National Scholarly Communications Forum
Round Table No 7

THE DISTRIBUTED NATIONAL COLLECTION

Updated 21 August, 1997

Discussion Groups' Reports

John Levett Wraps Up

Discussion and Resolution

Discussion Groups' Reports

Group 1

Rapporteur - Philip Kent

1. Academies & Professional Associations.
   - it was agreed that their support would be essential to stimulate awareness & support at all levels
2. Redefine DNC.
   - electronic considerations are now of greater importance
   - still very print focussed
   - libraries have to reinvent themselves
   - services issues - collection & access
3. Roles of national vs state libraries
   - top down strategy needed to pull the DNC together
   - bottom up - all activities cannot have a national focus, such as Victorian initiatives.
4. Steering Committee to drive the issues
   - National Academies Forum to pull things together
   - research vs teaching - different DNC issues
   - AVCC - no strong history of support for funding or championing these issues
5. Funding
   - get processes right
   - success of National Priority (Reserve) Fund
   - coming to an end - not recurrent funding
   - pump priming
   - costs of cooperation are extra
   - how to sell to government
   - what is the carrot - the contribution to the knowledge economy
   - what's in it for stakeholders
   - libraries may be 10% of operating costs of universities - role of VCs essential
   - RIEFP (DEETYA grants) is the main source of funding being used at the moment.
6. Other
   - incomplete NBD
   - needs funding to complete
   - not just database & index - includes document delivery and full-text access.
   - rationalising research & teaching
   - rationalising funding will drive this.
   - strong steering committee
   - need a big bang approach.

Group 2

Rapporteur Fran Awcock

Agree that need SI & mechanism

Have many of the tools already

Need better print/electronic integration

Tools help identify duplication

Need to know business better to rationalise.

Give existing structures more form

Should involve outsourcing, e.g. Griffith is outsourcing Technical Services.

More training in use of the information resources, to make use more effective

More advocacy and presentation of options e.g. top-slicing or levy on library budgets

Huge variations in requirements of different disciplines - use the Academies to help identify

Acknowledge low levels of self-sufficiency in Australian libraries.

Group 3

Rapporteur - Christine Page-Hanify

Q. What mechanism is required to best fill the gap and move forward.

1. Focus on research collections, thereby narrowing the effort and making it achievable.
2. What would we achieve if we were successful?
   To be successful must maintain effort
   Aim for something like the UK's Joint Information Systems Committee, within DEETYA
   Need NLA, because of the infrastructure, to combine with the HE institutions.
3. Create a working party of stakeholders under the umbrella of the NSCF:
   from CAUL (2)
   from the Academies (2)
   from the AVCC SCOR (1)
   from the NLA (1)
   Identify an interim chair
4. Task
   Prepare a submission to West
   Prepare a proposal for consideration by the stakeholders
   Identify a champion to argue the case with government
   Obtain agreement from stakeholders, go to the Minister
5. This work has to be funded by the stakeholders (by contribution).
6. Extend if relevant once the model is in place.

Group 4

Rapporteur Gaynor Austen

Gaps

• resource description - catalogues & metadata - who has responsibility for Australian material?
• standards
• digitisation - high costs
• preservation
• integration across print and electronic - search mechanisms
• supply - viable ILL systems
• copyright - clear workable approaches

More fundamental gaps

• funding
• priorities for information gaps
• any clear vision in what we wanted to achieve, ie a goal, then address mechanisms
• any clear commitment to agreed policy
  • these must be addressed first.
• copyright an obstacle in digitisation
• archiving
• feasibility of having a national strategy in what we collect
• access to non-collected material
• NAF subject-based access mechanisms
• DNC term obstacle to mechanism for information access which must include communications infrastructure
• SIN = seamless information network

John Levett - Wrapping up!

Have we achieved something today? It is incomprehensible that we can continue to function under current constraints.

The notion of the institution-sufficient library is gone. Can no longer act alone in changing patterns of collecting. What kinds of consultation processes are best for users?

There are several kinds of outcomes:

• instrumental - get other bodies to carry issues forward and provide
• informational - tell others what has been said and what is going to happen, so that others can act;
• advisory - warrant to advise others of actions to take; advice to NSCF about how to proceed;
• remittance - different groups take remit to their constituencies;
• forward noting - post for future Round Tables to consider.

Some issues have emerged directly and some by implication.

The market is a dangerous option, abrogatory; dependent clients of monopolistic groups. Be more clear about leaving intellectual heritage to the market and its implications. The public good is by no means an element of the market.

Desk-top access to materials especially monographs; CAUL UnCover already exists; ILL processes must be made more transparent.

Libraries have moved from core to added functions; the book is an artifact of great value; added functions can distract from essential functions;

The customer base is highly differentiated; no single policy or solution possible, so broad policies won't satisfy; will need reshaping for individual consumers. How can policies intersect with a particular market, one in which the consumers are most demanding and articulate.

Noblesse oblige - funds are required for cooperative ventures; central funding has probably gone as far as it can go; need more rigorous arrangements between interested groups.

It is dangerous to take academic need at face value; it is a self-valuating need. All need to be more critical of value placed on expressions of interest, particularly in relation to buying material. More consultation is needed, but it takes time, and can even be counter-productive in an environment where time is difficult to segregate.

The forum today has been trying to look at the "whole apple" of which the DNC is only part, one instrumentality only.

Key outcomes.

The Round Table is part of the process, not the end; it will examine and shape issues, but there is a long way to go.

1. The DNC concept needs redefinition and reclarification and statement of limitations; the concept needs wider discussion if it is to remain viable respondent to needs;
2. There is a need for a broader, more formal forum; it is too early to discuss membership, mechanisms and directions; the issue must be carried forward in an number of environments;
3. The environment is volatile e.g. technological volatility, but still have to develop policies knowing that they may become irrelevant;
4. There is an excess of demand over capacity, and probably always has been so; has the potential to paralyse us; must prioritise and evaluate;
5. Sufficient funding must be freed up to carry forward.

Conclusion.

These are serious issues, ranging beyond the academic community, of the national resource; they should become a central issue for government.

Discussion

David Bennett.

Reads a possible resolution:

Resolution of the National Scholarly Communications Forum Round Table on the Distributed National Collection, 17 July 1997, Canberra, ACT

This Round Table resolves that in the current era of declining resources it is desirable to develop new policies and structures to promote uniform Australia-wide research enhancement. In this climate, competition between universities for resources is antithetical to maintaining and enhancing a strong scholarly research infrastructure necessary to keep Australia competent in the international higher education and research arenas.

There is a need to recognise that effective university competitiveness depends on a strong information infrastructure which in turn depends on library cooperation. Institutional self-interest demands that there be a sustainable information environment which depends on library collaboration and adequate funding. A quality research infrastructure is pre-competitive.

For university libraries there are undoubtedly major problems caused by duplication of programs and inadequate resource bases. The development of good libraries demands long term commitment and planning. At a Government level, this implies a need for a university quality framework which respects university autonomy but requires that teaching and research be supported by adequate library and other resources.

This Round Table calls upon the Department of Employment, Education, Training, and Youth Affairs; the Department of Communications and the Arts; the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee; the National Academies Forum; the National Library of Australia; university libraries; state libraries; special collection libraries, where appropriate; and Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL); and other relevant bodies to devise and implement a national and regional collection policy. These organisations should set up a coordination and implementation body - a National Information Steering Committee. This body would advise on a national coordinated program of library provision for advanced teaching and research infrastructure.

This Round Table resolves that:

• the Commonwealth accepts the need for it to play a key policy and funding role in leading the development of a national information infrastructure supporting higher education teaching and research;

• the Department of Employment, Education, Training, and Youth Affairs and the Department of Communications and the Arts fund a National Information Steering Committee to advise on a national coordinated program of library provision for advanced teaching and research infrastructure;

• this National Information Steering Committee - composed of representatives from government, higher education peak bodies, the National Library of Australia and library and IT bodies - devise and implement a national and regional collection policy; and

the Department of Employment, Education, Training, and Youth Affairs provide funding for implementing the national and regional collection policy by top-slicing existing funding for the higher education sector in support of sector wide objectives.

Alex Byrne.

Agrees in general terms with the motion, but suggests that it is too closely formulated. The Working Party suggested is probably a more appropriate step to take forward the issues in the resolution. Then make more formal input to the West Review.

Warren Horton.

Agrees with Alex. The Bennett motion is well-formulated but lengthy. Has difficulty with some elements, but not with the movement towards the final solution. Difficult with resolutions that cut across Federal departments; may be preferable to encourage one department to establish a mechanism which may be wider than the single portfolio. The only real game in town is the West Committee.

Christine Page-Hanify.

Suggestions from Group 3:

1. Create a working party of stakeholders under the umbrella of the NSCF:
   from CAUL (2), from the Academies (2), from the AVCC SCOR (1); from the NLA (1); Identify an interim chair
2. Prepare a submission to West review;
   Prepare a proposal for consideration by the stakeholders;
   Identify a champion to argue the case with government;
   Obtain agreement from stakeholders, go to the Minister;
3. This work has to be funded by the stakeholders (by contribution).

Don Schauder.

Include the State libraries; must be driven by national and regional groupings; add CASL to the Working Party.

Jonathan Potter.

The universities are creatures of the AVCC, therefore AVCC support is needed. If CASL is included then have the potential to lose the main thrust of the proposition.

Lois Jennings.

Agreed with the first half of the resolution. However cooperation needs to be between institutions, not libraries. The focus must be on information and communications infrastructure rather than collections.

Warren Horton.

The Group 3 resolution is meant to be tight, rather than to exclude; necessary in order to take prompt action.

Colin Steele.

Agrees with Lois. Suggests an immediate press release.

Virginia Walsh.

Suggests taking the spirit of the discussion and the desire to pursue further developments in a media release. Suggests taking the Group 3 recommendation forward.

Jonathan Potter.

Wishes to confirm that the resolution is to develop a proposal to go to the West Review, and to bring the proposal back to the stakeholders.

Christine Page-Hanify.

Confirm that there will not be time to bring the proposal back to the stakeholders.

Roderick West.

The Committee will consider the proposal. Notes that 375 already received, but will give this attention.

Mairead Browne.

Prefer not to confuse the interim working party with a longer term body that may be established; the proposed size of the working party is large enough; small enough to allow it to move more quickly.

Virginia Walsh.

Proposes that the working party, as outlined, take suggestions from today's forum to the West Review.

Jonathan Potter.

Questions the flow of power; if the working party represents institutions, then it would be expected that the institutions would wish to have input. If the working party was made up of individuals, then this would be unnecessary.

Virginia Walsh.

Confirm that the working party will consist of individuals, and will not promise anything on behalf of their institutions.

Angus Martin.

As the forum was organised by the National Scholarly Communications Forum is would be appropriate for the working party to come under the umbrella of the NSCF.

Virginia Walsh.

Agrees that this addresses the administration issue. Confirms that the working party will be established to prepare a discussion paper to be placed before the West Committee, and feed back the details to the stakeholders.

Christine Page-Hanify.

The Group 3 proposal was even more specific, and prefers to take a proposal to the Minister; a Minister is needed to carry the proposal forward.

Anthony Low.

Recommends empowering the working party to take a proposal quickly to the West Committee. A second document should be brought back to another forum, identifying the steps required to encourage government to take up the group issue.

Send comments/suggestions/requests about this site ....