What Collaboration Means to Me: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder - OCLC
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Collaborative Librarianship
Volume 10 | Issue 4 Article 3
3-19-2019
What Collaboration Means to Me: Library
collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is
harder
Lorcan Dempsey
OCLC, lorcan.dempsey@gmail.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship
Part of the Library and Information Science Commons
Recommended Citation
Dempsey, Lorcan (2019) "What Collaboration Means to Me: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder,"
Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 10 : Iss. 4 , Article 3.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss4/3
This Columns is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship
by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu.What Collaboration Means to Me: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder Cover Page Footnote I am grateful to Constance Malpas and Valerie Horton for substantial suggestions on how to improve an earlier draft of this piece. This columns is available in Collaborative Librarianship: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss4/3
Dempsey: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
What Collaboration Means to Me
Library Collaboration is Hard; Effective Collaboration is Harder
Lorcan Dempsey (lorcan.dempsey@gmail.com)
Vice President of Membership & Research / Chief Strategist, OCLC
Abstract
In this short piece, I argue that library collaboration is very important, so important that it needs to be a
more deliberate strategic focus for libraries and the organizations that support them. This is especially so
in a network environment, where scale is important in creating efficiencies and impact. Despite this, ef-
fective collaboration is hard and current arrangements are suboptimal. I discuss various reasons why this
is so, and offer some suggestions for how matters might be improved.
Keywords: consortia, library collaboration, scale, collaboration, OCLC, Jisc
Scale institution-scale operations in a shared network
environment.
The network has changed how we think about
services, how we use them, and how we build The example of HathiTrust underlines the im-
them. Take HathiTrust, for example: this rela- portance of scale in the network environment. I
tively new service is designed to work at the have a particular interest in scale, as I have
network level to create economies of scale in worked for two organizations that exist to scale
managing the community’s digitized materials.1 library capacities in different ways. One is
It also increases impact by concentrating capac- OCLC, which supports a network of over 18,000
ity and creating gravitational attraction on the libraries devoted to collaboration at scale. This
web. Twenty years or so ago, this would proba- network enables libraries to scale infrastructure,
bly have been built as a federated service on top community, and expertise around core collec-
of individual library repositories of digitized tion management needs (metadata creation, re-
materials. This would have been less efficient source sharing, discoverability). This level of co-
and probably would have had less impact. The ordinated collaboration is without parallel in the
design of HathiTrust represents careful strategic library community. Indeed, it would be a major
decisions: its creators thought purposefully achievement in any sector. The other is Jisc.2 Be-
about how the network creates new opportuni- fore I came to OCLC, I was responsible for the
ties. As did the founders of OCLC, forty or so overall investment in library and information
years earlier. In each case, very deliberate services by the Jisc in the UK. Jisc also scales ca-
choices were made about reorganizing costly, pacity, albeit working under a different model.
Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Constance Malpas and Valerie Horton for
substantial suggestions on how to improve an earlier draft of this piece.
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 227
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018 1Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 10 [2018], Iss. 4, Art. 3
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
It is a national provider of shared network infra- However, other elements of cooperation may be
structure, content licensing, and other services, better carried out at different levels – national or
for the higher education community, of which li- wider. I mentioned HathiTrust. Shared print is
braries are important stakeholders. Jisc scales to also interesting here. As noted above, a regional
the national level; OCLC scales to the network dimension has characterized early shared print
level, serving libraries around the world. initiatives. However, one also wants aspects of
this work to scale to the national or network
Libraries and Right-Scaling level in the context of collective stewardship of
the (national or global) scholarly and cultural
Scale is a big driver of library collaboration. It is
print record. We are seeing emerging moves to
useful to think about library collaboration as
coordinate between more regional initiatives.
about right-scaling – that is, finding the best
The Rosemont Shared Print Alliance has been
level at which to carry out a particular activity.
coordinating some journal initiatives and re-
However, this changes over time, particularly as
cently the Partnership for Shared Book Collec-
working in a network environment reduces in-
tions was announced.3
teraction costs and allows different design
choices to be made. This variety of scale and scope is one reason that
there is great variation in collaborative struc-
Libraries collaborate naturally, which is not to
tures. The particularities of personalities and
say that all library collaboration is equally effec-
group politics are also influential, and should
tive, efficient, or purposeful. They want to im-
not be underestimated. The level of resourcing
prove the impact and efficiency of their services,
of libraries will also have an impact. Fewer re-
and increasingly to accelerate learning and inno-
sources encourage a pragmatic and strategic ap-
vation in a complex environment. Any individ-
proach. Libraries with more resources can afford
ual library is likely to consort in multiple ven-
more affiliations, and to affiliate across more ar-
ues, segmented by the level at which it occurs (a
eas. Libraries with fewer resources might need
local ILS sharing arrangement, a state-wide re-
to collaborate to do something that a better-re-
source sharing system, a regional shared print or
sourced institution could do on its own. Groups
licensing group, and so on) and by type of activ-
are differently constituted. One example is the
ity (negotiation/licensing, advocacy/lobbying,
standalone membership organization (PALNI),
shared infrastructure, shared learning and inno-
another is the state-supported group (e.g.
vation, and so on).
Minitex or OhioLINK), and another again is the
A regional driver is quite strong for some forms group which is part of larger organizational pro-
of collaboration. For example, shared print or re- vision (BTAA, CDL). 4
source sharing benefit from geographic proxim-
Nevertheless, it is still striking how much con-
ity: they each include a physical logistics ele-
sortia have individually evolved given the long
ment (shared storage, delivery networks). A
history of library cooperation. It is surprising
sometimes-overlooked reason for the strength of
that we don’t have more routine or consensus
local or regional groups is that they facilitate in-
approaches to library collaboration along partic-
formal learning and innovation through their
ular dimensions. These include general agree-
geographically proximate networks, something
ment about appropriate levels of individual li-
that may be less strong at wider scales where
brary investment in shared activity; patterns of
face-to-face interaction and relationship building
when and how to consort; models of successful
is less easy.
consortial activity; and critically, a shared view
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 228
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss4/3 2Dempsey: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
of the optimum level at which to carry out spe- vestment in cross-institutional activity. Realloca-
cific activities. There is also considerable inertia, tion of resources away from the local to a shared
given the difficulty of setting up new organiza- resource may not be easy or locally desirable.
tions, or of dismantling or reshaping existing Perceived loss of local control may prevent
ones, and the tolerance for inefficiency is strong. change. Requirements change in ways that don’t
Looking at this variability, and thinking of my always align with consortial evolution, meaning
Jisc and OCLC experiences, I recently wrote a that support for particular collaborative needs
series of blog entries on library collaboration.5 may not be offered by existing consortia. It can
Through some simple schematics, these ex- be challenging to take a systemwide view from
plored the variety of consortial activity, their dif- an individual library perspective. The library’s
ferent organizational patterns, and library incen- parent institutions may compete with each
tives to participate. I was motivated by the ob- other, leading to a lack of institutional encour-
servation that while collaborative structures and agement for collaboration. In this way, libraries
services are well described in the literature and manifest the collective action problem – even
at conferences, the important political and or- though collaboration around certain goals
ganizational aspects of library collaboration are would be beneficial, individual interests and in-
less closely observed. I was interested in what centives aren’t always aligned in ways that pro-
drives decisions for shared investment, shared mote joint approaches. David Lewis and Cam-
services, and shared organizations. And also in eron Neylon have recently written thoughtfully
what impedes them. In summary, I described li- about the challenges of building shared infra-
brary collaboration along four vectors: scaling structure through collective action.7
capacities (infrastructure, negotiation/licensing,
services, etc.), scaling influence (lobbying, advo- 2. Both too much and not enough. Collectively
cacy), and scaling both learning and innovation libraries invest significant resources in partici-
(sharing experiences, pooling uncertainties, dis- pating in and maintaining consortial organiza-
cussing directions, convening around issues, for- tions. It may seem that the opportunity costs of
mal and informal personal development, etc.). I participation are sometimes too high, that too
also spoke about three important areas where much staff time is spent in consortial meetings,
organizational design choices are made (scop- that the general lack of planned coherence can
ing, scaling, and sourcing). be a drag on development, that effort may be
diffused across redundant organizations with
I concluded the series with a discussion of some unclear scope. And that all of this can prevent
of the challenges faced by libraries and the col- any one organization from achieving the scale
laborative organizations which support them.6 I efficiencies or impact that are really possible. At
want to focus on those challenges here. the same time, additional investment in shared
capacity may actually be needed to achieve the
The Challenges of Library Collaboration benefits libraries need most. This creates an in-
evitable tension: libraries need to collaborate
1. The collective action problem. Library collab- more, and more effectively, and need better or-
oration is both a central value of librarianship ganizational frameworks to do so; yet they may
and delivers enormous value for libraries. How- find that the current configuration of collabora-
ever, it is also both difficult and suboptimal. tions is not yielding the desired results. In fact,
There are many reasons for this. Parent institu- they need to collaborate more (in new areas, or
tions are focused on local value, and it may with more investment to create robust services),
sometimes be difficult to justify or explain in- and they need to collaborate less (become more
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 229
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018 3Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 10 [2018], Iss. 4, Art. 3
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
strategic about collaboration partners). Accord- what is desired. Again, collaboration is a strate-
ingly, there is a feeling that libraries participate gic choice about how best to get something
in shared activities both too much and not done.
enough.
4. The trade-off between consolidation and au-
3. Not just more, but more strategic. However, tonomy. Even where libraries theoretically ac-
it is not simply more collaboration that is cept the benefits of collaborative activity, prac-
needed—it is a strategic view of collaboration, tice lags behind. Given a group of libraries and
especially where there are new infrastructure its shared activities there is a spectrum of inte-
demands (for example, for shared digital preser- gration, from less to more, from local autonomy
vation, web archiving, or research data manage- to consolidation (see Figure 1 below). Typically,
ment), increased challenges for advocacy collaboration lies between these poles, involving
(around value and values), and growing compe- progressively stronger coordination as you
tition between libraries and other network infor- move to consolidated approaches. The more au-
mation service providers (for example, for re- tonomous library practices are, the higher are
search support services). In these circumstances, the coordination costs of interaction. Take ILL
libraries must be more purposeful about what policies: disparate ILL policies impose stronger
can be done collaboratively, what can be done coordination costs on a resource sharing system,
by purchasing a service from a third party, or or make the experience less well integrated. Or
what might be done locally. If a collaborative consider a shared library system. A consolidated
approach makes sense, they need to be purpose- system may be more efficient, reducing the over-
ful about what portion of their budget to ear- all cost of management and removing the need
mark for collective activities that advance their for interoperability across different local sys-
mission faster, more cheaply, or otherwise more tems. Because management is consolidated, the
effectively than going in a different direction, coordination costs are reduced. However, this is
and about ensuring that those dollars are di- bought at the cost of local customization or re-
rected to the organizations that can achieve sponsiveness.
Figure 1: Consolidation vs autonomy: tradeoffs
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 230
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss4/3 4Dempsey: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
Collaborative collection development is an inter- Conclusion
estingly topical example. Retrospective collabo-
rative collection development is well estab- As libraries work to meet new institutional
lished, and is being extended. Libraries collabo- needs, the collaborative imperative is strong. It
rate around resource sharing, digitization, and makes increasing sense to do things together in
shared print. In these cases, work is now being a network environment, where scale benefits
done to layer coordinated services or agree- both efficiency and impact. And yet current ap-
ments over autonomously developed collec- proaches will not suffice to meet this need. Col-
tions. So, some new infrastructure (consortial laboration is hard. As I suggest in the title, effec-
borrowing system, for example, or shared stor- tive collaboration is harder. It is not simply a
age) is being consolidated, while institutional given, but is a choice which has to be designed
collection development strategies remain auton- and strategized, and followed up with real com-
omous.8 mitment.
This in turn prompts stronger deliberation about We have been starkly reminded of this recently
prospective collaborative collection develop- as DPN announced its cessation, and as there
ment. However, this would involve giving up was a refocusing of DPLA activity.9 I spoke to a
some of the local autonomy around collection consortium director recently who argued that
development in favor of a more coordinated ap- we would see some standalone consortia go un-
proach, and maybe consolidating some collec- der if there were another economic downturn.
tion development strategy and planning. This And there is always pressure on publicly sup-
proves very hard to do in practice, as local is- ported consortia to show more value or to trim
sues around control or faculty resistance may costs.
count against the shared perspective.
Change happens gradually and unevenly, rather
We see this consolidation/autonomy dynamic than by grand plan or fiat. Exemplars emerge;
strongly at play in library collaborations, ac- existing organizations evolve; groups recognize
knowledging that degrees of coordination vary. new needs; champions mobilize and create sup-
The level of ‘deep collaboration’ or consolida- port.
tion found in Scholars Portal, PALNI, or Orbis
Library leaders have particular responsibilities
Cascade Alliance for example is not common.
here. They guide institutional decisions about
Nor are there very many broad-based collabora-
investment, and libraries need to get more pur-
tions involving significant shared infrastructure
poseful about how best to get their work done.
(like those facilitated by HathiTrust or OCLC).
There should be active, informed decision-mak-
That this is so, is telling.
ing about what needs to be done locally and
Moving between the poles of autonomy and what would benefit from stronger coordination
consolidation involves trade-offs, notably be- or consolidation within collaborative organiza-
tween efficiency and control and between sys- tions.
temwide and local optimization. Understanding
Crucially, library leaders also hold positions of
the trade-offs involved in a particular collabora-
influence and fiduciary responsibility on advi-
tion and recognizing where the impulse to local
sory committees and boards. They have a re-
control may be a barrier to longer term progress
sponsibility to be careful stewards of commu-
is important.
nity resources and expectations. They should
carefully consider the scope and role of existing
groups as well as their relationships to other
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 231
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018 5Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 10 [2018], Iss. 4, Art. 3
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
groups, and should exercise caution about set-
ting up new organizations that are not strongly
motivated by need or community gaps. This
suggests that those organizations in which li-
brary leaders confer have a special opportunity
to facilitate thinking about coherence and organ-
izational design.
A community which is proud of its collective ac-
tion should work hard to mitigate the collective
action problem, whether this is at the level of the
regional group seeking scale efficiencies, or at
the network level around new challenges. Li-
braries are stakeholders in multiple areas where
there are such challenges and where scale is im-
portant: scholarly communication infrastructure,
digital preservation of the scholarly and cultural
record, the ebook marketplace, analytics and us-
age data, collective print collections, and so on.
Collaboration is as much about strategic choices
as are internal library operations, and should be
approached with the same discipline. We must
succeed in collaborating successfully and strate-
gically to make each library stronger.
Endnotes http://www.palni.org/; “Minitex,” accessed
February 1, 2019,
https://www.minitex.umn.edu/; “OhioLINK,”
accessed February 1, 2019, https://www.ohi-
1“HathiTrust Digital Library,”accessed Febru-
olink.edu/; “Libraries,” Big Ten Academic Alli-
ary 1, 2019, https://www.hathitrust.org/.
ance, accessed February 1, 2019,
2“Jisc,” accessed February 1, 2019, http://www.btaa.org/library/libraries; “CDL,”
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/. California Digital Library, accessed February 1,
2019, https://www.cdlib.org/.
3 “The Rosemont Shared Print Alliance, accessed
February 1, 2019, https://rosemontsharedprint- 5 Lorcan Dempsey, “The Powers of Library Con-
alliance.org/; “Partnership for Shared Book Col- sortia 1: How Consortia Scale Capacity, Learn-
lections,” accessed February 1, 2019, ing, Innovation and Influence.” Lorcan Demp-
https://eastlibraries.org/partnership-shared- sey's Weblog, OCLC, 28 February 2018,
book-collections. http://orweblog.oclc.org/the-powers-of-li-
brary-consortia-1-how-consortia-scale-capacity-
4“PALNI,” Private Academic Library Network learning-innovation-and-influence/
of Indiana, accessed February 1, 2019,
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 232
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol10/iss4/3 6Dempsey: Library collaboration is hard; effective collaboration is harder
Dempsey: Library Collaboration is Hard
dissemination, and preservation studies 1, no. 1
6Lorcan Dempsey, “The Powers of Library Con- (2017).
sortia 4: Scoping, Sourcing and Scaling.” Lorcan
Dempsey's Weblog, OCLC, 20 June 2018,
8 Karla L. Strieb, “Collaboration: The Master Key
http://orweblog.oclc.org/the-powers-of-li- to Unlocking Twenty-First-Century Library Col-
brary-consortia-4-scoping-sourcing-and-scal- lections,” in ed. Dawn Hale, Chicago: American
ing/ Library Association, 2015: 3-14.
7 David W Lewis, “Reimagining the academic li-
9“DPN FAQ.” The Digital Preservation Net-
brary: What to do next. Review article”. El profe- work, accessed February 1, 2019,
sional de la información 28, no. 1, (2019) http://www.dpn.org/news/2018-12-04-dpn-
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.ene.04; Cam- faq; “DPLA Update.” Digital Public Library of
eron Neylon, "Sustaining Scholarly Infrastruc- America, DPLA, accessed February 1, 2019,
tures through Collective Action: The lessons that https://dp.la/news/dpla-update.
Olson can teach us." KULA: knowledge creation,
Collaborative Librarianship 10(4): 227-233 (2018) 233
Published by Digital Commons @ DU, 2018 7You can also read
