Resource Sharing & Collection Building through a Consortium:

1. Resource Sharing & Collection Building through a Consortium: an Indonesian model created with international collaboration

2. Authors INDONESIA: Liauw Toong Tjiek (Aditya Nugraha), Petra Christian Univ., Surabaya Welmin Suharto Brawijaya Univ., Malang Nanan Hasanah Inst. of Tech. Bandung, Bandung Ida Fajar Priyanto Gadja Mada Univ., Yojyakarta Yooke Tjuparmah Indonesian Educational Univ., Bandung U.S.A.: John Hickok California State University Fullerton

3. Abstract • This paper ideally fits with the theme “Re-Assess, Reassign, and Reinvent: Collection Building Without Global Borders.” The authors are all library directors in Indonesia, currently in the process of forming a groundbreaking consortium of academic libraries for resource sharing & collection building. This process has involved collaborating with other libraries and librarians, from various countries, already involved in successful library consortiums—e.g., the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, etc., as well as the U.S.A

4. Abstract • The process of forming this consortium has: (a) reassessed traditional thinking among Indonesian academic libraries; (b) reassigned customary duties among Indonesian academic libraries; and (c) re-invented ways of building/accessing collections. This paper offers an promising model for other international libraries and librarians to follow, in that it reflects a surveying and incorporating of several different successful consortium models, crossing multiple borders.

5. Outline Introduction (John) overall description & goal of the consortium idea. I. Re-Assess (Aditya) Background of Indonesian academic libraries independent of each other and the need to re-assess this. II. Reassign (Welmin) Discussion of some new/reassigned duties library staff will have when the consortium is in full operation. III. Re-invent (Nanan) Discussion of discuss how the consortium will create new ways/opportunities to add to your library collections. Conclusion (John) Summary of the collaboration process

6. Introduction

7. I. Re-assess

8. I. Re-assess • Under-appreciated by society, even in academic circles

9. I. Re-assess • Under-appreciated by society, even in academic circles • Impacts to libraries:

10. I. Re-assess • Under-appreciated by society, even in academic circles • Impacts to libraries: • No clear vision in the roles & functions of libraries  operates in isolation to one another

11. I. Re-assess • Under-appreciated by society, even in academic circles • Impacts to libraries: • No clear vision in the roles & functions of libraries  operates in isolation to one another • Lack of support & funding from administrators  struggle for their survival

12. I. Re-assess • Under-appreciated by society, even in academic circles • Impacts to libraries: • No clear vision in the roles & functions of libraries  operates in isolation to one another • Lack of support & funding from administrators  struggle for their survival • Few exceptions for big government-funded universities

13. I. Re-assess • Collaborations are difficult in big disparity in conditions

14. I. Re-assess • Collaborations are difficult in big disparity in conditions • Other factors make collaborations difficult:

15. I. Re-assess • Collaborations are difficult in big disparity in conditions • Other factors make collaborations difficult: • Unreliable postal services  worsen by geographical condition

16. I. Re-assess • Collaborations are difficult in big disparity in conditions • Duplicate library collection (books and printed journals) • Other factors make collaborations difficult: • Unreliable postal services  worsen by geographical condition • No agreed-upon system(s) to support collaborations

17. II. Re-assign

18. II. Re-assign The first step is to make a union catalog (a preliminary one is already created for 6 state university libraries). The next step is document delivery, leading to future ILL

19. II. Re-assign For safety reasons, currently ILL has not been applied. It needs more time for development among the member libraries

20. II. Re-assign OPAC

21. II. Re-assign Status of items

22. Preliminary Union Catalog II. Re-assign

23. For example, the item at one of the 6 member libraries: ITB II. Re-assign ITB (InstitutTeknologi Bandung) Library

24. OPACs must include the book cover picture and table of contents to facilitate ILL between these institutions.

25. Staff reassignmentswhen consortium is applied Staff monitoring ILL requests Input the request to the system and print out request ( if needed) Check the book status in OPAC (if it is onloan, standby, or other copy available).

26. Staff reassignment when consortium is applied Find the book on the shelf and take it Scan the section users need Send to the library of the user who requested the information via email Re-shelve the book

27. Ill. Re-invent

28. Ill. Re-invent • Accreditation puts more attention to libraries

29. Ill. Re-invent • Accreditation puts more attention to libraries • Information technology, Internet & digital libraries: • Opening up libraries to broader audience • Giving libraries more ‘prestige’ • Increasing flow of information in library circles

30. Ill. Re-invent • First step: negotiate with vendors for consortium rate of online journal database subscriptions • DGHE has made press release • Bigger universities pay more than smaller or less-fortunate ones  similar to the scheme adopted by Vietnam • Sustainability is a major concern since the scheme relies heavily on DGHE’s financial support  more independent consortium needs to be considered

31. Ill. Re-invent • Collaborations are emerging: • The formation of six library-related organizations since 2005 • The formation of library task force by the Directorate General of Higher Education/DGHE (Ministry of Education) • The emergence of library-related standards

32. Ill. Re-invent • Share bibliographic information of each library’s holding • Proliferation of IndoMARC standard as a start • Six major universities in Java exploring OAI for sharing holding information

33. Ill. Re-invent • ILL will pose the most challenge, with several possibilities: • Setting up borrowing limits to avoid unequal lending vs. sharing rate  LINK+ experience • Starting up with local ILLs (city/province-wide ILL)  Mendiola Consortium’s (Phillipine) experience • Libraries getting together and can share experiences to improve library services and expand activities.

34. Conclusion