20 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
some capacity. Most commonly, project coordina-
tion, financial management, communications and
administrative tasks, policy development, and col-
lection analysis fall to the coordinating entity to per-
form on behalf of, and in conjunction with, members
or participants.
Business Model Elements
Fees and business structures are generally made ex-
plicit in MOUs, though several respondents noted that
the actual amounts are determined annually. Funding
for shared print programs comes from many sources.
Although a few programs received state or grant fund-
ing, most programs are funded through membership
fees and in-kind contributions of labor, supplies, or
infrastructure. Out of 17 shared print programs that
reported their funding sources, nine rely on member
fees or dues and four have no formal funding or rely
on voluntary efforts of participating libraries. Three
received or expect to receive grant funding, three re-
ceive state funding, and three were funded in whole
or in part by an existing consortium.
Each program has a distinct fee structure. When
membership fees are charged, rates may be set based
on some form of cost-sharing formula. Some pro-
grams provide discounts for members that supply ser-
vices such as labor or space. More traditional shared
storage arrangements may factor in level of use.
Shared print programs generally involve some
form of shared investment to support multi-institu-
tional services. Investments typically support pro-
gram management, collections analysis, and systems
infrastructure. Costs for materials handling (shipping,
processing, conservation) and cataloging (disclosure)
are often absorbed by participating libraries. Support
for storage, verification services, and gap filling vary
by program and may be shared or absorbed.
The majority of shared print programs (13 of 21,
or 62%) have at least a portion of a dedicated staff
person’s time appointed to the project half have one
or more FTE dedicated to the project. It is notable
that 38% of the programs do not include designated
staffing, and instead rely largely on member libraries
to provide labor, supplies, and project management.
For collections analysis, the responding libraries
tend to rely on information provided by the shared
print program or coordinator to select items for reten-
tion. Half of the shared print programs reported using
an outside tool or service for collection analysis, the
most common being Sustainable Collection Services (6
of 16, or 38%) and OCLC Collection Assessment (4, or
25%). Half have developed their own decision-support
infrastructure. Multi-institutional collection analysis
is typically engaged to facilitate group decisions about
what to retain.
Collection analysis is a non-trivial task in collab-
orative print management. Many library respondents
cited collection analysis as a difficult, labor- and time-
intensive process, and not coincidentally the majority
of shared print programs have turned to third-party
vendors for collection analysis services or tools. Only
four respondents said they use these services or tools
to determine deselection in fact, although participat-
ing in a shared print program may facilitate dedupli-
cation and deselection activities for individual institu-
tions, shared print programs themselves appear not
to be heavily involved in deselection. Two out of 21
programs arrange or contract third party services for
such purposes. Local weeding policies and state and
other legislative policies may also affect group-level
deaccessioning decisions.
Among ARL libraries themselves, 32% of respon-
dents (16 of 50) have dedicated human resources to
shared print in the last year. Libraries see both posi-
tives and negatives in allocating staff time to shared
print collection management 14 respondents listed
staff time or workload as a concern, while about the
same number listed opportunities for collaboration,
networking, and staff development as benefits of
participating. “We have used sharing print collec-
tions as a springboard to discussions of sharing other
resources, particularly staff resources, in areas like
cataloging/metadata and selection,” noted one li-
brary, while another said, “This project has required
delay of other collection management activities as our
staff time has been committed to shared print com-
mitments.” For local collections analyses, nine ARL
respondents noted the difficulty of records manage-
ment and integrating dissimilar library systems as an
important challenge. Eleven libraries (22%) use a tool
to aid deselection, and nine (18%) use a third-party
deselection service.
some capacity. Most commonly, project coordina-
tion, financial management, communications and
administrative tasks, policy development, and col-
lection analysis fall to the coordinating entity to per-
form on behalf of, and in conjunction with, members
or participants.
Business Model Elements
Fees and business structures are generally made ex-
plicit in MOUs, though several respondents noted that
the actual amounts are determined annually. Funding
for shared print programs comes from many sources.
Although a few programs received state or grant fund-
ing, most programs are funded through membership
fees and in-kind contributions of labor, supplies, or
infrastructure. Out of 17 shared print programs that
reported their funding sources, nine rely on member
fees or dues and four have no formal funding or rely
on voluntary efforts of participating libraries. Three
received or expect to receive grant funding, three re-
ceive state funding, and three were funded in whole
or in part by an existing consortium.
Each program has a distinct fee structure. When
membership fees are charged, rates may be set based
on some form of cost-sharing formula. Some pro-
grams provide discounts for members that supply ser-
vices such as labor or space. More traditional shared
storage arrangements may factor in level of use.
Shared print programs generally involve some
form of shared investment to support multi-institu-
tional services. Investments typically support pro-
gram management, collections analysis, and systems
infrastructure. Costs for materials handling (shipping,
processing, conservation) and cataloging (disclosure)
are often absorbed by participating libraries. Support
for storage, verification services, and gap filling vary
by program and may be shared or absorbed.
The majority of shared print programs (13 of 21,
or 62%) have at least a portion of a dedicated staff
person’s time appointed to the project half have one
or more FTE dedicated to the project. It is notable
that 38% of the programs do not include designated
staffing, and instead rely largely on member libraries
to provide labor, supplies, and project management.
For collections analysis, the responding libraries
tend to rely on information provided by the shared
print program or coordinator to select items for reten-
tion. Half of the shared print programs reported using
an outside tool or service for collection analysis, the
most common being Sustainable Collection Services (6
of 16, or 38%) and OCLC Collection Assessment (4, or
25%). Half have developed their own decision-support
infrastructure. Multi-institutional collection analysis
is typically engaged to facilitate group decisions about
what to retain.
Collection analysis is a non-trivial task in collab-
orative print management. Many library respondents
cited collection analysis as a difficult, labor- and time-
intensive process, and not coincidentally the majority
of shared print programs have turned to third-party
vendors for collection analysis services or tools. Only
four respondents said they use these services or tools
to determine deselection in fact, although participat-
ing in a shared print program may facilitate dedupli-
cation and deselection activities for individual institu-
tions, shared print programs themselves appear not
to be heavily involved in deselection. Two out of 21
programs arrange or contract third party services for
such purposes. Local weeding policies and state and
other legislative policies may also affect group-level
deaccessioning decisions.
Among ARL libraries themselves, 32% of respon-
dents (16 of 50) have dedicated human resources to
shared print in the last year. Libraries see both posi-
tives and negatives in allocating staff time to shared
print collection management 14 respondents listed
staff time or workload as a concern, while about the
same number listed opportunities for collaboration,
networking, and staff development as benefits of
participating. “We have used sharing print collec-
tions as a springboard to discussions of sharing other
resources, particularly staff resources, in areas like
cataloging/metadata and selection,” noted one li-
brary, while another said, “This project has required
delay of other collection management activities as our
staff time has been committed to shared print com-
mitments.” For local collections analyses, nine ARL
respondents noted the difficulty of records manage-
ment and integrating dissimilar library systems as an
important challenge. Eleven libraries (22%) use a tool
to aid deselection, and nine (18%) use a third-party
deselection service.
