I have been reading some "big heads" reports destined for ALA annual.  This was in one such report.  CCP refers to Cooperative Cataloging Program.  Perhaps we should explore using such a model or building on this model for some of our languages?

Participating institutions: The University of Iowa has now begun active participation in the CCP, bringing the total number of participating institutions to thirteen (Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Wisconsin-Madison).

Production: A total of 1,360 titles were cataloged in the CCP during the period of July 1/16 - May 30/17. These resources were in over 40 languages: Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Czech, English, Georgian, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malayalam, Ndebele, Persian, Polish, Pushto, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Shona, Spanish, Slovak, Slovenian, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tibetan, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uzbek.

Resources cataloged during the course of the year include monographs, serials, scores, maps, CD-ROMs, sound recordings, video recordings, and visual resources (e.g., posters).

With this profile of production levels, languages, and resource/format types, the partnership is having a positive impact on libraries being able to move materials through processes that will enable timely discoverability and access, both locally and throughout our various resource sharing networks. Many of these resources would not be candidates for University of Chicago, ALCTS "Big Heads" Report Page 2 of 2

outsourcing, and the partnership is providing a dynamic collections management and metadata provision mechanism for materials that would otherwise likely sit in backlogs.
Possible expansion of the CCP outside of the Big Ten: CCP participating institutions have always been cognizant that the more institutions we have participating, the greater the bandwidth for filling gaps and contributing expertise across our libraries. Adding five institutions after the initial pilot (going from eight libraries to thirteen) has had an immediate and dramatic impact on our ability to match needs with expertise and cross-institutional capacity. What the BTAA has accomplished thus far is impressive, but there remain many needs that still cannot be met within the CCP alone. The new Ivy Plus Technical Services Group has expressed interest in talking with the CCP group about possible collaboration, and the CCP group is enthusiastic about discussing possibilities for expansion, though recognizes the logistical challenges of going beyond institutions that can use UBorrow for shipping.

Carol L. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Field Director
Southeast Asia Regional Office
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>