Transcript Consortia in the USA Past, Present, Future

Consortia in the USA
Past, Present, Future
A Presentation by:
Antoinette Paris Greider
Association Dean, Research and Education
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky USA
Consortium: an agreement, combination
or group (as of companies) formed to
undertake an enterprise beyond the
resources of any one member.
Plural: consortia
-- Merriam-Webster Online
Long Held Tradition
◦ Developed to Share Resource
 Library of Congress (early 1900s)
 Cataloging
 Subject Headings
 Triangle Research Library Network (1933)
 Share library collections
 Center for Research Libraries (1958)
 Share research collections
Types of Consortia

Large
◦ Concerned primarily with computerized largescale technical processing (developed in the
1960s and 1970s)

Small
◦ Concerned with user services (location)

Limited-purpose
◦ Cooperating with respect to special subject areas
(Research)
◦ Concerned with the acquisitions of materials
“buying clubs”
1990s

Limited-purpose network for group
buying of products
◦ Databases
◦ E-journals
◦ Some instances deals with book vendors
Consortia are formed at various
levels
National Level
◦ OCLC
 Regional
◦ SOLINET (Southeastern States in the United States)
 State
◦ OhioLink – Ohio USA
◦ NC LIVE– North Carolina USA
◦ KyVL – Kentucky USA
 Local
◦ Research Triangle in North Carolina USA

Multi-type cooperation

Libraries of different types form a
cooperative for a specific purpose
◦ Book purchasing
◦ Cataloging
Major utilities such as OCLC
 Focus of all on access to materials rather
than ownership

Current Status

Consortia flourish when it is economically
viable to be part of the consortium
◦ Increased access to print collections
◦ Increased buying power for products and
services
◦ Increased reference depth

Varied in purpose but most deal with
purchasing material
Purchasing of E-resources

Major function of most large consortia
◦ Advantages
 Provide more titles at a lower cost
 Publishers willing to negotiate more favorable terms
 Allow flexibility in billing
 Can pay through the consortium
 Individual institutional billing
 Publishers favor working with one purchasing agent
for a large group of customers
 Publishers know the active groups and are willing to
go to the groups to negotiate
Purchasing of E-resources

Disadvantages
◦ Difficult to form the group
◦ Time consuming to administer
 Each entity has its own purchasing regulations
◦ Difficult to keep together
◦ More difficult for a library to customize their
serial holdings
Library Participation
Provide support through their
membership dues
 Belong to multiple consortia
 Pick and choose where they buy their
resources

Memberships for University of
Kentucky Libraries









Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
CRL (Center for Research Libraries)
EBSCoR (Experimental, Program, Stimulate, Competitive,
Research)
Solinet (Southeast Regional Library Network)
ASERL (Association of Southeastern Research Libraries)
Information Alliance (University of Kentucky/University of
Tennessee/Vanderbilt University)
SAALCK (State Assisted Academic Library Council of
Kentucky)
Kentucky Virtual Library.
FoKAL (Federation of Kentucky Academic Libraries)
Future

Consortia are getting larger
◦ Solinet considering merging with Palinet
“Buying Clubs” will continue as long as
there is an economic advantage
 Cooperation is expanding to other areas

◦ Cooperative grant proposals for specific
needs
Expanding the Scope of the
Cooperation

Technology areas
◦ Large amounts of funding to create a specific
product
 Open access Integrated Library Systems
◦ Digitization of research collections from
different institutions with the same subject
matter
United we stand, divided
we fall -- Aesop
Acknowledgement

Thank you to Mary Beth Thomson,
Associate Dean for Collections and
Technical Services, University of Kentucky
Libraries for her input into this
presentation.
Sources Consulted
Bostick, Sharon L. “The History and
Development of Academic Library Consortia
in the United States: An Overview,” Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 27, no. 1(2001): 128130.
 Bucknall, Tim. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Sharing E-Journals via a Consortium,” Against
the Grain, 17, issue 5 (2005): 30-34.
 “Ohio Library Information Network.” 12
August 2008 <www.ohiolink.edu>
 “Taking the Initiative,” Library Journal, 31,
supplement (3/15/2006): 44.
