1. MARCIVE Services for ExLibris Libraries:
Consortium or Standalone

2. Three different GPO services
Enhanced GPO Database Service: Sometimes referenced as the “profiled” service for depository libraries where MARCIVE provides monthly GPO records based on the item profile with FDLP. Includes all formats.
Shipping List Service. Weekly brief level GPO recs for physical formats. Replaced by full records.
Documents without Shelves: Service that provides all electronic GPO records with URLs. No records for tangible titles are provided. Do not have to be a depository library to use.

3. What options do consortia have? Lots!
Model #1. Individual Subscriptions of the Enhanced GPO Database and/or Shipping List Service for all depositories in the consortium) or individual Documents without Shelves Subscriptions
Participants operate independently; there is no central player.
Each library keeps their individual subscriptions as is. Records are loaded into their individual institutional zone. No cost savings and triple the work (multiple libraries loading the same records) Examples are Orbis Cascade (13 Libraries, some with SLS records) and the Keystone Library Network in PA (6 libraries served)

4. Why do individual subscriptions?
Merging accounts may create a payment issue that the library does not want to deal with.
Some prefer the control involved in doing things on their own.
If there is uncertainty in committing to staying in the consortium long term it may be best to not merge billing.
There may not be a centralized protocol for loading records.
If all the libraries in the consortium have to pitch in for subscriptions, some in the group may not all want to pay because they are not a depository library. Some libraries like having the control of their accounts regarding options, display or loading. Other times there may not be a centralized person or group designated to conduct records loads on behalf of all the libraries. Many times libraries in the first year of migration stay with this model until positions are put in place.

5. Consortium Contract Enhanced GPO Database Service for all depositories
Model #2
Each library gets assigned a location code
MARCIVE provides 1 record with multiple location codes, then records are merged into 1 file
The consortium loads the records on behalf of all the libraries and the system (Alma) automatically assigns the record to the appropriate library’s institutional zone
There is one point of contact, one contract, and one invoice.
This can also include a consortium contract for the Shipping List Service records.

6. Advantages of model #2 MARCIVE offers discount consortium pricing.
Libraries in the consortium are no longer doing the same work/better workflow.
If a library decides to pull out of the consortium, their records are easily identified.
This was most appropriate for the Georgia University System because they have several depository libraries (regionals and selective) that get a lot of items from FDLP. Some libraries get merged SLS records and OCLC holdings records. This is the same setup for the U of Minnesota but none get OCLC holdings records. The libraries have to decide among themselves how to divide up the costs. With the merged records setup, Alma libraries always request separate output for online vs. physical titles.

7. Model #3 Enhanced GPO Database Service for only one library
The regional depository library receives all records (100% item selection from FDLP) and the selective libraries in the consortium manually add their holdings to the regionals bib record.
In Alma, electronic records must be in separate outputs. The library puts electronic records in the community zone and tangibles in the institutional zone. Then the member libraries piggyback off the records for tangibles.

8. Pros/cons for model #3
It is the cheapest. The library only pays for one subscription.
However, there is a lot of manual work for the member libraries to attach holdings.
This was appropriate for TRAILS (Consortium of Montana Universities) because they only have 3 depository libraries and only one of those libraries is receiving a lot of tangibles.

9. Documents without Shelves (DWS) & Enhanced GPO Database Service
Model #4: All the member libraries in the group receive Documents without Shelves records in the Network Zone(with or without assigned location codes), and the depository libraries receive records for their tangible items with the Enhanced GPO Database Service in their institutional zone.
The consortium can choose to have a consortium contract of the profiled services for all the depository libraries in their system OR
The consortium can choose to have one depository library receive the profiled service records for tangibles and other selective depository libraries attach holdings.
The CSU system gets DWS for all libraries, and profiled records for 4 libraries merged. No SLS records or OCLC holdings. And two libraries get CRDP records. For the U of WI System, the regional at Madison gets all tangible records and the selectives (all very small) attach holdings. They pay for a DWS subscription for everyone.

10. How is model #4 beneficial?
It provides all library patrons in the network with access to government documents
It provides one point of contact for loading the records.
There is a substantial price incentive.
Appropriate for CSU because many libraries (about half) in the CSU system were already Documents without Shelves service (DWS) customers.
MARCIVE’s consortium rate for DWS for all member libraries was the same as the cost for individual subscriptions for a half of the libraries. Also, their depository libraries in their system receive a lot of tangibles, so a consortium contract of the profiled service was appropriate.
For the University of WI system, the selectives do not get many tangibles, so attaching holdings to the regional depository library made sense for them.

11. Things to consider How much are you paying now?
How many member libraries are in your group? 
How many members are depository libraries?
Are the depository library getting lots of tangibles?
Is there a single point of contact for billing & record loads?
How will members share costs?
Do you want access to gov docs for all your members?

12. What’s right for your consortium?
Many models available, but we are open to others that may be right for your particular consortial configuration.
Let’s discuss the best scenario for you!

13. CNS: Comprehensive Notification Service
MARCIVE does the backfile and retains all bib records upgraded, plus authority records (for non-Alma libs)
Consortium continues to send NEW bibliographic records whenever desired: daily, weekly, monthly, etc. Are processed overnight, and added to the initial file.
Individual libraries can send their own bib records, IF allowed by the consortium rules.
On a timeframe of your choosing, we update the entire bib file again, outputting only those bib records reflecting a change.
If individual libraries wish to send records on their own, we can do line-item invoicing.

14. But Alma/Aleph/Voyager does authority control….
Yes, but…
Not all parts of an access point string may be updated
Matching is performed against whole universe of authority records, and invalid matches may occur
It doesn’t convert AACR2 records to RDA compliance
It may not add $0 URI

15. …an ever moving window…
With refreshing the bib file periodically, access points are continually updated
Access points that were previously unmatched may be updated
Any changes in $0 URI are made
Any changes to RDA policies can be implemented with the next update
Less need to manually update things that can be done automatically

16. How many bibs & authorities updated?
Statistics from a Voyager library with initial 2.4 million bib records:
Second quarterly update:
Total 19,531 bib records updated, less than 1%
New LAC records - 165
New LC records   (includes replacement records based on deletes)
Changed LAC records - 161
Deletes - LAC records - 7
Changed LC records – 9,882
Deletes - LC records - 106
Total authority records =12,676
Alma libraries would not get any type of authority records.

17. Other types of changes
Changes in policy. One library got 97% of records changed because when the project was first run, the standard was to add “(uri)” in the $0. With that text removed, the library had almost all records changed during the first refresh.
Changes in options selected: e.g. library decided to have new RDA 34X fields added, another library decided to have FAST headings processed.

18. What about bib & auth record deletes?
An automatic reminder is sent before the next update. The library can send in a file of bib and or authority record deletes for a nominal fee.
These numbers are deleted before the next refresh is run.

19. Who subscribes to CNS? 1 ExLibris (Voyager)
7 Innovative Interfaces (Sierra, Millennium, Polaris)
2 Open source (Koha, Evergreen)
2 SirsiDynix (Horizon, Symphony)
1 Other
6 academic libraries & 7 publics
1 academic consortia & 1 public library consortium

20. Want to explore options?
Keep your database current automatically?
Cut down on staff time doing updates?
Keep up with current standards?
Stop by our table, or contact us at