956 US university presidents, chancellors, CEOs surveyed in Jan/Feb 2011Externalization isn’t something that happens by its own accord, it’s not driven by forces of nature; it represents a choice.And it is a choice that university administrators endorse, even if it is politically risky.In a survey of university presidents, chancellors and CEOs, outsourcing topped this list of preferred strategies for cost containment. I would argue – and I’m sure I will take some slings and arrows for this – that the library is a kind of campus service. I’m not alone in this.
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume46/ProspectsforSystemicChangeacro/226178University presidents aren’t the only ones who see externalization and outsourcing as strategies for transforming their organizations. Jim Neal, Dean of libraries at Columbia University, has argued that libraries are missing an important opportunity to rethink core operations.
I want to insist again that cooperative print management – including shared storage initiatives – is not driven by space savings or cost containment objectives alone. It is not a tactic, it is a strategy.It’s about enabling academic libraries to do what they have always done – acquire content with a view to its future use, sometimes in the absence of any evidence that it will be used – in a manner that is more sustainable. It’s simply inconceivable that many academic libraries will have the option to build centralized robotic print stores on campus, as the University of Chicago has.
http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/planning/taskforce/interim_report_package_2011-05-09.pdfUC has one of the most successful shared print programs in the US; it’s value is no longer taken for granted.500M in projected funding reduction for UC in 2011-2012; anticipate 23M drop in library budget.
Finally, we get to the CIC….I used to be quite perplexed about this organization – it seemed to span a strange geography. But I’ve come to understand that the ties that bind this organization are embedded in a much larger network of regional social and economic interests.It’s no exaggeration to say that the CIC is the engine of long-term economic prosperity in the Chi-Pitts mega-region.The CIC has a position of real prominence in the higher education community. It’s customary to joke that it represents the shared interests of the university football teams, but in fact I think the ‘mega regions’ framework suggests that it holds together for other reasons. Reasons that go far beyond academic peer groups, that are embedded in deeper social and economic relationships.
What's in Store: Defining the Opportunity for Shared Storage
What‟s in Store? Defining the OpportunityCenter for Library Initiatives for Collective Storage 23 May 2011 Constance Malpas Program Officer, OCLC Research
Roadmap • Shared print and the (re)organization of the library • Presidential perspectives on the future of HE • CIC: scoping the opportunity for cooperative print • Sourcing and scaling: poly-cooperative organizations
Shared print: books and boundaries • Cooperative print storage represents a strategic externalization of library operations • Enables a redefinition of the library ‘service bundle’ • Characterizing the value of cooperative print storage exclusively in terms of library space savings or institutional cost avoidance misses the point Shared infrastructure can transform the academic library, enabling a redirection of resource in support of a more distinctive service portfolio that maximizes institutional reputation and impact
Library „service bundle‟ (Lavoie, Dempsey) “An academic library is a bundle of information-related resources and services that a university has chosen to provide internally, rather than transact for them with external parties …Transaction costs help explain why academic libraries look the way they do today… As the pattern of transaction costs change, so too will the boundaries of the library” Brian Lavoie & Lorcan Dempsey “Rethinking the Boundaries of the Academic Library” OCLC Next Space 17 (January 2011): 16-17.[Shared print = a shift in the operational boundaries of the library]
As transaction costs fall, so do boundaries Core library operations are moving “outside” institutional boundaries cooperative cataloging ILL, resource sharing approval plans licensed content digital preservation . . . print management creating room for more distinctive library services
Externalization is a strategic choice In the opinion of university presidents, outsourcing campus services ranks highest among preferred strategies for cost reductionSource: Presidential Perspectives: the 2011 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College & University Presidents
Reorganizing the library system “Many academic libraries continue to maintain redundant and inefficient library operations, automating old workflows and resisting new combinations and outsourcing strategies to carry out the basic work. They are missing opportunities to take advantage of scale and network effects through aggregation and to move core functions and services to the cloud.” James G. Neal “Prospects for Systemic Change across Academic Libraries” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 46, no. 2 (March/April 2011)
Reconfiguring academic collections Shared print is not about “getting rid of books” or devaluing scholarly interactions with legacy print • Enabling a renewal and revitalization of the library‟s core service mission to the University • Redistributing the costs and benefits of stewardship across research library sector • Ensuring the long-term survivability of low-use, long-tail content for future generations of scholars
Fractures emerging in HE system • Among 956 university presidents surveyed, budget shortfalls topped the list of current concerns But the relative priority of funded activities differs by segment and sector, e.g. • Presidents of private research institutions are more concerned about the decline of support for the humanities (66%) than presidents of public research institutions (56%) • Institutional support for traditional local library infrastructure may become harder to justify at some public universities • This could have important consequences for CIC and shared print efforts in generalSource: Presidential Perspectives: the 2011 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College & University Presidents
Libraries as humanities laboratory Sure, but… • Infrastructure not supported by federal R&D dollars • An institutional cost-center that must be managed • Declining production of humanities PhDs means audience for traditional collection-centric service portfolio is smaller, less evenly distributed • Institutional reputation increasingly driven by scholarly productivity measures, success in sponsored research
In desperate times, desperate measures UC libraries aim to achieve $15M in cost reductions in 2011-2012 In this climate, shared print must deliver real impactSource: University of California Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee Library PlanningTask Force Interim Report, May, 2011 .
Zones of economic integration CIC is the HE/research engine of this economic mega-regionhttp://www.creativeclass.com/whos_your_city/maps/#Mega-Regions_of_North_America
A Master Plan for a mega-region “*Midwestern universities + work together on both regional and national agendas, merging library and research resources, and sharing curricula and instructional resources with faculty and students. Aggregating these spires of excellence by linking these institutions gives the Midwest region many of the world’s leading programs in a broad range of key knowledge areas.” (p. 37)
A snapshot of CIC library resources ~2M holdings „unique‟ to CIC ~5% of institutional collection on average ~70% of CIC holdings are relatively abundant in library system Combined resources of 3 largest CIC libraries sufficient to duplicate 2/3rds of individual member print coll‟ns N = 17M titles; 47M CIC holdingsOCLC Research. Based on WorldCat snapshot. Data current as of April 2011.
CIC investment in library storage ~84M vols in CIC libraries @ 4.25 / yr = $375M / yr? ~5M CIC vols in HathiTrust [~$310 M / yr ?] @.15 = $750K / yr ~11M vols in CIC library storage facilities @.86 = $9.5M / yr Aggregate CIC library storage = nearly $320M per year* Some part of this represents redundant expenditure*not accounted for in annual library operating budgets
Shared storage: what‟s it worth? Courant & Nielson (2010): high-density off-site 1/3 the cost of on-campus collections • Assumes off-site collection remains low-use • Erosion of aggregate print holdings may increase demand on shared print (storage) collection • Increased reliance on digital surrogates may held moderate demand for print • CIC can maximize value of shared print storage by leveraging investments in HathiTrust
Defining terms: you say oyster… • You say: ~84M volumes in CIC libraries [~10M in storage?] We see: 17M discrete titles held by CIC libraries • You say: ~5M CIC volumes (6%) digitized in HathiTrust We see: 4M CIC titles (24%) digitized in HathiTrust since many titles in the CIC aggregate collection are held by multiple member libraries, those 4M titles represent between 4M and 50M print volumes in CIC institutions: I say…
Economy of scale“That’s a lot of oysters” [photo by Paul Miller]
Economies of scale in the CICWhat is the impact of 6M digitized books?For open scholarship, research reputation, collaborative economies of scale?Source: 2007-2010 CIC Strategic Priorities Impact Report Card
33% or more of individual CIC library collections are duplicated in HathiTrust 60% 50% % of Titles Duplicated in HathiTrust 40% 30% 20% 10% In context of shared print planning, this overlap represents significant opportunity 0% 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 Titles in LibraryOCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshots. Data current as of May 2011.
Sizing up the opportunity for CIC shared print Online Availability of HathiTrust Titles held in print by CIC libraries Full-view Search-onlyCollective asset defined asaggregate digitized resource N = 4,090,405 titles 3,348,495 titles 82% Shared print storage provides 741,910 titles cost-effective alternative to 18% local management of these resourcesOCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshots. Data current as of May 2011.
Reductio ad absurdum: common good is that which every member holds Online Availability of HathiTrust Titles held in print by all 13 members of CIC Full-view Search-only N = 66,402 titles 63,291 titles 95% 3,111 titles Represents at least 863K items in CIC libraries, 5% as much as $3.6M in total library print storage costs and 54K linear feet of shelving across CICOCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshots. Data current as of May 2011.
Why all this emphasis on HathiTrust in context of print storage? • Affordances of online access -- even search-only access -– can help moderate demand for print, facilitating transfer to off-site storage • Scale of HathiTrust as a digital preservation resource fundamentally alters the balance between libraries and e- content providers • Scope of HathiTrust collection, expansive coverage of monographic literature in the humanities, is a critical component of emerging cyber-infrastructure
Shared print storage options in the CIC • Leverage existing storage inventory in 10+ CIC facilities as shared preservation collection • Opportunity: low barrier to implementation; Challenge: inventory not optimized for shared service provision; preservation/access value highly variable • Look to other regional partners (UC RLF, ReCAP, etc.) for cooperative print provision • Opportunity: maximize network effects – RLF alone provides coverage of 80% of CIC digitized titles Challenge: networks of trust not yet in place • Hybrid solution – maximize reliance on existing infrastructure while deliberately constructing new cooperative print resource • Opportunity: maximizes participation Challenge: difficult to achieve economies of scale
Universities are poly-cooperative organizations Potential for many overlapping shared print networks • Peer group: CIC, HathiTrust • Regional: ASERL, CARLI, Minitex, PALCI, WEST etc • Disciplinary: NN/LM, FDLP, Law Who‟s to say which „group interest‟ will prevail for any given institution? In the near- to medium-term, library system(s) will need to accommodate multiple shared print arrangements
Scaling up: shared storage & network disclosure OCLC Print Archives pilot project (2010-2011) • Leveraging existing bibliographic infrastructure to support disclosure of print archiving commitments • MARC 583 (Action Note) in local holdings record provides item-level granularity • New institution symbols used to distinguish print archives • Group Access Catalogs (GAC) support discovery, resource sharing • Aggregated data = evidence base for decision support
Print Archives Pilot timelineRecruit participants, assemble teams(Oct – Nov 2010) Assess gaps in current infrastructure (Dec – Jan 2011) Draft framework (Feb – Mar 2011) Group review (April – May 2011) Test implementation (Jun – Jul 2011)
Thanks for your attention. Comments, Questions? Constance Malpas email@example.com @ConstanceM