View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by UM Digital Repository

COLLABORATION IN RESOURCE SHARING

AMONG MALAYSIAN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN A DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT

Harvinder Kaur 1 , Kiran Kaur 2 , and Diljit Singh 3

Abstract

The need for resource sharing among libraries has become even more
important today with constraints of finance, space, and manpower.
Traditional forms of resource sharing – inter-library loans and
document delivery – are more suited to a print environment than a
digital environment. The digital environment however provides many
new opportunities for resource sharing, and the literature suggests
many emerging models. This paper examines the views, practices, and
plans of resource sharing among Malaysian academic libraries. From
the interviews conducted, it was noted that librarians were aware of
and support the concept of resource sharing. Current resource sharing
activities in Malaysia centre on inter-library loans and document
delivery services. Resource sharing in the digital environment is based
on existing collaborative projects, and the proposed Consortium of
Malaysian Libraries. Factors that influence success in resource
sharing include the need for a shared commitment, the willingness to
contribute, technologically skilled staff, and a need to understand legal
implications.

Introduction

A library is often described as a collection of books and/or other print or non-print

materials, organized and maintained for use (reading, consultation, study, research,
etc.). Institutional libraries, organized to facilitate access by a specific clientele, are
usually staffed by librarians or other personnel trained to provide services to meet
users’ needs (Reitz, 2005). A key element in this description of a library is the
“collection” of materials, which is often taken to mean the total holdings of the
library, or the books, journals, audio-visual materials, CD-ROMs, etc., owned by it.

Today, a library does not necessarily own the materials it provides to users. With
online materials, Internet sites and databases becoming increasingly common, modern
libraries serve as gateways to materials that may be located away from the library,
being housed on a computer in another building, city, or even in another country.
Also, no library can have a collection of everything. The amount of materials

1
Harvinder Kaur is a Reference Librarian at the University of Malaya Law Library
2
Kiran Kaur previously worked at the University of Malaya Library and is currently a Lecturer at the
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya.
3
Diljit Singh is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Computer Science and Information
Technology, University of Malaya.

1
available has become so large that it is no longer possible for a library to acquire
every single item for its collection. Even the Library of Congress is reported to have
a collection of approximately 128 million items, including 29 million books and other
printed materials (Library of Congress, 2004). It is thus more appropriate to describe
those materials as “resources” to encompass those owned by the library and those
made accessible from remote locations.

Irrespective of whether the resources are housed within a library or accessed from a
remote source, there is a limit to the amount of resources that a library can provide
access to. Constraints of finance, space, manpower to select and process the resources,
declining purchasing power, etc., all result in libraries having to limit the number of
resources they can make available to the users. However, users’ needs have increased
in quantity and quality. Users today demand more information, and information that is
accurate, authoritative and fast, irrespective of where the information comes from.

Libraries have responded to the issue meeting increasing user demands within the
constraints of limited resources in various ways. One way is to share the resources.
Resource sharing entails making available to other libraries the resources owned by a
library, the information contained in those resources, and the staff expertise required
to make available the information or the resources (Provincial Resource Sharing
Policy [Alberta], 2005). Resource sharing includes the common use of equipment,
staff knowledge and expertise, materials, facilities, and/or information resources, by
two or more libraries. In common usage, resource sharing refers to the transactions by
which a library makes its materials available to the user of another library upon
request. The purpose of resource sharing is to obtain, upon request of a library’s user,
materials not available in the local library.

Traditional forms of resource sharing have included inter-library loans, document

delivery services, and union catalogs. An interlibrary loan is a transaction in which
library material, or a copy of the material, is made available by one library to another
upon request. A document delivery service is one that allows users to request copies
of materials, usually journal articles, via an online communications link. The
document may be delivered by mail, fax, email, or sent directly to the user's
workstation (University of Connecticut, 2005). A union catalog is one which lists the
materials held by a group of libraries.

These traditional forms of resource-sharing were designed for a print-oriented world,

and served the needs well. However these traditional means are slow and ineffective
in today’s technological world where users demand instantaneous information in a
variety of formats. Traditional models of resource sharing, in particular inter-library
loans and document delivery, have high costs, high turnaround time, low fill rates,
and varying user satisfaction. Fortunately, the technological developments have also
facilitated resource sharing.

Technological developments have resulted in libraries today existing in a digital

environment. The term “digital environment” encompasses the infrastructure,
resources, and channels of transmission based on Internet-related technologies. The
digital environment is characterized by information and communication technology
(ICT)-based content and transfer of information.

2
Resource sharing in a digital environment provides many opportunities to libraries,
librarians and users. In a digital environment, more information is available to users.
Library staff are able to use technology to locate the information more effectively and
efficiently. The digital environment also enables the library to streamline and
automate many services, thus saving time and money. The digital environment also
creates new opportunities for services that benefit the users.

This paper examines the potentialities, efforts towards collaboration, and practices of
resource sharing in a digital environment. Beginning with a review of selected
professional literature on current models and practices in resource sharing, the paper
looks the findings of a small study on the practices and plans for resource sharing
among Malaysian academic libraries. The paper attempts to relate the discussion to
the CONSAL 2006 theme, Challenges for Greater Regional Cooperation.

The Need for Resource Sharing

The need for resource sharing stems from four underlying trends of modern society:
the growth of all forms of literature, increasing reliance on information for society to
function effectively, inflation in the cost of materials, and the increasing availability
of technology. These trends have made it economically imperative to consider sharing
resources (American Library Association, 1993).

Resource sharing plays a crucial role in enabling libraries meet their goals in
promoting education, democracy, economic growth, health and welfare, and personal
development. It facilitates access to a wider range of information, which would not
otherwise be available to the user or library. Resource sharing is not a mechanism to
reduce costs, but rather to expand availability for those who cannot have access to the
information directly for economic, technical or social reasons (International
Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2000).

The need for sharing of resources has increased with time. In the early years (1950s –
1985), the rapid growth of library collections, and the better management of the
collections led to attempts at cooperative collection development. In the later years
(1985 – 2000) economic constraints, changing expectations and needs of users,
changing communication patterns, limitations of library staff, and the emergence of
digital information resources, contributed to the need for better collection
management and resource sharing (Branin, Groen and Thorin, 2000).

While no figures on resource sharing could be located for the CONSAL member
countries, a parallel can be drawn from the Association of Research Libraries
statistics which indicate that, for the years 1986 – 2004, faculty numbers increased by
22%, graduate student numbers increased by 91% and total student numbers increased
by 29%, all pointing to increased users. On the other hand, monographs purchased by
the library members decreased by 9%, serials purchased increased by 42%, while
inter-library lending increased by 111% (Kyrillidou and Young, 2005).

In other countries however, the inter-library lending has decreased. In Australia, it

was estimated that there were about 150,000 interlibrary loan transactions in 1964. A
study in 1986 found that this figure had risen to between 800,000 and one million

3
transactions. This rise peaked in the early 1990s and the trend has been downward
ever since. Today there are estimated to be about 800,000 transactions per annum in
Australia (Missingham, 2005).

Part of the decline in Australia is attributed to availability of e-journals and e-prints

from the user’s desktop, the increasing availability of preprints and conference papers
through the web, and the development of Open Access or Open Archives, which
provide repositories for preprints and postprints of research material free of charge to
users through the web (Missingham, 2005).

The above figures and clarification is an example of how the digital environment is
shaping resource sharing activities. The digital environment provides libraries and
librarians with opportunities to share their resource more effectively and in newer
ways. Better national infrastructures enable libraries to communicate with each other
more effectively. The development of union catalogs enables one library to know of
others’ holdings. Users are now able to request resources on interlibrary loan from
their desktop, thereby reducing the barriers. Users’ expectations are also being
influenced by their experiences with the Internet, Google and Amazon.com. Users
want instantaneous information they are used to from cell phones and short message
services (text services). Libraries are then expected to meet user demands of online
ordering, convenient delivery, and immediate access (Bailey-Hanner and Wanner,
2005)

The conveniences of a digital environment are not confined to resources only. ISO
and NISO standards enable libraries to better communicate with users and with each
other. The Z39.50 standard specifies a client/server-based protocol for information
retrieval. It specifies procedures and structures for a client to search a database
provided by a server, retrieve database records identified by a search, scan a term list,
and sort a result set. The Directories Standard ISO 2146 provides an information
model of the data describing the collections, services and activities of libraries,
museums, archives, information and documentation centers, and document suppliers.
The NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP) Z39.83 defines various
transactions needed to support circulation activities among independent library
systems and facilitates direct patron borrowing, remote patron authentication, on-line
payment, and controlled access to electronic documents. The Interlibrary Loan
Protocol ISO 10160/10161-1 provides a set of messages and associated behaviors that
can be used by libraries to perform resource-sharing activities in a distributed network
environment. It includes the capability to request the loan of returnable bibliographic
items, such as books, or to request non-returnable items, such as photocopies of
journal articles (Canadian Library Association, 2004).

Models of Resource Sharing

There are many ways in which resource sharing is being implemented. Chavare
(2002) categorized them into four basic models:
• Centralized collection development and services at national or regional level,
• Centralized collection development and services by subject,
• Centralized collection development at organization level, and
• Co-ordinated collection development at institutional level.

4
These models deal with sharing of collections. However, the digital environment
allows for distributed resources which can be accessed remotely. As such, other
modes can be added to these four basic models. These include:
• Document delivery services (DDS)
• Mediated interlibrary loan (ILL)
• User-initiated inter-library loans
• Direct consortial borrowing/remote circulation
• Consortial licensing
Current trends in resource sharing include reciprocal access and borrowing services,
sharing of digitised resources and sharing of online resources, with many of these
features being available from one main portal.

The success of such models is evident in many parts of the world. Much can be learnt
from the efforts and success stories in developed countries. Some examples, based on
professional literature, of ongoing successful consortia include:
• The Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) http://www.wrlc.org/ is
made up of eight academic libraries in Washington DC. WRLC library resource-
sharing programs include reciprocal borrowing based on a shared online catalog,
consortial licensing of online resources, cooperative collection development and
shared virtual reference services
• Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK) http://www.ohiolink.edu/ is
a consortium of 84 Ohio’s college and university libraries and the State Library of
Ohio. Their electronic services includes a library catalog of books and materials
owned by all the OhioLINK member libraries, online request of items, search of
the collections of full text research journals, storage and access of digital media
collection, and access to electronic theses and dissertations.
• Cooperative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries (CAVAL)
http://www.caval.edu.au/ is a consortium of the Victorian University Libraries
and the State Library of Victoria, Australia. Their resource sharing programs also
include a reciprocal borrowing arrangement and provide virtual union catalog
(COOLCAT) services.
• The North West Academic Libraries (NoWAL) http://www.nowal.ac.uk/ is a
consortium of UK University and Colleges of Higher Education libraries in
Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. The
consortium aims to provide services to users through reciprocal access and
borrowing policy, access to online databases and consortia procurement of library
resources and staff training programs.

Resource Sharing in Malaysian Academic Libraries

Clearly there are success stories in the literature of resource sharing in a digital
environment. To what extent are these being practiced or planned in a developing
country, like Malaysia? In the current digital environment, Malaysian academic
libraries are striving to provide digital resources to their users, either by purchasing
the resources or digitizing their resources. However, these can be very costly.
Developing countries do not have the resources available to the more developed
countries, and therefore must make best use of the limited funds, expertise, and
technology available to them. What are the current developments in resource sharing
initiatives among Malaysian libraries in the digital environment?

5
To answer these questions question, a small study was carried out to look at the
awareness, practices, and plans of Malaysian academic libraries in relation to resource
sharing. Information was sought from Chief Librarians or Senior Librarians from
selected academic libraries in Malaysia. Academic libraries were chosen because it
was felt they were more progressive and better developed among the libraries in the
nation, they had trained professional staff, and they had a compelling reason for
providing wider resources and quality services to serve their teaching and research
constituents.

In Malaysia, academic libraries are growing with the corresponding growth of public
higher institutions. At the end of 2005, there were 18 public university libraries in
Malaysia. Most of these institutions have incorporated the technology into their
libraries. Although the technology has been included in their infrastructure, many
libraries are still constrained by limited funds, inadequate staff, poor support from
parent organisations, and increasing costs of resources. The increasing numbers and
sophistication of users, rising prices of materials, and tight controls in spending all
place constraints on the resources and services that can be provided in the digital
environment. This has led to Malaysian academic libraries meeting these challenges
through various forms of collaboration.

Approach to the Study

The study used structured interviews of Chief Librarians (or similar designation) or
Senior Librarians as a data collection method. Selected academic libraries were
identified based on the size of collection and clientele. These universities libraries
were active members of the Malaysian Standing Conference of National and
University Libraries (commonly known as PERPUN in Malaysia). Interviews were
conducted with their Chief Librarians or Senior Librarians in person, through
telephone, or via e-mails.

A total of 7 respondents were interviewed or sent in their responses through e-mail,

comprising librarians from University of Malaya, International Islamic University,
MARA University of Technology, Northern University of Malaysia (Universiti Utara
Malaysia), and University of Malaysia, Sarawak.

Findings

The responses of the librarians were recorded and analyzed based on similarity of
words and themes. The findings revealed high awareness, a positive outlook, support
for collaboration efforts, and some upcoming projects.

These findings are discussed in three sections, namely:

• Early practices of collaboration in resource sharing,
• Current trends/initiatives of resource sharing in the digital environment, and
• Success factors for collaboration and resource sharing.

6
Early Practices of Collaboration in Resource Sharing

Tracing the history of collaboration, Malaysian libraries and information centers have
been cooperating formally since the early 1970s. Collaboration and resource sharing
among academic libraries in Malaysia began in 1977 when MALMARC (Malaysian
Machine Readable Catalogue) was started. MALMARC was a union catalogue
comprising approximately 480,000 bibliographic records of the National Library of
Malaysia (NLM) and all academic libraries in Malaysia. This project was coordinated
by the Science University of Malaysia (Universiti Sains Malaysia, USM) and with a
financial grant from UNESCO. However the progress of MALMARC slowed over
time due to lack of funds and changes in the library scene. Many libraries started to
automate their library systems and began to focus on improving their own individual
library systems, which resulted in efforts towards a collaborative catalogue beginning
to wave. In the early 1990s, the MALMARC project was abandoned. All the tapes
were handed to NLM to continue the project. However, a lack of funding and trained
personnel in the required technologies at NLM resulted in the project being put aside.

Various mechanisms have evolved since the 1970s to coordinate collaboration among
academic libraries. A Standing Committee of National and University Libraries in
Malaysia (Persidangan Perpustakaan Universiti dan Perpustakaan Negara,
PERPUN) comprising the National Library of Malaysia and academic libraries was
formed to look into the matters of collaboration and resource sharing. Inter library
lending and document supply were the main concern of resource sharing at that time.
Request for Interlibrary Loans (ILL) and Document Delivery Services (DDS) were
done manually. Items were picked up and sent by selected PERPUN member’s
vehicle, which was scheduled on a rotation basis.

In 1988, a document delivery consortium among libraries was formed, initiated by the
National Library of Malaysia, with the objectives of encouraging local delivery
services and enable easy access of information at local and international levels. The
document delivery system was part of the National Availability of Publication, which
in turn was part of the Universal Availability of Publications (UAP) program initiated
by IFLA and supported by UNESCO (Raja Abdullah, 1999). The ILL/DDS functions
with the co-operation of institutions from Brunei, Singapore, Australia and the British
Library. The numbers and categories of libraries involved in this initiative are listed in
Table 1 below:

Table 1: Members of the Inter Library Lending System, Malaysia

Type of Library Number

Statutory Bodies 45
Public Academic and university libraries 43
Private Academic and university libraries 6
Government Departments 138
Commercial Agencies 110
NGOs 9
Total 341

Although member libraries collate their own data on ILL/DDS and submit it to NLM
annually, there has been no study done on the effectiveness or changing trends of
ILL/DDS in academic libraries. Raja Abdullah (1999) carried out a survey at the

7
[then] MARA Institute of Technology Malaysia on its ILL service and found that the
most prevalent problem associated with the success of the service was lack of staff,
and that contributed to the turnaround time, which ranged from 2 to 3 weeks.

Resource Sharing Initiatives in a Digital Environment

As libraries face up to the challenges of the electronic resources, Malaysian academic

libraries are also striving to keep pace with the information explosion. As a result,
new efforts of collaboration have emerged. The interviews revealed some of the
collaborative projects initiated and carried out over the last five years were:

i. PERDANA
PERDANA is a project to develop a [Malaysian] National Digital Library system
under the co-ordination of NLM. Launched by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia
in early 2000, the project aims to encourage collaboration among all Malaysian
libraries in sharing their local and international digital resources.

ii. MYLIB
MYLIB, a pilot project of PERDANA, is a portal for commercial databases, theses,
library catalogues, abstracts and indexes. The project is managed by NLM and the
focus is on public libraries and special libraries in Malaysia.

iii. I-resources
I-resources is a subject-specific portal. Each participating public university library,
and some research libraries such as the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB),
Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (SIRIM) [now known as
SIRIM Berhad], Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC),
etc., has been given a particular subject area in which the members are to contribute
relevant Internet resources to the portal.

Generally, the above-mentioned initiatives, though having good intentions, have not
been totally successful. Interviews with some librarians revealed that the main causes
were inadequate planning, lack of funds, and lack of coordination. The initial
planning had not foreseen certain management issues and sources of funding for the
project. As one librarian stated:
“Most libraries were under the impression that a particular institution
would obtain the funding and others were to contribute in terms of
resources only. However it turned out that there was no central budget
and each institution was to secure their own funding, especially in the
digitization of materials. At this stage, some innovative libraries
managed to secure funds. However the majority only had limited funds
for operational running of the libraries and could not afford to set aside
a substantial budget for the project”

Another two Chief Librarians mentioned that the lack of ICT expertise of the library
staff was also a contributing factor to the slow progress of these projects. No special
allowance was made for staff training and development, especially in areas of web
development, digitization, electronic publishing, etc. As a result, the libraries have
held on to their own resources and formed their own ‘digital’ or ‘electronic’ libraries

8
for their own clientele. Collaborative efforts to share these electronic resources have
not reached the desired outcome.

iv. Formation of Consortium of Malaysian Libraries

Increasing pressure on academic libraries to offer electronic resources led every
library to purchase as many online databases as their budgets would allow. As a
result, Malaysian public university libraries spent almost RM 22 million (approx. US$
5.5 million) to purchase online databases, and most of the titles were deemed very
expensive and overlapping (Hafsah Mohd, 2001). The 9 -12 % annual increase in
subscription fees was also a burden to academic libraries. Many libraries tried to
reduce their purchasing costs by reducing print subscriptions. However this did not
help the tightening budget.

In 2000, a Committee for Commercial Electronic Databases was formed as a platform

for university libraries to evaluate, select, negotiate and manage the online electronic
journal databases. This Committee was to be responsible for the:
• Selection of electronic journal databases
• Negotiation of the price and cost of service, including increases in price, licensing
and agreement, training, contract, and tender.
• Ensuring the purchase of databases was in accordance with the set guidelines,
approved by the university management
• Building a union catalog of electronic journal subscription.

This Committee succeeded in negotiating for the subscription of electronic journal

databases. The Ministry of Education allocated RM1.4 million (approx. US$ 350,000)
in 2002 and RM 1.9 million (approx. US$ 475,000) in 2003 for the subscription of
three online databases [ProQuest Education, EBSCOhost BSP, Science Direct] to be
shared among 13 member universities. However this financial aid was discontinued
in 2004. The Committee and negotiation among the members still exits, and over the
years a number of new databases, such as IOP, INS Physics Journal, have been
purchased by members who could afford using their own budgets.

This Committee did succeed to a certain level in ensuring a better deal for academic
libraries. However the merger and takeover of publishers, such as Academic Press and
Harcourt being taken over by Elsevier Science and the high subscription costs of
commercially available academic journals, are problems that academic libraries
cannot put off. These complications have made PERPUN realize that there is a need
for a formal consortium to be formed if collaboration among academic libraries was
to succeed. In July 2004, PERPUN members decided to form a National Consortium
of Malaysian Libraries, following the example of some developed countries.

This consortium would coordinate the purchase/subscriptions, management and

monitoring of the electronic journals online databases, and carry out information
sharing projects that would benefit all libraries involved. Currently the formation of
this Consortium is in its final stages. The Consortium is to be placed under
Multimedia Technology Enhancement Operations (METEOR) Sdn Bhd., a subsidiary
company owned by all public universities in Malaysia. The Board of Directors of the
Consortium will comprise of members from the 11 public university libraries,
members of other university libraries, Director-General of the NLM, and a
representative from the Ministry of Higher Education. An Executive Officer is to be

9
appointed for the management of the Consortium, especially in terms of electronic
databases purchase. Since funding is critical to the success of a project, it has been
suggested that all members wishing to be part of the Consortium should pay a
minimal membership fee, depending on the category of the library. Categories are to
be decided based on the size of the library, number of students, number of services
offered and other criteria to be finalized.

Functions of Consortium of Malaysian Libraries

The main functions of the proposed Consortium of Malaysian Libraries are expected
to be:
• Act as an agent for negotiating database subscription prices
• Negotiate contract and licensing terms
• Act as an agent for collective purchases
• Prepare the ICT infrastructure
• Prepare a portal on the training and management of electronic products
• Improve resource sharing through better ILL/DDS
• Develop projects for all member libraries
• Carry out activities to generate income

The consortium would provide better bargaining power for negotiation of database
subscriptions, and cost-effective purchases based on collective purchase. Thus, the
purchase of new products would be possible at a better price. The network of
collaboration among information services in the country and availability of a common
server by the consortium will allow wider access to electronic materials, local and
international information sources. It is hoped that this centralized information centre
will further promote learning in Malaysia.

v. Electronic ILL/DD Delivery System

One Chief Librarian stressed that there was a need to improve and change the current
ILL system at various stages, especially in terms of its management/operations and
fees. An open meeting among the PERPUN members has agreed to provide copies of
documents free of charge to each other. Initially, new libraries will benefit from this
arrangement, but over time the interdependency will be greater and this initial
disadvantage to the older and bigger libraries will be overcome. With these changes,
members are opting for a better delivery method of documents.

Currently, most of the academic libraries have automated their ILL/DDS in terms of
receiving requests. However, delivery of the documents is still on a manual basis.
Discussions have been on going to scan the documents and deliver them
electronically. The International Islamic University (IIU) has started scanning
documents and delivering them by email. Other libraries are a little slow to adopt this
method due to manpower shortage and lack of funds to invest in the proper hardware
required. It is hoped that over time with this new development, the turnaround time
will be reduced and greater user satisfaction be achieved, as well as reducing the
delivery and print costs.

On whether there were any intentions to share e-books or electronic articles which are
available in the subscribed online databases, most librarians responded that resources
available in the electronic databases were not currently shared. Only print resources

10
were shared among the ILL members. Sharing of electronic resources was limited
because licensing agreements were stringent and did not allow this

vi. PERPUN Portal

A portal to be developed by a selected university library to provide information about
PERPUN activities and to serve as a one-stop access point for all higher learning
institution libraries. The following services would also be made available through the
portal:
a. Union List of Serial Holdings
The current list of serial holdings is out of date and a newer online list for journal
holdings is being developed. The University College of Engineering and
Technology, Malaysia (Kolej Universiti Kejuruteraan dan Teknologi Malaysia,
KUKTEM) is coordinating a union list for print and electronic journal holdings of
all academic libraries.
b. Union List of Theses
Other income generating projects planned include the development of a Union List
of Malaysian Theses. Currently the Multimedia University (MMU) is coordinating
a listing of all theses (Masters and PhD). This list will be passed on to the
Consortium later to be marketed.
c. National Union Catalog
Efforts to push for a National Union Catalog have also been carried out. NLM has
received funding for this project and is currently looking for a suitable system that
can be shared by all participating libraries. Records should be automatically up-
dated. This will allow easy access to all library holdings.
d. A single access point to all research publications
This project is currently undertaken by the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation (MOSTI) Malaysia with the cooperation of all institutions of higher
learning and research institutes.

Views on Success Factors for Collaboration among Academic Libraries

From the interviews, it was gathered that if the Consortium of Malaysian Libraries is
to be successful, there has to be financial support from the Ministry of Higher
Education even if member libraries pay a membership fee. This was done by
Northwest Academic Libraries Group (NoWAL) in 1997, where the consortium asked
the British authorities to help in the purchase of online databases, the price of which
rose to almost GBP 350,000.

Other suggestions brought up by the interview respondents on factors important for

the success of collaboration included:
• Members of the Consortium must include a lawyer so that issues of licensing,
contract and agreements can be scrutinized Many consortia in developed
countries, such as OhioLink and WRLC, make use of legal services.
• Every academic library should contribute its heritage of local resources to be
shared among the libraries. There has to be trust and a willingness to share among
the members. It may prove difficult to get every member to agree initially, but if
the majority is agreeable, the project should be carried out. Others will join in as
the success is evident. Most important is the financial support.

11
• Library and information services staff have to be trained in technological know-
how and the management of electronic resources, including the marketing of
services to generate income for continuity of the projects.
• Increased collaboration in ILL/DDS must be based on an analysis of all
participating libraries on the document supply transactions and the patterns of
supply. There has to be sufficient knowledge of the demand to be met before a
strategy on how to meet the expectations and demands is made.
• Regular input by participating members is crucial. All participating libraries must
be committed to the collective sharing and each must consistently fulfill its
responsibility regardless of changes in management.

Conclusions

Based on the preceding discussions and findings, the future of resource sharing in the
digital environment among Malaysian academic libraries is beginning to take shape.
Libraries are aware of the need for resource sharing and emerging trends, and are
making a commitment towards newer methods of resource sharing. Consortium-based
arrangements are preferred and a Consortium of Malaysian Libraries is almost a
reality. Based on the responses of the Chief Librarians and Senior Librarians, the
future of collaboration seems promising with an increasingly strong involvement and
cooperation among the academic libraries. Although commercial document delivery
systems are having an impact, they are not eliminating the need for traditional
interlibrary loans, particularly for printed materials. Traditional models will continue
to be used, but newer models for digital resources will also be implemented.

There is also a need to look at newer models of resource sharing, especially from the
experiences of developed countries. Lessons learnt from these countries suggest that a
strengthening of bibliographic control is crucial to effective and efficient resource
sharing. Malaysian academic libraries must be encouraged to update their holdings on
the National Union Catalog and contribute to this national project. The National
Library of Malaysia will need to monitor closely the development of this National
Union Catalog.

In conclusion, Malaysian academic libraries are well aware of and strongly support
resource sharing initiatives. Working together, with ongoing commitment to support
the National Library, contributing to the bibliographic national database, developing
union lists of resources, responding to the need for electronic delivery of documents,
and a realization that resource-sharing is a shared responsibility among libraries, are
the factors Malaysian academic libraries will need to succeed in the future.

12
References

American Library Association. 1993. World Encyclopaedia of Library and

Information Services. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Bailey-Hanner, Brenda and Gail Wanner. 2005. Rethinking Resource Sharing. Dynix
Institute Web Seminar, June 14, 2005. Available at
http://www.dynix.com/institute/slides/Bailey-Hainer_20050614.pdf

Branin, Joseph, Frances Groen, and Suzanne Thorin. 2000. The Changing Nature of
Collection Management in Research Libraries. Library Resources and
Technical Services 44 (1). Available at
http://www.arl.org/collect/changing.html

Canadian Library Association. 2004. CLA & BCLA 2004 Resource Sharing: Linking
Systems: Transforming Resource Sharing through ISO ILL and Other
Standards. Background Paper. Available at
http://www.eln.bc.ca/presentations/clabcla04/program.pdf

Chavare, Swati R. 2002. Cooperation for Resource Sharing: Initiatives, Models and
Techniques. Paper presented at the Workshop on Information Resource
Management 13-15March, 2002DRTC, Bangalore

Dempsey, Lorcan and Rosemary Russell et al. 1998. Managing Access to a

Distributed Library: Report from the 5th MODELS workshop. Program 33(3):
265-281.

Elkington, Nancy E. and Dennis Massie. 1999. The Changing Nature of International
Resource Sharing: Risks and Benefits of Collaboration. Interlending &
Document Supply 27 (4): 148-154.

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. 2000. IFLA Position

on Copyright in the Digital Environment. Available at
www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/pos-dig.htm

Kaul, Surekha. 2001. Information resources sharing models in developing countries: a

network emerging from the world bank supported environmental management
capacity building project. INSPEL 35 (1): 9-26.
Available at: http://forge.fh-potsdam.de/~IFLA/INSPEL/01-1kasu.pdf

Kyrillidou, Martha and Mark Young. 2005. ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington DC.
Association of Research Libraries.

Library of Congress. 2004. Fascinating Facts About the Library of Congress.

Available at http://www.loc.gov/homepage/fascinate.html

McDermott, Norma. 2003.Extending our reach: resource sharing in Irish libraries.

Interlending & Document Supply 31(3): 192-200.

McLean, Neil. 1999. The evolution of information resource sharing infrastructure: an

13
 Australian perspective. Library Hi Tec 17 (3): 256-264.

Missingham, Roxanne and Margarita Moreno. 2005. Resource Sharing in Australia:

Evaluation of National Initiatives and Recent Developments. Canberra:
National Library of Australia. Available at
www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2005/ missingham2.html

Potter, William Gray. 1997. Recent trends in statewide academic library consortia.
Library Trends 45 (3). 417-434.

Provincial Resource Sharing Policy [Alberta]. 2005. Available at

www.cd.gov.ab.ca/building_communities/public_library/development/pdf/Pro
vincial_Resource_Sharing_Policy.pdf -

Raja Abdullah Yaacob. 1999. The role of inter-lending and document supply in
Malaysia. Paper presented at the 65th IFLA Council and General Conference.
Bangkok, Thailand, August 20-August 28, 1999.

Reitz, Joan M. 2005. ODLIS — Online Dictionary for Library and Information
Science. Libraries Unlimited. Available at http://lu.com/odlis/odlis_l.cfm

University of Connecticut. 2005. Library Instruction Gateway: Glossary of Library

Terms. Available at http://www.lib.uconn.edu/using/tutorials/instruction/
glossary.htm

Weech, Terry L. 2002. Back to the future – when resource sharing seemed to work.
The rise and fall of a successful consortial resource sharing network.
Interlending & Document Supply 30 (2): 80-86.

14