waking up from the dream can resource in common work n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Waking up from the Dream: Can Resource in Common Work? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Waking up from the Dream: Can Resource in Common Work?

Waking up from the Dream: Can Resource in Common Work?

86 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Waking up from the Dream: Can Resource in Common Work?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Waking up from the Dream: Can Resource in Common Work? Presented: June 26, 2011 Wyoma vanDuinkerken and Crystal Vinal

  2. Introduction • University of Texas at Austin (UT) & Texas A&M University (TAMU)– College Station libraries were faced with the challenge of the continual operation and growth of their academic libraries • Increasing digital environment • Researchers not hindered by geographic location • Repurposing library as a space • Libraries mean different things to different people • UT had already built LSF1 for its system school libraries • UT and TAMU elected to manage the challenges of space and economic situation with remote • storage facilities (Library Storage • Facility [LSF2] module 2) • UT and TAMU system remote • storage unit at TAMU Riverside • Campus

  3. Types of Storage Units • Institutional storageoccurs when one library builds a storage unit, on or off an academic campus, to house its own material. • Cooperative storageoccurs when two or more libraries build a storage unit together in order to save money. However, there is no attempt by the two libraries to collaborate on what is placed in the storage unit, they just share the space. • Regional library storage centers are a storage unit that has an on-going specialized collection development responsibility. • Repository library storage units occur when a group of libraries come together to place items in a storage unit but they transfer the ownership of the item to the repository storage unit. (Payne, 2005)* • Collaborative storageoccurs when two or more libraries (not necessarily from the same university) build a storage unit together and agree on collection management policies, such format, and duplicates, for the material they will be placing in storage. (O’Connor et al., 2002)

  4. Vision of Resource In Common • Both universities would save money by avoiding future campus construction costs • Item stored in the joint facility may be designated by the non-owning library as a “resource in common” in order to avoid storing an additional copy • This “resource in common” may be treated as if • it were owned by both libraries • counted in the statistical reports of both libraries • borrowed by members of both institutions

  5. What is a Resource in Common? • Definition: An item deposited in the shared storage facility shall be marked as a Resource in Common (RIC) when Texas A&M libraries or the University of Texas Libraries discards all duplicatesof that item from its local collection and registers the item as a RIC. Lost and missing items are not eligible for RIC designation. The RIC designation, once made, is permanent and remains with the item thereafter regardless of its future location.* *Definition taken from the: Texas A&M Libraries and The University of Texas LibrariesMemorandum of Understanding related to library resources in common. August 23, 2006 (revised November 12, 2008)

  6. Explication* • Original owning library will retain primary responsibility for the item’s preservation & for management of its bibliographic record • Items already in storage in LSF module 1 are eligible to be designated as RICs • Either Texas A&M University Libraries or the University of Texas Libraries may decline to have items that they • have deposited in storage (such as special collections material) designated as RICs

  7. Explication* • RICs are eligible for interlibrary loan per the lending policy of the original owning institution. • RICs are exempt from any retrieval quotas or penalties for excess rates of retrieval • If a RIC item is lost or damaged it is the responsibility of the borrowing library to repair or replace, the item • Permanent recall of items designated as RICs to the on-campus collections of either library is strongly discouraged. • Encouraged to purchase a second copy. * taken from the: Texas A&M Libraries and The University of Texas LibrariesMemorandum of Understanding related to library resources in common. August 23, 2006 (revised November 12, 2008)

  8. Benefits of Resource in Common • Save cost • Free up space in stacks • Build collaboration between institutions • Increase access to material • Preservation

  9. Workflow of a RIC Process Title identified by TAMU Library Start RIC process If UT does not want to withdraw all its copies from its departmental libraries, then the A&M item cannot become a RIC. However, if UT holdings in LSF are less than 50% of TAMU holdings than TAMU sends DUPLICATE to LSF YES Check TAMU OPAC to see if there is any duplicates in departmental libraries- If yes, withdraw all but one copy and create item records TAMU RIC Coordinator notifies UT RIC Coordinator with bibl info, bar code, call #, etc No YES Check UT OPAC to see if the item is in storage If an item can’t be a RIC than it is marked as a non-RIC item in the inventory control system & in each OPAC YES If both agree to RIC, UT withdrawals all duplicates in departmental libraries. RIC Coordinators exchange bibliographic and barcode info, the local records are updated at both institutions, and the inventory records are updated No Transfer to LSF (Update records) LSF Staff update inventory

  10. Challenges • Three large challenges we needed to overcome in carrying out our RIC vision: • Communication • Workload implications • ILL questions

  11. Communication • Communication of what an RIC was • Clearly communicate to all parties a definition of what a RIC is and is not • TLA Meeting with interested TAMU and UT Systems Schools • Focus Group to create documentation • Clearly communicate to all parties a concrete example of a RIC candidate for future remote storage facility • Possible JSTOR titles

  12. Workload implications • Increase in Workload • OPAC searching • Centralized catalog for storage facility with searching capabilities • Record creation and clean up • Organize additional staff members to take on increased workload • Let participating libraries know of the possible cataloging cleanup • Matching serial binding schedules • Communicate clearly the problem binding schedules have on ILL requests • Local OPACs must match the binding schedule of the RIC item in storage. • Additional resources needed • Facilities and business office support • Negotiate contracts • Move crews • Space needed to process and stage • Identify space to stage

  13. Interlibrary Loan • ILL directly requested from Riverside • Own OCLC designation • Union Catalog • Borrowed materials return to Riverside and not to main library general stacks • Training for ILL staff • SFX problem • Latest title only in SFX

  14. Conclusion • RIC is possible • Challenges can be overcome • Communication • Increase communication • Use examples • Workload implications • Administration support • ILL questions • Ongoing

  15. FOR MOREINFORMATION: Wyoma vanDuinkerken Coordinator of Cataloging Record Support & Crystal Vinal Administrative Coordinator