354 ALA Midwinter 1995 -- Conference Reports

of service that provides access to CD-ROMs, ProQuest, OhioLINK, and general equipment use. It was recommended that fees be levied for added-value services above the basic level. A high-level service includes staff assistance, mediated database searches, copying services, and training for extracurricular needs. The task force recommended that costs to customers be uniform, that docu- ment delivery be subsidized, and that resources be rationed. A rush-service fee, establishing a col- lection budget for access, and book and thesis ILL via OhioLINK are other recommendations. Recommended future actions include canceling high cost/low-use journals, rush ordering mono- graphs rather than providing these through ILL, and giving selectors budgets for access.

Tony Ferguson asked the audience to help def'me/redet'me the collection managers' roles in cou- pling ownership with access, since so many libraries are increasingly unable to provide the fastest means of access, that is, ownership. The concepts of "fast" and "cheap" were presented as a scale against which various methods of access were rated, e.g., ILL is cheap but seldom fast, while own- ership is very fast but not often cheap. Ferguson then challenged the audience to consider how easy will libraries make it for users to get the information needed. He illustrated this point using a continuum ranging from the "hard" means of providing print indexes combined with a full-cost recovery ILL and an additional service charge to the "easy" free document delivery. At what point on the "easy-hard" continuum will libraries draw the line, he asked, since to one degree or another all libraries are willing to pay for information. "Are we," queried Ferguson, "willing to take the next step to provide free and unmediated document delivery.?" He cited Colorado State as having taken that next step by opening UnCover to all users. Thus far the service has not been abused, which is similar to the experiences on a much smaller experimental scale at Columbia. Other insri- turions experience, however, is that document delivery services are used for rifles held in the local collections. The question of shelf availability was raised in response to such duplication. Ferguson concedes that budgeting when all costs are variable is a gamble but pointed out that book selection is also a gamble when we do not know how often the books will be used. Limited experiments like those at Columbia can help with best-guess predictions. Ferguson also pondered a paradigm shift and cited the experience of Columbia's Business Library. Although that library owns 80% of rifles covered by ProQuest, users still prefer to pay the $0.25/page cost for duplicate rifles. Clearly there is high value added by this type of service.

0364-6408(95)00032-1 Bill Robnett Director, Central and Science~Engineering Libraries

Vanderbilt University 419 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37240-0007 Internet: robnett@ library, vanderbilt.edu

ALCTS CMDS Cooperative Collection Development Discussion Group

Suzaane Fedunok, Binghamton University, moderated the discussion group, which had its origins during the development of the Guide to Cooperative Collection Development. This guide and how it has been utilized were the topics of Sunday's discussion.

The guide, explained Fedunok, tries to give a concrete foundation to cooperative collecrion development (CCD) and takes the "cookbook" approach by including the elements of agreements among parties, maintenance of agreements, and provision of bibliographic access and control. Built into the guide is the assumption that collection assessment will also take place. She contrast-

ALA Midwinter 1995 -- Conference Reports 355

ed the current guide and its "how to" approach with its predecessor by Mosher and Pankake (pub- fished in LRTS in 1983), which primarily d~zribed models of CCD.

When addressing the guide section on finding CCD partners, Carol Fleishauer of MIT described the Boston Library Consortium (BLC) experience. The BLC is a legal entity, explained Fleishauer, and the group is project oriented, e.g., it is establishing a storage facility, and members do not share, pooled funds. Experience has shown that the membership is so disparate that tradi- tional CCD results in too little or too much responsibility. She observed that obtaining grant fund- ing can be difficult if the consortium is not a legal entity. She went on to describe that university administrators assume CCD will save money and that what is really needed is seed money, since voluntary efforts often do not work.

Caroline Early of the National Agriculture Library pointed out that in CCD projects, collection assessments can be daunting, although a commonality of assessment is needed. In particular, mul- tilibrary-type consortia have difficulty with assessment tools such as the Conspectus. The BLC felt that developing a common assessment language could slow cooperation; with that view the con- sortium brought in a consultant who counseled participants to focus on the useful, rather than the interesting, to catalyze the CCD process.

The Collection Development Officers of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) have been directed to plan "seamless" CCD. To this end they have developed six pilot projects reflecting common interests of the CIC members. Since project leadership is at the bibliographer level, the results are expected to be rapid.

For additional reports on CCD, Fedunok announced that there was to be a program at Chicago next summer entitled Successful Models of Cooperative Collection Development.

0364-6408(95)00033-X Bill Robnett Director, Central and Science/Engineering Libraries

Vanderbilt University 419 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN37240-0007 lnternet: robnett@ library, vanderbilt.edu