Libraries work together in a variety of ways to increase efficiency and impact. But collaboration is difficult. Personality and politics play a big part alongside incentives and organizational structures.
Coordinating collective collections Collective collections are collections addressed at a level above the individual institution. I introduced our recent report on operationalizing collective collections in my last post, where I noted that there is a trend towards more managed collective collections, particularly within consortial settings. Collection coordination is central to
While collective collections have been much discussed, less attention has been paid to how to operationalize them in consortial settings. This post introduces work done with the BTAA to explore this challenge.
In making choices about focus and investment, consortial options can vary along three important axes: scoping, sourcing and (right)scaling.
Scaling capacity (building shared infrastructure and services) and scaling influence (aggregating a library voice to lobby or persuade) are historically core consortial activities.
The powers of library consortia 2: soft power and purposeful mobilization: scaling learning and innovation
Library consortia play an important role in scaling learning and innovation – this will become both more purposeful and more important in coming years.
Libraries and related organizations group together in a variety of ways to get their work done. They consort where there are scale advantages: to lobby, for example, to negotiate and license, to reduce costs, or to build shared infrastructure.
Libraries are increasingly taking a system-wide perspective of their roles and services. This can take different forms.
The union catalog seems to be experiencing a renaissance of interest, as some advantages of managing data at an aggregate level are appreciated.