Return on Investment for Collaborative Collection Development: A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Consortia Purchasing

Abstract

This paper describes the cost-benefits and the return on investment of one consortium comprised of five separately administered libraries in the University of Colorado (CU) System. With a long history of collaboration, the libraries have developed an ideal cooperative arrangement for acquiring electronic content that is accessible across all campuses. The size and flexibility of this institution-based consortium allows it to be responsive and successful in collaborating across four campuses despite different sized budgets and unique local and institutional constraints. To demonstrate the value of jointly leveraging library budgets to university administrators, the authors conducted a consortium level cost-benefit analysis and describe the methodology used to quantify return on the university's investment. This paper addresses both qualitative and quantitative outcomes and underscores how consortial participation has become an essential way of doing business.

Collaborative collection development: current perspectives leading to future initiatives

“…Collaboration among libraries within close geographic proximity reflects how consortia have traditionally developed ( Bostick, 2001 ; Haar, 2004 ), and this kind of structure also allows for resource sharing of physical items to be relatively inexpensive and to occur in a more timely fashion. Participants may have also selected these options because their organizations have been involved in such blueprints for some time and have seen long-standing benefits ( Booth & O'Brien, 2011 ; Currie & Greene, 2017 ; Pan & Fong, 2010 ; Seiden, Pumroy, Medeiros, Morrison, & Luther, 2002 ). Participants' responses reinforce that CCD success involves partner libraries striking an acceptable balance between their local collection priorities and needs, combined with the broader goals of the larger partnership ( Burgett et al, 2004 ; Jakubs, 2015 ; Johnson, 2018 ; Reilly Jr., 2004 ).…”

“…Various approaches to CCD have emerged from these past and current foundations. In practical terms, these CCD considerations often generate consortial purchasing relationships for cost-sharing or savings ( Pan & Fong, 2010 ; Scigliano, 2002 ). These consortia often develop around similar demographics, location, academic standing, or collection needs ( Booth & O'Brien, 2011 ; Davis, Jin, Neely, & Rykse, 2012 ; Neal, 2011 ; Walker, Schoonover, & Margjoni, 2010 ).…”

Unbundling practice: the unbundling of big deal journal packages as an information practice

“…Data for compiling usage statistics come from either information services aggregating usage data-including but not limited to Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (PIRUS), Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI), Project MESUR-or from data sourced from local, "home-grown", information systems (cf. Pan and Fong, 2010;Blecic et al, 2013;Rathmel et al, 2015). The accuracy of tracking the use of journals depends on the quality of data used in the process, and because several data sources, including local information systems, are typically used, the interoperability, normalization, and cross-walking of data are necessary but also complex and error-prone components of this process (Bucknell 2012).…”

Reflections on the value and impact of library and information services

“…With a smaller number of proposals to examine (compared to the University of Illinois) the researchers 22 PMM 17,1 could examine the provenance of the citations more easily. In another variation, Pan and Fong (2010) examined the benefits to individual institutions of collaborative collection development and consortia purchasing. The advantage this group had was a shared vision of the benefits they should be receiving, based on a history of collaborative activity, and the ROI work brought other insights (Pan et al, 2013).…”