Digital Library Collaboration: A Service-Oriented Perspective

Author(s): Steven Buchanan, Forbes Gibb, Susan Simmons and David McMenemy
Source: The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy , Vol. 82, No. 3 (July
2012), pp. 337-359
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665930

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION:
A SERVICE-ORIENTED PERSPECTIVE

Steven Buchanan,1 Forbes Gibb,2 Susan Simmons,3 and David

McMenemy4

Collaboration in the digital domain offers an opportunity to provide enhanced

digital services and extended reach to the community. This article adopts a service-
oriented perspective through which it considers environmental drivers for digital
library collaboration; discusses emergent collaborative partnerships across UK ed-
ucational institutions, social services, health services, private industry, and cultural
sectors; considers associated challenges; and identifies best practices. Existing and
potential synergistic relationships are explored across the broader cultural sector—
in particular, with the respective processes of libraries, museums, archives, arts and
broadcasting organizations comprehensively identified and mapped (commonal-
ity), and the relationship to service-oriented architecture highlighted. The degree
of digital service collaboration is also explored through an indicative review of
Scottish public library websites, encompassing thirty-two regional library networks
and including the National Library. Collaboration is found to be evident but limited
in the digital domain, with strategic and architectural recommendations made.

Introduction

Across the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors, collaborative part-

nerships are widely recognized as not just a strategic option but also, in
several instances, considered a strategic necessity [1]. Within the library
sector, V. Wildridge, S. Childs, L. Cawthra, and B. Madge [2, p. 21] argue

1. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,

Scotland, UK; E-mail steven.buchanan@cis.strath.ac.uk.
2. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK; E-mail forbes.gibb@cis.strath.ac.uk.
3. Department of Organisation and Human Resource Development, NHS Ayrshire and Arran;
E-mail susan.simmons@nhs.net.
4. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK; E-mail david.mcmenemy@cis.strath.ac.uk

[Library Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 337–359]

 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0024-2519/2012/8203-0004$10.00

337

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

that, in a rapidly evolving and increasingly complex global society, “part-

nership working is a key area for the library information professional cur-
rently, and is crucial for the profession for the future,” a view shared by
P. Brophy [3, p. 212], who argues that “libraries cannot go it alone and
their future strength will depend on the alliances they forge.” The DELOS
Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries, which describes the digital
library as “a tool at the centre of intellectual activity having no logical,
conceptual, physical, temporal or personal barriers on information” [4, p.
15], has also argued that digital libraries, in pursuit of personalized inter-
active user experiences, are evolving from content-centric systems to per-
son-centric systems, with the role of the digital library having “shifted from
static storage and retrieval of information to facilitation of communication,
collaboration and other forms of interaction” [4, p. 15].
Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, library collaboration (i.e., involved
cooperation) is now extending beyond the more obvious partnerships with
archives and museums to other cultural organizations, educational insti-
tutions, social services, health services, industry, and commerce. Joint ini-
tiatives, such as cross-institutional digital collections and shared virtual
learning environments, are emerging with libraries assuming the role of
both content provider and access provider (i.e., providing access to ex-
ternal content) and notably, in so doing, providing opportunity for the
library to evolve as an enterprise in the digital domain [5, p. 169]. However,
there is currently limited research regarding collaborative best practice [6,
p. 558; 7, p. 9] and, in particular, the extent and degree of digital collab-
oration.
This study reports on UK public library collaboration, with a particular
focus on emergent digital services (i.e., services or digital resources ac-
cessed and/or provided via digital transaction [8, p. 278]), and asks, what
services, with whom, and how? It begins with the distinction between col-
laboration and cooperation and then identifies environmental influences
and benefits, followed by collaborative practices, challenges, and best prac-
tice. The importance of leveraging and exploiting natural synergy between
partner organizations is highlighted, based on, or established through com-
mon goals, processes, and services. Existing and potential synergistic re-
lationships are identified across the broader cultural sector in particular,
with common processes identified and mapped and the relationship to
service-oriented architecture highlighted. A review of Scottish public li-
brary websites (a devolved sector of the UK), encompassing thirty-two re-
gional library networks and including the National Library of Scotland,
provides an indicative example of the extent of digital collaboration within
the UK. Recommendations are made for further research and conclusions
drawn.
Although UK focused, we acknowledge that there are a number of initiatives

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 339

worldwide from which direction and inspiration can be obtained on what

types of collaborative activities are both possible and desirable. These include
the Information Policy and Access Center (http://www.ipac.umd.edu) at the
University of Maryland, which is running a number of projects looking at
accessibility issues, community information platforms, and the integration
of library and e-government services. However, such initiatives were
deemed beyond the scope of this particular study, which, to the best of
our knowledge, provides the first national study of public library digital
collaboration.

Digital Library Collaboration in the United Kingdom

Beginning with the important distinction between collaboration and co-

operation, this section discusses environmental factors influencing collab-
oration, the benefits of collaboration, and challenges and best practice,
before highlighting how natural synergy between partners can be exploited
through common processes and service-oriented architectures. The section
concludes with an indicative review of Scottish public library websites that
provide an example of the degree of digital collaboration to be found across
a domain.

Collaboration versus Cooperation

Previous research has highlighted the difficulties of defining the various
forms of partnership processes, such as coordination, cooperation, collab-
oration, and joint working, all of which can mean different things to dif-
ferent people under different circumstances [2, p. 3]. B. Diamant-Cohen
and D. Sherman (2003) define collaboration as “a more involved co-op-
eration, where there is a more in-depth sharing and pooling of resources”
[9, p. 103]. D. M. Zorich, G. Waibel, and R. Erway [10] suggest that col-
laboration is one of the more complex forms of partnership working, which
involves alteration of the institutional processes or practices of at least one
of the organizations involved. Zorich and colleagues [10] propose a “col-
laboration continuum” that begins with contact, in which exploratory di-
alogue between organizations is initiated; followed by informal coopera-
tion, such as sharing information; to planned and structured coordinated
activity; to more in-depth collaborative activity, where information is not
just shared but used to create something new; and, finally, convergence,
where services, functions, and infrastructure are shared between organi-
zations.
Some difficulty may still remain in judging whether the joint activity
meets the criteria for collaboration; for example, establishing the degree
to which change should occur for an activity to be deemed collaborative.

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

However, there is broad general agreement that collaborative partnerships

create mutual advantage for those involved [11, p. 3; 7, p. 7] and that
partners share resources or intellectual assets, such as costs, expertise, or
information, in working toward a common goal [12, p. 45; 13, p. 581].
Such goals are shaped and influenced by various environmental factors,
which are addressed in the next section.

Environmental Factors Influencing Collaboration

Libraries operate within an environment that, in system-thinking terms, is
outside the system (library) boundary and contains entities that affect the
library but that cannot be directly controlled by the library [14]. However,
although not controllable, as influencing factors, they must be identified
in order to be able to plan for, accommodate, and react to them. A widely
applied framework for such environmental analysis is the Political, Eco-
nomic, Social, and Technological (PEST) model, which can be utilized to
identify the various influencing factors and forces that may induce, or
indeed compel, libraries to collaborate.
From a political perspective, cooperation and collaboration are often
found expressed at the national level. For example, within the United
Kingdom under the Labour government of 1997–2010, there was a long-
standing mandate to move the public sector from a contract culture to a
partnership culture. With specific regard to libraries, the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport specified that such cooperation “could include
cross-sector co-operation and coordination, marketing and promotion of
services in the region, coordinated acquisition, IT exchange and devel-
opment and coordination of policies for preservation, conservation, dis-
persal and disposal” [15, p. 5]. Such a mandate arguably established a
political imperative that was subsequently supported by national library
bodies. For example, in England and Wales, the Museums, Libraries and
Archives Council (MLA) recommended that libraries, museums, and ar-
chives “integrate with other forms of cultural, the arts, sport and local
services to offer essential resources that meet the needs of people, com-
munities and place” [16, p. 3]. Equally in Scotland the Scottish Library
and Information Council (SLIC), which acts as an independent advisory
body to the Scottish government, asks public libraries to “work in part-
nership with others to offer value added services” [17, p. 1].
Cooperative and collaborative goals are also implicit within the “Big
Society” vision of the newly elected UK Conservative and Liberal Democrat
coalition government, which seeks to transfer the organization and delivery
of public services from central government to local government, bodies,
and groups. Specific aims are to give communities more powers; encourage
active citizenship; transfer power from central to local governments; dis-
seminate government data; and support cooperatives, mutual societies,

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 341

charities, and social enterprises [18]. A government cited [19] example is

the “Digital Inclusion” project of Liverpool First [20], a local strategic
partnership that brings together public libraries, businesses, government
organizations, public sector agencies, and voluntary and community groups
to narrow the city’s digital divide (it is estimated that 69 percent of Liv-
erpool city residents do not have access to the Internet) through improved
public access and skills.
In economic terms, public libraries have to compete for funding with
other public services and demonstrate value for money (VFM) and/or
return on investment (ROI) through public or social value. Sharing services
with other institutions can potentially improve VFM and/or ROI through
shared infrastructure costs in, for example, storage media and associated
networks. Over 23 percent of archive units in a recent collaboration survey
reported financial savings as a result of collaborative activities [6, p. 566]
although, interestingly, none cited financial considerations as a motivating
factor for initiating a project [6, p. 565].
Multiorganizational projects may also result in decreased interorgani-
zational competition for funding, and it has been previously argued that
funding bodies are likely to look on joint applications more favorably, as
the resources have the potential to reach more of the population [21, p.
408], with funding opportunities for cross-institutional digital collections
increasingly prevalent [22].
In terms of social factors, collaboration has been found to enhance
lifelong learning initiatives by increasing the range, quality, and accessibility
of learning models and experiences [23, p. 1] and social inclusion initia-
tives through finding new ways and means of delivering information [7].
For example, local archive collections can be digitized and linked to an
educational curriculum or used to support online community heritage
forums. Heritage projects, in particular, contribute to the social inclusion
agenda by building community identity through deeper understanding of
local traditions and history.
In an era of unprecedented technological innovation and evolving user
expectations and information-seeking behavior [24–25], digital content is
now increasingly common and increasingly preferred [26, p. 47; 27, p. 8],
with universal access to digital libraries considered essential to social and
economic mobility [28]. Changes in work practices, mobility, and lifestyle
have affected the use of libraries, with patrons increasingly wanting to be
able to access services remotely, independently, and at a time convenient
to themselves [29, p. 1]. J. B. Østby [30, p. 232] argues that users often
do not care whether the source of the information they seek is in a library,
museum, or archive as long as it is freely available. The implication is that
organizations can be more flexible in their approach to what information
resources are made available from which institution without deterring po-

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

tential patrons, assuming a seamless user experience via integrated systems.

For example, genealogists typically require access to local history collec-
tions, archives, maps, social history collections and data sets, each of which
is often located within separate institutions and services. Within the United
Kingdom, a number of projects have already been initiated at the national
level to develop an infrastructure for a shared electronic framework in
which libraries, museums, and archives can share a virtual environment,
supported by wider metadata schemas, such as Resource Description and
Access (RDA), RSLP Collection Description, and the Dublin Core Metadata
Initiative (DCMI), which are intended to offer standardized access to re-
sources within a collection through identification of specific elements or
major features. Beyond PEST forces compelling collaboration there are
also a number of potential benefits to consider, discussed in the next
section.

Benefits of Collaboration
Two commonly cited benefits of collaboration are enhanced access to ser-
vices and improved quality of the services offered [31, p. 8; 6, p. 571; 32,
pp. 62–63; 12, pp. 50–51]. For example, time and effort can be saved by
providing access to information via a single portal, thereby avoiding sep-
arate inquiries to separate websites. The integrated nature of the infor-
mation can also provide benefits in terms of comprehensiveness, more
direct comparability, and consistent presentation (with associated usability
benefits).
A further commonly cited benefit relates to increased visibility and aware-
ness of services [6, p. 571; 32, pp. 62–63; 33, p. 75]. Eleanor Rodger,
Corinne Jörgensen, and George D’Elia [12, pp. 50–51] found that en-
hancement of the public profile was rated as the most significant benefit
for the organization, closely followed by the potential to expand or diversify
the library’s audience and the opportunity to enhance the use of collections
or services.
Collaboration can also bring improved relationships with other orga-
nizations [6, p. 571; 32, pp. 62–63; 34, pp. 201–2] and the opportunity to
develop or acquire expertise or preserve traditional skills [32, pp. 62–63;
35, p. 254; 36, p. 480]. For example, potential audiences of heritage pro-
jects are not only diverse but also potentially cross-cultural and will benefit
from partners with associated understanding. The density (and mobility)
of the population can also be highly variable, with outreach services to
remote and sparsely populated areas benefiting from local support that,
dependent upon service, could be provided by local education services
and health services.
As previously noted, collaboration can also reduce total cost and improve
ROI through shared infrastructure. However, it has been previously argued

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 343

that the financial element should not be regarded as a prime motivator

for collaboration [12, p. 51] and, in the context of broader societal goals,
it has been described by Goulding as “peripheral to . . . the main business”
[37, p. 241]. However, in times of extreme economic pressures, such as
the present, it is perhaps time to revisit this dimension of collaboration.
Such benefits have encouraged libraries to collaborate not just with ar-
chives and museums but also with other cultural organizations, educational
institutions, social services, health services, and industry; these are dis-
cussed in the next section.

Collaborative Practices
Libraries, schools and higher educational establishments have a shared
interest in developing literacy skills and supporting student information
needs [12, p. 45; 13, p. 579], with partnerships actively encouraged by
funding bodies [38, p. 50]. An example is the Resources for Learning in
Scotland (RLS) project managed by the Scottish Cultural Resources Access
Network (SCRAN) and the National Library of Scotland. The project de-
veloped a resource base for schools to access materials on Scottish history
and culture, involving the collections of over 100 Scottish libraries and
archives. Financial support for RLS has ended (highlighting the self-sus-
taining challenge of digital projects), but SCRAN continues to host the
RLS website for general public access.
Libraries are also being encouraged to form partnerships with the basic
skills education sector to reach adult literacy learners within local com-
munities [39]. Notably, it is now generally recognized that literacy must
go beyond basic reading, with libraries encouraged to promote “document
literacy” or “information literacy” [3, p. 176], a goal shared with educa-
tional bodies.
Libraries often work with social services departments on social inclusion
literacy initiatives, particularly in providing reading material and a point
of contact for immigrants and designated disadvantaged groups within the
community. Notably, such initiatives are not just about reaching new users
but also about building community identity [40, p. 7].
Partnership initiatives between libraries and health care organizations
range from collaborative research in assisting with literature reviews on
health care topics to joint initiatives to distribute health information [41].
For example, Suffolk public libraries’ collaboration with the local Primary
Care Trust and Mental Health Partnership was established to provide “in-
formation prescriptions” to patients affected by dementia and diabetes who
were being encouraged to self-manage their medical condition [42].
Partnerships between libraries and commercial organizations are often
philanthropic, which, while benefiting the recipient, may not be of im-
mediate benefit to the donating organization beyond enhancing its rep-

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
344 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

utation for generosity and social responsibility [43, p. 186]. Such relation-
ships are often geared toward funding and sponsorship of programs
relating to literacy and to IT provision [37, p. 238], although donations
can be made in terms of time, expertise, and products [44, p. 10]. It is
arguable, however, whether such donations constitute collaboration or co-
operation, as they do not necessarily involve sharing of skills or knowledge
or develop any degree of dependency between organizations.
Within the cultural sector, libraries, museums, and archives share a com-
mon remit to preserve and promote the community’s cultural heritage
[45, p. 2; 36, p. 480; 32, p. 56]. Library collaboration with museums is
particularly common, with over half of the total number of library re-
spondents to a survey of cultural organizations confirming such collabo-
ration [12]. Common themes are typically history based [32, p. 59] and
often focused on preservation and presentation of items of historical in-
terest, and it is argued that libraries should consolidate and increase this
preservation role to become a repository of community knowledge and cham-
pion of cultural heritage [46, p. 456; 36, p. 487]. Example digitization projects
are the Moving Here project, chronicling 200 years of immigration to England
via the collections of thirty archives and museums, and the Am Baile project,
bringing together museums, archives, libraries, schools, visitor centers and
radio stations to build, promote, and provide access to Highland cultural
material.
Arts organizations also have a shared interest in cultural heritage, it being
argued by M. Gorman that art galleries are “in a sense, specialised mu-
seums” [36, p. 487] recording and preserving cultural heritage in the form
of art works. Cohosted exhibitions can raise awareness of holdings and
link events and exhibits [38, p. 56], providing an opportunity to combine
the promotion of literacy with art appreciation. Public broadcasting or-
ganizations are also involved in developing literacy through campaigns
such as the BBC’s Big Read project in 2003 and Read and Write in 2005
[47] and, notably, are in themselves cultural repositories. As such, they are
legislatively required to preserve cultural material, with many having their
own research libraries that collect, catalog, preserve, and facilitate access
to their cultural repository [48, p. 17] and those that do not partnering
with local libraries to provide such a facility [23, p. 35]. However, while
collaboration offers significant mutual benefit to partners, it is also rec-
ognized as a challenging activity, discussed in the next section.

Challenges and Best Practice

The challenges involved in collaboration can be broadly categorized into
those occurring at the strategic level and those occurring at the operational
level. Challenges at the strategic level are complex and not easily resolved,
as underlying issues may be deeply ingrained in the culture of the orga-

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 345

nizations; for example, there may be a lack of trust between organizations,

particularly where the partners have not worked together previously. A lack
of understanding of respective strengths and weaknesses can endanger the
smooth running of a project [32, p. 63], often as a result of cultural
misunderstanding or stereotyping [2, p. 8; 49, p. 285; 23, pp. 23–26]. Issues
can also arise through perceived inequality between the partners or a
distortion in the balance of power. Such challenges highlight the need for
the careful choice of collaborative partner and, if possible, building on
existing relationships [50, p. 17] or taking time initially to build up “a
climate of trust and mutual respect” [13, p. 577].
A related strategic consideration is that of ensuring congruence of goals
and values among partners [51] and that these are clearly articulated in,
and supported by, a clear project plan [45, p. 4]. Joint planning allows
partners to establish the ground rules for the partnership [52, p. 574],
ensuring that participants have clearly defined roles, joint accountability and
commitment [23, p. 54; 2, p. 7; 53, p. 208], and a mutually valued outcome
[54]. All partners need to see that the resources invested will have a positive
return, both collectively and individually, otherwise there is a risk of the
initiative losing focus, with a resulting decrease of interest in the project
and lack of achievement. Libraries should also conduct a formal evaluation
of the project, including goals and objectives (and whether these were mod-
ified or changed during the course of the collaboration), and any measurable
results [7, p. 33]. Evaluation does not appear to be particularly prevalent in
the United Kingdom [32, p. 60] but is common in the United States, where
the Institute of Museum and Library Services actively encourages evaluation
of projects in order to inform and enable further collaboration.
At the operational level, a frequently cited challenge relates to staff and
resource capacity, which, when approached poorly, can result in “partner-
ship overload” or “partnership fatigue” [53, p. 17]. Sufficient time and
resources must be allocated to ensure the success of a project and, im-
portantly, collaboration should not be viewed as an addition to regular
staff duties [34, p. 201]. However, there is evidence that collaboration is
often insufficiently staffed or is allocated to staff in addition to existing
duties [32] and that little training for collaborative working is offered [6].
Significant operational challenges can also arise from tendencies toward
departmentalism or a reluctance to change either established processes or
procedures or to combine resources using different systems of description
and arrangement. Although libraries use standard classification systems
(such as DDC or LCC) and employ cataloging standards (e.g., MARC,
ISBD, RDA), there is no single standard to which they all subscribe. Mu-
seum collections may be arranged according to function, content, or for-
mat, and there are again alternative approaches, such as SPECTRUM and
the CIDOC standards. Finally, archive collections may be organized by

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
346 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

provenance or creator and based on standards such as ISAD, ISAAR and

MAD2. While there are standards to promote the interoperability of systems
(e.g., OAI) and retrieval of records (e.g., Z39.50 and SRU), these records
may need to be modified if they are to be integrated with local systems or
as part of cooperative collections. Differences in stock description tech-
niques have been found to be particularly obstructive in establishing joint
digital collections [27, 55]. Libraries must therefore consider whether the
efforts involved in overcoming these and additional hurdles, such as the
high cost of digitization [23, 34, 27], ongoing preservation costs associated
with maintenance and renewal of digital media [56], and copyright and
other rights-related issues [57], are justified.
In consideration of the above challenges, a number of key best practice
recommendations arise:

• there should be shared motivation for collaborative partnerships based

on shared goals and values;
• an informed choice of collaborative projects should be made based
on common processes and services;
• partnerships should be formalized, funding committed, accountability
shared, and evaluation cycles established;
• prior to commencement, time should be taken to establish trust and
effective communication channels and protocols;
• change should be managed and resourced, with staff having clearly
defined roles and having received appropriate training.

Undoubtedly a key success factor is that collaboration is best undertaken

where natural synergy can be exploited: between organizations with shared
goals and values and common processes and services (i.e., recommenda-
tions one and two above). For example, across the cultural sector there
exist shared remit, purpose, and services to such a degree that it is has
been argued that the boundaries between activities performed by custo-
dians of information and those performed by custodians of artifacts are
becoming more and more blurred [58, p. 2; 59]. There is also an equivalent
customer base. For example, genealogists, who make up the vast majority
of archive users [60] also field 16 percent of inquiries dealt with by li-
brarians [61, p. 81]. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, evidence from
previous studies (7, 34) suggests that collaborative initiatives with cultural
organizations are particularly productive.
In other instances synergy may exist, but to a lesser degree, which may
make collaboration with some partners more difficult than with others.
For example, health organizations are focused on the promotion of health
and well-being, which is not core to the function of a library, while social
work departments operate under a “different set of priorities and a dif-

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 347

ferent set of outcomes” to those of libraries [37, p. 240]. This, of course,

does not preclude collaboration to various degrees, but it may focus effort,
particularly where individual organizations are seeking to build upon or
establish common processes and services, discussed in the next section.

Exploiting Natural Synergy through Common Processes and

Service-Oriented Architecture
While a functional structure may be convenient for the definition of
reporting lines and the organization of physical assets, an overemphasis
on functions can create barriers to effective workflow, introduce resource
inefficiencies, and encourage managers to adopt parochial domain views
and behavior; this can constrain the value that can be generated by the
organization as a whole, an issue compounded in a collaborative part-
nership. A process view transcends the functional view and encourages
an organization to focus on how individual groups should cooperate to
achieve customer satisfaction, irrespective of functional or organizational
boundary [62]. A process perspective also facilitates the development of
service-oriented architecture (SOA), with process modeling one of the first
recommended SOA steps in order to identify candidate application services
and shared information [63].5
If we take the cultural sector as an example (given the degree of natural
synergy identified), a number of common processes and/or services be-
tween public libraries, museums, and archives have already been variously
identified, including reference, digitization, heritage, genealogy, and sub-
scription services [3, 64, 65]. In the context of Zorich et al.’s “collaboration
continuum” (see sec. 2), such common processes enable convergence.
However, identification of common processes has been arguably selective,
rather than comprehensive, and limited in reach when the full extent of
collaboration is considered, as previously noted. As a consequence, the
authors, drawing on personal practitioner experience and utilizing a pre-
viously developed approach to process mapping [62], have identified the
key processes involved in the delivery of services across the main partici-
pants in the cultural sector, extending beyond libraries, museums, and
archives to performing and visual arts bodies as well as public broadcasting
organizations. This is based on a typology of processes by Gibb and col-
leagues [66], which we believe encourages a comprehensive perspective:

5. In a SOA, services are loosely coupled, reusable, and sharable “modules of business or
application functionality with exposed interfaces invoked by messages from service con-
sumers” [63, p. 34]. Service consumers can be either internal or external, with services
not necessarily visible to end customers (e.g., digital “customer services” delivered via
automated processes enabled by embedded “application services”).

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

• transaction processes service external customers. They are customer sen-

sitive, with customer need and satisfaction key drivers for configuration
and improvement;
• production processes support transaction processes, managing product
and resource availability. They are resource sensitive, mediating be-
tween external supply and demand;
• governance processes provide strategic direction and organizational over-
sight. They are market sensitive, concerned with responding to polit-
ical, economic, sociological, and technological factors;
• interaction processes link organizations and partners in the customer supply
chain, including funding bodies and sponsors. They are supply sensitive,
concerned with resource exchange to meet customer need;
• facilitation processes service internal customers, managing infrastructure
and associated resources. They are resource sensitive, with operational
efficiency a key driver.

Gibb et al. illustrated their typology with a library model, identifying twenty-
four discreet library processes as illustrated in figure 1. Our study builds upon
and extends this model, identifying corresponding processes for museums,
archives, arts, and broadcasting organizations, and mapping commonality.
A summary of processes and the levels of commonality between cultural
organizations is provided in figure 2. Two levels of commonality can be
identified: processes that are core to the activities of a service (shaded as
dark gray) and are initiated on a day-to-day basis and processes that may
only be core to selective members of a service or are only initiated relatively
infrequently (shaded as light gray). For instance, while the central library
of a public library service may collect and conserve archival material as
part of its special collections, the branch libraries are unlikely to do so;
equally, a library may acquire some objects associated with an author as
part of a special collection but does not actively seek to acquire such objects.
It is not claimed that figure 2 is comprehensive, as there may be localized
or specialized processes that are beyond the scope of this article. However,
it does identify the main processes that are likely to be encountered, and
it is argued that it is useful for visualizing opportunities for collaboration.
For example, several transaction, governance, and facilitation processes,
although they may differ in the details, are largely common to all orga-
nizations, as are, to varying degrees, several production processes relating
to the acquisition, description, and provision of resources, which suggest
opportunities (beyond gateway portals) for shared procurement, devel-
opment of online catalog facilities, reference services, and active cross
referral of patrons (as opposed to passive web links). Such opportunities
can be further explored and verified through functional process decom-
position (i.e., identifying, mapping, and comparing underlying subpro-

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. 1.—Process model for a library (adapted from [66])

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
350 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Fig. 2.—Process mapping across the cultural sector. Note.—T p transactional

process; G p governance process; P p production process; F p facilitation process;
I p interaction process.

cesses) extending (in pursuit of SOA) to the identification of candidate

application services that are shareable across organizations (e.g., login, cat-
alog browsing, order creation, order fulfillment, order confirmation, etc.),
which can be realized as integrated, interactive systems, with seamless user
navigation and interaction key goals. The key question of how far public
libraries have progressed down this path already is asked in the next section.

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. 2.—(cont.)

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
352 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Exploring the Extent of Digital Collaboration: An Indicative Review of the

Scottish Public Library Sector
In exploring the extent of digital collaboration, it was outwith practical
scope to attempt to comprehensively review all UK public libraries; con-
sequently, a review of Scottish public libraries was undertaken, providing
an indicative example of the extent of digital collaboration across an entire
subdomain.
Scottish public libraries are the devolved responsibility of the Scottish
Government, guided by the Scottish Library and Information Council, an
independent advisory body. There are thirty-two regional public library
networks in Scotland covering a wide-ranging urban and rural demo-
graphic, stretching from the Scottish Borders to the northern isles of Ork-
ney and Shetland. All thirty-two public library networks were reviewed. For
completeness, the National Library of Scotland was also included.
A methodological challenge, when considering how best to identify the
extent of digital service collaboration, was a lack of comparable studies
from which to draw guidance, as this was neither a usability nor usefulness
study. Such studies were nonetheless referred to, but associated inspection
and test approaches such as heuristic evaluation, cognitive walk-through,
action analysis, field observation, and so forth, were not deemed applicable,
given that our primary goal was identification rather than evaluation. How-
ever, an inspection-based approach was considered appropriate, with iden-
tification of collaborative digital services guided by a specification derived
from Williams [8] and Zorich et al. [10]:

• a digital service is provided online, characterized by providing digital

content via digital transactions;
• a collaborative digital service will demonstrate involved cooperation
between partners, characterized by coordinated or convergent activity
and shared resources.

A collaborative digital service would thus exhibit the above characteristics.

Identification was approached in a systematic and structured manner via
visual inspection of public library websites, beginning with respective home
pages and further exploring services offered via content analysis of asso-
ciated pages beneath. Top-down analysis was conducted for three reasons:
(1) to assist with service conceptualization and interpretation (it was an-
ticipated that the nature of the service might not always be self apparent
from the home page); (2) to identify any further services not available
from the home page; and (3) to ascertain the degree of digitization. Anal-
ysis was typically to the equivalent of level three in a tree structure (service
descriptions and subcategories appearing at level two and corresponding
subcategory details at level three), though they were followed further as

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 353

and when necessary. Content analysis identified key phrases such as “in
partnership with” or “jointly delivered with” alongside service titles or
within service descriptions. Degree of collaboration (evidence of coordi-
nated activity, shared resources, etc.) was identified via the service descrip-
tion and for digital services, further explored via service trial (unless an
activated user account was required). Digital service trials paid particular
attention to the online/offline status of transaction and fulfillment steps
to establish the degree of digitization exhibited with degree classified as
either partial or complete.
The key finding from this review is that within the Scottish public library
sector there was limited evidence of collaborative digital services. All li-
braries provided a relatively comprehensive set of external links to online
information resources (i.e., NewsUK, Credo Reference, Britannica, Oxford
Reference, BBC Education Scotland, NHS Inform, etc.), but such links are
arguably, at best, examples of passive cooperation rather than involved
cooperation or convergence (and notably varying library by library in both
list and structure). Where services existed that could be classified as being
both digital and collaborative (but to various degrees, with none entirely
digital [all classified as partial]), they were as follows:

• fourteen of the thirty-two public libraries were participants in “Ask Scot-

land,” a pilot online virtual information service staffed by librarians and
library assistants, funded by the Scottish Government through the Public
Library Quality Improvement Matrix, and coordinated by SLIC;
• Dumfries and Galloway, in partnership with the University of West of
Scotland, offered distance learning MS Certified Application Specialist
(MCAS) courses in MS Word and MS Excel with the online VLE sup-
ported by a library learning support officer;
• East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, and Dundee Libraries, working in
partnership with local educational services, provided teaching and
learning support to schools, with library reading lists structured by
school topic and year. Students could browse associated reading lists
online, check availability, and reserve online;
• the National Library of Scotland provided online teaching materials
designed to make historical collections accessible and relevant to the
needs of the history departments of Scottish schools (set activities/
questions devised in accordance with Scottish Government and Scot-
tish Qualifications Authority [SQA] guidelines) and relating to two
areas of the curriculum: 5–14 environmental studies (People in the
Past) and standard grade history.

For completeness, nondigital collaborative services identified included

creative writing classes run in partnership with the Scottish Book Trust and

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
354 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Home-Start and involving a children’s author and publishing house (Ren-

frewshire Library); a cancer information support service in partnership
with Macmillan Cancer Support and the National Health Service (Glasgow,
Renfrewshire, West Lothian Libraries); and a book prescription service in
partnership with the National Health Service (Inverclyde, Fife, Scottish
Borders, and Shetland Libraries).
As can be seen from the above, collaboration is evident but limited in
the digital domain, which is surprising, given previously noted digital trends
and preferences. Additional insight into this situation is provided by an
evaluation of the strategic plans of twenty-eight of the thirty-two public
libraries discussed above [67].6 In an approach derived from Chance and
Williams [68], the study found that approximately half of the strategic
plans were variously incomplete, contradictory, or uncoordinated, and it
recommends that Scottish public libraries improve not only their com-
pleteness of plans but also their precision, specificity, explicitness, coor-
dination, consistency, and overall mapping to library services. Notably, dig-
itization is identified as a key goal in several strategic plans but found to
be broadly and generically defined with limited supporting specification.
Collaboration is broadly expressed in several instances but not detailed.
More explicit and detailed planning may, of course, be underway outwith
strategic planning cycles not formally documented and communicated,
but, if so, there is a risk that initiatives will be introduced independently
of one another, encouraging parochialism and potentially leading to dis-
parity and duplication, particularly at the regional and/or national levels.
Such planning (or lack of) also raises questions regarding the direction
provided to enterprise architecture planning, which extends strategic plan-
ning to IT architecture, facilitating strategic and architectural alignment
across one or more organizations. Limitations of our study and further
research arising are discussed next.

Limitations and Further Research

Our identification and mapping of processes (see fig. 2) should be con-

sidered representative rather than comprehensive, as it is likely that there
will exist localized or specialized processes that are beyond the scope of
this article. Further research will refine and build upon processes identi-
fied, which we hope would extend to identification of candidate application
services shareable across respective organizational systems.

6. Strategic plans were obtained via Freedom of Information requests, with four of thirty-two
not forthcoming.

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 355

Our review of the Scottish public library sector is limited by the con-
straints of remote website analysis of nascent digital services (collaboration
might not always be explicitly communicated, services not always in their
final form) and the inherent limitations of undertaking qualitative eval-
uation open to subjective interpretation. A second, independent assess-
ment could be used to verify the findings, while further research might
produce a more detailed specification of digital services to guide future
identification and analysis. Such a specification might extend to the con-
cept of a digital service spectrum, which recognizes that services can range
from online information pertaining to services, services transacted online
but fulfilled offline, and services transacted and fulfilled entirely online.
If this service spectrum were mapped to Zorich et al.’s [10] “collaboration
continuum,” such a spectrum might assist with identifying joint activity and
whether or not it meets the criteria for collaboration (a noted challenge
[see sec. 2]) by distinguishing between “cooperative” web links and “col-
laborative” interactive services through a focus on the relationship between
transaction and fulfilment. Such a specification might also assist with iden-
tifying opportunities for further digitization of existing services (providing
a method to grade the degree of digitization). This might provide valuable
input to enterprise architecture planning, addressing an area of concern
highlighted by this study (see sec. 3).

Conclusion

In an era of unprecedented technological innovation and evolving user

expectations and information-seeking behavior, digital libraries are evolv-
ing from digital repositories to providers of personalized interactive digital
services. Collaboration provides an opportunity to enhance services offered
and to provide a seamless user experience via integrated systems. Beyond
technological and sociological drivers, there are also significant political
and economic drivers for collaboration, not least of which is demonstrating
value for money.
Across the domain, cross-institutional digital collections and shared vir-
tual learning environments are reported, with digital libraries assuming
the role of both content provider and access provider and, in so doing,
evolving as enterprises in the digital domain. However, if the Scottish public
library sector is typical of the sector as a whole, evidence suggests that
collaborative initiatives are not widespread nor necessarily coordinated,
and, as a consequence, public libraries are failing to fully capitalize on the
opportunities offered by the digital domain and their enviable position as
a trusted information provider. It would appear that coordinated strategic

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC4:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
356 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

and (information systems) architectural planning is required at both the

regional and national levels or an opportunity will be lost and a key societal
role diminished in the digital domain.
Successful collaborative partnerships are defined at both the strategic
and operational levels; the former via shared vision, the latter via shared
processes and services. It is acknowledged that there is no single transfer-
able model of partnership working [52], as individual libraries will have
their own unique circumstances to consider, dictating local opportunities
and constraints. However, it is hoped that the mapping of processes to
other cultural sector organizations (see fig. 2) will assist libraries with future
collaborative efforts and that further research will refine and build upon
the processes we have identified, extending to the identification of can-
didate application services that are shareable across respective organiza-
tional information systems.

REFERENCES

1. Beckett, Ronald C. “Collaboration Now a Strategic Necessity.” Handbook of Business Strategy

6, no. 1 (2005): 327–32.
2. Wildridge, Valerie; Childs, Sue; Cawthra, Lynette; and Madge, Bruce. “How to Create
Successful Partnerships—a Review of the Literature.” Health Information and Libraries Jour-
nal 21 (2004): 3–19.
3. Brophy, Peter. The Library in the Twenty-First Century. 2nd ed. London: Facet, 2007.
4. DELOS. A Reference Model for Digital Library Management Systems. 2007. http://www.delos
.info/index.php?optionpcom_content&taskpview&idp345.
5. Buchanan, Steven. “Planning Strategically, Designing Architecturally: A Framework for
Digital Library Services.” In Advances in Librarianship: Exploring the Digital Frontier, edited
by Anne Woodsworth, 159–80. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010.
6. Tanackoviae, Sanjica F., and Badurina, Boris. “Collaboration as a Wave of Future: Ex-
ploring Experiences from Croatian Archives.” Library Hi Tech 26, no. 4 (2008): 557–74.
7. Yarrow, Alexandra; Clubb, Barbara; and Draper, Jennifer-Lynn. “Public Libraries, Archives
and Museums: Trends in Collaboration and Co-operation.” International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions Professional Reports 108 (2008). http://www.ifla.org/VII/s8
/pub/Profrep108.pdf.
8. Williams, Kevin; Chatterjee, Samir; and Rossi, Matti. “Design of Emerging Digital Services:
A Taxonomy.” European Journal of Information Systems 17 (2008): 505–17.
9. Diamant-Cohen, Betsy, and Sherman, Dina. “Hand in Hand: Museums and Libraries
Working Together.” Public Libraries 42, no. 2 (2003): 102–5.
10. Zorich, Diane M.; Waibel, Gunter; and Erway, Ricky. Beyond the Silos of the LAMs: Collaboration
among Libraries, Archives and Museums. Report for OCLC Programs and Research. Dublin, OH:
OCLC Research, 2008. http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2008-05.pdf.
11. Shepherd, Murray. “Library Collaboration: What Makes It Work?” Presentation to Inter-
national Association of Technological University Libraries Conference “Library Management
in Changing Environment,” May 30–June 3, 2004, Krakow. http://www.iatul.org/doclibrary
/public/Conf_Proceedings/2004/Murray20Sheperd.pdf.
12. Rodger, Eleanor Jo; Jörgensen, Corinne; and D’Elia, George. “Partnerships and Collab-

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 357

oration among Public Libraries, Public Broadcast Media, and Museums: Current Context
and Future Potential.” Library Quarterly 75, no. 1 (2005): 42–66.
13. Jackson, Lydia, and Hansen, Julia. “Creating Collaborative Partnerships: Building the
Framework.” Reference Services Review 34, no. 4 (2006): 575–88.
14. Checkland, Peter. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley, 2002.
15. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Libraries and the Regions: A Discussion Paper.”
Working Paper for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London, 1999. http://
www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/LibrariesRegions_Dis_Paper1.pdf.
16. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. Museums, Libraries and Archives Corporate Plan
2008 to 2011. Corporate plan for Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. London: Mu-
seums, Libraries and Archives Council, 2008. http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/∼/media
/Files/pdf/2008/corporate_plan_2008.ashx.
17. Arthur, Rona. “Quality: Public Libraries—Improving Outcomes.” Information Scotland 4,
no. 1 (2006). http://www.slainte.org.uk/publications/serials/infoscot/vol14(1)/vol4(1)
article6.htm.
18. Cabinet Office. Building the Big Society. Report for Cabinet Office. London: Cabinet Office,
2010. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/building-big-society
_0.pdf.
19. Cabinet Office. Where Is the Big Society Making a Difference? Report for Cabinet Office.
London: Cabinet Office, 2010. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/big-society
-frequently-asked-questions-faqs.
20. Liverpool First. Digital Inclusion. Project overview for Liverpool First. Liverpool: Liverpool First,
2011. http://www.liverpoolfirst.org.uk/http%3A/%252Fwww.liverpoolfirst.org.uk/what-we-do
/digital-inclusion_main.
21. Parker, Sandra; Ray, Kathryn; and Harrop, Ken. “The Bidding Culture in the UK Public
Library—a Case Study Approach.” Library Management 22, nos. 8/9 (2001): 404–10.
22. Bishoff, Liz. “The Collaboration Imperative.” Library Journal 129, no. 4 (2004): 34–35.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA371048.html.
23. Walker, Chris, and Manjarrez, Carlos A. Partnerships for Free Choice Learning: Public Libraries,
Museums and Public Broadcasters Working Together. Report for the Urban Institute and Urban
Libraries Council. Evanston, IL: Urban Libraries Council, 2003. http://www.urban.org
/UploadedPDF/410661_partnerships_for_free_choice_learning.pdf.
24. Leong, Julia. “Academic Reference Librarians Prepare for Change: An Australian Case
Study.” Library Management 29, nos. 1–2 (2008): 77–86.
25. Parry, Julie. “Librarians Do Fly: Strategies for Staying Aloft.” Library Management 29, nos.
1–2 (2008): 41–50.
26. Dalton, Pete, and Conyers, Angela. Discovering Physical Objects: Meeting Researchers’
Needs. Report for the Research Information Network. London: Research Information
Network, 2008. http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Discovering-objects-report.pdf.
27. Tonta, Yasar. “Libraries and Museums in the Flat World: Are They Becoming Virtual
Destinations?” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 32 (2008): 1–9.
28. European Commission Information Society and Media. i2010: Digital Libraries. Report
for the European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities
/digital_libraries/doc/brochures/dl_brochure_2006.pdf.
29. Dilevko, Juris, and Gottlieb, Lisa. The Evolution of Library and Museum Partnerships: Historical
Antecedents, Contemporary Manifestations and Future Directions. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries
Unlimited, 2004.
30. Østby, Jon B. “Cross Sectoral Challenges for Archives, Libraries and Museums.” IFLA
Journal 32, no. 3 (2006): 232–36.
31. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. Families, Learning and Culture: Inspiring

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
358 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Families through Museums, Libraries and Archives. London: Museums, Libraries and
Archives Council, 2008. http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/publications/∼/media/Files/pdf
/2008/Families_learning_culture.ashx.
32. Gibson, Hannah; Morris, Anne; and Cleeve, Marigold. “Links between Libraries and
Museums: Investigating Museum-Library Collaboration in England and the USA.” Libri:
International Journal of Libraries and Information Services 57, no. 2 (2007): 53–64.
33. Bourke, Carolyn. “Public Libraries: Building Social Capital through Networking.” Aus-
tralasian Public Libraries and Information Services 18, no. 2 (2005): 71–75.
34. Melrose, Elizabeth A. “The North Yorkshire Unnetie Digitisation Project: From an Idea
to an Opportunity.” New Library World 105, nos. 1200/1201 (2004): 196–202.
35. Marty, Paul F. “Museum Professionals and the Relevance of LIS Expertise.” Library and
Information Science Research 29 (2007): 252–76.
36. Gorman, Michael. “The Wrong Path and the Right Path: The Role of Libraries in Access
to, and Preservation of, Cultural Heritage.” New Library World 108, nos. 11/12 (2007):
479–89.
37. Goulding, Anne. Public Libraries in the 21st Century: Defining Services and Debating the Future.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.
38. Block, Marylaine. The Thriving Library: Successful Strategies for Challenging Times. Medford,
NJ: Information Today, 2007.
39. Train, Briony. “Building Up or Breaking Down Barriers? The Role of the Public Library
in Adult Basic Skills.” Library Review 52, no. 8 (2003): 394–402.
40. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Framework for the Future: Libraries,
Learning and Information in the Next Decade.” Working Paper for the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport, London, 2003. http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference
_library/publications/4505.aspx.
41. Swinkels, Annette; Briddon, Jason; and Hall, Jane. “Two Physiotherapists, One Librarian
and a Systematic Literature Review: Collaboration in Action.” Health Information and Li-
braries Journal 23, no. 4 (2006): 248–56.
42. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. Suffolk Libraries Health Focus. Report for the Mu-
seums, Libraries and Archives Council. London: Museums, Libraries and Archives Council,
2008. http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/raising_standards/best_practice/Suffolk%20libraries.
43. Galaskiewicz, Joseph; and Sinclair Colman, Michelle. “Collaboration between Corpora-
tions and Nonprofit Organisations.” In The Non-profit Sector—a Research Handbook, edited
by Walter A. Powell and Richard Steinberg, 180–207. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2006.
44. Holt, Glen E. Public Library Partnerships: Mission-Driven Tools for 21st Century Success. Gu-
tersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation, 1999.
45. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. Museums, Libraries and Archives—Inspiring
Learning, Building Communities. Report for the Museums, Libraries and Archives Coun-
cil. London: Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, 2007. http://www.mla.gov.uk
/what/policy_development/∼/media/Files/pdf/2007/inspiring_learning_building
_communities.
46. Chowdhury, Gobinda; Poulter, Alan; and McMenemy, David. “At the Sharp End Public
Library 2.0: Towards a New Mission for Public Libraries as a ‘Network of Community
Knowledge.’” Online Information Review 30, no. 4 (2006): 454–60.
47. Holman, Tom. “The BBC Switches on to Libraries.” Public Library Journal 20, no. 4 (2005):
2–3.
48. Smith, Catherine L. “Building an Internet Archive System for the British Broadcasting
Corporation.” Library Trends 54, no. 1 (2005): 16–32.
49. Balloch, Susan, and Taylor, Marilyn. Partnership Working, Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy
Press, 2001.

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLABORATION 359

50. Osborne, Stephen P., and Murray, Vic. “Collaboration between Non-profit Organizations
in the Provision of Social Services in Canada: Working Together or Falling Apart.” Inter-
national Journal of Public Sector Management 13, no. 1 (2000): 9–18.
51. Austin, James E. The Collaboration Challenge: How Nonprofits and Businesses Succeed through
Strategic Alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
52. Armistead, Colin, and Pettigrew, Paul. “Effective Partnerships: Building a Sub-regional
Network of Reflective Practitioners.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 17,
no. 7 (2004): 571–85.
53. Douglas, Anthony. Partnership Working. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009.
54. Bishoff, Liz, and Allen, Nancy. Business Planning for Cultural Heritage Institutions. Re-
port for the Council on Library and Information Resources. Washington, DC: Council
on Library and Information Resources, 2004. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports
/pub124/pub124.pdf.
55. Bailey-Hainer, Brenda, and Urban, Richard. “The Colorado Digitization Program: A Col-
laboration Success Story.” Library Hi Tech 22, no. 3 (2004): 254–62.
56. Pomerantz, Jeffrey, and Marchionini, Gary. “The Digital Library as Place.” Journal of Doc-
umentation 63, no. 4 (2006) 505–33.
57. LeFurgy, William. “Building Preservation Partnerships: The Library of Congress National
Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program.” Library Trends 54, no. 1
(2005): 163–72.
58. Gilliland-Swetland, Anne J. Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival
Perspective in the Digital Environment. Report for the Council on Library and Information
Resources. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2000. http:
//www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub89/pub89.pdf.
59. Ray, Joyce, and Choudhury, Sayeed. “Web-Wise 2002—Conference on Libraries and Mu-
seums in the Digital World: A Report by the Co-organisers.” Library Hi Tech News 19, no.
6 (2002). www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleidp1489819&showphtml.
60. Sweeney, Shelley T. “The Source Seeking Cognitive Processes and Behavior of the In-
Person Archival Researcher.” PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 2002. http://www
.repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/974.
61. Duff, Wendy M., and Johnson, Catherine A. “Where Is the List with All the Names?
Information-Seeking Behavior of Genealogists.” American Archivist 66 (2003): 79–95.
62. Gibb, Forbes; Buchanan, Steven; and Shah, Sameer. “An Integrated Approach to Process
and Service Management.” International Journal of Information Management 26, no. 1 (2006):
44–58.
63. Marks, Eric A., and Bell, Michael. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA): A Planning and Im-
plementation Guide for Business and Technology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009.
64. Chowdhury, Gobinda G.; Burton, Paul F.; McMenemy, David; and Poulter, Alan. Librari-
anship: An Introduction. London: Facet, 2008.
65. McMenemy, David. The Public Library. London: Facet, 2008.
66. Gibb, Forbes; Thornley, Clare; Ferguson, Stuart; and Weckert, John. “The Application of
RFIDs in Libraries: An Assessment of Technological, Management and Professional Is-
sues.” International Journal of Information Management 31 no. 3 (2011): 244–51.
67. Buchanan, Steven, and Cousins, Fionnuala. “Evaluating the Strategic Plans of Public
Libraries: An Inspection-Based Approach.” Library and Information Science Research 34, no.
2 (2012): 125–30.
68. Chance, Shannon, and Williams, Brenda T. “Assessing University Strategic Plans: A Tool
for Consideration.” Educational Planning 18, no. 1 (2009): 38–54.

This content downloaded from

175.176.16.52 on Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms