Issues in Sharing an Integrated Library System

There are many decisions library staff confront as they consider implementing an automated system. One of the first decisions that must be made is whether sharing an automated system with other libraries is a viable option. This decision-to share or not share an automated system-is a critical decision with long-term implications.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to define briefly what is a "shared system". As one might expect, there are different interpretations of what constitutes a shared automated system. Succinctly stated, a shared system means having at least two libraries, linked via a telecommunications network, using the same hardware platform and library application software (i.e., online catalog, circulation system, etc.). Shared systems often include the sharing of data files or the creation of single data files for various applications.

A myriad of questions must be addressed in sharing an automated system that do not arise when a library implements its own separate automated system. For example, will the cataloging databases from all the libraries be integrated and treated as a single database or will each library maintain its own database? To what extent will the participating libraries seek commonality in loan policies, cataloging practices, and coordinated acquisitions?

A commitment to a shared system must be based on the assumption it will be a long-term commitment. Libraries sharing a system do occasionally decide to withdraw or to disband the entire cooperative venture, and language allowing this is usually part of any shared system contract. However, the withdrawal process is seldom technically or procedurally simple. It can also become a very acrimonious process because the withdrawal or dissolution often occurs in an atmosphere of discord, distrust and paranoia.

Advantages:

Below are some of the basic advantages of shared systems. Many of the advantages will be of particular interest to smaller libraries.

• The library's resources are expanded

This is probably the major benefit for joining or creating a shared system. Treating the participating libraries' collections as one union catalog significantly increases the resources available to patrons. Requests for titles not held in the library can easily be made by staff or directly by patrons searching the union OPAC and then using the system's "hold" feature. Many shared systems also make other electronic information resources, like full-text periodical databases, available to participating libraries. Usually the consortia site license for these databases will be less costly than if each library purchases them individually.

• More robust, sophisticated systems are available

Libraries sharing a system select library application software from vendors that has been designed to operate in a shared system environment. The traditional microcomputer-based systems were designed to operate in a single library, not as a shared application among a group of libraries. Shared systems often operate on more stable hardware and use more reliable operating systems than do the traditional micro-based systems. The larger systems also have more functions and features available than micro-based systems. Smaller libraries that would have to consider a micro-based system if they were implementing it themselves can get a more robust, fully featured system by being part of a shared system.

• Shared cataloging is more feasible

Even when using CIP or one of the CD-ROM or Web-based cataloging products, smaller libraries seldom have adequate time or other resources available to maintain consistently high quality cataloging. In a shared system this cataloging can be much easier, saving a considerable amount of time and money. For example, if five libraries in the shared system purchase the same title, only one library has to actually catalog it. Once a title is cataloged, other libraries can simply enter their holdings data, such as the call number and collection code ("Ref," "Juv," etc.). The benefits of not having to catalog most acquisitions, nor file catalog cards for them, can be significant.

• Staff need not have complete knowledge of the system's operation

When an automated system is implemented, the library's staff are totally responsible for all aspects of the system's operation. In libraries with limited staff time and expertise this can be an impediment to automating in the first place. In a shared system, library staff must know how to use the system but they are not burdened with the additional major responsibility of managing and operating the system too. A system manager is responsible for the system's operations. The manager resolves technical problems and manages all the other "behind-the-scenes" details that must be addressed on a routine basis. Library staff in each library using the system do not need this level of expertise nor do they want to development it.

• Library cooperation is enhanced

By definition, any shared system will help foster cooperation among the participating libraries. It is certainly helpful if some type of cooperation exists a priori. However, implementing a shared system can serve as a catalyst to bring together libraries and staff that may have had little previous contact. Such contact can lead to other cooperative projects and programs.

Disadvantages:

There are very understandable reasons why shared systems are not always the right option for all libraries. Some of these reasons are listed below.

• Local control and governance are compromised

This is a major impediment to getting a shared system operational. Simply stated, librarians are not always willing to concede some of their autonomy and make the compromises that are necessary as part of any group process. For a shared system to be successful, some local library control must be relinquished to the governing body created to manage and operate the shared system.

• Different libraries serve different clienteles

It is much easier to get a shared system operational when all participants are from the same type of library. Different types of libraries can share a system, but a higher level of cooperation is required. For example, there may be little commonality in circulation policies between a community college and the local public library. In some systems shared between different types of libraries, the hardware and software are shared but the libraries maintain separate databases.

• Telecommunication expenses

In shared systems, data are communicated among the participants over specially conditioned phone lines leased from one or several telephone companies. Paying the monthly phone bill can be a major budget item, especially if long distances are involved. Ongoing telecommunication costs have been a major technical impediment to getting more shared systems operational. Note: The federal E-rate and the state's TEACH program have significantly reduced telecommunications costs for Wisconsin libraries and these costs are no longer viewed as a major impediment to joining a shared system.

In addition to costs, telecommunication options and configurations are almost endless and can be mind-numbing in their complexity. If staff are not too knowledgeable is this area, they should seek help from a telecommunication consulting firm. Most major vendors also have telecommunication specialists who can work with the libraries.

• Who will pay what?

The mechanism or formula used by a consortium to determine who pays what can be subject to endless and divisive debate. Most cost formulas take into consideration a library's collection size, circulation, and number of workstations. This works reasonably well for libraries of the same type but is less viable when different types of libraries are sharing a system, because of wide variances in these factors. What may be viewed as a "fair" share by one library may be viewed as nothing less than extortion by another.

• The features needed from the system must be defined

What one librarian defines as a critical feature essential to his/her library may be of little importance to another. Unfortunately, this often results in a Request For Proposal (RFP) that labels 99% of the features as "mandatory" because at least one librarian insists that the feature be labeled as such. This is an impossible standard for vendors to meet when they reply to the RFP. The inclination to label every feature as "mandatory," "essential," or "critical" must be constantly resisted.

• Who determines what system to purchase?

Some consortia seem to work harmoniously until the time comes actually to select a system. At this point the process and the congeniality break down. Libraries may withdraw from the process, necessitating another price quote from vendors, or the withdrawals may cause the whole process to collapse. Again, compromise is a necessity.

Conclusion:

Shared automated systems offer many advantages to the participating libraries and the patrons they serve. This option should always be thoroughly explored as a library embarks on planning for an automated system. As with any successful group process, implementing a shared automated system is dependent on maintaining a high degree of cooperation among the partners and a willingness to compromise.

---

Let me know if you have any questions.

Bob Bocher, Library Technology Consultant
Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning
Public Library Development
125 S. Webster St., Box 7841, Madison, WI 53707-7841
(608-266-2127, fax 608-267-1052)
robert.bocher@dpi.wi.gov

October 2000

---

For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127

Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:49:27 PM