Recent trends in statewide academic library consortia - consortia discussed include Georgia's GALILEO, Louisiana Library Network, OhioLINK, TexShare, and Virginia's VIVA - Resource Sharing in a Changing Environment

Library Trends, Wntr, 1997 by William Gray Potter

INTRODUCTION

Academic libraries have long formed consortia for the purpose of sharing existing physical resources--principally books and journals held by member libraries. This is done in recognition of the fact that a group of libraries has a combined set of resources that is greater than the resources of any single member. Indeed, studies have indicated that, contrary to what might be assumed, there is great diversity among collections, and even the smallest library contributes something unique (Potter, 1986). Recent figures from academic libraries in Ohio found that, of 5.7 million different titles held by thirty-one libraries, 58 percent were held just once. On average, 23 percent of each library's collection was unique to that library (Byerly, 1996). Alliances to share resources, then, make considerable sense because all the participating libraries benefit from access to titles they do not hold in their own collections.

To expedite the sharing of resources, academic library consortia have promoted the formation of union catalogs and expedited interlibrary loan. The OCLC Online Union Catalog lends itself to supporting interlibrary loan and provides the means for a consortium to facilitate requests among its members. Consortia that link circulation systems, such as LCS in Illinois and OhioLINK, permit users to determine the circulation status of a book at another library and initiate an online request. Courier services have been established to move materials from one library to another and high speed telefacsimile has become common to move copies of documents either across phone lines or across the Internet.

While the chief reason for academic libraries to form consortia has been to share existing physical resources, a new trend is becoming evident or at least more pronounced. Libraries are forming alliances for the purpose of identifying and addressing common needs arising from developments in information technology, especially the growing importance of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Specifically, it is becoming increasingly possible to offer a variety of electronic resources across the Internet. These resources include abstracting and indexing databases, the full-text of journals, the full-text of reference works, large collections of literary text, and extensive sets of digitized images. The best possible access to these resources requires high-speed workstations with access to a capacious network. Libraries are forming consortia to provide these resources on a suitable network with capable workstations. Moreover, the prevalent pattern appears to be that academic libraries are forming these consortia on a statewide basis.

CONCENTRIC CONSORTIA

Academic libraries have many overlapping consortial arrangements. The University of Georgia, for example, has alliances through the University Center in Georgia, a consortium of academic institutions in the Atlanta metropolitan area. It also has alliances through the University System of Georgia, the Georgia Online Database (GOLD), and Georgia Library Learning Online (GALILEO). Beyond the state, the University of Georgia holds membership in several regional alliances, including the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL), the Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET), and the Southern University Research Alliance (SURA). On a national level, it is active in OCLC, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Center for Research Libraries (CRL), the U.S. Agricultural Information Network (USAIN), and numerous other amalgamations of libraries. At first glance; this is a seeming hodgepodge, but each group serves a different purpose and each is important. Most large academic libraries can plot a similar set of consortial arrangements. These arrangements are like concentric rings--city, metropolitan area, state, region, national, and international. For each library, any one level may be more important than the others depending upon the mission and nature of the institutions.

VALUE OF STATEWIDE CONSORTIA

For most academic libraries, statewide cooperation offers distinct advantages and incentives. The state provides a predetermined political and geographical grouping of libraries. There are often common governing agencies for publicly supported institutions of higher education, perhaps a board of regents or a coordinating board for higher education. State government also exercises control over the publicly supported colleges and universities and, of course, provides much of the funding. The extent of direct interest that the governor or legislature takes in the operations of the libraries varies by state, but this interest is always a factor. The fact that a group of libraries shares a common funding source, be it directly through elected officials or through a board of regents or oversight agency, is an important reason to build statewide cooperative systems. There is great appeal in efforts to pool resources and in cooperating to control costs.

Beyond government, institutions in a state often share common social and cultural bodies, including foundations or economic development boards that have an interest in seeing the libraries of a state cooperate and prosper. Pride of place is also a factor in statewide cooperation. People want to promote their state and look favorably upon efforts that will demonstrably improve library services.