





































37

PAPERS AND  
PRESENTATIONS

“Alone We Can Do So  
Little; Together We Can 
Do So Much”
Collaborative Library Projects at the 
University of Divinity
By Kerrie Burn, University of Divinity; Mannix Library, University of Divinity

ABSTR ACT The librarians associated with the University of Divinity 
in Australia (founded 1910) have a long history of cooperation. These 
librarians have been formally meeting for over twenty years to discuss 
and resolve common issues and to advance projects of mutual benefit. 
Through their shared vision, it has been possible to achieve significantly 
more than would ever have been possible if they had not worked collab-
oratively. This paper will highlight a number of recent library projects 
that have required the collaboration of the eleven constituent university 
colleges and those colleges’ fifteen associated libraries. Projects include 
the development of the Library Hub, enabling all staff and students 
to access a significantly increased number of online resources. Coop-
eration among librarians has also been instrumental in enabling the 
introduction of a single University ID card across all libraries, as well as 
instituting a collaborative purchasing model for the ordering of single 
title eBooks across the university membership. The fifteen libraries are 



38  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

also currently implementing a new combined library catalog (UDCat), 
which will give greater worldwide exposure to the collections of all 
participating libraries. Future projects under discussion include the 
creation of University-Library agreements that will outline the rights 
and responsibilities of both parties and the development of a formal 
retention policy so that no individual library discards any unique title 
from their collection. This presentation identifies some of the factors 
that have facilitated the success of recent collaborative projects, as well 
as potential barriers to project success.

INTRODUCTION

My presentation today will highlight a number of collaborative library 
projects undertaken at the University of Divinity (UD) over the past 
few years. The quote from the title, “Alone we can do so little; together 
we can do so much,” which is attributed to Helen Keller, is one that 
seems particularly appropriate to much of the work that I am involved 
in at the University. I’m sure the sentiment is also relevant in your 
own theological library communities, as well as in the library world 
generally. Librarians are no strangers to the value of collaboration in 
assisting us to achieve our shared goals.

This paper provides a brief overview of a number of projects: some 
completed, some currently in process, and some that I would regard as 
aspirational, where librarians are still in an initial conversation stage.

WHAT IS THE UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY?1

The UD was established as a single corporate entity in 1910 by an Act 
of the Parliament of Victoria (the state where Melbourne is located and 
the University is based).2 The Act empowers the University to confer 
degrees and award diplomas and certificates in divinity and associated 
disciplines. Originally known as the Melbourne College of Divinity, the 
legal name of the institution changed to the University of Divinity in 
2012 when it achieved University status. The UD is the second oldest 
self-accrediting Higher Education institution in Victoria, and it is the 
sixth oldest in the country. It also is currently the only Australian 
University of Specialisation. 



Papers and Presentations  39

The UD is responsible for the admission and graduation of all of 
its students. However, students have a relationship with the Univer-
sity through enrolling in units and courses offered through one of the 
UD’s eleven colleges. It is a collegiate model like Oxford University or 
the Graduate Theological Union at Berkeley. Since its inception, the 
University has been both collegiate and ecumenical in nature, and 
the eleven colleges represent the interests of a range of Christian 
denominational traditions. This includes three Catholic Colleges, as 
well as Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Uniting Church, Salvation Army, 
Churches of Christ, and Coptic Orthodox Colleges.

Despite having eleven colleges, the overall number of students is 
relatively small with a full time equivalent (FTE) number of approxi-
mately 700 students. Four of the colleges have fewer than 50 FTE 
students, five colleges have between 50 and 100 FTE students, and 
two colleges have between 100 and 150 FTE students. The University 
awards certificates and diplomas all the way through to master’s and 
doctoral degrees. While students have a “home” institution, they can 
enroll in units offered at any of the colleges. There is a single student 
management system used to record all student data and a single 
Learning Management System used by all colleges to provide students 
with online access to unit course materials.

Where I fit into the picture is that for a little over four years, I’ve 
been the library manager at Mannix Library, which provides library 
services to staff and students at Catholic Theological College. I also 
currently chair the Library Committee for the UD and manage the 
University’s online Library Hub (which we’ll hear more about later). 
My professional career has mostly been in the theological or univer-
sity library sector, including about seven years at Whitley College: the 
Baptist College of Victoria, which is another member college of the UD.

LIBRARIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY

The relationship between the University and its fifteen associated 
libraries has historically been through the colleges. 

 •  Each Collegiate Agreement between the University and a College 
also must list the library or libraries that are affiliated with 
that College. All listed libraries must be accessible to all staff, 
students, and other members of the University. Some colleges 



40  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

have more than one library, though some are quite small, 
specialist libraries that have limited staffing and resources.

 •  The main multilateral forum for cooperation between libraries 
is the UD Library Committee, which is an official sub-commit-
tee of the University’s Academic Board. The Library Commit-
tee includes representatives from all college libraries, as well 
as student and academic staff representatives. The Chair of 
the Library Committee is also a member of the University’s 
Academic Board. This library committee was formalized and 
made an official university body in 2012 after existing as an 
unofficial but regular meeting of librarians since the 1990s.

 •  The University also provides some direct funding for librar-
ies. This is based on student enrollment numbers and some 
research grant systems. 

However, each library is still autonomous and will have its own 
rules and regulations, as well as governance and legal ownership 
arrangements. Libraries have different collection strengths which 
will often reflect their denominational emphases or more specifically 
their ownership by a particular Catholic religious order. In addition 
to resource differences, individual libraries will also have different 
budgets, staffing arrangements, loan periods, and opening hours. 
Each library has its own website. There are at least five different inte-
grated library systems (ILS) being used across the network, and more 
than one classification system is used for the different collections.

Despite these differences, the libraries associated with the UD have 
a long history of cooperation. Librarians have been formally meet-
ing for over twenty years to discuss and resolve common issues and 
to progress projects of mutual benefit. Through the shared vision of 
these librarians, it has been possible to achieve significantly more than 
would ever have been possible if they had not worked collaboratively.

COLLABORATIVE LIBRARY PROJECTS

 1.  Library Hub As the name suggests, the University’s Library 
Hub3 is a central place where all staff and students of the UD can 
now access online resources, databases, eBooks, and a range of 
other useful links and academic resources. 



Papers and Presentations  41

Prior to the establishment of the Library Hub in 2016, the 
extent of access to online resources depended on the home 
college where one was enrolled or a staff member. There was no 
consistency of experience for all students. Some college librar-
ies subscribed to a small number of databases and some had 
no access to online resources at all. In addition, the same core 
online resource had sometimes been purchased by more than 
one library.

To help to rectify this situation, the Library Committee 
proposed to the Academic Board that one library within the 
network be authorized to manage the provision of online library 
resources for the whole of the University. This proposal was 
subsequently approved by the Academic Board in May 2015 
and a specific Library Resources goal (with associated fund-
ing) was incorporated into the University’s strategic plan. A 
competitive application process ensued with all libraries being 
invited to apply for the role in June 2015. The management of 
the development and ongoing maintenance of the Library Hub 
was subsequently awarded to Mannix Library in August 2015, 
and an initial three-year contract was signed with the Univer-
sity in December 2015. The Library Hub had its official launch in 
February 2016, which coincided for us with the start of the new 
academic year.

Although there is no position of Chief University Librar-
ian, as the manager of the Library Hub, I was now authorized 
to perform a functionally analogous role of negotiating with 
vendors on behalf of the whole of the University. All subscrip-
tions are now taken out in the name of the University of Divin-
ity and are paid for by the University. The same range of online 
resources, which are now far more extensive than any individual 
library had previously been able to provide, are now available to 
all University of Divinity students and staff irrespective of where 
they are located across the University. 

There was a huge amount of work involved in a short period 
of time to get the Library Hub established and ready for the start 
of the semester. The infrastructure for the Hub incorporates a 
number of interconnecting products and technologies. Mannix 
Library was already using SirsiDynix’s Horizon ILS and Enterprise, 



42  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

and we used this same setup to create a separate new interface 
for the Library Hub. We used OCLC’s EZproxy for authentica-
tion against the University’s Theological Academic Management 
System (TAMS). Students were able to use the same unique user-
name and password to access the Library Hub as they used to 
access both TAMS and the University’s Learning Management 
System. The initial range of resources included products from 
vendors including ATLA, EBSCO, ProQuest, Oxford, and JSTOR. 
We used the EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) API to wrap around all 
of this online content and produce a single integrated results list 
from a Google-like search. The implementation and customization 
of the various components took some serious hard work, but it was 
very gratifying to see the final product come together in a relatively 
short space of time. In the over two years since it was established, 
the Library Hub has continued to grow, with new resources being 
added each year.

I believe that one of the additional benefits of the success 
of the Library Hub is that it gave librarians the confidence that 
further collaborative projects could also be successful. 

 2.  Single University ID/Library Card This project was managed 
by the Library Committee. However, it also involved collabora-
tion with groups and individuals across the University, includ-
ing staff at the Office of the Vice Chancellor (the UD’s central 
administrative office), the Student Services Committee, Heads of 
Colleges, Registrars within each college, and those staff at each 
college that would actually be producing the new cards when 
students enrolled. Previously students could borrow from all 
libraries, but they needed to obtain a separate borrower’s card 
from each library. So, one of the primary advantages of the new 
system was that the single ID card enabled all staff and students 
to borrow from all libraries within the network. A standard 
template was established for cards, which were co-branded with 
both University and College logos. The barcode on each card was 
based on the student’s number in the University’s TAMS system 
and could be read by all of the different ILSs. 

The project was rolled out in 2017. Initially, one printer was 
purchased and the implementation of the new card was trialled 
at one college, namely Catholic Theological College. We created 



Papers and Presentations  43

a detailed procedures document, which was tweaked with each 
successive implementation. This helped to ensure consistency 
of practice and accordingly of the final card product no matter 
where it was produced across the University. Some colleges 
needed to implement new procedures (for example, taking 
photographs of their students), which they hadn’t been doing 
previously.

 3.  UDCat Replacement UDCat (https://divinity.on.worldcat.org/
discovery) is the name given to the combined library catalog for 
the libraries associated with the University. A former version of 
UDCat had existed for over ten years. However, the technology on 
which it was based was now very old and needed to be updated, 
and not all libraries were included. Testing also revealed that 
search results were very unreliable, and for optimal results you 
often still needed to search individual library catalogs. This 
meant it was not really adequate or fit for its purpose.

The new UDCat uses OCLC Discovery and was launched in 
early 2018. Once again, the project was managed by the Library 
Committee. It relied on the pre-existing relationship between 
OCLC and Libraries Australia, Australia’s National Library data-
base, which sees Libraries Australia records being incorporated 
into WorldCat. This project relied on all UD libraries becoming 
members of Libraries Australia and contributing their library 
holdings to the national database. Once again it was a proj-
ect that was rolled out over time. We had an initial core group 
of five libraries that were part of the initial combined catalog 
because they were already contributing their holdings to Librar-
ies Australia. Smaller libraries have been assisted with the 
task of becoming members and contributing their holdings by 
larger libraries in the network that were familiar with require-
ments and processes. Libraries using the same ILS also worked 
together to understand what was required for their systems. One 
of the added benefits of this project is that the collections held 
by UD libraries have become more discoverable, which gives 
greater worldwide exposure to the collections of participating 
libraries. This is particularly useful in showcasing unique or 
rarely held items and special collections, which in turn helps  
to raise the profile of the library collections held across the 

https://divinity.on.worldcat.org/discovery
https://divinity.on.worldcat.org/discovery


44  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

University.

 4.  eBook Purchasing Model The Library Hub includes several 
eBook packages, but many librarians also wanted a way to be 
able to purchase single title eBooks. Several libraries had previ-
ously purchased a small number of individual eBook titles, but 
most libraries had been holding off on doing this, waiting for a 
University-wide model. Because Mannix Library was already 
managing the Library Hub and was responsible for ensur-
ing that all eBooks were available via the Library Hub, we also 
took the lead with this project. This involved establishing a UD 
GOBI account with YBP/Ebsco solely for the purpose of purchas-
ing eBooks. Individual selectors from libraries interested in 
purchasing eBook titles were set up with GOBI accounts and 
given the ability to search and select. Mannix Library staff are 
then responsible for processing the orders, ensuring MARC 
records are added to the catalog and available in the Library 
Hub, and managing the invoicing. Mannix Library pays the 
original invoice and then is reimbursed by the library making 
the selections. Once again, all eBooks purchased by this model 
become available to all staff and students across the Univer-
sity. This project has been particularly beneficial as it supports 
the increasing number of online units being taught across the 
University. This eBook purchasing model remains opt-in, with 
not all libraries choosing to participate at this time.

 5.  Print Journal Optimization This project I initially thought this 
project would be an easy one to progress. It involved collabo-
ration with regard to our print journal collections. In Australia 
and New Zealand there is a long-established product known as 
AULOTS, which is managed by the Australian and New Zealand 
Theological Library Association (ANZTLA). Theological librar-
ies contribute their print journal holdings data to this online 
database. It is often an easy way of tracking down journal titles 
held by smaller libraries that may not be listed on Libraries 
Australia. Initially, the idea for this project was about the colla-
tion of AULOTS data for our libraries so that we could make 
informed decisions in the future about journal holdings and 
current subscriptions. There was no pressure for libraries to 



Papers and Presentations  45

cancel subscriptions or consolidate holdings. However, what 
was initially considered to be a simple data collection exer-
cise ended up taking many months to complete. Not everyone’s 
AULOTS data was up-to-date and, not everyone was able to 
provide an accurate report of their journal holdings at the same 
time. We now have a consolidated list of all journal holdings, 
which resulted from merging individual library reports into a 
single Excel file. This has enabled us to get an idea of duplication 
and titles where multiple libraries have small print runs of the 
same title. This information will inform decisions about reduc-
ing duplication and the potential relocation of volumes to single 
locations in order to consolidate holdings and free up resources 
for more subscriptions. It may be that some libraries could also 
consider the cancellation of some of their print subscriptions or 
aggregation to make complete runs of paper journals. This proj-
ect is still definitely a work in process.

 6.  Collated Library Statistics This next project was very simi-
lar to the journals. Each year, ANZTLA libraries are asked to 
complete an annual statistics form. The suggestion was that 
when libraries emailed their completed forms to the ANZTLA 
statistician they would also email them to the Chair of the UD 
Library Committee. The data from all UD libraries could then 
be compiled. Once again, this process ended up being a fairly 
torturous one with statistics forms being received over a spread-
out period and with forms being filled out inconsistently. 
However, the data, once compiled, has proved to be useful for a 
number of purposes. It has been useful to be able to source this 
collated data quickly when information has been requested, 
rather than having to contact libraries each time statistical data 
is required. It has been useful for benchmarking purposes, to 
compare UD library statistics with those from other theological 
libraries in Australia and New Zealand. The data has been used 
in the completion of University reports and provided on request 
to vendors. The collated UD library statistics have also been 
enhanced with additional technical data: for example, IP ranges 
and details of integrated library systems.

 7.  UD-Libraries Agreement The creation of the University-
Libraries Agreement has been a significant project that has 



46  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

been a long time in process but is now nearing completion. I 
already mentioned that there is a collegiate agreement between 
the University and each college. This additional Agreement is a 
way of formalizing the relationship between the University and 
individual libraries, and in particular with the legal owners of 
libraries, who may not necessarily be the same as the college 
that the library serves. The Agreement has taken many months 
of development and legal review to get to the point where all 
parties agree on the final text and feel positive about endors-
ing its content. Essentially, the Agreement affirms the critical 
role of libraries in the life and mission of the University. It spells 
out the rights and responsibilities of all parties. For example, 
all libraries are obliged to provide access and borrowing rights 
to all members of the University. Funding arrangements are 
detailed, including library fee payments from the University to 
libraries and the eligibility of librarians to apply for UD research 
grants. The University is responsible for maintaining funding for 
the Library Hub. Libraries are required to contribute to the work 
of the University’s Library Committee and to provide represen-
tation on this committee. Librarians agree to contribute to the 
development of policies related to provision of library services 
and resources, as well as to abide by the policies that are devel-
oped by the Library Committee and approved by the Academic 
Board. All bar but one library have now indicated that they are 
happy with the latest draft and are willing to proceed with signing 
the final Agreement. This project was another that was included 
in the Library Resources goal of the University’s Strategic Plan 
2016-2025. The completion of this project will be a significant 
achievement. The establishment of the University-Libraries 
Agreement will both clarify and strengthen the relationships 
that already exist between the University and all of its associated 
libraries. These libraries are critical to the University’s mission 
and support the University’s teaching, scholarship, and research. 

 8.  Library Collections Policy-Last Copy Preservation Once 
again, this project was an initiative of the Library Committee and 
a collaborative project related to collection development. It arose 
after a distressful situation for one particular librarian when a 
large-scale weeding project was undertaken at one of the smaller 



Papers and Presentations  47

libraries owned by a religious order. A large portion of the collec-
tion was to be shipped off to an overseas location, without refer-
ence to the librarian and without going through any systematic 
process of deaccessioning records from the library Catalog.

The Library Committee has subsequently worked on the 
development of a Library Collections Policy with its initial focus 
being on last copy retention. The policy recognizes the distrib-
uted nature of our collections, with a range of research strengths 
and available special collections. The basic premise of the reten-
tion policy is that before any item is removed from any library 
collection, UDCat, the combined libraries catalog, is checked to 
ensure that any unique item is not discarded. The development 
of this policy affirms the librarians’ commitment to the steward-
ship of our combined resources and to ensuring that resources 
are available for future research. Although developed by the 
Library Committee, the Libraries Collections Policy will also be 
approved by the University’s Academic Board. This process has 
the added benefit of raising the profile of libraries, librarians, 
and library collections to all members of the Academic Board.

 9.  Shared Integrated Library System This project certainly 
remains a work in progress. According to the University’s Stra-
tegic Plan, we are only committed to investigating the feasibility 
of such a project in 2018. In our ideal library scenario, it would 
be desirable to be able to search all catalogs simultaneously and 
to have live availability data. This combined catalog would also 
be fully integrated with all of the University’s online resources. 
Achieving this goal has some significant hurdles to overcome. 
There are currently at least five different ILSs, as well as vari-
ous versions of these systems in use [SirsiDynix—Horizon & 
Symphony, SoftLink (Liberty), Follett Destiny, and Koha]. Addi-
tional issues to be resolved include those associated with data 
quality and reaching consensus on future cataloging standards.

The implementation of a shared integrated library system 
would be a significant undertaking if indeed the project was 
thought to be both feasible and desirable. Such a project 
would require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and require 
a considerable investment of time, personnel, and financial 
resources. However, I believe that librarians associated with 



48  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

the UD couldn’t have even contemplated such a project a few 
years ago without having already worked together and achieved 
successful outcomes on several other collaborative endeavours.

COLLABORATION

There are a number of factors that foster the success of collabora-
tive projects. At the heart of any collaboration is the strength of the 
relationships that exist between all involved parties. Relationships 
founded on trust and goodwill will greatly facilitate the success of 
any collaborative project. A belief in the benefits of collaboration 
can also lead to a willingness of participants to share information 
and contribute. Support from the University has also been vital. This 
support involved including library goals in the University’s Strate-
gic Plan, which talks about “fostering greater collaboration,” taking 
requests or proposals from the Library Committee seriously, and 
providing appropriate funding as required. Another aid to collabora-
tion success is having an appropriate leadership model. This model 
might include being able to start with the outcome in mind, avoid-
ing dictatorial styles of leadership but instead having leaders who 
will listen. These leaders should champion good initiatives and have 
energy and drive. Flexibility is also key to success, knowing when it is 
important to provide opportunities for all to contribute versus when 
it is in the group’s best interest to have one person appointed who 
can liaise with vendors on behalf of everyone. Benefits of collabora-
tion have definitely included an increase in the profile of libraries 
across the University, as well as an increase in the profile of librarians. 
Collaboration has also provided beneficial professional development 
opportunities for members. This has included the development of 
project and people management skills, negotiation, public speaking, 
report writing, and policy development.

Conversely, some of the potential barriers to collaborative proj-
ect success include distrust among parties or an imbalance of power 
between project members. Another factor is where members feel a 
pressure to contribute to a project rather than using opt-in models 
which rely on voluntary contributions. Good leadership has a corre-
sponding requirement of good “followership” or, in this case, the 
ability of each library to apply conscientiously apply decisions or 
determined coordinating details made centrally or by a project’s 



Papers and Presentations  49

directors. It also involves the good faith that the leadership team, or 
subcommittees engaged in coordinating information, forming policy, 
and implementation practice, are doing so with good will, institu-
tional neutrality, and professional competence. Poor communica-
tion about any project will also result in less engagement and buy-in 
from all stakeholders. Within the University library community, there 
can also be a tension between the autonomy of individual libraries 
and their commitment to the collaborative work of the “University 
Libraries” network. Often this tension can occur because of the time 
commitment associated with any collaborative project and because 
of the relatively low staffing levels at some of the individual libraries.

CONCLUSION

Despite some difficulties along the way, the librarians’ experience 
of collaboration and working together on a variety of projects has 
been largely positive. Success has resulted in increased energy and 
a group of librarians who are willing to engage with new possibili-
ties. and with the confidence possibilities. There also is confidence 
that further collaborative projects will also be successful. The total-
ity of the success of many of these projects has led to the increased 
recognition of the role of libraries and librarians at the University of 
Divinity. The work of the Library Committee is seen as a model for 
the wider University community of what is possible through collabo-
ration, having a shared vision, and the belief that we can achieve so 
much more when we work together.

ENDNOTES

1 See www.divinity.edu.au. The University website includes links 
to all of its associated Colleges and to the online Library Hub.

2 For a more substantial account of the origins of the University of 
Divinity see: Peter Sherlock, “The foundation of the Melbourne 
College of Divinity,” Journal of Religious History 40, no. 2 (June 
2016). DOI: 10.1111/1467-9809.12279

3 See www.divinity.edu.au/library 

www.divinity.edu.au
www.divinity.edu.au/library

