Redefining the 21st Century Collection


Published on

Presentation from "Game Changers" conference hosted by OCLC in March 2012.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Why collections? Because they are a major driver of library operations and expense; because the definition of a ‘collection’ – as it is managed by an individual library or as it is managed by a group of libraries, is undergoing significant change.
  • A few words of introduction… to help frame my remarks, to make it clear that I am speaking from the perspective of OCLC Research.OCLC serves libraries of many stripes.In Research, we have a particular interest in libraries that serve higher education and research. This is because they represent a very large share of the library ‘marketplace’ and changes in investment have far-reaching impact throughout the library system as a whole.
  • Will base my remarks on some conceptual frameworks we’ve been using internally; useCollections Grid to describe some important shifts in attention and resourcing that we believe are ‘game changers’ for academic librariesSourcing / scaling matrix to explore some different strategies for supporting academic library operationsMega-regions framework, an effort to map zones of economic activity to understand the natural boundaries of cooperation at scale.Peppered with some real-life examples, just to reassure you that Research doesn’t really live in a world of sterile abstractions.
  • This is a model we have used to frame some discussions about library collections and operations in the past. The horizontal axis is a measure of the stewardship or curation efforts that have traditionally been needed to manage these materials in libraries. The vertical axis is a measure of how widely held the materials are in the library system: at the top are resources that are abundant in the library community, at the bottom are materials that relatively rare.In the upper left quadrant are the materials that libraries traditionally purchased and increasingly are leasing. Below that are special collections, rare books and manuscripts. The bottom right includes research outputs and teaching materials. The upper right includes a wide variety of resources found on the Open Web – web sites, discussion lists, blogs etc.Libraries may be interested in all of these areas, but not equally. Traditionally, library acquisitions and operations have focused on the upper left quadrant: published materials in print. Licensed resources were a secondary focus. And, except for research and academic libraries, there was limited attention to managing rare books and manuscripts, instructional course materials, or Web archiving.materials, which are now more ubiquitous and also require less local management effort.
  • Increasingly, [click] we have seen this attention shift to licensed electronic materials, which are now more ubiquitous and also require less local management effort. At the same time we have seen
  • In some sense the obvious answer is “no” – existing cooperative infrastructure largely lacks the scale to take on some of these new activities and deliver the level of benefit that is expected. This is as true for OCLC as it is for any other library cooperative and this is one reason why you see OCLC redoubling its efforts to develop a scalable platform architecture
  • way in which groups of institutions work together to control the costs of electronic resources is of course through consortial licensing programs. I wanted to highlight this particular example, from the French national research agency, because it helpfully highlights the fact that effective ‘group’ or consortium strategy is about a great deal more than buying power. This is a new initiative in France, in which the ministry of education will make direct payment to publishers for full-text resources that will be mounted in a shared platform. They’ve contracted with JISC Collections – a UK based procurement agency – to negotiate with publishers. It’s really about maximizing institutional impact – in this case the national research reputation of French higher education. They make this quite plain in the language of the announcement – its not about ‘cheaper databases’ it’s about stoking the fires of innovation and strengthening national research infrastructure.This is a level of group sourcing that we are unlikely to see in the US, though our Canadian colleagues have certainly made headway with national licensing under the rubric of the Canadian Research Knowledge Network.
  • I call our Scrib’d and (recently under take-down orders) because I think they are important examples of what happens when students and scholars take collections into their own hands. Cost containment is a major driver in collaboration around licensing….
  • Now take a quick tour around the collections grid to look at some illustrative examples of the shifts in attention and resourcing that I’ve just described. This is a view of resource allocation in ARL libraries, clearly showing the shift in balance from print to electronic collections. >70% of ARL libraries are spending more than half of the materials budget on e-resources.And this has important knock-on consequences for print management, as a diminishing number of institutions have the resources to sustain print preservation. This is a trend that you are all I think intimately familiar with.~73% of ARL university libraries are spending in excess of 50% on e resources. (Was ~61% in 2007-2008)So print management is one of the ‘core’ operations that is now being sourced differently
  • ranks 12th in the most recent (2009-2010) ARL investment index.The perverse logic of ARL institutional investment index – focuses on the spend and not the return.
  • The point here is that only 10 to 20% of the North American print book collection (in WorldCat) is represented in HathiTrust and/or Google. As many of you will know, we have done quite a bit of work studying the HathiTrust corpus, and we believe that the relatively small number of titles in HathiTrust is sufficient to duplicate a third or more of the print titles in virtually all academic libraries. Nevertheless, there is some concern that the pace of digitization is slowing and that Google is becoming more selective about what it scans. And this is important because many libraries are concerned about how consumer access to the books Google does provide will have a dramatic effect on how libraries are used.Cf 84.8M print books in 2009 (77% of WorldCat; 15M US imprints; 56% of those in academic libraries. In 2011, 128M print books (60% of WorldCat), of which 60% are held in North Am librariesPlease change or simplify your search and try again.Query ComponentCountmt: bks and (li: zas or li: zap or li: ohdep) 4,355,441 bks 203962604 zas 2844057 zap 2262588 ohdep 408771mt: bks and li: googl 4266577
  • Open a parenthesis here to spend a minute looking at a potentially important ‘game changer’ for libraries. Google launched Play earlier this month. Play is an entertainment hub combining Google music, the Android store, Google ebooks and other media. It’s yet another example of how the network favors the emergence of big content hubs. The positioning of books in this space is interesting and marks a shift from the Google Books experience that many of us have grown accustomed to. This is true not just for the commercially vended content (like this title) but also for the titles supplied by libraries.
  • A little surprised to discover that while Google is tracking my every move, it hasn’t bothered to transfer my bookshelf from Google Book Search into Google Play.On the other hand, it’s clearly making some effort to understand my reading preferences, by inserting a preview to a book on the Beat Generation, which is an interest of mine, and providing access to Library Journal. I had to go back into GBS to track down another book I had been reading [click] , this history of the London Goldsmiths’ Company. The notion that books can be seamlessly integrated into the ‘gamified’ social entertainment space is still a little challenging. For example [click] when I downloaded this book, Google wanted to provide instruction on ‘how to read my new book’. And while this title is 130 years old, it actually is a kind of ‘new book’. To me it will feel a little un-natural on my tablet, but to others….
  • last year’s highly publicized UC study that found that students preferred print over digital versions. My own view is that many such surveys are missing the point, asking students to judge ebooks against the standard of print books, when the scholarly apparatus for ebook usage is likely to be very different and is still taking shape. This latest survey from the PeasonFdn found that 60% of college students prefer e-books to print books.This change will of course have a major impact on how academic libraries fulfill their mission. And while print isn’t ‘going away’ it will certainly be moving to the side.
  • Shared print is an area where cooperatively sourced group solutions appear to be carrying the day.
  • Ohio DRC was originally a cloud-based service but has since been moved back ‘inside’ Ohio Academic Resources shared network.
  • Let’s look at Digital … some of you might have seen this recent news announcement from MIT, reporting a new peak in downloads from the institutional repository. Want to emphasize that the importance of this is not the ‘open access’ dimension of scholarly communications but in the way this news is positioned to emphasize MIT’s global reputation. Does MIT research have more impact in this OA repository than in the published peer reviewed lit? No. But it does the provide the university with an unrivalled opportunity to tell its story.Now the “D” dimension in collections is one that is relatively under-resourced where group services are concerned. This is partly because there is limited incentive to develop group solutions for something that is essentially competitive. But still, we might wonder why major research consortia like the CIC haven’t developed an unsurpassed repository infrastructure.Interesting, perplexing that no robust shared service has developed around consortial management of institutional repository infrastructureCF Norway’s efforts (or the Netherlands) to develop shared academic repository infrastructure that is explicitly tied to increasing national research impact – why don’t we see something similar for e.g. CIC?
  • Last year, UC system projected ongoing losses to library budget and proposed strengthening reliance on the shared service infrastructure of the California Digital Library. Shared print was part of the plan, but the greatest savings were to come out of revisions to technical services workflows.
  • In Florida, the planned consolidation of FCLA and CCLA is an interesting case of ‘scaling up’ . The two organizations will be merged in an effort to reduce costs and create a single shared library infrastructure for higher education.This is a page from the proposal for the merged organization, and its clear that the total cost of P, E and D collections infrastructure is considerable – about half of the total services-related budget. Most of it goes to e-resources. Which means that print and digital will continue to operate with marginal budgets and will probably not gain much scale.So the question becomes, how can regional and peer-group consortia achieve the kind of scale that will be needed to deliver value into the future? And the answer is… we don’t know. But we are doing some work that we hope will cast some light on how the library system is currently organized -- not as a set of organizations, but as a set of activities and resources – so that we can better understand where additional infrastructure may be needed.
  • I think it’s no accident that we are seeing these supra-regional consortia move to the fore, as individual institutions look to hook their wagon to the most powerful engine available. And increasingly that means not only which organization can do the best job of securing good licensing arrangements, but which one can provide the kind of cooperative infrastructure that’s needed to support a range of other jointly sourced operations:Shared print management – WEST, CIC, ASERLDigital repository development - HathiShared management systems – WorldCat Local in UC and Orbis, new statewide shared LMS for Florida.The question is: is the legacy infrastructure of our existing consortia fit to purpose for emerging needs?
  • Asset map of library print resourceThe fact that there is a an abundance of resource in one zone or another is not in itself a sign of any impending change – but in combination with other factors, like changes in provisioning of higher education, we believe it can be a strong predictor
  • Another dimension we are looking at is the rate of bilateral duplication between regional collections. And some interesting things are emerging. For example, it’s clear that some regional collections are better positioned than others to provide ‘national level’ services. The region from Boston to Washington comprises the larges print book collection in North America – it is so vast that it largely subsumes every other print book collection in the continent.
  • Redefining the 21st Century Collection

    1. 1. Game Changers Redefining the 21st 19 March 2012 Century Collection Constance Malpas Program Officer OCLC Research
    2. 2. OCLC Research: what we do Supports global cooperative by providing internal data and process analyses to inform enterprise service development (R&D) and deploying collective research capacity to deepen public understanding of the evolving library system Special focus on libraries in research institutions: in US, libraries supporting doctoral-level education account for <20% of academic libraries;>70% of library spending changes in this sector impact library system as a whole; collective preservation and access goals, shared infrastructure, &c.
    3. 3. OCLC Research: how we workOCLC has a particular interest inunderstanding how the scope and scale oflibrary service provision are changing, and aspecial responsibility to help libraries planfor and implement shared services. Toadvance thinking on these issues within andbeyond the library community, OCLCResearch has developed a dedicatedprogram area that draws on OCLC’s uniqueresearch capacity and broad institutionalreach, encompassing both quantitativeanalysis , community consultation andoutreach . . .
    4. 4. Roadmap • Collections grid – shift in attention and resources • Sourcing / scaling - group strategies for a changed environment • Mega-regions – framework for exploring the „natural‟ organization of the library system Along the way, some illustrative examples of how the collections environment is evolving… Please feel free to interrupt and ask questions!
    5. 5. Collections Grid In many Open Web Purchased materials Licensed E-Resources collections Resources Licensed Purchased High Low Stewardship Stewardship Special Collections In few Research & Learning Local Digitization collections MaterialsCredit: Dempsey, Childress (OCLC Research. 2003)
    6. 6. Library attention and investment are shifting In many collections Less Licensed attention High Purchased Occasional High attention Low Stewardship Stewardship Limited Aspirational Tactical Intentional In few collectionsOCLC Research, 2010.
    7. 7. Academic institutions are driving this change In Many Collections Redirection of library Licensed resource Purchased High Low today +5 yrs Stewardship Stewardship In Few CollectionsOCLC Research, 2010.
    8. 8. Externalize non-distinctive operations, internalize value creation In Many Collections Licensed „commodity‟ resources, less distinctive value Purchased High Low Stewardship Stewardship collections of distinction, organizational impact, centers of excellence institutional reputation In Few CollectionsOCLC Research, 2010.
    9. 9. Shared Infrastructure In Many Collections Group licensing, ERM, ArchiveIT Portico, Shared print, &c Shared storage High Low Stewardship A Stewardship Dspace, Fedora, ContentDM, Blackboard, HathiTrust Sakai In Few CollectionsOCLC Research, 2010.
    10. 10. Mechanisms forexternalization Scaling Institution Group Web Tripod: Collaborative DSpace (Tri-college RePEc library catalog)Sourcing Bibliographic OhioLink Standards (resource sharing & Public negotiation of PubMed (LC Classification, MESH, LCSH) licenses & subscriptions) VTLS Virtua JISC Collections Third-Party (hosted ILS)
    11. 11. Where are groups and consortia in all this? • Leveraging economies of scale to support cost- effective externalization • Supporting an expanding scope of collaborative activity From To Library automation Shared print Resource-sharing/ILL Digitization at scale Group licensing Data curation Coop. collection developm‟t Impact measures, advocacy Can existing cooperative structures do all this?
    12. 12. Third-party source, provisioning Group (national) scale, impact Sharedservicesbuild HEcapacity
    13. 13. Mechanisms for Licensed / Electronicexternalization JSTORSource of Provision PORTICO CRKN Tennessee Electronic Library MeL OCUL Scholars Portal [Scrib‟d] LOCKSS Institution Group Web Scale of Benefit
    14. 14. 90 Auburn Alberta E/P 80 Johns Hopkins Licensed Content as % of Library Materials $ 70 Majority of research libraries shifting toward 60 e-centric acquisitions, service model 50 Columbia Michigan 40 Princeton 30 Harvard 20 Yale Shrinking poolIllinois, Chicago with mission and resources U of libraries 10 to sustain print preservation as ‘core’ operation – 25? 0 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 statisticsOCLC Research, 2011.
    15. 15. Is spending more on anindividual basis a viablesolution?Cf. “Radical collaboration –new, drastic, sweeping andenergetic…” James G. Neal
    16. 16. Print preservation: it‟s academic. [„20M scanned‟] 46M print book titles 4.3M Google in North American libraries Books in ~5M in 4.8M WorldCat shared HathiTrust storage books in WorldCat 889M WorldCat holdings:Based on WorldCat statistics. { ~60% in academic libraries (~25% in ARL libraries )
    17. 17. Game changer? Books in Play
    18. 18. Learning how to Play with BooksThis doesn‟t look like play…
    19. 19. As devices and formatsevolve, digital books are becoming increasingly congenial toys (and tools) for a new generation 6 in 10 students…
    20. 20. Mechanisms for Purchased Collectionsexternalization NERDSource of Provision (Pr)Internet Archive? FLARE Ohio Depository UC RLF CIC SPA WEST WRLC Institution Group Web Scale of Benefit
    21. 21. Optimal locus of coordination,shared service provision will vary Google Books? Straight Web-scale Third-Party Externalization Externalization New England Regional Depository 4 3Sourcing Public Collaborative Externalization WEST CIC Shared Print 2 Hathi Print Collaborative NN/LM Print Archiving ASERL Depository Self- Sufficiency University of Chicago 1 Mansueto Library Internalized Institution Group Web Scaling
    22. 22. Mechanisms for Digital / Digitized ContentexternalizationSource of Provision ArtStor Luna Insight Ohio DRC Kentuckiana American Memory Digital Library FCLA Digital Archive HathiTrust Fedora DSpace ContentDM hosted Institution Group Web Scale of Benefit
    23. 23. Value lies in impact on institutional reputation – Dnot (or less) on transforming publication models maximizing global reach
    24. 24. Shared infrastructure: a survival strategy UC libraries aim to achieve $15M in cost reductions in 2011-2012 In this climate, shared services must deliver real impactSource: University of California Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee LibraryPlanning Task Force Interim Report, May, 2011 .
    25. 25. A 22M Budget for a 21st Century Library . . .EPD
    26. 26. Cooperative infrastructure: scaling up Orbis -CascadeUniversity of Idaho NERL CIC SCELC GWLA Johns Hopkins ASERL Univ. of Maryland FCLA
    27. 27. Size and Density (holdings : publications) of Mega-region Collections 3:1 3:1 9:1 3:1 7:1 3:1 4:1 2:1 3:1 6:1 3:1Where is aggregate libraryresource most abundant?Where are changes in sourcing 5:1and scaling most likely to occur? OCLC Research, 2012.
    28. 28. How can we leverageexisting networks tostrengthen librarycooperation? OCLC Research, 2012.
    29. 29. For discussion • Accountability and assessment – how are consortia measuring and communicating the value of current investments in print, electronic and digital content? • Impact and advocacy – what counts as adequate impact? Is cost saving enough? Are shared services enabling partners to „collaborate to customize‟? • Sourcing and scaling – where is cooperative action likely to deliver maximum benefit? When does externalization to third parties make sense?
    30. 30. Thanks for your attention. @ConstanceM