Library Cooperation and Consortia in Italy
...in ten minutes
Tommaso Giordano
European University Institute
OCLC Conference
Fiesole, 31 January 2013
The Past – A ‘weak’ tradition and insufficient development (compared to other European countries)
– Nevertheless… cooperation initiatives in Italy started very early in the public libraries sector
– Various programmes in late 19th / early 20th Centuries: Eg. Consorzio delle biblioteche popolari milanesi, set up in Milan, 1903
– Resurgence of library cooperation movement, from the late 1970s onwards.
» The main factors were: devolution of public libraries responsibilities to regions (local governments) & automation
National Cooperation Programmes
SBN (from 1985), The Italian Library Network (The main – and most ambitious –
cooperation programme)
» Based on a cooperation initiative between the Ministry of Culture, Italian universities and local authorities
» Partners: national and state libraries, research and university libraries & public libraries
» Main functions: automation systems’ development and networking, shared cataloguing, ILL &c.
» Managed by ICCU: 83 nodes = 5000 libraries (10m titles, 60m holdings, and various special collections.
ACNP (from 1972), Italian union catalogue of periodicals
Managed by CNR and the University of Bologna
188,000 titles, 2100 libraries
Library Consortia: definition
 In some European languages (including Italian) the term ‘consortium’ has a fairly precise meaning in legal terms. It indicates a union of individuals and/or public or private institutions, organised and as legal entity.
 A few library consortia operate as corporate legal entities.  However, most of the cooperative programmes (including SBN) are based on formal (and informal) partnership agreements (memoranda of understanding and similar).
 The lack of a legal base implies serious managerial constraints (no autonomy, no dedicated budget and staff &c.)  Most of the library consortia (as legal autonomous entities) have been developed in the public library sector (North and Central Italy)
University Library Consortia – Lack of robust infrastructures (and practices) in library cooperation
– Most of the cooperation programmes (eg. ILS development and maintenance) have been supported by university computer consortia: Cilea (Milano) , Caspur (Roma) and Cineca (Bologna)
– Since the mid‐1990s, Cilea and Caspur have been very active in the domain of e‐resources’ acquisition and management; and have acted as intermediaries on the behalf of affiliated libraries;
– CIPE (from 2007): the only library consortium founded as a legal entity in the university sector; 11 universities
– CARE (under the auspices of CRUI, the conference of rectors of Italian universities): acts as a national negotiator for e‐resources – in collaboration with Cilea, Caspur and Cipe. The Most Important Event of 2012: Merging of the three university computer consortia
CILEA
CASPUR
CINECA 2.0
CINECA
Implications
• Cineca 2.0: Is the largest Italian computing centre (high performance scientific computing), one of the most important worldwide.
• 800 staff, 3 sites (Bologna, Roma Milan)
• 180 Institutions (70 universities); • Cineca library services: licensing, digital preservation, open access, e‐learning, e‐publishing, ILS &c.
• CINECA will no longer be involved in e‐resources’ licence negotiations.
• CARE, should emerge as an autonomous negotiation agency at the country level.
Conclusions
– A significant trend towards increased professional consciousness and commitment regarding library cooperation, resource sharing and collaboration
– A dramatic need for cooperation in many areas (such as ILS, digital preservation, shared print repositories &c.)
– The flourishing of many cooperation initiatives : Nilde, Lockss, Clockss, OA repositories &c.
– Insufficient support from library authorities: no central funds, insufficient incentives (especially in the university sector)
– National and local cooperation infrastructures are not strong enough
– Need for external/international support and partnership to address these demand and initiatives.
Looking for Potential Strategic Partnerships in Italy
(Strong and Weak Points)
– SBN: a critical mass and an appropriate institutional dimension. However: inadequate management and poorly‐defined governance; technological change required. The local networks (Poli SBN) could (in some cases) be effective partners.
– CINECA: big and robust. However, is not a library consortium ‐ libraries have little influence in policy and governance
– CIPE: a true library consortium from an organisational point of view. However, it should enlarge its domain and scale
– CARE (now in a reorganisational phase): will evolve as the negotiation entity for academic e‐resources at country level. Could it possibly enlarge its core business in the future?
– Local consortia in the public library sector: good organisation in many cases. However, too small and with limited resources in times of crisis.