SPEC Kit 345: Shared Print Programs · 21
Distributed vs. Consolidated
Before retention programs can commit volumes, sev-
eral principal decisions must be made. One is whether
volumes will be held in place of origin in a distributed
network of libraries, moved within a distributed net-
work to better accommodate preservation or security,
or consolidated into a central repository. Successful
programs have been built around all these models.
Few, if any, shared print repositories are housed
in facilities designated solely for that purpose most
programs maximize efficiency and minimize costs by
using available space in an existing library or storage
facility. Because these available spaces vary, agree-
ments may or may not specify preservation-quality
environmental conditions and validation practices.
Most agreements define the terms of participation,
including service levels for contributing, borrowing,
and archive-holding libraries. Notably, expectations of
contributing libraries are generally limited, primarily
focusing on records management. More is expected of
the library retaining content on behalf of the collec-
tive these holders are more likely to be tasked with
access- and maintenance-related activities, and with
making holdings known through OCLC uploads and
other holdings information dissemination.
Thirteen of 20 shared print program respondents
(65%) said items are housed at the library of origin,
with four of those noting that items may also be
relocated to a specially designated area. Twelve re-
spondents (60%) indicated items were relocated to a
facility that acts as a multi-institutional repository
one program indicated items were sent to whatever
library agreed to hold them. A few programs indi-
cated hybrid models that included both on-site-of-
origin storage and consolidated storage. Although
these decisions are certainly programmatic, it is also
likely that within these programs libraries also de-
cide where items will be housed based on available
space, staff, and time to process these items. Fewer
than half of the reporting programs (9 of 21, or 43%)
have plans to expand responsibilities to additional
participants or to introduce other publication types
such as monographs.
Fourteen of 49 library respondents (29%) said
they actively receive and consolidate holdings from
multiple institutions, and 28 (57%) reported contrib-
uting holdings to fill gaps in collections retained
elsewhere. Only nine ARL members indicated they
were not an archive holding repository site four of
those nine belong to a single consolidated-space stor-
age program.
However, there were two sources of data and
documentation used to identify archive holder roles:
ARL libraries’ self-reported roles as archive holders
and shared print manager’s reports of institutions
serving as holders. While 41 of 49 ARL member li-
brary respondents indicated their institution acts as
an archive holder, shared print managers providing
statistics about locations and volume counts identified
fewer ARL libraries as archive holders. It may be the
case that libraries belong to additional shared print
programs that may not have responded to the man-
agers’ survey, or that libraries perceive their roles in
shared print programs differently than are formally
identified in program documentation or statistics.
Whatever the reason, it is interesting that ARL librar-
ies and shared print managers report their participa-
tion differently.
Collective Actions
Whether or not collections are consolidated physically,
certain collection management practices are generally
made common across the participating institutions
or are performed for the collective collection by the
shared print program itself. In addition to collection
analysis, mentioned earlier, other shared collection
management activities include validation, disclosure,
discovery, access services, and in some cases e-access
services such as print-on-demand, e-book-on-demand,
and digitization related to the shared print collection.
Most programs (15 of 21, or 71%) perform volume-
level validation of at least some materials before hold-
ings are ingested ten (48%) validate all materials to the
volume level. Far fewer—4 of 21—validate all items
to the issue level, and no programs invest in page-
level validation for all items (though two programs
do perform such extensive validation for at least some
items). It is commonly expected that holdings records
will be revised before items are ingested, though these
updates do not widely include adding a shared-print
Distributed vs. Consolidated
Before retention programs can commit volumes, sev-
eral principal decisions must be made. One is whether
volumes will be held in place of origin in a distributed
network of libraries, moved within a distributed net-
work to better accommodate preservation or security,
or consolidated into a central repository. Successful
programs have been built around all these models.
Few, if any, shared print repositories are housed
in facilities designated solely for that purpose most
programs maximize efficiency and minimize costs by
using available space in an existing library or storage
facility. Because these available spaces vary, agree-
ments may or may not specify preservation-quality
environmental conditions and validation practices.
Most agreements define the terms of participation,
including service levels for contributing, borrowing,
and archive-holding libraries. Notably, expectations of
contributing libraries are generally limited, primarily
focusing on records management. More is expected of
the library retaining content on behalf of the collec-
tive these holders are more likely to be tasked with
access- and maintenance-related activities, and with
making holdings known through OCLC uploads and
other holdings information dissemination.
Thirteen of 20 shared print program respondents
(65%) said items are housed at the library of origin,
with four of those noting that items may also be
relocated to a specially designated area. Twelve re-
spondents (60%) indicated items were relocated to a
facility that acts as a multi-institutional repository
one program indicated items were sent to whatever
library agreed to hold them. A few programs indi-
cated hybrid models that included both on-site-of-
origin storage and consolidated storage. Although
these decisions are certainly programmatic, it is also
likely that within these programs libraries also de-
cide where items will be housed based on available
space, staff, and time to process these items. Fewer
than half of the reporting programs (9 of 21, or 43%)
have plans to expand responsibilities to additional
participants or to introduce other publication types
such as monographs.
Fourteen of 49 library respondents (29%) said
they actively receive and consolidate holdings from
multiple institutions, and 28 (57%) reported contrib-
uting holdings to fill gaps in collections retained
elsewhere. Only nine ARL members indicated they
were not an archive holding repository site four of
those nine belong to a single consolidated-space stor-
age program.
However, there were two sources of data and
documentation used to identify archive holder roles:
ARL libraries’ self-reported roles as archive holders
and shared print manager’s reports of institutions
serving as holders. While 41 of 49 ARL member li-
brary respondents indicated their institution acts as
an archive holder, shared print managers providing
statistics about locations and volume counts identified
fewer ARL libraries as archive holders. It may be the
case that libraries belong to additional shared print
programs that may not have responded to the man-
agers’ survey, or that libraries perceive their roles in
shared print programs differently than are formally
identified in program documentation or statistics.
Whatever the reason, it is interesting that ARL librar-
ies and shared print managers report their participa-
tion differently.
Collective Actions
Whether or not collections are consolidated physically,
certain collection management practices are generally
made common across the participating institutions
or are performed for the collective collection by the
shared print program itself. In addition to collection
analysis, mentioned earlier, other shared collection
management activities include validation, disclosure,
discovery, access services, and in some cases e-access
services such as print-on-demand, e-book-on-demand,
and digitization related to the shared print collection.
Most programs (15 of 21, or 71%) perform volume-
level validation of at least some materials before hold-
ings are ingested ten (48%) validate all materials to the
volume level. Far fewer—4 of 21—validate all items
to the issue level, and no programs invest in page-
level validation for all items (though two programs
do perform such extensive validation for at least some
items). It is commonly expected that holdings records
will be revised before items are ingested, though these
updates do not widely include adding a shared-print
