A particular vantage point on shared print initiatives – not as intrinsically good cooperative enterprises but as strategic choice in response to changing scholarly environment, in which print no longer attracts much attention, is not considered a primary indicator of research or teaching excellence.
Canada is the same, and different. Some noteworthy aspects. In the UK, BL aggressively pursuing service portfolio for academic institutions – partly to replace income lost from BLDSC. In Canada, a focus on national bibliography. In the US, limited mandate to collect beyond needs of Congress. In Finland, direct engagement with university libraries including National Repository Library services, national infrastructure for institutional/research repositories etc…Recall conversation with LAC staff – Alberta picked up exchange collection that LAC no longer wanted to manageRead somewhere that entire Canadian academic library purchasing power equal to that of California – but maybe used more effectively? viz. benefits of CRKN licensing accrue to 72 libraries, 650K students and researchers. Including all COPPUL members, I think…COPPUL, CREPUQ, OCUL, CAUL reciprocal borrowing – making the collective collection real, reducing library expendituresHow may universities in Canada overall? AUCC has 95 members. Cf. NECS counts about 3000 colleges and universities in the US. Univ education organized at provincial (not national) level.COPPUL=4 provinces, 21 universities
Spending on education increasing; proportional spending on academic libraries is decreasing.This is not necessarily a sign of decreasing relevance, but it does represent a shift in attention. Not sure how this translates to Canada – not able to identify comparable statistical sources, evidently not routinely compiled. However, post-secondary educational attainment in Canada is high and strong public university system credited with this.Increasing drive to internationalization in recent years, partly in an effort to attract more tuition-paying students. Marketing educational value of Canadian institutions a new focus.
Changing pattern in library investment reflects a shift in scholarly attention. We are in the midst of a progressive but dramatic phase change.
Distribution of titles held by COPPUL libraries. From Alberta to Athabasca, a wide range of institutional mandates; a similarly diverse set of library service portfolios.NB – collections may be larger than reflected here if WorldCat holdings not current/comprehensive. Reflects WorldCat holdings as of February 2010.
Report issued in September 2009.
JSTOR dark archive project: $1.7 MCan take 2-3 libraries to build comprehensive run of even ‘core’ journals, so creating 2 to 4 dark archives could require contribution from 6 to 12 institutions. And for unverified shelter-in-place collections, Yano model suggests 14 to 20+ copies of each volume may be needed.
The value of a shared print offer for academic libraries is not dependent on collection size; despite wide variations in the size and scope of academic collections within COPPUL, members would benefit equally from a cooperative archiving arrangement with eitherAlberta or UBC.NB includes in copyright and public domain titles
Cloud Library project is examining how the combination of these large preservation repositories can support a transformation in the research library environment. We are especially interested in the intersection of shared print and shared digital content because we expect that once mass digitized content is made available via GBS or another provider, many academic libraries will be encouraged to downsize local print holdings. We believe the combined capacity of shared print and digital collections will enable libraries to manage the transition from a mostly print environment to a mostly digital environment, reducing unnecessary redundancy in holdings while minimizing the risk of loss or reduced availability.
Coppul 17 march 2010 (malpas) final
Constance Malpas<br />Program Officer<br />OCLC Research<br />Managing Print as a Cooperative Resource: Opportunities & Challenges<br />COPPUL<br />17 March 2010<br />
Shared Print in a ‘System-wide’ Perspective<br />Efforts to consolidate legacy print resources in cooperative archives are part of a broader pattern in library operations<br />Externalization of functions that no longer deliver distinctive institutional impact, for which cost-effective alternatives exist (or can be devised) <br /> E.g., cooperative cataloging, selection (approval plans), shelf-ready titles, knowledge-base management, consortial licensing<br />
Shared Print in Service of What Ambition?<br />Scalar shift<br />
Oh, Canada!<br /><ul><li>Limited national infrastructure – LAC focused primarily on heritage collections; CISTI revising document supply service offer
Robust provincial networks – reciprocal borrowing, consortial purchasing maximizes value of aggregate library resource
CNSLP/CRKN joint licensing of 2,200 e-journals for 72 libraries</li></li></ul><li>Investment in Academic Libraries<br />Source: US Dept of Education, NCES, Academic Libraries Survey, 1977-2008<br />
Shift in Educational Resourcing<br />Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions in the United States by Source of Funding<br />
Shift in Pattern of Library Investment<br />Declining library investment in preservation<br />Source: US Dept of Education, NCES, Academic Libraries Survey, 1977-2008<br />
Investment in Academic Print Collections<br />You are here<br />Source: US Dept of Education, NCES, Academic Libraries Survey, 1998-2008<br />
Print Preservation Risk Factors<br /><ul><li>Preservation mandate tacit, under-resourced</li></ul>Research libraries face increasing burden of responsibility <br /><ul><li>Uncertainties about digital preservation status of licensed content</li></ul>Increases dependency on print preservation<br /><ul><li>Regional distribution of library resources not optimized for shared print provisioning</li></ul>Desired redundancy within and beyond consortium <br /><ul><li>Fragmented organizational and technical infrastructure</li></li></ul><li>A microcosm of the higher education system<br />Research General academic Career and convenience<br />Increasing preservation expectations<br />Decreasing incentive to contribute<br />
COPPUL: Aggregate Library Resource<br />~7.8 million titles in COPPUL member libraries<br />~17 million COPPUL holdings in WorldCat<br />Approximate figures based on WorldCat snapshot January 2010 <br />
The challenge …<br />What model of ‘shared print’ will deliver equal benefit to Alberta and Athabasca?<br /><ul><li>Maximize space savings; enable reallocation of resource
Benefit greatest number of COPPUL members</li></ul>Dual-format titles a sensible place to start<br /><ul><li>Scholarly interest has shifted to online resources
Joint-licensing of core e-resource titles = shared interest</li></li></ul><li>Journals: ‘What to Withdraw’ (Ithaka, 2009)<br />Framework for assessing preservation risks, proposes criteria for identifying print journals suitable for withdrawal<br /><ul><li>optimal number of copies (2 – 4 in dark archives)
reliability of digital access (quality, business continuity)
Image-intensive titles an excluded class (retain in print) </li></ul>Print as ‘back-stop’ to digital preservation <br />Retention horizon of 20-100 years, depending on digital preservation status<br />Decision support tool for JSTOR titles<br />
Average library holdings per title (in print)= ~600
Significant reduction in inventory possible at minimal risk
Dark archives already in place</li></ul>Multiple dim archive efforts (CRL, MLAC, FCLD . . .)<br /><ul><li>Portico = ~10,000 e-journal titles, including back-files
Hathi Trust = ~110,000 digitized journal titles </li></li></ul><li>Journals: Limitations<br /><ul><li>Hybrid model (dark archives + diminishing number of copies ‘in the wild’) not feasible for many scholarly journals
Est. 30-40% of refereed journal literature still print only
Dark archives very costly to build (JSTOR archive=$1.7M)
Scholarly societies lack resources to subsidize
System-wide inventory inadequate to meet optimal duplication thresholds for many titles
Average holdings per journal title in WorldCat = 7</li></li></ul><li>94% of JSTOR collection – more than 1000 titles – held in print format by more than 100 institutions<br />Duplication in Print Holdings: JSTOR titles <br />Difficult cases (titles that may represent validation challenges) are relatively few: ~15 titles<br />Data current as of September 2008<br />
Duplication in E- Holdings: Portico Titles <br />66% of Portico collection – more than 2700 titles – ‘held’ by >100 institutions<br />24% of Portico collection – 1000 titles – ‘held’ by <50 institutions<br />Data current as of September 2008<br />
Books: What to Retain ?<br /><ul><li>Format transition for monographs key to redistribution of library resource, renovation of service portfolio
7-8 million mass-digitized books from academic libraries
5 million archived by Hathi Trust; ~3 million unique titles
20-30% of titles in most North American academic libraries already replicated by Hathi</li></li></ul><li>Hathi Growth Trajectory – 12 months<br />Equal in scope to University of Alberta (UAB)<br />Equal in size to median ARL collection (2008)<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
Hathi Trust: Subject Distribution<br />N=3.2 million titles <br />Humanities content (literature, history) dominates – presages shift in scholarly practice?<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
Books: Opportunity<br /><ul><li>~1.36 million mass-digitized titles held by COPPUL members</li></ul>collection the size of University of Saskatchewan library<br /><ul><li>Preserved in Hathi digital repository</li></ul>opportunity to leverage cooperative infrastructure<br /><ul><li>~88K titles in the public domain </li></ul>potential test-bed for shared print archive?<br />
Dual-format Monographs: Potential Impact <br />N=1.3M titles<br />N=325K titles<br />N=107K titles<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
What’s it Worth? Recoverable space, cost avoidance<br />7.5 Km in recoverable shelf space<br />$1.5M not spent on new storage construction<br />$ 350K p/a not spent on facilities, upkeep <br />6 Km in recoverable shelf space<br />$1.2M not spent on new storage construction<br />$ 290K p/a not spent on facilities, upkeep <br />Data current as of January 2010<br />
Books: Limitations<br />Uncertainties about outcome of GBS settlement <br /><ul><li>who will provide electronic access to in-copyright content?</li></ul>Distribution of print supply (preservation backup) not optimized for shared print provision <br /><ul><li>Will Alberta or UBC shift archival copy to storage?</li></ul>‘Sweet spot’ of duplication is relatively small <br /><ul><li>50% of titles in Hathi archive are held by <25 libraries</li></li></ul><li>Distribution by WorldCat Library Holdings<br />N=3.2 million titles <br />
Implications<br />If space savings is primary goal of COPPUL initiative, near-term opportunity to consolidate public domain titles in regional print archive will benefit all members<br /><ul><li>UBC and Alberta hold most of what is needed</li></ul>If preservation of the scholarly record and a renovation of the library service portfolio is desired, shared print agreement extending to in-copyright digitized books will deliver maximum benefit<br /><ul><li>Prospective effort lays groundwork for licensing agreement</li></li></ul><li>Competition for Resources, Attention<br />Electronic<br />Strong business model<br />Critical mass<br />Part of library platform<br />Centralized<br />Distributed<br />Experimental<br />Goodwill vs. governance<br />Low network visibility<br />Print<br />
Attributes of a Trusted Print Repository<br />Transparency: explicit preservation commitment , policies<br />Accountability: governance mechanism, exit strategy<br />Scale: critical mass of content (for which there is demand)<br />Sustainability: business model that maximizes participation<br />Getting it done vs. getting it right<br />
A Tiered Approach to Shared Print Service<br />Accommodate differing institutional mandates<br /><ul><li>Regional preservation repositories
leverage existing offsite storage holdings as de facto archive (BARD) – maximize preservation value by elevating visibility of resource
strategic development of cooperative archive; focus on materials with a known audience within and beyond COPPUL (UBC) – maximize service value, cultivate reliance on archive; entails some operational constraints
transaction-based pricing; high-deductible, low premium (insurance)</li></li></ul><li>In conclusion . . . <br />An extraordinary opportunity for COPPUL:<br /><ul><li>Leverage diversity of institutional mandates, robust consortial infrastructure to build new business model for collection management
Use group purchasing power to maximize influence on vendors to meet digital preservation standards; progressively reduce burden on print archives
Disclose regional capacity more effectively; strengthen international print archiving efforts</li></li></ul><li>Questions, Comments?<br />firstname.lastname@example.org<br />Tel. 650-287-2131<br />OCLC Research Activities: http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/swo.htm<br />Go raibh mile maithagat<br />
Resources<br />OCLC Research:<br /><ul><li>Library Storage Facilities In North America (L. Payne) (2007)