38 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
To participate in WEST, we had to ask for and get special permission from the university purchasing agent to participate
because of state regulations regarding items purchased with state funds. We were not moving items to storage or
discarding. We were attempting to transfer some print items to the shared print collection housed at another library, and
there was not a precedent here for this. We had to draw up a “Deed of Gift” which was, I believe, vetted by someone
from our university’s legal team.
We have encountered no significant challenges at our own library.
We’ve had to involve library IT to manage the calls for holdings and that has been a learning curve for them.
When values differ, challenges arise. Delays in withdrawing materials. Workflow definition is a key area of ongoing
struggles. Appropriate level of communications between the three university libraries and/or the many consortia
committees can be difficult. Sharing the workload equitably is still a pinch point at times even though we have a
well-established cost-share formula, which includes some positions that get cost-shared. The balance between local
autonomy and consortia collaboration is sometimes a pinch point.
Without a common database of holdings, it is difficult to identify gaps in other library collections. The CRL PAPR listings
are great, but they lack detailed holdings information. The JRNL database created for Scholars Trust has been invaluable.
Work is progressing more slowly than expected. We would like to contribute journal runs, but a building schedule means
we can’t wait, so we’ve been weeding some titles that perhaps we could have contributed.
Workload in identifying print holdings of serials.
INSTITUTIONAL ROLE
12. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1
equals strongly disagree and 5 equals strongly agree. Please make one selection per row. N=50
Statement 1 Strongly
Disagree
2 3 Agree 4 5 Strongly
Agree
N
My institution plays a role commensurate with the
size and scope of our resources relative to the other
partners in the shared program(s)
2 8 16 10 14 50
Other libraries in the partnership play roles that are
commensurate with the size and scope of resources
available to them
0 2 23 12 11 48
Total Responses 2 10 26 13 14 50
Comments N=5
Of the two programs of which we are a member, we have contributed heavily to one and not at all to the other. My
answer is a compromise between the two extremes.
The libraries have one of the larger collections in the GWLA consortium. We will learn if/how collection size plays out as
the shared print program progresses.
The voices of all three university libraries have equal weight to one another, regardless of their size. We each bring
resources and staff time in a way that is commensurate to our sizes. We hold more than our share of the TUG
last copies.
To participate in WEST, we had to ask for and get special permission from the university purchasing agent to participate
because of state regulations regarding items purchased with state funds. We were not moving items to storage or
discarding. We were attempting to transfer some print items to the shared print collection housed at another library, and
there was not a precedent here for this. We had to draw up a “Deed of Gift” which was, I believe, vetted by someone
from our university’s legal team.
We have encountered no significant challenges at our own library.
We’ve had to involve library IT to manage the calls for holdings and that has been a learning curve for them.
When values differ, challenges arise. Delays in withdrawing materials. Workflow definition is a key area of ongoing
struggles. Appropriate level of communications between the three university libraries and/or the many consortia
committees can be difficult. Sharing the workload equitably is still a pinch point at times even though we have a
well-established cost-share formula, which includes some positions that get cost-shared. The balance between local
autonomy and consortia collaboration is sometimes a pinch point.
Without a common database of holdings, it is difficult to identify gaps in other library collections. The CRL PAPR listings
are great, but they lack detailed holdings information. The JRNL database created for Scholars Trust has been invaluable.
Work is progressing more slowly than expected. We would like to contribute journal runs, but a building schedule means
we can’t wait, so we’ve been weeding some titles that perhaps we could have contributed.
Workload in identifying print holdings of serials.
INSTITUTIONAL ROLE
12. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1
equals strongly disagree and 5 equals strongly agree. Please make one selection per row. N=50
Statement 1 Strongly
Disagree
2 3 Agree 4 5 Strongly
Agree
N
My institution plays a role commensurate with the
size and scope of our resources relative to the other
partners in the shared program(s)
2 8 16 10 14 50
Other libraries in the partnership play roles that are
commensurate with the size and scope of resources
available to them
0 2 23 12 11 48
Total Responses 2 10 26 13 14 50
Comments N=5
Of the two programs of which we are a member, we have contributed heavily to one and not at all to the other. My
answer is a compromise between the two extremes.
The libraries have one of the larger collections in the GWLA consortium. We will learn if/how collection size plays out as
the shared print program progresses.
The voices of all three university libraries have equal weight to one another, regardless of their size. We each bring
resources and staff time in a way that is commensurate to our sizes. We hold more than our share of the TUG
last copies.
