Challenges and Prospects of Consortia: 
a Case Study of the Consortium of Academic 
and Research Libraries in Ghana (CARLIGH) 
PATIENCE DZANDZA AND ANABA ALEMNA 
Patience Emefa 
Dzandza is the Assistant 
Librarian at the Akrofi-
Christaller Institute of 
Theology, Mission and 
Culture, Akropong, 
Ghana. She holds the BA 
in Information Studies 
from the University of 
Ghana, Legon and MA 
in Library Studies from 
the same University. She is presently enrolled in the 
M.Phil, programme in Information Studies at the 
University of Ghana. 
Professor Anaba 
Alemna is a former 
University Librarian 
of the University of 
Ghana, and pres?
ently a Professor of 
Information Studies at 
the University of Ghana. 
He was the Chairman 
of the Consortium of 
Academic and Research 
Libraries in Ghana (CARLIGH) from its inception 
until August, 2009. Professor Alemna has published 
extensively on libraries and librarianship worldwide. 
He is a Fellow of the Ghana Library Association 
and the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences. 
INTRODUCTION 
In the current world of globalization, no indi?
vidual organization and for that matter a library 
can afford to operate in isolation from other 
organizations in their industry. Many industries 
in order for them to share resources and ideas 
among their group members, and also to have a 
common front, tend to form cooperations. This 
was the issue that prompted libraries to start 
forming consortia. 
According to Nfila and Darko-Ampem (2002), 
historically, the common form of library coop?
eration was the sharing of union catalogue infor?
mation, storage facilities, collection development, 
and human resources at local, national, and 
regional levels. Consortia are therefore formed 
to help share resources to reduce the cost of col?
lection development in a single library and also 
bring about other benefits. These benefits are well 
expressed in the words of experts as follows. 
Within contemporary academic libraries con?
sortia are playing an increasingly important 
role. Bostick (2001) describes them as a 'way of 
life' for academic libraries. Landesman and Van 
Reenen (2000) state that consortia are an impor?
tant avenue for the way academic libraries do 
business and also note that consortia are having 
'profound programmatic and financial implica?
tions for most campuses'. 
One of the primary purposes of consortia, 
listed in many articles, is the leveraging of library 
budgets to purchase more resources (mainly 
digital resources) than could be purchased by 
any one member institution (Rowse, 2003; Baker 
and Sanville, 2000; Alexander, 1999; Allen and 
Hirshon, 1998). The economic benefit of con?
sortia lies in the ability of libraries to take their 
budgets further, spending less and getting more. 
In addition to the economic gains, Maskell 
(2008) lists several 'non-economic' objectives 
for consortia memberships including: reducing 
redundancy and the duplication of work; level?
ling the playing field between the haves and 
'have nots' by providing access to the same core 
resources; enabling shared services such as virtual 
reference and interlibrary loan; and providing 
opportunities for professional development, 
policy and standards development. 
A L E X A N D R I A , 22(1), 2011 19 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTI A 
LIBRARY CONSORTIA IN AFRICA 
In the whole of Africa, it is only South Africa 
which has made quite a serious effort in the for?
mation of consortia. Currently, South Africa has 
five academic library consortia. These are; 
? CALICO (CApe Library Cooperative), in 
the economically strong greater Cape Town 
area; 
? ESAL (Eastern Seaboard Association of 
Libraries), in Kwazulu-Natal; 
? FRELICO (FREe State Libraries and 
Information Consortium), in the Free State, 
with strong links to GAELIC; 
? GAELIC (GAuteng and Environs Library 
Consortium), based in Gauteng, South 
Africa's smallest but richest and most eco?
nomically dynamic province; 
? SEALS (South Eastern Academic Libraries' 
System), in the Eastern Cape, one of the coun?
try's poorest regions (Darch et al , 1999). 
Even with this, given the socio-political context 
and the extraordinary changes that have occurred 
in South Africa in the 1990s, it is not surprising 
that the motivation to cooperate and the nature, 
intensity, and success of cooperation vary widely 
among the five major academic library consortia 
in South Africa. Again South Africa Consortia 
face numerous problems ranging from socio?
political, language issues to telecommunication 
infrastructure (Darch et al., 1999). 
THE SITUATION IN GHANA 
Ghana is not left out when it comes to problems 
associated with library consortia formations. It 
was not until the 1990s that one bold attempt was 
made to set up a consortium in Ghana (Martey, 
2004). This was the Ghana Interlibrary Lending 
and Document Delivery Network that operated 
actively between 1996 and 2002 with DANIDA 
funding. 
In August 2004, the Consortium of Academic 
and Research Libraries (CARLIGH, 2010) 
was formed. It has five working groups, 
namely Bibliographic Services, Information 
Communication and Technology, Training, 
Information Marketing, and Electronic 
Information Services (Asare-Kyire and Asamoah-
Hassan, 2006). Members are from public univer?
sities, private universities, research institutions, 
and one specialist training institution. 
The Advisory Board of C A R L I G H consists of 
representatives of Vice Chancellors of the public 
and private universities, the Director General of 
the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 
and the National Council for Tertiary Education. 
The Chairmen of the Governing Board of 
C A R L I G H and the Management Committee of 
C A R L I G H are member and member/secretary 
respectively. This Board is responsible for the 
provision of advice and lobbying for funds for 
the Consortium. It meets annually (http://www. 
carligh.org.gh/carlighadmin.htm). 
The Governing Board of C A R L I G H con?
sists of Head Librarians of each participating 
institution and the Chairman of the Advisory 
Board. It is the think tank of the consortium. Its 
functions include the formulation of policies, 
approval of amendments to the constitution, 
approval of annual budgets and election of 
Management Committee members. One of the 
Head Librarians acts as Chairman on rotational 
basis for a period of two years. The Board meets 
twice a year. 
Members of the Consortium have agreed 
that the following should be sources of funding 
(http://www.carligh.org.gh/carlighadmin.htm): 
? Annual membership fee; 
? Proceeds from Workshops/Conferences/ 
Seminars; 
? Other Donors; 
? Government Grants. 
C A R L I G H is the only library consortium in 
Ghana. It seeks to bring libraries from academic 
and research institutions together to help harness 
resources to achieve a common goal of provid?
ing adequate information to their users. As at 
2009, it had a membership of 18 different librar?
ies from various parts of the country. Member 
libraries are: University of Ghana, Kwame 
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, 
2(1 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
University of Cape Coast, University for 
Development Studies, University of Education, 
Ashesi University, Valley View University, 
Maranatha University College, Institute for 
Scientific and Technological Information, 
Wisconsin University College, Akrofi-Christaller 
College, University of Mines and Technology, 
Regional Maritime University College, 
Presbyterian University College, Ghana Telecom 
University, Kumasi Polytechnic, Ghana Institute 
of Management and Public Administration and 
Takoradi Polytechnic. 
They were therefore selected as subjects for 
the study, which was an academic exercise at the 
Department of Information Studies, University 
of Ghana, by the researchers with the view of 
bringing to the fore the immense value or benefits 
to be derived from joining existing library con?
sortia or forming new ones. 
The preamble to the constitution of C A R L I G H 
states that C A R L I G H has the purpose of ensur?
ing a continued availability of library and infor?
mation resources to the academic and research 
community in particular and the general public 
in Ghana. Their vision is to make available all 
recorded knowledge in all formats, first to the use 
of member institutions and then to the people 
of Ghana. Their mission is ultimately to employ 
selective information resources through available 
technology, old and new, and staff capabilities to 
improve teaching, learning and research, includ?
ing lifelong learning, in member institutions 
and by extension in Ghana (The C A R L I G H 
Constitution, 2004 cited from Asare-Kyire and 
Asamoah-Hassan, 2006). 
According to Asare-Kyire and Asamoah-
Hassan, the vision and mission statements of 
C A R L I G H describe the transformative nature 
of an academic library consortium in bringing 
about development in quality research and learn?
ing in Ghana. 
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 
The questionnaires (see Appendix) were 
administered using the collective administra?
tion method (administering questionnaire to 
a captive audience) during the Association of 
African Universities Conference in Accra in 
2009 where C A R L I G H representatives were 
present. The questionnaires were filled and 
submitted by the end of the 3-day conference. 
Two institutions which were not present at the 
conference had their questionnaires mailed to 
them. 
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF 
FINDINGS 
Profile of the respondents from member 
institutions 
Out of the 15 respondents, ten were females 
and four were males. One respondent did not 
indicate his or her gender. Libraries from 
which responses were solicited are as follows: 
Ashesi university library; CSIR-INSTI; Ghana 
Telecom University; GIMPA library; KNUST; 
University for Development Studies; University 
of Education and University of Ghana. Two of 
the respondents did not indicate the institutions 
in which they work. Al l respondents have worked 
with their current libraries between one year two 
months and 22 years. Thus the response rate for 
the questionnaire was 83.3% and almost all the 
respondents have long working experience in 
their various libraries. 
Qualification of respondents 
Out of the 15 respondents, one has a BA, one 
is a postgraduate, 10 have M A or its equiva?
lent, two have M.Phil., and one has a Ph.D. 
In total 86.7% of the respondents have post?
graduate degrees and 13.3% have first degrees. 
Out of the 15 respondents, ten of the respond?
ents are Head Librarians, one is a Reference 
Librarian, one is a Senior Assistant Librarian 
and three are Assistant Librarians. Respondents 
have been working in their current positions 
between three months and ten years at the 
time responses were solicited. Respondents have 
worked as librarians between five and 44 years. 
This finding indicates that member libraries 
have been able to employ qualified library pro?
fessionals to head their libraries, which means 
that the C A R L I G H board is comprised of 
experienced librarians. 
ALEXANDRIA, 22(1), 2011 21 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
Knowledge of other consortia apart from 
CARLIGH 
Out of the 15 respondents, only six making 40% of 
the respondents are aware of other consortia apart 
from CARLIGH. The ones mentioned are: Calico, 
Calin, Ohiolink, Aulc, Sherpa, Ifl, Inasp, Gaelic, 
Boston Library Consortium, Sabinet, Gilldnet, 
Zulc, Lelico, Sanlic and Malico. The remaining 
60% did not give any indication of their knowledge 
of other library consortia. From the above it can be 
said that the majority of the CARLIGH represent?
atives are not aware of other external library con?
sortia. This means that they might not be able to 
determine how library consortia have been helpful 
to other libraries in Africa and beyond. 
Period of time a library has been part of 
CARLIGH 
Out of the 15 responses, six libraries have been 
part of C A R L I G H for five years, two librar?
ies have been part of the consortium for four 
years; five libraries for three years; one library 
for two years; and one library for one and a half 
years. From this response, it can be realized that 
C A R L I G H started with six of the respondents, 
had a growth rate of 33% in the year 2005; 62.5% 
in 2006; 7.7% in 2007 and 7.1% in 2008. 
Reason for forming CARLIGH 
In response to the question why C A R L I G H 
was formed, 100% of the respondents indicated 
that it was formed to enhance cooperation to 
help reduce the cost of acquisition of electronic 
resources and the sharing of resources. Apart 
from this general view from the respondents, sec?
tions of the respondents gave other reasons why 
they think C A R L I G H was formed. A section 
of the respondents representing 6.7% indicated 
that C A R L I G H was formed to help enhance the 
profile of member libraries as they join. Another 
13% said it was formed to help share ideas and 
expertise, and 6.7% of the respondents indicated 
that C A R L I G H was to help establish relation?
ships and to solve common problems. 
This finding supports Nfila and Darko-
Ampem's (2002) finding that, the main drive for 
cooperation has been the increase in the output 
of publications or the information explosion, the 
rise in the cost of publications coupled with strin?
gent budget allocations, and growth in student 
enrolment. There is also the increasing demand 
for service from customers together with the need 
to improve inter-lending services and the library 
collection, are additional factors. 
This finding suggests that, though member 
libraries are aware of the reason why C A R L I G H 
was formed, they have a narrow view on the 
aims it seeks to achieve, represented by the five 
working groups, namely Bibliographic Services, 
Information Communication and Technology, 
Training, Information Marketing, and Electronic 
Information Services. Thus members are abreast 
of the electronic information services but not 
very well of the others. 
The finding also supports the basic idea that 
runs through the literature that consortia are 
formed to bring libraries together to engage in 
resource sharing or reduce some common costs. 
Also the findings support the view of Asare-Kyire 
and Asamoah-Hassan (2006) that library consor?
tia should include programmes such as Shared 
Electronic Library System and Cooperative 
Collection Development, in order to meet the 
challenges of greater access to information. They 
further stated that cooperative collection develop?
ment is also a major benefit in a consortium and 
in Ghana the benefits therefore will be overwhelm?
ing as the limitation and difficulty in tracing and 
getting access to information will be eliminated. 
Reasons why a library joined CARLIGH 
Reasons that were given by respondents for 
joining C A R L I G H include the following: seven 
respondents representing 46.7% indicated that 
they joined in order to subscribe to and access 
electronic journals; three (20%) respondents 
joined to benefit from the training programme; 
two (13%) respondents indicated that they joined 
to share resources; one (6.7%) response was given 
for technical support; four (26.7%) respondents 
joined to share knowledge; six (40%) respondents 
joined to collectively acquire expensive resources; 
one (6.7%) respondent joined to enhance institu?
tional profile; and one (6.7%) respondent joined 
to enhance the formation of a network of librar?
ies. This is illustrated in Figure 1. 
22 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
Reasons given Number of respondents Percentages 
To subscribe to and access electronic journals 7 46.7% 
To benefit from training programmes 3 20% 
To share resources 2 13.3% 
To receive technical support 1 6.7% 
To share knowledge 4 26.7% 
To collectively acquire expensive resources 6 40% 
To enhance institutional profile 1 6.7% 
To form a network of libraries 1 6.7% 
Figure 1: Reasons for joining CARLIGH 
From this response it can be deduced that the 
majority of the respondents (46.7%) joined to 
have access to electronic materials and another 
40% joined to collectively acquire expensive 
resources. This indicates that libraries joined the 
consortium in order to acquire resources which 
they might not be able to acquire as individual 
institutions due to cost. The cost reduction factor 
brought in this finding strongly supports Nfila 
and Darko-Ampem's (2002) literature review, 
which showed that members of consortia posit 
that what brings libraries together is a desire 
to engage in resource sharing or reduce some 
common costs. And also the second reason they 
gave is 'to reduce the cost of member library 
operations by obtaining a group purchase price 
for information products'. 
Nature of service provision before joining 
CARLIGH 
In response to the question of the type of serv?
ices the institutions provided before joining 
C A R L I G H , 93% of the institutions indicated 
that they were providing traditional library serv?
ices based on print resources. This type of service 
they said was no longer satisfactory to their 
clients as a lot of time was involved in searching 
for materials and that clients started demanding 
electronic-based resources as every aspect of the 
world was going electronic. The rest (6.6 %) of the 
respondents indicated that they provided Internet 
services and CD-ROM services before joining 
and this was an expensive venture for them. This 
finding indicates that none of the member librar?
ies was able to provide access to online databases 
and online journals before C A R L I G H came into 
existence in Ghana. 
Nature of service provision after joining 
CARLIGH 
All the respondents (100%) indicated that, in 
addition to print resources, they now provide 
services based on access to electronic journals 
and online databases after joining C A R L I G H . 
They indicated in addition that this has improved 
service provision to their customers as they can 
access current resources online. Improvement in 
service provision also stems from the fact that 
users can now access more than one resource at a 
time and this saves users' time. 
This finding is clearly supported by Asare-
Kyire and Asamoah-Hassan (2006), that quality 
service can only be attained if there are adequate 
library services and resources. Resources such as 
electronic journals will enhance quality service 
as they offer current research information and 
findings in different academic disciplines. The 
currency of information provided by such jour?
nals would also keep users informed on various 
developments to help bridge the information gap. 
Consortia activities help easy access and rapid 
delivery of library materials to bridge gaps in 
information access. 
New products and Resources shared by 
CARLIGH members 
All the respondents (100%) indicated that as a 
C A R L I G H initiative, they have access to elec?
tronic resources and they share these resources 
with other member libraries. Meanwhile, only 
ALEXANDRIA, 22(1), 2011 23 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
Benefits Number of Percentages 
respondents 
Access to electronic resources at reduced cost 15 100% 
Free training workshops 15 100% 
Sharing of resources and knowledge 7 46.7% 
Hyperlink from C A R L I G H website 5 33.3% 
Interlibrary lending 2 13% 
More support for academic libraries from vice chancellors due 3 20% 
to their membership status. 
Technical support 5 33.3% 
Figure 2: Benefits derived from joining CARLIGH 
one institution (6.7%) indicated that it shares 
resources through interlibrary lending. 
This finding clearly indicates that though con?
sortia activities are supposed to help enhance 
sharing of all forms of resources, C A R L I G H 
members mostly share the online databases and 
journals and not other resources such as the 
print resources. This might be because of the 
issue identified by Alemna and Cobblah (2004, 
pp.7-8), who discussed the problems of library 
cooperation in Ghana, that the non-availability 
of communication facilities such as good road 
networks and telephone and postal systems has 
an adverse effect on any meaningful cooperative 
venture since the transfer of resources will not be 
that easy. Secondly, they also indicated that most 
libraries do not have comprehensive collections 
adequate enough to share with other libraries 
and this makes cooperation difficult. 
Benefits derived from joining CARLIGH 
Respondents indicated the following (Figure 2) as 
the benefits they derive from joining C A R L I G H : 
Figure 2 shows that all respondents (100%) 
get access to electronic resources at reduced 
cost. All respondents again indicated that they 
benefit from free training workshops. Seven rep?
resenting 46.7% indicated that they benefit from 
resources and knowledge sharing. Five (33.3%) 
said their websites are linked by hyperlink from 
the C A R L I G H website. Two (13%) said they 
benefit from interlibrary lending. Three (20%) 
said through C A R L I G H they now receive more 
support for their academic libraries from vice 
chancellors due to their membership status. Five 
(33.3%) indicated technical support as a benefit 
they receive from C A R L I G H . 
This finding supports Asare-Kyire and 
Asamoah-Hassan's (2006) suggestion that library 
consortia should include programmes such as 
Shared Electronic Library System, Cooperative 
Collection Development, Document Delivery, 
Reciprocal Borrowing, and Human Resource 
Development in order to meet the challenges of 
greater access to information. 
Resources acquisition method 
Out of the 15 respondents, 13 (86.7%) indicated 
that they acquire their print resources locally or 
internally while they acquire electronic databases 
collectively with other C A R L I G H members. Two 
(13.3%) respondents did not provide any answer 
to this question. 
The collective acquisition of electronic data?
bases and online resources by member libraries 
is a good feature of the collaborative effort that 
C A R L I G H seeks to achieve. 
Method of sharing cost 
Out of the 15 respondents, 13 (86.7%) indicated 
that the cost of resources is shared equally among 
member libraries, one (6.7%) respondent indi?
cated that affiliate members pay a fixed amount 
and full members share cost equally, one (6.7%) 
respondent also indicated that cost is shared 
according to access time to relevant databases. 
From the above responses, it can be realized 
that, though 86% of the respondents indicated 
24 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
Problems indicated Number of Percentages 
respondents 
Breakdown of Internet 5 33.3% 
Difficulties in dealing with the publishers 6 40% 
A lot more to learn as staff 4 26.7% 
Difficulty in accessing some of the databases 8 53.3% 
Not getting full access to all articles in databases 10 66.7% 
Subscription procedures to electronic resources difficult 5 33.3% 
Inability of sub-committees to meet 3 20% 
Late release of funds from mother institution 4 26.7% 
Electronic resources not relevant to the needs of members 6 40% 
Foreign exchange 9 60% 
Increasing cost of electronic resources 7 46.7% 
Disagreement among members 10 66.7% 
Figure 3: Problems members encounter (There were multiple responses to this question) 
that the cost of electronic resources is shared 
equally among members, the remaining 13.3% 
give contradictory responses which may imply 
that the mode of sharing cost is not clear enough 
for members to understand. 
Problems encountered by member libraries 
Respondents gave the following as the problems 
they encounter as C A R L I G H members: 33.3% 
indicated the breakdown of the Internet. 40% 
have difficulties in dealing with the publishers. 
26.7% said they have a lot more to learn as 
staff. 53.3 % have difficulty in accessing some 
of the databases. 66.7% said they do not get full 
access to articles. 33.3% said the subscription 
procedures to electronic resources are difficult. 
20% expressed their concern at the inability of 
sub-committees to meet. 26.7% said they do 
not receive funds from their mother institutions 
on time. 40% of the respondents said many 
of the electronic resources are not relevant to 
the courses offered in some institutions. 60% 
of the respondents find it difficult to access 
foreign exchange. 46.7% indicated the increas?
ing cost of electronic resources and 66.7% of 
the respondents indicated that there is usually 
disagreement among members. Four institu?
tions did not indicate any reasons. (There were 
multiple responses to this question). The above 
problems revealed through the study, serve as 
evidence for the comment made by the research?
ers in their statement of the problem that, 
despite CARLIGH's ambitions, it is faced with 
numerous problems ranging from financial con?
straints, lack of cooperation among members, 
lack of commitment of member institution and 
above all lack of good technical infrastructure 
(ICT) to support its services. Figure 3 shows the 
number of respondents who indicate a particu?
lar problem. 
Future Prospects of C A R L I G H 
Formation of CARLIGH as a good initiative 
In response to the question whether the for?
mation of C A R L I G H is a good initiative, all 
respondents affirmed to this. Five (33.3%) of the 
respondents indicated that it gives smaller librar?
ies the chance also to get electronic resources; 
six (40%) said it enables libraries to share infor?
mation; all respondents (100%) affirm that the 
formation of C A R L I G H is a good initiative 
because it enhances access to electronic resources 
at reduced cost; 13 (86.7%) of the respondents 
said it serves as a platform to pool resources 
together; all respondents (100%) again indicated 
that it helps them to attend free workshops to 
share knowledge; 10 (66.7%) said it has brought 
most of the academic libraries together. Figure 4 
ALEXANDRIA, 22(1), 2011 25 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
* 
Reasons given Number of Percentages 
respondents 
It gives smaller libraries the chance also to get electronic resource 1 5 33.3% 
It enables libraries to share information 6 40% 
It enhances access to electronic resources at reduced cost 15 100% 
Serves as a platform to pool resources together 13 86.7% 
The attendance of workshops to share knowledge 15 100% 
It has brought most of the academic libraries together 10 66.7% 
Figure 4: CARLIGH formation a good initiative (There were multiple responses to this question) 
Forms of training suggested Number of respondents Percentages 
Copyright management 3 20% 
Institutional repositories 8 53.3% 
ICT training 10 66.7% 
Long-term courses 2 13.3% 
Management training 7 46.7% 
Scholarly publishing 4 26.7% 
Use of Web 2.0 technology 2 13.3% 
Figure 5: Forms of training suggested by members (There were multiple responses to this question) 
shows the reasons given by the respondents. This 
goes to prove that the formation of C A R L I G H is 
a good initiative and the number of respondents 
that indicated a particular reason. 
This finding can be linked with the findings 
by Maskell (2008) in a study carried out in 
Canada which indicated that consortia activity 
has positively affected the relationship amongst 
academic libraries. The most common effects 
noted were that consortia activity brings librar?
ies closer together, it lets them know each other 
better with respect to each other's goals, opera?
tions and problems, and it increases oppor?
tunities for dialogue and shared projects. The 
findings from this study and that of Maskell 
confirm that consortia activity has increased the 
trust between academic libraries and made them 
'think consortially' as a part of their daily opera?
tions. This finding also supports the theoretical 
framework chosen by the researchers which indi?
cates that joint action will reduce the organiza?
tions' costs and cooperation will increase the 
organizations' power successfully to accomplish 
the changes they desire. 
Training opportunities provided by CARLIGH 
The respondents indicated the following forms of 
training: capacity building in new library trends, 
ICT training, information literacy, use of data?
bases, web design, customer service, workshops 
and seminars on current library development. 
The result shows that C A R L I G H is paving a 
way for better human resource development in 
the library field through training opportunities. 
This finding is what Asare-Kyire and Asamoh-
Hassan referred to when they said that consor?
tia activities should include Human Resource 
Development in order to meet the challenges of 
greater access to information. 
Other forms of training suggested by members 
Respondents indicated that C A R L I G H should 
provide further training in the following areas: 
copyright management, institutional repositories, 
ICT training, long-term courses, management 
training, scholarly publishing, training in pub?
lishing education, and use of Web 2.0 technology. 
Figure 5 shows that 66.6% of the respondents 
want to be trained in ICT, 53.3% would also like 
26 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
Reasons given Number of Percentages 
respondents 
Training members receive to equip staff with skills 10 66.7% 
Increased access to shared resources 12 80.0% 
Availability of information 13 86.7% 
Development of the spirit of cooperation 5 33.3% 
Teaching of new library trends for librarians to gain knowledge 14 93.3% 
Service provision based on electronic resources 15 100.0% 
Enhancement of resources sharing between large and small libraries 6 40.0% 
Figure 6: CARLIGH as a source of improvement of library services (There were multiple answers to 
this question) 
to be trained in institutional repository devel?
opment and 46.7% would also like to undergo 
management training. Though other forms of 
training have been indicated by members, it can 
be deduced from the responses that member insti?
tutions are aware of the benefits that ICT, institu?
tional repository building and management can 
bring to a consortium, as these three received the 
highest ranking. 
CARLIGH as a source of improvement of library 
services 
Al l respondents (100%) indicated that the activi?
ties of C A R L I G H will improve library services 
due to the training members receive to equip staff 
with skills, increased access to shared resources, 
availability of information, development of the 
spirit of cooperation, teaching of new library 
trends for librarians to gain knowledge, service 
provision based on electronic resources, and 
enhancement of resource sharing between large 
and small libraries. Figure 6 shows the reasons 
given and the number of respondents who gave a 
particular reason. 
Figure 6 shows that 66.7% of the respond?
ents indicated that C A R L I G H will improve 
library services due to the training members 
receive to equip staff with skills. 80% said 
this will happen because of increased access to 
shared resources. 86.7% mentioned availability 
of information as a factor. 33.3% mentioned 
development of the spirit of cooperation. 93.3% 
indicated that service provision will improve 
through teaching of new library trends for 
librarians to gain knowledge. 100% were sure 
that due to service provision based on elec?
tronic resources C A R L I G H will improve library 
services in the country and another 40% men?
tioned the enhancement of resource sharing 
between large and small libraries as a feature 
of C A R L I G H which will help improve library 
services in the country. 
Though respondents gave different reasons for 
thinking that library services can be improved 
by C A R L I G H through its activities, there is no 
doubt that they are all aware that the activities 
of C A R L I G H will help improve library service 
delivery in the country. This goes to support the 
idea that cooperative activities such as consortia 
are formed to help improve service delivery. As 
indicated by Bopp and Smith (2001, pp. 16-17), 
library consortium formation is an attempt by 
all kinds of libraries to improve their services 
to their users through cooperative activities in 
collection development, reference services, and 
document delivery. 
Other cooperative activities members undertake 
In an attempt to outline other cooperative activi?
ties members undertake, all respondents indi?
cated knowledge sharing and capacity building, 
information and knowledge sharing, training 
programmes, workshops and seminars. Only 
five (33.3%) respondents indicated interlibrary 
lending and document delivery as one of their 
cooperative activities. This finding also supports 
the idea of Bopp and Smith (2001) that library 
consortia are attempts by all kinds of libraries 
ALEXANDRIA, 22(1), 2011 27 
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF CONSORTIA 
Reasons given Number of Percentages 
respondents 
Access to more databases 14 93.3% 
Access to publications of other institutions 13 86.7% 
Availability of documents and other digital resources to members 10 66.7% 
Concentration of research reports at one spot for dissemination 14 93.3% 
Will increase the number of resources that will be available at 12 80.0% 
reduced cost 
Table 7: Benefit of Open Access to CARLIGH (There were multiple responses to this question) 
Reasons given Number of Percentages 
respondents 
Consortia formation is the trend of the day 9 60% 
It helps members share ideas 12 80% 
It serves as a common platform for member libraries 7 46.7% 
It supports young libraries 9 60% 
It gives training 14 93.3% 
Libraries pay less for more 15 100% 
It has improved library services 6 40% 
It eases the financial burden of members 14 93.3% 
It has increased resource-sharing and networking 12 80% 
Table 8: Reasons why CARLIGH should continue (There were multiple responses to this question) 
to improve their services to their users through 
different cooperative activities such as collection 
development, reference services, and document 
delivery. 
Benefit of Open Access to CARLIGH 
From Figure 7 it is realized that 93% of the 
respondents indicated that the open access initia?
tive by C A R L I G H will enhance access to more 
databases. 86% said it will help access publica?
tions of other institutions. 66.6% said it will 
promote availability of documents and other 
digital resources to members. 93.3% said it will 
help concentration of research reports at one 
spot for dissemination, and another 80% said it 
will increase the number of resources that will be 
available and accessible to members at reduced 
cost. The result shows that members see the 
Open Access policy as a good opportunity for 
C A R L I G H members as it will serve as an institu?
tional repository to all members. 
Reasons why members want CARLIGH to 
continue its operations 
Al l respondents want C A R L I G H to continue 
its services because, as shown in Figure 8, apart 
from the cooperative ventures, 60% think consor?
tia formation is the trend of the day. 80% said it 
helps members share ideas. 46.6% said it serves 
as a common platform for member libraries. 60% 
said it supports young libraries. 93.3% indicated 
that it gives training. 100% of the respondents 
indicated that libraries pay less for more and are 
introduced to new developments. 40% said it has 
improved library services and 93.3% said it eases 
the financial burden of members. 80% said it has 
increased resource-sharing and networking and 
also they want it to continue to offer technical 
cooperation and to promote more capacity build?
ing activities. From all indications, member insti?
tutions have realized the importance of library 
consortia and would like C A R L I G H to continue 
with its services. 
28