Some Thoughts on TERMS Investigate

The second week's readings emphasize different ways that libraries can move towards more electronic resources and, seemingly, more “automation” of the collection management and development process. Downey’s piece specifically addressed software developed at Kent State University to automate resource selection. The SERU framework, while not a form contract, provides a basic and relatively universal model from which to create licensing arrangements. The Demas and Miller piece argued for the consolidation of print collections in shared storage facilities, freeing up valuable space for institutional members of library consortia. The reading from Chapter 2 emphasized the value of creating a purchasing model for electronic resources.

Models and other tools seem to be essential in building electronic resource collections because of the key differences between e- and print resources. Obviously having standardized procedures is better in both print and electronic collection management, but it seems that the complexity of electronic resources demands a procedure. This relates back to the discussion from last week’s class as all of these projects involve significant changes to traditional librarian roles.

Good communication is a common thread in several of these articles. One major part of the Kent State project’s software was a means for generating form e-mails and keeping communication channels clear and direct. Similarly, the SERU agreement was designed as a model for libraries and content providers to come to terms over the important aspects of an electronic resource licensing agreement.

One of the values that I found most interesting in adopting a purchasing model and formulating plans for collection maintenance is the ability of the model to provide transparency. When the library has fully defined criteria for what resources will be purchased/weeded/stored off-site/etc., the library’s patrons and other stakeholders can better understand the way decisions are made. The articles made it clear that this can be very valuable in explaining collection decisions to patrons who may be unhappy that specific items are no longer available. As staunch advocates for the freedom of information, fostering transparency and accountability in library operations aligns with these larger ideological principles.

One issue I foresee with the “Rethinking Collection Management” shared archives/print collection plans is the potential risk associated with “putting all your eggs in one basket.” If something happened to the shared collection, who would replace it? This highlights the importance of communication between the member institutions that the authors mention repeatedly.