New Frontiers in Collaborative Collection Management

This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]On: 17 October 2014, At: 07:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technical Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

New Frontiers in Collaborative CollectionManagementMary Mallery a & Pamela Theus ba Montclair State University , Upper Montclair , NJb William Paterson University , Wayne , NJPublished online: 20 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Mary Mallery & Pamela Theus (2012) New Frontiers in Collaborative CollectionManagement, Technical Services Quarterly, 29:2, 101-112, DOI: 10.1080/07317131.2012.650123

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2012.650123

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07317131.2012.650123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2012.650123

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Technical Services Quarterly, Vol. 29:101–112, 2012

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0731-7131 print/1555-3337 online

DOI: 10.1080/07317131.2012.650123

New Frontiers in CollaborativeCollection Management

MARY MALLERYMontclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ

PAMELA THEUSWilliam Paterson University, Wayne, NJ

The authors provide a brief background of collaborative collection

development efforts in libraries and describe ongoing, innova-

tive projects to leverage the strength of collaboration across theVALE statewide academic library network in New Jersey to ex-

plore new methods of collection assessment, serials management,

ebook collections development, and the pursuit of a shared virtual

catalog.

KEYWORDS collection management, consortium, collaboration

Cooperation has always been fundamental to library missions, but newand emerging technologies, such as the WorldCat Collection Analysis Tooland subject-centered ebook collections from ebrary, have enabled technicalservices departments to expand cooperation into active collaboration beyondthe bounds of the library. Statewide consortia have begun to map their waythrough this new frontier, with projects such as the Orbis Cascade Alliance(2011) Collaborative Technical Services Team, which ‘‘has identified sharedstaff as a key area for collaboration and technical services as a promisingarea of initial investigation, with other initiatives to follow’’ (from http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/strategic-agenda) and the CollaboraTeS Projectin Ohio, which ‘‘works to foster collaboration among OhioLINK technicalservices departments by providing a set of supportive tools, and by workingstate-wide to help OhioLINK libraries create collaborative technical servicesopportunities’’ (from http://platinum.ohiolink.edu/dms/collaborate/) (OhioLink, 2005).

Received 26 July 2011; accepted 2 September 2011Address correspondence to Mary Mallery, Harry A. Sprague Library, Montclair State Uni-

versity, 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043. E-mail: [email protected]

101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4

102 M. Mallery and P. Theus

LITERATURE REVIEW

The long history of cooperative collection development is best described inthe seminal book Collaborative Collection Development (CCD): A Practical

Guide for Your Library, published in 2004 by ALA Editions and writtencollaboratively by James Burgett, John Haar, and Linda L. Phillips. They notein their ‘‘Landmarks in CCD Evolution’’ that ‘‘Discussions of local lendingarrangements have been documented as early as 1851, and formal cooper-ative cataloging ventures date at least to 1876’’ (Burgett, Haar, & Phillips,2004, p. 8). The authors state that ‘‘effective CCD depends on a symbioticrelationship among three library functions: bibliographic access, interlibraryloan and collection development’’ (Burgett, Haar, & Phillips, 2004, p. 6).

Prior to this 2004 book, the literature on cooperative collection develop-ment is sparse, but many consortia had pilot projects that are documented inwhite papers. The Virginia Virtual Library (VIVA) Pilot Project on CooperativeCollection Development is a stand-out among these. VIVA first published itsreport ‘‘Cooperative Collection Management in the Consortial Environment:The VIVA Pilot Projects’’ by Christopher Millson–Martula, Susanna BartmannPathak, and Carol Pfeiffer (2000). As the authors note, 20th century CCDprojects tended to be home-grown and not very well documented. Theauthors sum up CCD history as:

During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, efforts at cooperative collectiondevelopment were hampered by a shared sense that interlibrary lendingdid not work well enough to allow extensive reliance on external col-lections; the scarcity of detailed serials holdings data; the absence of ashared union catalog; slow methods of communication; geographic sep-aration over large distances; and the moderate amount of overlap amongdoctoral programs. By 1995, the landscape had changed considerably.Through new protocols for lending, widespread use of the Ariel software,subsidized express delivery of ‘returnables,’ and a firm commitment tofast service, Virginia’s academic libraries had substantially improved thelending of materials among ourselves (Millson–Martula, Bartmann Pathak,& Pfeiffer, 2000, pp. 5–6).

John Haar of Vanderbilt University provided the best map of collec-tion management projects in his 2003 Center for Research Libraries (CRL)study ‘‘Assessing the State of Cooperative Collection Development: Reportof the Working Group to Map Current Cooperative Collection DevelopmentProjects.’’ Haar’s report states that:

The survey responses indicate, for example, that for most participatinglibraries cooperative collection development is a relatively recent un-dertaking. Fully 72% of the reported projects were born in the 1990s,confirmation of the emergence of database-purchasing consortia during

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4

New Frontiers in Collaborative Collection Management 103

the decade. Those projects where print-based activities are major compo-nents tend to have been in operation longer. While 52% of them beganin the 1990s, 33% date their origin before 1980 (Haar, 2003, p. 186).

This CRL research project documents that the boundaries of cooperativecollection management include the new frontier of electronic resources aswell as print resources. Haar notes in his conclusion, ‘‘Electronic resourcespromote cooperative collection development not only as products for con-sortial purchase, but also as enhanced tools of bibliographic access anddocument delivery’’ (Haar, 2003, p. 190).

Since 2004, more librarians have written about specific consortial CCDprojects, such as Ruth Connell’s account of John Carroll University library’sexperience with OHIOlink’s CCD book overlap project in 2008 entitled ‘‘EightMay Be Too Many: Getting a Toe-Hold on Cooperative Collection Building,’’where she states pragmatically that while the objectives of CCD ‘‘are cer-tainly worthwhile goals : : : cooperative development of print collections hasmoved forward slowly because mind-sets need to evolve before processescan do so’’ (Connell, 2008, p. 19).

CCD COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE TODAY

Now in 2011, CCD is a fast-growing movement with many active com-munities of practice. This sudden change in the landscape could be theconsequence of the global economic recession in 2008 and the necessity formindsets to change and budgets downsized, but simultaneously advances intechnologies for electronic resource sharing, such as ebook collections, havealso pushed the boundaries of collection management.

One of the most active of these current communities of practiceis the Association of SouthEastern Research Libraries (ASERL, 2011) Col-lection Development Initiative (http://www.aserl.org/programs/collection-development-initiative/) that since 2007 has held regular lunchtime meetingsat the Charleston Conference, which meets annually in November. Mostrecently in 2010, they discussed analyzing journal value, author accessfees for open access journals, and the ASERL consortial journal retentionagreement.

Nationally, the American Library Association established in 2007 a Coop-erative Collection Development Committee (CCDC) as a joint committee ofthe Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) and the Sharingand Transforming Access to Resources Section (STARS) of the Reference andUser Services Association (RUSA). The CCDC is charged with ‘‘studying, pro-moting, and supporting cooperative collection development and related userservices.’’ (http://ccdc.pbworks.com/w/page/6468702/FrontPage) (CODES).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


The international network OCLC also sponsors projects in CCD, suchas the OCLC Cooperative Collection Management Trust Pilot (2010), which‘‘consists of 22 academic and research institutions : : : Participants will eval-uate service concepts that should help libraries to more effectively preserveand provide access to their print collections. These service concepts will betested during the pilot:

� Registry of committed print materials� Cooperative print preservation policies� Cooperative print access policies� Preservation and weeding recommendation services� Resource sharing of committed print materials. (OCLC Cooperative Collec-

tion Management Trust Pilot, 2010)

Constance Malpas, Program Officer for OCLC Research, compiled the final2009 OCLC Shared Print Collections Working Group Review Report, whichconcludes:

The present report summarizes the outcomes of a study of extant pol-icy documentation related to cooperative management of library printcollections. Additional work is needed to further advance our under-standing of the costs and benefits of shared print management modelsand to characterize the obstacles to widespread adoption of genuinelycooperative collection management regimes (See http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2009/2009-03.pdf).

Malpas most recently finished a report that opens up more new territoryfor CCD with the concept of ‘‘collective collections.’’ Malpas’s (2011) report,entitled ‘‘Cloud-sourcing Research Collections: Managing Print in the Mass-digitized Library Environment,’’ documents a grant-funded project with theHathi Trust and the Research Collections Access & Preservation (ReCaP) con-sortium, intended ‘‘to examine the feasibility of outsourcing management oflow-use print books held in academic libraries to shared service providers, in-cluding large-scale print and digital repositories’’ (See http://www.oclc.org/research/news/2011-01-06.htm). One of the conclusions of this report is that:

academic library directors can have a positive and profound impact onthe future of academic print collections by adopting and implementing adeliberate strategy to build and sustain regional print service centers thatcan reduce the total cost of library preservation and access. Thus, OCLCresearch is expanding the frontiers of CCD further to include print-on-demand services and new structures for library administration.

Other new developments and progress in CCD can be seen at the 2011InterLending and Document Supply (ILDS) Conference, which has many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


sessions that focus on collaborative projects, such as the Information DeliveryServices (IDS) Project, ‘‘a unique cooperative of 60 academic and researchlibraries in New York State. More than just reciprocal resource sharing,the IDS Project has become renowned for its open source software, ILLiadenhancements & best practices, and supportive community’’ (IDS SearchProject, 2011). Also, the ILDS 2011 Conference spotlights a new partnershipbeyond state consortia, the 2CUL Project:

Columbia and Cornell university libraries are pleased to join forces in atransformative and enduring partnership between our two great librarysystems that enables us to pool resources to provide content, expertise,and services that are impossible to accomplish acting alone. We imaginethat this partnership, called 2CUL, will result in a broad integration on anumber of fronts, in such areas as cataloging, e-resource management,collaborative collection development, and digital preservation. (Neal &Kenny, n.d.)

Jim Neal’s presentation for ILDS 2011 is aptly titled: ‘‘Radical Collabora-tion and the Future of the Academic Library: The 2CUL Project as Case Study.’’(See ILDS 2011 Conference Programs: http://www.ilds2011.org/index.php?showDpapers)

Today, CCD projects are dynamic and explore so many different fron-tiers of librarianship that there is a new open-access journal devoted entirelyto Collaborative Librarianship, with groundbreaking articles such as ‘‘Returnon Investment for Collaborative Collection Development: A Cost-BenefitEvaluation of Consortia Purchasing’’ by Denise Pan and Yem Fong (2010).Pan and Fong show that CCD is an essential part of assessment for librariesand is helpful in demonstrating the value of libraries to campus administra-tors. They conclude, ‘‘Consortial benefits have financial and organizationallimitations that must be factored into the value assessment. The qualitativeand quantitative analysis presented in this study is a beginning step towarda long-range methodology to create a value assessment picture for oneuniversity consortium’s collection investments’’ (Pan & Fong, 2010, p. 191).

VALE ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIUM OF NEW JERSEYCCD PROJECTS

In 2005, the VALE New Jersey academic library consortium, with 54 memberlibraries, approved the founding of a Cooperative Collection Management(CCM) Committee to address the problems documented in the VALE 2004white paper, ‘‘Collections Under Stress: Developing a Coordinated Responseto Ensuring Future Access to Print Holdings in New Jersey,’’ which foundthat ‘‘As information delivered electronically assumes greater and greaterimportance—even though published materials continue to burgeon—the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


library’s ability to dedicate adequate monetary resources and physical spaceto print collections is diminishing.’’ (VALE, 2004, p. 1)

The VALE CCM Committee’s charge was to develop resources for coop-erative collection management among VALE libraries and raise awareness oflast copy, repository, and other collection management issues, both for printand electronic book and periodical resources (see http://www.valenj.org/committees/cooperative-collection-management). Since that time, the em-phasis on assessment of library collections and the explosion of new tech-nologies for serials collections access and management, and now ebookcollections, has necessitated the CCM Committee to initiate working groups,subcommittees, and task forces to evaluate and propose projects to addressthese issues in a fast-changing environment. Below are a summary of thecurrent projects of the VALE Cooperative Collection Management Committee.

The VALE e-book Collections Task Force

A group of 10 librarians form the VALE e-book Collections Task Forcewho are charged to consider and provide recommendations to implement aconsortial approach to purchasing ebooks, with the possible goal of sharingtitles purchased by individual members, and to examine the idea of centrallyfunding an ebook collection to which all VALE members have access.

During the spring of 2010, the task force members held an ebook Col-lections Symposium in coordination with Lyrasis, which featured a panel ofebook vendor experts as well as presentations from VALE member librarianswho had implemented patron-initiated ebook collections and various otherebook collection models (See http://www.njla.org/njacrl/tech/ebookSymp10.html for photos of the Symposium and links to the presentations).

The VALE ebook Collections Task Force also conducted a survey andpresented the results to the VALE Executive Board in June, 2010. This VALEmembers’ survey of ebook collections practices and preferences was sharedwith other statewide consortia, such as VIVA in Virginia and the Orbis Cas-cade Alliance in the Northwest. The results of the survey are posted online athttp://www.valenj.org/sites/default/files/VALE_ebooks_Collections_Task_Force-Report%20revised_0.pptx (Mallery, 2010). The final recommendationof the ebook Collections Task Force is to create an ongoing ebook collectionssubcommittee of the VALE Electronic Resources Committee to actively pursueshared, subject-centered ebook collections selection and licensing for theconsortium.

The WorldCat Collection Analysis Group

The WorldCat Collection Analysis Group began in 2007 as support for thoseVALE libraries with a subscription to the OCLC WorldCat Collection AnalysisTool (WCAT) to develop best practices so that the subscribing libraries could

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 1. Comparison of Peer Group

use the tool most effectively. Two libraries participated in individual pilotprojects and used WCAT to determine specific subject areas of strengthand weakness in their respective library’s collections in comparison to achosen peer group. The results were a list of potential titles for purchasein areas that were targeted as weak according to the comparison. PamelaTheus (2007) of William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey, took thelead on this project and presented on her library’s findings in May, 2007. TheWCAT group compiled a significant comparison for the VALE New Jerseyacademic library consortium of the collections of four VALE member librarieschosen as a peer group. The purpose of the comparison was to determinethe extent of collection uniqueness and overlap among this group. Figure 1outlines the parameter of the titles used in the comparison, and shows thata mere 2% of the titles were held by all four peer group libraries. However,that 2% translates into Figure 2 which shows the budgetary impact of fourlibraries each purchasing a single copy of the same title. With caveats that theoverlapped titles include classics that all four libraries would have purchasedregardless of any collaborative plan, and that the purchases were made overa long period of time, the collection overlap statistics still show that in the

FIGURE 2. Overlap Means

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


future, a plan to develop less duplication could make more unique titlesavailable to each library’s patron community.

Unfortunately, not many VALE libraries were able to afford subscriptionsto the OCLC WCAT software, and the group has now determined to expandits purview to general collection assessment.

The New VALE Collection Assessment Group

The new VALE Collection Assessment Group under the CCM committee isexploring various ways of looking at subject strengths and weaknesses to laythe groundwork for fostering a culture of collaboration among its membersthat would go beyond the traditional cooperative purchasing of electronicresources. It includes the serials subcommittee, which has the followingcharges:

1. Investigating last-copy management for print journal collections;2. Cooperatively tracking serials holdings and resource sharing;3. Evaluating tools for cooperative serials collection management;4. Working with the NJ State Library to update the NJ Union List of Serials;

and5. Sharing information about preservation for print material through micro-

film and for electronic collections using tools such as the LOCKSS (Lotsof Copies Keep Stuff Safe), project based at Stanford University Libraries.

(See http://www.valenj.org/committee/cooperative-collection-management/serials-subcommittee-cooperative-collection-management-c)

The Circulation Analysis Project

The Circulation Analysis Project of the VALE CCM Committee is exploring thepatrons’ use of recently purchased titles as another method of evaluating printcollections. The specific purpose and guidelines of the project are recountedat: http://www.valenj.org/sites/default/files/Circ%20Pilot%20Purpose.docx

Three libraries formed a pilot group to work out the details of a templatethat could be used by all VALE libraries that use the LC classification system.The project examines circulation of the same titles over a five-year periodfor titles purchased during fiscal year 2004 to 2005. The goal is to see whatpercentage of the titles are used each year and, over time, to help determinesubject areas of high and low circulation.

For the individual libraries, this information should provide insight intocollection development and selection practices and suggest ameliorativestrategies, such as re-assessing the collection management strategies in low-circulation subject areas defined by LC classification. Figure 3 shows thethree Circulation Assessment Project pilot libraries in comparison to each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 3. 5 Year Circulation of Books Purchased (FY 2005) (color figure available online).

other in selected LC areas. This comparison spotlights subjects where therecould be collaborative collection development among these libraries. Forexample, libraries that show low circulation over a five-year period in onearea might consider reviewing their purchasing criteria in that area and relymore on other libraries with strong collections in that subject and provideaccess through interlibrary loan.

More libraries in VALE have joined the Collection Assessment Group thisyear, and there will be further development of the template as we receivemore data.

The VALE Open-source Library System (OLS)Steering Committee

The VALE Open-source Library System (OLS) Steering Committee is explor-ing a project with promise for new tools to enable cooperative collectiondevelopment in a multi-system library environment: the virtual catalog. VALEmember libraries are investigating an OLS, based on the Kuali OLE systemthat is in development through a partnership of Indiana University, DukeUniversity, the University of Pennsylvania, and other research libraries. Seedmoney for Kuali OLE is provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

The Kuali OLE project, a partnership of top research libraries, will de-velop a community-source library management system that will define

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


a next-generation technology environment based on a thoroughly re-examined model of library business operations. It will address currentneeds, identified and solved by the very people who use the systems.(Kuali OLE Project Committee, 2010)

The timeline for the VALE implementation of Kuali OLE, according to theFAQ, is: ‘‘VALE intends to begin implementing Kuali OLE as soon as it be-comes available, currently projected to be July, 2012. A one-year testing anddevelopment cycle is anticipated, with early implementers beginning to mi-grate to VALE-OLS during the 2013–2014 academic year’’ (VALE OLS, 2011).

NEXT STEPS IN VALE CCD

Pamela Theus, Chair of the VALE Cooperative Collection Management Com-mittee, notes in the current CCM Committee Annual Report that, ‘‘The VALECCM Committee is at the beginning of the process of establishing truecollaborative collection development.’’ (Theus, 2011, p. 1) The next stepsfor the group are small but important:

1. Outreach to more VALE libraries to increase committee membership;2. Motivate 10 VALE libraries to participate in the Circulation Project;3. Share best practices in collection assessment for periodicals and books

and electronic resources; and4. Focus on a specific CCD topic for sharing at each meeting. (see http://

www.valenj.org/committees/notes/ccm-annual-report-2011).

In conclusion, when members of the VALE Cooperative Collection Man-agement Committee presented our projects as a poster session at the Asso-ciation of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) 2011 National Conferencein Philadelphia, we were surprised that Austin Booth and Cyril Oberlanderconsidered the SUNY CCD projects as ‘‘Radical Strategies for Cooperative Col-lection Development and Resource Sharing’’ (listen to the audio of their com-plete, excellent presentation online at: http://www.learningtimes.net/acrl/2011/liberation-through-sharing-radical-strategies-for-cooperative-collection-development-and-resource-sharing/) (Booth, Oberlander, & Hendrix, 2011,Web resource). The VALE librarians had been pursuing the same kinds ofCCD projects for years, individually and as a group. We considered theseprojects to be common-sense, practical answers to the needs of the day, andnot at all radical, but then we remembered that VALE’s motto is ‘‘Dedicatedto Innovation and Collaboration.’’ The VALE CCM Committee’s CCD projectshelp to fulfill this consortial commitment and bring us closer to opening themany new frontiers of collaborative collection management for all to enjoy,but the progress is still slow and, in some cases, one step at a time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


REFERENCES

Association of SouthEastern Research Libraries (ASERL). (2011). Association of South-

Eastern Research Libraries (ASERL) Collection Development Initiative. RetrievedJuly 15, 2011 from http://www.aserl.org/programs/collection-development-initiative/

Booth, A., Oberlander, C., & Cunningham Hendrix, K. (2011). ‘‘Liberation throughsharing: Radical strategies for cooperative collection development and resourcesharing.’’ ACRL 2011 Conference presentation. Retrieved July 15, 2011 fromhttp://www.learningtimes.net/acrl/2011/liberation-through-sharing-radical-strategies-for-cooperative-collection-development-and-resource-sharing/

Burgett, J., Haar, J., & Phillips, L. L. (2004). Collaborative collection development: A

practical guide for your library. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.CollaboraTeS Project Team. (2011). CollaboraTeS Project of OhioLINK Website. Re-

trieved July 15, 2011 from http://platinum.ohiolink.edu/dms/collaborate/Connell, R. (2008). Eight may be too many: Getting a toe-hold on cooperative

collection building. Collection Management, 33, 17–28. Retrieved July 15, 2011from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleIDD4A89B72595B9F4A8243D

Haar, J. (2003). Assessing the state of cooperative collection development. Collection

Management, 28, 183–190. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleIDD7PD4D56GL5U97VD0NRDL

IDS Search Project. (2011). IDS Search Project Website. Retrieved July 15, 2011 fromhttp://idsproject.org/

InterLending and Document Supply (ILDS) Conference Committee. (2011). Inter-

Lending and Document Supply (ILDS) Conference Website. Retrieved July 15,2011 from http://www.ilds2011.org/index.php?showDhome

Kuali Open Source Library Environment (OLE) Project Committee. (2010). Kuali OLE

Project Website. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://kuali.org/node/425Mallery, M. (2010). VALE ebook collections task force report. Retrieved July 15,

2011 from http://www.valenj.org/sites/default/files/VALE_ebooks_Collections_Task_Force-Report%20revised_0.pptx

Malpas, C. (2011). Cloud-sourcing research collections: Managing print in the mass-

digitized library environment. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. Retrieved July 15,2011 from http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2011/2011-01.pdf

Malpas, C. (2009). Shared print policy review report. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research.Retrieved July 15, 2011 from www.oclc.org/programs/reports/2009-03.pdf

Millson–Martula, C., Bartmann Pathak, S., & Pfeiffer, C. (2000). Cooperative collectionmanagement in the consortial environment: The VIVA pilot projects. Library

Philosophy and Practice, 3. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.uidaho.edu/�mbolin/lppv3n1.htm)

Neal, J., & Kenny, A. R. (n.d.). 2CUL Website. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://2cul.org/

OCLC Cooperative Collection Management Trust Pilot. (2010). Retrieved July 15,2011 from http://www.oclc.org/middleeast/en/productworks/ccmt.htm

OhioLINK Collection Building Task Force. (2005). Memorandum. Retrieved July 15,2011 from http://platinum.ohiolink.edu/cbtf/numberofcopies.pdf

Orbis Cascade Alliance. (2011). Orbis Cascade Alliance strategic agenda. RetrievedJuly 15, 2011 from http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/strategic-agenda

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Pan, D. & Fong, Y. (2010). Return on investment for collaborative collection de-velopment: A cost-benefit evaluation of consortia purchasing. Collaborative

Librarianship 2: 183–192. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.collaborativelibrarianship.org/index.php/jocl/article/viewFile/108/72

Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) CODES/STARS Cooperative Collec-tion Development Committee (CCDC). (n.d.) The CCDC Wiki. Retrieved July 15,2011 from http://ccdc.pbworks.com/w/page/6468702/FrontPage

Theus, P. (2007). Towards collection assessment: The WorldCat collection analysistool pilot project at William Paterson University. VALE 2007 Conference presen-tation. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.valenj.org/sites/default/files/WPUNJWCATMay2007.ppt

Theus, P. (2011). VALE cooperative collection management committee annual report.Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.valenj.org/committees/notes/ccm-annual-report-2011

VALE Cooperative Collection Management Committee. (2011). VALE cooperative

collection management committee website. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.valenj.org/committees/cooperative-collection-management

VALE LastCopy/Repository Issues Working Group. (2004). Collections under stress:

Developing a coordinated response to ensuring future access to print holdings in

New Jersey. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://valenj.org/newvale/conference/2005/VALELastCopyDec04.pdf

VALE/NJLA ebook Collections Symposium Committee. (2010). ebook collections sym-

posium website. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.njla.org/njacrl/tech/ebookSymp10.html

VALE Serials Subcommittee. (2010). VALE serials subcommittee website. RetrievedJuly 15, 2011 from http://www.valenj.org/committee/cooperative-collection-management/serials-subcommittee-cooperative-collection-management-c

VALE Open-source Library System (OLS) Steering Committee. (2011). FAQ. RetrievedJuly 15, 2011 from http://www.valenj.org/committee/vale-ols-steering/vale-ols-faq-frequently-asked-questions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

7:35

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

New Frontiers in Collaborative Collection Management