Barbara McFadden Allen, Hannah Stevens, John Helmer

In the short term (currently addressing or on the drawing board), consortia are concentrating on the following initiatives:

The following activities have been identified as particularly successful:

Some consortia are no longer addressing or supporting – or have not been able to successfully launch -- the following initiatives:

Summary
24 respondents answered four questions:

• List the two or three most pressing activities your consortium is focusing on right now.

List the two or three most pressing activities your consortium is focusing on right now.

AULC

• Decision making in a timely fashion
• Identifying ongoing funding for electronic materials

Boston Library Consortium (BLC)

• Negotiating for electronic resources.
• Planning and grant writing stage for cooperative storage facility.
• Restructuring governance and committees.

British Columbia Electronic Library Network  (ELN)>

• Development and implementation of fulltext database services
• Migration of ELN union databases from legacy text-based system to Auto-Graphics' Impact/ONLINE graphical web environment
• Implementation of a user-initiated ordering module in the web environment using proprietary software developed by a consortium member

California State University, Software & Electronic Information Resources (CSU/SEIR)

• The AISC Initiative (Academic Information Services Cooperative) including 'Electronic Core Collection', a program intended to identify and develop a centrally-licensed "virtual" core collection of bibliographic and full-text information resources.  Making this content available, through electronic means, by providing anytime/anywhere access to all students, faculty and staff of the CSU in their homes, offices, classrooms and libraries.
• FY98/9 pricing for the ECC (currently consisting of Dow Jones, LEXIS-NEXIS, STAT-USA, CARL UnCover and Britannica Online

CIC Center for Library Initiatives

• License negotiations for databases and full text information
• Study of the Z39.50 configurations within the consortium, with an eye towards adjustments that will improve the efficacy of the Virtual Electronic Library (VEL)
• Contract negotiations with OCLC to develop an independent, client/server based interlibrary loan/document delivery system (technical specifications for system have been completed).

Florida Center for Library Automation

• Gateways to remote servers (with user authentication) and more gateways.
• Licensing for electronic content
• Local servers for electronic content

Kentucky Virtual Library (tentative)

• Positioning to obtain state funding to initiate the project as a component of the Virtual University (which is funded at 30M for 98/00);
• Working on refining implementation plans for all components of the Virtual Library Project;
• Investigating how other statewide distance learning program are supported by library consortia

Louisiana Library Network

• Contracting for full-text access to two Louisiana Newspapers
• Loading government document records for all academic libraries
• Fighting with database providers for meaningful statistics

MINITEX Library Information Network

• Positioning MINITEX as the "information delivery" network and to work closely with the developing MnLINK integrated automated system that is being funded by the Legislature to merge the current automated systems of the University of Minnesota (Notis) and MN State Colleges and Universities. MINITEX will need to redesign its current overnight courier delivery system to meet the expectations of MnLINK users as well as be a major driver along with local and state library participants in redesigning library services to improve services to Minnesota residents.
• To plan the changes necessary in the MINITEX Office and services as we move into the Minnesota Library Access Center for little used but important resources  being constructed for occupancy in 1999-2000 and to use the MLAC as a linchpin for cooperative collection management among libraries in the three-state region.
• To be one of the main agencies in the region leading change to provide unique and necessary services to our expanding user community including assisting local libraries implementing a new integrated library system so they don't just automate their current operations. 

MIRACL

• Union catalog using INN-REACH for Washington University, four University of Missouri campuses (Columbia, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Rolla), and St. Louis University.

NAAL

• Funding for a statewide virtual library for all types of libraries to provide access to "core" information and library resources
• Redefining organizational structure to accommodate relationships with other librarians outside the traditional NAAL members (graduate level academic institutions) as it becomes possible to share licenses for online products
• Changing user services (access versus ownership) and how this  affects the statewide resources represented by the collective resources members
• On individual campuses -  librarians are struggling against an "anti-higher education" attitude promoted over the last three years by our Governor.

NC LIVE

• negotiating our first set of licenses;
• bringing up our server sites;
• finalizing the initial Memorandum of Understanding between participating "communities of interest".

NELLCO

• Licensing databases;
• managing web site; and
• developing a database of experts within the consortium.

NERL  (NorthEast Research Libraries)

• Doing a deal (affordable) for all three UNIVerse products
• Detailed assessment of Elsevier e-serials and how to run them (selectively) at one of our sites for the whole group.

OhioLINK

• Transfer of 29 citation databases to new web based search engine. The purpose of the transfer is improved costs and more strategic control over the delivery of these databases and the ability to integrate with journal full text and other resources in a linked web environment
• lanning and installation in 1998 of the first version of a multi media capable storage and access system.  This will be a robust system built for large scale input, storage, and use
• Expansion of the OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center to multiple journal publishers

ORBIS

• Expansion.  Orbis has expanded from 5 to 14 members in the last three years and there appear to be many other institutions who may decide to join over the next few years.
• Merger/Collaboration.  Orbis (Oregon & Washington academics) and PORTALS (Portland metropolitan area, multi-type) have formed a joint task force to look at issues and models for closer collaboration, perhaps merger.  The two consortia have different governance structures and funding models. Services overlap in the area of database licensing and we hold five members in common. There is probably much to be gained through merger but many risks as well.
• Database Licensing.  Orbis only began licensing databases in earnest about a year ago.  The Orbis Task Force on Electronic Resources has been evaluating databases and coming to agreements with vendors at a fast pace.

PALCI

• Completing a "proof of concept" pilot project for resource sharing among the member libraries. Successful completion of this project is important to the consortium. It is the one clearly identified activity that members feel they will all benefit from.
• The consortium was initially established as a two year project. The group is currently discussing how it should be structured past the two year mark. This includes incorporation, bylaws and assessment schedule.

PORTALS

• Governance issues
• Organizational issues (potential of "merger" with Orbis)

TexShare

• More electronic resources on terms we can live with
• More money from the Legislature to support and expand TexShare
• Stabilization and extension of our courier service
• Expansion and stabilization of our TexShare Library Card program

TRLN

• Implementing a document delivery service among the four TRLN institutions
• Reorganizing and staffing the consortium office and its committee structure
• Redefining and reordering program priorities

University of Texas System Knowledge Management Center (KMC)

• We have a new focus and new mandate to: coordinate library services for remote learners provide training programs to library staff; coordinate / advise / encourage digitization of local materials among the 15 component institutions (9 academic, 4 medical, and 2 research    hospitals) of the UT system

VIVA; The Virtual Library of Virginia

• RFP for full-text
• vendor response time (OCLC, in particular)
• long-term funding issues
• cooperative collection management (in a couple of priority areas)
• user authentication (proxy servers at local institutions for now)
• acquiring and presenting useful statistics for our members

Washington Cooperative Library Project

• Joint catalog
• Enhanced Interlibrary Borrowing Services
• Cooperative Database licensing/purchasing

WRLC

• Completing conversion from mainframe to client-server environment (converted from NOTIS to Voyager;
• Migrating locally-mounted databases from MDAS to SiteSearch and SilverPlatter).

Name a couple of activities that you see on the horizon for your consortium (either early in planning, or a gleam in your eye).

AULC

Boston Library Consortium (BLC)

• Construction and establishment of cooperative storage facility (sorry to repeat but it will be a biggie)
• Expanded and coordinated purchasing of electronic resources.
• Long-range, targeted training programs for various types of staff.
• Leadership in building statewide virtual library catalog.

British Columbia Electronic Library Network  (ELN)

• Interested in looking at consortial approaches to authentication.  Many of our libraries do not have the systems support to authenticate locally.  [A gleam at this point, but no plan or funds in place]
• Formulate a 'handbook' that outlines services, roles and responsibilities of ELN and partner libraries.
• Coordinate a resource sharing summit meeting of library stakeholders to reassess services and develop directions, including public libraries in the province.

California State University, Software & Electronic Information Resources (CSU/SEIR)

• The 'Journal Access Collection', a request to augment the electronic core by acquiring a customized electronic database of the CSU journal titles most often subscribed to, in print form, by the libraries of the CSU.  The JAC would be directly tied to the CSU core curricula defined as those programs offered by at least 2/3 of the 22 CSU campuses.

CIC Center for Library Initiatives

• collaborative development of digital collections (will include conversion, acquisition, and access including metadata and finding aids)
• large scale implementation of interoperable, inter-university security, authorization, and authentication systems
• complementary approval plans

Florida Center for Library Automation

• New ILS system for the entire SUS
• Digitizing local collections for preservation and access

Kentucky Virtual Library

• Z39.50 linking of all OPACs with holdings and circulation status available
• Developing the required infrastructure to implement the project

Louisiana Library Network

• Electronic Reserve
• Digital Library (to house unique material of professors)
• Computer Aided Learning
• Patron initiated interlibrary loan system implementation

MINITEX

• as a network specializing in "information delivery", we hope to help libraries provide 7x24 services throughout the three-state region and help local libraries serve their users in ways that effectively use emerging technologies;
• as a network specializing in continuing education and training of all types, expand our training opportunities to reach more staffs in their own regions
• having just upgraded our scanning abilities from original documents at the University of MN, we hope to expand that service to begin providing delivery of information to the desktop from scanned hard copy which supplements the over 1,000 full text journals now licensed in the three state region.

MIRACL

• We do hope to do some electronic databases and/or journals access as a consortium.

NAAL

• A statewide virtual library -- if not for all libraries in the state, certainly involving the NAAL members, public libraries, and some 2-year college libraries.  In the absence of state level funding, the bulk of the cost will have to be billed back to participants.
• More collaboration in cooperative collection development for serials as the members are forced to choose between print and online formats.

NC LIVE

• Designing and moving to a permanent structure for the consortium -- our initial governance structure is for our first biennium (and will cover us thru June of 1999).  Between now and then we need to address long-term governance and membership issues...
• Incorporate new communities of interest (we include community colleges, public academic, private academic, and public libraries now; public and private K-12 are expected to be added in the next biennium, and there may be some other groups we need to consider in the future, e.g. state government agencies).
• Implement additional services, provided for in our vision statement, but not funded in our first biennium. Those additional areas of service include: electronic access to state government publications; retrocon of some special collections of statewide interest; getting all libraries automated; finding a way to make statewide holdings info available...

NELLCO

• Use of Ariel for ILL's
• Inventory of teaching materials to be put up on the web

NERL (Northeast Research Libraries)

• Commitment to electronic archiving of certain key e-resources
• Doc Delivery, user-initiated online (current project is between Penn, Columbia, Yale -- CoPY -- in infancy)

OhioLINK

• By definition the multi media system is a multi year visionary initiative. Starting with static images we see it growing  in  size but also in media types--numeric, GIS, satellite images, audio, and video.  This also will mean a much more dynamic relationship with the user communities of these types of data.
• We are at the early stages of trying to create an electronic set of resources and delivery systems that will engage an Ohio citizen from kindergarten up, ultimately creating an electronic information literate population and one prepared for each step of the educational ladder.
• We are beginning to see how we can become more relevant to the Ohio corporate world.  Either show them that the more we are able to do the better off they are in terms of quality of work force, in hopes of getting some corporate support. And see if there aren't ways to make the availability of information fluid to those in the work place.
• Our system is just now beginning to spit out comparative data on collections and circulation that may enable us to approach cooperative collection development in novel and meaningful ways. For example, we are considering a statewide approval plan as one of our first steps.

ORBIS

• article level resource sharing
• CRL membership
• consortium-wide retrocon
• TOC data in the union catalog
• regional preservation services
• regional storage facility
• joint digitizing project
• purchasing cooperative for library related materials

PALCI

• In the near future we are looking at other programs that will give members some immediate return on their membership fees. Notably, some level of on-site reciprocal borrowing and an agreement on no-fee ILL photocopy requests.
• Another program in the very early stages of investigation is coordinating approval plans. Several approval plan vendors provide the ability to coordinate profiles or provide some kind of alert that others in the group may be ordering a title. This service may be of particular interest once the common resource sharing system is in place and it is easy for patrons to get requested materials in a short period.

PORTALS

• Currently undertaking an extensive strategic planning process at the "functional" level and activities identified in that process will likely set the course for the next several years.  You can follow the process of this planning process on the PORTALS web site (www.portals.org) under "Strategic Planning".

TexShare

• Planning for long-term technology infrastructure for TexShare (meaning combination of centralized and decentralized host sites) and
• Expanding to incorporate public and school libraries in Texas

TRLN

• Joint staff development institutes and workshops
• Joint data base licensing and revisiting of cooperative collections development agreements
• Possible integration of our distributed ILS system(s)

University of Texas System Knowledge Management Center (KMC)

• Establish a systemwide service for creating, distributing, and storing digital dissertations produced by the University of Texas System educational enterprise.

VIVA

• integrating VIVA resources into teaching and learning -- specifically, contacting faculty associations in Virginia.
• role of independents (may change, depending upon state funding)
• pooled resources for purchases

Washington Cooperative Library Project

• Patron - initiated Interlibrary Borrowing
• Establishing ongoing shared database licensing/purchasing

WRLC

• Analyze and reconfigure locally-mounted vs remotely-hosted electronic resources, to choose most appropriate and cost-effective method
• Redesign Web interface to all systems
• Encourage and expand creation of local digital image databases for archives and special collections, including defining consortium standards for metadata and access
• Implement patron-generated online loan requests

Name a couple of established services (more if you wish) that have been particularly successful for your consortium.

AULC

Boston Library Consortium (BLC)

• Reciprocal borrowing privileges.
• Enhanced ILL services.
• Staff development and training.

British Columbia Electronic Library Network  (ELN)

• Production of provincial union databases, historically accessible on CD-ROM and text-based tape output, but currently moving to a graphical interface .
• Online Journal Access Service (OJAC) which facilitates one-stop database searching and electronic ordering all in one session. 

California State University, Software & Electronic Information Resources (CSU/SEIR)

• Infotrieve commercial document delivery services;

CIC Center for Library Initiatives

• Licensing electronic resources
• Shared online access to all CIC library catalogs
• Collaborative preservation projects have been very successful in attracting grant funds.

Florida Center for Library Automation

• Shared NOTIS for the ILS
• Shared NOTIS for A&I databases

Kentucky Virtual Library

• FirstSearch database access

Louisiana Library Network

• Automated 18 academic institutions on one mainframe
• Established a state wide-area network in conjunction with state government
• Provide Internet access to at least one public library in each parish (county)
• Provide index and abstract databases to academic libraries (public and private)
• Provide full-text databases to academic, public and school libraries

MINITEX

• document delivery of over 300,000 loans and photocopies yearly with 95% fill rate and delivery within 1-3 days;
• cooperative purchasing program saving libraries thousands of dollars a year through joint purchasing for all types of libraries including K-12 schools.
• licensing of over 20 database services for participating libraries that enhancing their abilities to provide electronic services to their users.
• overnight courier delivery service in MN, ND, SD delivering materials overnight 5 days a week at a unit cost per item of less than a postage stamp.

MIRACL

• N/A (too new)

NAAL

• Collaborative planning, especially to assist all academic libraries achieve a minimum  level of services and resources , support sounder decision-making for individual campuses, and facilitate working relationships with external groups (e.g. our network telecommunications provider).
• Cooperative Collection Development - initially focused on strengthening print resources - now focused on sharing electronic products.
• Removing geographical and financial barriers for sharing materials via traditional  interlibrary loan and implementing new technologies to support sharing.
• Creating and maintaining a statewide machine readable database of bibliographic records for all  circulating materials (through OCLC) so everyone in NAAL  can determine what is owned and where it is held. On the horizon -  Making this database universally available statewide and facilitating resource sharing with other types of libraries.
• Creating and maintaining a union of list serials and a union list of major microform sets (to avoid duplicative purchases of expensive sets and to assist with adding bibliographic records for set analytics to OCLC)
• Continuing education to prepare for the changes in library services

NC LIVE

• We're too new to have any established services yet!  Our libraries seem thrilled with the list of databases we've licensed, but since they're not available for use yet, we don't have any real feedback...

NELLCO

• ILL
• Web-site for sharing resources
• Training in the legal area

NERL (Northeast Research Libraries)

• We have, I believe, an excellent volunteer group of 17 who are learning how to work together vis a vis electronic "resource sharing" and are doing very well with our licensing programs, considering esp. that we have no dedicated staff but share the workload.  We learn a lot and receive tremendous personal and professional satisfaction from what is growing to be a primary set of relationships.  Our staff at Yale are also learning to "think consortially", i.e., to recall that certain resources are appropriate for wider discussion than just our own, and they are willing to make compromises for both price and the good of the larger group of libraries.

OhioLINK

• Patron Borrowing- volume and cost effectiveness
• Reference databases- widespread access and cost effective.

ORBIS

• "Orbis Borrowing," a III INN-Reach patron-initiated borrowing system similar to OhioLINK's.

PALCI

• Since the consortium is so young, it may be too early to determine this question. In the short term, consortium pricing for selected electronic resources has allowed participating member libraries to receive discounts on these products. Small and medium sized institutions have been the primary beneficiary of group buying.

PORTALS

• Database access
• Reciprocal borrowing
• Document delivery, in particular, unified Ariel project

TexShare

• The electronic information resources program (server at UT-Austin)
• ILL Protocol
• Original TexShare Library Card program

TRLN

• While I wouldn’t call it a consortial service, an activity of the TRLN institutions that has been particularly successful in the past is cooperative collections development.

University of Texas System Knowledge Management Center (KMC)

• We have been very successful in managing both locally-mounted and remotely accessed databases (15 services in all).  In addition to administering the locally mounted services, we undertake the vendor negotiation, licensing, invoicing, and renewal processes.

VIVA

• Electronic Collections (IAC, IDEAL, EB, etc.)
• Resource Sharing (ILL -- 24 hour processing turnaround for ILL within state)
• Training, workshops, technical expertise

Washington Cooperative Library Project

• Reciprocal borrowing for distance ed. students.

WRLC

• Electronic document delivery and shared electronic resources generally
• Shared offsite book storage

AULC: At this time we have dropped the idea of incorporating ourselves (or making ourselves a legal entity).  This issue may come back again if we get larger.

Boston Library Consortium (BLC): 1)  Preservation & disaster planning; 2)  Print-based cooperative collection development -- our program has stayed very small and the longterm value is unclear.

British Columbia Electronic Library Network (ELN): In the past ELN offered general interest training programs, including basic and advanced Internet training. ELN training is now limited specifically to projects. 

CSU/SEIR: N/A

CIC Center for Library Initiatives: Mass deacidification was once viewed as possible, desirable, and attainable, but is apparently none of those things. We have moved our successful electronic journal management testbed to the Center for Research Libraries.

Florida Center for Library Automation: Decentralized funding for electronic collections is problematic. The psychology of consensus building for allocating centralized funding is different than for voluntary contributions from individual library budgets.  When there isn't full consensus, licensing and support such as user authentication are more complex. While I wouldn't advocate not pro-rating costs if it is the only way to make progress, there could be considerable time and energy savings if the funding were made available to the consortium as a separate budget allocation.

Kentucky Virtual Library: N/A

Louisiana Library Network: We have been fighting for 5 years to provide 2 Louisiana newspapers to our members (I think we are nearly there)

MINITEX: This is a hard one. -- can't think of any right now.

MIRACL: N/A

NAAL: Has always been  conservative in identifying appropriate projects that apply to all members because our funding has been limited. Nothing that we have tried has failed - but NAAL has  not been on the bleeding edge of development.  Most of our projects have succeeded.  Some have not moved forward at the rate we would have liked and some have been dropped because of changing external environment or technology. 

NC LIVE: N/A.

NELLCO: union catalog on CD

NERL: N/A

OhioLINK: We have not solved the problems associated with trying to allow patron article requesting through our reference databases from our library collections. Our model requires an unmediated environment which will generate huge volume. Issues of cost, accuracy, and copyright have not been solved. If approached as a high volume patron based service we have concluded we should focus on electronic access and maybe come back to this for residuals or possibly a restricted service that controls volume.

ORBIS: Although we have suffered failures (e.g., grants turned down), we have not abandoned any services/activities.  Resources are tight so we closely scrutinize each service.  It may also be that we are too young as a consortium to have hit such snags.

PALCI: N/A

PORTALS: Locally loading database via tape from vendors -- other than maintaining some

backfiles, everything has migrated to Web access.

TexShare: A discount-priced document delivery service with UMI.  Never worked well due to UMI's inability to get the administrative aspects of the service in place! Ariel -- still using, but no longer requiring use until a working group completes a thorough review of the benefits

TRLN: An activity e have engaged in the past which we no longer do is development and maintenance of an integrated library system. One we are still involved with which I do not recommend a consortium without extensive resources take up is software development of a document delivery system.

University of Texas System Knowledge Management Center (KMC): At one point we were given funds to spec, purchase, and install equipment at one of the small remote campuses.  That was particularly difficult to manage due to distance and demands on the local staff.

VIVA: contract with Fed Ex for delivery of ILL  (they doubled the rate this year)

Washington Cooperative Library Project: N/A

WRLC: Preservation (never got past the talking stage, too expensive to operate)

Respondents:

AULC: Jeanne Richardson
Boston Library Consortium (BLC): Hannah Stevens
British Columbia Electronic Library Network (ELN): Trish Rosseel
California State University/SEIR: Evan Reader
CIC Center for Library Initiatives: Barbara McFadden Allen
Florida Center for Library Automation: Michele Newberry
Kentucky Virtual Library: Miko Pattie
Louisiana Library Network: Ralph J. Boe
MINITEX: Bill DeJohn
MIRACL: Carol Antoniewicz
NAAL: Sue Medina
NCLive: Julie Nye
NELLCO: Diane Klaiber
NERL: Ann Okerson
OhioLINK: Tom Sanville
ORBIS: John Helmer
PALCI: Sara Randall
PORTALS: Jim Kopp
TexShare: Bonnie Juergens
TRLN: Jordan Scepanski
University of Texas Knowledge Management Center:
VIVA: Kathy Perry
Washington Cooperative Library Project: Tim Jewell
WRLC: Lizanne Payne