Running head: ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 1

Academic Library Consortia and The Orbis Cascade Alliance

Mollie Coffey

San Jose State University

INFO200: Information Communities

November 27, 2015

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 2

Abstract

Academic library consortia have been instrumental in the dissemination of information

used for scholarly purposes. Cooperation and collaboration are at the heart of library resource

sharing, and consortia, with their spirit of teamwork, have definitely played a part in this. This

paper discusses the history and development of academic library consortia, and the information

seeking behaviors of the member libraries and their users (faculty, researchers, and students).

Benefits and challenges of forming library consortia have been well-documented in several

publications. This paper will eventually focus on the Orbis Cascade Alliance, a consortium of

diverse academic libraries from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and on the innovations that the

Alliance has undertaken. The paper concludes with an examination of how library consortia can

remain relevant and successful in the future, while the advancements in technology continue to

change and shape the world of information and the methods used to find, analyze, and use that

information.
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 3

Introduction

The concept of a single library having within its physical space everything its patrons

need has been replaced with a viewpoint of providing access to information, rather than just

ownership of materials (Cornish, Jost, & Arch, 2013). It is this perspective which has led to the

formation of library consortia, which cannot exist without cooperation from the member

libraries. Academic library consortia in particular exist in a distinct intellectual community that is

inhabited by many entities: authors, funding bodies, librarians, students, faculty, researchers, and

more (Peters, 2001). Academic libraries are an important infrastructure component of higher

education, supporting educational and research goals and providing tools needed for faculty,,

students, and the community (Samea, 2015). Consortia replace and augment operations that were

once performed only by individual libraries, and are a natural offshoot of the sense of sharing

that is the root of libraries (Alberico, 2002). Academic library consortia have become an intrinsic

part of how academic libraries acquire resources and provide services for their respective

communities (Maskell, 2008).

Consortia are in a particular position to provide innovation and development for their

member libraries. This innovation goes beyond software into programs, services, and research

that might not happen otherwise (Machovec, 2015). Consortial priorities should be local needs

and efficiency (Horton & Pronevitz, 2015, p.21), and should be aligned closely with the goals of

their member libraries. Sharing of goals and values with trusted partners is essential for a

successful collaboration (Machovec, 2015). Peters (2001) states that “the purpose of any

consortium is to assist its member libraries to carry out their mission of improving access to

information resources”. This paper will discuss the history of library consortia, the benefits and
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 4

challenges, and the elements required for a consortium to function successfully. Emphasis will

be on academic library consortia, with specific attention paid to the Orbis Cascade Alliance.

Literature Review

Much has been written on the origins of library consortia. Kopp (1998) asserts that the

idea of consortium, which encompasses cooperation, coordination, and collaboration, has been a

precept of librarianship from the beginning. The principal reason for the formation of academic

library consortia had been to share physical resources, but the advancement of information

technology has necessitated the development of alliances to address the needs that arise from

new technological progress (Kopp, 1998). Libraries establish alliances to identify and focus on

common needs brought about by the development of information technology (Potter, 1997).

Kopp (1998) cites a 1970s study of academic library consortia, sponsored by the United States

Office of Education, which resulted in the Directory of Academic Library Consortia. This

directory contains a storehouse of descriptive information about academic library consortia, and

was considered a benchmark for the study and evaluation of library consortia (Kopp, 1998).

According to Subramanian (2003), the importance of scholarly research heightened the

need for academic institutions to have access to all material available on a given subject. To this

end, the Triangle Research Libraries Network was formed in 1933, as a way for university

libraries in North Carolina to share resources (Subramanian, 2003). Although local and state

consortia were initially preferred, national consortia and those formed by similar type of library

have become increasingly important and prevalent (Subramanian, 2003). While the earliest

academic library consortia were founded primarily on geographic proximity, the 1960s saw a
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 5

growth spurt in the development of cooperatives, bolstered by automation of cataloging

(Alberico, 2002). The relevance of academic library consortia grew due to the swift development

of information and communication technology (Samea, 2015). Bostick (2001) also wrote that the

1960s saw automated library processes being a catalyst for the development of library consortia.

Many libraries, unable to afford expensive integrated library systems, formed or joined consortia

to have access to the new technology (Bostick, 2001).

One of the most important developments for academic libraries has been a move from

institutional self-sufficiency to a coordinated and reciprocal “survival mode” (Allen & Hirshon,

1998). While in the past academic libraries were responsible for acquiring the necessary

scholarly resource needed by their users, they were compelled to move toward resource sharing

as it became decreasingly possible for libraries to have comprehensive collections (Allen &

Hirshon, 1998). Sharing resources and reducing operating costs were necessary for the

development of library consortia. For many libraries OCLC networks were their first experience

with a consortium (Wiser, 2012). OCLC is a collaborative network that involves different kinds

of libraries. OCLC’s decision to stop funding their networks left a considerable number of

libraries with weakened local consortia, which led libraries to align with consortia outside their

respective locations (Wiser, 2012). As information technology progressed, academic libraries

were driven toward electronic access of library materials (Carr, 2007, p.7). For several years a

debate simmered about whether academic research libraries should focus on acquiring holdings

of physical materials or access to more information through electronic sources (Carr, 2007, p.6).

The necessity of finding a balance between holdings and access, as well as the increasing cost of

materials, hastened the move toward electronic resources, with interlibrary cooperation and

resource sharing assuming even greater importance (Carr, 2007, p.7).

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 6

Libraries have been cooperating since their outset in order to share resources, employ

new technologies, and stretch their purchasing power. For three decades, the focus was on

interlibrary loan, collaborative collection development, and shared cataloging (Machovec, 2013).

The evolution of consortial activity increased around 1990, as research libraries had to address a

multitude of barriers, including rising user demands, hyperinflation of costs, and rapid

technological change (Peters, 2001). Academic libraries have been facing budget constraints as

time and technology have advanced. The best solution to surmount budget problems is to

establish consortia among academic libraries, which will provide cooperation and sharing of

resources and services to maximize consortial benefits (Samea, 2015). In 1996, a momentous

development occurred when the Consortium of Consortia, now known as the International

Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), was formed (Machovec, 2013). The primary aspiration

of ICOLC was to get lower prices and better contracts with publishers and vendors, although it

has expanded its purview to consortia management (Machovec, 2013).

Methodology

Much of the information for this paper came from searching several databases through

the San Jose State University King Library, and through the Kennedy Library at Eastern

Washington University. Many articles were read, and some discarded, to effectively narrow the

research topic. Other information was obtained from books holding relevant information that

were accessed through the Interlibrary Loan department of Spokane Public Library. Google

Scholar, Proquest, and the Orbis Cascade Alliance website also provided pertinent information.
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 7

Discussion

Information needs and seeking are still vital to academic research, even as the ways of

obtaining information change (Wang, Dervos, Zhang, & Wu, 2007). According to T.D. Wilson

(2000), there are four information-related behaviors: information (face-to-face communication),

information-seeking (interacting with manual information systems), information-searching

(interacting with information systems of all types), and information-use (incorporating

information into a knowledge base). Academic libraries should recognize the differences of these

behavior types, and approach them separately, rather than as a single issue (Walter &

Pennavaria, 2015). A majority of researchers use electronic sources to find both digital and

printed resources, and have adjusted to managing these sources to access materials from around

the world (Brown & Swan, 2007).

Most academic libraries are members of a consortium, and some belong to multiple

consortia, although those consortia may vary in the services they offer (Guzzy, 2010). Kaufman

(2012) asserts that successful consortia require a strong infrastructure, a clear governance

structure and policies, and a willingness of all participants to take risks and invest resources.

Formal policies and procedures are indispensable to the eventual success of consortial ventures

(Kaufman, 2012). Other characteristics that are essential for successful consortia include

consensus, teamwork, and an ability to work in a changing environment (German, 2008). For

consortia to be meaningful to a library’s success, they must cultivate teamwork among members,

have a clear mission and goals, communicate well, and demonstrate value to their members

(German, 2008). Horton (2013) suggests five functions of consortia that are imperative: shared

catalogs, interlibrary loan, cooperative acquisitions, budget management, and license

negotiations. Collection management in academic libraries has invariably been based on

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 8

curriculum and research support, but budget limitations have caused libraries to shift their focus

and use purchasing in a consortial environment as a way to expand their resources (Kinner &

Crosetto, 2009).

Maskell (2008) proposes two different perspectives for looking at consortia. One is a

market economy perspective, where consortial activity is viewed as a response by academic

libraries to challenge commercial publishers’ control of the scholarly publishing market, where

information becomes a commodity. The other perspective focuses consortial activity in a

framework of strengthening academic libraries’ traditional charge of supporting the public good.

“Providing unhampered access to information has been a cornerstone of library service since its

inception” (Maskell, 2008). Many members of the library profession see the purpose of libraries

to reside in the cultural and political sphere, rather than in the economic arena (Maskell, 2008).

Another perspective proposed by Shachaf (2003) is from an ecological approach, which contends

that since consortia are organisms inserted in a context of relationships, they are affected by the

different stakeholders, and tend to adapt to the environment. Shachaf (2003) outlines four stages

in the life-cycle of library consortia: embryonic, early development, development, and

maturation.

Library consortia have many elements in common, including shared integrated library

systems (ILS), shared discovery systems, shared digital repositories, and shared print archiving

(Machovec, 2013). A shared ILS in a consortium is one factor that can lead to long term

sustainability, as well as budget reductions (Machovec, 2014). Most shared ILS are run by

consortia and are one reason for the generation of new library consortia (Horton & Pronevitz,

2015, p.52). Other important components of a successful library consortium are professional
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 9

development opportunities and shared courier services, which allow libraries to easily move

materials at costs that are lower than commercial entities (Machovec, 2015).

While the underlying reason for the formation of library consortia had historically been to

share physical resources, today technological support is consistently at the top of the list of

reasons for consortial ventures (Kinner & Crosetto, 2009). Currently, most academic libraries

belong to more than one consortia which offer different benefits of membership (Machovec,

2013). “Consortia can do many things collectively that libraries cannot do individually, such as

serving as facilitators for sharing of materials, serving as a clearinghouse for available jobs, or

providing experimental access to expensive new equipment or technologies” (Miller, 2010).

Several authors have identified the benefits of consortial activity. Wagner and Gerber (2011)

assert that consortial relationships expedite cost-effective growth strategies by sharing the

monetary risk and through the mutual opportunities for professional development. Consortia can

reduce duplication of effort, coordinate technology investments, and maximize use of library

assets (Alberico, 2002). Aside from the benefits of streamlined library operations, increased

market influence, and greater value at lower cost, Machovec (2015) believes that the crux of

many library consortia lies in the licensing of electronic journals, ebooks, and databases, with the

basic theory being that libraries can gain a price advantage or gain access to additional content

by acquiring resources together. Because of their size, consortia can wield substantial pressure

on publishers and vendors to negotiate license benefits and secure fair contracts (Thompson,

Peters, & Hulbert, 2002).

Clement (2007) cites a 2006 web-based survey that resulted in a list of benefits for

consortial participants: more information delivered to more users, ability to negotiate lower

prices, opportunities to network and share expertise, and greater attention from funding sources.
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 10

Jin and Maurer (2006) also mention that consortia have more opportunities to apply for and

receive grants from foundations, and Helmer (1999) names new funding sources as one benefit

of belonging to a consortium. There are common themes in the relevant articles that detail

various benefits of consortia membership. Westmoreland and Shirley (2004) and Busby (2011)

have similar ideas of the advantages: increase in access to resources, lower costs for resources,

wider variety of resources and services, reduced redundancy and duplication of effort, shared

negotiations, and opportunities for professional development, to name a few. Chan and Ferguson

(2002) contend that the rapid growth of consortia is due to a demand for digital products,

reduced per-unit cost of information sharing of staff expertise, and the power to influence

standards of publisher conduct. Having access to the resources of all consortial members means

that individual academic libraries can concentrate on the needs of their local curriculum and

research (Kinner & Crosetto, 2009). Samea (2015) points out the benefits not only for consortia

and their libraries, but for the end users as well, including support for teaching, learning, and

research processes, a single portal for all consortium services, and an increased range of

resources available.

Just as there are many benefits to consortial membership, there are also challenges that

must be faced. In his oft-cited article, Peters (2003) lists several “discontents” propagated by

consortia. Among these are time delays, too many meetings, maintaining interest and energy, and

sustainability issues (Peters, 2003). Membership in a consortia can be a threat to local content,

slow decision making, absorb staff time, and complicate institutional relationships (Helmer,

1999). In their book, Horton and Pronevitz (2015, p.22) offer an array of major challenges that

consortia must overcome in order to flourish: sustainability of operations, successful negotiations

with vendors, support of resource-sharing in a digital world, and effective communication,

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 11

among others. Lee and Horton (2015) attest that as communication options expand, effective

communication in library consortia becomes more difficult and frustrating, as reported by library

consortia leaders. While there are several communication tools used by consortia, email and

websites are the most utilized, with websites being used to aggregate information, and email

being used to disseminate that information (Lee & Horton, 2015). Samea (2015) asserts that the

most significant challenge facing any consortium is funding resources, both for the establishment

of a consortium, and its continuity.

Libraries may fear losing their identities through consortial associations, having to deal

with layers of bureaucracy and increasingly homogenized collections (Thompson, Peters, &

Hulbert, 2002). The hurdles that must be surmounted in order to succeed as a consortium have

been widely studied. Wright (2005) found a number of barriers to consortial formation. These

barriers are often financial, political and organizational, and involve a lack of vision and

licensing issues (Wright, 2005). Licensing issues are also named by Subramanian (2003) as a

possible problem for consortia, as well as vendor instabilities and overlap of services. Busby

(2011) takes a closer look at the potential pitfalls of consortial licensing, discussing limitations

that appear in the form of limited cancellation options and time consumption. Other impediments

include publishers that may not have pricing models for consortia, deals that may not benefit all

member libraries, and money being diverted from acquiring new resources (Busby, 2011). Chan

and Ferguson’s (2002) scrutiny of digital library consortia detailed such challenges as

insufficient buying power, overlapping memberships, lack of staff with the right skills, and

differences in benefits to member libraries. Turner (2014) adds to the list competing interests,

time and labor demands, conflicting interest and goals, and tight or inflexible budgets. The

stability of tangible funding sources is a marked uncertainty of all consortia (Horton, 2013).
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 12

Solutions to the challenges that face consortia must include both process and policy issues, and

consortial leadership must be prepared to examine both challenges and opportunities (Machovec,

2014).

Consortia have begun to influence the library marketplace for electronic resources and

new approaches to pricing information (Burke, 2010). With the appearance of ejournals, many

libraries no longer received print journals, and publishers started selling titles in packages, either

in subject collections or as complete sets, known as the “Big Deal” (Machovec, 2014b). The Big

Deal materialized in response to electronic resources taking a growing portion of a libraries’

materials budgets (Burke, 2010). The Big Deal is an online aggregation of journals that

publishers offer as a one-price, one size fits all package (Frazier, 2001). The basis for most of the

early Big Deals was that they were priced based on the current expense for print journals of the

libraries in the consortium: these deals are initially appealing to libraries because almost

everyone gets access to a greater number of titles at the same spending level (Machovec, 2014b).

One downside of the Big Deal is that it bundles the strongest titles with the weakest, the

bestselling with the less favored titles (Frazier, 2001). Other complaints are that the Big Deal

generates artificial loyalty to journals and the publisher, and that some Big Deal programs do not

include all of the titles that are distributed by a given publisher (Machovec, 2014b). Big Deal

type acquisitions might impede libraries’ abilities to participate in the transition to a new

publishing paradigm for scholarly information, such as Open Access (Maskell, 2008). Even with

its drawbacks, many consortia and libraries are fairly addicted to the Big Deal, which is

becoming more unsustainable and inflexible (Machovec, 2014b). According to Frazier (2001),

the three main issues linked to the Big Deal are enhanced loyalty, disintermediation, and rule
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 13

changing. The Big Deal ensures that publishers continue to have a market for their full array of

journal titles, and may artificially support the continued existence of those titles (Maskell, 2008).

Two of the most common types of successful consortia are resource-sharing and buying

clubs (Wiser, 2012). Some consortia, such as the Orbis Cascade Alliance (OCA), do both well.

As one of the pioneers of consortial sharing, OCA members “work to provide a high level of

service to their home campus, while also making their resources available to other member

libraries” (Cornish, Jost, & Arch, 2013). The Alliance began as a system-based consortium to

provide a shared catalog to its members (Guzzy, 2010), and has grown to become internationally

known for its innovative services, entrepreneurial spirit, willingness to take risks, and depth of

collaboration among members (Orbis Cascade Alliance, 2015). The Orbis Cascade Alliance is a

consortium of 37 academic institutions in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho that serves faculty and

the equivalent of 275,000 full-time students (www.orbiscascade.org/about). Additionally, OCA

offers selected services to 200 cultural institutions in seven Western states (Orbis Cascade

Alliance, 2015).

Founded in 2003, the Alliance came about through the merger of two earlier state-wide

consortia, making it the largest academic library consortium in the Northwest (DiBiase &

Watson, 2008). In 1993, the Orbis library consortium was formed in Oregon, followed by the

Cascade Union catalog in Washington in 2000 (Munson & Milton, 2009). The merger’s impact

was felt during the Alliance’s first year, which showed a reduction of membership fees by 13%

and an increase in lending by 34% over the combined lending of Orbis and Cascade previously

(Munson & Milton, 2009). The Orbis Cascade Alliance is comprised of an interesting mix of

large, medium, and small libraries at private and public universities, colleges, and community

colleges (Fountain & Frederiksen, 2010).

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 14

The Orbis Cascade Alliance has had several successful ventures. In January 2015, the

Alliance announced completion of a two-year effort to migrate member libraries to a shared,

next-generation library management and discovery system (www.orbiscascade.org/sils-

migration-complete). The implementation of a shared automation system instead of the previous

arrangement of individual systems was a strategic approach to resource sharing (Breeding,

2013). The migration from 37 systems to one included a transfer from local servers to a cloud

application, creating an innovative approach to collaboration (Helmer, Bosch, Sugnet, & Tucker,

2012). In their paper, Cornish, Jost, and Arch (2013) described the factors that led the Alliance to

move to a shared library management system, and summarized the steps taken by OCA,

including the RFI and RFP processes.

The Orbis Cascade plan was not just for the sharing of traditional public service

applications (circulation, interlibrary loans), but also in Technical Services (Cornish, Jost, &

Arch, 2013). The Collaborative Technical Services Team of OCA have produced a clear, well-

documented map of the steps taken in defining opportunities and issues of successful

collaboration in a consortial setting across multi-type libraries (Mallery, 2010). There were other

enterprises undertaken by the Alliance. A 2011 pilot project for consortium-wide Demand-

Driven-Acquisitions is seen as one of the more successful DDA projects launched by a

consortium (Emery, 2012). Additionally, the Orbis Cascade Alliance developed a distributed

repository to preserve print journals (DiBiase & Watson, 2008), and had consortium-wide

participation in the Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST) until 2015

(www.orbiscascade.org/dpr). WEST is a distributed retrospective print journal repository

program that serves academic libraries and consortia in the Western United States

(www.cdlib.org/west).
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 15

Many factors have contributed to the success of the Orbis Cascade Alliance. Among

these are a creative funding structure, a governance structure that enhances cooperation and

leadership that is strong, dedicated, and visionary (Chmelir, 2015). Executive Director John

Helmer’s work at OCA has been described as “transformational” (Horton & Pronevitz, 2015,

p.180). In July of 2015, the Alliance announced that Helmer will retire in March 2016. Helmer

has been with the Orbis Cascade Alliance (in its inception as Orbis) since 1993 (Orbis Cascade

Alliance, 2015). The OCA’s mission has been to enable member libraries to advance institutional

missions through collaboration and innovation (www.orbiscascade.org/about). The strategic

agenda of the Alliance is simple: work smart, design for engagement, innovate to transform

(www.orbiscascade.org/strategic-agenda). The member libraries of the Orbis Cascade Alliance

had committed to making their combined collections available as a single collection (Banerjee &

Arnold, 2010), and its new next-generation catalog will hold ownership of materials within the

collective, rather than with individual libraries (Horton, 2013).

Conclusion

There are library consortia in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas: they

exist on every continent except Antarctica (Helmer, 1999). While the United States has the

highest number of academic consortia, some of the more significant consortia worldwide are the

Council of Australian University Libraries, the New European Library, Zimbabwe University

Libraries Consortium, UGC-Infonet Digital Library Consortium (India), Beijing Academic

Library Consortium, Digital Libraries Consortium (Bangladesh), and the Egyptian Universities

Libraries Consortium (Samea, 2015). In order to grow and remain vital, academic library

consortia must look to the future and expand membership to be as inclusive as possible (Guzzy,

2010). As digital technologies continue to improve, libraries need to look for creative ways to
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 16

collaborate with similar institutions, to offer enhanced services and maximize their budget

impact (Wagner & Gerber, 2011). While consortia have continually responded flexibly to their

members’ needs within the variable backdrop of the research world (Carr, 2007, p. 105), they

must also identify their trials and capitalize on their success to move forward and meet the

challenges of the 21st century (Westmoreland & Shirley, 2004). According to Miller (2010), the

main challenge for consortia now is to find new things that are qualitatively different from what

has been doe previously, things that consortia are especially situated to do. Consortia should

function as research-and-development arms of their membership, and experiment with projects

that would be too risky for individual libraries and that could revitalize services (Miller, 2010).

The future of academic libraries was pointed out by Burke (2010), who believes that academic

libraries will continue to play a key role in negotiating and licensing resources. Consortia excel

at promoting collaboration, and the strongest will move beyond being buying clubs for electronic

resources, and provide significant value in other ways (Burke, 2010).

Libraries that base their participation on a consortium on a precise return on their

investment may miss out on opportunities for increased services (Jin & Maurer, 2006). While

libraries and consortia have placed increasing importance on measuring their performance and

demonstrating their value to their administrative entities, creating a return-on-investment

analysis for a library in a consortium should not be based on a single formula, but should be built

from individual analyses for each applicable area (Machovec, 2015). A cost-benefit analysis of

consortia has to take into account not only financial and economic aspects, but hidden benefits as

well, such as faculty and student time savings. The key to sustainability for libraries in a

consortium is the leadership’s ability to manage and preserve cooperative and cost-effective

efforts over time (Miller, 2010).

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 17

References

Alberico, R. (2002). Academic library consortia in transition. New Directions for Higher

Education, (120), 63-72.

Allen, B.M., & Hirshon, A. (1998). Hanging together to avoid hanging separately: Opportunities

for academic library consortia. Information Technology & Libraries, 17(1), 36-44.

Banerjee, K., & Arnold, A.N. (2010). Using resource sharing standards in the Orbis Cascade

Alliance consortial borrowing system. Information Standards Quarterly, 22(4), 4-9.

Bostick, S.L. (2001). Academic library consortia in the United States: An introduction.

Liber Quarterly, 11(1), 6-13.

Bostick, S.L., & Dugan, R.E. (2001). The history and development of academic library consortia

in the United States: An overview. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 128-130.

Breeding, M. (2013). Case study – The Orbis Cascade Alliance: Strategic collaboration among

diverse academic institutions. Library Technology Reports, 49(1), 30-31.

Brown, S., & Swan, A. (2007). Researchers’ use of academic libraries and their services:

A report commissioned by the Research Information Network and the Consortium

of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13868.

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 18

Burke, R. (2010). Library consortia and the future of academic libraries. Retrieved November

24, 2015 from http://www.alastore.org/nealschuman/companionwebsite/

academic/Burke2001.pdf.

Busby, L. (2011). Our friends are killing us. The Serials Librarian, 61(2), 160-167.

doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.591577.

Carr, R. (2007). The academic research library in a decade of change. Oxford, UK:

Chandes Publishing.

Chan, G., & Ferguson, A.W. (2002). Digital library consortia in the 21st century. Collection

Management, 27(3/4), 13-27. doi:10.1300/j105v27n03_2.

Chmelir, L. (2015). Orbis and the founding of the Orbis Caspase Alliance: A decade of

academic library collaboration in the Pacific Northwest, 1993-2003.

Retrieved from https://www.orbiscascade.org/history-of-alliance.

Clement, S. (2007). Skills for effective participation in consortia: Preparing for

collaborating and collaboration. Collection Management, 32(1/2), 191-204.

doi:10.1300/j105v32no1_13.

Cornish, A., Jost, R., & Arch, X. (2013). Selecting a shared 21st management system.

Collaborative Librarianship, 5(1), 16-28.

DiBiase, L.T., & Watson, R. (2008). Orbis Cascade Alliance distributed print repository:
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 19

Organizing collections at the consortial level. Collection Management, 34(1), 19-30.

doi:10.1080/01462670802527449.

Emery, J. (2012). The demand driven acquisitions pilot project by the Orbis Cascade Alliance:

An interview with members of the Demand Driven Acquisitions Implementation team.

Serials Review, 38(2), 132-136. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2012.04.008.

Fountain, K.C., & Frederiksen, L. (2010). Just passing through: Patron-initiated collection

development in Northwest academic libraries. Collection Management, 35(3/4), 185-195.

doi:10.1080/01462679.2010.486745.

Frazier, K. (2001). The librarian’s dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the “Big Deal”.

D-Lib Magazine, 7(3).

German, L. (2008). It’s all about teamwork: Working in a consortial environment. Technicalities,

28(3), 1-5.

Guzzy, J.E. (2010). U.S. academic library consortia: A review. Community & Junior College

Libraries, 16(3), 162-184. doi:10.1080/02763915.2010.492034.

Helmer, J.F. (1999). Special issue: Library consortia around the world. Information Technology

and Libraries, 18(3), 119-68.

Helmer, J.F., Bosch, S., Sugnet, C., & Tucker, C. (2012). Innovation through collaboration – The

Orbis Cascade Alliance shared library management services experience: An interview

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 20

with John F. Helmer. Collaborative Librarianship, 4(4), 183-185.

Horton, V. (2013). Whither library consortia? Collaborative Librarianship, 5(3), 150-153.

Horton, V., & Pronevitz, G. (2015). Library consortia: Models for collaboration and

sustainability. Chicago, IL: ALA Editions.

Jin, X., & Maurer, M.B. (2006). Managing the advantages and challenges of multiple library

consortia: The view from within the library. Journal of Access Services, 4(1/2), 41-58.

doi:10.1300/1204v04n01_03.

Kaufman, P. (2012). Let’s get cozy: evolving collaborations in the 21st century. Journal

of Library Administration, 52(1), 53-69. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.629962.

Kinner, L., & Crosetto, A. (2009). Balancing act for the future: How the academic library

engages in collection development at the local and consortial levels. Journal of

Library Administration, 49(4), 419-437. doi:10.1080/01930820902832561.

Kopp, J.J. (1998). Library consortia and information technology: The past, the present, the

promise. Information Technology & Libraries, 17(1), 7-12.

Lee, M., & Horton, V. (2015). Communication in library consortia. Collaborative

Librarianship, 7(1), 5-12.

Machovec, G. (2013). Library consortia: The big picture. Journal of Library Administration,

53(2/3), 199-208. doi:10.1080/01930826.2013.853504.

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 21

Machovec, G. (2014). Consortia and next generation integrated library systems. Journal of

Library Administration, 54(5), 435-443. doi:10.1080/01930826.2014.946789.

Machovec, G. (2014b). Consortia and the future of the Big Deal journal packages.

Journal of Library Administration, 54(7), 629-636. doi:10.1080/01930826.2014.964034.

Machovec, G. (2015). Calculating the return on investment (ROI) for library consortia.

Journal of Library Administration, 55(5), 414-424.

doi:10.1080/01930826.2015.1047282.

Mallery, M. (2010). Orbis Cascade Alliance Collaborative Technical Services Team. Technical

Services Quarterly, 27(4), 396-398. doi:10.1080/07317131.2010.501002.

Maskell, C.A. (2008). Cosortia: Anti-competitive or in the public good? Library Hi Tech, 26(2).

doi:10.1108/07378830810880298.

Miller, W. (2010). Libraries and consortia: What will libraries pay for? Journal of Interlibrary

Loan, Document Delivery, & Electronic Reserve, 20(4), 221-226.

doi:10.1080/1072303X.2010.507139.

Munson, D.M., & Milton, S. (2009). The Orbis Cascade merger and its impact on patron-

initiated borrowing. Journal of Access Services, 6(3), 346-358.

doi:10.1080/15367960902894203.

Orbis Cascade Alliance. (2015). John F. Helmer, founding executive director of the Orbis

Cascade Alliance, to retire [Press release]. Retrieved from

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 22

https://www.orbiscascade.org/john-f-helmer.

Peters, T.A.(2001). Agile innovation clubs. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 149-151.

Peters, T.A. (2003). Consortia and their discontents. Journal of Academic Librarianship,

29(2), 111-114.

Potter, W.G. (1997). Recent trends in statewide academic library consortia. Library Trends,

45(3), 416-434.

Samea, L. (2015). Academic library consortia in Arab countries: An investigating study of

origins, development, and services. International Journal of Library and Information

Science, 7(7), 130-147. doi:10.5897/IJLIS2014.

Shachaf, P. (2003). Nationwide library consortia life cycle. Libri, 53(2), 94-102.

Subramanian, J.M. (2003). The growing and changing role of consortia in providing direct and

indirect support for distance higher education. The Reference Librarian, 37(77), 37-60.

doi:10.1300/j120v37n77_05.

Thompson, J., Peters, T., & Hulbert, L. (2002). Library consortia: Penelope’s loom or a positive

advance? The Serials Librarian, 42(3/4), 177-182. doi:10.1300/j123v42n03_04.

Turner, C.N. (2014). E-resource acquisitions in academic library consortia. Library Resources

& Technical Services, 58(1), 33-48. doi:10.5860/lrts.58n1.33.

Wagner, D., & Gerber, K. (2011). Building a shared digital collection: The experience of the
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 23

cooperating libraries in consortium. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 18(2/3),

272-290. doi:10.1080/10691316.2011.577680.

Walter, B., & Pennavaria, K. (2015). College students’ information seeking behaviors: Where do

libraries fit in? Kentucky Libraries, 79(1), 6-8.

Wang, P., Dervos, D.A., Zhang, Y., & Wu, L. (2007). Information seeking behaviors of

academic researchers in the internet age: A user study in the United States, China,

and Greece. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 44(1), 1-29. doi:10.1002/meet.1450440273.

Watson, M.R. (2010). Taking legacy print into the future: The Orbis Cascade Alliance

distributed print repository. OLA Quarterly, 16(1), 15-17.

Westmoreland, T., & Shirley, B. (2004). The state of consortia: Promises to keep. Texas

Library Journal, 80(2), 52-58.

Wilson, T.D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-56.

Wiser, J. (2012). Playing well with others: New opportunities for library consortia.

Theological Librarianship, 5(2), 43-47.

Wright, D.A. (2005). Library consortia: Do the models always work? Resource Sharing

& Information Technology Networks, 18(1/2), 49-60. doi:10.1300/j121v18n01_05.

ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA 24