Good afternoon. My name is Jim Michalko from OCLC Research. Thank you for inviting me to be part of the symposium.Before we begin I wish to acknowledge the tragedy that happened on March 11, 2011 to this nation. My colleagues and I have watched with admiration the resolve of the Japanese people to care for one another and recover and rebuild. I salute you and the citizens of Japan. Now let me introduce myself and the topic for today’s symposium.
I work for OCLC and approach this topic from the viewpoint I get working with an organization that has a global scope while still serving as the national bibliographic infrastructure for the USA. You probably know us best for the large union catalog that we maintain called WorldCat.
TheWorldCat database has been creating efficiencies in library workflow management since 1971.Two months ago was the 40th anniversary of WorldCat.Today, WorldCat contains more than 236 million records and more than 1.7 billion location listings. And it is becoming more global in scope.
I am afraid these titles are not very interesting for a Japanese audience. They are mostly English language versions of Japanese imprints published by Kodansha International, the English-language imprint, of Kodansha Limited which recently closed. The topics are Japanese music, history, Hiroshima, prints, Buddhism, Honda and the film Okuribito. I’m sorry to say that this list perpetuates some English-speaker stereotypes of Japan. One of my colleagues in OCLC Research produced this list. Let me say a little bit about my work and my perspective.
Will read the slide. I am pleased to say that OCLC has had a long relationship with Waseda University Libraries and that Keio University is the first Japanese member of the Research Partnership. This work gives me a particular point of view.
I am very sensitive that “What you see depends on where you sit”. And I want to be explicit about my view. (This is me with a group of OCLC Research colleagues rafting the South Fork of the American River in California. Me in the front and Roy Tennant in the rear as the guide. What he saw and I saw were very different.)
What I see is based on the what is happening in the United States and informed by developments in Western Europe. Because we work on behalf of many libraries we try to have a view of libraries as a large interdependent system. I do not work in a library but I think our job is to inform future library directions and provide leadership as well as support. I think the biggest challenge for research and academic libraries in our networked world is how they can directly connect their activities and services to the mission and success of their institution. At last month’s membership meeting of the Association of Research Libraries in the US this point was made by the president of one of the largest state University systems in America.
John Lombardi, the president of the Louisiana State University System, a system that has ten campuses in the state with the largest having nearly 29,000 students told the library adminstrators:Will read the slide one bullet at a time. This point of view is directly related to the shared print topic of the symposium.These are private notes not part of the talk:John V. Lombardi, president of the Louisiana State University system, told librarians that they shouldn’t rush to be the first to digitize everything and invest in every new technology. “Everybody underestimates the cost of innovation,” he said. “Instead of rushing in and participating in a game where you don’t have the muscle, you want to stand back” and wait for the right moment.Ever blunt, Mr. Lombardi used humor to make his point. When people ask him for money, he said, his first question is, What will that project do to make the university more competitive? “If you can’t persuade me that the work you’re doing is going to make us more famous, we’re not going to be interested in investing in you,” he said. “Is that wise and profound and good? No. It’s stupid. But that’s the way it is.”His concluding comment: “The football team is allowed to run a deficit of $3- to $7-million. And you’re not.”
BecauseWill read the slide textThere are many reasons why it is time for libraries to act and manage their existing print inventories collaboratively.
Will read the slide text bullet by bullet as they appear after each click. Let me briefly give you evidence for each of these.
This chart shows that in the US the shift to electronic resources is almost complete. The majority of academic library expenditures will be for electronic content within a year and the percentage will continue to increase.
This chart shows the percentage of materials spending on electronic resources by the members of the Association of Research Libraries for the most recent period available. You can see that the majority are scattered well above 50% of their spending.In fact about 73% of ARL university libraries are spending in excess of 50% on electronic resources. It was about 61% in 2007-2008. The other thing to observe here is how few libraries there are that are committed to spending on the continuing acquisition of print materials. Click There is a shrinking pool of libraries with the mission to sustain print preservation as a core operation. In the US that is certainly 25 or fewer libraries.
And while spending on electronic resources increases, the materials on our shelves are not being used. In this OCLC Research study that looked at 20 years of circulation among all the libraries in the State of Ohio it took only 6.5% of the materials to account for 80% of the circulation.
The research project also looked at circulation over that period by subject. It is very very low. For instance the highest demand materials in the arts circulated about 4 times in twenty years. The science and technology materials about twice in twenty years. The materials on the shelves is not being used.
The books that do not circulate are still being substantially duplicated across the collection. The average number of copies purchased in the system over the last 35 years has stayed at 4.5 copies. We could be relying on those duplicate copies instead of storing them on our shelves.
While we have been duplicating one another’s collections we have also been putting more and more of our inventory into off-site storage repositories. At many major universities nearly 50% of their collections are in these storage repositories. This is happening because it is expensive to store and preserve a book that is rarely or never used locally. A recent good estimate put the annual cost at $4.25 per volume. We can’t afford to do that any longer.
Although there are a few institutions who can afford it and have invested large amounts in the future of local print collections. The University of Chicago already has 8.5 million volumes in their library and just opened a new library extension that provides dense storage and robotic retrieval that will let them keep an additional 3.5 million volumes on-site. They are one of a very small number of institutions who can do this. They believe it distinguishes them as an institution and makes them even more competitive as a globally-ranked university. They will be one of the places that stores the physical copies of the materials that have been digitized in the many mass digitization projects. Everyone knows about the Google Books Library digitization project and the legal obstacles to making that huge aggregation accessible. Right now in the US the most important mass digitization activity is the Hathi Trust where many of the Google library scanning partners are placing their digitized files into a centrally managed aggregation.
The mission of the Hathi Trust digital library is to build a reliable and increasingly comprehensive digital archive of library materials converted from print that is co-owned and managed by a number of academic institutions. They have nearly ten million total volumes in the aggregation and nearly 2.7M are in the public domain. Only a very small percentage are Japanese language titles about 184,000. I’ll say more about this in a moment.
For the last few years we have studied the Hathi Trust book corpus in the context of system-wide print holdings and have found that a significant part of the average academic library is already substantially duplicated. This scatter chart provide a simple visualization of an important pattern that this project has revealed: that is, that the risks and opportunities associated delivering digital texts rather than physical are uniformly distributed across the research library community as a whole. This is a picture of the US ARL membership that shows the level of duplication between individual library collections and the mass digitized book collection in Hathi. Over the course of this project, we have seen the rate of duplication between locally held print and mass digitized books increase steadily and significantly. In June of this year, an average of 36% of monographic titles in an academic library were duplicated in the Hathi repository. (over 50% for some institutions) In real terms, this means that rate of digital replication is exceeding the pace of growth in monographic acquisitions in most academic institutions since monographic acquisitions typically grow at about 2% per year in research libraries.We project that soon many academic libraries will have the majority of their collections duplicated in digital form withinHathi AND replicated in physical form in the remote storage repositories that have been filling up over the last decades. These makes the local inventory much less valuable; certainly less valuable than the cost to keep it on the shelves locally.Library directors will be expected to respond to questions about how an increasingly redundant local print collection is serving the educational and research mission of the parent institution. We need to be preparing for a world in which just-in-time, print on demand delivery is an option for a large share of the retrospective book collection. In practice we often say that the faculty won’t let us operate in this new way. They won’t permit the books to leave the shelves, they won’t rely on digital formats and they won’t accept delivery of physical materials from a remote supplier. However in the US this may be changing.
May not use this slide. Need to understand whether this will be of interest to the audience. Before I talk about faculty attitudes to shared print I thought it might interest this audience to see that the number of Japanese language titles and Japanese imprints in Hathi libraries has nearly doubled in the last year. As these figures grow, the value of this shared infrastructure will increase for the institutions in this audience.(Remember US holdings for East Asian titles are generally very low – fewer than five ARL libraries hold any particular title – so the preservation value of Hathi for US institutions alone is significant.)About 70% of the Japanese language content in Hathi comes from the University of Michigan; most of the remaining 30% has been contributed by the University of California.
May not use this slide. Need to understand whether this will be of interest to the audience. Despite significant growth in size of Japanese language corpus most of the material is in copyright and inaccessible. This partly due to the fact that much of the Japanese language content in Hathi is relatively recent (20/21st century literature). This is especially notable given that in the HT collection as a whole, which currently stands at more than 5M unique titles, more than 20% of the titles are classed as public domain under US copyright law.
Returning to faculty attitudes…The Ithaka Research group in the US is a strategic consulting and research service that focuses on the transformation of scholarship and teaching and focuses on how academic work will change. They have been doing a survey of faculty attitudes about the library for many years. This is data from April 2010.They asked how important is it that your library provides these functions:Gateway: the library is the starting point for locating information for my researchArchive: the library archives, preserves and keeps track of resourcesBuyer: the library pays for resources I need from journals to electronic databasesTeaching supportResearch supportAnd the most important thing to faculty members was that the library buys and pays for the resources they need. The other traditional roles are still valued by more than 50% of faculty although it was a surprise to me that more did not emphasize teaching and research support. And while faculty want libraries to buy they are also becoming less certain that the local library needs to be an archive.
Fewer faculty agree that is crucial for their library to maintain hard-copy collections if there are reliable electronic versions available. This research suggests that by 2015 less than one-third of faculty will think this is important for their own university library.
I started out by saying why it is time for a new shared print approach to managing our physical collections. The reasons to move are compelling. Shared print is not just a trend, it’s a response to a number of specific and increasingly urgent challenges facing academic libraries. Will read each bullet as clicked. How will this get done? What approaches are possible? What actions need to be taken by what organizations? I think we are close to having the components of a new system in place.
We have libraries that are increasingly motivated to depend on external inventory to supply their constituents rather than maintain their costly local inventory. These libraries are emerging as consumers. We also have various groups who could act as providers. The existing print repositories could redefine themselves as suppliers becoming active service agents rather than warehouses. There are groups of libraries making commitments to retain certain titles and creating distributed print archives and there are individual institutions who are prepared to supply print on demand (think about the University of Chicago commitment to print; if they explicitly offered to provide physical copies to others for a fee they would be a powerful print supplier) and we know that there are vendors who are building print on demand businesses. What this constitutes is a market trying to emerge. For that to happen there needs to be a business infrastructure – the suppliers need to set service levels and prices – and there needs to be a way to aggregate and funnel demand from the emerging library consumers to these suppliers. This infrastructure and demand aggregation doesn’t yet exist but could be accelerated over the next few years. And then we could confidently move to this new form of print management and provision. This is my point of view but there are those who are actually working at an institutional level to make this happen that need to be heard from including some US colleagues who will now be speaking to you.
As I said what you see depends on where you stand – now it’s time to get into the details. Thank you for your attention.
The imperative to manage print collections collaboratiely
The imperative to manageprint collectionscollaboratielyJames MichalkoVice PresidentOCLC Research Library PartnershipOCLC Research, San Mateo, CaliforniaWith thanks to Lorcan Dempsey and Constance Malpas in OCLC Research
Introduction • OCLC viewpoint – non-profit membership organization serving 72,035 libraries in 171 countries • Serves as the USA national bibliographic infrastructureThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 2with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
WorldCat today 236.7 million records 1.7+ billion holdings 26 July 2011The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 3with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Multilingual WorldCat June 30,2010 Percentage of records Total Records 197 m for non-English materials English 83.7m German 25.2m French 18.1m Spanish 8.2 m Chinese Italian 5.1 m 3.5 m 57.5% Dutch 3.3 m Japanese 3.0 m 2010 Latin 3.0 m Russian 3.0 mThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 4with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Top 10 titles published in Japan, by holdings • Kōdansha. 1993. Japan: an illustrated encyclopedia. Tokyo: Kodansha [1,276 holdings] • Kōdansha. 1983. Kodansha encyclopedia of Japan. Tokyo: Kodansha [1,267 holdings] • Malm, William P. 1959. Japanese music and musical instruments. Tokyo: C.E. Tuttle Co [1,153 holdings] • Runkle, Scott F. 1976. An introduction to Japanese history. Tokyo: International Society for Educational Information Press [1,140 holdings] • Lifton, Betty Jean. 1985. A place called Hiroshima. Tokyo: Kodansha International [1,109 holdings] • Peterson, Susan. 1977. The living tradition of a nez. Tokyo: Kodansha International [1,083 holdings] • Michener, James A. 1959. Japanese prints; from the early masters to the modern. Tokyo: C. E. Tuttle Co [1,076 holdings] • Nobukuni, Ichirō, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Toshihisa Watarai, Kundō Koyama, Yōjirō Takita, Masahiro Motoki, Ryōko Hirosue, et al. 2009. Okuribito Departures [DVD]. Tokyo: Tokyo Broadcast System [1,064 holdings] • Sakiya, Tetsuo, and Timothy Porter. 1982. Honda Motor: the men, the management, the machines. Tokyo: Kodansha International [1,046 holdings] • Ikeda, Daisaku. 1977. Buddhism, the first millennium. Tokyo: Kodansha International [1,041 holdings] 60% are from Kodansha International, an English-language imprint of 株式会社講談社 was closed in April 2011The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 5with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
My work • Research Division within OCLC • Provide internal research and development work to advance OCLC products and services • Do work for the library community to deepen public understanding of the changing library system OCLC Research Constituencies • Work primarily with research libraries around the world in the OCLC Research Library Partnership on projects and process changeThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 6with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Perspective What you see depends on where you stand What you see depends on where you sitThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 7with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Where I sit • United States • Informed by Western European developments • System-wide view • Not inside of an operational library • Inform and lead library directions and futureThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 8with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
John Lombardi, President at October ARL meeting • When people ask him for money, he said, his first question is, “What will that project do to make the university more competitive? • “If you can’t persuade me that the work you’re doing is going to make us more famous, we’re not going to be interested in investing in you,” he said. • “Is that wise and profound and good? No. It’s stupid. But that’s the way it is.”The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 9with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Continuing to invest in local print collections… • Does not make your university more competitive or more famous We need to manage our print collections in a more cost-effective and efficient way By sharing our print inventory we can • Transform the library service portfolio • Renew the library value propositionThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 10with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Why is it time? • Information resources are increasingly electronic • What’s on the shelves is not being used • There is already a substantial shared print inventory in existing storage repositories; only a few libraries have a mandate to preserve print locally • Mass digitization projects have created a preservation option and increasingly an access option • Faculty are becoming increasingly comfortable with remote access • There are more valued uses of the space for teaching and learning • Must establish library value around service not books and collectionsThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 11with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
The shift to electronic is nearly complete Academic Library Expenditures on Purchased and Licensed Content 90% Projected change 80% 70% 60% Print books and journals 50% E-journals and e-books 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 98 00 02 04 06 08 14 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Chart created by OCLC Research derived from : National Clearinghouse on Educational Statistics, 1998-2008The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 12with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Chart created by OCLC Research 90 Alberta Auburn 80 Johns Hopkins % of Library Materials Spending on Electronic Resources 70 Majority of research libraries shifting toward e-centric acquisitions, service model 60 50 Columbia Michigan 40 Princeton 30 Harvard 20 Yale U Illinois, Chicago 10 Shrinking pool of libraries with mission and resources 0 to sustain print preservation as ‘core’ operation – 25? 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000 Library Materials Expenditures – derived from ARL 2008-2009 statisticsThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 13with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
What’s on shelves is not being used http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/ohiolink/default.htm USAGE DISTRIBUTION FROM OhioLINK 20 year study 100% 80% Annual Circulation 60% 40% 20% 455,000 6.5% 0% 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 Number of ManifestationsThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 14with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Annual Circulation Rates OhioLINK http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/ohiolink/default.htm - by subject 0.20 This is about 4 circulations 0.15 In 20 years This is about 2 circulations In 20 years 0.10 0.05 0.00 Arts & Recreation Business & Economics & Geography History Language & Literature & Technology Science Social Science Medicine LawThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 15with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Duplication Rate – OhioLINK http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/ohiolink/default.htm libraries Average No. of Copies 4.5 Publication DateThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 16with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
… the books have left the building 140,000,000 Built Capacity in Volume Equivalents (2007) 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 In North America, +70M volumes off-site (2007) 20,000,000 ~30-50% of print inventory at many major universities 0 1982 1986 1987 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Growth in library storage infrastructure$4.25 US per volume per year to store on-premise OCLC Research graphic derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 17with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Has 8.5 million volumes Built new library extension Dense storage and robotic retrieval Can fit an additional 3.5 million volumesVery small number of institutions whocan do this and for whom this is adistinguishing competitive positionThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 18with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Mission: To build a reliable and increasingly comprehensive digital archive of library materials converted from print that is co-owned and managed by a number of academic institutions Currently Digitized • 9,727,376 total volumes • 2,655,044 volumes (~27% of • 5,162,277 book titles total) in the public domain • 256,600 serial titles • 3,404,581,600 pages • 436 terabytes • 115 miles • 7,903 tons Japanese 184,347 titles Statistics from website on 30 October 2011The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 19with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
80% Duplication of ARL University Library Holdings in HathiTrust Digital Library 70% Jun-09 Jun-10 Jun-11 60% 50% % of Titles Duplicated Median duplication in June 2011: 36% 40% 30% Median duplication in June 2010: 31% 20% 10% Median duplication in June 2009: 19% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Rank in ARL Investment Index (2007-2008)The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 20with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
180,000 Coverage of Japanese literature in 160,000 mass-digitized corpus is [still] growing 140,000 120,000 June ‘11 Titles / Editions 100,000 80,000 Last time we met… 60,000 Japanese language titles 40,000 Titles published in Japan 20,000 0 Mar-10 Jun-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Nov-10 Nov-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Sep-09 Oct-09 Feb-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Feb-11 Dec-09 Jul-10 Dec-10 May-10 May-11OCLC Research. Analysis based on WorldCat and HathiTrust snapshots, data current as of June 2011 The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 21 with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
. . . yet digitized Japanese literature remains largely inaccessible to US audience N = 175,057 Japanese language titles in HathiTrust Digital Library in October 2011 97% 170,132 titles 3% 4,925 titles US public domain In copyrightOCLC Research. Analysis based on WorldCat and HathiTrust snapshots, data current at October 2011The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 22with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Faculty want libraries to buyThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 23with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Moving the print – they understandThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 24with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Why shared print? Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library valueCompeting demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaborationvs. “warehouse of books” Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate and the capacity to support print preservationAs operational costs for managing legacy print collectionsdecrease, libraries will seek to outsource print operations to sharedrepositoriesThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 25with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
Market trying to emerge What does my library have that could be sourced elsewhere? A market trying to emerge Shared Print Libraries as Need Providers •Business infrastructure Consumers•Print Repositories •Demand aggregation•Distributed Print Archives•P.O.D. – institutions & vendors The Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 26 with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011
What you see depends on where you standThe Coordinating Committee of Japanese University Libraries 27with support of Japan Library Association University Libraries Division 11 November 2011