, March 28–29). Consortium meeting: Parma, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/UoPMINUTES.pdf NMPLIS. (2011b, October 14–15). Consortium meeting: Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/tashkent_minutes.pdf Pickard, A. J. (2007). Research methods in information. London, UK: Facet. Rakhmatullaev, M. A. (2000). Central Asia 99’’: Results and perspectives. Library Hi Tech News, 17(4), 6–10. Rakhmatullaev, M. A. (2002). Advanced information library infrastructure: As an important social tool for the prevention of crisis situations in central Asia. Library Hi Tech News, 19(9), 12–14. Ramı´rez Leyva, E. M. (2004, August) Cooperacio´n regional en educacio´n y entrenamiento bibliotecolo´gico: fortalezas y retos [Regional cooperation for library science education: strength and weakness]. In Libraries: Tools for education and development—World Library and Information Congress: 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla. org/IV/ifla70/papers/060s-Leyva.pdf

182

Elena Corradini

Reed, S. G., & Garcia, J. (2005). Mission to Uzbekistan. American Libraries, 36(7), 29. Robinson, L., & Glosiene, A. (2007). Continuing professional development for library and information science: Case study of a network of training centres [Special issue]. Aslib Proceedings, 59(4/5), 462–474. doi:10.1108/00012530 710817645 Sanyal, B. C., Kitaev, I., & Lwin, T. (1994). Education, employment and human resource development in Central and Western Asia: Report of a sub-regional workshop, Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan, 3–14 August 1993. Paris, France: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0009/000967/096724eo.pdf Segbert, M. (2009). 1st monitoring report. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/ Tempus/reports/Tempus%20monitoring%20reportv3.pdf Segbert, M. (2010). 2nd monitoring report. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/ Tempus/reports/Tempus%20monitoring%20report%20Georgiav3%200.pdf Segbert, M. (2011). 3rd monitoring report. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/ Tempus/reports/expert_report.pdf Shatirishvili, G. (1999, April). Implementation of international standards in Georgian libraries. Paper presented at the 2nd South Caucasian Regional Library Conference, Tbilisi, Georgia. Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134–164). London, UK: Sage. Stueart, R. D. (1997). Comparative librarianship: A researchable agenda. In I. M. Johnson (1997a). SurveyMonkeyt. Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com Tammaro, A. M. (2002, March). Towards internationalisation in library and information science. In A. M. Tammaro (Ed.), Towards internationalisation in library and information studies: Proceedings of the international seminar, Parma, Italy (pp. 7–15). Fiesole, Italy: Casalini Libri. Tammaro, A. M. (2005). Report on quality assurance models in LIS programs. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.orgwww.ifla.org/files/set/s23_Report-QA-2005.pdf Tammaro, A. M., & Weech, T. L. (2008). International guidelines for equivalency and reciprocity of qualifications for LIS professionals. IFLA Division VII, Education and Training Section. Retrieved from http://ifla.queenslibrary.org/VII/s23/projects/ equivalency-project-report_final.pdf Tedd, L. A. (2003). The what and how of education and training for information professionals in a changing world. Journal of Information Science, 29(1), 79–86. doi:10.1177/016555150302900110 Virkus, S. (2007, August). Collaboration in LIS education in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. In Libraries for the future: Progress, development and partnerships—world library and information congress: 73rd IFLA general conference and council, Durban, South Africa. The Hague, Netherlands: IFLA. Retrieved from http://ifla.queens library.org/iv/ifla73/papers/134-Virkus-en.pdf Virkus, S., Tammaro, A. M. (2006). Models of academic cooperation in European LIS education. Retrieved from http://dspace-unipr.cilea.it/bitstream/1889/1184/1/ EADTU-Rome%20Virkus%20and%20Tammaro.pdf Vodosek, P. (2002, January). Internationalisation of LIS education: Premises, conditions and chances. In B. Badovinac (Ed.), Human beings and information specialists: Future skills, qualifications, positioning: Proceedings of the 10th International

International Collaboration in LIS Program Development

183

BOBCATSSS Symposium on Library and Information Science: BOBCATSSS 2002, Portoroz, Slovenia (pp. 10–15). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Faculty of Arts, Department of Library and Information Science; Stuttgart, Germany: University of Applied Science. Weech, T., Tammaro, A. M. (2009). International guidelines for equivalency and reciprocity of qualifications for LIS professionals. Draft guidance document for transparency, equivalency and recognition of qualifications. IFLA, Education and Training Section. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/set/Guidance_document_for_ recognition_of_qualifications_2009-3.pdf Weingand, D. E. (1996). Continuing education: A reminder about andragogy. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 37(1), 79–80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40324288 Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Zargaryan, T. (2007). Armenian libraries on the threshold of a digital era: Fifteen years of library automation in Armenia. International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 36(1), 8–11. Zargaryan, T. (2010, April 14). A report on the new master’s program in library and information science. Retrieved from http://www.flib.sci.am/eng/Tempus/reports/ NEW%20MASTERS%20PROGRAMME%20IN%20LIBRARY.pdf Zargaryan, T., & Hopkinson, A. (2009a). Scientific publishing in Armenia. European Science Editing, 35(2), 43–44. Zargaryan, T., & Hopkinson, A. (2009b). Overview of the scientific publishing in Armenia. Retrieved from http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/2576/2/Armenia.pdf Zargaryan, T., & Kirk, C. (1998). Some aspects of automation of Yerevan State University library. International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 27(4), 76–77.

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education David A. Jank, Heting Chu and Michael E. D. Koenig Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA

Abstract This chapter updates earlier research that analyzed mergers, collaborations, and similar trends in LIS education, and provides a more comprehensive current summary of those trends. Three distinct patterns are beginning to emerge in both organizational structure and collaboration: changes in the nature of LIS program partnerships within parent educational institutions; the impact on LIS education by prominent academic associations that are not reliant on ALA accreditation recognition; and the growth in the number and type of academic offerings in LIS schools themselves. Among some notable changes are the establishment of the Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), continued growth in the iSchool caucus and its increasing international membership. Additionally the number of dual degree master’s programs in which LIS departments partner is on the rise, as is the number of degrees now being offered at LIS schools (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels) that are not ‘‘traditional’’ MLS degrees. Inter-institutional collaborative MLIS programs are also emergent, evident in such programs as the Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) consortium. The data presented here seem to suggest that the face of LIS education continues to change as the 21st century gets underway. Keywords: Library and Information Science; education; LIS schools; iSchools; dual degrees; collaborative education

I. Introduction For some time, collaborations, alliances, and partnerships could be thought of as standard operational behavior in most economic environments. Whether in the fields of business, the arts, or science, one could argue that progress in any of these domains could not be made in the marketplace without them. In the field of education, however, such alliances are not as historically established. In both public and higher education settings,

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036010

185

186

David A. Jank et al.

mergers of schools and academic programs are beginning to equate operational partnerships and collaboration arrangements as methods for coping with changes in society and the emerging economic climate (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). Such patterns have helped redefine the structure of educational programs today, and library and information science (LIS) education has become an example of such operational shifts. How are such shifts manifested in the LIS realm? Hildreth and Koenig (2002) and Koenig and Hildreth (2002) investigated this question and documented what, at the time, seemed to be a growing trend in realignments of LIS programs at the institutional level. These shifts were largely organizational, and while a growth in the variety of LIS academic course offerings was also apparent, most of the evidence examined suggested collaborative shifts that seemed administrative in nature. Since that time, much has changed. Economic conditions have evolved, political and societal winds have shifted, and institutions of higher education everywhere seem to be facing budget and enrollment crises unlike what they have seen before. Today, it appears that (as the title of this chapter suggests) mergers of academic programs are as much a reality in LIS schools as all of the iterations of collaborative partnerships that have come to define LIS education heretofore. This chapter revisits the Hildreth and Koenig’s (2002) studies and expands upon them in a number of ways. It provides distinct examination of both LIS schools and LIS educational offerings. We examine both organizational structures of academic institutions that house LIS programs, and the joint educational program offerings that exist there. We expand upon this investigation by also considering joint degree offerings and academic programs LIS schools participate in outside of their institutions. Included in this discussion are the roles of partnerships between LIS schools and a broad spectrum of academic departments; the changing nature of course offerings and degree programs; and the growing presence of both online and face-to-face classes in collaborative LIS education. This chapter also examines the emergence and growth of the iSchool Caucus, the Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), and the Deans Group of the Computing Research Association (CRA). The membership growth in these groups suggests that LIS education is evolving internationally and expanding in scope. The data here suggest that, although American Library Association (ALA) accreditation is certainly still the hallmark of the traditional Master of Library Science (MLS) degree, such degrees are far from the only type of program in which LIS educators appear to be interested. The growth in the number of degrees offered in LIS schools, and the breadth of their academic content, continue to flourish outside of the

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

187

realm of ALA accreditation. It is further becoming evident that geographical and organizational boundaries no longer confine LIS degrees, and a requirement for physical presence in the classroom may be starting to fade as an expectation of LIS students. While this chapter has its roots in the study by Hildreth and Koenig (2002), it documents a variety of changing characteristics of LIS education regarding collaboration, alliances, and partnerships. These include LIS education as both a place (be it virtual or physical) and a field of study. It provides empirical evidence of the shifts in both traditional MLS education and newly emergent LIS educational offerings at all levels of higher education. Finally, it offers a more comprehensive view of the dynamics still affecting the ever-changing world of LIS school education.

II. Mergers in LIS Education A. Mergers of ALA-Accredited LIS Schools The establishment of LIS programs as other than standalone or independent schools is not a new idea. For decades, ALA-accredited programs could be found both in standalone schools and colleges, and as departments or divisions within larger schools and colleges (e.g., Hildreth & Koenig, 2002; Koenig & Hildreth, 2002). The trend in recent years, however, suggests that the merging of previously standalone programs into larger, umbrella groupings of academic departments is increasing. So, too, is the number and variety of academic programs with which LIS schools are now housed (e.g., Chu, 2010). While not all LIS schools provide historical profiles on their web sites, a review of those that do suggests that at least a dozen such programs have experienced mergers or restructurings since the year 2000 alone. These realignments have resulted in new homes with such academic programs as Education, Social Science, Communications, Media, and Computer Science. Even more varied are the ‘‘sibling’’ units within these umbrella institutions. LIS degrees are now jointly offered within the same academic schools or colleges as education, psychology, human services, communication (both media and health care), management, information technology, social work, recreation, the arts, and law. In many instances, this movement has coincided with an increase in joint degree offerings by LIS programs and other academic units co-housed within larger schools and colleges. The latter phenomenon is to be examined in another section of this chapter. The merger of the LIS School with the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University reflects the expansion of librarianship from

188

David A. Jank et al.

organizing and disseminating knowledge to helping to create and analyze it (Cronin, 2012; Goldberg, 2012). It also reflects the growing trend of LIS schools to invest in partnerships outside of their own departments or educational institutions. Unsurprisingly, library education traditionalists lamented the loss of autonomy that such academic mergers seemed to herald. Elizabeth Aversa however, former director of the University of Alabama’s School of Library and Information Studies (SLIS) at Tuscaloosa, AL (which is currently part of the College of Communication and Information Sciences), sees the trend as a strength rather than a weakness as cited by Goldberg (2012): Communications, with its interests in a free press, in information technologies, in publishing, and in the role of the media in a democratic society, is the perfect place for a school that is concerned with libraries, information science, and the book arts. (p. 25)

Aversa was speaking at the 2011 Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) conference, and went on to describe how her SLIS faculty and students can broaden their horizons by sharing resources (e.g., laboratories and recording studios) curricula, and research opportunities (Goldberg, 2012). Her comments do not seem atypical, especially because the academic disciplines of communications and media are among the most common departments into which many LIS schools now find themselves moving. Table 1 provides updated information on merged LIS programs as reviewed in Chu’s (2010) study. These data were collected during the summer of 2012, and offer an overview of the organizational alignments of those LIS programs that are not offered in standalone LIS schools. As of this writing, more than half (i.e., 32 of 58, or 55%) of all ALA-accredited LIS schools exist within academic units that are not exclusively LIS. The majority of these programs are evenly split between schools of education and communications (including media). However, many can be found within broader multidisciplinary departments within schools of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Graduate or Professional Studies. Some of the communications schools that house LIS programs are in the health care sector, such as speech communication or auditory sciences. These are so distinguished in the table. The sibling programs co-housed with LIS are quite varied, and suggest that there may be no universally agreed upon ‘‘home’’ in which LIS programs can naturally reside. This variation in unit alignment seems particularly common in colleges and universities where LIS degrees are offered jointly with other departments, a topic to be discussed later in this chapter.

College of Communication & Information Sciences College of Computing & Information Graduate School of Education Graduate School of Education & Information Studies College of Education & Human Services

Faculty of Management

College of Education College of Communication & Information

Information & Computer Sciences Department College of Communication & Information

College of Communication & Information Studies College of Education, Information & Technology College of Human Sciences & Education

Faculty of Education College of Education Faculty of Arts & Sciences

Alabama

SUNY at Albany SUNY at Buffalo UCLA

Dalhousie

Denver Florida State

Hawaii

Kentucky

Long Island

McGill Missouri Montreal

Louisiana

Kent

Clarion

Parent unit

LIS school

Table 1 Parent Units and Academic Siblings of ALA-Accredited LIS Programs

Human Resources & Workforce Development, Education, Kinesiology, Social Work Education Education Arts & Sciences

Education, Computer Science

Journalism & Mass Communication, Visual Communication Design Communication (Media)

Communication (Health Sciences), Education, Health & Rehabilitative Services Management, Information Technology, Resource & Environmental Studies Education Communication (Media), Communication Science & Disorders (Health Sciences) Computer Science

Computer Science, Informatics Education Education

Communication (Media)

Non-LIS disciplines Housed with LIS

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

189

School of Business & Leadershipa College of Liberal Arts & Sciences College of Applied Sciences & Arts College of Mass Communications & Information Studies College of Arts & Sciences School of Education College of Education & Psychology College of Communication & Information College of Professional Education Graduate School Faculty of Information & Media Studies

St. Catherine St. John’s San Jose´ South Carolina

Arts & Sciences Education Education, Psychology Communication (Media) Education Multidisciplinary Media Studies

The announcement for St. Catherine’s change of parent institution was posted on July 11, 2012 to http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=3481 and, as of the Fall 2012 semester, the program was listed as an academic unit within the School of Business and Leadership (www.stkate.edu/schools/sbl/library.php). In addition, Catholic University of America in July 2012 began a process of considering the transition of the School of Library and Information Science to the status of a Department within the University’s School of Arts and Sciences (Banta, 2012).

a

South Florida Southern Connecticut Southern Mississippi Tennessee Texas Woman’s Valdosta Western Ontario

School of Communication & Information

Learning Technologies, Computer Science

College of Information, Library & Information Science, & Technologies College of Arts & Sciences Division of Social Sciences School of Communication & Media

Arts & Sciences Social Sciences Communication (Media), Film, Journalism, Public Relations, Writing & Rhetoric Communication (Media), Journalism, Information Technology Education, Social Work Arts & Sciences Applied Sciences & Arts Mass Communications, Journalism, Media

Education

Non-LIS disciplines Housed with LIS

College of Education

Parent unit

Rutgers

Oklahoma Queens Rhode Island

North Carolina at Greensboro North Texas

LIS school

Table 1. (Continued )

190 David A. Jank et al.

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

191

In some cases, LIS schools have faced the threat of closure rather than merger in attempts to streamline costs in the face of budget cuts. In recent years, the State University of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, LA avoided votes to close its program rather than have it absorbed into a college (see Table 1). In other cases, attempts to secede from larger academic organizational structures and establish independent LIS schools have rarely been successful. In the University of South Florida in Tampa, for example, administration officials viewed such a move as cost ineffective, suggesting that once a merger occurs, it is not likely that independent LIS programs will re-emerge into their original form. This is not the case with all partnerships, however. The LIS program at St. Catherine University, St. Paul, MN, which for many years existed as something akin to a satellite campus for Dominican, achieved full accreditation as an independent program in 2011. B. Parent Institutions of Non-ALA-Accredited LIS Programs The previous section covers mergers of ALA-accredited LIS programs. The focus of this section is on organizational structure of LIS programs which are not accredited by the ALA. Table 2 displays all such programs based on a list the ALA’s Committee on Accreditation (COA) compiled in 2005 and actual visits of those programs’ web sites by the authors in August 2012. As shown in Table 2, all of the non-ALA-accredited LIS programs reside exclusively in colleges of education. Some of the LIS programs exist as separate departments (e.g., Chicago State University, IL) while others share a departmental home with non-LIS programs (e.g., Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, under the College of Education’s Department of Leadership & Education Studies). The majority of the 14 LIS programs listed in Table 2 offer school library media certification, which perhaps makes colleges of education logical parental homes for these LIS programs. On the other hand, information about whether the LIS programs listed in Table 2 are native members of these colleges of education or are the results of merger is unavailable to the authors. Although not accredited by the ALA, these programs are mostly accredited by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and/or National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). One exception regarding accreditation is the Master of Information Management and Systems program at University of California, Berkeley (http:// www.ischool.berkeley.edu/) which stopped seeking ALA reaccreditation in 1994. It is nevertheless a member in the iSchool Caucus, a theme to be discussed next in this chapter.

education.odu.edu/eci/libsci/ www.salemstate.edu/academics/schools/ 18925.php http://www.shsu.edu/Blis_www/ http://itls.usu.edu/htm/academicprograms&slma

Library Science Library Media Studies Library Science School Library Media Administration

ed.mnsu.edu/ksp/lme/

www.artc.udel.edu/school-library-mediacertification/ www.ecu.edu/cs-educ/libs/index.cfm prtl.uhcl.edu/portal/page/portal/SOE/ Programs/SLIS www2.kutztown.edu/academics/graduateprograms/library-science.htm www.longwood.edu/education/9479.htm

School Media Education

School Library Media

Library Science

Library Science Library & Information Science

uca.edu/leadershipstudies/libm09.php

Library Media & Information Technologies Library Science & Information Services Library, Information and Media Studies School Library Media

http://www.ucmo.edu/elhd/programs/lis/ index.cfm www.csu.edu/collegeofeducation/LIMS/

les.appstate.edu/programs/library-science

URL

Library Science

LIS program

a East Carolina had been offered accreditation candidacy by the ALA-COA as of 2005. More information about its candidacy can be found at http://www.ecu.edu/ cs-educ/libs/accreditationold.cfm

University of Delaware, College of Education and Human Development East Carolina University, College of Educationa University of Houston at Clear Lake, School of Education Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, College of Education Longwood University, College of Education and Human Services Minnesota State University Mankato, School of Education Old Dominion University, Darden College of Education Salem State University, School of Education & Allied Studies Sam Houston State University, College of Education Utah State University, Emma Eccles Jones College of Education & Human Services

Central Missouri State University, College of Education Chicago State University, School of Education

Appalachian State University, Reich College of Education University of Central Arkansas, College of Education

Parent unit

Table 2 Parent Units of 14 LIS Programs Not ALA Accredited

192 David A. Jank et al.

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

193

III. Collaborative Alliances in LIS Education A. The iSchools Caucus and the CRA Deans Group 1. Origins Of all the collaborative alliances in LIS education, the emergence of Information Schools (or, iSchools in brief) deserves particular attention. The iSchool movement evolved similarly to the Deans Group of the CRA. On its web site the CRA describes itself as . . . an association of more than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, computer engineering, and related fields; laboratories and centers in industry, government, and academia engaging in basic computing research; and affiliated professional societies . . . [whose] mission is to strengthen research and advanced education in the computing fields, expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in our society. (Computing Research Association, n.d.a., n.p.)

According to the CRA web site (http://www.cra.org/about/cradeans), the CRA Deans Group was ‘‘established in an effort to provide leadership and community to emerging and established colleges of computing and interdisciplinary IT schools’’ (Computing Research Association, n.d.-b, n.p.). The group, commonly referred to as the IT Deans Group, emerged and was created at the biennial CRA meeting at Snowbird, UT, in 2000. Among the initial motivations for the group’s formation was a desire for LIS and IT department deans to conduct professional programs that had a broader interest than traditional LIS education, and to meet in a context where ALA and ALA accreditation was of peripheral interest. The emphasis of the Deans Group is very much on interdisciplinarity. There are now more than 40 institutions that participate. Those members are listed in Table 3. The IT Deans Group with 48 members is a bit larger than the iSchool Caucus with 37 members. The overlap is somewhat modest, with only 16 institutions in both groups. Both groups are predominantly US oriented. The iSchools caucus appears to be more international with 13 overseas members and 2 Canadian members, while the IT Deans Group has 4 overseas and 2 Canadian members. As the name implies, the group exists for the heads of schools of computing, schools of information, and/or schools of information technology who report directly to the Provost or Chief Academic Officer at a university. While that structure is not rigorously enforced, associate deans often attend; for example, participation in an IT Deans Group meeting is much smaller than an iSchools conference (or iConference, in brief). The IT Deans Group meetings serve primarily as a venue for conversation and comparison, and while presentations are made,

194

David A. Jank et al.

Table 3 Members of the CRA Deans Group Brigham Young University—Utah Brigham Young University—Hawaii Carnegie Mellon University Cornell University Dalhousie University DePaul University Drexel University Florida State University Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Southern University Illinois State University Indiana University Juniata College Keio University—Japan Long Island University National University of Singapore

New Jersey Institute of Technology Northeastern University Pace University Pennsylvania State University Rensselaer Polytechnic Rochester Institute of Technology Singapore Management University Southern Polytechnic State University State University of NY—Albany Syracuse University United Arab Emirates University University at Buffalo University of Arkansas at Little Rock University of British Columbia University of California— Berkeley University of California— Santa Cruz

University Irvine University Florida University Boulder University

of California, of Central of Colorado, of Hawaii

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Maryland—CLIS University of Michigan University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Nevada— Las Vegas University of North Carolina—Charlotte University of Pittsburgh University of South Alabama University of Utah University of Washington Virginia Tech

they are somewhat informal, though they do frequently appear later at some other venue in a more formal fashion. While the iSchools started with a strong LIS orientation, the IT Deans group originated in computer science. The iSchools Caucus can trace its origins to discussions at the ALISE 2003 meeting, where the deans of several LIS schools examined whether ALISE was an appropriate venue for their institutions and programs, or whether another association was needed. They also considered whether that group should be supplemental to or an

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

195

alternative to ALISE. The conclusion was that it should be supplemental but independent. The institutions participating in this initial discussion were Drexel University, Indiana University, Long Island University, Syracuse University, and the University of Pittsburgh. The IT Deans group, by contrast, was started by members of the CRA group, whose principal orientation was computer science. The thrust among the parties who arranged the common interest session, from which the IT Deans Group sprung in 2000, was a strong interest in the humanistic as well as the technical aspects of computer science. There was substantial overlap between the IT Deans Group and those who identified their field as ‘‘social informatics.’’ Indeed, in both cases, there are threads leading back to the University of California at Irvine, where Debra Richardson (the Chair at UC Irvine), John King (for some years the Dean of the iSchool at Michigan), and the late Rob Kling of Indiana University (prominent in early years of social informatics research), were all colleagues in the early 1990s. The iSchools Caucus derives from LIS education, but with a strong emphasis on IT. The IT Deans Group starts from IT, but with a strong interdisciplinary emphasis on the humanistic, and the social aspects of IT. It is reflective of the professional literature that indicates the adjunctive sociocognitive interests of both IT and LIS (Hjørland, 2005; Jank, 2012). The result here is a convergence of interests. While their interests are very similar, the principal operational differences are a function of the fact that while the iSchools caucus is a professional association in its own right, the IT Deans Group is essentially a special interest group within a larger professional association, and its range of activities is much narrower. 2. Creation and Development of the iSchool Caucus The iSchool Caucus (iCaucus) was officially established around 2005 with 17 members (Chu, 2012; Larsen, 2008). In August 2012, the iCaucus membership grew to 37 members (see Table 4). A closer examination of Table 4 reveals the following two features of iSchools. First, the 37 iCaucus members come from not only library and information science but also disciplines such as computer science and management information systems. Their disciplinary distribution appears as follows:  Library & information science: 29 (78.4%) schools  Computer science: 5 (13.5%) schools (i.e., University of California, Irvine; Georgia Institute of Technology; Indiana University—Informatics & Computing; Pennsylvania State University; University of South Australia)

Table 4 iSchool Caucus Members B-M University of British Columbia, School of Library, Archival & Information Studies, Canada University of California, School of Information, Berkeley University of California, The Donald Bren School of Information & Computer Science, Irvine University of California, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, Los Angeles Carnegie Mellon University, School of Information Systems & Management, Heinz College Drexel University, College of Information Science & Technology Florida State University, College of Communication & Information Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing University of Glasgow, Humanities Advanced Technology & Information Institute, UK Humboldt-Universita¨t zu Berlin, Berlin School of Library & Information Science, Germany Indiana University, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, School of Library & Information Science University of Kentucky, College of Communications & Information Studies University of Maryland, College of Information Studies University of Maryland, Department of Information Systems, Baltimore County University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Information, Australia University of Michigan, The School of Information

N-W University of Nanjing, School of Information Management, China University of North Carolina, School of Information & Library Science, Chapel Hill University of North Texas, College of Information Pennsylvania State University, College of Information Sciences & Technology University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Sciences Royal School of Library & Information Science, Denmark

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, School of Communication & Information University of Sheffield, Information School, UK Singapore Management University, School of Information Systems, Singapore University of South Australia, School of Computer & Information Science Syracuse University, School of Information Studies University of Tampere, School of Information Sciences, Finland University of Texas, School of Information, Austin University of Toronto, Faculty of Information, Canada Tsukuba University, Graduate School of Library, Information & Media Studies, Japan University College Dublin, School of Information & Library Studies, UK University College London, Department of Information Studies, UK University of Washington, Information School University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, School of Information Studies Wuhan University, School of Information Management, China

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

197

 Management information systems: 3 (8.1%) schools (i.e., Carnegie Mellon University; University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Singapore Management University)

Second, the iSchools are geographically located in Australia (2), Canada (2), China (2), Denmark (1), Finland (1), Germany (1), Japan (1), Singapore (1), UK (4), and USA (22). Clearly iSchools in the United States account for close to two-thirds of iCaucus’s membership. Despite the dominance of LIS in discipline and US in geographical location, the diversity in the iCaucus makeup provides a solid foundation for collaboration and forges a strong alliance in the information field. 3. Collaborative Efforts Sawyer and Rosenbaum (2008) emphasized the need for collective efforts when discussing what iSchools could do as a scholarly caucus. Several avenues have been explored for collaboration purposes since the creation of the iCaucus. iConferences represent one such avenue. iConference for research collaboration. iSchools, as a group, truly distinguish themselves in the research domain (Chu, 2012). iConference (http://www. ischools.org/site/conference/), started in 2005, runs every year except in 2007. Harmon (2006), the editor of the iConference 2005 Proceedings, stated: The purposes of the conference were to (1) explore and develop the essential foundations of the information field; (2) identify some of the grand challenges faced by society and the I-Schools; (3) explore disciplinary and administrative relations between I-Schools and the university; (4) search for common themes related to I-School identity; and (5) explore possible transformations, impacts and opportunities ahead. (n.p.)

Table 5 lists some parameters about the iConferences being held so far. Further scanning of documents about the conferences indicates that the iConferences follow an organizing procedure and adopt a reviewing process of submissions similar to that of such major professional meetings as the American Society for Information Science & Technology’s (ASIS&T) annual meetings. There are sessions for papers, posters, roundtables, and wildcards at the iConferences. Hundreds of researchers from iSchools typically attend iConferences. They communicate and share their research while identifying topics for further investigation (Harmon, 2006). No other setting could facilitate research collaboration across disciplines and geographical locations better than a conference, and iConferences meet the very objective right on target.

198

David A. Jank et al.

Table 5 iConference Parameters Year

Host iSchool

2005

Penn State

2006

Michigan

2008

UCLA

2009

North Carolina

2010

UIUC

2011

Washington

2012

Toronto

Proceedings site

ASIS&T Bulletin: http://www.asis.org./Bulletin/ Apr-06/ IDEALS: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/ 2142/14876 IDEALS: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/ 2142/14875 IDEALS: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/ 2142/14874 IDEALS: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/ 2142/14873 ACM Digital Library: http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1940761 ACM Digital Library: http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=2132176&picked=prox

IV. Descriptions and Interactive Directory of iSchools for Education Collaboration One major function the iSchools fulfill is to educate information professionals and researchers. The iCaucus utilizes two approaches to collaboration in education: (1) descriptions of iSchools (http://www.ischools.org/site/ descriptions/), and (2) interactive direction of iSchools (http://www.ischools. org/site/directory/). The iCaucus provides descriptions of its members at the iSchool web site. The interactive directory creates links to all the programs/concentrations the iSchools offer. Although not all the 37 iSchools are covered in the descriptions or included in the directory, both approaches enable visitors to the iSchool web site to learn more about the iCaucus members as educational institutions and open the door to collaboration in education. A. Endeavors for Resource Sharing In addition to collaboration in research and education among iSchools, the iCaucus members also willingly share resources—another form of collaboration. For example, iSchool Careers (http://www.ischools.org/site/jobs/) lists job openings available at respective iSchools. It also serves as a gateway to many

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

199

online job resources in the information field. iSchool Videos (http://www. ischools.org/site/videos/) gathers relevant videos from individual iCaucus members while iScholars (http://www.ischools.org/site/students/) showcases achievements iSchool students and graduates made. News and events from iSchools are also regularly posted and shared via iSchools’ web site (http:// www.ischools.org/site/ischool_news/) and other channels. All these resource sharing efforts further promote collaboration among iSchools and beyond. iSchools have become a target of research in recent years. For instance, Wu, He, Jiang, Dong, and Vo (2012) analyze research and graduate education at iSchools. Using the information and library science category in Thompson Reuters’ ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) databases, Bar-Ilan (2010) measures the achievements of the iSchools. Wildemuth, Pomerantz, Oh, Yang, and Fox (2009) believe that iSchools are a natural home for digital libraries education. However, none of the studies explore the function and potentials the iSchools have in collaboration in the field of library and information science. The present chapter makes the first attempt in this regard. B. The Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific Three years after the establishment of the iCaucus, the Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP—http://www.cisap.asia) was formed in 2008 among 16 interested institutions and organizations in the region (CiSAP, 2008). By August 2012, 24 institutions had joined the CiSAP. Its membership directory can be found either offline in Table 6 or online at http://www.cisap.asia/members.htm. It needs to be pointed out that two iCaucus members (i.e., University of Tsukuba and Singapore Management University) belong to the CiSAP as well. The 24 CiSAP members are from Australia (5), China (1), India (1), Japan (2), Korea (1), Malaysia (2), New Zealand (2), Pakistan (1), Singapore (2), Taiwan (3), and Thailand (4). No single country or region dominates this group, which can be interpreted as a genuine alliance of iSchools from different geographical locations. From the disciplinary perspective, the 24 CiSAP members distribute as follows:  Library & information science: 19 (79.2%) schools  Management & information technology: 3 (12.5%) schools (i.e., Queensland University of Technology, Singapore Management University, Suranaree University of Technology)  Computer science: 2 (8.3%) schools (i.e., Waikato University, Asian Institute of Technology)

As shown above, like the iCaucus, most of the CiSAP members are in the field of library and information science while the rest fit in the domains of

200

David A. Jank et al.

Table 6 Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP) Members CiSAP member

Asian Institute of Technology, Computer Science & Information Management Program, Thailand Charles Sturt University, School of Information Studies, Australia Curtin University, Department of Information Studies, Australia Hansung University, Division of Knowledge & Information, Korea Khon Kaen University, Information Management & Communication Program, Thailand Kyushu University, Department of Library Science, Japan University of Malaysia, Department of Library & Information Science, Malaysia University of Mysore, International School of Information Management, India Monash University, Library, Archives, & Record-keeping Program, Faculty of Information Technology, Australia Nanyang Technological University, Division of Information Studies, Singapore National Chengchi University, Graduate Institute of Library, Information & Archival Studies, Taiwan National Taiwan Normal University, Graduate Institute of Library & Information Studies, Taiwan National Taiwan University, Department of Library & Information Science, Taiwan Peking University, Department of Information Studies, China

URL

www.cs.ait.ac.th www.csu.edu.au/faculty/educat/sis humanities.curtin.edu.au/schools/ MCCA/information_studies/ www.hansung.ac.kr/eng/colleges/ humanities04.htm www.kku.ac.th/?l=en www.ifs.kyushu-u.ac.jp/pages/eng/ lss_02.html www.fsktm.um.edu.my/index.php www.isim.ac.in infotech.monash.edu.au/future/studyareas/ information-management.html www.wkwsci.ntu.edu.sg/ ProspectiveStudents/Graduate/ MasterofScienceinInformationStudies/ units.nccu.edu.tw/server/publichtmut/ html/w155/ ew155.html www.glis.ntnu.edu.tw/webpage www.lis.ntu.edu.tw web5.pku.edu.cn/web/xgen/

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

201

Table 6. (Continued ) CiSAP member

University of the Punjab, Department of Library & Information Science, Pakistan Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Science & Technology, Australia Singapore Management University, School of Information Systems, Singapore Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, Information Science Graduate Program, Thailand Suranaree University of Technology, School of Information Technology, Thailand University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, Information & Knowledge Management Programme, Australia Universiti Teknologi MARA, Faculty of Information Management, Malaysia University of Tsukuba, Japan  Graduate School of Library, Information & Media Studies  School of Informatics (Undergraduate) Victoria University of Wellington, School of Information Management, New Zealand Waikato University, Department of Computer Science, New Zealand

URL

pu.edu.pk/home/department/10/ Department-of-Library-andInformation-Science www.qut.edu.au/science-engineering/ www.sis.smu.edu.sg http://www.stou.ac.th/Eng/Studies/ Default.asp soctech.sut.ac.th/it/eng_index.html datasearch2.uts.edu.au/fass/ communication/courses/ information/ postgraduate/index.cfm fim.uitm.edu.my

www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/grad/english/ index-e.html inf.tsukuba.ac.jp/eng/ www.victoria.ac.nz/sim/ www.cs.waikato.ac.nz

management, information technology, or computer science. The CiSAP’s composition reflects the very goal the consortium set for itself, namely that ‘‘The parties agree to form a consortium with the goal to promote the development of Information Schools (iSchools) and information education in the Asia-Pacific region through collaborative activities and projects’’ (CiSAP,

202

David A. Jank et al.

2008, p. 1). The CiSAP alliance has been carrying out collaborative activities and projects since its foundation in 2008. The most noticeable efforts include the several conferences and workshops hosted by CiSAP member institutions. They are: CiSAP Colloquium on Digital Library Research (http:// www.lis.ntu.edu.tw/cisap2010/Abstracts.html), International Workshop on Global Collaboration of Information Schools (https://sites.google.com/ site/wischool2010/, https://sites.google.com/site/wischool2011/), and International Conference of Libraries, Information and Society 2012 (https:// sites.google.com/site/icolis2012/home). These venues provide excellent opportunities for the CiSAP members to present and exchange research in the information field. Moreover, non-CiSAP members are also welcome to participate in these events, which further expands the boundary for collaboration. The Directory of Library & Information Science Programs in Asia (http://www.cisap.asia/schools/), a project spearheaded by the CiSAP, is no doubt an invaluable source for collaboration in LIS education. The directory consists of six parts—East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, and North Asia—at the top level before covering LIS programs in each individual country or region. It is the most comprehensive directory of its kind, according to the present authors’ knowledge. The CiSAP members also plan to develop a learning objects depository (http://www.cisap.asia/learningobjectsrepo.htm) among the consortium’s other collaborative activities and projects (e.g., blogs and wikis). The potentials and possibilities for collaboration in the LIS education field would only be limited by one’s imagination when those plans are implemented. Unlike the iCaucus, the CiSAP hardly appears to have been a subject of research in the past based on our literature research. C. The WISE Consortium Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) is a consortium of information science programs that co-sponsor courses via the web. Through the consortium, MLIS students at participating institutions may take classes online from any member institution and apply those credits to their local degree. The member institutions of WISE are listed in Table 7. WISE member institutions are primarily ALA-accredited MLIS granting institutions in North America, with two overseas members, both in the Antipodes: Charles Sturt University in Australia, and Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. The members agree to share ‘‘a collaborative environment to take online courses from other WISE member schools’’ (WISE, n.d.). To date, the number of courses offered and the degree of

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

203

Table 7 Members of the WISE Consortium Charles Sturt University Long Island University Rutgers University San Jose State University Simmons College Syracuse University University of British Columbia University of Illinois—UrbanaChampaign

University of North Carolina University of North Texas University of Pittsburgh University of Texas—Austin University of Western Ontario University of Wisconsin—Madison University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Victoria University of Wellington

sharing has been somewhat limited. For example, five courses are listed on the web site as offered in Fall 2012. That said, however, the courses offered are typically specialized and are geared toward the technological end of the spectrum, representing emerging areas in the profession. These are often topics that the field needs to bring into play and that might well be impractical to offer for students at just one institution. The overlap of WISE and iSchool Caucus membership is modest. Onehalf of all iSchools participate in the WISE program (8 of the 16 institutions listed in Table 7). At this point, there is no agreed upon cross institutional compensation structure or ‘‘balance of payments’’ agreement. Balance is achieved by the simple mechanism of leaving it to each institution to decide which WISE courses are made available to their students and which of their own courses are made available to WISE. In the future, as WISE matures and grows, which it will likely do, this issue will need to be addressed.

D. Other Efforts of Collaboration Collaborations are also actively sought among the some 200 LIS schools in Europe (Borup Larsen, 2005). These schools, unlike their counterparts in North America, are known for their diversity in cultures, languages, traditions, program structures, curricular contents, delivery formats, teaching and assessment forms, and many other features (Kajberg, 2002, 2003). Nevertheless, Juznic and Badovinac (2005) found homogeneity among them, which would become the foundation for collaboration in LIS education. The Bologna process, or the Bologna Declaration (i.e., Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on June 19, 1999), is one of the most remarkable collaborative efforts in higher education

204

David A. Jank et al.

in Europe. It aimed to create, by 2010, a European Higher Education Area in which students and graduates, including those from library and information science, could move freely between countries, using prior qualifications in one country as acceptable entry requirements for further study in another (see Virkus, 2007). In other words, LIS students and graduates are able to receive education in countries other than their home one in this Bologna process. The European Union’s SOCRATES program, already run two six-year phases between 1994 and 2006, was superseded by the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013 for funding exchanges, study visits and networking activities in education and training. The Lifelong Learning Programme comprises four sub-programs, of which two seem highly relevant to LIS education: Erasmus for university level education, and Grundtvig for adult education (European Commission, 2011). LIS education apparently can benefit tremendously from the Bologna process and Lifelong Learning Programme. While both the Bologna process and Lifelong Learning Programme are established for collaboration in European higher education in general, BOBCATSSS, an annual symposium, specifically promotes collaboration in LIS education. The BOBCATSSS acronym stands for the initials of the cities of the academic institutions that commenced the BOBCATSSS symposium in 1993: Budapest, Oslo, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Tampere, Stuttgart, Szombately, and Sheffield. The symposium takes place under the auspices of EUCLID (European Association for Library and Information Education and Research) and deals with themes from library and information science. Every year it is organized and managed by LIS students from two universities: one from Eastern Europe and one from Western Europe. Target groups of the BOBCATSSS symposia include students, faculty members, and information professionals in the field of library and information education and research (BOBCATSSS, 2013). BOBCATSSS is regarded as a successful, innovative, and very visible collaborative effort in European LIS education (Abdullahi & Kajberg, 2004). Another collaborative project was carried out in Europe on LIS curricula during 2004 and 2005 in order to stimulate European debate and collaboration among the LIS schools on the implementation of the objectives of the Bologna process (Kajberg, 2007). Twelve virtual discussion groups were formed to focus on one of the following LIS curricular themes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

LIS curriculum in a European perspective Digitization of cultural heritage Information literacy and learning Information seeking and information retrieval

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

205

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The information society: Barriers to the free access to information Knowledge management/Information management Knowledge organization The library in the multicultural information society Information and libraries in a historical perspective: From library history to library and information history 10. Mediation of culture in a European context 11. Practice and theory: Placement as part of the curriculum 12. Library management

Face-to-face meetings among the project participants were also held at that time to further discuss the 12 themes listed above. A 13-chapter1 e-book titled European curriculum reflections on library and information science education was subsequently produced and made available free of charge (Kajberg, 2007; Kajberg & Lørring, 2005). Regionally based collaborations can again be found in, for example, East Asia (Chaudhry, 2007). The initial plan includes building a regional accreditation system and setting up a depository of learning objects. This plan seems to be subsumed in the Consortium of iSchools in Asia Pacific after its creation in 2008. Collaborations can and should be made in ways other than what is depicted above. For instance, Gunawardena, Weber, and Agosto (2010) advocate the necessity of collaboration in LIS education and research due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field. Knowledge management in LIS education is simply a case in point (Hazeri & Martin, 2009). Additional treatment of interdisciplinary collaboration in LIS education is discussed later this chapter when joint degree programs in LIS are discussed. Besides interdisciplinary collaborations, researchers often explore collaborations between LIS faculty and librarians (e.g., Cha & Hsieh, 2009). In fact, this topic could well deserve a separate chapter although it is beyond the scope of the current one. Uhegbu (2011), taking a different approach, explored the possibility of public–private collaboration in LIS education in Nigeria.

V. Collaborative Partnerships in LIS Education There has been a marked increase in intra- and inter-institutional collaboration in LIS education in recent years. A more quantitative statement than ‘‘marked’’ would be difficult to arrive at, as previous literature on LIS educational developments has not addressed this issue in depth. What the 1 The afore-listed 12 themes become the first 12 chapter headings while Chapter 13 reports on a survey of library and information schools in Europe.

206

David A. Jank et al.

research has shown is that collaboration is not at all limited in its form. Among its manifestations are partnerships with noneducational institutions that serve a targeted population, partnerships with other educational institutions in areas where there is no easy access to an LIS education, and partnerships with any organization where a specifically targeted graduate program (e.g., Archives or School Library Media) would be particularly beneficial. A. Geographic Collaborations With the rise of online education, there has been a notable increase in the number of instances in which the facilities of another institution are used to host a face-to-face component of a program which is delivered primarily online. In many cases, this collaboration is with institutions within state educational systems in the United States. LIS programs which take advantage of this opportunity include the University of Alabama; the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Valdosta State University, Georgia; and the University of Missouri, which also utilizes the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Perhaps more interesting are the programs which collaborate with institutions where there is no obvious organizational or membership linkage. These institutions are typically other academic institutions. The University of South Florida, for example, partners with the College of the Bahamas to deliver an LIS program in the Bahamas. Particularly notable in this regard is the University of North Texas which utilizes Montana State University— Billings for its SWIM program (South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana), James Madison University for a Virginia program, Atlanta University for a Georgia program, Utah Valley University for a Utah and Nevada program, and California State University Northridge for a Los Angeles area program. The University of Pittsburgh collaborates with the University of the Virgin Islands to deliver an online master’s program to paraprofessionals in Caribbean institutions. San Jose State University in California collaborates with Queensland University of Technology in Australia and its master’s level LIS program to deliver a primarily online Ph.D. program. In some cases however the partner is a public library or government archive, for example, Queens College, City University of New York partners with The Archives of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded program to educate archivists, while the University of Missouri collaborates with the Kansas City Public Library. Pittsburgh collaborates with the Philadelphia Free Library to deliver an online master’s program to paraprofessionals. The number of cases where a

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

207

nearby library is used as a host site is too standard and too numerous to review in this chapter. B. Content plus Collaboration One of the more successful collaborations with substantial content contributed by both institutions was that between Dominican University in Illinois and St. Catherine University in Minnesota. In 1991, Michael Koenig at Dominican, then still Rosary College, and Mary Wagner and Claire McInerney at St. Catherine University, St. Paul, MN, then the College of St. Catherine, designed a program by which the two institutions provided an ALA-accredited master’s in LIS for students in Minnesota. The basic concept was that the degree would be Dominican’s ALA-accredited MLIS. Students would do 2/3 (or 8 classes) in the 12-course program in Minnesota, and 1/3 (or 4) courses at Dominican in Illinois. The courses at St. Catherine’s would be taught by full time faculty from that institution, and by adjuncts employed by Dominican. Further, the courses taught at Dominican would be Dominican’s conventional courses. The formulae for cost and revenue allocation, though not simple, were relatively straightforward and proved to be easy to negotiate. In practice it came out very close to a 50/50 split. For the Dominican component of the program, the Minnesota-based students would most commonly take two courses one summer and two the next, or, alternatively, two courses in each of Dominican’s seven week summer sessions, or four courses in either the fall or spring semester. Gradually, the program was modified to include synchronous distance learning capabilities, utilizing live audio and video that allowed a faculty member in Illinois to interact with students in a classroom in Minnesota and with students in Illinois. The program was launched in 1992, and was immediately very successful. Because of that success, the LIS program at St. Catherine’s expanded dramatically. In 1992 when the program was initiated, there were only two full time LIS faculty members at St. Catherine’s. By 2011, the program had grown to the point where St. Catherine’s was able to launch its own ALA-accredited program. In that 20 year period, more than 700 students from Minnesota completed the Dominican/St. Catherine’s program. Another successful collaboration is one between the Palmer School of Library and Information Science at Long Island University and the Rare Book School at the University of Virginia which originated at the School of Library Service at Columbia University. When the decision to terminate the LIS program at Columbia was made in 1990, Professor Terry Belanger moved his rare book program to the University of Virginia. The Rare Book

208

David A. Jank et al.

School (RBS) provided week-long courses taught by eminent personalities, many from overseas. The courses were held generally in the summer, with a few in the winter intersession. The courses awarded a certificate of attendance, but not transcript bearing course credits. Long Island University (LIU), taking advantage of its position in the New York metropolitan area, negotiated an arrangement in 2002 with RBS whereby LIU students could take RBS courses at LIU. This arrangement enabled LIU to offer literally dozens of courses in the area of rare books and special collections. The advantage to RBS was that it provided a mechanism whereby its students could take RBS courses for credit at an ALA-accredited program. As a result RBS moved a substantial portion of its offerings to Manhattan. The relationship between LIU and RBS continues to be highly successful and satisfactory to both parties. In fact, a similar program was launched at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2005 in collaboration with RBS, known as the California Rare Book School. The program is hosted by UCLA, but organized by RBS. At both LIU and UCLA, the courses can be part of a degree program, or taken as continuing education courses.

C. Interdisciplinary and Dual Degree Collaboration Table 8 provides an inventory of all collaborative degree programs that ALAaccredited LIS schools offer in conjunction with other graduate programs. This includes programs at both their and other academic institutions. There are 49 (84%) of 58 ALA-accredited LIS schools that provide some sort of joint degree offering outside of their own departments or institutions. The data included here are compiled to show:  the primary degrees housed in the LIS schools accredited by ALA;  all collaborative degrees offered to students enrolled in those LIS programs;  the Ph.D. degree offerings of these LIS schools.

The purpose of the ‘‘degrees housed’’ data is to illustrate both the varying number of degree names utilized by ALA-accredited LIS schools, and the variety of degrees beyond the traditional ‘‘MLIS’’ offered within the LIS unit. Twelve different LIS schools house unique baccalaureate degrees within the LIS department. That 21% of all accredited LIS schools feel the need to sponsor BA/BS degrees within their institutions (two of which are fully LIS undergraduate programs) suggests that an LIS-themed curriculum is considered important enough to offer at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Primary degrees (standalone LIS programs)

MLIS MFA (Book Arts)

MSIS

MLIS

MA

MAS (Master of Archival Studies) MLIS

MLS

MLIS

MSLIS

MSLS BSLS

LIS school

Alabama

SUNY at Albany

Alberta

Arizona

British Columbia

SUNY at Buffalo

UCLA

Catholic

Clarion

BS (Education and Librarianship) J.D. (Law)

MS (Information Technology)

MA (Moving Image Archives)

MA (Music) J.D. (Law)

MA (Children’s Literature)

BA/BS (Digital Information Studies) MA (Journalism) MENAS (Middle Eastern and North African Studies)

MA (Humanities Computing) M.Ed. (Teacher-Librarianship)

BA/BS (Information Science) MA (English) MA (History)

Collaborative/dual degrees (Undergraduate, graduate, and non-Ph.D. terminal degree programs)

Table 8 Collaborative Degrees Offered by ALA-Accredited MLIS Programs

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Ph.D. (Interdisciplinary, in conjunction with any other Ph.D. program in University)

Ph.D. (LIS and Communications)

Doctoral degrees (collaborative and standalone Ph.D. programs only)

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

209

Partner in Interdisciplinary Ph.D. outside of LIS program

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Ph.D. (Standalone) Ph.D. (In any of: Communication and Information Sciences, Computer Science, Management)

Ph.D. (Standalone) Ph.D. (Standalone) Option for LIS minor in other Ph.D. programs at University

MREM (Master’s of Resources and Environmental Management) MPA (Public Administration) BMgmt (Bachelor’s of Management) J.D. (Law) MDiv (Divinity/Religious Studies) MA (Public History) MBA MSW MM (Music History)

J.D. (Law) MA/MS (In any of: American Studies, Asian Studies, Educational Technology, History, Information and Computer Sciences, Pacific Islands Studies) J.D. (Law) MA (African Studies) MS (Bioinformatics) MA/MS (In any of: African American and African Diaspora Studies, African Studies, Art History, Central Eurasian Studies, Comparative Literature, English, Folklore and

MLIS MIM (Master’s of Information Management)

MLIS MPS (Professional Studies in LIS)

MSLIS MSHI (Health Informatics) MSIS (Information Systems) MSSE (Software Engineering) (Numerous standalone BS degrees)

MSLIS MALIS

MLISc

MSLIS

MLS MIS

Dalhousie

Dominican

Drexel

Florida State

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Doctoral degrees (collaborative and standalone Ph.D. programs only)

Collaborative/dual degrees (Undergraduate, graduate, and non-Ph.D. terminal degree programs)

Primary degrees (standalone LIS programs)

LIS school

Table 8. (Continued )

210 David A. Jank et al.

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Ph.D. (Standalone)

MS (Systems Science) MA (History) MA/MS in HiLS (History and Library Science)

MSI (Option for tailored degree across disciplines) MSW MFA MBA MSN (Nursing) MPP (Public Policy) J.D. (Law) M.D. (Medicine)

MSLIS

MLIS

MLS MIM (Information Management) HCIM (Human-Computer Interaction Management)

MSI (MS in Information)

Long Island

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

MA/MS in any of W200 Master’s programs at NYU

LIS minor for all BA/BS degrees

MALIS MSLIS

Kentucky

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Ph.D. (Communication and Information Science)

MBA M.Ed. (Education, Health, and Human Services)

MLIS MSIAKM (Information Architecture and Knowledge Management)

Kent

Interdisciplinary Ph.D. option with other doctoral programs at University

MBA J.D. (Law)

MALIS

Iowa

Ethnomusicology, History, History and Philosophy of Science, Journalism, Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Musicology, Music Theory, Russian and East European Studies) MPA (Public Administration) J.D. (Law)

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

211

Collaborative/dual degrees (Undergraduate, graduate, and non-Ph.D. terminal degree programs) M.Ed. (Educational Technology) MSI (Option for tailored degree across disciplines)

MA (Public History) MA (Art History) MBA MPA MHA (Health Policy and Administration) MSN (Nursing) J.D. (Law) M.D. (Medicine) MBA

LIS minor offered for all BA/BS majors MSPIA (Public & International Affairs)

Primary degrees (standalone LIS programs)

MA (Information Science and Learning Technology)

MSI (MS in Information)

BSIS MSIS MSLS

MIS MLS

BSIS MSIS MSLS

BAIS MLIS

BSIS MSIS MLIS MST (Telecommunications & Networking)

LIS school

Missouri

Montreal

North Carolina at Chapel Hill

North Carolina— Central

North Texas

Oklahoma

Pittsburgh

Table 8. (Continued )

Ph.D. (Information Science)* Ph.D. (LIS)* Ph.D. (Telecommunications & Networking)*

Interdisciplinary Ph.D. option with other doctoral programs at University

Ph.D. (Standalone)

Interdisciplinary Ph.D. option with other doctoral programs at University

Ph.D. (Information Science and Learning Technology)

Doctoral degrees (collaborative and standalone Ph.D. programs only)

212 David A. Jank et al.

MSLIS

MLIS

BS (Information Technology and Informatics) MLIS MSCIS (Computer Information Systems)

MLIS

MLS

MLIS MARA (Archives and Records Administration)

MSLIS MLIP (Managerial Leadership in the Information Professions)

BSIS MLIS

BSIS MALIS

BSIMS (Information Management & Services) MLS

Pratt

Rhode Island

Rutgers

St. Catherine

St. John’s

San Jose´

Simmons

South Carolina

South Florida

Southern Connecticut

BS/MS (Joint degree with all undergraduate programs in the sciences) MA (Archival Management and History) MA (Children’s Literature)

MA (Government) MS (Pharmaceutical Science)

MA (Organizational Leadership)

MA (History) MA (English) MPA Interdisciplinary MA/MS

MS (History of Art & Design) MFA (Digital Arts) J.D. (Law—through Brooklyn Law School)

Ph.D. (LIS)—standalone Ph.D./CHIL (Interdisciplinary program in Cultural Heritage Information Leadership)

Ph.D. (LIS)* Ph.D. (Managerial Leadership)*

Ph.D. (Joint program with Queensland University of Technology)

Ph.D. (Computer and Information Science)

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

213

Primary degrees (standalone LIS programs)

BALIS MLIS

BSSIS (Systems and Information Science) BSIMT (Information Management and Technology) MSLIS MSIM (Information Management) MS (Telecommunications and Network Management)

MSIS

MSIS

MLS MALS

MI (Master’s of Information)

LIS school

Southern Mississippi

Syracuse

Tennessee

Texas—Austin

Texas Woman’s

Toronto

MMSt (Museum Studies) J.D. (Law)

MS (Health Studies)

MA (Women’s and Gender Studies) MA (Middle Eastern Studies) MA (Latin American Studies) LIS minor for all BA/BS degrees J.D. (Law)

LIS minor for all BA/BS degrees LIS minor for all MA/MS degrees Option for individualized interdisciplinary MA/MS

BS (Management—School of Business) BS (Public Communication—School of Communications)

MA (Anthropology) MA (History) MA (Political Science)

Collaborative/dual degrees (Undergraduate, graduate, and non-Ph.D. terminal degree programs)

Table 8. (Continued )

Ph.D. (LIS)—standalone Interdisciplinary Ph.D. option with other doctoral programs at University

Ph.D. (LIS)—standalone

Ph.D. (LIS)—standalone

Ph.D. (Communication and Information Science)

Ph.D. (Information Science and Technology)* DPS (Professional Studies in Information Management)*

Doctoral degrees (collaborative and standalone Ph.D. programs only)

214 David A. Jank et al.

BSIST (Information Science and Technology)

Wisconsin— Milwaukee

Note: *Standalone program.

MALIS

Wisconsin—Madison

MLIS

MLIS

Wayne State

MS (Anthropology) MA (English) MA (Language Literature and Translation) MA (Geography) MS (Health Care Informatics) MA (History) MM (Music) MS (Urban Studies) MA (Women’s Studies) LIS minor for all BA/BS degrees

MA (Music) J.D. (Law)

MA (History)

Ph.D. (LIS)—standalone Interdisciplinary Ph.D. option with other doctoral programs at University Ph.D. (Urban Education) Ph.D. (Medical Informatics)

Ph.D. (LIS)—standalone

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

215

216

David A. Jank et al.

The ‘‘collaborative degrees’’ column in Table 8 includes both undergraduate and graduate programs in which LIS schools are formally involved outside of the LIS unit. There are a variety of master’s degree options but, interestingly, 10 different LIS schools are formally involved in undergraduate program offerings outside of the LIS school. This could suggest that most ALA-accredited programs, for whatever reason, sense a need to maintain academic relationships throughout their colleges or universities. The third column in Table 8 relates exclusively to Ph.D. degrees. Those doctorates labeled as ‘‘standalone’’ are degrees that are entirely housed within the LIS schools mentioned. Those non-Ph.D. doctorates that are formally aligned with programs outside of LIS schools are described in terms that are used on the corresponding LIS school web sites. There are 25 institutions formally offering collaborative non-Ph.D. doctoral degrees (e.g., J.D. and M.D.) through the accredited LIS departments. The number of both standalone and collaborative doctorates included in Table 8, when combined with data for institutions not listed in this table due to their lack of collaborative degree programs, indicates that more than half of all ALA-accredited LIS schools currently provide doctoral level degree offerings. It should be noted that Table 8 does not include any data relating to certificate, continuing education, or nondegree program offerings. Some characteristics and patterns worth noting among the ALAaccredited programs are:  26 institutions (45%) offer a single, basic ‘‘MLIS’’-variant degree as their sole in-house program;  13 institutions (22%) house an undergraduate degree entirely within their LIS departments;  36 institutions (62%) offer students enrolled in the primary ‘‘MLIS’’ program the opportunity to pursue a second master’s degree simultaneously;  17 institutions (29%) are formal co-sponsors of non-Ph.D. terminal degree programs (e.g., J.D. and M.D.) outside of the LIS curriculum.

Table 9 provides a frequency distribution of the subject disciplines in which LIS schools offer dual degree options at the master’s degree level. Data in the table reflect only those academic areas in which more than two LIS schools offer similar joint degrees. Collaborations with history programs outnumber all other dual degrees, which might be due to the large number of Archives certificate programs in LIS schools. Interestingly, while all LIS schools examined in this chapter offer the School Library Media certification (which was not the case with the Archives certification), a comparatively smaller number of LIS schools provide for a dual degree master’s concentration in education than in history. The data in Table 9, when considered in tandem with the number of schools offering either joint

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

217

Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Disciplines of Dual Degree Master’s and Terminal Degree Programs Offered in ALA-Accredited LIS Schools Discipline History Law Inter/Multidisciplinary MBA/Business Studies Fine Arts MPA/Public Affairs Music Education Literature Nursing/Health African Studies Computer Science/IT Politics/Government Eastern European Studies English Option across all Master’s Women’s/Gender Studies Journalism MSW Urban Studies

Frequency 14 13 9 9 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3

programs in specialized disciplines or joint programs with all disciplines throughout an institution, illustrate that the aggregate number of content areas available for dual degree study in all LIS schools is easily in the hundreds. This is because at many institutions that house LIS programs, virtually any area of academic study available can be pursued along with the MLIS. This might suggest that many LIS schools view collaboration as key to their continued operational success. Table 10 presents a frequency distribution of dual degree offerings at the Ph.D. level among the LIS schools discussed in Table 8. The data suggest that there are both fewer and less diverse academic collaborations at this level than at the master’s or other terminal degree level. The numbers of interdisciplinary and individually tailored degree options available at both levels, however, are relatively equal. It might be possible that master’s degree programs are viewed as more easily experienced across disciplinary environments than are doctorates.

218

David A. Jank et al.

Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Discipline of Dual Degree Doctoral Programs Offered in ALA-Accredited LIS Schools Discipline Inter/Multidisciplinary Communications/Media Computer Science/Information Technology Management/Leadership Education Popular/Cultural Studies

Frequency 8 6 5 4 2 2

D. Recruitment Recruitment is another popular area for collaboration. Pittsburgh, in collaboration with Penn State, runs a summer institute to engage iSchools in attracting diverse groups of students. The University of Arizona collaborates with the University of Tennessee in a program to attract Latino students to the field. Several Midwest programs have created an LIS Access Midwest Program (LAMP) (n.d.) to recruit for and promote LIS education. The LIS programs involved are: Dominican University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Also included are the libraries at those institutions, plus those at the University of Chicago, Marquette University, Michigan State University, and Ohio University—the Alden Library. The LAMP program hosts summer institutes to acquaint promising candidates with the field, generally with about 25–30 attendees, and it offers scholarships to a number of students, typically 6–10 per year. LAMP was organized in 2005/2006, and its summer institutes and its scholarship program commenced in 2007. ALA’s Spectrum Scholarship program commenced operation in 1998 to address the specific issue of underrepresentation in the LIS profession of librarians from diverse backgrounds (American Library Association, 2013). The program awards approximately 40–50 scholarships a year at the master’s level. Almost all ALA-accredited programs participate to at least some degree. Commencing in 2013, in collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh and with support, the Spectrum program is offering two fully funded doctoral fellowships. As is evident here, many of the collaborative programs described above have not only the delivery of an academic program in mind, but professional recruitment as well.

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

219

VI. Conclusion While mergers, collaborations, alliances, and partnerships in LIS education are not new phenomena, their emergent patterns in recent years suggest that this activity has taken new forms. Notable is a slow but continual trend of LIS schools being absorbed into other academic departments and programs as fewer continue to exist as standalone schools. There is also a trend in the transition of LIS programs to ‘‘iSchool’’ status, the majority of these transitions occurring with LIS programs that were independent, standalone academic units at the time of their transitions. As the iSchool Caucus continues to grow, an international flavor within its membership has emerged as more and more non-ALA-accredited caucus members from throughout the world join its ranks. Further, an increasing number of nonMLIS degree programs are under development by LIS schools, launched outside of the realm of ALA accreditation. This is especially so since the beginning of the 21st century. Similar curricular expansion is occurring as more and more LIS schools partner with outside academic entities to offer dual degrees, perhaps for the purpose of invigorating enrollment levels as much as to offer expansive educational experiences. There is also evidence that those programs existing entirely without ALA accreditation (primarily in support of school library media certification) continue to thrive. These developments suggest that a subtle evolution in LIS education may be developing. One might ask what this means for the future of LIS schools, the structure of LIS academic departments, and the role of ALA accreditation. Since the last research paper written on this topic for Advances in Librarianship, the growth of and movement toward the iSchool model of education in LIS is arguably the most prominent change. Membership in the iSchool Caucus continues to grow. The influx of non-LIS oriented academic members might suggest that just as ‘‘traditional’’ LIS programs may feel a need to align more with non-LIS schools, these non-LIS educational partners may also believe there is a logical match between their curricular direction and that of the LIS sector. A second noticeable change from the previous research is the marked growth in non-MLIS degree offerings being developed in LIS schools that exist outside of the realm of ALA accreditation or assessment. This might suggest an increased view that ALA accreditation may no longer be the only goal of those who help to develop LIS educational programs. This paradigm is already at work in the school library media realm, where a traditional ALA-accredited MLIS degree is not a requirement for employment in many states where school librarians must simply have specialized teaching certification. What this may ultimately mean for ALA

220

David A. Jank et al.

accreditation is certainly unknown; however, it is clear from the evidence uncovered here that LIS education is no longer viewed within the parameters it once was. The professional literature in recent years has reflected some of the discourse on changes in LIS curricular offerings as well as the expansive career opportunities awaiting graduates of an information studies program. There is little evidence, however, as to how individual changes in LIS educational offerings (be they ALA-accredited or not) might be changing the face of LIS programs and the institutions that house them. Only continued study of the changing face of LIS education will allow for evidence-based conclusions about the impact of this evolution. References Abdullahi, I., & Kajberg, L. (2004). A study of international issues in library and information science education: Survey of LIS schools in Europe, the USA and Canada. New Library World, 105(9/10), 345–356. doi:10.1108/0307480041 0557303 American Library Association. (2013). Spectrum scholarship program. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/offices/diversity/spectrum American Library Association, Committee on Accreditation. (2005). Graduate programs in library and information studies that are not accredited by the American Library Association (ALA) Committee on Accreditation as of 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/offices/hrdr/educprofdev/nonalaaccredited Banta, M. M. (2012, July 30). Dr. L.R. Poos appointed Interim Dean of Catholic University. School of Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http:// listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1207&L=jesse&T=0&F=&S=&P=39670 Bar-Ilan, J. (2010, February). Measuring research impact: A first approximation of the achievements of the iSchools in ISI’s information and library science category—An exploratory study. iSchools iConference Proceedings (pp. 7–12), Graduate School of Library & Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. Retrieved from http://nora.lis.uiuc.edu/ images/iConferences/2010papers_Allen-Ortiz.pdf BOBCATSSS. (2013). About BOBCATSSS. Retrieved from http://bobcatsss.net/ about/ Borup Larsen, J. (2005). A survey of library and information science schools in Europe. In L. Kajberg & L. Lørring (Eds.), European curriculum reflections on library and information science education (pp. 232–241). Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal School of Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http://dspace-uni pr.cilea.it/bitstream/1889/1704/1/EUCLID%20European%20LIS%20curriculum. pdf Cha, T., & Hsieh, P. (2009). A case study of faculty attitudes toward collaboration with librarians to integrate information literacy into the curriculum. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 46(4), 441–468. Chaudhry, A. S. (2007). Collaboration in LIS education in Southeast Asia [Special Issue]. New Library World, 108(1/2), 25–31. doi:10.1108/03074800710722153

Mergers, Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships in LIS Education

221

Chu, H. (2010). Library and information science education in the digital age. In A. Woodsworth (Ed.), Advances in Librarianship (Vol. 32, pp. 77–111). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Chu, H. (2012). iSchools and non-iSchools: An examination of their master’s programs. Education for Information, 29(1), 1–17. doi:10.3233/EFI-20100908 CiSAP. (2008). Consortium agreement. Retrieved from http://www.cisap.asia/docs/ CiSAP.Agreement.v1.3.2.pdf. Accessed on August 12, 2012. Computing Research Association (CRA). (n.d.-a). About CRA. Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/about/about-cra Computing Research Association (CRA). (n.d.-b). CRA-deans group. Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/about/cradeans Cronin, B. (2012). The waxing and waning of a field: Reflections on information studies education. Information Research, 17(3). Retrieved from http://Information R.net/ir/17-3/paper529.html European Commission. (2011). The Lifelong Learning Programme: Education and training opportunities for all. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelonglearning-programme/doc78_en.htm Goldberg, B. (2012). What’s new in LIS schools. American Libraries, 43(7–8), 24–26. Retrieved from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/features/08212012/what-snew-lis-schools Gunawardena, S., Weber, R., & Agosto, D. F. (2010). Finding that special someone: Interdisciplinary in an academic context. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(4), 210–221. Harmon, G. (2006). The first I-Conference of the I-School communities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 32(4), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org./Bulletin/Apr-06/harmon.html Hazeri, A., & Martin, B. (2009). On the need for collaboration in KM education in the LIS sector: Some professional perspectives. International Journal of Information Management, 29(5), 380–388. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.11.007 Hildreth, C. R., & Koenig, M. E. D. (2002). Organizational realignment of LIS programs in academia: From independent standalone units to incorporated programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43(2), 126–133. Hjørland, B. (2005). The socio-cognitive theory of users situated in specific contexts and domains. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 339–343). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Jank, D. A. (2012). Understanding user attitudes toward information systems: A grounded theory approach. In E. Curra´s & N. L. Romero (Eds.), Systems science and collaborative information systems: Theories, practices and new research (pp. 121–137). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.. Juznic, P., & Badovinac, B. (2005). Toward library and information science education in the European Union: A comparative analysis of library and information science programmes of study for new members and other applicant countries to the European Union. New Library World, 106(3/4), 173–186. doi:10.1108/03074800510587372 Kajberg, L. (2002). Cross-country partnerships in European library and information science education: Education at the crossroads. Library Review, 15(3–4), 164–170. doi:10.1108/00242530210421022

222

David A. Jank et al.

Kajberg, L. (2003). Cross-country partnerships in international library and information science education. New Library World, 104(6), 218–226. doi:10.1108/ 03074800310481894 Kajberg, L. (2007). The European LIS curriculum project: An overview. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 48(2), 68–81. Kajberg, L., & Lørring, L. (Eds.). (2005). European curriculum reflections on library and information science education. Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal School of Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http://dspace-unipr.cilea.it/bitstream/1889/ 1704/1/EUCLID%20European%20LIS%20curriculum.pdf Koenig, M. E. D., & Hildreth, C. R. (2002). The end of the standalone ‘‘library school.’’ Library Journal, 127(11), 40–42. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/ljinprintcurrentissue/877935-403/the_end_of_the_standalone. html.csp Larsen, R. L. (2008). History of the iSchools. Retrieved from http://www.ischools.org/ site/history/ LIS Access Midwest Program (LAMP). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://lisaccess.org/ lamp Sawyer, S., & Rosenbaum, H. (2008, March). iSchools: Mice roaring or the future is now arriving? In iConference proceedings (pp. 115–118), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, LA. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/15072/PA1-3_iconf08.pdf? sequence=2 Uhegbu, A. N. (2011). Quality library and information science education in Nigeria: The place of public-private collaboration. IFLA Journal, 37(3), 228–234. doi:10.1177/0340035211418731 Virkus, S. (2007, August). Collaboration in LIS education in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council Proceedings, IFLA, Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http:// archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/134-Virkus-en.pdf Web-based Information Science Education (WISE). (n.d.). Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.wiseeducation.org/pillars/collaboration.aspx Wildemuth, B. M., Pomerantz, J., Oh, S., Yang, S., & Fox, E. A. (2009). iSchools as a natural home for digital libraries education. Proceedings of the 2009 iConference, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/ bitstream/handle/2142/15337/DLinIschoolsposterfinal2009-01-22.pdf?sequence=3 Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Hentschke, G. C., & Smith, J. (2004). Improving service delivery in education through collaboration: An exploratory study of the role of cross-sectoral alliances in the development and support of charter schools. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1078–1096. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004. 00264.x Wu, D., He, D., Jiang, J., Dong, W., & Vo, K. T. (2012). The state of iSchools: An analysis of academic research and graduate education. Journal of Information Science, 38(1), 15–36. doi:10.1177/0165551511426247

In Academic Libraries

Reinventing the Academic Library and Its Mission: Service Design in Three Merged Finnish Libraries ´nc and Jarmo Saartia Arja Juntunena, Ari Muhonenb, Ulla Nygre Library, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland b Helsinki University Library, Helsinki, Finland c Library, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

a

Abstract At the beginning of 2010, new higher education legislation was enacted in Finland which caused several university mergers. In addition to that, a self-directed type of organizational restructuring had been going on in Finnish academic libraries. This chapter describes the merger and the restructuring processes of the libraries in three universities, namely Helsinki University, University of Eastern Finland, and the University of Turku. Using a case study approach, the chapter describes different approaches used in the merger process, particularly how to manage service integration, resource reallocation and planning, and implementing new types of services. Performance measures and indicators are among the tools used to assess the successes, particularly in direct services to library users. Although this is based on Finnish experiences, it is helpful for other libraries considering, or engaging in, similar mergers, because of the given examples and tools for the actions needed for new structures and services. Also described are the challenges that three libraries met in the strategic work of reshaping of their organizational structures. While this chapter addresses library mergers only in universities, the methods and tools used will provide models for other types of libraries and nonprofit organizations. Keywords: University libraries; mergers; service harmonization; service design; Finland

I. Introduction Due to a new University Act (Finland, Ministry of Education, 2009) being passed several new Finnish universities were created in 2010. The background and scope of two of the three libraries in this chapter— Turku University and the University of Eastern Finland (UEF)—were described in detail by Muhonen, Nygre´n, and Saarti (2011) along with the

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036011

225

226

Arja Juntunen et al.

processes and challenges encountered in merging their libraries into organizations which formerly served multiple separate institutions. The libraries’ organizational structures (with charts), human resource management, cultural changes, and marketing and communication processes were explored in volume 34 of Advances in librarianship and readers are encouraged to read this as a companion piece to the chapter presented here. Helsinki University Library (HULib) was not part of the Muhonen et al. chapter but it too was created by merging a complicated network of independent faculty and campus libraries into one new organization, also at the beginning of 2010. In all three libraries this resulted in new types of services and work processes being implemented. Because of this marketing of services became important again in order for the libraries and their services to be accepted by their respective academic communities. At the Turku University Library the main challenge for the coordination of work processes was an incoherent physical structure with 17 separate library units all situated within a small area. At HULib, planning and implementing new work processes and services were complicated by the fact that a new main library was under construction. Happily it was officially opened on September 3, 2012, at the City Center Campus. In the following sections of the chapter the authors discuss how these and other challenges were met by strategic plans, and reshaping organizational structures, work processes, and services. Best practices in the service arising from the changes, as well management culture and structures, are also described and explained for the above-mentioned libraries.

II. Strategic Work and Organization Building A. Helsinki University Helsinki University is the biggest university in Finland with close to 5000 academic researchers and faculty members and just over 36,500 students as of Fall 2012. It was founded in 1640 as the Royal Turku Academy and moved to Helsinki in 1828. Its present name dates back to 1919 when Finland was a young independent nation (University of Helsinki, 2012a). The university is located on four campuses in Helsinki and has units in 17 other locations all over Finland. In Helsinki it consists of the following faculties: City Centre Campus Faculty of Arts Faculty of Behavioral Sciences

Reinventing the Academic Library

Faculty Faculty Faculty Kumpula Campus Faculty Meilahti Campus Faculty Viikki Campus Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty

227

of Law of Social Sciences of Theology of Science of Medicine of of of of

Agriculture and Forestry Biological and Environmental Sciences Pharmacy Veterinary Medicine

In addition, it has 20 independent institutes and it has formed 11 consortia with other Finnish universities. The organization of the university is depicted in Fig. 1 and the list above. The university houses two major libraries, namely the National Library of Finland and Helsinki University Library (HULib), on its main campus. The latter has its origin in a very fragmented network of 164 departmental and focus area libraries, eight science or central libraries, and a student library. It achieved its present form in 2010 after a 15-year period of planning, restructuring, and mergers mirroring the development of the university itself (Sinikara, 2012). The key data about the university and HULib are given in Table 1. The early 1990s was a period of many changes for the university. A new generation of managers introduced new procedures to react against a bad recession at that time. One of the main results was the decision to concentrate

Fig. 1

Organization of Helsinki University.

228

Arja Juntunen et al.

Table 1 Helsinki University and Its Libraries in Brief as of 2011 The university Full time equivalent student enrollment Total University staff, including faculty The libraries Monograph print volumes Serial titles—e-journals Serial titles—print Physical space—square meters —Square feet Previous number of library units Current number of library units

36, 498 8,590 1,687,232 26,500 28,514 27,300 293,700 164 5

the university academic programs into four campuses. The university’s management also became more interested in library matters, which resulted in a new library strategy in 1998. Three campus libraries were quickly formed in 1998–2001 by consolidating five and nine department libraries into two new separate facilities in Viikki and Kumpula, respectively, and by constructing a new building for the National Library for Health Sciences in Meilahti. Each new campus library was a separate institution funded by the faculties which it served and governed by a board and a library director. The City Centre Campus library was formed in 2009, but it remained fragmented consisting of 11 units until they moved into a new building in June 2012. This new Main Library called the Kaisa House was opened to the public on September 3, 2012. A library assessment was conducted by an international panel in 2000 (Geleijnse, Gellerstam, Mowat, & Ruokonen, 2000) and a follow up in 2004 (Geleijnse, Koskiala, & Salin, 2004) at the request of the Helsinki University as part of an evaluation of all University institutions. The objective was ‘‘to obtain tools for continuous development of library activities, so that the library services and the information provided would support both education and research in the most appropriate way and that as up-to-date methods as possible of accessing information would be available for the members of the University. . . ’’ (Geleijnse et al., 2000, p. 6). The assessment panel based their recommendations on two premises: some of the library activities can most effectively be done by central coordination but on the other hand decentralization is essential for responding to the user demand. Therefore they suggested that the University appoint a

Reinventing the Academic Library

229

director to coordinate all library activities in the Helsinki University Libraries (Geleijnse et al., 2000). This was done in 2002 and the position was regularized in 2005 as recommended by the follow-up panel. The coordinating director acted as a link between the rector and administration of the university and the independent libraries, as well as chaired the unofficial council of the library directors. However, this structure caused problems concerning decision making, financing, and the freedom of action of the libraries (Sinikara, 2006). The recommendations of the two evaluation panels were carefully studied. This led to a new library structure which was put into effect in October 2007. It consisted of four independent campus libraries and a library coordination unit. The latter one consisted of centralized services for all in terms of acquisitions, metadata services, digital services, as well as administration and development. Staff members from all campus libraries working in these jobs were moved to this new unit with only a few exceptions. Due to the new University Act (Finland, 2009) a larger organization was needed and the University decided to merge all libraries into one administrative unit at the beginning of 2010, except for the National Library. The university’s strategic plan for 2013–2016 was drafted in close cooperation with the academic community. Altogether about 7000 researchers, teaching faculty, and students took part in the drafting process which took more than a year during 2011–2012 to complete (University of Helsinki, 2012b). Partly simultaneously with the university strategy process the library started to prepare its own target program in the Fall 2011. Preparatory work commenced in the Fall 2011. It included the following:    

careful planning of the strategy process itself; a seminar for the management team and other key persons of the library; discussions of a small ad hoc strategy team; five workshops for the whole staff, the board, and invited library clients.

The workshops were held from January to March 2012 on the following topics: vision and road map:    

services for academics; services for students and teachers; library services for the benefit of the society; inspiring community and sustainable finances.

In April and May 2012 plans were developed further in meetings of the library management team, the board, and staff representatives. An action

230

Arja Juntunen et al.

plan in process was finished by the end of September 2012 and approved in October. After thorough consideration the library adopted four goals as follows: 1. The library offers skillful partnership for the best of research and learning. – Research and teaching infrastructure of an international standard – Information environment of an international standard – The visible and audible presence of multiculturalism and multilingualism – A high standard of degrees and teaching as well as committed students 2. The library offers the research output of the university and the expertise of the library for the benefit of the society. – Research and expertise for the benefit of the society – Important partners to be included in the University’s sphere of influence 3. The library is a thriving and inspiring community. – Interactive leadership in support of collegiality – Careful human resource planning 4. The library keeps its finances on a sustainable footing. – Operational focus and structural development – The stabilization of the ratio of facility costs to total costs.

B. Turku University When the legal status of universities changed in Finland and the University of Turku and the Turku School of Economics merged the new library faced many challenges. The library had to reform its management system and organization. One particular challenge was the disparate physical locations on a large campus—with 15 different libraries and 2 remote locations in the cities of Rauma and Pori. During the University’s reorganization, the library became part of the University Services unit, along with IT Management and the Academic and Student Affairs. This meant that in the University’s operations the library’s profile became more clearly that of a service organization. From the library’s point of view, one of the central issues in the reorganization reform was to find out what kind of structure would be needed so that the library could produce the services needed by the university community in the best possible way. The new organization structure, described by Muhonen et al. (2011), was implemented at the beginning of 2011. Its main idea was to provide expert services closer to the students and faculty in various disciplines and to have the library’s internal or background services produced by an efficient and cost-effective structure. By merging the

Reinventing the Academic Library

231

former faculty libraries, three discipline-specific libraries were established to take care of the discipline-specific expert services. These are:  subject-specific library Anthropos, which was created by merging the former faculty libraries of law, economics, social sciences, and pedagogics;  subject-specific library Protos, which was created by merging the former faculty libraries of medicine, mathematics, and natural sciences;  subject-specific library Logos, which unifies the former four small and one larger library unit for the humanities.

In addition, there is a Main Library, which is currently undergoing physical renovation as well as revision of work flows and staffing configuration. The plan is to make the Main Library a service center for the discipline-specific libraries providing background services such as logistics services, metadata description, acquisitions services, financial services, and IT services. The development of back-office organization, with operations based partly on centralized and partly on decentralized teams, is under way and expected to be completed in a couple of years alongside the physical renovation of the library building. The strategic aims and functional targets of the library are derived from the strategy, action plans, and policies of the University of Turku as a whole. Each unit in the University is expected to set strategic goals and present annual action plans. The library annually defines it own Top Five development targets which are based on current strategies and the findings of a biennial LibQUAL+s customer satisfaction survey. The results are used as one of the indicators to measure whether targets are met. The Top Five targets in 2012 were:     

support for research and its evaluation by improving skills in bibliometrics; making the use of data more effective by increasing teaching in information literacy; the facility issues of the library and the building projects that concern the library; participation in the acquisition and maintenance of the University’s research database; a joint strategic plan with the IT management.

Preparation of a joint strategy for the library and the IT began in the spring of 2012 with the strategy of improving customers’ service experiences by introducing a synergetic operations model. Preparation is done by a group comprised of the management groups of the library and IT staff with an outside consultant. Representatives from various interest groups and University management have also been heard in the process. As of the initial preparation of this chapter, the following strategic aims have been selected to be carried out 2013–2016:  customer orientation and partnership;  easiness for the customer;

232

Arja Juntunen et al.

 knowledge and cooperation;  electronic services and solutions.

In order to achieve the aims, concrete targets have been set and they have been scheduled in accordance with the University’s strategy period of 2013– 2016. The realization of these aims is monitored and reported annually at the library at unit level. The organization changes and the information service strategy carried out with IT have resulted in a shift from internal to external focus, from collectionbased, preservative thinking to multichannel service-based thinking. C. University of Eastern Finland The first phase of the merger in the UEF library involved redesign of the management structure and the development of quality management documentation system to be used in managing the library. This included the creation of a clear strategy and different types of quality documentation (see Muhonen et al., 2011; Saarti & Juntunen, 2011). The quality documentation consists of the intranet (including teamwork documentation and documentation for the work processes) and of the Internet that is used for marketing and delivering the library’s services to the end-users. This was completed by the libraries prior to institutional-level mergers occurring. As a result we actually started to act and provide services to our customers in the beginning of Fall 2009. The second phase of strategic work was mainly completed at the university level. This was because the Ministry of Education required the updation of the University’s strategy at the beginning of 2010. The new strategy for the whole University in March 2010 and its articulates articulated the institution’s vision as follows: The University of Eastern Finland is an internationally recognized research and teaching university, which is among the three most important universities in Finland and among the leading 200 universities in the world. (University of Eastern Finland, 2010, p. 5)

At the same time the University started to adapt its structures to a new economical and organizational reality. This meant some cutbacks for the library budget. Thus 2010, from the library’s management and staff point of view, was very stressful and almost chaotic. The situation calmed down and the year 2011 saw the library’s budgetary cutbacks canceled, largely because the library had been successful in implementing its three new strategic aims:  to increase the utilization of (library) automation in all the service processes, for example, we have introduced RFID-tags and automation for loans and returns of the library items;

Reinventing the Academic Library

233

 to speed up the collection paradigmatic change from the printed to a digital one, which helps also to manage the distances between the UEF campuses;  to transfer lesser used printed documents to the National Repository Library in order to reduce the amount of futile premises, for example, the library’s depositories for the lesser used printed documents, and use the costs savings for wages and collections.

This of course has meant the restructuring of staffing and re-assessing and revising job descriptions of staff members. Teams were formed to address for each of the library’s services resulting in customer services, onlineresource services, internal-services, collection services and teaching and information services teams. As of the initial preparation of this chapter, the work was ongoing, with possible completion expected by the end of the year 2013 when the automation project will be finished. It can already be seen that the rapid change toward an e-book culture will mean that there is a need for yet another restructuring of our organization. This will most likely happen at the end of the year 2013.

III. Integration of Library Services and Processes A. Helsinki University A merger of more than 150 libraries into one organization in a15-year period forms a huge challenge to the integration process. Even though the libraries had the same parent organization, the working cultures have been very different due to historical and subject discipline reasons. In the campus libraries the mergers have continued without stop now for more than 10 years. For example the Viikki Campus Library was formed in 1999 by merging five faculty as well as some departmental libraries. The former ones were Agricultural library (established 1930), Library of forestry (1862), Science library (1899), Biocentre library (1995), and Veterinary library (1892). Most of the merged libraries had long histories themselves. Therefore the merger process was not easy. Even now, after 13 years of common campus life, there are still traces of the old cultures to be seen. Since the beginning of 2010 a new ASPA (asiakaspalvelu, client services) group has been streamlining service processes in the campus libraries. Its aim is to create unified, clear, and functional client services in all HU libraries so that clients get well-defined and organized services, which fulfill their needs at all campuses as well as from the Internet. In 2011 the ASPA group was able to achieve the following: – a common e-mail address for client questions in all campuses; – a common price list (which itself has compelled the campuses to unify some of their processes);

234

Arja Juntunen et al.

– unified lending periods for different materials, especially at the City Centre campus; – unified due date slips, as well as notifications of overdue items.

The aims for 2012 are: – – – –

common user regulations; common telephone service; common resource sharing procedures; unified logistics between the campuses.

In spite of the great progress already achieved there are still problems in the harmonization process. It is still somewhat difficult for the campus libraries to give up their independent character. This is reflected especially in the management team consisting of the library director, campus library directors, heads of administration, IT and metadata departments, as well as representative of the staff, where common goals are not easily agreed upon. On the other hand, the campus libraries have maintained their tradition of creating and testing new services on their own. This has led to positive competition, where the most successful new ideas are taken in use within the whole library. B. Turku University There has been a huge need to harmonize the services and processes at the Turku University Library. The rather disconnected physical structure had led to separate, differentiated practices in library units. For customers, these diverse and varying practices have meant heterogeneous service. For example, overdue fees have differed and there has also been overlap in the work done in several units. As noted earlier (Muhonen et al., 2011), the staff structure of the Turku University Library had developed in the opposite direction from most Finnish university libraries in the first decade of the third millennium. During the decade nearly 20 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, many of which experts, had been eliminated, whereas elsewhere there were efforts to systematically increase the number of information specialists. It is thus justifiable to say that there was a deficit at Turku University Library in the very know-how that modern research, teaching, and study require from a library. Recreating and developing an expert organization in a time of decreasing budgets frame one of the great challenges of the 2010s. With help from the University’s management, the library has managed to create some new expert positions, when staff members have retired. However, as long as the library has several small units, staff are needed to maintain the basic tasks such as circulation. Small facilities are not easy to automate nor are they able to be

Reinventing the Academic Library

235

open long hours. Two new building projects are underway and it is assumed that by 2015 it will be possible to merge at least nine physically separate library units to three buildings. New innovative learning environment teams will plan for the new and renovated buildings. In developing a service organization, it is important to understand the significance of the internal processes which produce services. A central precondition for success is committing the staff to renewing the processes. The purpose is that the staff understands that the final aim of critically analyzing and remoulding the processes is to improve the customer’s service experience. The connection between the internal processes and the service process has been discussed in development days for the whole staff. All staff members were involved in defining the library’s core process and the processes that support it. The staff also identified the library’s products. At the strategic level, the aim is to steer the viewpoint away from collection- or unit-specific thinking and to see the ‘‘products’’ of library work from the customer’s point of view—as services. One of the tools used for moving to service organization thinking has been description of all processes in all library units using process charts. At the next stage the processes were analyzed: identifying deviations, overlaps, and possible bottlenecks and identifying and renewing them so that they advance the core process—conveying information to the customer—in as cost-effective and streamlined way as possible. The process descriptions have made visible the fact that a lot of same background work is done in the different library units. In practice, it means that same kind of work processes are carried out in a decentralized way, which does not necessarily advance carrying out the core processes in the best possible way. The target-oriented development of service processes also includes giving up some old practices and ways of doing work as well as learning new ways. This requires that staff have the ability to give up and renew old practices, which is not always easy at the individual level. This is why it was important that they be involved in the re-organization of internal processes, which in most cases will result in changes in duties. The aim is to streamline the library’s internal processes and to carry them out in an economical way with a partially team-based organization. As of the writing of this chapter, the following activities have been organized into teams throughout the whole library: – information services, including teaching in information literacy, and information retrieval services for researchers; – metadata services such as cataloging; – interlibrary loan services.

236

Arja Juntunen et al.

The library’s customer service practices have been harmonized by creating joint service instructions and by appointing a person responsible for immediate services in all units. For example, the lending period for different materials is now the same in all units that allow materials to circulate as is the policy for dealing with overdue fees (students can pay them in rates), and it is applied in all libraries. The procedures used may, however, not be the same. As a result of the aforementioned building projects, it will be possible to centralize background operations and services. The model of centralized basic services will give discipline-specific libraries better possibilities for developing targeted student and researcher services.

C. University of Eastern Finland The impetus for the library’s decision to build a new service-based organization was to start implementing a team-based organization within the library. At the same time the library started to rebuild the departmentand premises-accreted organizational structures that were the remnants from the previous phases of the library and public administration organizational thinking. This was replaced by a service-based approach. As Gallacher (2000) states libraries will have to struggle with the fact that some of the tasks are and will be traditional but that, at the same time, there is a need for innovation and up-to-date service products. Library’s staff structures must support these both demands (tradition vs. innovation). Thus libraries need hybrid staff structures that combine stable matrix structures with flexible team structures. It was known that simple structural changes in UEF’s library management would not be enough. Thus it was decided that at the operational level there would be a need to develop self-directed teams. Thus, the library use the indicator-based approach of quality management as presented in the ISO 9001 (Balague´ & Saarti, 2009, 2011). From the very beginning, the aim was that all library users should have access to similar library services in all locations. The first task to be tackled in using the indicator approach was to introduce the idea of managing the services via measurable tools (Poll, 2009). This needed both training about the idea of quality management and learning new ways of thinking. After this the implementation of service management teams succeeded, and the services started to develop their set of indicators quite rapidly. Here a shared tool (a table that guided the definition of the indicators) was created in order to ensure that similar approaches were being used for all the services. It was made available to all library staff via the library’s intranet.

Reinventing the Academic Library

237

The indicators were linked to measurable service promises which were defined at joint staff seminars where the working groups debated suggestions which had been prepared beforehand with the aim of measuring success in fulfilling goals, or what UEF called ‘‘service promises’’ made by the library. The service promises and their indicators were devised in about half a year in the Fall semester of 2010. The intention was to commit all of the staff to this way of thinking. The service promises and indicators of the library’s customer services were defined as follows: The aim of the process: to disseminate documented scientific information to students, academics and other users. Most important sub-processes: dissemination of documents, guidance and marketing, provision of multi-purpose premises. The quality aims of the process: customer service will be competent and friendly and it supports the self-directive use of the library. The document delivery is fast enough to support study and research.

1. Service Promises and Indicators 1. All of the customers are treated in a friendly way; their needs are clarified and answered.  The mean value in the customer survey for staff competence, availability, and willingness to be of service is at least 4.5 on a scale from 1 to 5. 2. The customers know the library’s basic services and can use them when needed. The customers are given basic guidance and consulting during the opening hours of the library.  The turnout of the library start for the new and international students is 100 percent.  The mean value in the customer survey for informing and enabling self-directed information search is at least 4.5 on a scale from 1 to 5.  The proportion of the self-service loans is 70 percent. 3. The customers will receive at least 98 percent of the documents requested from the library’s own collections (including reading room titles and e-resources) within at least a month. 4. Of all the resources disseminated via the interlibrary loans at least 80 percent will be available within two weeks; if the document requested via ILL is not available, this will be notified to the customer within at least 1 month. 5. The library offers practical working spaces for the library users: the premises are open as designated and the devices and computers function with 99 percent certainty. The mean value in the customer survey for opening hours, functionality, and tranquility of the premises as well as about the sufficiency of working spaces and computers will be at least 4.5 on a scale from 1 to 5.

Similar sets of promises and indicators have been designated for all of the library’s services and their operations, like customer-, online resources-, internal-, collection and teaching, and information services of the library. These help in prioritizing the most important aims and tasks within each of the library’s main service processes. These are also tools for the strategic work

238

Arja Juntunen et al.

and the development of the services as well as for collecting feedback from our users. Results are monitored in yearly management reviews when the teams present their annual reports.

IV. Best Practices and Tailored Solutions A. Helsinki University Two cases are presented here showing the innovative way work is done at Helsinki University Library. External expertise was used in both for developing new working methods and services for the library. 1. Case Knotworking One of the biggest challenges in the university libraries presently is to meet researchers’ needs. They do not come to the library anymore, so the librarians have to go out and visit faculties. Knotworking was a method used to organize work collectively, in this case librarians and research groups together. The method was developed by Professor Yrjo¨ Engestro¨m from Helsinki University and according to him the knot symbolizes distributed and partially improvised collaboration between loosely connected actors and activity systems (Engestro¨m, 2000). It differs from team work in the sense that continuity is connected to the object, not the practitioners. Knotworking requires the active participation of practitioners in an intensive process with normally five to ten sessions arranged weekly or fortnightly. All the sessions are video- and audiorecorded, and the recordings are used for reflection in later sessions and in research (Engestro¨m et al., 2012). Helsinki’sViikki Campus Library staff worked with two research groups, Peatland Ecology (Department of Forest Sciences) and the Cyanobacteria Group (Food and Environmental Sciences), to pilot the knotworking method in the Fall 2009. Both research groups were represented in the sessions by five to ten researchers who were at various stages of their academic careers. The process consisted of 6 two-hour sessions from September to November 2009. The discussions resulted in a service portfolio which the Viikki campus library offered to pilot groups for testing. The portfolio included: 1. training and briefing related to TUHAT (a research database): – uploading full text articles into the database; – finding out open access information from Sherpa/Romeo service;

Reinventing the Academic Library

239

2. data management plans (DMP): – assistance for the creation of DMPs; – archiving of research data; 3. issues related to the visibility of research groups: – publishing research results through open access channels; – describing research projects into the research database; 4. tailored assistance: – information literacy courses to researchers; – personal information specialist assistance; – current awareness service.

The services in the portfolio were carefully selected to meet the current needs of researchers. For example, the TUHAT research database was newly acquired by the University. Researchers were required to key in their publications but they lacked both time and instructions to do that. The creation of the DMP was prompted by the researchers’ imminent need to submit such a plan to meet grant application requirements. 2. Case Smart Design Helsinki University Library implemented a 2-year service design project in December 2010, called ‘‘Smart Design’’ together with Design Company Taivas. It was chosen as one of the four projects of the Helsinki University for the Helsinki World Design Capital Year 2012 (Helsinki University Library, 2012a). The objective of the project was to create a coherent, user-oriented, and flexible service concept along with a web-based developer community. The new service concept and involvement of users enabled reform of traditional library services, probing and implementation of new technologies and work processes, as well as long-term development of library services in the future (Tamminen, 2012). The project aimed at creating new service concepts for the new City Centre Campus library building, Kaisa House (Helsinki University Library, 2012b). However, the results should be applicable also in the other campus libraries. The project merged the ideas of users, academics, and library staff. The creation of the web-based developer community ‘‘Idis’’ was one of the first actions of the project. It supported all the phases of the project and promoted the shift toward user-oriented services. The developer community was meant to be a permanent tool for the library in the future. The design project had four phases. The first one, conducted in the winter of 2010–2011, consisted of research to gain more understanding of client needs. The target group was students at the university and the services provided for them, both local and web-based. The result was condensed into

240

Arja Juntunen et al.

four key customer profiles, for whom the services are to be constructed: the lingerer, the visitor, the investigator, and the patron. Each one had subprofiles, and individual students can be characterized by several profiles, but the classification facilitated the process. During the second phase (conceptualization), conducted in the winter of 2011–2012, new ideas for client services were developed using think tanks and the developer community. Altogether more than 200 new ideas were formed, of which 88 were described using special idea cards. Eighteen ideas were chosen to be conceptualized and tested. The results of the second phase will be collected into a handbook. The third phase (development and production) is currently going on. A dozen development projects were chosen from the short list created in phase two. Project managers were named for them with the aim of creating real services which could be used in the Fall 2012. The projects include: – – – – – – – – – –

a map system in the OPAC for locating printed materials within Kaisa House; a group check out service; a customer feedback system; color coding which shows areas for normal talking, whispering, or no talking at all within the Kaisa House; event marketing; service gestures; user etiquette; mobile services; digital book shelf; service communications.

The map system has proven to be very successful since it was put into use in September 2012. It has considerably reduced the number of queries at the service desk asking about the locations of books. Color coding was implemented at the beginning of November 2012 and it did result in a reduction in complaints about noise within the library. The fourth and final phase of the project aims at implementing and long-term operation of the created new services will focus on the implementation and long-term sustainability of the newly created services. B. Turku University At the University of Turku, a small library (Turku School of Economics) and a large library (University of Turku) were merged. Creating new operation models did not, however, only mean the reconciliation of these two organizations. The different library units of the ‘‘old’’ university also had their own, differentiated operational cultures which had to be re-evaluated.

Reinventing the Academic Library

241

A LibQUAL+s customer satisfaction survey that was conducted in the spring of 2010 indicated that dialogue between the library and the academic community—or the lack of it—caused dissatisfaction (see Muhonen et al., 2011). In order to create a new functional organization, the library started to systematically chart the best practices, the transfer or adoption of which would both advance the fluency of the internal processes and improve customer satisfaction. Best practices were also sought outside the organization in order to learn from benchmarks at other university libraries and customer-oriented organizations that in general had re-organized their operations. It was carried out by the library’s management namely the library director, and the heads of the subject-specific libraries and internal operations. Several experts were also encouraged to take part in the benchmarking. The organizational structure that was chosen for the Turku University Library greatly resembles the model that Priestner and Tilley (2012) describe which was originally inspired by operational plans of boutique hotels. It has three components: tailored services for a certain clientele, that is, boutique library services; centrally managed activities that are invisible in the background; and collaborative activities with different actors. In the operations model used in Turku, the targeted boutique services are offered by the discipline-specific libraries and the Fennica collection with its free copies. In their operations, the best practices of the former faculty libraries have been preserved, such as good knowledge on the topics of the faculty and closeness to the academic community and students. In the reform, their role in offering and developing expert services has been sharpened. Their particular task is to take care of discipline-specific services, such as services that support research. On the basis of their discipline expertise, they can produce highly tailored services in support of research and education. As they work in the customer interface, they have the latest information on the developments of the discipline and personal connections to the academic world. The centrally managed activities consist of the internal services produced for the discipline-specific libraries such as acquisitions, the maintenance of web services and data systems, metadata description, etc. Carrying out these background services in a centralized way gives the disciplinespecific libraries better opportunities and time to advance their expertise and, for example, to participate in creating innovative research services. The centralized internal services are cost-effective, which benefits the whole organization. The library regularly collects customer feedback on whether the new organization better serves the customers. Development and evaluation are ongoing processes. The joint advisory boards consisting of representatives of the library, the academic community, and the students are becoming collaborative channels

242

Arja Juntunen et al.

where joint discussions can be held, for example, on material selection, the integration of information literacy, etc. For staff, the new organization means new know-how challenges, changes in work duties, and completely new job descriptions, which became the cause of enthusiasm in some, and worry, even fear, in others. In carrying out the reforms, the need for skilful supervisory work is accentuated. For the past few years, leadership skills have been a specific development target of human resource development at the University of Turku ensuring that the needed supervisory skills are available to handle such changes.

C. University of Eastern Finland Working in a new, merged library has been challenging for all library staff members. The amount of learning and adoption of new policies and procedures required within the merged university in and of itself would have been more than enough to tax staff. Adding library changes to the information overflow could easily distract the staff from performing their basic duties. In the UEF library, we tried to manage this problem by introducing a set of indicators for each of the library’s services to help in producing and monitoring the library’s service products. If the indicators show that the targets and aims are not being met, then the staff try to determine whether aims have been set too high or whether the library can improve its activities. This helps also in moving the discussion from individuals toward the improvement of the processes and services. At the management level, this also helps in defining the most urgent areas requiring staff training and recruiting. Doubling the number of staff meant that the old way of holding quick and cozy meetings changed to massive crowd scenes that had to be handled differently. This posed enormous problems in trying to inform all the staff about the changes happening throughout the university and at the library in language that would be understandable to all. For managers, this meant long discussions and meetings with subordinates. There also was a need to define the service policies and practices which led to subsets of services having to create their own systematic information chains and ways to communicate decisions. As a result it was decided that the minutes of the meetings would be available via the library’s intranet. In addition a system of weekly briefings was established that are similar on all the main campuses. These also function as discussion forums with the staff and make it possible to revise decisions when necessary. The commitment and involvement in other working groups work

Reinventing the Academic Library

243

have been enhanced by publishing the meeting agendas beforehand on the intranet. A web-discussion tool on intranet was also utilized. Another important decision was to implement up-to-date library logistics automation in order to reduce the amount of manual labor done in the library. So the RFID-based library logistics-system has been implemented in the library and the project is to be finished during the year 2013. At the same time a print collection was created which floats between campuses (which are about 100 kilometers apart) and started to share work between campuses based on the library’s main processes and not on a particular campus at which the needed personnel were situated. Finally, a new collection policy favors acquisitions in digital form over those in print form. That reduced the amount of printed collections with new acquisitions being in digital format if possible. Less used printed materials were stored in the National Repository Library (see Muhonen, Saarti, & Vattulainen, 2010). These steps actually improved collections at all the three campuses, introduced more efficient logistics, and saved space. The latter meant that staff pay increases could be given using savings from former rental costs, even though the university froze the budgets for the year 2012. Digital collections have increased the use of the library materials and they are also logistically invaluable due to the distances between the University campuses. Finally, the collections of the National Repository Library can be delivered almost as rapidly as from the local repositories, so service levels have at least remained the same.

V. Conclusion The merger of two or more organizations can create crises which need to be handled by the managers and leaders. One of the cornerstones in a successful merger is the creation of a new organizational culture (Muhonen et al., 2011). Sound planning by management also helps to master crisis-type symptoms in merger situations according to Hargis and Watt (2010). It also is important to recognize the different types of stress that the members of the staff and their teams are facing. Otherwise there will be a major risk for experiencing severe burn-outs at all the levels of the organization. Merging tens of libraries together into one organization is a long and tedious process. Old habits and cultures last long, some of them as much as 15 years of cooperation as in the case of Helsinki University Libraries. On the other hand, a certain amount of independence is good since it can result in positive competition and creation of new services.

244

Arja Juntunen et al.

Identifying what to preserve and what to obliterate is important (Carey & Ogden, 2004). Time must be given for bereavement and mourning for the loss of old ways. If this phase lasts too long however, the merged organization can get into a rut, looking back, and remembering ‘‘how the good old days were better in all respects.’’ Based on the experiences of the three libraries, one good way of tackling this phenomenon is to introduce an evidence-based approach to managing the library and its service processes. This helps management to focus on what is being done in the library to services and service products, instead of obsessing about staff personalities and habits. It also makes it easier for staff to focus on basic services and making quality improvements. Measurable indicators were an invaluable tool in decision making for the library’s management: they helped in focusing on the library’s basic tasks and they reduce the misapprehensions which still happen in a merged library since the old cultures are still breathing. Most importantly measurable indicators enable an objective foundation for discussions, especially in the face of being forced to make tough decisions. This is also a way of introducing a self-directed approach both to teams and to individual staff members. When the size of a library grows and also is complicated by the distances between campuses, time management becomes important. Top management does not need to make all the decisions with teams that can act rapidly and make their own decisions about the work they are doing. Service integration takes a long time in a newly merged library. In addition to the staff of the library, clients have to be convinced of the benefits of the new services. Ideally they should be developed together with clients to improve services using techniques such as knotworking. Any merger is a big challenge to management teams of any library. It needs far-sightedness and a lot of patience. Many different points of views have to be melded into unified goals and yet give a feeling of flexibility to the staff. It is most important to find and use the change agents within each campus library. Both staff and management must be humble during this process: one must be able to make compromises and even be ready to change strategic plans when needed. The operational environment of higher education and its libraries has become an ongoing tempest and competition—a situation which requires firm leadership. The decisions need to be made just in time—or if possible, a couple of steps in advance. References Balague´, N., & Saarti, J. (2009). Benchmarking quality systems in two European academic libraries. Library Management, 30(4–5), 227–239. doi:10.1108/01435 120910957896

Reinventing the Academic Library

245

Balague´, N., & Saarti, J. (2011). Managing your library and its quality: The ISO 9001 way. Cambridge, UK: Chandos. Carey, D. C., Ogden, D., & Roland, J. A. (2004). Human side of M&A: How CEOs leverage the most important asset in deal making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Engestro¨m, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. doi:10.1080/001401300409143 Engestro¨m, Y., Kaatrakoski, H., Kaiponen, P., Lahikainen, J., Laitinen, A., Myllys, H., . . . , Sinikar, K. (2012). Knotworking in academic libraries: Two case studies from the University of Helsinki. Liber Quarterly, 21(3/4), 387–405. Retrieved from http://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/view/8032 Finland, Ministry of Education. (2009). Universities Act: 558/2009 (as amended up to 315/2011). Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2009/ en20090558.pdf Gallacher, C. A. (2000). Managing change in libraries and information services. London, UK: Europa. Geleijnse, H., Gellerstam, G., Mowat, I. R. M., & Ruokonen, K. (2000). Helsinki university libraries: Report of an assessment panel. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/arviointi/arkisto/ librarypanelreport.pdf Geleijnse, H., Koskiala, S., & Sahlin, G. (2004). Follow-up evaluation of library and information services 2004. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://arno.uvt.nl/ show.cgi?fid=80484 Hargis, M., & Watt, J. D. (2010). Organizational perception management: A framework to overcome crisis events. Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 73–87. Helsinki University Library. (2012a). Intelligent design: The service design project in Helsinki university library. Retrieved from http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/en/program/ 2011-10-20/intelligent-design-%E2%80%93-service-design-project-helsinkiuniversity-library Helsinki University Library. (2012b). Kaisa house library. Retrieved from http:// www.kirjastokaista.fi/2011/03/02/kaisa_house_library/. Muhonen, A., Nygre´n, U., & Saarti, J. (2011). Bringing order out of chaos: benchmarking tools used in merging university libraries in Finland. In A. Woodsworth (Ed.), Librarianship in times of crisis: Advances in librarianship (Vol. 34, pp. 183–205). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Muhonen, A., Saarti, J., & Vattulainen, P. (2010). Managing the life cycles of the document and library collections in finnish academic libraries: Two case studies— Aalto and UEF. Library Management, 31(8/9), 669–677. doi:10.1108/014351 21011093432 Poll, R. (2009). Benchmarking in the form of performance indicators and balanced scorecard. In M. Heaney (Ed.), Library statistics for the twenty-first century world: Proceedings of the conference held in Montre´al, Canada on 18–19 August 2008 reporting on the global library statistics project (pp. 61–70). (IFLA Publications, 138). Munich, Germany: K.G. Saur. Priestner, A., & Tilley, E. (2012). Personalising library services in higher education: The boutique approach. Farnham: Ashgate. Saarti, J., & Juntunen, A. (2011). The benefits of a quality management system: The case of the merger of two universities and their libraries. Library Management, 32(3), 183–190. doi:10.1108/01435121111112899

246

Arja Juntunen et al.

Sinikara, K. (2006). Evaluation as a tool for developing the quality of academic libraries: Case study at a large and traditional research oriented Scandinavian university. Liber Quarterly, 16(3/4), n.p. Retrieved from http://liber.library.uu.nl/ index.php/lq/article/view/7860/8050. Sinikara, K. (2012). Yhteisessa¨ valtavirrassa yliopiston kanssa: Uusi Helsingin yliopiston kirjasto [In a common mainstream with the University — the new Helsinki University Library]. In K. Sinikara, M. Forsman, I. Karppinen & P. Lammi (Eds.), Rajapinnassa: Uusi Helsingin yliopiston kirjasto [At the interface — the new Helsinki University Library] (pp. 19–38). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston kirjasto. Tamminen, T. (2012). On the student’s terms. H*UB Helsinki university bulletin, 3, 52–57. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/hub/articles/?article=221 University of Eastern Finland. (2010, March). A university of the future: Strategy of the university of Eastern Finland. Kuopio, Finland: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.uef.fi/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=cd68baac-e159-4193-8eb4-66684 22c7318&groupId=10128&p_l_id=22813 University of Helsinki. (2012a). Building the future since 1640. Retrieved from http:// www.helsinki.fi/yliopistonhistoria/english/index.htm University of Helsinki. (2012b). The best for the world: Strategic plan for the University of Helsinki 2013–2016. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/viestinta-ja-yhtei skuntasuhteet/esitteet/strategia_en.html. Accessed on August 24, 2012.

Responding to Crises with Alliances: Evidence from an Academic Library Survey in Greece Petros A. Kostagiolasa, Eva Papadakib, Georgos Kanlisc and Sozon Papavlasopoulosa a Department of Archives and Library Science, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece b Municipal Library of Viannos, Crete, Greece c Library and Informational Center, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece

Abstract The global recession which began in 2008 affected the entire world including the European economy, with some countries being influenced more than others. At the end of 2012 the Greek economy was encountering a fourth consecutive year of deep recession while pressures to cut expenses in all sectors were still growing and making headline news. Academic libraries, which are dependent upon state funding, were experiencing the consequences of constant and deep budget cutbacks during that period. After a review the literature on the impact of the economic crisis on academic libraries in Greece, as well as at the international level, this chapter describes the results of a survey of Greek higher education academic libraries about the consequences of the devastatingly harsh economic environment in which they currently, and probably will continue to, exist. A survey was conducted online with 25 out of the 37 academic library directors in Greece. After analyzing the survey results, the authors describe strategies to sustain services and resources and propose strategies to adjust to a new fiscal reality. These strategies include synergies and alliances that academic libraries can achieve with various agencies within their educational institutions and/or externally. While the results are limited to a small number of academic libraries in one European country, all types of libraries can utilize the strategies outlined in this chapter. Keywords: Economic crisis; academic libraries; alliances; synergies; survey; Greece

I. Introduction The present global financial and economic crisis is affecting both strong and weak economies around the world. Despite the fact that some countries

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036012

247

248

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

managed to resist to the devastating course of the global recession, the so-called ‘‘public debt crisis’’ is found today in the front line of a second phase, which has mainly affected Europe’s periphery and particularly in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. With regard to Greece, the economic crisis appeared in 2009, and is actually related to the overindebtedness of the Greek public sector and its potential inability to control ballooning debt (Arghyrou & Tsoukalas, 2010). In a broader sense, however, this is a Euro zone economic crisis rooted in European Monetary Union (EMU) structure as well as the strategy for safeguarding a strong Euro. Therefore, a prompt and sustainable EMU solution is required. This is gradually being realized by the different agencies and governments, and a number of progressive compromises are being considered and introduced to develop innovative European economic tools to tackle macro-economic imbalances. For the Greek economy the confidence deficit has caused a gradual revision of its deficit data from 6% in 2009 to 15.4% and Greece was targeted by international markets. Pressure on the Greek economy has forced the country to resort to a financial support mechanism in March 2010, with participation of other Euro zone countries, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In cooperation with the IMF a public debt ‘‘haircut’’ took place accompanied with a rigorous fiscal adjustment program, which is actually under way. This program focuses on cutting public expenses, promoting privatization and achieving structural changes in the organization and function of the Greek state. As a direct consequence, personnel hiring in the public sector froze, tax rates increased, and budgets shrank for all public organizations. The consequences of this economic environment exceeded by far the initial predictions, according to which, after a short period of time, the Greek economy would recover and start reaching pre-recession levels. As of the end of 2012 it was commonly accepted that overcoming the economic crisis would require long and laborious efforts at the political and socioeconomic levels. At the same time, it is quite difficult to determine the operation status of several existing social services in the near future, since the state is shrinking. Today, having experienced four years of recession, the impact of the current economic crisis is felt in every part of the public and private life, leading to a decrease in living standards of most citizens and reinforcing feelings of uncertainty with regard to the future (International Labour Office, 2011). The most obvious impact of the economic crisis is related to budget cutbacks as a consequence of reducing state expenses. In Greece, in particular, higher education budgets were cut by 21.05% in 2011, while cuts were even

Responding to Crises with Alliances

249

higher in 2012. Furthermore, European Programs1 which significantly helped academic libraries had ended by May 2009 (Garoufallou, Siatri, & Hartley, 2008). Consequently, cutbacks in higher education and research funding led to reduced financing for institutional libraries and created a highly competitive framework of fund allocation among the different units of higher education institutions (HEI) (Reid, 2010). The survival of an academic library may indeed depend to a large extent on its ability to cooperate and create alliances with others as a way to survive external economic pressures (Anglada, 2007). This chapter presents information on the consequences of the economic crisis on academic libraries, internationally and in Greece, followed by a presentation of the results from a nation-wide survey of 25 academic libraries in Greece. Thereafter, this chapter proposes ways in which academic libraries can develop synergies and alliances at a time of an extremely difficult financial conjuncture.

II. Theoretical Considerations A. Uncertainties in Comprehending the Impact There is an agreement in the literature as to the fact that we are still unable to fully evaluate the impact of the current recession since it still exists and its consequences in many sectors are uncontrollable (Harper & Corrall, 2011). Therefore, it is difficult to determine its full extent and impact while data collection remains an important challenge (Davis, 2009). At the same time, it is widely acknowledged that the recession has already influenced, and will further influence the operation of academic libraries. The long-awaited recovery may come in a time when libraries, at the international level, are completely different when compared to the era before 2008 (Lowry, 2010). At the same time, the ever-changing information environment, shaped by the emergence of new information technologies and the Internet, creates an additional challenge for libraries (Brindley, 2006). The recession, however, does not necessarily hold back changes due to funding cuts but on the contrary could lead to its intensification in some areas, such as an increase of digitization (Powell, 2011). Furthermore, the knowledge economy may indeed increase the social value of information to institutions and society and provide opportunities for growth (Kostagiolas, 2012). Highlighting the 1

These were operational programs officially adopted and co-funded by the European Commission for specified periods (e.g., 2000–2006). Their objectives were improvement of EU’s educational systems and its services.

250

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

opportunities related to the recession, however, does not mean rejecting its inevitable negative effects throughout the entire spectrum of information institutions (Goulding, 2009). B. Library Alliances and Cooperation Libraries throughout their long history have developed mechanisms of developing collaborations and alliances in order to survive. Through collaboration, libraries are sharing both tangible and intangible resources in order to develop economies of scale and scope. For example, during economic recession, the sharing out of acquisition and documentation costs among the libraries is indeed very important allowing at the same time to develop valuable services for users such as interlibrary loan and other collaborative services (Kidd, 2010; Throumoulos, 2010). At the same time, library alliances may be able to negotiate better and achieve more favorable agreements (Anglada, 2007). They can also advocate for better financing, and use information resources and infrastructure in common (Meyer & Miller, 2008), as well as develop innovative services (Marcum, 2008). A number of different categories of alliances can be developed by academic libraries for different purposes (Anglada, 2007): These may range from companionship programs promoting teamwork within the library, collaborative programs based on relations that the library establishes with other units and staff members within the university, association with other libraries located in the same area of interest or geographic area, cooperation for sharing information and other resources, alliances with organizations of different nature and with aims and partially coinciding objectives, links with libraries and organizations of the same type and nature in other countries. The above is indicative of the range of library collaboration and partnerships which may be formal or informal and may include private or public organizations. Library synergies, collaborations, and strategic alliances are also highly valued by the Charleston Observatory survey which was conducted in October 2009 and included 835 libraries worldwide. This research report confirms that library directors at the international level had started sensing the consequences of the crisis in 2009, and their predictions for the years to come, namely 2010, 2011, and 2012, were not at all optimistic (Charleston Observatory, 2009). In 2009, 43.8% of academic libraries suffered cutbacks in their funding, while directors were seeking various forms of collaboration. According to research conducted in the United States, 20% of academic library directors therein reported witnessing 5–10% reduction in funding for the year 2010 compared to 2009 (Davis, 2009). While for example at the East Tennessee University Library cutbacks amounted to 5–6% (Adebonojo,

Responding to Crises with Alliances

251

Ellis, Campbell, & Hawkins, 2010), while, according to findings presented by Guarria (2011) about 479 U.S. libraries, 33.22% of the respondents suffered budget cutbacks in 2009 and 43.72% suffered budget cutbacks in 2010. This kind of research reinforces the importance of library collaboration in relation to the crisis for U.S. libraries. Academic library administrators are now aware of the benefits of creating consortia and networks. As a matter of fact, library consortia may take different forms and have different dynamics (Anglada, 2007). Consortia may be internal, among staff members, between the library and other libraries (Cryer & Grigg, 2011; Dougherty, 2009; Kidd, 2010; Throumoulos, 2010), between the library and other units or departments of the academic institution (Montgomery & Miller, 2011; Pritchard, 2009), between the users and the library (Meyer & Miller, 2008), and finally between the library and the wider community (Anglada, 2007). Developing cooperative operational models and reinforcing already existing ones, inside and outside of the institution, is a widely accepted approach and may prove to be profitable during the recession through creating economies of scale (Dougherty, 2009; Lowry, 2010). A large part of library activities may be transferred into a cooperative environment, such as acquisitions, cataloguing, and documentation as well as the development of specific information services. Synergies may also be developed among the operational units and different departments of academic institutions so as to seek new funding resources or to promote the cooperative use of information infrastructure. Investing in innovative ideas is considered to be an effective strategy to face the crisis (Doan & Kennedy, 2009). New technologies and the digital environment create a breeding ground for the development of innovation (Li, 2006), which may lead to the provision of innovative services (Scupola & Nicolajsen, 2010), stronger support scientific research (Research Information Network (RIN), 2008), and improvements in the general philosophy of library development (Xiaobin & Jing, 2009). C. Academic Library Staff With regard to academic library staffing in the United States, according to a research conducted by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), there was a reduction of 8% among its member libraries during 2009 (Association of Research Libraries, 2009; Kyrillidou & Morris, 2011). Moreover, according to statistical data provided by LAMPOST (2012), at the beginning of the crisis in the United Kingdom there was a reduction of employees amounting to 2.6% in 2009 and 1.8% for librarians. In Ireland, a decade of progress in

252

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

academic libraries seemed to have come to an end (Cox, 2010a) and libraries were obliged to cut back their staff by 9% by the end of 2011, since 2008. The imposed recruitment cessation means that not only there are no new jobs but also that existing ones remain vacant after the retirement of older employees or those at the ends of their contract (Cox, 2010b). The utilization of available human capital within the recession will be even higher considering that a large number of libraries are facing or are about to face further cutbacks in their staff members or staff expenses (Foster, 2009; Harper & Corrall, 2011; Topper, 2009a).

D. Alternative Funding Strategy and Collaborations In Charleston Observatory (2009) research, library directors were asked to predict the consequences of the crisis as well as to propose alternative financing tactics. As regards additional financing sources, and especially in the case of academic libraries, respondents mainly opted for intensifying pressure on the responsible institution, followed by seeking alternative external funding. Charging users with a fee was not considered to be an effective solution by the respondents. At the same time, the transition to digital material and extroversion policies toward potential user communities outside of the institution’s restricted limits, so as to attract both cooperation and financing, were considered to be effective answers to the recession (Lowman & Bixby, 2011). In general terms, funding cuts may be balanced in two ways, which complement each other (Couillier & Stoffle, 2011): firstly, through an effort to reduce unnecessary expenses and secondly, to seek low-cost solutions for certain services (McCaslin, 2010; Sutton & Grantt, 2011). Such attempts can either be based on reallocating the available funds toward specific units of the library which are considered to be more important or reducing the budgets of other units (Lowry, 2010). It is quite difficult to assess the above two alternatives (resource saving/reallocation or alternative funding) due to the presence of various additional factors that need to be taken into consideration for each particular case. However, it is worth mentioning that constant and significant cutbacks will ultimately lead to the shrinkage and downgrading of library operations. An alternative funding strategy may comprise a large spectrum of collaborative actions, including state or private alliances (Downing, 2009), participation in development programs, donations or legacies, providing subscriber services to third parties (Brooks, 2010; Cloutier, 2005), and implementing a charging policy for provided services (Medeiros, 2011; Romero, 2011a).

Responding to Crises with Alliances

253

Within the context of the present recession, discussion about these issues is more urgent than ever. Seeking alternative sources of financing, especially in the form of subsidies and donations, is mainly related to the ability of an organization to convince investors on its value and to develop some form of cooperation (Germano, 2010). However, in periods of financial crisis a large number of institutions apply for grant and foundation programs and thus competition for such subsidies is increased. In such periods, there is need for an organized and collective approach. For example, U.S. libraries had the opportunity to receive funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an initiative aiming to support institutions affected by the recession (Taylor, 2010). E. Demonstrating the Value of the Academic Library In periods of recession, promoting the value of nonprofit organizations seems to be of high importance (Gwyer, 2010). Indeed, nonprofit institutions run the risk of being marginalized within their communities if they do not manage to convince constituents of their usefulness. The nonprofit character of academic libraries makes them part of an operational model that utilizes public funding so as to serve a ‘‘guardian-institution’’ that is to say the university to which they belong (Roberts, 2003). Although the intensity and effects of the recession differ for each library, there is need for a common approach in the form of a plan for demonstrating a library’s value (Topper, 2009b). The plan should demonstrate that investments in academic libraries support the development of new knowledge and consequently financial, technological, and social progress. The development of skills and abilities for the creation of new and highly valued services can be based on the library’s ‘‘true’’ capital, that is to say, the intellectual capital of library resources (Kostagiolas, 2012; Kostagiolas & Asonitis, 2011). Gwyer (2010) also highlights the need for library management to focus on human capital in times of crisis, and to adapt to the ever transforming information environment. F. Participation in Educational and Research University Processes More active participation of libraries in educational and research processes is not only part of their mission but also encourages further cooperation with other institution units (RIN, 2010). Improving existing research tools and creating new ones, providing access to high-quality academic information, providing educational infrastructures, and putting staff members at the disposal of users are some of the main goals for academic libraries. These can

254

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

be supplemented with alternative ways, such as resorting to innovation and cooperation. The RIN, in cooperation with SCONUL, published a series of guidelines for library supervisors and directors (2010) based upon the results of the University College London (UCL) research. The RIN guidelines highlight the significance of demonstrating the value of libraries and a successful return on investments. The general increase of library use in periods of recession demonstrates the fact that their social role cannot be overlooked (Rooney-Browne, 2009). The users, who are also victims of financial woes, turn to libraries to satisfy their informational, educational, and entertainment needs through libraries’ materials and infrastructures. Increased library use is a measurable value, which can be used as a convincing argument for safeguarding institutional roles of academic libraries under any circumstances, financially troubled or not. G. Collection Development and Electronic Resources A heavily affected operation of academic libraries in recession periods is collection development, and more specifically scholarly print and electronic journals, databases, and e-books. Access to electronic resources and printed title acquisition is achieved through signing limited-time contracts between suppliers and libraries and renegotiating the terms upon their expiration. The context of negotiation is quite complex and depends upon the number of resources, the access or provision period, the ability to access older issues, item form (electronic, printed, or both), the number and size of institutions that participate in the transaction, and the policies implemented by editors and suppliers. At the same time, the cost of these resources is quite elevated and may amount to 60–80% of library budget (Greco, Jones, Wharton, & Estelami, 2007) while the usefulness of a large resource volume is quite uncertain (Zappen, 2010). Thus, there is need for a new negotiation framework between libraries and editors corresponding to the different economic and social conditions caused by the recession and a need to record statistical information on the use of these resources (Cryer & Grigg, 2011; Grogg, 2009; Hunter & Bruning, 2010; Zappen, 2010). Due to the fact that libraries seem unable to increase their resources or even satisfy their printed collection development needs, they have turned toward electronic information sources and especially electronic journals (Kyrillidou & Morris, 2011). Indeed, ARL research shows that with regard to acquiring library material, a constant increase in journal subscription expenses has been seen over the past twenty years. More specifically, there was a 7.7% increase in 2008, while acquisition costs for print materials saw a significant decrease in 2009 (Lowry, 2011). However, there were some cases,

Responding to Crises with Alliances

255

such as at Washington and Emory University Libraries, which decreased their printed material budget by 12% for the year 2009, resulting in cancellation of 1,800 print journal subscriptions. This specific decision was reinforced by the fact that journal prices had increased by 7–9% in prior years. Clearly, as Kidd (2010) asserts, there is need for an orientation toward open access to resources and the development of university repositories as well as the creation or reinforcement of collaboration in negotiations with vendors about scholarly resource acquisitions. In an attempt to alleviate the consequences of the recession on information resource acquisition, the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOCL) issued a series of guidelines in early 2009 which included two principles to address this situation. The first one related to a more flexible resource pricing approach and the second to avoid the discontinuation of content access as a means to preserve the existing cooperative framework between libraries and suppliers. The guidelines provided five steps that may be taken so as to implement these principles. ICOCL expressed a particular concern about future cutbacks on a long-term basis (2009). The ARL issued similar guidelines in February 2009. According to research on 42 consortia, apart from traditionally undertaken common action, the current recession has highlighted the need for better budget management and the better negotiation of access and license fees with suppliers and editors (Perry, 2009). H. Library Service Demand Increases Despite the aforementioned reductions in almost all library services, there has been an increase in library use. More specifically, according to the ALA’s data on academic libraries, there is an 8% increase in usage between 2006 and 2008 (American Library Association, 2011a). According to another study conducted by the ALA, this time for public libraries, 25.4 million Americans claimed using more than 20 times their public library in 2009 as compared to 20.3 million in 2006, marking a 25% increase (Davis, 2009). Average physical visits per person increased by 39.5% in 2009 and amounted to 12.7 visits as compared to 9.1 visits in 2006. Remote use via computers was doubled and reached an average of six times per year in 2009 as compared to 2.9 times in 2006. According to a research conducted in 2009 in Washington Public Libraries there was a 7.5% increase in regular users and a 20.2% increase in virtual visits, while internal library network users increased by 13.8% (Rooney-Browne, 2009). On the other hand, reducing hours of operation has been a common reaction to the recession (Germano, 2011; Ipsos Mori, 2009; Romero,

256

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

2011b). This obviously conflicts with increased library use. The library’s role as a physical space for educational, social, and economic activities in tough financial periods is significant. Libraries are attempting to preserve their services knowing that it is of outmost importance to meet the high demands of their communities. In order to supplement library services with the use of electronic means, libraries develop networks (Han, 2010; Malpas 2011) and free-to-use online applications (Rapp, 2011). Furthermore, with regard to the views of citizens themselves, a study by Mostad-Jensen (2009) indicated a 3.4% increase since 2006 in the number of people who believe that public libraries improve the quality of life within their community, while there was an increase of 2.5% in people who believe that libraries play an important role in offering opportunities for every citizen due to the fact that they provide free access to material and resources. Thus, in many cases, students, for example, opt for discontinuing their Internet subscriptions and start using academic library computers for everyday needs. Furthermore, there has been increased participation in distance education courses so as to cover their educational and professional needs. In general terms, one may claim that as user habits change, the libraries are transformed into ‘‘recession havens’’ since they promote the notion of borrowing instead of buying and offer free access to a series of information and entertainment resources.

III. The Greek Economic Crisis and Higher Education Context In Greece there are academic libraries in 22 HEI (universities) and 15 higher technical education institutes (TEI) (technical institutions). In this section are provided data and information aiming to draw conclusions about the impact of the economic crisis from 2006 through 2010, as well as for the year 2011 wherever available data existed. The information provided here comes mainly from the annual reports of the Total Quality Management Unit of Academic Libraries (TQMAL, 2013) which started functioning in 1999, collects information from academic libraries, produces annual statistical reports, and cooperates with similar organizations outside Greece such as LIBCON and LISU to exchange information and uses a series of other available statistical information sources such as the National Statistical Service of Greece and UNESCO. The largest part of academic libraries’ funding comes from the budgets of their parent universities and technical institutes, which in turn are almost totally dependent upon state funding. According to the available

Responding to Crises with Alliances

257

information, in the year 2010 there was an overall total reduction of 31.3% in state funding, as compared to 2006. A comparative analysis of total annual expenses demonstrates the existence of an upward trend for university libraries until 2009. This trend, however, was suddenly reversed in the following years, 2010 through 2012, marking a sharp decrease of around 50%. For libraries in technical institutes this unfavorable situation had started in 2008, with a significant drop which reached about 50% in the year 2009 although they remained at those levels afterwards. In the past two years, operating expenses were also significantly reduced by around 50.0% while staffing expenses dropped around 20% in 2010, mainly due to the dismissal of many part-time and temporary staff who had been employed through EU’s programs whose funding ended in May 2009. A detailed analysis of expenses for printed materials in academic libraries demonstrates that printed journal expenses are higher than those for monographs, although total expenses for printed material saw a 20% drop in 2009 and a further significant drop in 2010, reaching a five-year low in 2011. A second comparison among the two main types of material, traditional and digital, is indicative of the prevailing trends in this recession. There is a significant shift toward electronic information resources and away from print materials, a trend also highlighted in the international literature. At the same time, however, electronic journal subscriptions expenses have dropped around 50% over the last five years. This reduction of electronic subscriptions may also be attributed to a parallel increase in their cost. A. Consortia The Hellenic Academic Libraries-LINK (Heal-LINK, n.d.) is the largest academic library consortium in Greece and is comprised of all 37 academic institutions (22 universities and 15 technical institutions), 14 research institutions, the Academy of Athens, the National Library of Greece, the Hellenic Parliament Library, the Pedagogical Institute, the National Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Cyprus. It should be noted that in 2011 some electronic journal access providers refused to reduce their prices to HEAL-Link, which resulted in discontinuation of some subscriptions. Recently, academic libraries of higher institutions with similar program areas, such as economic and business departments, developed memoranda of agreement about inter-institutional cooperation for sharing resources, electronic subscriptions, acquisitions, and the like. These complement HEAL-LINK’s initiatives. The rise of electronic journal subscription prices has also been addressed by the Southern European Libraries Link (SELL, n.d.), a consortium which

258

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

was founded on the basis of Catalonian Consortium of Libraries (Spain) statement entitled ‘‘Why Some Libraries Pay More for Electronic Information.’’ SELL aims to empower cooperation among libraries from southern European countries, including Greece, and establish a special charging policy on the part of publishers and vendors for libraries in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other countries of the same area of Europe. Although the organizational structural, administrative model and librarians’ culture of academic and research libraries in Southern European Countries are similar to other western European countries and the United States, there are some unique characteristics which set apart SELL policies about information acquisitions and provision, such as:  The uniqueness of their mother languages since English is not as prevalent as in other countries: European countries like the Netherlands, or Denmark.  Educational systems which usually allow a significant number of registered students who are not actually attending courses.  A much lower gross domestic product (GDP) compared that in northern Europe, which results in considerably lower buying power.

Finally, as has already been suggested in the literature, there has been about 50.0% increase in library users since the recession began in 2008, which demonstrates an increased interest by both academic and external users. In technical institute libraries, there were even higher increases between 2009 and 2010, with the trend continuing into 2011. Another quite interesting parameter of library use is related to virtual visits to library websites which experienced similar increases.

IV. A Survey of Greek Academic Libraries A. Survey Methodology A survey was conducted between August and November 2011, a year in which the recession reached its full force in Greece. Data were collected via a semi-structured interview form, based upon similar research (Harper & Corral, 2011; Ipsos Mori, 2009). After it was drafted, the interview form was piloted in a group of experienced members from the library community as well as academics, so as to make improvements and corrections for the Greek environment. Subsequently, the directors from all 37 academic libraries in Greece were asked via e-mail about their willingness to participate in the survey, and 25 directors agreed to participate and answered questions posted on SurveyMonkeys.

Responding to Crises with Alliances

259

The interview schedule (see the appendix) contains three main parts, the first of which (part A) included basic information about the respondent and the library. Part B was made up of questions used to evaluate the degree of economic impact on specific library sectors. Part C investigated the respondents’ degree of agreement or disagreement with the implementation of specific reactions or strategies to address the consequences of the crisis. Close-ended questions were structured using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from very negative, negative, neutral, positive, to very positive) in order to evaluate the degree of impact of the recession and the extent of agreement with regard to reactions and strategies to deal with funding losses.

B. Results Twenty-five respondents were the directors of academic libraries throughout Greece, both from large urban centers like Athens, Piraeus, and Thessaloniki and smaller cities. Of the total, 19 were from universities and 6 were from technical institutes. Part B contained questions aiming to evaluate the extent to which the recession has affected academic libraries. More specifically, consequences were divided into seven categories as illustrated in the aggregate results in Table 1. The first column of Table 1 contains the question code, the second column contains impact categories, the third column contains each different question, columns 4–8 contain rates per scale point, column 9 contains the mean value of answers, and column 10 illustrates the number of participants for each question. It should be noted that the smaller the value, the larger the negative impact on a specific library sector, with value 1 corresponding to ‘‘very negative’’ and value 5 corresponding to ‘‘very positive.’’ 1. Perceived Impact of the Financial Crisis The first question (B.1) investigates respondent views on the overall effect of the recession on libraries. As indicated in Table 1 and Fig. 1 60% of the directors stated that the effect of the economic crisis was ‘‘negative,’’ 24% ‘‘very negative,’’ and 12% indicated it had been ‘‘neutral.’’ Subsection B.2 investigated the effect of the crisis on permanent and contract library staff members. More specifically, with regard to consequences for permanent staff members (B.2.1), 40% of the respondents claimed that the impact had been ‘‘neutral,’’ while a total of 56% said it had been negative with an equal number responding with ‘‘very negative’’ and ‘‘negative.’’ Four percent responded that the impact had been ‘‘positive.’’ For contract agents (B.2.2)

B.4.2 B.4.3

B.3.9 B.4.1 B.4 Infrastructure

B.3.8

B.3.6 B.3.7

B.3.4 B.3.5

Permanent staff Contract agents Library LOANS Interlibrary loans User information support User education Reading room operation Internet access Services to people with disabilities Use of equipment by library users Photocopies Building infrastructure Technical equipment Auxiliary equipment

Perceived impact category

B.1 Overall impact B.2.1 B.2. Human B.2.2 resources B.3.1 B.3. Services B.3.2 B.3.3

Code

41.7 40.0

4.0 28.0

20.8

0.0 16.0

4.2 0.0

24.0 28.0 76.0 0.0 4.2 16.0

Very negative (%)

37.5 44.0

28.0 48.0

25.0

12.0 20.0

20.8 32.0

60.0 28.0 16.0 20.0 33.3 24.0

16.7 12.0

60.0 20.0

50.0

80.0 56.0

70.8 56.0

12.0 40.0 8.0 64.0 54.2 48.0

4.2 4.0

4.0 4.0

0.0

0.0 4.0

0.0 8.0

0.0 4.0 0.0 12.0 4.2 8.0

Negative Neutral Positive (%) (%) (%)

0.0 0.0

4.0 0.0

4.2

8.0 4.0

4.2 4.0

4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.2 4.0

Very positive (%)

Consequence scale (very negative ¼ 1 to very positive ¼ 5)

Table 1 Impact of the Recession on Academic Libraries in 2011

1.8 1.8

2.8 2.0

2.4

3.0 2.6

2.8 2.8

2.0 2.2 1.3 3.0 2.7 2.6

Mean value

24 25

25 25

24

25 25

24 25

25 25 25 25 24 25

N

260 Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

B.5.1 B.5 Digital services Gray literature repository B.5.2 Portal B.5.3 Collection digitization B.6.1 B.6 Library Cataloguing B.6.2 operations Technical equipment maintenance B.6.3 Hours of operation B.7.1 B.7 Acquisition Monographs B.7.2 Printed journal subscriptions B.7.3 Electronic journal subscriptions B.7.4 E-books B.7.5 Electronic databases B.7.6 Audiovisual material

20.0 25.0 44.0 39.1 52.0 32.0 40.0 44.0 24.0 16.0 32.0 29.2

8.0 8.3 20.0 4.3 16.0 20.0 36.0 24.0 32.0 32.0 40.0 29.2

48.0 24.0 37.5

40.0

32.0 16.0 28.0

52.2 28.0

54.2 24.0

64.0

4.0 4.0 4.2

4.0

16.0 8.0 4.0

4.3 4.0

12.5 12.0

8.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

2.2 1.9 2.2

2.2

2.4 2.0 2.1

2.4 2.2

2.7 2.3

2.7

25 25 24

25

25 25 25

23 25

24 25

25

Responding to Crises with Alliances

261

262

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

Very Positive

4% 0%

Positive Neutral

12%

Negative

60%

Very Negative 0%

24% 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fig. 1 Overall impact of the economic crisis in 2011.

consequences were considered to be ‘‘very negative’’ by 76% of the respondents, ‘‘negative’’ by 16%, and ‘‘neutral’’ by 8%. Subsection B.3 of the questionnaire aimed to collect information on the consequences of the crisis on specific library services. In this case, equipment availability and its use by library users ranked first (B.3.8) with a mean value of 2.4, followed by user information support (B.3.3) and services to people with disabilities (B.3.7) both with a mean value of 2.6 (Table 1). It should be noted that the lower the mean value the bigger are the perceived consequences of the economic crisis. Furthermore, in regard to the impact on loans (B.3.1), 64% of the respondents claimed that it was ‘‘neutral,’’ 20% ‘‘negative,’’ 12% ‘‘positive,’’ and 4% ‘‘very positive,’’ As regards interlibrary loans (B.3.2) 55% claimed that the extent of the impact was ‘‘neutral,’’ 33% ‘‘negative,’’ 4% ‘‘very negative,’’ 4% ‘‘positive,’’ and another 4% ‘‘very positive.’’ Values on estimated consequences with regard to other library services are illustrated in subsection B.3 of Table 1. Subsection B.4 investigated the consequences on library infrastructure, and here aggregate rates and mean values demonstrate that technical and auxiliary equipment have been mostly affected by the crisis, followed by building infrastructures. The next subsection (subsection B.5) investigated the consequences on digital services (Table 1). From the results it is apparent that digitization of library collections is most affected by the economic crisis, followed by the libraries’ repository and portal. Section B.6 investigated consequences on library operations. The results demonstrate a marginal prevalence of negative effects on the maintenance of electronic equipment followed by cataloging and hours of operation (Table 1). Subsection B.7 focused on consequences related to collection development where it is clear

Responding to Crises with Alliances

263

that electronic databases are most affected by funding losses, followed by monographs, print and electronic journals, and finally e-books and audiovisual material. 2. Policies and Strategies to Address Cutbacks Section C aimed to investigate the respondents’ degree of agreement with proposed reaction strategies toward the financial crisis, including development of alliances and synergies. Table 2 illustrates the overall results of section C. The first subsection (C.1) is related to policies used in order to save resources. More specifically, the most efficient way of resource saving according to respondents is restriction of operational costs, followed by cutbacks in acquisitions and technical infrastructure purchases. According to the survey results most directors agreed that putting pressure on institutions to increase funding and seeking external financing through sponsorships and research programs were most desirable. However, charging a service fee ranks quite low (mean value of 2.3); although the respondents demonstrate a higher degree of agreement for charging services to users outside of the university (mean value 3.0) and for providing specific subscription services (mean value of 2.8). Subsection C.3 investigated the respondents’ degree of agreement with proposals aiming to balance the library budget. The survey results exhibit a quite high agreement (54.2% agree and 45.8% totally agree) on developing and participating in synergies and alliances. Indeed, these results are consistent with the creation in 2012 of the above-mentioned cooperative inter-institutional memoranda. Subsection C.4 recorded the respondents’ degree of agreement for a series of management practices for academic libraries. Most respondents agree on improving expense management, implementing quality management systems, promoting the library’s value, and developing a negotiating policy for providers and suppliers. Subsection C.5 is of particular interest since questions are related to the expectations of academic library directors with regard to the future outcome of the recession as seen in Table 2. Most respondents do not agree with the statement that the Greek economy will recover within the next two years, producing a very low mean value of 1.8. At the same time, respondents totally agree on the fact that the impact of the recession will be severe and will last for a long period of time (mean value 4.5). The overall results of subsection C.5 are also illustrated in Fig. 2. It is quite indicative that 87% of the respondents believe that the Greek economy will not recover within the next two years and that 92% believe that the impact of the crisis on academic libraries will be long-lasting.

C.4.2 C.4.3

C.4.1

C.3.2 C.3.3 C.3.4

C.3.1

C.2.5

C.1.1 C.1.2 C.1.3 C.2.1 C.2.2 C.2.3 C.2.4

Code

C.4 Administrational practices

C.3 Balancing library budget

C.2 Seeking resources

C.1 Budget cutbacks

Operational expenses Acquisition expenses Equipment expenses User fees Fees to third parties Subscription services Pressure to the institution for increased financing Seeking external financing Participation in synergies Outsourcing Cutting expenses Orientation towards open access Better expense management Quality management Promoting library value

Proposed strategies and actions to address the recession

Table 2 Actions Used to Address the Recession

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

36.0 32.0 0.0

12.0 4.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

4.2 0.0

20.0 20.0 48.0 33.3 16.7 20.8 0.0

Disagree (%)

16.0 32.0 12.0 29.2 20.8 20.8 4.2

Totally disagree (%)

8.0 4.0

24.0

32.0 24.0 8.0

0.0

8.3

12.0 16.0 20.0 25.0 12.5 16.7 0.0

Neutral (%)

56.0 44.0

36.0

16.0 36.0 28.0

54.2

45.8

48.0 32.0 16.0 8.3 41.7 37.5 66.7

Agree (%)

36.0 52.0

40.0

4.0 4.0 64.0

45.8

41.7

4.0 0.0 4.0 4.2 8.3 4.2 29.2

Totally agree (%)

Agreement scale (totally disagree ¼ 1 to totally agree ¼ 5)

4.28 4.48

4.16

2.64 3.04 4.56

4.45

4.2

3.04 2.48 2.52 2.25 3.0 2.83 4.1

25 25

25

25 25 25

24

24

25 25 25 24 24 24 24

Mean N value

264 Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

C.6.1 C.6.2 C.6.3 C.6.4

C.5.5

C.5.4

C.5.3

C.5.2

C.5.1

C.4.4.

Improving the ability to negotiate with suppliers/providers C.5 Expectations The economy will recover within the next two years Library funding will be insufficient for the next two years but it will then recover The impact of the recession on libraries will be severe and long-lasting Due to the recession, sources of financing will be targeted toward high-value library sectors Due to the recession, library rationale will focus on the ‘‘return on investment’’ made in them C.6 Action orientation Self-financing Innovation Quality Active participation 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.3

8.0

0.0

20.0

33.3

0.0

36.0 4.3 0.0 0.0

8.3

12.0

0.0

36.0

54.2

0.0

20.0 4.3 8.0 4.0

20.8

20.0

8.0

20.0

8.3

12.0

28.0 56.5 56.0 64.0

41.7

44.0

36.0

24.0

4.2

48.0

12.0 34.8 36.0 32.0

20.8

16.0

56.0

0.0

0.0

40.0

3.08 4.21 4.28 4.28

3.58

3.48

4.48

2.48

1.83

4.28

25 23 25 25

24

25

25

25

24

25

Responding to Crises with Alliances

265

266

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

Financial Recovery within the next 2 years

1.8

Insufficient funding for the next 2 years

2.5

Targeted financing to high-value services

3.5

Development of a ROI culture

3.6

Economy will recover in the next 2 years 0.0 1.0 2.0 Totally Disagree = 1

4.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 Totally Agree = 5

Fig. 2 Library directors’ financial expectations for the future.

Finally, subsection C.6 investigates respondent views on specific strategies to address the loss of funding. The survey results indicate that library directors largely agree (mean value 4.3) with the fact that quality and active library participation in the socioeconomic scene may be an efficient strategy to deal with the situation, as is the idea of promoting innovation. At the same time self-financing actions seem to lag behind and are not considered to be a desirable option by respondents.

3. Perspectives on Academic Library Synergies and Alliances The survey findings and the available information substantiate the claim that the consequences of the financial crisis on academic library operations in Greece are, and will continue to be quite severe in the future. Library staffing has been reduced, which has direct consequences on the quality of the provided services. Hours of operation are reduced, equipment maintenance and replacement procedures are being suspended, acquisitions are limited, material digitization is scarce, and more. According to the directors, a direct way to save resources is to shrink expenses via cutbacks and to create economies of scale mainly by establishing a special charging agreement with publishers and vendors and by participating in library synergies and alliances. Above and beyond the above findings, most library directors agree that there is a need to seek an alternative management paradigm in order to seek alternative funding resources. At the same time, they agreed on the

Responding to Crises with Alliances

267

importance of promoting the value of libraries and the need to utilize intangible assets provided through utilization of their intellectual capital which extend their resources beyond the library’s balance sheet. The library directors are now more willing to move forward and make changes in their management approaches.

V. Searching for Solutions Library directors and library consortia statements adopt policies for the creation of synergies and alliances in order to promote growth. The culture of synergies and alliances are actually promoted through elements such as the following:    

Quality and marketing; Active participation; Developing self-financing actions; and Innovation.

The above framework requires reorganization of libraries so as to support the needs of both universities and the wider community through the provision of specialized information services (Jackson, 2011). In any case, there is need to initiate a dialogue at the international level with regard to all these issues, in an attempt to reverse downsizing by redefining their roles (Bickley & Corrall, 2011). The term ‘‘quality’’ is used to designate a constantly readjusting usercentered approach in order to satisfy expressed and implied user needs in a view of the economic crisis or recession (Kostagiolas, Margiola, & Avramidou, 2011). User–library relations are fundamental and determine the operations and the future of libraries (Choy, 2011). Furthermore, quality management systems not only aid academic libraries in satisfying user needs, but, especially in cases of limited staff or resources, they may support resource use optimization. Keeping a low profile within the university community does not improve the image of the academic libraries (Seidler-de Alwis & FuhlesUbach, 2010). On the other hand, a strategy of constant communication with the community, highlighting the contribution of the library in all sectors, may prove to be more effective (Cox, 2010b). Through their marketing strategies, libraries can reach users outside of their academic communities, reinforcing their image and engaging in active dialogues which can result in synergies and alliances. According to Rowley (2006) libraries

268

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

should aim at creating specialized information services in cooperation with a variety of social partners, including public or private organizations, scientific associations, and the like. Academic libraries need to prove their value and justify traditional or new investments that are or will be made in them. Another important issue that needs to be resolved through an effective marketing strategy is that libraries are not perceived as full-fledged organizations within universities and students tend to see them as just another service, like their department’s secretary. Measuring the individual effect of libraries on students during their studies and in their later career proves to be a very hard task to accomplish (Deiss & Petrowski, 2009) yet there are some that are attempting it through portfolio and other assessment techniques. An integral marketing program may strengthen the image of libraries promoting them as something priceless, through the narration of successful service stories related to the available library services. Stories told by the library can aim at maintain existing users, informing them of new services, and encouraging them to act as future library supporters (Germano, 2010). Actions to promote the active participation of libraries in the sociofinancial scene both inside and out of the academic community should combine the specialized experience of academic libraries with an adjustment to the new social and financial needs of the local community. Academic libraries should generate value by utilizing the University’s intellectual capital, so as to develop new auxiliary activities and tools that promote growth, prosperity, and life quality at the local level (Kostagiolas, 2012) via the creation of social capital. For instance, in 2007, academic libraries in Ireland were funded so as to create institutional repositories, thus leading to the publication of a large variety of research papers up to now, which further promote the open access culture to researchers and investors (Cox, 2010a). This policy has a clear advantage, since it ensures the viability of academic libraries by protecting their activities and their value against market and safeguarding their social role. State investment in academic libraries is being balanced by their contribution to wider social prosperity, which is being demonstrated by the increased use and support of user communities. In periods of recession, like today, where cutbacks in public funding have increased, complete dependency upon government funding may cause the downgrading of academic library operations. Finding new financial sources is not only a matter of decision-making, but also requires well-designed selffinancing administrative practices (Rooks, 2007). In 2011, the American Library Association issued a guide entitled Frontline fundraising toolkit (ALA, 2011b), which provides guidelines that help libraries organize their strategy for exploring sources of financing. The introductory chapter of this guide contains eight general conditions for the implementation of this policy,

Responding to Crises with Alliances

269

including cooperation and synergies with experts, creating links with the wider community and knowing its needs, clearly orienting actions toward finding future investors, and conducting a realistic evaluation of results. The introduction also urges library directors to maintain a positive attitude throughout this entire process. Finding additional sources of financing is essentially a strategy of finding synergies and cooperation with other organization in order to increase value and survive the recession (Couillier & Stoffle, 2011). There are many different approaches with regard to library self-financing solutions, according to different contexts and conditions. International experience is full of selffinancing examples, which may be summarized as follows (Okojie, 2010):          

Taking part in research and development programs undertaken by the institution; Developing fee-based services; Seeking sponsors; Subsidies from private or public programs; Awards; Donations/fund-raisers; Creating friends groups Sales: e-commerce, advertisements; Creating recreation areas, such as cafe´s; and Providing consulting services (e.g., legal, medical information).

Cooperation outside the institution for the implementation of subsidized programs may bring additional funds by engaging in activities external to the university. Designing such services for users outside the university largely depends upon the library’s wider community and its information needs (Cloutier, 2005). The aim is to attract professional or other social groups with specific information needs and to help them develop a stable cooperative relationship with the library. This may include the development of specialized subscription information services and/or library use for a specific period of time, by paying a fee (Cloutier, 2005) and/or developing an information consulting department for professionals (Okojie, 2010). Another option is related to subsidized programs or scholarships, which are quite popular in times of recession. This means that libraries may function as information centers for the public community with regard to subsidy and scholarship questions. Thus, they serve a twofold purpose: they satisfy their own need to find sources of financing and also satisfy the financing needs of the community (Downing, 2009). Service pricing is another important issue that needs to be resolved via a careful analysis of all parameters (Cloutier, 2005; Ward, Fong, & Camille, 2002). The hardest aspect of this process is that it is difficult to estimate the value of knowledge capital in financial terms. Another factor that needs to be taken into

270

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

consideration in creating effective services for nonacademic users is the users’ view of their potential benefit from using library services, something which is closely linked to service quality. Other links to the socioeconomic environment do not require the development of a specific service but are related to the corporate image of other organizations and businesses. (Couillier & Stoffle, 2011). This category includes donations, sponsorships, fund-raisers, creating friends groups, and generally activities that follow a ‘‘fund-raiser’’ rationale. In order for this effort to be successful, there is need to promote the work and value of the library, without creating a sense of ‘‘giving alms’’ (Silverman, 2009). Having a large number of sponsors with significant financial means may provide an effective source of financing. In periods of recession this strategy may instigate general interest but cannot guarantee the sufficiency or continuity of resources, since markets and communities are also suffering from the recession. As we have seen, a series of consequences related to the financial crisis are actually redefining the role of academic libraries and transforming their services. Academic libraries are called to participate in a wider framework of competitive relations and interests within the international information market. Innovation seems to be a quite interesting strategy that may help libraries develop synergies and therefore cope with the difficulties of the present unfavorable financial juncture. Innovation orientation may be based upon different axes. One innovation axis is attempting to satisfy user information needs (Doan & Kennedy, 2009). Indeed, the varying needs of specific user groups may be a source of inspiration, insofar as there are effective communication channels between the library and the community. Academic library users may assume different roles within this process (Scupola & Nicolajsen, 2010): propose innovative ideas, work to implement these ideas, and benefit from their implementation. By extension, it is quite interesting to examine the concept of the ‘‘innovation community’’ (Xiaobin & Jing, 2009) within an library, which may include the physical presence of library staff members, the use of Web 2.0 technologies, and social networking, collaborative management, and knowledge-sharing platforms. The innovation community is an extension of the ‘‘information community,’’ which is a specific group of people that have the same information needs and satisfy them through the use of a dynamic information resource network. Innovation communities are groups of users with common needs, who play an active role in creating and promoting innovative ideas with regard to the information services they would like to receive. Another important parameter of innovation is considering academic libraries as the ‘‘incubators’’ of knowledge (Sheng & Sun, 2007). Their knowledge production process is inextricably linked to the research processes undertaken by the HEIs.

Responding to Crises with Alliances

271

E-research is another interesting service they provide, given that the scientific community is in need of extremely specialized high-value information sources and tools that facilitate digital research. This provides academic libraries strong reasons to orient their innovation efforts in this direction. The RIN published a short guide describing actions for developing stronger synergies between research and the academic library which include (RIN, 2008):      

Linking library collections to research strategies adopted by university departments; Adapting to the needs of researchers; Promoting cooperation between librarians and researchers; Diffusing university research results; Promoting future maintenance and access to the digital content; and Providing all the above services in a reduced cost for the entire academic community.

Academic library innovation should be founded upon a cooperative approach between all participants, which will help activate the productive thoughts required to develop collaboration and create innovative ideas (Pengxiang & Qinghua, 2008).

VI. Conclusion The impact of the economic crisis on the society and the economy of Greece and other countries throughout the world are huge and, as it seems, the recession will not end anytime soon. Unemployment, especially among young people, is constantly increasing and households are often unable to meet even basic needs. The consequences of the economic crisis on academic libraries are alarming in countries such as Greece and they are sometimes aggressive and destructive. They have lost significant and important parts of their staff, cannot replace aged equipment, and as a result, they are not fully operational. According to the research reported herein, and other available data, the shortcomings of academic libraries in Greece, particularly with regard to staffing and overall funding, exceed those witnessed in other countries. However, despite these difficult conditions, academic libraries can and should be proactive so that they can continue to aid and support higher education systems, society as a whole, and the economy. Despite existing under growing pressure, they need to affirm their role as knowledge providers to safeguard their existence through synergies and alliances. The prevailing views about library strategies, at the international level, pave the way for the steps that need to be taken. A shift toward quality,

272

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

innovation, cooperation, and active participation through a full utilization of library potential will promote their value and increase their negotiating abilities. Thus, libraries will be able to exercise further pressure for additional funding and seek cooperation with other profit and nonprofit agencies, inside and outside of their academic community. The actions proposed in this chapter are oriented in this direction. However, it is a given fact that a large number of the proposed actions should have been implemented long before the emergence of the economic crisis and regardless of its consequences, so as to produce results which can withstand periods of harsh conditions. In their attempt to survive the recession, academic libraries should not lose sight of their main institutional role and the recession should not be used as an excuse to further reduce institutional public funding. If adverse conditions are viewed as opportunities, libraries can encourage creativity and innovation, develop new services, synergies, and alliances, while enriching the old through the use of new information technologies. Opportunities include touting the value of library services, the intellectual capital of their staff, and expanded access to global information repositories through collaborative efforts.

Responding to Crises with Alliances

Appendix: Interview Schedule

273

274

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

Responding to Crises with Alliances

275

References Adebonojo, L., Ellis, M., Campbell, K., & Hawkins, M. (2010). Redirecting library instruction based on socioeconomic data. Reference Services Review, 38(3), 398–416. doi:10.1108/00907321011070892 American Library Association. (2011a). Academic libraries in the United States: Statistical trends. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/ research/librarystats/academic/academiclibraries.cfm American Library Association. (2011b). Frontline fundraising toolkit. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/ content/advleg/advocacyuniversity/frontline_fundraising_toolkit/fft.pdf Anglada, L. M. (2007). Collaborations and alliances: Social intelligence applied to academic libraries. Library Management, 28(6/7), 406–415. doi:10.1108/ 01435120710774530 Arghyrou, M. G., Tsoukalas, J. D. (2010, November). The Greek debt crisis: Likely causes, mechanics and outcomes. CESifo Working Papers No. 3266. Retrieved from http://www.cesifo-economic-studies.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1185136.PDF Association of Research Libraries. (2009). ARL statement to scholarly publishers on the global economic crisis. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/ bmBdoc/economic-statement-2009.pdf Bickley, R., & Corrall, S. (2011). Student perceptions of staff in the information commons: A survey at the University of Sheffield. Reference Services Review, 39(2), 223–243. doi:10.1108/00907321111135466 Brindley, L. (2006). Re-defining the library [Special issue]. Library Hi Tech, 24(4), 484–495. doi:10.1108/07378830610715356 Brooks, A. W. (2010). Library research on campus: Examining a fee based library service within university walls. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(4), 347–350. doi:org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.008 Charleston Observatory. (2009, December). The economic downturn and libraries: Survey findings. London, UK: University College London. Retrieved from http://www. ebrary.com/corp/collateral/en/Survey/CIBER_survey_2009.pdf Choy, F. C. (2011). From library stacks to library-in-a-pocket: Will users be around? [Special issue]. Library Management, 32(1/2), 62–72. doi:10.1108/0143512111 1102584 Cloutier, C. (2005). Setting up a fee-based information service in an academic library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 332–338. doi.org/10.1016/ j.acalib.2005.04.001 Couillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding alternative resources of revenue. [Special issue]. Journal of Library Administration, 51(7/8), 777–809. doi:10.1080/ 01930826.2011.601276 Cox, J. (2010a). Academic libraries in challenging times. An Leabharlann: The Irish Library, 19(2), 7–13. Cox, J. (2010b). Sharing the pain, striving for gain. Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, 23(1), 12–15. doi:10.1629/2312 Cryer, E., & Grigg, K. S. (2011). Consortia and journal package renewal: Evolving trends in the ‘‘big package deal?’’ Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8(1), 22–34. doi:10.1080/15424065.2011.551488

276

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

Davis, D. M. (2009). The condition of U.S. libraries: Academic library trends, 1999–2009. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/ research/librarystats/academic/Condition_of_Libraries_1999.20.pdf Deiss, K., Petrowski, M. J. (2009). ACRL 2009 strategic thinking guide for academic librarians in the new economy. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://pla.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/value/acrlguide09.pdf Doan, T., & Kennedy, M. L. (2009). Innovation, creativity and meaning: Leading in the information age. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(4), 348–358. Dougherty, R. M. (2009, June/July). Prescription for financial recovery: The current economic crisis holds opportunities. American Libraries, 40(6), 50–53. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/seanfitzpatrick/docs/0609?mode=embed&layout=http% 3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&showFlipBtn=true Downing, K. (2009, March). Show me the money! An academic library’s role in the art of grant-seeking on campus and in the community, ACRL Fourteenth National Conference Proceedings, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/national/seattle/papers/ 110.pdf Foster, A. (2009). A buttering down the hatches: The business information survey 2009. Business Information Review, 26(1), 10–27. doi:10.1177/0266382108101303 Garoufallou, E., Siatri, R., & Hartley, R. J. (2008). A review of the library and information services in Greece: Current developments that shape the LIS Education. Education for Information, 26(2), 67–75. Germano, M. A. (2010). Narrative-based library marketing: Selling your library’s value during tough economic times [Special issue]. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 23(1), 5–17. doi:10.1108/08880451011049641 Germano, M. A. (2011). The library value deficit. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 24(2), 100–106. doi:10.1108/08880451111169124 Goulding, A. (2009). Credit crunch: The impact on libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(3), 3–6. doi:10.1177/0961000609344147 Greco, A. N., Jones, R. F., Wharton, R. M., & Estelami, H. (2007). The changing college and university library market for university press books and journals: 1997–2004. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 3(1), 265–296. doi:10.3138/jsp.39.1.1 Grogg, J. (2009). Economic hard times and electronic resources. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 21(2), 127–130. doi:10.1080/19411260903035817 Guarria, C. I. (2011). The recession, budgets, expectations and realities. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finance, 24(4), 200–217. doi:10.1108/088804511111 93299 Gwyer, R. (2010). Leading in difficult times: What can we learn from the literature? New Review of Information Networking, 15(1), 4–15. doi:10.1080/1361457100 3712321 Han, Y. (2010). On the clouds: A new way of computing. Information Technology and Libraries, 29(2), 87–92. Harper, R., & Corrall, S. (2011). Effects of the economic downturn on academic libraries in the UK: Positions and projections in mid-2009. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 17(1), 96–128. Hellenic Academic Libraries-LINK (Heal-LINK). (n.d.). Electronic sources. Athens: Author. Retrieved from http://www.heal-link.gr/journals/en/

Responding to Crises with Alliances

277

Hunter, H., & Bruning, R. (2010). The global economic crisis: What libraries and publishers can do and are doing. The Serials Librarian, 59(2), 147–158. doi:10.1080/03615261003623161 International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOL). (2009). Statement on the global economic crisis and its impact on consortial licenses. Retrieved from http://www.heallink.gr/SELL/statement6.htm International Labour Office. (2011, September). Report on the high level mission to Greece. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/— normes/documents/missionreport/wcms_170433.pdf Jackson, M. L. (2011). Re-thinking positions in academic libraries. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 24(1), 61–62. doi:10.1108/08880451111142105 Kidd, T. (2010). The view from the UK: The economic crisis and serials acquisitions on an offshore island [Special issue]. The Serials Librarian, 59(3/4), 384–393. doi:10.1080/03615261003623138 Kostagiolas, P. A. (2012). Managing intellectual capital in libraries: Beyond the balance sheet. Oxford: Chandos. Kostagiolas, P. A., & Asonitis, S. (2011). Managing intellectual capital in libraries and information services. In A. Woodsworth (Ed.), Advances in librarianship (Vol. 33, pp. 31–50). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Kostagiolas, P. A., Margiola, A., & Avramidou, A. (2011). A library management response model against the economic crisis: The case of public libraries in Greece. Library Review, 60(6), 486–500. doi:10.1108/00242531111147206 Kyrillidou, M., Morris, S. (2011). ARL statistics 2008–2009. Retrieved from http:// www.arl.org/bmBdoc/arlstat09.pdf LAMPOST. (2012). Libraries, archives, museums and publishing online statistics tables. Leichestershire: Loughborough University. Retrieved from http://www.lboro. ac.uk/microsites/infosci/lisu/lampost10/exp10.html Li, X. (2006). Library as incubating space for innovations: Practices, trends and skill sets. Library Management, 27(6/7), 370–378. Lowman, S. S., & Bixby, M. D. (2011). Working with friends groups: Enhancing participation through Cultivation and Planning. Journal of Library Administration, 51(2), 209–220. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.540551 Lowry, C. B. (2010). Year 2 of the great recession: Surviving the present by building the future [Special issue]. Journal of Library Administration, 51(1), 37–53. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.531640 Malpas, C. (2011). Cloud sourcing research collections: Managing print in the mass – digitized library environment. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. Retrieved from http:// www.oclc.org/resources/research/publications/library/2011/2011-01.pdf Marcum, J. W. (2008). Partnering for innovation and sustainability. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 21(3), 82–84. doi:10.1108/08880451111169124 McCaslin, D. (2010). What are the expectations of interlibrary loan and electronic reserves during an economic crisis? Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve, 20(4), 227–231. doi:10.1080/1072303X.2010.507722 Medeiros, N. (2011). Transformation: Next generation technical services at the University of California Libraries [Special issue]. OCLC Systems and Services: International digital library perspectives, 27(1), 6–9. doi:10.1108/106507511 11106500

278

Petros A. Kostagiolas et al.

Meyer, N. J., & Miller, I. R. (2008). The library as service-learning partner: A winwin collaboration with students and faculty. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(4), 399–413. doi:10.1080/10691310802554879 Montgomery, S. E., & Miller, J. (2011). The third place: The library as a collaborative and community space in a time of fiscal restraint. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 18(2/3), 228–238. doi:10.1080/10691316.2011.577683 Ipsos Mori, I. (2009, September). The impact of the economic recession on university library and IT services: Final report for JISC, SCONUL and UCISA. Retrieved from http:// www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/libsitimpacts.pdf Mostad-Jensen, A. (2009). The impact of economic recessions on Libraries: A past, present, and future view from Minnesota. LIBREAS. Library Ideas, 14, 53–57. Retrieved from http://libreas.eu/ausgabe14/007mos.htm Okojie, V. (2010). Innovative financing for university libraries in sub-Saharan Africa [Special issue]. Library Management, 31(6), 404–419. doi:10.1108/014351210 11066162 Pengxiang, J., & Qinghua, X. (2008, November). Knowledge management, collaboration and innovation. In H. Tan & B. Wu (Eds.), International seminar on future information technology and management engineering, leicestershire, UK (pp. 228–232). Piscataway, NH: IEEE. Perry, K. (2009). Where library consortia going? Results of a 2009 survey. Serials, 22(2), 122–130. doi:10.1629/22122 Powell, A. (2011). Times of crisis accelerate inevitable change [Special issue]. Journal of Library Administration, 51(1), 105–129. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.531644 Pritchard, S. M. (2009). Crises and opportunities [Editorial]. Portal: Library and the Academy, 9(4), 437–440. doi:10.1353/pla.0.0074 Rapp, D. (2011, April 5). ACRL 2011: Frugal Technical Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newslettersnewsletterbucketacademicnewswire/890076-440/acrl_2011_frugal_tech.html.csp Reid, M. (2010). Building an academic library fundraising program ‘‘from scratch’’. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 23(2), 53–56. doi:10.1108/ 08880451011073518 Research Information Network (RIN). (2008). Ensuring a bright future for research libraries: A guide for vice-chancellors and senior institutional managers. London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Ensuring-brightfuture-libraries-guidance.pdf Research Information Network (RIN). (2010). Challenges for academic libraries in difficult economic times: A guide for senior institutional managers and policy makers. London, UK. Retrieved from http://ciber-research.eu/download/20100318challenges.pdf Roberts, S. A. (2003). Financial management of libraries: Past trends and future prospects. Library Trends, 51(3), 462–493. Retrieved from https://www.ideals. illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8475/librarytrendsv51i3m_opt.pdf?sequence=1 Romero, N. L. (2011a). Outsourcing as a change management tool in libraries and documentation centres. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 24(1), 73–79. doi:10.1108/08880451111142105 Romero, N. L. (2011b). Libraries’ response to the crisis: Measures to mitigate its impact. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 24(4), 236–240. doi:10.1108/ 08880451111193352

Responding to Crises with Alliances

279

Rooks, D. C. (2007). Fund raising: Random ramblings-seek professional help. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 292–293. doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib. 2007.01.008 Rooney-Browne, C. (2009). Rising to the challenge: A look at the role of public libraries in times of recession. Library Review, 58(5), 341–352. doi:10.1108/ 01435120510631792 Rowley, J. (2006). Making sense of the quality maze: Perspectives for the public and academic libraries. Library Management, 26(8/9), 508–518. doi:10.1108/ 01435120510631792 Scupola, A., & Nicolajsen, H. W. (2010). Service innovation in academic libraries: Is there place for customer? Library Management, 31(4/5), 304–318. doi:10.1108/ 01435121011046362 Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Fuhles-Ubach, S. (2010). Success factors for the future of information centres, commercial and public libraries: A study from Germany. Interlending & Document Supply, 38(3), 183–188. doi:10.1108/0264161101107 2387 Sheng, X., & Sun, L. (2007). Developing knowledge innovation culture of libraries [Special issue]. Library Management, 28(1/2), 36–52. doi:10.1108/01435121 011046362 Silverman, E. (2009). Staying positive in a down economy. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 22(1), 27–29. doi:10.1108/08880450910955422 Southern European Libraries LINK (SELL). (n.d.). About SELL. Retrieved from http://www.heal-link.gr/SELL/about.htm Sutton, A., & Grantt, M. J. (2011). Cost-effective ways of delivering enquiry services: A rapid review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28(4), 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00965.x Taylor, C. (2010). Thinking out of the box: Fundraising during economic downturns [Special issue]. The Serials Librarian, 59(3), 370–383. doi:10.1080/ 03615261003623120 Throumoulos, M. K. (2010). Exceptional service during and after deep serial cuts [Special issue]. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 23(1), 24–28. doi:10.1108/08880451011049669 Topper, E. F. (2009a). Keeping staff motivated in tough time. New Library World, 110(7/8), 385–387. doi:10.1108/03074800910975205 Topper, E. F. (2009b). What’s new in libraries: Tough economic times for US libraries. New Library World, 110(5/6), 291–293. doi:10.1108/03074800910954307 Total Quality Management Unit of Academic Libraries. (TQMAL). (2013). Annual statistical reports. Ioannina, Greece: University of Ioannina. Author. Retrieved from http://www.mopab.gr/statistics/annual/annual_enu_01.php Ward, S. M., Fong, Y. S., & Camille, D. (2002). Library fee-based information services: Financial considerations. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 15(1), 5–17. doi:10.1108/08880450210415716 Xiaobin, L., & Jing, G. (2009). Innovation community: Constructing a new service mode for academic libraries [Special issue]. The Electronic Library, 27(2), 258–270. doi:10.1108/02640470910947601 Zappen, S. H. (2010). Managing resources to maximize serials access: The case of the small liberal arts college library [Special issue]. The Serials Librarian, 59(3/4), 346–359. doi:10.1080/03615261003623104

IDS Project: Community and Innovation Mark Sullivana, William Jonesa, Micquel Littleb, Shannon Prittingc, Chris Sisakd, Adam Traube and Maureen Zajkowskif a Milne Library, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, NY, USA b Lavery Library, St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY, USA c E S Bird Library, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA d Library, Nazareth College, Rochester, NY, USA e The Wallace Center, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA f SUNY Office of Library Information Services, Albany, NY, USA

Abstract This chapter discusses the distributed, volunteer nature of an information delivery cooperative which became formally designated as the IDS Project and how a ‘‘coalition of the willing’’ has been able to move the resource sharing community forward on a national scale through innovations in training, support, and technology. The authors use a case study approach to highlight some of the major accomplishments of the IDS Project, such as the Article Licensing Information Availability Service (ALIAS), IDS Search, the Mentor Program, and the Regional Users Groups. The team-based structure of the IDS Project allows for groups to work independently and from multiple locations while still creating a synergistic result through the combination of community and innovation. Distributed teams often provide enriched user skills for the group but often cause difficulties due to the distance, communication, and differing requirements of the different local institutions. The IDS Project’s use of technology and periodic face-to-face meetings has reduced the issues with distributed teams and created highly effective working groups. These groups, such as the mentors and the Technology Development Team, have provided excellent service and training to the member libraries. Through the use of the Best Practices Toolkit, the Getting It System Toolkit, ILLiad Addons produced by IDS, and other national services, the IDS Project has made it possible for libraries that use ILLiad to benefit from its developments. Keywords: Information delivery services; resource sharing; innovation; community; distributed teams; patron driven acquisitions

MERGERS AND ALLIANCES: THE WIDER VIEW ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 36 r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830 DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2013)0000036013

281

282

Mark Sullivan et al.

I. Introduction In the fall of 2003, Ed Rivenburgh, then director of Milne Library at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Geneseo, organized a meeting among 11 other library directors and began discussing the problems that the 12 SUNY Comprehensive libraries were facing. The primary issue was the reduction in funding that the libraries had been dealing with for years and how the libraries could work together to share their collections. From this first meeting sprang the IDS Project which initially consisted of those 12 SUNY libraries. ‘‘Your library is my library and my library is your library’’ was one of a few scary ideas that the IDS Project put forward in an effort to highlight both the difficulty in overcoming the ‘‘silo effect’’ that was hampering the libraries and the benefits of universal borrowing among member libraries. One of the first technologies that the IDS Project developed was a statistics module that linked all 12 of the ILLiadt databases together. This Transaction Performance Analysis Module (TPAM) provided the libraries with a great deal of information on where their ILL processes needed to be improved. During the next few years, the IDS Project increased in members and developed several innovative technologies, strategies, policies, and procedures that optimized resource sharing, collection development, and patron driven acquisitions. These innovations included (a) the Workflow toolkit, a best practice guidebook to resource sharing using ILLiad; (b) the ‘‘Article Licensing Information Availability Service’’ (ALIAS), an unmediated article and license discovery system that is integrated into ILLiadt; (c) IDS Search, an open source consortial catalog based on the WorldCatt API; and (d) the Getting It System Toolkit (GIST), a collection of applications that support purchase on demand, gift processing, and collection management (see Appendix A for additional products). Even with a focus on innovation, the Project has never been just about technology. Today, the IDS Project community is comprised of 73 libraries and supports approximately 37,000 faculty and 425,000 students. The IDS Project is a people project that uses technology and innovations to improve the support to its members and their constituents. The IDS Project has continued to strengthen the spirit of trust and support through the development of innovative programs such as the Mentors Program and the Regional User Groups. These two groups, when combined with the Technology Development Team, constitute the heart of the IDS Project. This chapter will discuss the organization of the IDS Project, its primary goals, the teams that compose its innovative training and support cores, and then present a case study performed at Syracuse University to demonstrate the benefits of these programs.

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

283

II. The IDS Project Organization The core organizational principle of the IDS Project has been to remain nimble in order to ‘‘continually implement and objectively evaluate innovative resource-sharing strategies, policies and procedures that will optimize mutual access to the information resources of all IDS Project libraries’’ (IDS, 2012a). This has been possible due to a remarkable confluence of talented staff from IDS member institutions working closely with consortia and vendor partners, including Atlas Systems, Copyright Clearance Centers, OCLCs, and Serials Solutionss (IDS, 2012b) while receiving strong support from the SUNY College at Geneseo, the State University of New York, the City University of New York, and the NY3Rs Association. The IDS Project initially developed out of an alliance of 12 academic libraries in New York State in 2004 that recognized the need for more effective resource sharing to get beyond the costs, delays, and restrictions that hindered sharing collections across institutions. Early meetings brought together the libraries’ interlibrary loan (ILL) staff members and their directors to review workflow practices that impacted the length of delivery time and policies that impacted the types of materials which could be borrowed. These discussions fostered an approach to addressing issues that has become the hallmark of the IDS Project and brought about the development of several benchmarks and the IDS Membership Agreement (see Appendix B). Rather than develop standing committees to determine priorities or evaluate options, small teams of participants organically emerged to focus on particular challenges, worked to develop solutions that were implemented at their institutions, and then brought back their experiences to the larger IDS membership. As more of the members adopted the developed solutions, the feedback was used to improve those innovations. This approach to development avoided the delays of second guessing or the potential paralysis when attempting to venture into the unknown. As a result, the IDS Project has produced a number of products that automate processes, provide training and best-practices to staff, and most importantly, produce solutions (IDS, 2012c) that directly address issues impacting ongoing resource sharing operations. These products include ALIAS (IDS, 2012d), IDS Search, GIST (Getting It System Toolkit), and over 20 ILLiadt Addons. Most of these are described more fully in the following sections. Since the 2004 inception of the IDS Project, the team approach to supporting IDS operations, while being coordinated by the IDS Project Executive Director with support from an administrative assistant, has been the model for organizational management.

284

Mark Sullivan et al.

A. Current Organization Within recent years, as the IDS Project membership has increased significantly, questions of strategic directions have become more apparent (Fig. 1). An IDS Project Council composed of 14 administrators that represent sectors of IDS membership (public and private institutions along with consortia partners) was formed to provide the IDS Project Executive Director with advice on sustainability and questions regarding ongoing missions that are a natural result of the growth of the Project. Council meetings are held bi-annually and chaired by the IDS Project Executive Director. The challenge for the Project has been, and will continue to be, to balance input from the Council and the operations teams with the need to remain nimble as new opportunities present themselves. It is this balance that will allow the IDS Project to scale and sustain itself while providing innovative activities across the membership. To sustain innovative growth, some formally designated teams were introduced as seen in Fig. 2. All nodes presented in the chart are teams that have specific roles and responsibilities vital to the success of IDS Project. See Appendix C for information about each team.

IDS Project Membership by year (2004 – 2012) 80 73

70 66 60 57 50

49

40

40

30 27 20 10 0

16

18

2005

2006

12

2004

2007

2008

2009

2010

Fig. 1 IDS project membership growth.

2011

2012

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

Fig. 2

285

IDS project teams chart.

B. IDS Technology Development Team All IDS member libraries use ILLiadt Resource Sharing Management Software developed by Atlas Systems, distributed exclusively through OCLCs, as the primary request management software for interlibrary loan. Use of this software by member libraries provides a certain level of common technological ground when focusing on development efforts. Although members share a common platform, the Technology Development Team (TDT) is faced with the fact that each library is a different environment, with different people, and often different needs. This challenge benefits both the team and the member libraries because the needs of the Project make the final production versions of the software fully functional and very customizable.

286

Mark Sullivan et al.

1. People The philosophy of the TDT mirrors that of the open source community. The IDS Project has provided the technology it developed freely to members, and on many occasions, to the larger library community. Examples of technology available to the larger community include the Getting It System Toolkit (Bowersox, Oberlander, Pitcher, & Sullivan, 2012), the Copyright Clearance Centers Get It Nowt Service Addon for ILLiadt (2012), the Serials Solutionss Addon, along with many of the Addons freely distributed by Atlas Systems. Similarly, the IDS Project developers volunteer their time freely, working on technological problems highlighted by IDS members. Several of the ILLiadt Addons developed by the TDT have been created at the request of member libraries and have evolved since their inception with input from libraries across the nation. For example, the Serials Solutionss Addon was originally created to provide a quick way for ILL staff processing an article to find out if it was held by their library and provide them a link to the appropriate resource. However, it has since been modified to be much more and includes licensing information from the IDS Article Licensing Information Availability Service (ALIAS) and the ability to purchase directly from the Copyright Clearance Centers’s Get It Nowt Service (2013), should the library choose to use those options. Responding to change is a challenge facing all libraries, and the TDT manages that challenge through regular conference calls/webinars, quarterly in-person meetings, archived and managed communication through Basecampt a web-based project management and collaboration tool, and coding input through GitHub. Here the chance to respond to change goes hand-inhand with maintaining a short development cycle. Many developments are small, focused features of a particular project, whether they are an addition to IDS Search, an ILLiadt Addon, or some other bit of code. 2. Technology IDS Search serves as a hosted consortial catalog that promotes resource sharing through local, consortia, and worldwide discovery. Once IDS Search was released, the TDT immediately received questions regarding usability and customizations that individual libraries wanted for their local patrons. While the TDT worked with various teams to conduct usability research for qualitative data, including the collection of real-time eye tracking video data from students and faculty, it also felt that a tool was needed which would provide quantitative data. In order to fill this need, the team created a dashboard that would serve as both a data collection tool tailored to search

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

287

behavior and a portal where libraries could customize their own instance of IDS Search (Fig. 3). From the beginning, the TDT used data collection to inform development choices. The team built charts and graphs that detailed usage both project-wide and locally, all of which is available to the libraries using IDS Search. Currently, the dashboard allows libraries to customize their instance of IDS Search through a simple tool that offers access to the most commonly sought after customizations (logo, colors, OpenURL address, etc.) as well as through an advanced cascading style sheet (CSS) form that allows for any CSS-based customizations. However, as customization features were included, it became apparent that there was no centralized place to go for information about a library. The team realized that this tool had the potential to house more than just IDS Search information. While the future Dashboard is still in the conceptual stage, it will grow to be the platform for a library’s interaction with the IDS Project. This platform will incorporate the TPAM, an invaluable resource that allows individual libraries to check the health of their ILL performance in

Fig. 3

IDS search: discovery interface for IDS project libraries.

288

Mark Sullivan et al.

comparison with other member libraries. Using the lessons learned in the statistical module of IDS Search, we will develop data warehousing and visualization strategies to give them a consistent look and feel. The dashboard will allow member libraries to be able to turn on and off various hosted features and be able to perform something as simple as updating contact information when someone is promoted or changes their name. After all, this is a ‘‘people project’’; knowing who you’re talking to when a book goes missing is just as important as knowing when it went missing. As of October 2012, the Technology Development Team has been in the process of implementing and testing a Circulation Availability Service (CAS) for member libraries. This service creates a custom lending string to provide the fastest turnaround time for borrowing libraries. CAS builds upon IDS technologies and data sources: 1. IDS Search to create a list of holdings; 2. ALIAS to provide true load balancing; and 3. Empire Library Delivery time matrix to sort by shortest estimated delivery time.

This service will save staff time from both borrowing and lending libraries by querying the local catalog to determine if the item is on the shelf or in a restricted collection. Lending requests for items that are not loanable are automatically canceled, and OCLCs is automatically updated so that the request moves to the next library in the lender string. As a responsive team, the TDT encourages technology requests of IDS Project member libraries in order to strengthen the resource sharing initiatives of New York State libraries. The TDT analyzes evolving technologies and statistical data from the Project members to determine what areas could use further development or require an innovative tool in order to prosper. As new technologies are developed, documentation is provided to the mentors so that training and support can commence.

III. Project Support and Training A. Mentor Program In 2005, the Mentor Program was formed in order to quickly bring new IDS Member library operations up to speed on all things ILL and ILLiadt in order to meet turnaround and delivery benchmarks. Volunteer mentors were chosen from both public and private sector academic libraries, where they specialized in Interlibrary Loan/ILLiadt and/or Information Technology

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

289

with experience with ILLiadt. In these specializations, mentors were recruited as either application or systems specialists. When a new library expressed interest in joining the IDS Project, the IDS Administrative Team would assign one applications mentor and one systems mentor to work with the library. A basic needs assessment (see Appendix D) was sent out to provide mentors with a snapshot of the mentee library’s systems and interlibrary loan department. The assessment also allowed the assigned applications and systems mentors to pinpoint areas running well and those needing improvement. Based on the assessment results, an agenda could then be drawn for the face-to-face mentor visit to the mentee library. Mentees were encouraged to visit the mentor library to experience an optimally run work environment, allowing for exposure to and reflection on ideas for change. During the mentor visit, key issues were to be addressed, workflows analyzed, and best practices in interlibrary loan adopted. A sample of these best practices included OCLCs’s Direct Request (2012), custom holdings, copyright, IFM, and, in 2008, the installation of ALIAS. The framework for mentoring libraries seemed solid on paper, but in reality implementation visits seldom went as planned. Each library had its own unique set ups, installations, software, and technical quandaries creating delays in ‘‘bringing the library up.’’ No firm deadlines were agreed upon by mentee libraries and mentors, and processes could delay for months. Once a library was ‘‘brought live’’ in the IDS Project, the mentoring process never seemed complete. Libraries and staff continued to seek mentors for answers. During 2010, the Mentoring Program was assessed by the IDS Project Administrative Team. It was concluded that while mentors excelled in making superficial changes, and optimizing workflows and systems, they were failing to optimize staff or implement lasting and ongoing change. In 2011, Mentoring for change: Setting a new course for the mentor program was introduced by Tim Bowersox (2011), coordinator of mentors and training. This program was based on the principle that mentors would be trusted advisors, helping mentees develop skills and knowledge, and building trusting relationships with a clear and mutual purpose. The mentoring process not only needed to involve the ILL staff, but would also require buyin from the directors. Mentors would help mentees succeed on their own terms by providing support and training. Ongoing contact with mentees would be scheduled on a regular basis with movement toward the successful implementation of set goals taken from the needs assessment. Fundamentally, the IDS Mentor Program transitioned to a teaching relationship with each library as a student, and the goal to teach libraries to plan, implement, and maintain positive change long after the mentor/mentee

290

Mark Sullivan et al.

relationship ended. New tools such as GoToAssistt, GoToMeetingt, Skypes, Jings, and other remote communications technologies were introduced to mentors as a way to communicate with and train Mentee libraries and staff. Basecampt was introduced as the project management system where mentors and the mentee library staff create, add, and track the process of implementing best practices, training, and change. Goals, milestones, and to-do lists can be added to a project plan and assigned to appropriate persons. Users can utilize the messaging system and file sharing features, though mentors and mentees often utilize traditional e-mail as a way to continue communication. These tools allowed for instruction and implementation to take place on a weekly basis, with training provided in a self-paced environment vs. a one-day-implementation-fix-it-all mentor visit. B. Regional User Groups Use of Regional User Groups is the newest program to come out of the IDS Project. Developed as an outreach vehicle toward renewed community support and personalized training, the Regional User Groups provide professional development opportunities for Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing practitioners in an intimate and cultivating environment. The Regional User Groups were born of multiple changes that IDS, as a whole, was going through. Growing membership, changing programs, and developing wants and needs of the resource sharing community were all contributing factors to the creation of the user groups. Over the past few years, the IDS Project’s membership had surpassed the original expectations of the Project’s founders and, as of January 2013, sat at 73 members. Each new membership to the IDS Project comes with the responsibilities to implement best practices for that library’s practitioners. Depending on the library, these practitioners could be in need of support and training, or could be able to assist the Project by providing support and training to others. Regardless, the stages before induction into the IDS Project include extensive time spent on behalf of the Mentor Program. No matter the state of the library and the practitioner’s level of comfort with IDS Best Practices, the relationship developed between a new library’s staff and the IDS mentors who bring them into the Project is a long lasting one. The growing need for mentors as the Project developed has presented an issue with which there seemed to be no simple answer. The Mentor Program was changing its organization and training approach and the ratio of mentors to member libraries was declining. Not only were the mentors being stretched thin, but they were struggling to maintain the member support being asked of them after the initial training period.

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

291

The primary event that the IDS Project and the mentors envisioned to use for large-scale training for all members and practitioners was the IDS Project’s Annual Conference. The mentors held their Best Practices training programs in an effort to provide mass training on the crucial issues those in the field were currently facing. As membership of the project grew, so did IDS Project’s reputation across the nation. Nonmembers attended the IDS Project Annual conference and soon the Best Practices sessions were overflowing and being held in auditoriums or lecture halls. It was time for the IDS Project to return its focus to the small community on which it had built its foundation. However, it needed to maintain its place on the national level in order to take advantage of new opportunities. Regional User Groups were the answer. The ability of the Project to provide small, intimate training sessions for its members, by region, would provide the vehicle for improving local networking and support. Bringing people together to discuss policies, procedures, ideas, trials, successes and failures, combined with hands-on training sessions, would present the opportunity for members to get to know each other and become comfortable sharing ideas with each other. Teaching and learning from one another would enhance the IDS Project community of trust and support and add value in a unique and specialized way. With the need for Regional User Groups identified, the next step involved actually making it happen. How would these meetings be organized? When and where would they be held? Who would coordinate all of this? Would this fall under the Mentor Program’s responsibilities? The first decision made was to convene the Regional User Groups quarterly with a meeting during the fall, winter, and spring sessions, and a united Regional User Group meeting at the IDS Annual Conference during the summer as a pre-conference session. In order to hold Regional User Group meetings, those regions needed to be defined. New York State has a large expanse of libraries, some of which are more than few hours away from one another. The ability for members to attend the meetings was essential in determining which libraries would be part of which regions. The User Group regions were demarcated by travel distance and roadway options thereby dividing the state into three sections: the Western, Eastern, and Metro as shown in Fig. 4. The Rochester Regional Library Council and the Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO) provided training facilities for the Western and Metro User Groups, while the State University of New York College at Oneonta provided a centralized location to hold the Eastern User Group meetings. The staff at all three locations have been invaluable in assisting the IDS Project in getting our User Group program off the ground.

292

Mark Sullivan et al.

Fig. 4 Geographic division of regional user groups.

When time came to determine who would organize the User Groups in each region, a loose hierarchy developed. Having mentors spread across the state was already a goal of the Mentor Program, so utilizing these mentors within the newly developed regions made sense. Two mentors from each region would act as Chair and Secretary for 2-year span. Their role would be to assist with the details of each User Group meeting as well as be the point of contact for the members in their region between meetings. Someone was also needed to pull the Chairs together for the organization of the User Group meetings across all three regions. Rolling this responsibility under the Mentor Program was considered, but dismissed primarily due to the time requirements of both programs. The Regional User Groups would require travel multiple times throughout the year as well as a large time commitment to keeping the User Groups agendas moving forward and continually drawing in members to contribute to the program. The User Groups required their own Coordinator in order to allow the Coordinator of Mentors and Training to continue focusing on the growth and development of that program. Now that the organizers of the User Groups were in place, the focus of the meetings was to be determined. Keeping in line with the purpose of the meetings, the agendas included hands-on training sessions as well as roundtable discussions. These two components met the essential needs of the IDS members as well as provided an atmosphere for the sense of community to grow. The training sessions could be conducted by mentors or other members, who were encouraged and sought out. These sessions were meant to address the needs of the region, which could also be applicable across all three regions. The topic could be an ILLiadt workflow change due to a recent update of the software, or an uncommon aspect of the resource sharing

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

293

profession that would be beneficial for members to hear about. For example, a recent presentation like this explored statistics within interlibrary loan. The presenters shared the various statistic tools available to users within ILLiadt, OCLCs, and the IDS Project. They then demonstrated examples of why practitioners might use each tool and provided a chart for assisting in the decision making process of when a practitioner might use one statistic collection tool over another. The roundtable discussions continued this type of sharing with a discussion base rather than a training base. Members were given the opportunity to discuss policies, upcoming changes, ideas, and more with each other in small groups. The Chairs and Secretaries of each region facilitated discussion during this period, noted observations, and collected possible topics for future user group meetings. This portion of the day has proven to be the most energetic and dynamic. Providing time for practitioners to come together and ask what their counterparts were doing with things like loan periods, renewals, new billing systems, and workflow hiccups gave them an informal chance to share and learn without even realizing it. Our hope is that comfort among members lasts beyond the workshop and that there will be a handful of people to call or e-mail the next time that a question arises. Continuing the mission of community, a few other opportunities have been encouraged by attendees. Members are partnered with each other for the span of time between user group meetings. These partnerships are geared toward visiting one another to see and experience another library, workflow, workspace, and dynamic. Partners are asked to bring something they shared and something they learned from their partner to the next user group meeting. Partners are then switched around at each meeting so that eventually, each member will have had the chance to visit all of the other members and member libraries within their region. Sometimes physically taking the time away from the office or traveling to a partner’s library for these visits is not possible. Technologies are provided as well as ideas and examples for virtual visits. Extending and opening up the possibilities has been a long time focus of the IDS Project. Encouraging members to do the same pushes the whole Project forward in innovative sharing. As of late 2012 two sets of quarterly meetings have been held. Each meeting has provided learning opportunities for the members as well as the mentors organizing them. The list of future topics continues to grow and members have already begun participating in presentations, registrations, leading roundtable discussions, and other logistical pieces of the meetings themselves. Members are getting more involved and meetings have become

294

Mark Sullivan et al.

increasingly engaging. Members also are providing the essential feedback needed to make sure the next meetings continue to meet the training and information needs of the members. A survey is presented at the end of the user group meeting to give members the opportunity to share the most and least beneficial aspects of the workshop. Feedback from attendees has been profusely positive. These surveys are extremely helpful as the planning of the next meeting begins. The agenda items are developed from the members’ input and will keep the user groups on target. Moving forward, the user groups are focusing on the hands-on aspect of the training sessions. Allowing members to get their hands dirty with pieces of the ILLiadt workflow that they might be less comfortable with will be extremely beneficial in the long run. This will also allow members to work together and, by teaching and learning through immediate trial and error, develop a deeper understanding. For those members who are unable to make a meeting, virtual attendance is being explored. Session materials and videos of presentations are being archived on the Regional User Groups’ web sites and members are encouraged to explore these documents and contact their partners or mentors with questions about what they might have missed. The interest that members have shown in these archives is encouraging to the Project because it shows that attendance is valued by the members and that we are meeting a need. In summary, the IDS Project Regional User Groups are about the community. Bringing members together in smaller settings provides participants with the opportunity to learn from each other, get to know one another, and gain professional development for their positions as they strive to improve day in and day out. While still in the formative stages, the Regional User Group program is already promising to be one of the most essential aspects of the IDS Project. Members are learning from each other and in turn teaching mentors, bringing the purpose of resource sharing to the forefront, and influencing the IDS Project as a whole. The Project was started as a small subset of libraries working together. As the parent project grows, these sets of regions allow the fostering of that original mission. C. Workow Toolkit The Workflow Toolkit was first released at the 2008 IDS Conference in order to document many of the resource sharing best practices and workflow enhancements for ILLiadt. The primary goal of the Toolkit was to help libraries easily apply or adapt best practices into their workflow thereby reducing costs and processing time. This toolkit includes general tips and workflow suggestions for Borrowing, Document Delivery, and Lending

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

295

modules. For example, all the e-mail and print files use a special command to include external data that incorporates a library’s ‘‘LocalInfo’’ table values, and if that library keeps the borrowing, document delivery, and lending contact information up to date in ILLiadt, they will not have to edit each text file or word document. In order to implement most of the options in this Toolkit, ILL practitioners need the following ILLiadt access:  Customization Manager;  Resource Sharing settings which is authorized by the user manager;  Write access to Print and E-mail folders—important for adding and customizing new slips, labels, and e-mails; and  Write access the PDF or ElecDel folder (or secure FTP) which is required to save PDF files into ILLiadt’s server.

Customization access and methods for accessing the Print, Email, & PDF/ElecDel folders and the Customization Manager are determined by local practice, policies, and how ILLiadt is supported. Consultation with the library’s IT administrator may be necessary in order to continue this customization process. The IDS Project recommends that whoever manages the ILL operations have access to the above, if not more of the ILL staff, in order to rapidly implement, adapt, and streamline workflow. Some of the tips are region specific (custom holdings with Rochester Regional Library Council & New York) or require membership (Libraries Very Interested in Sharing, IDS Project). However, the information is made available in an interest to share strategies that have been proven useful, and so that other libraries can evaluate, select, and easily adapt tools into their workflow. The main goal of the Workflow Toolkit is to share information and tools that have helped various libraries streamline, automate, lower costs, and even expand services by eliminating steps, customizing automation around ILL department needs, and making ILLiadt more effective. Truly effective resource sharing depends upon each library running at peak efficiency. The goal of the Workflow Toolkit is to help ILL staff implement best practices that will save valuable turnaround time while cutting the costs of doing business. Maintained by the IDS Project’s mentors, in partnership with Atlas Systems, the Toolkit provides best practices that can enhance all aspects of borrowing, lending, and document delivery services through ILLiadt customizations, resource sharing strategies, and workflow improvements. The Workflow Toolkit consists of individual Google Docs organized into sections, making it easy to use online or in print. The IDS Project hosts the WorkflowToolkit-L list, the ILLiadt community’s hub for sharing news, support, ideas, and best practices. Over 500 users (IDS and non-IDS members) currently subscribe to the list and

296

Mark Sullivan et al.

chat about questions concerning ILLiadt and its many functions. Several vendors, including Atlas Systems, OCLCs, and the Copyright Clearance Centers, are members of the list and often provide answers to questions about their services. Many items that are discussed on the list end up having their resolution added to the Workflow Toolkit for future reference. When combined, the mentors, user groups, and Toolkit provide strong support to the members of the IDS Project and also provide a strong sense of community.

IV. Syracuse University Library as a Case Study Syracuse University Library (SUL) joined the IDS Project in June 2009, and soon began to realize the benefit of the support from the IDS community and the use of IDS Project tools. With the support of both the Mentor Program and the core IDS administrative group at SUNY Geneseo, SUL’s resource sharing performance has steadily improved since 2009. SUL’s lending fill rate increased by 7% its first full year in IDS due largely to increased lending of electronic articles through the use of ALIAS. The use of ALIAS was further integrated into the Ex Libris SFX OpenURL link resolver and Serials Solutionss Addons, which SUL has adopted, resulting in continued fill rate improvements of 4% and 5% by the end of the 2014 year. The connections between the mentors and the member libraries are essential in continuing to disseminate the use of new tools that further integrate best practices and innovation into ILL workflows. A. Launching IDS Initiatives A year after SUL joined the IDS Project, initiatives for Document Delivery (‘‘Articles to Go’’) and Purchase on Demand (‘‘Buy Not Borrow’’) were launched. The support of the IDS Project community was evident in helping plan for these programs, sending a team of IDS Project specialists to visit and consult with SUL librarians. After departmental reorganizations and staff changeover, the IDS Project again supported the training of staff and use of ILL best practices at SUL. In the past year, SUL Resource Sharing librarians have worked through the Best Practices workbook and visited several IDS libraries to refine its workflows. Visits have included both broad discussions as well as specific visits to libraries to observe office layouts and staff furniture choices. What is most impressive is the ability of the IDS Project’s mentor program to extend beyond a single visit through web meetings, phone calls, constant e-mail communication, and general collegiality that

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

297

makes constant improvement to workflows and practices easy as there is always support available. In implementing these resource sharing best practices and changes in workflow and procedures, 1.5 FTE staff members have been reassigned to assist with other processes such as electronic reserves and circulation activities. In the past 2011–2012 academic year, lending turnaround time has decreased by 80% from 42.5 hours to roughly 8.5 hours for articles. B. Staff Training and Building a Community of Trust Most important to SUL’s membership in the IDS Project is the focus on continuous training, professional development, and the sharing of knowledge and best practices. SUL’s resource sharing staff, as in most large research libraries, has previously been focused on staff specializing in lending, borrowing, or other specific parts of the ILL workflow. Syracuse, in the past 5 years, has upgraded its staff lines to create a more dynamic and highly trained staff who are all asked to be trained to do any job if needed. There has, therefore, recently been a great deal of cross-training and more extensive training of resource sharing staff at SUL. As the mentors train using freely available tools, such as the Best Practices Institute Workbook and the Workflow Toolkit (IDS, 2012e), the lessons learned by staff attending IDS events can easily be incorporated into training materials. In creating the ILL training manuals, the Workflow Toolkit is a foundation for a great deal of documentation and assessment. With the use of existing IDS training tools that staff and librarians are already familiar with, only local exceptions and unique procedures need to be documented. As most libraries use the tools and ILLiadt Addons developed by the IDS Project, there is a community of innovation and entrepreneurship that helps facilitate local changes. At SUL, ILL did not, until recently, use the Copyright Clearance Centers’s Get It Nowt service, which uses technology developed by the IDS Project (the Get it Nowt ILLiadt Addon). As there were so many libraries that used this service in the IDS Project, SUL Resource Sharing librarians were able to gather enough supporting data and information about the service to initiate quick change to adopt this service. The result has been that SUL has saved more than $1500 in its first month using the Get it Nowt service. As the IDS Project is built on the principles of ‘‘a unified community of trust and support,’’ the expectations for fast turnaround times come with a great deal of support from expert volunteers as well as freely available tools that help with extensive changes. The IDS Project’s Custom Holdings Helper served as a crucial tool in the complete revision of SUL custom

298

Mark Sullivan et al.

holdings in the past 6 months, resulting in lower OCLCs ILL Fee Management (IFM) and other borrowing costs. In attending IDS Project Regional User Groups and other training events, the tools that IDS libraries use to solve problems are also discussed. After learning about how other libraries are using the GIST Gift and Deselection Manager (GDM), SUL is now using this tool to help make collection movement and storage decisions. The GIST GDM has allowed processes that involved large amounts of librarian time to become data-driven and less labor intensive.

C. The Benefits Finally, as Syracuse University Library is one of just a few large research libraries in the IDS Project, the assumption was that SUL would be a net lender in the Project. However, with its focus on building and maintaining research collections, SUL has found great value in the more curriculum focused collections across the IDS Project. With the load leveling built into ALIAS, SUL has not seen significant increases in lending volume, and has not been a net lender. Instead, SUL has seen great value in its membership. Over an 18-month period beginning in May 2011, SUL filled 63% (over 17,000 requests) of its ILL requests for free from other IDS member libraries, with no shipping costs other than a flat courier fee of $5,250 per year through Empire Library Delivery (2011). Compared to over $60,000 in direct charges plus several thousand dollars in shipping costs for the other 37% of Syracuse’s requests, the requests filled in IDS are a bargain. The IDS Project community offers important opportunities for any type of library and any staff. The IDS Project’s focus on participation among its members creates opportunities for organizational growth. At SUL, there has been a great deal of focus on improved performance and decreased request times, and there have been many opportunities for support and growth in these areas. As SUL is now able to maintain excellent request times through best practices, there are now development opportunities through involvement with the Technology Development Team and Regional User Groups to extend best practices beyond conventional improvements through workflow adjustments to system level development. As the IDS Project has, in the past 3 years, worked to integrate resource sharing as a critical part of all areas of the library, there are also opportunities for support to help expand the role of resource sharing locally. Internally, the IDS Project’s contacts and knowledge have allowed for extensive connections between collections, acquisitions, reference, and cataloging, which did not previously exist.

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

299

V. Conclusion The IDS Project’s focus on community and innovation has been the reason for its continued success. New ideas come from all sections of the interlibrary loan community and often provide the catalyst for innovations. Other times, one innovation may lead to several others or to the combination of innovations which create even better performance in the resource sharing community. The development of the IDS Mentor Program eventually led to the creation of the Regional User Groups through the need for increased training of a much larger IDS Project membership. The implementation of Addon technology in ILLiadt by Atlas Systems led to an explosion of new tools for the interlibrary loan community. While some tools are only available to IDS members, many are available to all users of ILLiadt. ALIAS, which had provided journal licensing information only to IDS Project members, is now available to all ILLiadt users through the Serials Solutionss and SFX Addons. GIST for ILLiad, the Workflow Toolkit, and two dozen Addons are freely available to nonmembers and are supported by the IDS Project. The tools, training, and support provided by the IDS Project have helped member libraries increase the volume of requests that can be handled while decreasing the time required for each request. As noted in the Syracuse Case Study, lending turnaround time had decreased by 80% from 42.5 hours to roughly 8.5 hours for article requests while allowing for 1.5 FTE to be reassigned to different projects. By optimizing workflow and freeing up staff time, libraries will have knowledgeable staff available to seize new opportunities in a community of trust and support built around effective resource sharing.

Appendix A: Innovative Components of the IDS Project 1. Workflow Toolkit—http://toolkit.idsproject.org/

The Workflow Toolkit is designed and updated regularly to help libraries adopt best practices to get the most out of ILLiad. It helps member libraries and potentially over 1,100 other ILLiad libraries by decreasing staff time spent processing requests and by increasing the efficiency of workflows in general. It can also save libraries’ money by reducing borrowing and lending costs as well as through better use of staff time, equipment, and supplies. It also serves users by improving turnaround times.

300

Mark Sullivan et al.

2. Mentor Program—http://idsproject.org/About/Mentors.aspx

The mission of the Mentor Program is to help each IDS Project member perform within the cooperative’s standards through the adoption of tools and best practices, led by a trained group of volunteer experts in resource sharing. These experts are certified to help each member simplify their ILL workflows and systems, working closely with staff to implement positive changes and build a strong sense of community within the IDS Project. 3. Regional User Groups—http://www.idsproject.org/usergroups.aspx

The IDS Project is very committed to the ongoing professional development of our members and the promotion of best practices in our member libraries. In partnership with the New York 3Rs, we are organizing three regional IDS Project Users Groups that will leverage the strengths of the mentor program with the extensive collective knowledge base of our members. Each user group will meet quarterly to provide training, facilitate discussion, and problem solving, and most importantly build stronger interdependent relationships among members. 4. Transaction Performance Analysis Module (TPAM)—http://idsproject.org/Tools/TPAM.aspx

The IDS Project promotes cooperation through mutual accountability. ‘‘Trust but verify’’ is the guideline. TPAM is used for extensive interlibrary loan data analysis that serves as a basis for informed decision-making. It queries transaction data from each IDS Project library’s ILLiad server and creates graphical displays useful for analyzing transactions across the consortia and between individual libraries. 5. IDS Search—http://idsproject.org/Tools/IDSSearch.aspx

IDS Search is a powerful discovery tool that enables users to search for materials at their local, IDS Project member, and WorldCat libraries. Features include: facets, relevancy ranking, availability and citation views, spell check, RSS for searches, Google Books preview, Get It button to place ILL requests, statistics, and many customization options in an easy-to-use control module. IDS Search uses APIs from WorldCat, Google Books, and Yahoo spell check, it also offers context sensitive linking to external resources: reserve collection, EBSCO, YouTube, Google, and more. IDS Search is hosted on a robust commercial server that provides fast speeds for displaying results.

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

301

6. Article License Information Availability Service (ALIAS)—http://idsproject.org/Tools/ ALIAS.aspx

Working with Atlas Systems, the IDS Project has developed a service that allows ILLiad to perform unmediated article request processing. ALIAS is able to construct a lender string and send article requests straight to OCLC. This can save an average of 10–20 hours of processing time and decrease the turnaround time for article requests. ALIAS uses a unique licensing management system that eliminates the need for each library to monitor licenses. ALIAS promotes electronic over print holdings and performs load leveling. 7. Addons—https://prometheus.atlas-sys.com/display/ILLiadAddons/Addons+Directory

Addons are .lua scripts that allow the user to incorporate others systems into the ILLiad program. The IDS Project has created over 19 Addons, including two that combine the licensing data of ALIAS and the purchasing ability of CCC’s Get It Now Service with either Serials Solutions or SFX. 8. Circulation Availability Service (CAS)—New!—http://idsproject.org/Tools/CAS.aspx

This service creates a custom lending string to provide the fastest turnaround time for borrowing libraries. CAS builds upon IDS Search to create a list of holdings, ALIAS to provide true load balancing, and the Empire Library Delivery time matrix to sort by shortest estimated delivery time. Staff time from both borrowing and lending libraries is saved by querying the local catalog to determine if the item is on the shelf or in a restricted collection. Lending requests for items that are not loanable are automatically canceled, and OCLC is automatically updated so that the request moves to the next library in the lender string. 9. Getting It System Toolkit (GIST)—http://gist.idsproject.org/

GIST is designed to leverage data from various systems to help libraries streamline and transform their acquisitions, collection development, and interlibrary loan workflows.  GIST for ILLiad enhances the ILLiad web request form to show users links to millions of full text titles from Hathi Trust and Google Books, Amazon.com reviews, and price options for books. This information helps users and staff make informed decisions, saving money and diversifying your regional holdings. It also enhances the ILLiad client with a full featured Acquisitions Manager which allows for streamlined budget management, fund tracking, and materials purchasing.

302

Mark Sullivan et al.

 The GIST Gift and Deselection Manager (GDM) is a standalone open-source system that streamlines deselection and gift processing. GDM streamlines processing and provides local and regional holdings, edition, and full text information, and recommendations based on customizable profiles for rapid decision making and handling, including OCLC cataloging and donor letters. GDM also provides batch analysis of collections to evaluate for weeding, digitizing, or selecting for special collections, and automatically generates a spreadsheet of holdings, full-text, pricing, and more.

Appendix B

This document is a voluntary agreement to govern membership in the Information Delivery Services (IDS) Project cooperative. It is based on the premise that each member institution fully supports the IDS Project’s mission statement: The mission of the IDS Project is to continually implement and objectively evaluate innovative resource-sharing strategies, policies and procedures that will optimize mutual access to the information resources of all IDS Project libraries, through the development of a rapid and effective resource-sharing system among libraries in New York State.

By entering into this membership agreement, your institution agrees to the following: 1. Resource Sharing 1.1 Reciprocal Lending Member institutions will not charge each other fees related to the handling of interlibrary loan requests, including per-request lending charges and shipping or postage fees. All member institutions agree to abide by the responsibilities outlined in the American Library Association (ALA) Interlibrary Loan Code for the United States. Each member institution agrees to respond to the requests of other members as expeditiously as possible. 1.2 Interlibrary Loan Platform All member institutions will use the OCLC ILLiad Resource Sharing Management Software as their interlibrary loan platform. Each member institution will make their best effort to optimize their ILLiad implementation

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

303

through the adoption of the IDS Project’s Recommended Best Practices. All software on your local computers for the purposes of interlibrary loan should be updated to current versions. 1.3a Local Holdings Maintenance Each member institution agrees to maintain the currency and accuracy of their OCLC local holdings. We strongly recommend a reclamation process making sure your catalog matches your OCLC holdings. 1.3b Link resolver maintenance Give permission for the IDS Project to contact Serials Solutions to add your data to the extracts that are run every two weeks. Alternatively, add IDS Project Executive Director (Mark Sullivan: [email protected], 585-2455172) to your SFX Administration permissions so that he can generate the download file from the data directly. This will allow him to keep ALIAS up to date with your holdings. We strongly recommend that print holdings for journals also be loaded into the link resolver knowledge base. The guide to implementing ALIAS, and adding print holdings to Serial Solutions, can be found at: www.idsproject.org/alias_setup.zip. If you have a different open URL resolver we can work with you to implement ALIAS. Contact Mark Sullivan at [email protected] 1.4a Delivery Methods for Physical Items Each member institution agrees to ship requested loan materials using the Empire Libraries Delivery Service (http://www.empirelibrarydelivery.org/), except when an item’s condition requires an alternative courier. 1.4b Delivery Method for Electronic Articles Each member agrees to supply requested article copies using ILLiad’s Odyssey electronic delivery software. 1.5 Optimized Data Sharing Member institutions will provide the IDS Project Systems Administrator with direct access to the ILLiad database stored in the locally or OCLC hosted SQL server. This data will be shared with other participating libraries and analyzed using a common set of transaction performance measurements. The tables required are LenderAddresses, Transactions, Tracking, and Notes. If direct access is not possible, please contact the IDS Project Systems Administrator ([email protected]) to discuss the possibility of other options. 2. Member Contributions 2.1a Membership Contribution Each member institution will support the operation of the IDS Project with a $700 contribution, per year. This support will allow the IDS Project to send mentors out to member libraries, coordinate IDS Project events and meetings.

304

Mark Sullivan et al.

2.1b In-kind Contributions Member institutions will make their best effort to support the mission of the IDS Project through in-kind contributions of personnel or other resources. This includes contributing the library’s staff time and talent to IDS cooperative projects. 2.2 Member Liaisons Each member institution will identify a liaison to the IDS Project Executive Director for coordinating that institution’s participation in the IDS Project. Liaisons are responsible for coordinating IDS Project initiatives at their institution and representing the interests of their institution to the IDS Project Executive Director. Liaisons are requested to provide contact information to the IDS Project, and to use the IDS Project Listserv, which has been established for rapid communication among all participants of the Project. 2.3 Participation in Mentor Program/Conference All library staff members are strongly encouraged to participate in our free Mentor Program. Each library is assigned a mentor team comprised of an applications specialist and/or a technical systems specialist who travels to your library to assist in optimizing the use of OCLC, ILLiad, and the special IDS Project software. The local IDS Liaison, the Library Director, and the appropriate resource sharing staff members are also invited to attend the annual summer conference, Regional User Groups and participate in periodic conference calls and webinars. 2.4 Cooperative Accountability Each member institution agrees to hold itself accountable for implementing and maintaining the IDS Project’s Recommended Best Practices. Each member institution will strive for specific turnaround time benchmarks of 48 hours for articles and 72 hours for loans. Weekends and holidays are excluded. 2.5 Quality and Accuracy All items transmitted via the IDS Project will be prepared with due attention to high-quality reproduction and bibliographic accuracy. 2.6 Cooperative Governance The director of each library agrees to support the cooperative governance of the IDS Project through participation in occasional advisory meetings, which are designed to guide the IDS Project’s operations and strategic initiatives. This also includes, where reasonable, your staff participating in various working groups, webinars, and the IDS Project annual conference. IDS Project Membership Agreement On behalf of my library, I am authorized to join the IDS Project and agree to abide by the terms above.

305

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

IDS Project Liaison name: Title: Contact Phone: Contact Email:

Authorized Signature: Name: Title: Institution: Contact Phone: Contact Email:

Date:

Please return a signed copy via email, fax, or mail to: Mark Sullivan, IDS Project Executive Director Milne Library 1 College Circle Geneseo, NY 14454 Phone: 585-245-5172 Fax: 585-245-5769 [email protected]

Appendix C: Teams The IDS Project Administrative Team is composed of seven members, including the IDS Project Executive Director, the IDS Project Executive Director’s Assistant, the Coordinator of Mentors and Training, the Coordinator of Regional User Groups, the Chair of the Technology Development Team, the Case Studies & User Experiences Coordinator, and one SUNY OLIS representative. This team meets virtually on a weekly basis to share updates on current initiatives and plan for future initiatives. The Mentors Team is led by the Coordinator of Mentors and Training. Currently the IDS Project has nine mentors that specialize in either Interlibrary Loan or Information Technology. Mentors are responsible for

306

Mark Sullivan et al.

providing best practices training to new and current member libraries. This team meets on an as needed basis, as well as during the Regional User Group meetings and the annual IDS Project Conference. The Regional User Groups Team is led by the Coordinator of Regional User Groups. There are three Regional User Groups in New York State, each with its own chair and secretary. Agendas for each quarterly meeting are assembled by the Coordinator of Regional User Groups and chairs and secretaries from all regions. The Technology Development Team (TDT) is composed of six members including a chairperson, and meets in-person on a quarterly basis and virtually on a monthly basis. The TDT is responsible for maintaining IDS Search, creating new ILLiadt Addons, and finding new ways to connect users to information and resources. The Proof of Concept Team is composed of eight members and meets on a quarterly basis. This team is currently exploring a centralized ILL service to reduce costs and labor associated with ILL at smaller libraries by utilizing the distributed capabilities of ILLiadt. The Best Practices Toolkit Team is composed of two members that meet to assemble and update the Best Practices Workflow Toolkit. This team meets on an as needed basis as updates are made to ILLiadt software and new Best Practices are discovered. The ALIAS Licensing Team is composed of two administrative members and approximately thirty volunteer librarians that come together once a year to update the ALIAS Licensing Database. This database is queried to perform unmediated article request processing by checking licensing policies, creating a lender string, and sending article requests straight to OCLCs. The Resource Sharing Advisory Committee is a new committee that will focus on the needs of the day-to-day user of ILLiadt and Interlibrary Loan. The Conference Planning Team includes members of the IDS Project Administrative Team and volunteer staff members from IDS Project libraries. The Conference Planning Team is responsible for maintaining conference registration, web site management, programming, marketing, onsite visits, contacting vendors, securing keynote speakers, administering the conference, and collecting assessment data of conference outcomes. The IDS Project Council is composed of fourteen administrators that represent sectors of IDS membership (public and private institutions along with consortia partners) that provide the IDS Project Executive Director with advice on sustainability and questions regarding ongoing missions that are a natural result of the growth of the Project. Council meetings are held bi-annually and chaired by the IDS Project Executive Director.

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

307

Appendix D: Mentor Program

Site visit checklist for ________________________________________Date:______________ Opening Briefing & & & &

Introduce yourself & explain the mentoring process Briefly explain the IDS Project, if needed Gauge expectations for the day Prompt for questions/comments

Workflow Tour & Needs Assessment Systems Assessment & & & & &

What version of ILLiad are they currently using? Does OCLC or Atlas host their ILLiad? Which ILS is the library using (i.e. Aleph)? Which link resolver is the library using (i.e. Serials Solutions)? Has the library uploaded their print holdings to their link resolver?

Lending Assessment & Has the library activated the lending module in ILLiad?  If yes, is the library using it exclusively for lending requests?  If no, propose Atlas Systems lending implementation training & Does the library use Docline?  If yes, is the library using it within ILLiad? & Has the library implemented any custom queues for lending?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Would creating any custom queues simplify their workflow? & Has the library created any routing rules for lending?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Are there any routing rules that could simplify their workflow? & Has the library created any email routing for lending?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Are there any email routings that could simplify their workflow? & Has the library customized their printing?  If yes, review their templates and see if they need to skip unused templates  Are they interested in changing them? If so, review the Workflow Toolkit’s

308

Mark Sullivan et al.

& Does the library lend articles electronically?  If yes, do they use Odyssey, Odyssey Helper, and/or Ariel?  If no, propose Atlas Systems Odyssey training  Do they lend from their electronic journals? & Would the library benefit from using any ILLiad 8 Addons? & Does the library use IFM and/or Billing Manager?

Borrowing Assessment & Has the library activated the borrowing module in ILLiad?  If yes, is the library using it exclusively for borrowing requests?  If no, propose Atlas Systems borrowing implementation training & Has the library implemented the ILLiad web pages?  If yes, are they using OpenURL with their databases and/or link resolver?  If no, propose Atlas Systems web page implementation training & Does the library use Docline?  If yes, is the library using it within ILLiad? & Does the library use RapidILL?  If yes, do they use the ILLiad Rapid Manager?  Do they want to send requests to RapidILL or ALIAS first? & Does the library use the Z39.50 feature to search their catalog in ILLiad? & Does the library use the Copyright Clearance module?  If yes, is their workflow efficient?  Does the library use the ‘‘Older than Rule of 5’’ routing rule? & Has the library implemented any custom queues for borrowing?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Would creating any custom queues simplify their workflow? & Has the library created any routing rules for borrowing?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Are there any routing rules that could simplify their workflow? & Has the library created any email routing for borrowing?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Are there any email routings that could simplify their workflow? & Has the library customized their printing?  If yes, review their templates and see if they need to skip unused templates  Are they interested in changing them? If so, review the Workflow Toolkit’s & Has the library created any custom holdings groups or paths?  If yes, what are they for? Are they efficient?  Are there any groups or paths that could simplify their workflow? & Is the library using Direct Request?  If no, explain its benefits and propose implementing it & Does the library use Odyssey for electronic delivery?  If yes, have they turned on Trusted Sender for all libraries?  Do they use Ariel? If so, are they importing files into Odyssey?  Is the library scanning articles received by fax or mail? & Would the library benefit from using any ILLiad 8 Addons? & Does the library use IFM?

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

309

Debriefing & & & &

Review your assessment with the library Propose next steps for implementation Develop an implementation schedule and set target completion date Prompt for questions

Systems Checklist Lending & Ensure that OPAC is properly configured in Z39.50 (for SUNY, see Aleph instructions at http://tinyurl.com/Z39-ALEPH) & Turn off OdysseyReminder in the Customization Manager (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress. com/lending-workflow/odysseyreminder/) & Turn on CopyTitleToClipboard in the Customization Manager (http://workflowtoolkit.word press.com/copytitletoclipboard/) & Adjust the PrintDocumentsPath to ensure that templates open automatically, if necessary (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/printdocumentspath/).

Borrowing & Set OdysseyAutoElecDel (aka Trusted Sender) to Always in the Customization Manager (http:// workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/borrowing-workflow/odysseyautoelecdel/) & Configure AutoBackgroundSearchOrder in the Customization Manager (http://workflowtoolk it.wordpress.com/borrowing-workflow/autobackgroundsearchorder/) & Ensure that the OpenURLMapping & WorkFormMapping tables are properly configured in the Customization Manager to accept OpenURL requests (https://prometheus.atlas-sys.com/ display/ILLiad/The+WorkFormMapping+Table and https://prometheus.atlas-sys.com/display/ illiad8/Installing+OpenURL) & Implement Direct Request (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/borrowing-workflow/ direct-request/)

Statistics & Link ILLiad to Microsoft Access, if interested (https://prometheus.atlas-sys.com/display/illiad8/ Linking+ILLiad+with+Microsoft+Access)

Addons & Download, install, and configure desired Addons (https://prometheus.atlas-sys.com/display/ ILLiadAddons/Addons+Directory)

310

Mark Sullivan et al.

Workflow Checklist Lending & Create Group in ILLiad called IDS Project. Add ILLiad addresses for all IDS Project members to it and set them to ’Exempt’ billing category (list at http://idsproject.org). & Set up PDF article conversion with either MyMorph or MS Document Image Writer, and Odyssey Helper (see http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/lending-workflow/converting-pdfarticles-to-tiff/ and http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/lending-workflow/odyssey-helper/) & If deflection is used, ensure that the IDSZ group is exempt (configure in the OCLC Policies Directory). & Review Workflow Toolkit routing rules and implement any if interested (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/lending-workflow/routing-rules-lending/) & Review Workflow Toolkit email routing and implement any if interested (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/lending-workflow/email-routing-lending/)

Borrowing & Create the IDS Project Custom Holdings Group and place it first in Custom Holdings Paths (for current list, log into http://idsproject.org/). & Review Workflow Toolkit routing rules and implement any if interested (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/borrowing-workflow/routing-rules-borrowing/) & Review Workflow Toolkit email routing and implement any if interested (http://workflowtoolkit.wordpress.com/borrowing-workflow/email-routing-borrowing/)

TPAM & Statistics & Distribute the TPAM guide (see Mentor Program shared files) & Review the ILLiad Web Reports and WCRS Stats Module (if necessary).

References Bowersox, T. (2011). Mentoring for change: Setting a new course for the mentor program. Retrieved from http://idsproject.org/presentations.aspx/ Bowersox, T., Oberlander, C., Pitcher, K., & Sullivan, M. (2012). Getting it system toolkit: Transforming ILL, acquisitions, & collection development. Retrieved from http:// www.gistlibrary.org Copyright Clearance Center. (2013). Get it now. Retrieved from http://www.copy right.com/content/cc3/en/toolbar/productsAndSolutions/getitnow.html

IDS Project: Community and Innovation

311

Empire Library Delivery. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.empirelibrarydelivery. org IDS Project. (2012a). About us. Retrieved from http://idsproject.org/About/ AboutUs.aspx IDS Project. (2012b). Our partners. Retrieved from http://idsproject.org/About/ Partners.aspx IDS Project. (2012c). Click on tools section. Retrieved from http://idsproject.org/ IDS Project. (2012d). Article Licensing Information Availability Service (ALIAS). Retrieved from http://www.idsproject.org/Tools/ALIAS.aspx IDS Project. (2012e). Retrieved from http://toolkit.idsproject.org/ OCLCs. (2012). Direct request: Automated fulfillment you control. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/resourcesharing/features/directrequest/default.htm

Index

References to figures are shown in italics. References to tables are shown in bold. AASL (American Association of School Librarians), 191 ABC-CLIO, Greenwood Publishing Group purchase, xiv academic libraries alliances and cooperation, forms of, 250–251 fundraising and self-financing, 268–269 ‘‘innovation community’’ concept, 270 libraries as ‘‘incubators’’, 270–271 Postdoctoral Fellowship in Academic Libraries Program, 73–76 quality management and marketing, 267–268 web project partnerships, 23 see also archives; Association of Research Libraries (ARL); Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR); Digital Library Federation (DLF); economic crisis (2007–), impact on academic libraries; e-journals/databases; e-resources; Finland, academic library mergers; Greece, academic library survey; higher education; India, HE libraries’ consortia initiatives; Research Libraries Group (RLG); scholarly communications

acquisitions concept, 32 see also Finland, academic library mergers; library acquisitions (of resources); mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lessons from the corporate world; mergers and collaborations in LIS education Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), 5 Agosto, D. F., 205 agriculture see Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA) ALA see American Library Association (ALA) Albrechtsen, H., 22 ALFA program, 142 Alford, Larry, 88, 102 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 76 ALIAS (Article Licensing Information Availability Service) (ILLiadt), 282, 283, 286, 288, 289, 296, 298, 299, 301 ALISE (Association for Library and Information Science Education), 188, 194–195 Allatta, J. T., 51 alliances concept, 32 vs. mergers/acquisitions, 42–43

314 see also mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lessons from the corporate world; mergers and collaborations in LIS education Amazon, xiii, 301 American Association of School Librarians (AASL), 191 American Library Association (ALA) 1876 indexing and cataloging committee, 108 accreditation, xvii, 186–187, 219–220 comparison with OCLC, 98 and CRA Deans Group, 193 Frontline fundraising toolkit, 268–269 interdisciplinary and dual degrees, 208–218, 209–215 and LIS program partnerships, 207–208 mergers in ALA-accredited LIS schools, 187–191, 189–190 Neal-Schuman sale to, xiv Spectrum Scholarship program, 218 usage statistics, 255 and WISE Consortium, 202 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 253 American Society for Information Science & Technology’s (ASIS&T), 197 Americans for Libraries Council, Worth Their Weight report, 46 AMICUS, 113 Amigos, 43, 87, 95, 99 Anderson, K., 44 Anderson, P., 50 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 70–71, 77 Annual Reviews, 124 Anvil Academic Publishing, 78, 80

Index

AOL/Time Warner merger, 41, 42 Appalachian State University, LIS education, 191 archives archival studies in NMPLIS, 145 Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program, 70–73, 80 electronic/web-based applications, 8, 21, 24 Library and Archives Canada (LAC), 113 PACSCL (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries), 72 preservation projects, 23 see also Digital Library Federation (DLF) ARL (Association of Research Libraries) see Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Armenia see NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project Arns, J. W., 46 ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), 5 Article Licensing Information Availability Service (ALIAS) (ILLiadt), 282, 283, 286, 288, 289, 296, 298, 299, 301 Asher, A., 75 Asia-Pacific region see CiSAP (Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific) ASIS&T (American Society for Information Science & Technology’s), 197 Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE), 188, 194–195

Index

315

Association of Research Libraries (ARL) comparison with OCLC, 98 E-Science Institute, 69–70 impact of recession on e-journal acquisition, 254–255 reduction in member libraries’ staffing, 251 astronomy/astrophysics see FORSA (Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics) AT&T, acquisitions strategy, 36, 38 Atlas Systems, 283, 285, 286, 295–296, 299 automobile industry see Daimler–Chrysler AG merger Aversa, Elizabeth, 188 axial coding, 15, 22

Biotech/Pharma industry, mergers and acquisitions, 36 blind see visually challenged users BOBCATSSS, 154, 204 Bologna Declaration/process, xvii, 140, 144, 160, 203–204 borrowing, Circulation Availability Service (CAS/IDS), 288, 301 Bowditch, J. L., 47, 51 Bowersox, Tim, 289 Breeding, M., 43 Brown, Rowland, 90–91 BRS (Bibliographic Retrieval Services), 5 Brunell, D., 85, 88, 104 Brunner, Marta, 73, 76 Buono, A. F., 47, 51

Badovinac, B., 203 Bailey-Hainer, B., 85, 104 Basecampt 286, 290 BCR (Bibliographic Center for Research), 43, 87, 95 BenQ–Siemens merger, 46, 51–52 Bertelsmann, Penguin-Random House merger, xiii–xiv Bhimani, N., 151 Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR), 43, 87, 95 bibliographic data sharing, 110–111 Indian consortia, 125, 129, 130 see also cataloging; OCLC (Online Computer Library Center); OPACs (online public access catalogs); regional library networks and OCLC Bibliographic Retrieval Services (BRS), 5 biotechnology see DeLCON (Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium)

California Rare Book School, 208 Campbell, G. L., 108 Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) Library, 113 CAPCON, 94–95, 103 car industry see Daimler–Chrysler AG merger Carson, T. C., 50 cataloging cataloging systems, 6 Collaboration in Cataloging project, 71 MARC-based systems, 6, 88 metadata linking, 8 retrospective conversion projects, 125 see also bibliographic data sharing; OCLC (Online Computer Library Center); OPACs (online public access catalogs) Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program, 70–73, 80 Catalonian Consortium of Libraries, 258 CD-ROM databases, 6

316 CenterNet, 69 CeRA (Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture), 109, 127 change management consortial approach, 111–112 and corporate culture, 48 leaders’ roles, 50–51 and mergers and acquisitions, 30 Charleston Observatory survey (2009), 250, 252 Cheng, S. S., 51, 52 Chicago State University, LIS education, 191 Chozik, A., xiii Chrysler AG-Daimler merger, 46, 51, 52–53 Chu, Heting, xiv, xvii, 188 Circulation Availability Service (CAS/IDS), 288, 301 circulation systems, 6 CiSAP (Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific), 186, 199–202, 200–201, 205 see also iSchool Caucus CISCO systems, acquisitions strategy, 38, 39, 42 City University of New York, IDS project, 283 client-server movement, 7 CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources) abstract, 63 CLIR’s collaborative mission, 63–65 Committee for coherently designed digital environment, 80–82 constraints to collaboration, 65–66 main collaborative programs Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program, 70–73, 80

Index

CLIR/DLF Data Curation Fellowship Program, 75 DLF (Digital Library Federation), 67–69, 80 DLF and E-Science Institute, 69–70 DLF Forum, 69 Postdoctoral Fellowship in Academic Libraries Program, 73–76 other projects Anvil Academic Publishing, 78, 80 Digging into Data Challenge, 78 Digital Preservation Network (DPN), 77–78, 80 Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), 68–69, 76–77, 78, 80 HathiTrust, 79–80 Kuali Foundation, 79 Linked Data, 77 Medical Heritage Library Digital Collaborative (MHDC), 79, 80 cloud computing, 17, 24 CLR (Council on Library Resources), 64 CNIB (Canadian National Institute for the Blind) Library, 113 Coch, L., 51 Collaboration in Cataloging project, 71 collaborations, types of, 32–33 Commission on Preservation and Access, 67 communication communication technologies, 290 key factor in mergers, 30, 47, 50–54 see also MCIT (Ministry of Communications and Information Technology) Consortium Computing Research Association (CRA), Deans Group, 186, 193–195, 194

Index

Conference Papers Index, 10 consortia see library consortia Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA), 109, 127 Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), 186, 199–202, 200–201, 205 see also iSchool Caucus copyright bibliographic records, 90–91 Copyright Clearance Centers, 283, 296 see also ALIAS (Article Licensing Information Availability Service) (ILLiadt); Get It Nowt Service Addon Corradini, Elena, xvi, xvii Costco Wholesale-Price Club merger, 38, 40 Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) see CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources) Council on Library Resources (CLR), 64 CRA (Computing Research Association), Deans Group, 186, 193–195, 194 Daimler–Chrysler AG merger, 46, 51, 52–53 Dale, S., 170 data curation/management CLIR/DLF Data Curation Fellowship Program, 75 Digging into Data Challenge, 78 Digital Preservation Network (DPN), 77–78, 80 see also digitization projects database searching, 5, 6

317 see also e-journals/databases; e-resources; search protocols; web-based collaborative library initiatives, study into David, R., 34 Deal, T. E., 50 Deans Group (CRA), 186, 193–195, 194 Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), 5 DeLCON (Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium), 108, 118–119 DELNET (Developing Library Network), 108, 124–126, 126 dendrograms, 12 Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium (DeLCON), 108, 118–119 developing countries, and LIS education partnerships, 154 Developing Library Network (DELNET), 108, 124–126, 126 Dewey, Melvil, 108 DIALOGs, 5 DiGeorgio, R. M., 37, 38–39, 40 Digging into Data Challenge, 78 Digital Library Federation (DLF) see DLF (Digital Library Federation) Digital Preservation Network (DPN), 77–78, 80 Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), 68–69, 76–77, 78, 80 digitization projects consortial approach to, 112 FORSA (India), 130 DILL Digital Libraries Learning, 154 distance learning increase participation in, 256

318 National Open Distance Learners’ Library and Information Network (NODLINET), 109, 130–131 see also e-learning DLF (Digital Library Federation) creation and evolution, 67–69 Data Curation Fellowship Program, 75 DLF Forum, 69 E-Science Institute, 69–70 support for best practices and standards, 80 see also Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program; CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources); DPLA (Digital Public Library of America) document delivery ALIAS (Article Licensing Information Availability Service), 282, 283, 286, 288, 289, 296, 298, 299, 301 ‘‘Articles to Go’’, 296 Copyright Clearance Centers, 283, 286, 296, 297 Indian consortial initiatives, 111 see also IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project domain analytic techniques, 9, 11, 24 Dominican University, LIS education, 207 dot-com bubble, 41 DPLA (Digital Public Library of America), 68–69, 76–77, 78, 80 DPN (Digital Preservation Network), 77–78, 80 DTIC (Defense Technical Information Center), 5 Duhan, D. F., 54

Index

Dumon, M., 41 DuraSpace, 69, 70 Dynix/Sirsi merger, 43, 44 e-books, xiii, 23, 44, 233 EBSCO, 44 economic crisis (2007-), impact on academic libraries assessing the impact, 249–250 benefits of library alliances and cooperation, 250–251 collection development and e-resources, 254–255, 257–258 decrease in staffing levels, 251–252 increase in user demand, 255–256, 258 need for alternative funding strategies, 252–253 need to demonstrate value of libraries, 253 need to participate in campus-wide processes, 253–254 see also Greece, academic library survey e-content see e-books; e-journals/ databases; e-resources Edinburgh Central Library, NMPLIS project, 152 e-journals/databases CeRa (India), 127 DELNET (India), 125–126, 126 Elsevier journal archiving, 112 Elsevier packages, 120, 128 Emerald-29 package, 120 ERMED (India), 126–127 INDEST (India), 123, 123 MCIT (India), 129 NKRC (India), 127–128, 128, 129 NLIST (India), 108, 124 Springer packages, 120 see also e-resources

Index

e-learning, 8, 21 see also distance learning Electronic Resource Management Initiative, 68 Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium (ERMED), 109, 126–127 Ellis, K., 34 Elsevier, 112, 120, 128 Emerald-29 package, 120 Engestro¨m, Yrjo¨ 236 engineering sciences see INDESTAICTE (Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology) e-product support, 4 e-publishing, 8 Erasmus, 154, 204 e-research, 69–70, 271 e-resources consortia for licensing of (India), 110 impact of recession on, 254–255, 257–258 see also database searching; DeLCON (Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium); DPLA (Digital Public Library of America); e-books; e-journals/databases; Europeana; INDEST-AICTE (Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology); NLIST (National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content); University Grants Commission (UGC)-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium (UGC-InfoNet) ERMED (Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium), 109, 126–127

319 E-Science Institute, 69–70 EUCLID (European Association for Library and Information Education and Research), 204 European Union initiatives ALFA program, 142 Bologna Declaration/process, xvii, 140, 144, 160, 203–204 Erasmus, 154, 204 EUCLID (European Association for Library and Information Education and Research), 204 Grundtvig, 204 Lifelong Learning Programme, 204 SOCRATES, 204 TEMPUS, 140, 141, 142, 154, 164, 169 see also BOBCATSSS; NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project Europeana, 78, 81 financial crisis see economic crisis (2007–), impact on academic libraries Finland, academic library mergers abstract and introduction, 225–226 strategic work and organization building Helsinki University Library (HULib), 226–230 Helsinki University organization charts, 227, 228 Turku University Library, 230–232 University of Eastern Finland (UEF) Library, 232–233 towards integration of services and processes Helsinki University Library (HULib), 233–234

320 Turku University Library, 234–236 University of Eastern Finland (UEF) Library, 236–238 working out best practices and tailored solutions HULib knotworking, 238–239 HULib ‘‘Smart Design’’ project, 239–240 Turku University Library, 240–242 University of Eastern Finland (UEF) Library, 242–243 Fitzgibbon, J. E., 50, 52–53 food industry, mergers and acquisitions, 38, 40 FORSA (Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics), 109, 129–130 French, J. R. P., Jr., 51 Frick, Rachel, 69, 70, 77 Frontline fundraising toolkit, 268–269 Fundamental Scientific Library of the National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia, NMPLIS project, 143, 149, 150 fundraising toolkit (Frontline), 268–269 Gallacher, C. A., 236 Gao, L. S., 42 GE Capital, acquisitions strategy, 38–39 Georgia see NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) Georgian Library Association, NMPLIS project, 143, 149 Get It Nowt Service Addon, 286, 297 GIST (Getting It System Toolkit), xix, 282, 283, 286, 299, 301

Index

GIST Gift and Deselection Manager (GDM), 298, 302 GitHub, 286 Global Reporting Initiative, 46 globalization, joint ventures and alliances, 46 Goldberg, B., 188 Google, xiii, 300 government information, web-based access to, 17 graphical user interface (GUI), 7 Greece, academic library survey abstract, 247 economic crisis, 247–249 impact of crisis: the Greek context, 256–258, 271–272 impact of crisis: theoretical considerations assessing the impact, 249–250 benefits of library alliances and cooperation, 250–251 collection development and eresources, 254–255, 257–258 decrease in staffing levels, 251–252 increase in user demand, 255–256, 258 need for alternative funding strategies, 252–253 need to demonstrate value of libraries, 253 need to participate in campus-wide processes, 253–254 survey methodology, 258–259, 273–274 survey results impact of economic crisis, 259, 260–261, 262–263, 262 policies/strategies to address recession, 263, 264–265, 266–267, 266

Index

synergies and alliances auxiliary activities, 268 fundraising and self-financing, 268–270 ‘‘innovation community’’ concept, 270 libraries as ‘‘incubators’’, 270–271 quality management and marketing, 267–271 Greenwood Publishing Group, sale of to ABC-CLIO, xiv grey literature see government information Grundtvig, 204 Guarria, C. I., 251 GUI (graphical user interface), 7 Gunawardena, S., 205 Gwyer, R., 253 Handler, M. G., 34 Hanover State University, Yerevan State University project, 142 Hargis, M., 243 Harmon, G., 197 HathiTrust, 79–80 Hefferman, M., 40 Hellenic Academic Libraries-LINK (Heal-LINK), 257 Helsinki University Library (HULib) Helsinki University organization charts, 227, 228 integration of services and processing, 233–234 knotworking, 238–239 ‘‘Smart Design’’ project, 239–240 strategy and organization, 226–230 Henry, Charles J., xv–xvi, 77, 79 Hidden Collections Registry, 70, 80 see also Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program

321 Higgins, S. E., 170 higher education constraints to collaboration, 65–66 distance learning, 109, 130–131, 256 e-learning, 8, 21 e-research, 69–70, 271 Indian context, 113–115 institutional repositories, 255, 268 see also academic libraries; European Union initiatives; mergers and collaborations in LIS education; NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project; scholarly communications Hildreth, C. R., xvii, 186, 187 Hirshon, A., 110, 112 Hjørland, B., 9, 22 Hopkinson, Alan, 141, 142, 151, 169, 170 Horrocks, Norman, xiv Howell, R. D., 54 IBM, and CISCO, 38 iCaucus see iSchool Caucus ICOLC (International Coalition of Library Consortia), 108, 255 IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project abstract and introduction, 281–282 project innovative components, 299–302 project organization current organization, 284 IDS Membership Agreement, 283, 302–305 membership growth, 284 teams, 284, 285, 305–306 Syracuse University Library (case study)

322 launching IDS initiatives, 296–297 staff training and trust, 297–298 value and benefits, 298 Technology Development Team (TDT), 285 open source community, 286 technology; IDS Search, Dashboard and CAS, 282, 283, 286–288, 287, 300, 301 training and support mentor program, 288–290, 300, 307–308 Regional User Groups, 290–294, 292, 300 Workflow Toolkit, 282, 294–296, 297, 299 see also document delivery IDS Search, 282, 283, 286–288, 287 IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations), 144, 151 Ilia Chavchavadze State University, NMPLIS project, 143, 149, 156 ILLiadt Get It Nowt Service Addon, 286 IDS mentoring and training program, 288–289, 292–293 IDS Workflow Toolkit, 282, 294–296, 299 ILLiadt Addons, 283, 286, 299 ILLiadt Resource Sharing Management Software, 285 see also IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project ILS (integrated library systems), 6, 21, 23, 24, 68 see also Sirsi/Dynix merger Imholz, S., 46 INCOLSA (Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority), 87, 95 INDEST-AICTE (Indian National Digital Library in Engineering

Index

Sciences and Technology), 108, 122–124, 123 India, HE libraries’ consortia initiatives abstract and introduction, 107–109 advantages of consortia, 109–110 change management, 111–112 e-content licensing, 110 ILL and document delivery, 111 preservation, 112 resource sharing, 110–111 visually challenged users, 112–113 consortia in India, list of, 108–109 expansion of higher education, 113–115 government policies Grants for University Computing Infrastructure Upgrades, 117, 117 library consortia, 117–118 National Commission on Libraries, 115–116 National Mission on Education through ICTs, 116, 124 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act (2009), 117 purpose of the consortia CeRA (Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture), 127 DeLCON (Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium), 118–119 DELNET (Developing Library Network), 124–126, 126 ERMED (Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium), 126–127 FORSA (Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics), 129–130

Index

INDEST-AICTE (Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology), 122–124, 123 MCIT (Ministry of Communications and Information Technology) Consortium, 128–129 NKRC (National Knowledge Resource Consortium), 122, 127–128, 128, 129 NLIST (National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content), 124 NODLINET (National Open Distance Learners’ Library and Information Network), 130–131 University Grants Commission (UGC)-InfoNet Digital Library Consortium (UGC-InfoNet), 119–122, 121 suggestions for further developments, 131–132 Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology (INDEST-AICTE), 108, 122–124, 123 Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority (INCOLSA), 87, 95 Indiana University, LIS education, 187–188 INFLIBNET (Information and Library Network Centre), 120, 121–122, 124 Information Delivery Services (IDS) project see IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project information industry, mergers, 41–42

323 information professionals, and web services, 24–25 information retrieval see web-based collaborative library initiatives, study into ‘‘innovation community’’ concept, 270 institutional repositories, 255, 268 see also SHERPA/RoMEO; TUHAT research database integrated library systems see ILS (integrated library systems) intellectual property rights (IPR), 25 see also copyright Inter-Library Loans (ILL) see document delivery; IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), 108, 255 International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), 144, 151 International Scientific Educational Centre of the National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, NMPLIS project, 143, 149 Internet publishing retailers, xiii interoperability, 7, 66, 68, 71 Ireland institutional repositories, 268 reduction in academic library staffing, 251–252 iSchool Caucus, 186, 191, 193–199, 196, 219 iConference, 197–198, 198 see also CiSAP (Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific) IT Deans Group (CRA), 186, 193–195, 194 Iyer, B., 42

324 Jaccard correlation coefficients, 10, 17 Jackson, S., 53 Jahnke, Lori M., 75, 79 Jank, David A., xiv, xv, xvi–xvii, 9, 22 Johlke, M. C., 54 Johnson, Ian M., 142, 151, 153, 154, 155, 166–170 Johnson Butterfield, A. K., 34 Jones, William, xviii Jordan, Jay, 85, 86, 92, 103 journals see e-journals/databases Juntunen, Arja, xiv, xviii Juznic, P., 203 Kanlis, Georgos, xviii Kennedy, A. A., 50 Kidd, T., 255 Kilgour, Fred, 87–88, 92 Kim, W. C., 50 King, John, 195 King’s College London, NMPLIS project, 143 Kling, Rob, 195 knotworking, 238, 244 knowledge management capture of tacit knowledge, 47 interdisciplinary research, 205 Koenig, Michael E. D., xiv, xvii, 186, 187, 207 Kohm, A., 45 Kopp, J., 108 Kostagiolas, Petros A., xviii Krell, E., 49 Krishnaveni, R., 47 Kuali Foundation, 79 La Piana Consulting, 31 La Piana, David, 45 LAC (Library and Archives Canada), AMICUS, 113

Index

LAMP (LIS Access Midwest Program), 218 LAMPOST, UK library staffing, 251 Landoy, A., 169 legacy data, 4, 17, 23 lending, Circulation Availability Service (CAS/IDS), 288, 301 Lewis, J. D., 39 Lewis, J. W., 43 Lexis/Nexiss, 5 LIBCON, 256 LibQUAL+s, 231, 240–241 librarians see information professionals Libraries Unlimited, xiv Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA), 10 library acquisitions (of resources) patron driven acquisitions, 282 purchase on demand, 282, 296 Library and Archives Canada (LAC), AMICUS, 113 Library and Information Science (LIS) education see mergers and collaborations in LIS education; NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project library consortia Catalonian Consortium of Libraries, 258 Hellenic Academic Libraries-LINK (Heal-LINK), 257 ICOLC (International Coalition of Library Consortia), 108, 255 Southern European Libraries Link (SELL), 257–258 see also CiSAP (Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific); India, HE libraries’ consortia initiatives; iSchool Caucus; regional library networks and OCLC

Index

Library Literature, 10 library networks see regional library networks and OCLC library reference services, 6, 111 library training, consortia initiatives, 111 library-related mergers and acquisitions, 43–44 see also mergers and collaborations in LIS education life sciences see DeLCON (Department of Biotechnology e-Library Consortium) Lifelong Learning Programme, 204 Lin, Z., 48 Linked Data, 77 Linworth, xiv Lipscom, C. E., xiv LIS Access Midwest Program (LAMP), 218 LIS education see mergers and collaborations in LIS education; NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project LISTA (Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts), 10 LISU, 256 Little, Micquel, xviii Loan-Clarke, J., 31, 33 Lockheed Corporation, DIALOGs, 5 Long Island University, LIS education, 207–208 Lufkin, P., 49 LYRASIS, 43–44, 95, 99 McCain, K. W., 9 McInerney, Claire, 207 Maciuszko, K. L., 85 Mackenzie, Maureen L., xv, 95, 97 McLaughlin, T. A., 29–30, 33

325 Maersk, alliance with SeaLand, 39 MARC-based systems, 6, 88 Marcum, Deanna, 64 marketing and quality management, 267–271 Marks, M. L., 49, 50, 53, 54 Martins, N., 49 Master of Library Science (MLS), 186–187 see also mergers and collaborations in LIS education Mauborgne, R. A., 50 MCIT (Ministry of Communications and Information Technology) Consortium, 109, 128–129 MCLS (Midwest Collaborative for Library Services), 95 Medical Heritage Library Digital Collaborative (MHDC), 79, 80 see also Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium (ERMED) Mellon Foundation, 70–71, 77 mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lessons from the corporate world abstract and introduction, 29–31 benefits of/reasons for mergers and collaborations, 31–34, 35–36 types of collaborations, 32–33 landscape of mergers and acquisitions culture of risk-taking, 36 failure climates, 37, 40–42, 45 mergers/acquisitions vs. alliances, 42–43 Roman Empire analogy, 34 success climates, 37–39 library-related mergers and acquisitions, 43–44 non-profit mergers and collaborations, 44–45 non-profits and for-profit entities, 45 other factors financial considerations, 46–47

326 globalization forces, 46 human aspects communication and culture, 47, 50–54 corporate culture, 47–48 employee resistance, 47, 49–50 leaders’ roles, 50 management resistance, 48 post-acquisition employee recovery, 53–54 workplace trust, 48–49 summary and lessons to learn, 54–56 see also Finland, academic library mergers; mergers and collaborations in LIS education; regional library networks and OCLC mergers and collaborations in LIS education abstract and introduction, 185–187 collaborative alliances CiSAP (Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific), 199–202, 200–201, 205 CRA Deans Group and the iSchool Caucus, 193–195 CRA Deans Group members, 194 development of the iSchool Caucus, 195–197, 219 iConferences, 197–198, 198 iSchool Caucus members, 196 iSchools directory and resource sharing, 198–199 Web-based Information Science Education (WISE), 202–203, 203 collaborative alliances in Europe, 203–205 collaborative alliances in research, 205

Index

collaborative partnerships content plus collaboration, 207–208 geographic collaborations, 206–207 interdisciplinary degrees (collaborative/dual), 208–217, 209–215 interdisciplinary dual degrees, 216–218, 217, 218, 219 recruitment, 218 mergers mergers in ALA-accredited LIS schools, 187–191, 189–190 parent institutions of non-ALAaccredited programs, 191, 192 role of ALA accreditation, 219–220 see also Finland, academic library mergers; mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lessons from the corporate world; regional library networks and OCLC Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, 68 MetLife, 39 MHDC (Medical Heritage Library Digital Collaborative), 79, 80 see also Electronic Resources in Medicine Consortium (ERMED) Michigan Library Consortium (MLC), 95 Middle Eastern universities see NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) Middlesex University, NMPLIS project, 141, 142, 143 Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS), 95 Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) Consortium, 109, 128–129 MINITEX (Minnesota Interlibrary Telecommunications Exchange), 87

Index

Missouri Library Network Corporation (MLNC), 87, 95 MLC (Michigan Library Consortium), 95 mobile phone industry see BenQ–Siemens merger Moon, Eric, xiv Mostad-Jensen, A., 256 Muhonen, Ari, xiv, xviii, 225–226, 230 Munroe, M. H., xiv MUSE project, 124 museums see Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program Musoke, M. G. N., 169 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), 5 National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia, NMPLIS project, 143 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 191 National Institute for Technology in Education (NITLE), Anvil Academic Publishing, 78 National Knowledge Resource Consortium (NKRC), 109, 122, 127–128, 128, 129 National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content (NLIST), 108, 124 National Library of Netherlands, Elsevier journal archiving, 112 National Open Distance Learners’ Library and Information Network (NODLINET), 109, 130–131 National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5 Nature, e-resources, 124 NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education), 191 NCR, AT&T acquisition of, 36

327 Neal-Schuman publishers, sale of to American Library Association, xiv NEBASE (Nebraska Library Commission), 87, 95 NELINET (New England Library Network), 44, 95 Nevins, Kate, 44, 99 New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science (NMPLIS) project see NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project New York libraries see IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project Nextel/Sprint merger, 37, 41–42 NITLE (National Institute for Technology in Education), Anvil Academic Publishing, 78 NKRC (National Knowledge Resource Consortium), 109, 122, 127–128, 128, 129 NLIST (National Library and Information Services Infrastructure for Scholarly Content), 108, 124 NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project abstract and introduction, 139–141 evolutionary stage, 141–143 context and needs, 144–145 participating institutions, 143–144 project dissemination, 150–151 project monitoring and appraisal, 151–153 project parameters, 145–147 EU partners’ expertise, 146 long-term perspectives: actions and expected results, 147 project principal aims and objectives, 147–148

328 partner institutions’ experience and requirements, 149 project work plan summary by year, 171–175 staff training and educational needs, 148, 150 supplementary evaluation: NMPLIS case study background literature, 153–155 limitations of case study, 169 methodology, 155–157 recommendations for further research, 170 research questions, 153 staff survey and results, 159–165, 161, 162, 163, 177–178 student survey and results, 157–159, 176 success factors assessed against literature, 165–169, 166–168 transferability of project/model, 169 NODLINET (National Open Distance Learners’ Library and Information Network), 109, 130–131 non-profit sector, collaborations and mergers, 44–45 NTIS (National Technical Information Service), 5 NY3Rs Association, 283, 300 Nygre´n, Ulla, xiv, xviii, 226 NYLINK, 43 Nylink (previously known as SUNY/ OCLC), 95 OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks), 78 OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) acquisitive nature of, 43 and Dynix, 44

Index

force for good, 104 history of, 5, 85–86 and IDS, 283, 285, 288, 289, 293, 296, 298 international expansion, 93 and LYRASIS, 43, 99 perceived as for-profit organization, 101–102 web-scale Management Service, 17 WorldCats, 90, 91, 93, 282 see also Ohio College Library Center (OCLC); regional library networks and OCLC Oder, Norman, 95 Ohio College Library Center (OCLC), 5, 87 see also OCLC (Online Computer Library Center); regional library networks and OCLC Okojie, V., 269 Online Computer Library Center see OCLC (Online Computer Library Center); regional library networks and OCLC online resources see e-books; e-journals/ databases; e-resources; web-based collaborative library initiatives, study into OPACs (online public access catalogs) AMICUS, 113 cloud computing solutions, 17, 24 collaborative initiatives, 22 and ILS (integrated library systems), 6 VIVACAT, 110–111 WorldCats, 90, 91, 93, 282 see also cataloging; IDS Search open access OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks), 78 and scholarly communications, 255

329

Index

open source community/tools, 4, 79, 286 see also GIST (Getting It System Toolkit); IDS search oral history collections, 9 outsourcing, and web initiative collaborations, 23 Oberlander, Cyril, xviii Ovids, 6 PACSCL (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries), 72 PALINET (Philadelphia Area Library Network), 44, 94, 95 Papadaki, Eva, xviii Papavlasopoulos, Sozon, xviii partnerships concept, 33 see also mergers and collaborations in LIS education; public libraries; web-based collaborative library initiatives, study into patron driven acquisitions, 282 Pearson, Penguin-Random House merger, xiii–xiv Peer Review (tool), xix Peng, M. W., 48 Penguin-Random House merger, xiii–xiv Penniman, W. David, xv periodicals see e-journals/databases Pfanner, Eric, xiii pharmaceutical industry, mergers and acquisitions, 36 Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries (PACSCL), 72 Philadelphia Area Library Network (PALINET), 44, 94, 95 Pickard, A. J., 155–156

Pittsburgh Regional Library Center (PRLC), 94, 95 Plale, Beth, 75 Postdoctoral Fellowship in Academic Libraries Program, 73–76 preservation see data curation/ management; digitization projects Preston, D., 31, 33 Price Club-Costco Wholesale merger, 38, 40 Priestner, A., 241 Pritting, Shannon, xviii PRLC (Pittsburgh Regional Library Center), 94, 95 Project MUSE, 124 public libraries ALA usage statistics, 255 Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives Program, 70 collaborations and partnerships, 33–34 web project partnerships, 23 see also Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) publishing industry mergers and acquisitions, xiii–xiv and scholarly communications, 66 see also information industry purchase on demand, 282, 296 Quaker Oats-Snapple merger, 40–41, 47 quality management and marketing, 267–271 see also LibQUAL+s; Total Quality Management Unit of Greek Academic Libraries (TQMAL) Raabe, Wesley, 74 Ramı´rez Leyva, E. M., 155

330 Random House-Penguin merger, xiii–xiv RDF (Resource Description Framework), 77 recession see economic crisis (2007-), impact on academic libraries Redmond, Jennifer, 75 reference services, 6, 111 regional library networks and OCLC abstract and introduction, 85–86 definitions and number of networks, 86–87 development phase, 87–89 emerging tensions with OCLC, 89–90 points of dispute copyright, 90–91 pricing, 91 product offerings and competition, 90, 91–92 relationship change pricing and billing, 92–93 representation and governance, 93–94 technological developments, 97 repercussions on networks dissolutions and mergers, 94–97, 96 losses for libraries and OCLC, 97–99 uncertain futures, 99–102 what-ifs and post-mortem, 102–104 remote communications technologies, 290 Research Information Network (RIN), 254, 271 research libraries see academic libraries Research Libraries Group (RLG), 95 research output see scholarly communications

Index

Resource Description Framework (RDF), 77 resource sharing see CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources); IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project; India, HE libraries’ consortia initiatives; library consortia retrospective conversion projects, 125 Richardson, Debra, 195 Rigsbee, E., 37 RIN (Research Information Network), 254, 271 Rivenburgh, Ed, xix, 282 RLG (Research Libraries Group), 95 Robert Gordon University (RGU), NMPLIS project, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147 Robertson, Jenny, 148, 150, 151, 152 RoMEO see SHERPA/RoMEO Rosenbaum, H., 197 Rowan & Littlefield, xiv Rowley, J., 267–268 Ruback, R. S., 48 Saarti, Jarmo, xiv, xviii, 226 St. Catherine University, LIS education, 191, 207 Sawyer, S., 197 Scarecrow, xiv Scepanski, Jordan M., xiv, xvi scholarly communications institutional repositories, 255, 268 open access, 255 and publishing industry, 66 see also Anvil Academic Publishing; Digital Preservation Network (DPN); e-journals/databases; e-resources; SHERPA/RoMEO Scholarly Engagement Study Team, 72 Schuler, R., 53

Index

SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries), 254 SeaLand, alliance with Maersk, 39 search protocols, 25 see also database searching Seeger, M. W., 50, 51, 52–53 Segbert, Monika, 142, 143, 150, 151, 152–153 SELL (Southern European Libraries Link), 257–258 Semantic Web, 4, 68, 77 see also Web 2.0 technologies serials see e-journals/databases Serials Solutionss, 283, 286, 296, 299 SFX Addons, 299 Shaw, Ralph R., xiv SHERPA/RoMEO, 238 shipping industry, strategic alliances, 39 Shore, Elliott, 74, 75, 79 Siemens-BenQ merger, 46, 51–52 SilverPlatters, 6 Singh, H., 51 Sirsi/Dynix merger, 43, 44 Sisak, Chris, xviii Sloan Foundation, 76 ‘‘Smart Design’’ project (Helsinki University Library), 239–240 ‘‘smart lease’’ models, 30 Smith, K. Wayne, 85 Smith, Kathlin, xv–xvi Snapple-Quaker Oats merger, 40–41, 47 social informatics, 195 social media platforms, 4, 23, 25 Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL), 254 SOCRATES, 204 software industry, alliances, 42 SOLINET (Southeastern Library Network), 44, 87, 92, 95

331 Soska, T. M., 34 Southern European Libraries Link (SELL), 257–258 special collections see archives Spectrum Scholarship program, 218 Springer journals packages, 120 Sprint/Nextel merger, 37, 41–42 Squires, T., 34 Stake, R. E., 155–156 Stanford University Libraries, Linked Data, 77 State University of Louisiana, LIS education, 191 State University of New York (SUNY), IDS project, 282, 283 Strebel, P., 50 Stueart, R. D., 155 Sujatha, R., 47 Sullivan, Mark, xviii SUNY/OCLC (later known as Nylink), 95 Syracuse University Library, IDS project, 282, 296–298 Taiga Forum, 69 Tammaro, A. M., 169 Tashkent Institute of Culture, NMPLIS project, 143, 149 Tashkent University of Information Technologies, NMPLIS project, 143, 149 taxonomy construction, 9 technical education see INDEST-AICTE (Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Sciences and Technology) TEMPUS, 140, 141, 142, 154, 164, 169 see also NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) project

332 Thames Valley University, NMPLIS project, 143 Tilley, E., 241 Time Warner/AOL merger, 41, 42 Total Quality Management Unit of Greek Academic Libraries (TQMAL), 256 training see library training Transaction Performance Analysis Module (TPAM), 282, 287–288, 300 Traub, Adam, xix Triangle Research Libraries Network, 108 Tripathi, Manorama, xvi Triplett, T., 30, 45 TUHAT research database, 238–239 Turku University Library, 225–226, 230–232, 234–236, 240–242 Tushman, M. L., 50 Uhegbu, A. N., 205 United Kingdom impact of recession on library staffing, 251 see also RIN (Research Information Network); SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries) United States funding from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 253 impact of recession on libraries, 250–251, 255 see also American Library Association (ALA); Association of Research Libraries (ARL); CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources); IDS (Information Delivery Services) Project; mergers and collaborations in

Index

LIS education; regional library networks and OCLC; Research Libraries Group (RLG) universities see higher education University Grants Commission (UGC)InfoNet Digital Library Consortium (UGC-InfoNet), 108, 119–122, 121, 124 university libraries see academic libraries University of Alabama, LIS education, 188 University of Barcelona, NMPLIS project, 143, 146 University of California, Berkeley, LIS education, 191 University of California, Irvine, and CRA Deans Group, 195 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), California Rare Book School, 208 University of Eastern Finland (UEF) Library, 225, 232–233, 236–238, 242–243 University of Michigan Library, Collaboration in Cataloging project, 71 University of Parma, NMPLIS project, 143, 144, 146 University of Pittsburgh, Spectrum Scholarship program, 218 University of Re¨zekne, NMPLIS project, 143, 146 University of South Florida, LIS education, 191 University of Turku Library, 225–226, 230–232, 234–236, 240–242 University of Virginia, Rare Book School, LIS education, 207–208 US Department of Defense (DoD), research collection funding, 5

Index

US National Endowment for the Humanities, Digging into Data Challenge, 78 user education, web-based applications, 21 user-driven information systems, 7 Uzbekistan see NMPLIS (New Masters Programme in Library and Information Science) virtual reference desks, 111 visually challenged users, consortial services, 112–113 VIVA (Virtual Library of Virginia), 110–111 VIVACAT, 110–111 Vlamis, A., 50 Wagner, Mary, 207 Walter, Katherine, 74 Wang, L., 43 Washington Library Network (WLN), 94 Washington Public Libraries, usage statistics, 255 Watt, J. D., 243 Web 2.0 technologies, 4, 111, 131, 150–151, 270 see also Semantic Web Web of Sciences, 118, 124 web-based collaborative library initiatives, study into abstract and aim of study, 3–4 background and historical context collaborative databases and integrated systems, 5–8 cross-service online delivery challenges, 8–9 methodology (online literature search) data collection method, 10

333 data sources, 10 search and retrieval parameters, 11 research findings main topics of interest, 11–17, 12, 13–14, 15 database design and information retrieval, 18, 17, 23 education and training, 19, 21 IT and data processing, 20, 18, 23 management and planning, 20, 21 user-specific applications, 19, 21, 23 ontology and concept grouping, 16–17, 18–20 partnership/collaboration strategies, 22–24, 22 taxonomic breakdown, 15–17, 16, 25 web service managers of the future, 24–25 see also ‘‘Smart Design’’ project (Helsinki University Library) Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) Consortium, 154, 169, 202–203, 203 Weber, R., 205 Weingand, D. E., 165 Weiss, L., 33 Wells, H. Lea, xiv, xvi White, H. D., 9 Wikipedia, corporate mergers and partnerships concepts, 31–33, 32–33 Wilkes, R. W., 54 WISE (Web-based Information Science Education) Consortium, 154, 169, 202–203, 203 WLN (Washington Library Network), 94

334 Woodsworth, Anne, xv, 86–87 Workflow toolkit (IDS/ILLiadt), 282, 294–296, 297, 299 WorldCats, 90, 91, 93, 282 see also OCLC (Online Computer Library Center); regional library networks and OCLC Wright, Louis B., 64, 67 Yale University, Elsevier journal archiving, 112

Index

Yang, H., 48 Yerevan State University, project with Hanover State University, 142 Yin, R. K., 155–156 Zajac, E. J., 43 Zajkowski, Maureen, xix Zargaryan, Tatevik, 152 Zargaryan, Tigran, 141, 142, 151, 170 Zweig, P., 36, 37