36 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
We see shared print programs as a potential starting point for more collaborative collection development, particularly in
our local consortium in terms of monographs.
We’ve just started actively participating.
Wider access to resources via UBorrow in addition to existing arrangements for E-ZBorrow &traditional interlibrary loan.
11. What challenges has participation in this shared print program created for your library? N=41
Adding the 583 to records requires staff time.
Because membership in the shared print program includes public and private regional college and university libraries,
state and local guidelines/procedures/laws may come into play that affect and delay progress.
Challenges include different financial practices or priorities across institutions different retention decisions that make
sharing print backfiles complex faculty resistance to losing local ownership of print materials amount of time taken to
work through MOUs and other issues with both library and non-library partners.
Changes in workflow and documentation to ensure that we live up to our part of the agreement. It has also led to
a discussion of trust levels with other institutions (i.e., can we count on them to have the material and attend to
its preservation).
Consortia-wide weeding of shared storage collections is very complex and time-consuming.
Creates an opportunity for discussion with a variety of opinions expressed.
Devoting staff with responsibilities for this.
E-books are a concern for the future availability of shared print.
Equal participation in contributing retrospectively indicating in catalog records which holding have been contributed
going beyond the local TRLN shared print program (where the number of players is limited and everyone knows one
another), the large number of libraries in ASERL makes communication difficult.
Few/None to date with CIC SPR. CARLI Last Copy has led to some reduced concern locally and in state about
withdrawing copies.
Generating holdings data as needed by our partners. Local concerns of individuals can drive discussions to retain locally,
despite what might be the soundest bibliographic or preservation decisions.
How to honor commitments to retention of print titles when our physical space is decreasing. Creating a workflow that
would ensure retained titles are duly noted in the catalog and that the physical pieces are marked.
Increased workload for technical services staff.
Information sharing, collaborating on policies and framework documents, and adhering to policies.
Metadata challenge to properly record on a volume-by-volume basis our commitments to hold these volumes. Staff buy-
in to support, or at least not object to, discard of some print volumes even as we commit to retain other print volumes.
Impatience at the length of time it took to get multiple institutions’ attorneys to all agree on language of agreement
and then for institutions to make title-by-title commitments. Over the long haul the time consumed is not sustainable
and we have to have easier mechanisms to click through on title/volume retention commitments in various registries.
Determining how many last copies are enough for a region and for the nation.
We see shared print programs as a potential starting point for more collaborative collection development, particularly in
our local consortium in terms of monographs.
We’ve just started actively participating.
Wider access to resources via UBorrow in addition to existing arrangements for E-ZBorrow &traditional interlibrary loan.
11. What challenges has participation in this shared print program created for your library? N=41
Adding the 583 to records requires staff time.
Because membership in the shared print program includes public and private regional college and university libraries,
state and local guidelines/procedures/laws may come into play that affect and delay progress.
Challenges include different financial practices or priorities across institutions different retention decisions that make
sharing print backfiles complex faculty resistance to losing local ownership of print materials amount of time taken to
work through MOUs and other issues with both library and non-library partners.
Changes in workflow and documentation to ensure that we live up to our part of the agreement. It has also led to
a discussion of trust levels with other institutions (i.e., can we count on them to have the material and attend to
its preservation).
Consortia-wide weeding of shared storage collections is very complex and time-consuming.
Creates an opportunity for discussion with a variety of opinions expressed.
Devoting staff with responsibilities for this.
E-books are a concern for the future availability of shared print.
Equal participation in contributing retrospectively indicating in catalog records which holding have been contributed
going beyond the local TRLN shared print program (where the number of players is limited and everyone knows one
another), the large number of libraries in ASERL makes communication difficult.
Few/None to date with CIC SPR. CARLI Last Copy has led to some reduced concern locally and in state about
withdrawing copies.
Generating holdings data as needed by our partners. Local concerns of individuals can drive discussions to retain locally,
despite what might be the soundest bibliographic or preservation decisions.
How to honor commitments to retention of print titles when our physical space is decreasing. Creating a workflow that
would ensure retained titles are duly noted in the catalog and that the physical pieces are marked.
Increased workload for technical services staff.
Information sharing, collaborating on policies and framework documents, and adhering to policies.
Metadata challenge to properly record on a volume-by-volume basis our commitments to hold these volumes. Staff buy-
in to support, or at least not object to, discard of some print volumes even as we commit to retain other print volumes.
Impatience at the length of time it took to get multiple institutions’ attorneys to all agree on language of agreement
and then for institutions to make title-by-title commitments. Over the long haul the time consumed is not sustainable
and we have to have easier mechanisms to click through on title/volume retention commitments in various registries.
Determining how many last copies are enough for a region and for the nation.
