SPEC Kit 345: Shared Print Programs · 17
have evolved in existing local trust networks. Indeed,
many shared print programs have formed that in-
volve regional partners or partners in non-contiguous
states and provinces (12 of 22 shared print programs,
e.g., COPPUL SPAN, MedPrint), suggesting a gradual
evolution of print collection management beyond
traditional trust networks (or at least networks that
are defined by traditional licensing and resource shar-
ing agreements).
The responding libraries are less sanguine about
involving large public libraries despite the evidence
from various OCLC reports that comprehensiveness
in the aggregate shared print collections (if that is a
goal) would require the combined collections of aca-
demic and public libraries.3 At least one shared print
program includes public libraries (e.g., Maine Shared
Collections Strategy). It may be worthwhile to revisit
this expressed response in a few years as additional
shared print programs are implemented and retained
collections evolve.
And while the respondents don’t have a strong
preference for the form of agreement that is estab-
lished (a general agreement that provides guidelines
for collection management behaviors or a legal agree-
ment to codify expected collection management be-
haviors), some form of agreement is important. As
one respondent noted, “It is important for us to have
an MOU with partners that provides clear guidelines
on user access to content and clarity regarding persis-
tence/retention time-frames.”
On Consortia and Changing Contexts of
Collaboration
The survey asked several questions to begin to un-
derstand the extent to which shared print agreements
might be changing the boundaries and locus of deci-
sion making beyond existing consortial structures.
Shifting decision making for print collections man-
agement from the local library or traditional licens-
ing or resource-sharing consortium to a differently
configured, broader group might suggest a new form
of supra-consortial or network-level collection man-
agement approach is emerging (or necessary.)
Most shared print agreements do not declare
shared ownership but do involve important stipu-
lations about shared decision making about the
retained collections. Archive holders to some extent
cede collection management responsibilities from
the individual library level to the group of partners
in particular, decisions about withdrawal of titles or
termination of archive holding roles are governed
by the group. This shift of print collection manage-
ment decision making to a broader group (often not
confined to a traditional consortial structure) and
the overall scope of the collective collection (and its
potential to catalyze change) set the stage for some
degree of broader coordination.
Harmonization of access, discovery, and delivery
of intentionally retained materials may become more
acute as shared print programs mature and libraries
begin to reduce duplicates. Deaccessioning has begun.
While most programs focused on making retention
commitments between 2008 and 2012, more recently,
beginning in 2012, program coordinators are report-
ing withdrawals based on retention. Nineteen of the
library respondents (38%) report making deselection
decisions based on retention commitments made by
other ARL and/or non-ARL libraries.
In terms of resource sharing, most of the respon-
dents (40 of 49, or 82%) belong to more than one lend-
ing network, and some participate in a half dozen or
more. Seventy-eight percent of respondents (38 of 49)
extend benefits of access to shared print materials to
other lending networks through existing agreements.
Almost all shared print program participants (44 of 49,
or 90%) belong to more than one group or consortial
resource licensing program for electronic resources.
These overlapping networks may suggest that
shared print agreements can interoperate across ex-
isting networks and clearly do not restrict participat-
ing in them. Moreover, the metadata guidelines for
disclosing shared print in OCLC create the possibility
for a re-unification of intentionally retained resources
in a broader resource-sharing network. The adoption
of those guidelines is occurring gradually and could
be an area for further development. Forty-seven per-
cent of the shared print programs (9 of 19) report that
items retained by participating libraries are identified
in local holdings records, using separate shared print
OCLC symbols and the MARC 583 field to designate
retention commitments. Coordinators also identi-
fied additional registries, particularly for programs
have evolved in existing local trust networks. Indeed,
many shared print programs have formed that in-
volve regional partners or partners in non-contiguous
states and provinces (12 of 22 shared print programs,
e.g., COPPUL SPAN, MedPrint), suggesting a gradual
evolution of print collection management beyond
traditional trust networks (or at least networks that
are defined by traditional licensing and resource shar-
ing agreements).
The responding libraries are less sanguine about
involving large public libraries despite the evidence
from various OCLC reports that comprehensiveness
in the aggregate shared print collections (if that is a
goal) would require the combined collections of aca-
demic and public libraries.3 At least one shared print
program includes public libraries (e.g., Maine Shared
Collections Strategy). It may be worthwhile to revisit
this expressed response in a few years as additional
shared print programs are implemented and retained
collections evolve.
And while the respondents don’t have a strong
preference for the form of agreement that is estab-
lished (a general agreement that provides guidelines
for collection management behaviors or a legal agree-
ment to codify expected collection management be-
haviors), some form of agreement is important. As
one respondent noted, “It is important for us to have
an MOU with partners that provides clear guidelines
on user access to content and clarity regarding persis-
tence/retention time-frames.”
On Consortia and Changing Contexts of
Collaboration
The survey asked several questions to begin to un-
derstand the extent to which shared print agreements
might be changing the boundaries and locus of deci-
sion making beyond existing consortial structures.
Shifting decision making for print collections man-
agement from the local library or traditional licens-
ing or resource-sharing consortium to a differently
configured, broader group might suggest a new form
of supra-consortial or network-level collection man-
agement approach is emerging (or necessary.)
Most shared print agreements do not declare
shared ownership but do involve important stipu-
lations about shared decision making about the
retained collections. Archive holders to some extent
cede collection management responsibilities from
the individual library level to the group of partners
in particular, decisions about withdrawal of titles or
termination of archive holding roles are governed
by the group. This shift of print collection manage-
ment decision making to a broader group (often not
confined to a traditional consortial structure) and
the overall scope of the collective collection (and its
potential to catalyze change) set the stage for some
degree of broader coordination.
Harmonization of access, discovery, and delivery
of intentionally retained materials may become more
acute as shared print programs mature and libraries
begin to reduce duplicates. Deaccessioning has begun.
While most programs focused on making retention
commitments between 2008 and 2012, more recently,
beginning in 2012, program coordinators are report-
ing withdrawals based on retention. Nineteen of the
library respondents (38%) report making deselection
decisions based on retention commitments made by
other ARL and/or non-ARL libraries.
In terms of resource sharing, most of the respon-
dents (40 of 49, or 82%) belong to more than one lend-
ing network, and some participate in a half dozen or
more. Seventy-eight percent of respondents (38 of 49)
extend benefits of access to shared print materials to
other lending networks through existing agreements.
Almost all shared print program participants (44 of 49,
or 90%) belong to more than one group or consortial
resource licensing program for electronic resources.
These overlapping networks may suggest that
shared print agreements can interoperate across ex-
isting networks and clearly do not restrict participat-
ing in them. Moreover, the metadata guidelines for
disclosing shared print in OCLC create the possibility
for a re-unification of intentionally retained resources
in a broader resource-sharing network. The adoption
of those guidelines is occurring gradually and could
be an area for further development. Forty-seven per-
cent of the shared print programs (9 of 19) report that
items retained by participating libraries are identified
in local holdings records, using separate shared print
OCLC symbols and the MARC 583 field to designate
retention commitments. Coordinators also identi-
fied additional registries, particularly for programs
