SPEC Kit 345: Shared Print Programs · 37
More time spent in extra-mural meetings and more complex procedures.
Multiple libraries and staff involved make coordination critical.
None
Obtaining catalog holdings. Some resistance to de-selecting print from some of the subject librarians.
One challenge has been to automate the updating of catalog records when journals are contributed to the shared
print program.
Participating in shared print programs increases the complexity and hence the workflow and time needed for
collection management.
Policies about duplication in system, especially in individual libraries, are being addressed. This includes confronting
issues of territoriality at these libraries.
Primarily, challenge of defining and agreeing on access policies, convincing library staff to forego some duplication in
collecting and, even more, retention of print collections.
Progress has been slow, leading to some impatience, and creating some difficulty in communications.
Resistance to give up print holdings. Some overhead for technical services to maintain and manage records.
Shared governance is time-consuming. Different norms and legal/administrative regimes can make it difficult for all
participants to share equally and/or equitably in costs and governance.
Shortage of personnel/time limits the number of titles that we can contribute.
Some faculty and librarians believe that it’s not enough for the print to be kept safely at another institution. They want
us to keep copies, even though the content is available completely online, and that is the preferred means of access.
Some programs require considerable, cumbersome record keeping. At times can be difficult to share bibliographic
records because of inconsistencies in cataloging and standards applied.
Still a reluctance to weed locally very challenging and time-consuming to provide all the information desired in order
to make weeding decisions (matching local holdings, confirming perpetual access for electronic versions, etc.). Can
be difficult to manage the archiving-related work, including identifying previous and continuing titles for ones already
archived, within deadlines.
The only challenges have been logistical and staffing, but that is to be expected as IU is the first host site and is working
out the procedures.
The requirement to remove the basic OCLC symbol for the institution, exclusively in favor of a discrete OCLC symbol for
the particular shared print program, e.g., WEST. It would be good to have a combined view of all preservation actions
taken on a given title (particularly if a multi-volume title) across all shared print programs in the country. It seems like
such a view could be data-mined from all the 583 fields in all the Local Holding Records (LHRs) being submitted.
The very de-centralized management system that served just fine for years just wasn’t up to the task of creating the
policies and bringing the resources together necessary for cross-institutional de-duplication and shared print. So we had
to form a new governance model that brought all the depositories to the table and begin to step through simultaneously
creating a more centralized governance model while defining and testing a de-duplication process.
This project has required delay of other collection management activities as our staff time has been committed to shared
print commitments.
More time spent in extra-mural meetings and more complex procedures.
Multiple libraries and staff involved make coordination critical.
None
Obtaining catalog holdings. Some resistance to de-selecting print from some of the subject librarians.
One challenge has been to automate the updating of catalog records when journals are contributed to the shared
print program.
Participating in shared print programs increases the complexity and hence the workflow and time needed for
collection management.
Policies about duplication in system, especially in individual libraries, are being addressed. This includes confronting
issues of territoriality at these libraries.
Primarily, challenge of defining and agreeing on access policies, convincing library staff to forego some duplication in
collecting and, even more, retention of print collections.
Progress has been slow, leading to some impatience, and creating some difficulty in communications.
Resistance to give up print holdings. Some overhead for technical services to maintain and manage records.
Shared governance is time-consuming. Different norms and legal/administrative regimes can make it difficult for all
participants to share equally and/or equitably in costs and governance.
Shortage of personnel/time limits the number of titles that we can contribute.
Some faculty and librarians believe that it’s not enough for the print to be kept safely at another institution. They want
us to keep copies, even though the content is available completely online, and that is the preferred means of access.
Some programs require considerable, cumbersome record keeping. At times can be difficult to share bibliographic
records because of inconsistencies in cataloging and standards applied.
Still a reluctance to weed locally very challenging and time-consuming to provide all the information desired in order
to make weeding decisions (matching local holdings, confirming perpetual access for electronic versions, etc.). Can
be difficult to manage the archiving-related work, including identifying previous and continuing titles for ones already
archived, within deadlines.
The only challenges have been logistical and staffing, but that is to be expected as IU is the first host site and is working
out the procedures.
The requirement to remove the basic OCLC symbol for the institution, exclusively in favor of a discrete OCLC symbol for
the particular shared print program, e.g., WEST. It would be good to have a combined view of all preservation actions
taken on a given title (particularly if a multi-volume title) across all shared print programs in the country. It seems like
such a view could be data-mined from all the 583 fields in all the Local Holding Records (LHRs) being submitted.
The very de-centralized management system that served just fine for years just wasn’t up to the task of creating the
policies and bringing the resources together necessary for cross-institutional de-duplication and shared print. So we had
to form a new governance model that brought all the depositories to the table and begin to step through simultaneously
creating a more centralized governance model while defining and testing a de-duplication process.
This project has required delay of other collection management activities as our staff time has been committed to shared
print commitments.
