Reconfiguring Academic MLACAdvisory Board Collections: the role of23 February 2011 shared print repositories Constance Malpas Program Officer, OCLC Research
Roadmap • The Big Shift - why shared print, why now? • Emerging infrastructure - shared repositories • Shared print service provision - opportunities, challenges • Minnesota in perspective - maximizing MLAC value
What once made us great no longer matters Declining return on assets Brand loyalty on the decline A workforce that‟s lost its passion Fewer leaders, with a precarious hold on the top Digital infrastructure is driving change Sound familiar?
Shared Print: what‟s the problem? Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaborative research vs. “warehouse of books” Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate, capacity to support print preservation As transaction costs for managing legacy print collections decrease, libraries will seek to externalize print operations to shared repositories
Boundary work Shared print is a prime example: a core operation that is moving “outside” institutional boundaries University of California Orbis Cascade WEST CIC Hathi Print CAVAL, UKRR, JURA etc.
Shared Print: OCLC Research Active portfolio of work since FY2007: • North American library storage capacity (2007) • ~70M volumes in storage; further capital investment unlikely • Policy requirements shared print repositories (2009) • critical need: disclosure of print preservation commitments • Leveraging infrastructure: MARC21 583 Action Note (2009) • copy-level retention, condition statements are required • Cloud-sourcing research collections (2010) • mass digitization of monographs accelerates shift to shared print
Growth of US library storage infrastructure 140,000,000 Aggregate off-site capacity has increased exponentially 120,000,000Built Capacity in Volume Equivalents (2007) + 70 million volumes 68 high- 100,000,000 density facilities 80,000,000 60,000,000 this trend is unlikely to continue 40,000,000 20,000,000 2 high-density facilities 0 1982 1986 1987 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Date of Original Construction Derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)
“No room, no room” in MLAC (and elsewhere) Total contributions from UMTC From other contributorsDerived from MLAC Statistical Overview, 2010.
Projected growth of HathiTrust Digital Library June 2010 - June 2020 Growth in Linear (Series1) volumes Growth in Linear (Series2) titles 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 * 25,000,000 Library of Congress Harvard University Library in constant 2008 volumes 20,000,000 in constant 2008 volumes 15,000,000 * 10,000,000 5,000,000 0OCLC Research. June 2010
Aggregate preservation resource: a black box? Of 68 storage facilities identified in Payne (OCLC, 2007): Titles in „shared print‟ collections less widely held? • 2 are visible in WorldCat 100% today: UC NRLF & UC SRLF 90% 80% More widely held 70% • Proxies: CRL, LC? 60% 50% 40% 30% Less widely held 20% 10% 0% Among 9 ASERL storage SRLF NRLF CRL AZ State UC Irvine Rutgers (ZAS) (ZAP) (AZS) (CUI) (NJR) collections profiled in 2004: <25 libraries 25-99 libraries 100-499 libraries >499 libraries • 80% of monographic titles held in a single storage facility
Shared Print value proposition(s) 1) Ensures long-term survivability of „last copies‟ and low- use print journals and books Extension of traditional repository function; limited motivation to subsidize 2) Enables reduction in redundant inventory for moderately and widely-held titles, facilitating redirection of library resources toward more distinctive service portfolio Strategic reserve provides a hedge against disruption in the marketplace, rapid fluctuations in scholarly value & function of print; provides tangible value to participant
Premise of Cloud Library project Emergence of large scale shared print and digital repositories creates an opportunity for strategic externalization of traditional repository function • Reduce total costs of preserving scholarly record • Enable reallocation of institutional resources • Support renovation of library service portfolio • Create new business relationships among libraries A bridge strategy to guarantee access and preservation of long tail, low use collections during ongoing p- to e- transition
Shared infrastructure: books & bits Academic off-site storage 0101010101010 101010101010125 years 0101010101010 15 months 1010101010101 0101010101010+70M vols. +5M vols. HathiTrustWill this intersection create new operational efficiencies? For which libraries? Under what conditions? How soon and with what impact?
A global change in the library environment 60% Academic print book collection already substantially 50% duplicated in mass digitized book corpus% of Titles in Local Collection June 2010 40% Median duplication: 31% 30% 20% 10% June 2009 Median duplication: 19% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120OCLC Research. June 2010 Rank in 2008 ARL Investment Index
A mirror of the academic print collection Distribution of Titles in HathiTrust Digital Library by Subject and Copyright Status (June 2010) Communicable Diseases & Misc. Health Facilities, Nursing Physical Education & Recreation Medicine By Body System Preclinical Sciences Chemistry Computer Science Psychology Medicine By Discipline Performing Arts Anthropology MathematicsHealth Professions & Public Health Agriculture Biological Sciences Medicine Geography & Earth Sciences Physical Sciences Public Domain Law Education In Copyright Music Foreshadows a shift in Sociology Library Science, Reference Political Science Government Documents Engineering & Technology Art & Architecture humanities scholarship? Philosophy & Religion Business & Economics Unknown Classification History & Auxiliary SciencesLanguage, Linguistics & Literature 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 N = 3.64M titles Titles / EditionsC. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)
An opportunity and a challenge An opportunity to >50% of titles are ‘widely held’ rationalize holdings, but… library print supply chain will be needed for some time >80% of titles areOCLC Research. June 2010 in copyright
Mass-digitized books in print repositories ~3.5M titles 3,500,000 ~75% of mass digitized corpus is ‘backed up’ 3,000,000 in one or more shared print repositories ~2.5M 2,500,000 Unique Titles 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Mass digitized books in Hathi digital repository Mass digitized books in shared print repositories
Prediction Within the next 5-10 years, focus of shared print archiving and service provision will shift to monographic collections • large scale service hubs will provide low-cost print management on a subscription basis; • reducing local expenditure on print operations, releasing space for new uses and facilitating a redirection of library resources; • enabling rationalization of aggregate print collection and renovation of library service portfolio Mass digitization of retrospective print collections will drive this transition
Shared print service provision . . .WHAT WILL IT TAKE?
Shared Print provision: capacity varies% of HathiTrust titles duplicated in print repositoryOCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.
Shared print marketplace: who has the edge?C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)
Or, reconfigure resource to maximize valueC. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)
UMTC as Shared Print Supplier? UMTC could provide just-in-case print fulfillment for almost 30% of titles in the HathiTrust Digital Library 32% 27%OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.
Sizing up a Supplier: the 76% solution 738,556 MSU Mankato (MNM) holdings in WorldCat; 1.2M volumes Represents at least 1.9 miles of library shelving @ MSU [not held by UTMC] ~213K duplicated in HathiTrust Digital LibraryOCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.
Management Perspective: How Much is Enough? Shared Print service must deliver • Space recovery equal to “one floor” at outset • Volume reduction equal to X years of print acquisitions • Cost not to exceed current storage options • Minimize (visible) disruption in operations If management of mass-digitized monographs could be externalized to large scale providers today: average space recovery of 20,000 ASF per ARL library cost avoidance of ~$1M for new storage module cost avoidance of $1M per year for on-site management
Staff Perspective: What‟s Good Enough Shared Print service provision must equal or exceed • Turnaround/delivery from local storage (<2 days) • Local loan period • Local access/availability guarantee, ability to recall etc • Discoverability of local resource Local retention mandated when title held by <10 libraries No one mentioned . . . Home delivery option direct to patron Acceptable loss rate repository viability Penalties for late return impact on other clients
Implications: Shared Print A small number of repositories may suffice for „global‟ shared print provision of low-use monographs Generic service offer is needed to achieve economies of scale, build network; uniform T&C Fuller disclosure of storage collections is needed to judge capacity of current infrastructure, identify potential hubs Service hubs will need to shape inventory to market needs; more widely duplicated, moderately used titles If extant providers aren‟t motivated to change service model, a new organization may be needed
Example 1: MLAC as collection of record One of 26K volumes MSU Moorhead has deposited in MLAC • a relatively scarce edition, 13 holdings in WorldCat • 17 editions published between 1910 and 1960, a ‘popular classic’
Example 1: MLAC as collection of record Available in full-view from HathiTrust • Satisfactory surrogate for at least some use cases • May reduce demand for MLAC copy, improving chances of survival • Retain in MLAC as state-wide preservation asset
Example 2. MLAC as surrogate print sourceOne of the 800K titles UMTC has on deposit in MLAC• this edition held by more than 2000 WorldCat libraries, including 33 in MN• low network demand; 42 WCRS requests since 2007, none in Minnesota
Example 2. MLAC as surrogate print source In copyright, search-only version available from HathiTrust • end of the value chain? • not quite . . .
Example 2. MLAC as surrogate print source • searching in this text can tell me if the book is really the one I want • restores a level of browsing access • can moderate ‘justMLAC can offer partner libraries the opportunity to winnow checking’ demand from local holdings safely, for thousands of low-use titles MLAC, keeping delivering real value to library network costs down operational
Shared print in perspective . . .LOCAL CONTEXT
Academic libraries in Minnesota: a common trajectory, different timelines Oberlin Non-ARL academic Community College ARL 80% 70% The next few years are critical 60% Jan „12 Mar „13 50% *Apr „12 * * *„13 May 40% 30% 20% Where is the regional infrastructure 10% to support this change? 0%OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.
Diversity of educational mandates Less reliant on traditional library infrastructureOCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Survey, 2008 .
Circulation per FTE student is on a decline Declining ROA?OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 1992-2000.
A long term, system-wide trend US Academic Library Expenditures vs. Total Spending on Post-Secondary Education $400,000,000 3.00% $350,000,000 2.50% $300,000,000 2.00% $250,000,000 $200,000,000 1.50% $150,000,000 $6.8 billion in 2008 1.00% $100,000,000 0.50% $50,000,000 $0 0.00% Aggregate US Spending on Post-Secondary Education US Library Operating Exp. as % of Ed. SpendingOCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.
Shift in provision of higher education Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions in the United States by Source of Funding Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions (derived from NCES data) in the United States by Source of Funding 3,000 No. of Institutions 2,500 2,000 For P 1,500 Public 1,000 Privat Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions 500 in the United States by Source of Funding (derived from NCES data) 0 3,000 No. of Institutions 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 2,000 For Profit 00 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0 1,500 Public 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1,000 Private Not-for-ProfitOCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. 500 0
Increasing privatization of higher education Academic Libraries in Minnesota by Control & Funding Public Private 100 90 80 48% 48% 56% 57% 70 60 50 40 52% 52% 44% 43% 30 20 10 0 2000 2004 2006 2008OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 2000 , 2004, 2006 and 2008 .
Minnesota: the big freeze $370M cut in higher education spending for FY12-FY14 Impact on MINITEX? MLAC ~3% of MINITEX budgethttp://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/11HF130.pdf8 February 2011
Moving forward: maximizing MLAC value Leverage MINITEX „brand‟ as resource-sharing partner to build confidence in MLAC as regional source of surrogate supply • FY10 saw decline in request activity; might centralization of (some) supply help reduce overhead? Life-cycle costs of managing print in MLAC less than a third of costs on campus • is total value of MLAC collection being realized? MLAC serves diverse clientele of HE, public and private libraries, some of which may opt to „outsource‟ print management services • will an existing partners help model a new set of behaviors?
A closing thought If we don‟t demonstrate a little backbone developing shared print solutions the future of legacy print may look something like this A swift end of life or a scandalous spectacle?
Thanks for your attention. Comments, Questions? Constance Malpas email@example.com