Library Acquisitions: Practiceand Theory, Vol. 2, pp. 167-170 (1978). 0364-6408/78/030167-04$02.00/O Printed in the U.S.A. Ail rights reserved. Copyright 0 1979 Pergamon Press Ltd

MULTITYPELIBRARYNETWORKING

ACADEMIC LIBRARY PARTICIPATION IN A RESOURCE SHARING NETWORK

ALICE WILCOX

Director Minnesota Interlibrary Telecommunications Exchange (MINITEX)

30 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

I’m delighted to be here today. I’m very envious of you because you’re about to embark on quite an adventure. I don’t know anything more exciting than starting a network. It’s exciting to implement and carry on any network, but the real excitement is in getting it started. The potentials and possibilities are unlimited.

The topic I was asked to address today was “The Role of Academic Libraries in a Multitype Network.” I would like your permission to change this slightly to “Academic Library Participation in a Resource Sharing Network.” This may seem a semantic quibble, but the work “role” connotes a controlling membership, whereas “participation” simply suggests support. You might want to think about that a little bit because it makes a difference in how you do your planning. I define resources as physical resources, i.e. documents, their intellectual content and bibliographic descrip tion, as well as human resources. The phrase “resource sharing” allows us to focus broadly on what is being done, rather than who is doing it.

Paul Tillich, the eminent philosopher, once said that the problem with modern man is not that he does not know the answers, but that he does not know the questions. I assure you, I have no answers, but perhaps together we can raise some of the pertinent questions.

Before we discuss academic library participation in networks, let us ask four basic questions about networks and cooperative activities. The first is, “What are we trying to do, what is our purpose?” We want to improve service, create new services, and stabilize and reduce costs. The second question deals with the geographic area being serviced by the network. We need to ask, “How many libraries are there?” and “What are their collections, their services and constraints?” For example, one common rule of thumb is that if libraries are clustered together, it’s generally easier to move the people to the resources; if they are far apart it’s easier to move the resources to the people. Another rule is that if libraries are very similar in their collections and their services, it

167

168 ALICE WILCOX

is economically prudent to set up a cooperative cataloging system. If collections are different,

divide the responsibilities-for example, divide areas of collection development. The third question, a set of questions, deals with bibliographic resources. “What are the different biblio-

graphic requirements? How can they be integrated. 7” That really raises the question, “What are the bibliographic standards or rules going to be in order to make the integration possible?” Finally, we

must ask “What are the human resources? ” “Who is going to make it work?” “Who is going to deliver these new, improved services in the most expeditious manner?”

I came to talk to you about academic libraries, and will do that after I mention some funda- mental assumptions about resource sharing. The first is that the purpose of resource sharing networks is service to the user. The citizen, the consumer, must get more for his money with the network than he did without one or the network is not successful.

The second assumption is that the local library is the consumer’s most efficient and most appropriate service center. Therefore, network service should be provided through libraries, not directly to the consumer. The network must support local libraries, not compete with them. We like to think that every library ought to be able to provide 95% of its users’ needs. In the case of a university library, this may mean expansion of the collection to better support the curriculum and other recurring needs. Now, you say that’s not very much left over-that 5%. But when a library takes care of only 95% of its needs, it has greatly limited what it has to do. It doesn’t need to spend undue effort on that other 5% which, in satisfying all user needs, may require infinity in terms of information resources. We don’t know of a single library in our network that has used MINITEX for more than 5% of its needs, and MINITEX is a very open-ended network.

The third assumption is that participation in a resource sharing network must demonstrably benefit all its participants. It must be worthwhile in practice, not just in theory.

Fourth, it is essential that network members understand and recognize existing individual constraints. For example, while the mission and goal of a public library can be determined by a board of trustees, the mission of an academic, agency or company library is the mission of its parent institution. A higher level is involved in the decision making, so its participation is slightly different from that of a public library. Still, participation should be possible among several dif- ferent kinds of libraries-in fact it can be easy. But there is no magical scheme that’s going to work in every situation.

The last assumption is that libraries increasingly are acknowledging the impossibility of having totally comprehensive collections and of providing totally comprehensive services to their users based on only their own resources. Resource sharing is a necessity if libraries are to provide access to all physical documents and provide the services to support the needs of the users. In other words, resource sharing is a prerequisite for survival.

I would like to address some of the critical objectives of academic libraries in a resource sharing network. The principle one is to improve library service. If you’re going to be part of a network, the service to the local users should not be diminished in any way. Network participation should assist the library in supporting its institutional, instructional and research programs. A secondary objective is to contribute to the cost effectiveness of library service. Membership or participation in cooperative programs ultimately will affect bibliographic standards, and also the library’s col- lection development policies (including binding and retention policies). In other words, it’s a serious arrangement. Once a library embarks on cooperation, it will never be the same again. Third, participation in a resource sharing network aims to help the academic library define its obligations and formalize its service agreements with its clientele outside the academic community. In other words, it is a useful exercise in articulating and defining goals. Fourth, the network should help the library solve conflicts between local autonomy and cooperative responsibility to the satisfaction of both its parent institution and its clientele. Cooperative agreements must not be made at the expense of the library’s primary users.

Academic Library Participation in a Resource Sharing Network 169

The cost of cooperative programs needs to be recognized and budgeted. The biggest cost is

probably in time-time for meetings, time for planning-and that’s not an insignificant cost. Furthermore, the library should be aware of and make maximum use of its cooperative program services including the bibliographical, material and human resources. A number of libraries that have joined cooperatives believe that they are the “haves,” that they’re only giving to the “have nets.” But if these libraries don’t utilize the resources of the other libraries in the network, the arrangement ultimately won’t be successful. Finally, a library should be conscious of the implications of cessation of resource sharing programs and the impact this would have on the academic community. For example, once a cooperative collection development scheme in which libraries are dependent on one another has been started, the arrangement can never be dropped without the creation of gaps in resources available to users. A resource sharing system constantly monitors and then meets the needs of its participants as a group, not individual libraries. It is

imperative that you recognize that. In closing, I’d like to talk a bit about our experience in Minnesota. We started out knowing that

we wanted to improve the services that were delivered in libraries and to offer some new ones. We looked at the givens and discovered a couple of things. In the entire state there was only one university, a publicly supported one, that had an overwhelmingly large collection. It held about three and a half million volumes, whereas the next largest library held a million and a quarter. There could not have been any cooperative program without access to that university collection. The second thing that we discovered was that about three-fourths of our information resources were located in the metropolitan area, in the southeastern part of the state. So a couple of things were obvious. We needed that large research collection to be part of the system, and we needed to share its resources. We wanted to have a pilot demonstration project to answer three simple questions. One: “Would it be possible from the user point of view to deliver a document (or book or journal article or tape recording) quickly enough. 7” Two: “Would it be cheaper to duplicate collections, or to share them?” and three: “What will be the impact on the primary user?”

We knew all the fears; everyone knows them. The faculty is always sure that every book they want will be out, and that there aren’t ever enough to share. Interestingly enough, though, the users told us in no uncertain terms that yes, we could get the documents to them. We saw immediately that the cost of duplicating was overwhelming. It was infinitely cheaper to share than it would have been to duplicate the collections throughout the state. The most interesting thing we found was that there was very little conflict of interest with the primary users. We documented this very carefully. We played a little trick. We simply asked if we could conduct a research project for two years, (academicians just can’t resist the bait) and we were in. We said that we would carefully record every request from the primary community, i.e. the faculty and students, and we would monitor to see how long it took to get the book. Well, we discovered such an insignifi- cant level of conflict of interest that no one could have been against it. We very effectively disproved the myth that an academic library can’t share its resources with the public, schools, or government agencies.

At the end of the experimental period, we went to the state legislature and the legislators voted in favor of the program because they said it was so economically and educationally sound to form a network. Then all the other participants agreed to share their resources with each other on the same basis that the university had. In the entire network there isn’t a single library that is not asked to share some of its resources. In fact, we have not added a single library to the Minnesota Union List of Serials which has not had at least one unique title. I’m not sure that there are many “haves” and “havenots.” In a network, everybody has something to gain.

Before I leave I’d just like to read to you the MINITEX purpose: “TO facilitate resource sharing among academic and other libraries in Minnesota as well as between Minnesota libraries and those in other states in order to strengthen the library services provided to students, faculty, researchers

170 ALICE WILCOX

and residents of Minnesota and to contribute to cost effectiveness of library services in the individual libraries.”

So, as I’ve constantly tried to suggest, it is critical that we not threaten any library into participation in resource sharing and that we recognize the benefits available to each library. Because the appropriate place for service is at the local level, an individual library needs to be strengthened, not put in a competitive or defensive position. With good will anything is possible; with bad will everything is difficult.