28 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
It is hard to say whether the development of the facility is one or the other. There is an on-going process of identifying
appropriate content as successive phases are completed.
Largely project based at about 5-year intervals. Due to space needs, relocating materials for improved access and
closing branch library.
Removal from the main library was expedited in the last few years to make room for major renovations repurposing
space for public use.
The ability to shift to the remote storage facility (known as the Annex) is governed by the Tri University Group (TUG)
Libraries Preservation of Last Copy Agreement. This agreement outlines our obligations and the limits of the facility—
the last copy. Annually, the library runs lists of no use last copy items that are then automatically shifted to the Annex.
In the last several years, these lists have gone without any further review. Individual selectors have also done subject
specific projects to shift no/low use items. Some individual selectors have also reviewed their holding in the Annex.
Key examples are a review of abstracts and government ephemera. TUG has done several rationalization projects,
which have resulted in materials being shifted to the Annex. They have also done many projects to reduce the amount
of material within the Annex. Key projects have included JSTOR rationalization as each collection becomes closed,
reference title rationalization (e.g., Who’s Who), and duplicate reviews.
We have been feeding on-going ingest operation at remote storage facility with project-based groups of materials.
Don’t see any end to the list of projects, but that does not preclude materials also being sent as part of on-going
routines (such as new cataloging or digitization-on-demand services) in future.
While most of our work has been project-based (initial move, ASERL, Index/Abstracts), some of the ASERL journals have
current subscriptions and therefore will be on-going.
Project-based
The facility is a small ad hoc remote store.
These decisions were on-going in the past but are now mostly project-based. This is mainly because we now want
to avoid sending materials to remote storage if there is any possibility that they might later be withdrawn as part of a
consortial de-duplication project.
If you answered “Yes” above, you will continue to questions about the remote shelving strategy.
If you answered “No,” you will skip to the section Collaborative Retention Agreement Strategy.
REMOTE SHELVING: STAKEHOLDERS
15. Please indicate which stakeholders were involved in the initial decision to use a remote shelving
facility to manage print collections, and the role they played. Check all that apply. N=44
Stakeholders Champion of
the strategy
Policy
decisions
Procedures Budget Design and
construction
Other
role
N
Library director 39 26 2 26 14 — 43
Senior library administrator 27 42 34 25 23 — 43
Subject selector/
bibliographer
2 19 26 — — 2 31
It is hard to say whether the development of the facility is one or the other. There is an on-going process of identifying
appropriate content as successive phases are completed.
Largely project based at about 5-year intervals. Due to space needs, relocating materials for improved access and
closing branch library.
Removal from the main library was expedited in the last few years to make room for major renovations repurposing
space for public use.
The ability to shift to the remote storage facility (known as the Annex) is governed by the Tri University Group (TUG)
Libraries Preservation of Last Copy Agreement. This agreement outlines our obligations and the limits of the facility—
the last copy. Annually, the library runs lists of no use last copy items that are then automatically shifted to the Annex.
In the last several years, these lists have gone without any further review. Individual selectors have also done subject
specific projects to shift no/low use items. Some individual selectors have also reviewed their holding in the Annex.
Key examples are a review of abstracts and government ephemera. TUG has done several rationalization projects,
which have resulted in materials being shifted to the Annex. They have also done many projects to reduce the amount
of material within the Annex. Key projects have included JSTOR rationalization as each collection becomes closed,
reference title rationalization (e.g., Who’s Who), and duplicate reviews.
We have been feeding on-going ingest operation at remote storage facility with project-based groups of materials.
Don’t see any end to the list of projects, but that does not preclude materials also being sent as part of on-going
routines (such as new cataloging or digitization-on-demand services) in future.
While most of our work has been project-based (initial move, ASERL, Index/Abstracts), some of the ASERL journals have
current subscriptions and therefore will be on-going.
Project-based
The facility is a small ad hoc remote store.
These decisions were on-going in the past but are now mostly project-based. This is mainly because we now want
to avoid sending materials to remote storage if there is any possibility that they might later be withdrawn as part of a
consortial de-duplication project.
If you answered “Yes” above, you will continue to questions about the remote shelving strategy.
If you answered “No,” you will skip to the section Collaborative Retention Agreement Strategy.
REMOTE SHELVING: STAKEHOLDERS
15. Please indicate which stakeholders were involved in the initial decision to use a remote shelving
facility to manage print collections, and the role they played. Check all that apply. N=44
Stakeholders Champion of
the strategy
Policy
decisions
Procedures Budget Design and
construction
Other
role
N
Library director 39 26 2 26 14 — 43
Senior library administrator 27 42 34 25 23 — 43
Subject selector/
bibliographer
2 19 26 — — 2 31
