Cooperative Remote Storage: Challenges for Resource Sharing

Bailey, Jessica; Radnor, Mary C.

doi:10.1080/10723030903010603

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Auch im angloamerikanischen Sprachraum herrscht eine gewisse begriffliche Bandbreite. "Library Storage Facility" (Payne 2007), "Shared Last Copy Repository" beziehungsweise "Off-Site Facility" (Wright, Jilovsky und Anderson 2012), "Off-Site Storage" (Sewell 2013), "Cooperative Remote Storage" (Bailey und Radnor 2009), "Library Depository" (Bridegam 2001), "Cooperative Storage Library" (Fall 1941), "Repository Library" (Kempf 2005), "Remote Storage Facility" (Mook und Walker 2004), "Shared Print Repository" (Murray-Rust 2005) et cetera meinen alle in etwa das, was in der oben beschriebenen Unschärfe bei uns mit dem Konzept der Speicherbibliothek in Verbindung gebracht wird.…”

Section: Terminologische Vergewisserung Und Typisierungunclassified

Speicherbibliotheken: eine Nachlese

Ledl¹,

Tréfás²

2015

027.7

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DOI: 10.12685/027.7-3-1-57Der Beitrag nähert sich dem Thema Speicherbibliothek aus systematischer Perspektive. Ausgehend von einer Begriffsanalyse arbeitet er fünf verschiedene Typen von Speicherbibliotheken heraus und diskutiert deren Vor- und Nachteile. Am Beispiel der in der Planungsphase stecken gebliebenen Hessischen Speicherbibliothek werden Faktoren aufgezeigt, die den Erfolg oder Misserfolg eines solchen Projektes ausmachen können. Schliesslich geben die Autoren Empfehlungen ab, wie ein Interessenausgleich zwischen den verschiedenen Stakeholdern einer Speicherbibliothek hergestellt und so die Akzeptanz solcher Einrichtungen erhöht werden kann.The following article provides a systematic approach to storage libraries. Starting from an analysis of the terminology, the authors define five types of storage systems and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. Taking the example of the planning phase of the Hessian storage library, the authors elaborate on factors which decide upon success and failure of a project on this scale. To conclude, they propose how diverging interests of different stakeholders can be evened out and how the acceptance of storage facilities can be raised.Cet article offre une approche systématique de la thématique des bibliothèques dépôts. Partant d’une analyse du terme lui-même, cinq types différents de bibliothèques dépôts sont identifiés et comparés. L’exemple de la bibliothèque dépôt du Land de Hesse, dont la réalisation a été suspendue en cours de planification, permet d’identifier les facteurs déterminant le succès ou l’échec de ce genre de projet. Les auteurs formulent des recommandations permettant de trouver un équilibre entre les intérêts des différentes parties prenantes et de développer ainsi le soutien à un projet de bibliothèque dépôt.

show abstract

Section: Terminologische Vergewisserung Und Typisierungunclassified

Speicherbibliotheken: eine Nachlese

Ledl¹,

Tréfás²

2015

027.7

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adding to this problem is few universities can afford to build additional traditional libraries on their main campus and for those libraries in the 1990s that carried out library building projects; few added enough shelf space for their growing print collections (Seaman, 2005). As a result, of the high cost of building on the main campus, library administrators decided that the solution was not to construct traditional libraries but rather specialized off‐site storage facilities devoted to the storing of low‐use print, imprint date, and archival materials (Austin, 2002; Bailey and Radnor, 2009; Heath, 2009).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned: can a resource in common work?

vanDuinkerken

2012

New Library World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to report on the challenges and lessons learnt by the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when trying to implement a “resource in common” high‐density storage unit model between Texas A&M University Library and The University of Texas‐Austin Libraries.Design/methodology/approachThe case study draws on the experience of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when the university funded the creation of a jointly owned remote storage unit, which foundation would rest on a “resource in common” model. The creation of a new library building allowed Texas A&M University Libraries to free up stack space in order to create new learning spaces to meet the needs of the library users. However, as the processing began, initial theories of what a “resource in common” was, how to implement a “resource in common” and resources needed to implement the “resource in common” model began to be questioned. This study examines the lessons learnt when trying to implement a “resource in common” model.FindingsBased on the experiences of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team, increased communication and early participation in the decision‐making stages is key when trying to implement a “resource in common” model. This processing team was responsible for updating the MARC records for all the items that were identified to go to the joint storage unit. They recognized that any collaborative venture of this magnitude required an excellent workflow and workload understanding by all parties, including those members of the TAMU Library initial project planning team who were active members on the initial library storage facility oversight committees. This understanding would allow everyone at TAMU involved in the massive project to have a clearer knowledge of the strains caused by the increased workload and could communicate to the full team the obstacles the library would be facing.Originality/valueThis paper introduces the idea of “resource in common” and will be of interest to all libraries facing both space and funding shortages who might be considering building a storage unit. These libraries might consider implementing a “resource in common” model as a way to solve these problems.

show abstract

From Collaborative Purchasing Towards Collaborative Discarding: The Evolution of the Shared Print Repository

Clement

2012

Collection Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative Remote Storage: Challenges for Resource Sharing

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

Speicherbibliotheken: eine Nachlese

Speicherbibliotheken: eine Nachlese

Lessons learned: can a resource in common work?

From Collaborative Purchasing Towards Collaborative Discarding: The Evolution of the Shared Print Repository

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About