Library Cooperation: Wave of the Future
or
Ripple?*
BY JACQUELINE W. FELTER, Director
The Medical Library Center of New York New York, New York ABSTRACT Little of the literature in library cooperation applies specifically to library service for the health sciences. Based on experience in and observations of the cooperation of health science libraries, this short lecture reviews aspects of general library cooperation, networks, and consortia. The effects on library operation of several cooperative activities are enumerated and cooperation management is discussed briefly.
I CHOSE cooperation among libraries as my subject for the simple reason that it is the field in which I have worked for the past ten years. I thought, too, that there might have been little written about it in comparison with other aspects of library management and service. On the contrary, quite a lot has been written about it. For example, a selection of both papers and pertinent excerpts from books on cooperation written between 1948 and 1972 make a book nearly 400 pages long (1), with a considerable number of papers, monographs, and conference proceedings left over. Nevertheless, little of this spate of publications applies specifically to the health sciences, and I think this is an appropriate time to review the subject. Besides, a lecture on cooperation offers a tempting opportunity to make observations on practically any aspect of library operation. What makes the time right? Cooperatives are proliferating, for one thing. And the cooperatives are forming associations with other cooperatives. Because it appears that joint action may be more effective than individual action, libraries form cooperative groups which in turn look to other groups for ideas about solutions to common problems and goals to be achieved. This "layered look"-to borrow an expression from the clothing industry-bewilders me, and I * Janet Doe Lecture in History or Philosophy of Medical Librarianship, presented June 4, 1974, at the Seventy-third Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association, San Antonio, Texas.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
suspect that, as in the world of fashion, results depend on how skillfully the layers are laid on. Finally on top of it all, in its draft of a "New National Program of Library and Information Service," the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) views local cooperatives as "stop-gaps," and proposes "a total system rather than a collection of separate parts" (2). Closer to home, our own National Library of Medicine looks upon regional plans and multilibrary enterprises as the methods of choice, rather than stop-gaps, for more effective use of library resources. Unfortunately the NCLIS draft program seems not to recognize the progress of the National Library of Medicine and its Extramural Programs toward a total system. Then there is the terminology. Library cooperation has long been a familiar term applied to all or various, and presumably
beneficial, library relationships. Networkingthat term has been around for a while, too-connotes participation in and commitment to a system, library interaction rather than just action. Now there is a new term, consortium, as yet not precisely defined for libraries. It suggests a joining together for a common purpose, a union stronger than mere library cooperation. In the articles in the literature the guidelines put forth are mostly extrapolations based on surveys of current practice. So I propose that although we proceed along paths already trod, we examine the present state of library cooperation with open eyes and minds, a reflection of Szent-Gy6rgyi's comment, "Discovery is seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." My observations or impressions are largely personal, without reference to the participants of any particular group or locality. My remarks pertain to libraries serving the medical community. And inasmuch as the Janet Doe Lecture is traditionally a
I
JACQUELINE W. FELTER
philosophical exposition, I am not addressing myself in great detail to the financial aspects of various kinds of cooperation, although they influence the extent of an institution's participation and cannot be ignored. So much for the caveats.
COOPERATION
and mission in each size category. Within their group these libraries are capable of reciprocal cooperation, dependent on one another rather than on the largest library in town. But although groups form, based on geographical propinquity or some other affinity, cooperation continues to. be principally a one-to-one relationship, voluntary, and gratis, often following the channels of personal friendships among the librarians and justified to the administrations as furtherance of knowledge. Cooperation of this sort may have been acceptable in times of library affluence when there were light service loads, and when costly equipment like computers had not yet been introduced into libraries. In reality, however, it is, as Dagnese says, "at best a very tenuous idea, one which succumbs easily to the exigencies of self-interest and fiscal retrenchment" (4).
In a report of a session at the ALA meeting last year in Las Vegas, Kenneth Beasley was quoted as saying that "cooperation has gone as far as it can go" (3). This comment is out of context; I do not know what else Beasley said. To me, however, it is unthinkable that it should mean that cooperation is "out," and highly individual, independent operation is "in." Rather, I assume, it means that the cooperation of the old days has gone as far as it can go.1 What was it like in the old days? Cooperation was something one engaged in or not, as NETWORKS convenient, a moral rather than contractual obligation. It had various configurations. It In contrast to participation in this desultory began as the large library helping the smaller kind of cooperation, a library that becomes a one. In the really early days, when MLA was member of a network participates in a system. young, a few medical libraries of great stature A network improves the direct interaction served in loco parentis to the young upstarts. between libraries by providing a switching These distinguished libraries took their moral center which can marshall the force of the obligation seriously, donating to their foster group to fulfill the needs of one member. children their classification schemes, the advice Library A may make a request that is filled by a of their librarians, and interlibrary loan. You combination of assistance from Library B and notice that I said "donating"; it was all gratis. Library X, as arranged by the center; in this Over the years this kind of patronage contin- case Library A is obligated not to the assisting ued-mostly in one direction, from large to libraries, but to the center and pays a fee-forsmall, usually without charge, dispensed some- service or accepts responsibility for honoring times grudgingly, but more often altruistically. the request of Library Z, which also is a Many libraries, particularly those in hospitals, participant in the network. Libraries B and X, could not have gotten off the ground without on the other hand, are compensated for such help, but it has had adverse effects as well. assisting Library A by receiving assistance from For one thing, librarians of small libraries Library Y. If the word "assistance" is translated turning toward large libraries, as if to Mecca, to interlibrary loan, the verbal diagram becomes formerly overlooked the opportunities to help more clear. Or, as the Regional Medical each other, and thus become more self-suffi- Libraries do it, the old progression is reversed, cient. On another hand, institutional adminis- and loans climb up a hierarchy from small to trations, especially in hospitals, took free larger library. Network assistance, however, has assistance for granted, and tended to value the other faces-shared data bases for producing librarian according to his ability to provide catalog cards, for example, and union catalogs, library service at little or no cost. sometimes linked to serials control systems. Of course, more recently the picture has Networks have other characteristics that changed. In every community now there are a make them different from the older form of greater number of libraries similar in resources library cooperation. Network participation is 1The exact quotation is "cooperation has gone as overt acknowledgment of the inadequacy of far as it can due to localism." Libr. J. 98: 2237, 1973. solo operation and the need for interdepend2
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
LIBRARY COOPERATION ence, whereas in old-fashioned library cooperation the admission of inadequacy was tacit. The need for expensive equipment, like computers, gave network development its impetus. Up to now, at least, libraries have been willing to admit all of them do not have their own computers. And in a network a library fulfills its needs from the resources of the membership as a participant rather than as a mendicant, because in some way, either in currency or in services, it pays its own way. In summary, networks are a business, not charity. That brings us to money. Networks are likely to be fee-structured. If the members are the same size and all use the same network services, it is easy to set the fee. One simply divides the agreed-upon budget evenly. If the libraries are of different sizes, the fair allocation of cost is more complicated. The ideal would be to separate the network services into units, analyze the costs of each, and set unit prices. The participants could elect all, or some, units and pay accordingly. In such a network, the small library should come off rather better than it does in unstructured cooperation; it is not a "poor relation," but rather pays its own way. Many of us are still inexpert cost accountants, however, and instead of basing fees on cost analysis of segregated units, we base them on ability to pay. Thus the large libraries carry the load; the small ones ride half-fare, more or less; and the relationship of patron and dependent is not really changed.
CONSORTIA Since the word consortium came into vogue, the dictionary pages on which it is defined have been well thumbed. In addition to giving the business and banking derivation, the dictionary obliges with the broad definition of "an association for a common purpose." The broad definition is good enough for us, for, if we follow the precedents set by "library cooperation" and "networks," the term will be given substance according to the way it is applied to library practice. The difference is that, while we have inherited "library cooperation" and some of us are young enough to have inherited "networks," all of us are starting at the beginning with "consortium" and have the opportunity to shape the connotation of the word. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
Cuadra and Patrick, reporting on the Survey (5) which produced, among other things, their excellent book, Guidelines for the Development of Academic Library Consortia (6), equate consortia with networks, but their characterization that "members share system planning and development resources, as well as operating responsibilities and functions," is good advice for any group, however small, however simple the program. Paraphrasing the criteria in the "Survey of Academic Library Consortia in the U. S." the following are applicable to any type of library group: The cooperative must be organizei voluntarily to pursue activities of benefit to the participants. The participating institutions must be autonomous. Two or more libraries must be involved, with activities extending beyond traditional interlibrary loan. If the library cooperative is part of a higher level, multipurpose consortium, it must be a separate entity with the goal of improving library service. The consortium must have developed beyond the exploratory stage; in other words, the group must have declared itself a cooperative entity and must be planning joint activities.
The Guidelines go on to consider administrative structure appropriate for programs of different complexity and to suggest a modular approach to consortium development. The design is flexible; the modules can be manipulated like building blocks. "Not all steps are necessary for every consortium; steps may be used in different sequences; several steps may be performed simultaneously; and steps tend to reiterate" (5). With such a rational design, and perspective on past cooperation, consortia should develop, not "just grow." Now some brief observations about some of the activities in which cooperatives engage. In the literature there are descriptions aplenty of the implementation and effectiveness of specific programs. INTERLIBRARY LOAN The first activity that comes to mind, of course, is interlibrary loan. It is the oldest tangible cooperation. For the donor library, it is also the easiest, or it was until library funds began to shrink. In the donor library interlibrary loan does not alter the familiar patterns of library service; no new techniques are required. It is, moreover, very gratifying to be able to play Lord Bountiful to one's neighbors. 3
JACQUELINE W. FELTER
The institution's primary clientele is not inconvenienced, in fact, is scarcely aware of the library's lending function. Before networks, the borrowing library had a harder time of it, deriving satisfaction only at the end when the book was finally in the hand of the reader. In between, under the old pattern, the borrowing library was a suppliant, seeking its item by way of random requests and repetition. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again," is an old ILL adage. Networks and their accessory, the union catalog, have improved the lot of the borrowing library. Networks have made borrowing, of uncommon journals, at any rate, a business, orderly and legitimate. Familiarity with library resources disclosed in union lists reduces, if not eliminates, the number of fruitless requests. In some networks interlibrary loans can be expedited through prearranged channels from library to library. Donor libraries are compensated for accepting responsibility for lending.
UNION LISTS AND CATALOGS Union lists and catalogs are products of cooperation. They were almost lost in limbo until computer technology brought them back to life. Their cost effectiveness is often questioned, for they are expensive to maintain, but their usefulness, it seems, is never in doubt. In the words of the Analysis of the Midwest Medical Union Catalog: Progress Report No. 1, "There is no longer the undaunted enthusiasm for union catalogs that there used to be ..." (7). Yet whenever libraries form a group to provide better service for their clientele and their community, the first thing they plan is compilation of a union catalog of their holdings. The librarians in New York are no exceptioni; after ten years, they are still calling for a union catalog of monographs, a companion piece for the Union Catalog of Medical Periodicals. SERLINE is NLM's current nod in the union list direction. Overall, we look forward to the completion of the Midwest RML Analysis for some sound conclusions. Possibly union lists have more validity as by-products of shared cataloging and shared serials systems than as independent projects. It may be damning with faint praise to add that, at any rate, union lists are another cooperative activity 4
that does not essentially disrupt so-called "normal" operations in the participating libraries. SHARED CATALOGING AND CENTRALIZED CARD PRODUCTION It is regrettable that cooperative cataloging and centralized card production have come on so slowly in health science libraries, regrettable because their missions are so similar and such quantities of their collections are identical, and because, seemingly, such small differences are deterrents to collective operation. In public library systems, the similarity of the branches and the duplication of books purchased make centralized card production an economical function. If we could look at all the health science libraries in a community as parts of a system, benefits would accrue from shared cataloging and centralized replication of cards, if not computer output in some form. Even acknowledging the fact that there are some individual differences in libraries, it is hard for me to accept the necessity and justify the cost for the minute differences in handling the bibliographic elements and the subject control of the literature that so intrigue catalogers. I doubt that the library's patrons are aware of them, as long as they can find the book. Of course, NLM's Current Catalog and CATLINE and, for some, the MARC tapes serve as common denominators, and by standardizing many details go a long way toward speeding production and decreasing cataloging costs. Exquisite additions to the standard product are, I think, lost to all but the expert cataloger. Is it perhaps an effort to make something creative out of a rather dull job? As for typing and reproducing catalog cards, the photocopier and the MAG CARD have reduced the time and the dull routine, but wouldn't it be better if in some central location it could be done once for
all? SHARED RESOURCES There are two facets to shared resources, sharing what one already has and coordinating the acquisition of new materials. The rationale for both is to provide maximum adequacy of resources without duplication and wasteful
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 197S
LIBRARY COOPERATION
expenditure. The ideal is a well thought-out plan with input from every participant and latitude to accommodate individual library requirements. It isn't always so orderly, however. Let's take the retrospective material first. Especially, if there is separate housing for the shared-use collection, each participant hastens to deposit what he needs least. Given the good judgement of librarians, a surprisingly good collection may accrue. Nevertheless, there will be gaps to fill from other sources, and there are some practices against which safeguards are necessary. After the first rush, subsequent deposits will produce a lot of duplicates, so it is necessary to tell the donors what they should not send, lest the depository staff spend all its time, and everyone's money, sorting out and disposing of unwanted copies. There must be guidelines for the kind and time-span of drug house organs and news sheets to avoid swamping the collection with ephemera; decisions about the extent of responsibility for local news publications, like county medical society bulletins; and directives about the retention of current awareness services of limited currency. Steps must be taken to prevent doctors who clean house or the libraries they shuttle through from unloading on the depository. Refusal of out-of-scope material is mandatory. A few participants are disgruntled when they find that the depository will not take the junk they cannot bear to throw away, but by and large the participants are understanding and cooperative. Shouldn't they be? After all this shareduse collection is the one they will depend upon. Separate housing for depository collections is expensive to acquire and maintain. A less expensive alternative for a cooperative is the allocation to each participant of responsibility for retaining a designated segment of the literature. Assignments should be consonant with the special programs of each institution. This plan works well if there are firm ground rules: someone responsible for its continuing regulation; each participating library able to commit itself in perpetuity to its retention responsibility and willing to disengage from its collection the volumes that are held by someone else to make room for those it promises to keep. This kind of shared-use program has another advantage-each participant has to Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
dispose of its own duplicates and "junk" publications. Coordinated current acquisitions programs are another activity which has come on slowly. Apparently it is easier to pool the materials one has owned, used, and no longer needs urgently, than it is to share those not yet acquired. There seems to be apprehension that one's colleague, or his subscription agency, will not deliver the journals he is responsible for. One feels much more secure with his own subscription, even when he has to claim missing issues. I cannot judge from experience the success of coordinated acquisitions programs. Most of us consider them last-ditch efforts to combat adverse fiscal conditions. It is unfortunate that we are forced by circumstances into programs that would succeed so much better on real enthusiasm. I hope that the composite records of current journals that are by-products of network-operated serials control systems will change the picture. Union lists are mainly retrospective and rarely up to date. Current serials control provides up-to-the-minute records which will, I trust, provide a safe and sound foundation for what I consider a provident program. Undermining shared-resources programs is the fallacy that the size of a library collection is a measure of its importance. Until availability abroad as well as quality at home becomes the measure of library status, the odds will be against the sharing of resources. This has been a once-over-lightly summary. There are other activities that cooperating libraries can enter into-a central circulation bank which would both reveal at a glance the immediate availability of any book anywhere in the system and spin off records, such as overdue notices, for each participant; a universal identification card which, geography permitting, would enable readers to move freely from library to library; shared MEDLINE service. As I have had no experience with these, I cannot speak of them with authority. Nor have I specifically mentioned joint use of computer technology. The need to own and use a computer has indeed brought libraries together, but computer technology is a tool which can implement any of the cooperative functions that I have mentioned. The libraries in a group would make a grave mistake if they
5
JACQUELINE W. FELTER
said, "Let's get together and lease a computer," and then decide what to do with it. It should be the other way around.
HOW TO SUCCEED IN LIBRARY COOPERATION I have not had a heart-to-heart talk with Secretary-General Waldheim about this, but I suspect that the library cooperatives are similar to the United Nations. Both depend for success upon the delicate balances between preservation of individual prerogatives and relinquishment of some of those prerogatives for the achievement of the common good. Olson places responsibility upon the leadership for the failure of library cooperation (8). The directors, he says, like participants who do not make waves. The directors would counter, I suspect, with the reply that no leader can make progress if he has to push, pull, prod, or pacify his co-workers, or cajole them into changing their behavior patterns. Certain facts must be recognized and dealt with. People are naturally competitive; librarians are dedicated to their institutions-or at least know who butters their bread; their libraries are reflections of their initiative, ingenuity, expertise, and professionalism; they frequently are bound by legal constraints, especially when public funds support them; they are sometimes loath to change comfortable behavior patterns and tend to have more confidence in themselves than in their peers. Cooperative programs thrive best, of course, on mutual respect and enthusiastic commitment of both participant and director. At first glance it would seem that libraries of the same size and similar mission would make the best cooperative. Certainly it is somewhat difficult to plan programs for those of different size and requirements. Libraries too much alike, however, tend to be competitive. On reflection I think the best "mix" is of libraries oriented in different, but allied disciplines. They would then complement each other.
6
Now to answer the question posed in the title of today's lecture-is library cooperation a ripple or the wave of the future? It has been a ripple long enough, but I am not sure that a wave would be beneficial. Waves are sometimes rough and tumble, impelled by forces beyond one's control. I would prefer library cooperation to come on as a strong, steady tide. Ebb and flow is to be expected; the period of the ebb used for reflection and evaluation so that the flow will be more effective. I believe that cooperation by whatever name is viable and necessary. Only irreversible circumstances prevent me from continuing to be part of it. REFERENCES 1. (a) REYNOLDS, MICHAEL M., ed. Reader in Library Cooperation. Washington, D. C., NCR Microcard Editions, 1972. 398 p. (b) STENSTROM, R. H. Cooperation between types of libraries, 1940-1968: An annotated bibliography. Chicago, American Library Association, 1970. 159 p., Supplement, 1969-1971, by M. E. Gilluly and L. M. Wert. Ill. Libr. 54: 385400, May 1972. 2. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Draft: A new national program of library and information service. Spec. Libr. 64: 583-590, Dec. 1973. 3. BEASLEY, KENNETH. Cited in Localism in Las Vegas. Libr. J. 98: 2231-2242, Aug. 1973. 4. DAGNESE, JOSEPH M. Cooperation between academic and special libraries. Spec. Libr. 64: 423432, Oct. 1973. 5. CUADRA, CARLOS A., and PATRICK, RUTH J. Survey of academic library consortia in the U. S. Coll. Res. Libr. 33: 271-283, July 1972. 6. PATRICK, RUTH J. Guidelines for the Development of Academic Library Consortia. Santa Monica, Calif., System Development Corporation, 1971. (TM4597/005, Nov. 1971) 200 p. 7. OLSON, PAUL E., and PLETZKE, CHESTER J. Analysis of the Midwest Medical Union Catalog; Progress Report No. 1. Chicago, Midwest Health Science Library Network, The John Crerar Library, May 1974. 25 p. 8. OLSON, EDWIN E. Interlibrary Cooperation. Washington, D. C., U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research, 1970. 139 p.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc.
63(1) Jan. 1975
or
Ripple?*
BY JACQUELINE W. FELTER, Director
The Medical Library Center of New York New York, New York ABSTRACT Little of the literature in library cooperation applies specifically to library service for the health sciences. Based on experience in and observations of the cooperation of health science libraries, this short lecture reviews aspects of general library cooperation, networks, and consortia. The effects on library operation of several cooperative activities are enumerated and cooperation management is discussed briefly.
I CHOSE cooperation among libraries as my subject for the simple reason that it is the field in which I have worked for the past ten years. I thought, too, that there might have been little written about it in comparison with other aspects of library management and service. On the contrary, quite a lot has been written about it. For example, a selection of both papers and pertinent excerpts from books on cooperation written between 1948 and 1972 make a book nearly 400 pages long (1), with a considerable number of papers, monographs, and conference proceedings left over. Nevertheless, little of this spate of publications applies specifically to the health sciences, and I think this is an appropriate time to review the subject. Besides, a lecture on cooperation offers a tempting opportunity to make observations on practically any aspect of library operation. What makes the time right? Cooperatives are proliferating, for one thing. And the cooperatives are forming associations with other cooperatives. Because it appears that joint action may be more effective than individual action, libraries form cooperative groups which in turn look to other groups for ideas about solutions to common problems and goals to be achieved. This "layered look"-to borrow an expression from the clothing industry-bewilders me, and I * Janet Doe Lecture in History or Philosophy of Medical Librarianship, presented June 4, 1974, at the Seventy-third Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association, San Antonio, Texas.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
suspect that, as in the world of fashion, results depend on how skillfully the layers are laid on. Finally on top of it all, in its draft of a "New National Program of Library and Information Service," the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) views local cooperatives as "stop-gaps," and proposes "a total system rather than a collection of separate parts" (2). Closer to home, our own National Library of Medicine looks upon regional plans and multilibrary enterprises as the methods of choice, rather than stop-gaps, for more effective use of library resources. Unfortunately the NCLIS draft program seems not to recognize the progress of the National Library of Medicine and its Extramural Programs toward a total system. Then there is the terminology. Library cooperation has long been a familiar term applied to all or various, and presumably
beneficial, library relationships. Networkingthat term has been around for a while, too-connotes participation in and commitment to a system, library interaction rather than just action. Now there is a new term, consortium, as yet not precisely defined for libraries. It suggests a joining together for a common purpose, a union stronger than mere library cooperation. In the articles in the literature the guidelines put forth are mostly extrapolations based on surveys of current practice. So I propose that although we proceed along paths already trod, we examine the present state of library cooperation with open eyes and minds, a reflection of Szent-Gy6rgyi's comment, "Discovery is seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." My observations or impressions are largely personal, without reference to the participants of any particular group or locality. My remarks pertain to libraries serving the medical community. And inasmuch as the Janet Doe Lecture is traditionally a
I
JACQUELINE W. FELTER
philosophical exposition, I am not addressing myself in great detail to the financial aspects of various kinds of cooperation, although they influence the extent of an institution's participation and cannot be ignored. So much for the caveats.
COOPERATION
and mission in each size category. Within their group these libraries are capable of reciprocal cooperation, dependent on one another rather than on the largest library in town. But although groups form, based on geographical propinquity or some other affinity, cooperation continues to. be principally a one-to-one relationship, voluntary, and gratis, often following the channels of personal friendships among the librarians and justified to the administrations as furtherance of knowledge. Cooperation of this sort may have been acceptable in times of library affluence when there were light service loads, and when costly equipment like computers had not yet been introduced into libraries. In reality, however, it is, as Dagnese says, "at best a very tenuous idea, one which succumbs easily to the exigencies of self-interest and fiscal retrenchment" (4).
In a report of a session at the ALA meeting last year in Las Vegas, Kenneth Beasley was quoted as saying that "cooperation has gone as far as it can go" (3). This comment is out of context; I do not know what else Beasley said. To me, however, it is unthinkable that it should mean that cooperation is "out," and highly individual, independent operation is "in." Rather, I assume, it means that the cooperation of the old days has gone as far as it can go.1 What was it like in the old days? Cooperation was something one engaged in or not, as NETWORKS convenient, a moral rather than contractual obligation. It had various configurations. It In contrast to participation in this desultory began as the large library helping the smaller kind of cooperation, a library that becomes a one. In the really early days, when MLA was member of a network participates in a system. young, a few medical libraries of great stature A network improves the direct interaction served in loco parentis to the young upstarts. between libraries by providing a switching These distinguished libraries took their moral center which can marshall the force of the obligation seriously, donating to their foster group to fulfill the needs of one member. children their classification schemes, the advice Library A may make a request that is filled by a of their librarians, and interlibrary loan. You combination of assistance from Library B and notice that I said "donating"; it was all gratis. Library X, as arranged by the center; in this Over the years this kind of patronage contin- case Library A is obligated not to the assisting ued-mostly in one direction, from large to libraries, but to the center and pays a fee-forsmall, usually without charge, dispensed some- service or accepts responsibility for honoring times grudgingly, but more often altruistically. the request of Library Z, which also is a Many libraries, particularly those in hospitals, participant in the network. Libraries B and X, could not have gotten off the ground without on the other hand, are compensated for such help, but it has had adverse effects as well. assisting Library A by receiving assistance from For one thing, librarians of small libraries Library Y. If the word "assistance" is translated turning toward large libraries, as if to Mecca, to interlibrary loan, the verbal diagram becomes formerly overlooked the opportunities to help more clear. Or, as the Regional Medical each other, and thus become more self-suffi- Libraries do it, the old progression is reversed, cient. On another hand, institutional adminis- and loans climb up a hierarchy from small to trations, especially in hospitals, took free larger library. Network assistance, however, has assistance for granted, and tended to value the other faces-shared data bases for producing librarian according to his ability to provide catalog cards, for example, and union catalogs, library service at little or no cost. sometimes linked to serials control systems. Of course, more recently the picture has Networks have other characteristics that changed. In every community now there are a make them different from the older form of greater number of libraries similar in resources library cooperation. Network participation is 1The exact quotation is "cooperation has gone as overt acknowledgment of the inadequacy of far as it can due to localism." Libr. J. 98: 2237, 1973. solo operation and the need for interdepend2
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
LIBRARY COOPERATION ence, whereas in old-fashioned library cooperation the admission of inadequacy was tacit. The need for expensive equipment, like computers, gave network development its impetus. Up to now, at least, libraries have been willing to admit all of them do not have their own computers. And in a network a library fulfills its needs from the resources of the membership as a participant rather than as a mendicant, because in some way, either in currency or in services, it pays its own way. In summary, networks are a business, not charity. That brings us to money. Networks are likely to be fee-structured. If the members are the same size and all use the same network services, it is easy to set the fee. One simply divides the agreed-upon budget evenly. If the libraries are of different sizes, the fair allocation of cost is more complicated. The ideal would be to separate the network services into units, analyze the costs of each, and set unit prices. The participants could elect all, or some, units and pay accordingly. In such a network, the small library should come off rather better than it does in unstructured cooperation; it is not a "poor relation," but rather pays its own way. Many of us are still inexpert cost accountants, however, and instead of basing fees on cost analysis of segregated units, we base them on ability to pay. Thus the large libraries carry the load; the small ones ride half-fare, more or less; and the relationship of patron and dependent is not really changed.
CONSORTIA Since the word consortium came into vogue, the dictionary pages on which it is defined have been well thumbed. In addition to giving the business and banking derivation, the dictionary obliges with the broad definition of "an association for a common purpose." The broad definition is good enough for us, for, if we follow the precedents set by "library cooperation" and "networks," the term will be given substance according to the way it is applied to library practice. The difference is that, while we have inherited "library cooperation" and some of us are young enough to have inherited "networks," all of us are starting at the beginning with "consortium" and have the opportunity to shape the connotation of the word. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
Cuadra and Patrick, reporting on the Survey (5) which produced, among other things, their excellent book, Guidelines for the Development of Academic Library Consortia (6), equate consortia with networks, but their characterization that "members share system planning and development resources, as well as operating responsibilities and functions," is good advice for any group, however small, however simple the program. Paraphrasing the criteria in the "Survey of Academic Library Consortia in the U. S." the following are applicable to any type of library group: The cooperative must be organizei voluntarily to pursue activities of benefit to the participants. The participating institutions must be autonomous. Two or more libraries must be involved, with activities extending beyond traditional interlibrary loan. If the library cooperative is part of a higher level, multipurpose consortium, it must be a separate entity with the goal of improving library service. The consortium must have developed beyond the exploratory stage; in other words, the group must have declared itself a cooperative entity and must be planning joint activities.
The Guidelines go on to consider administrative structure appropriate for programs of different complexity and to suggest a modular approach to consortium development. The design is flexible; the modules can be manipulated like building blocks. "Not all steps are necessary for every consortium; steps may be used in different sequences; several steps may be performed simultaneously; and steps tend to reiterate" (5). With such a rational design, and perspective on past cooperation, consortia should develop, not "just grow." Now some brief observations about some of the activities in which cooperatives engage. In the literature there are descriptions aplenty of the implementation and effectiveness of specific programs. INTERLIBRARY LOAN The first activity that comes to mind, of course, is interlibrary loan. It is the oldest tangible cooperation. For the donor library, it is also the easiest, or it was until library funds began to shrink. In the donor library interlibrary loan does not alter the familiar patterns of library service; no new techniques are required. It is, moreover, very gratifying to be able to play Lord Bountiful to one's neighbors. 3
JACQUELINE W. FELTER
The institution's primary clientele is not inconvenienced, in fact, is scarcely aware of the library's lending function. Before networks, the borrowing library had a harder time of it, deriving satisfaction only at the end when the book was finally in the hand of the reader. In between, under the old pattern, the borrowing library was a suppliant, seeking its item by way of random requests and repetition. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again," is an old ILL adage. Networks and their accessory, the union catalog, have improved the lot of the borrowing library. Networks have made borrowing, of uncommon journals, at any rate, a business, orderly and legitimate. Familiarity with library resources disclosed in union lists reduces, if not eliminates, the number of fruitless requests. In some networks interlibrary loans can be expedited through prearranged channels from library to library. Donor libraries are compensated for accepting responsibility for lending.
UNION LISTS AND CATALOGS Union lists and catalogs are products of cooperation. They were almost lost in limbo until computer technology brought them back to life. Their cost effectiveness is often questioned, for they are expensive to maintain, but their usefulness, it seems, is never in doubt. In the words of the Analysis of the Midwest Medical Union Catalog: Progress Report No. 1, "There is no longer the undaunted enthusiasm for union catalogs that there used to be ..." (7). Yet whenever libraries form a group to provide better service for their clientele and their community, the first thing they plan is compilation of a union catalog of their holdings. The librarians in New York are no exceptioni; after ten years, they are still calling for a union catalog of monographs, a companion piece for the Union Catalog of Medical Periodicals. SERLINE is NLM's current nod in the union list direction. Overall, we look forward to the completion of the Midwest RML Analysis for some sound conclusions. Possibly union lists have more validity as by-products of shared cataloging and shared serials systems than as independent projects. It may be damning with faint praise to add that, at any rate, union lists are another cooperative activity 4
that does not essentially disrupt so-called "normal" operations in the participating libraries. SHARED CATALOGING AND CENTRALIZED CARD PRODUCTION It is regrettable that cooperative cataloging and centralized card production have come on so slowly in health science libraries, regrettable because their missions are so similar and such quantities of their collections are identical, and because, seemingly, such small differences are deterrents to collective operation. In public library systems, the similarity of the branches and the duplication of books purchased make centralized card production an economical function. If we could look at all the health science libraries in a community as parts of a system, benefits would accrue from shared cataloging and centralized replication of cards, if not computer output in some form. Even acknowledging the fact that there are some individual differences in libraries, it is hard for me to accept the necessity and justify the cost for the minute differences in handling the bibliographic elements and the subject control of the literature that so intrigue catalogers. I doubt that the library's patrons are aware of them, as long as they can find the book. Of course, NLM's Current Catalog and CATLINE and, for some, the MARC tapes serve as common denominators, and by standardizing many details go a long way toward speeding production and decreasing cataloging costs. Exquisite additions to the standard product are, I think, lost to all but the expert cataloger. Is it perhaps an effort to make something creative out of a rather dull job? As for typing and reproducing catalog cards, the photocopier and the MAG CARD have reduced the time and the dull routine, but wouldn't it be better if in some central location it could be done once for
all? SHARED RESOURCES There are two facets to shared resources, sharing what one already has and coordinating the acquisition of new materials. The rationale for both is to provide maximum adequacy of resources without duplication and wasteful
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 197S
LIBRARY COOPERATION
expenditure. The ideal is a well thought-out plan with input from every participant and latitude to accommodate individual library requirements. It isn't always so orderly, however. Let's take the retrospective material first. Especially, if there is separate housing for the shared-use collection, each participant hastens to deposit what he needs least. Given the good judgement of librarians, a surprisingly good collection may accrue. Nevertheless, there will be gaps to fill from other sources, and there are some practices against which safeguards are necessary. After the first rush, subsequent deposits will produce a lot of duplicates, so it is necessary to tell the donors what they should not send, lest the depository staff spend all its time, and everyone's money, sorting out and disposing of unwanted copies. There must be guidelines for the kind and time-span of drug house organs and news sheets to avoid swamping the collection with ephemera; decisions about the extent of responsibility for local news publications, like county medical society bulletins; and directives about the retention of current awareness services of limited currency. Steps must be taken to prevent doctors who clean house or the libraries they shuttle through from unloading on the depository. Refusal of out-of-scope material is mandatory. A few participants are disgruntled when they find that the depository will not take the junk they cannot bear to throw away, but by and large the participants are understanding and cooperative. Shouldn't they be? After all this shareduse collection is the one they will depend upon. Separate housing for depository collections is expensive to acquire and maintain. A less expensive alternative for a cooperative is the allocation to each participant of responsibility for retaining a designated segment of the literature. Assignments should be consonant with the special programs of each institution. This plan works well if there are firm ground rules: someone responsible for its continuing regulation; each participating library able to commit itself in perpetuity to its retention responsibility and willing to disengage from its collection the volumes that are held by someone else to make room for those it promises to keep. This kind of shared-use program has another advantage-each participant has to Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63(1) Jan. 1975
dispose of its own duplicates and "junk" publications. Coordinated current acquisitions programs are another activity which has come on slowly. Apparently it is easier to pool the materials one has owned, used, and no longer needs urgently, than it is to share those not yet acquired. There seems to be apprehension that one's colleague, or his subscription agency, will not deliver the journals he is responsible for. One feels much more secure with his own subscription, even when he has to claim missing issues. I cannot judge from experience the success of coordinated acquisitions programs. Most of us consider them last-ditch efforts to combat adverse fiscal conditions. It is unfortunate that we are forced by circumstances into programs that would succeed so much better on real enthusiasm. I hope that the composite records of current journals that are by-products of network-operated serials control systems will change the picture. Union lists are mainly retrospective and rarely up to date. Current serials control provides up-to-the-minute records which will, I trust, provide a safe and sound foundation for what I consider a provident program. Undermining shared-resources programs is the fallacy that the size of a library collection is a measure of its importance. Until availability abroad as well as quality at home becomes the measure of library status, the odds will be against the sharing of resources. This has been a once-over-lightly summary. There are other activities that cooperating libraries can enter into-a central circulation bank which would both reveal at a glance the immediate availability of any book anywhere in the system and spin off records, such as overdue notices, for each participant; a universal identification card which, geography permitting, would enable readers to move freely from library to library; shared MEDLINE service. As I have had no experience with these, I cannot speak of them with authority. Nor have I specifically mentioned joint use of computer technology. The need to own and use a computer has indeed brought libraries together, but computer technology is a tool which can implement any of the cooperative functions that I have mentioned. The libraries in a group would make a grave mistake if they
5
JACQUELINE W. FELTER
said, "Let's get together and lease a computer," and then decide what to do with it. It should be the other way around.
HOW TO SUCCEED IN LIBRARY COOPERATION I have not had a heart-to-heart talk with Secretary-General Waldheim about this, but I suspect that the library cooperatives are similar to the United Nations. Both depend for success upon the delicate balances between preservation of individual prerogatives and relinquishment of some of those prerogatives for the achievement of the common good. Olson places responsibility upon the leadership for the failure of library cooperation (8). The directors, he says, like participants who do not make waves. The directors would counter, I suspect, with the reply that no leader can make progress if he has to push, pull, prod, or pacify his co-workers, or cajole them into changing their behavior patterns. Certain facts must be recognized and dealt with. People are naturally competitive; librarians are dedicated to their institutions-or at least know who butters their bread; their libraries are reflections of their initiative, ingenuity, expertise, and professionalism; they frequently are bound by legal constraints, especially when public funds support them; they are sometimes loath to change comfortable behavior patterns and tend to have more confidence in themselves than in their peers. Cooperative programs thrive best, of course, on mutual respect and enthusiastic commitment of both participant and director. At first glance it would seem that libraries of the same size and similar mission would make the best cooperative. Certainly it is somewhat difficult to plan programs for those of different size and requirements. Libraries too much alike, however, tend to be competitive. On reflection I think the best "mix" is of libraries oriented in different, but allied disciplines. They would then complement each other.
6
Now to answer the question posed in the title of today's lecture-is library cooperation a ripple or the wave of the future? It has been a ripple long enough, but I am not sure that a wave would be beneficial. Waves are sometimes rough and tumble, impelled by forces beyond one's control. I would prefer library cooperation to come on as a strong, steady tide. Ebb and flow is to be expected; the period of the ebb used for reflection and evaluation so that the flow will be more effective. I believe that cooperation by whatever name is viable and necessary. Only irreversible circumstances prevent me from continuing to be part of it. REFERENCES 1. (a) REYNOLDS, MICHAEL M., ed. Reader in Library Cooperation. Washington, D. C., NCR Microcard Editions, 1972. 398 p. (b) STENSTROM, R. H. Cooperation between types of libraries, 1940-1968: An annotated bibliography. Chicago, American Library Association, 1970. 159 p., Supplement, 1969-1971, by M. E. Gilluly and L. M. Wert. Ill. Libr. 54: 385400, May 1972. 2. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Draft: A new national program of library and information service. Spec. Libr. 64: 583-590, Dec. 1973. 3. BEASLEY, KENNETH. Cited in Localism in Las Vegas. Libr. J. 98: 2231-2242, Aug. 1973. 4. DAGNESE, JOSEPH M. Cooperation between academic and special libraries. Spec. Libr. 64: 423432, Oct. 1973. 5. CUADRA, CARLOS A., and PATRICK, RUTH J. Survey of academic library consortia in the U. S. Coll. Res. Libr. 33: 271-283, July 1972. 6. PATRICK, RUTH J. Guidelines for the Development of Academic Library Consortia. Santa Monica, Calif., System Development Corporation, 1971. (TM4597/005, Nov. 1971) 200 p. 7. OLSON, PAUL E., and PLETZKE, CHESTER J. Analysis of the Midwest Medical Union Catalog; Progress Report No. 1. Chicago, Midwest Health Science Library Network, The John Crerar Library, May 1974. 25 p. 8. OLSON, EDWIN E. Interlibrary Cooperation. Washington, D. C., U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research, 1970. 139 p.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc.
63(1) Jan. 1975
