Reconfiguring research collections - HKU


Published on

slides from discussion session at University of Hong Kong

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • 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.Increasingly, [click] we have seen this attention shift to licensed electronic 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 academic libraries shift attention into the lower right quadrant, developing IR infrastructure and data curation capacity.In the academic sector in the US, we have not seen much change in investment in special collections nor in mgt of open Web resources.
  • There are a number of important changes in the academic library environment that we should be paying attention to. First, the shift to reliance on externally sourced, licensed content is accelerating – this is no longer just about e-journals but e-books as well.Secondly, print collections aren’t delivering the value they once did. Circulation rates have been on a steady decline for years; there is increasing attention to the long term cost burden of acquiring and retaining low-use print books.Finally, special collections are not universally perceived to be a key part of the library’s service mission in higher education. They may contain a few items regarded as treasures by the university, but the acquisition of rare books and manuscripts is rarely viewed, or funded, as a core library function.
  • There are three main drivers I want to call out here, though one could certainly point to others. First, there is general agreement that the traditional library value proposition -- acquiring and amassing a comprehensive or substantially representative physical corpus of material for local use – is no longer perceived to be relevant.Second, the nature of the scholarly record has changed and is no longer adequately captured in traditional print and licensed collections. There is increased attention to the need for managing ‘upstream’ research outputs and traditional print operations are viewed as something of a distraction from this.Finally and most importantly for the purposes of our discussion to day is the impact of mass digitisation on the discoverability and perceived ‘location’ of library collections. Digitized books are no longer regarded as the property of individual libraries but instead are simply considered part of the network.
  • Yet, when we look at aggregate spending on college and university libraries in the US over time, it would appear that an investment of less than 1.5% of total institutional spending is the norm today. This chart shows that while total institutional investment in higher education has increased dramatically in the past 30 years, proportional spending on academic libraries has been on a steady decline. If this trend continues, we can project that the university allocation to libraries will fall below 1% by about 2013. This has something to do with the increasing costs of educational infrastructure – spending on laboratories and technology has grown much more rapidly than spending on library infrastructure. So while library expenditures have increased each year, they represent a diminishing part of the university’s total spending in support of research, teaching and learning. This is a trend that is driving a certain amount of change in the academic library environment, encouraging a shift to collaborative sourcing of collections and services, increased attention to the return on library investment, and a stern focus on identifying and eliminating operational inefficiencies.
  • In the US, the last five years have been marked by significant growth in for-profit education market, dominated by online universities. These institutions are not reliant on traditional physical infrastructure of the library. Their success is forcing traditional HE institutions to compete for students and to revitalize their institutional reputations. The core library operations associated with print based collections do not have much relevance here.
  • In the US, a majority of research libraries are already spending more than half of the library materials budget on licensed resources. [click]Print is no longer at the center.
  • How much (%) is HKU allocating to each today? In 5 years?Using SpringShare for Subject Guides a total of 1.8 million items with RFID tags; the largest global RFID installation in university libraries. How much of collection is now available for self-check?Scholars Hub = Dspace (how many other Chinese universities using?Celebrated 2M volumes in 2002
  • Amounts to a PD collection nearly the same size as HKUL
  • Almost 60% of the digitized titles in HKU Libraries are also held by 99 or more other libraries
  • Print books = ~60% of WorldCat as a wholeNA print book collection = 36% of print books in WorldCat, but 72% of all holdingsBOS-WASH avg ~14 holdings per publication PHOENIX avg ~2 holdings per pub’n
  • Japan: 4 mega-regionsKorea: 1Taiwan: 1China: 3Thailand: 1Singapore: 1India: 3“at the same moment that technology enables the geographic spread of economic activity, economic activity continues to cluster and concentrate around this mega-regional unit.”
  •  Map based on  Academic Ranking of World Universities rankings (Shanghai Rating Consultancy) in 2010.In 2011 THE rankings, Asian libraries accounted for just 7% of top 400 universities in the world. In 2012, they accounted for 16%.
  • Reconfiguring research collections - HKU

    1. 1. University of Hong Kong | 6 September 2012Academic Libraries in the 21st CenturyReconfiguringResearch CollectionsConstance MalpasProgram OfficerOCLC Research@ConstanceM The world’s libraries. Connected.
    2. 2. Collections Grid In many Purchased materials Open Web Resources Licensed E-Resources collections Licensed Purchased High Low Stewardship Stewardship Special Collections In few Research & Learning Local Digitization collections Materials
    3. 3. Library attention and investment are shifting In many collections Licensed Less attention Purchased High attention Occasional High Low Stewardship Stewardship Limited Limited Aspirational Intentional In few collections
    4. 4. Academic institutions are driving this change In Many Collections Licensed Redirection of library resource Purchased High Low Stewardship today +5 yrs Stewardship Aggregate university library spending on e-resources : JULAC > $184M HK in 2007 US ARL = $627M US in 2008, or 41% total lib. exp. In Few Collections
    5. 5. Change in academic collections• Shift to licensed electronic content is accelerating Research journals – a well established trend Scholarly monographs – in progress• Print collections delivering less (and less) value at great (and growing) cost Est. $4.25 US per volume per year for on-site collections Library purchasing power decreasing as per-unit cost rises• Special collections marginal to educational mandate at many institutions Costly to manage, not always integral to teaching, learning The world’s libraries. Connected.
    6. 6. Key factors are driving this change• Erosion of traditional library value proposition in academic sector Institutional reputation no longer determined (or substantially influenced) by scope, scale of local print collection• Changing nature of scholarly record Research, teaching and learning embedded in larger social and technological networks; new set of stewardship challenges for libraries• Format transition; mass digitization of legacy print Web-scale discoverability has fundamentally changed research practices; local collections no longer the center of attention The world’s libraries. Connected.
    7. 7. 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. Spending The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.
    8. 8. Shift in provision of higher education Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Distribution in Post-Secondary Educational Institutions of the United States by Source of Funding (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-Profit 500OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. The world’s libraries. Connected. 0
    9. 9. Among US research libraries, a tipping point … 100 Majority of research libraries shifting toward 90 e-centric acquisitions, service model Licensed Content as % of Library Materials $ 80 70 Center of gravity 60 50 40 30 Harvard 20 Yale Shrinking pool of libraries with mission and resources 10 to sustain print preservation as ‘core’ operation 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 Library Materials Expenditures (2007-2008) Derived from ARL Annual Statistics, 2007-2008 The world’s libraries. Connected.
    10. 10. E-resource spending among JULAC libraries (2005-2007) ? The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: derived from CAVAL‟s Asian Library Statistics 10
    11. 11. Buying more – or just paying more? The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: derived from CAVAL‟s Asian Library Statistics
    12. 12. The library „service bundle‟“An academic library is a bundle of information-relatedresources and services that a university has chosen toprovide internally, rather than transact for them with externalparties …Transaction costs help explain why academiclibraries look the way they do today… As the pattern oftransaction costs change, so too will the boundaries of thelibrary” Brian Lavoie & Lorcan Dempsey “Rethinking the Boundaries of the Academic Library” OCLC Next Space 17 (January 2011): 16-17. The world’s libraries. Connected.
    13. 13. 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 The world’s libraries. Connected.
    14. 14. 21st Century Collections world’s libraries. Connected.
    15. 15. Reducing Transaction Costs: Shared Infrastructure In many collections Licensed Consortial licensing Approval plans Shared knowledge bases Shared storage Purchased Demand-driven acquisition High Low Stewardship Shared stewardship Stewardship Limited Shared repository infrastructure Shared preservation infrastructure In few collections The world’s libraries. Connected.
    16. 16. HKU: Institutional Identity, Reputation Management The world’s libraries. Connected.
    17. 17. Library Role in Reputation Management Managing university identity AKA “authority control” The world’s libraries. Connected.
    18. 18. Reconfiguring Research Collections at HKUL “externalizing” these: In many collections Licensed 2000:First HK ebook collection 2005: Hong Kong Monograph Acquisitions Consortium Purchased 2008-2011 RFID High 2013?: JURA Low Stewardship 2008-2011: RFID Stewardship Limited HKU ExamBase Early Western Books on Asia HKU Scholars Hub Hong Kong Oral Histories HKU Press Digital Editions“internalizing” these In few collections The world’s libraries. Connected.
    19. 19. Key Findings Significant and growing overlap between academic print collections and mass- digitized corpus As much as 75% of the mass-digitized resource already managed in shared print repositories Opportunity for large-scale transformation in academic 2011 print management; space recovery and cost-avoidanceThe world’s libraries. Connected.
    20. 20. HathiTrust Digital Library Growth Trajectory As of July 2012, HathiTrust is equal in size (volumes) and scope (titles) to top US ARL libraries >20% public domain The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: C. Malpas, OCLC Research 2012.
    21. 21. The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: C. Malpas. OCLC Research, 2011.
    22. 22. ORLP Collection Profiles: Why?• Partner institutions have reasonable expectation of tangible benefit of affiliation• Opportunity to re-purpose existing data resources, drive research toward operational implementation• Partner engagement - collective action dependent on shared priorities, institutional demographics The world’s libraries. Connected.
    23. 23. The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    24. 24. +8% +13% (Net: 18%) (Net: 19%)The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    25. 25. 413K as of July 2012The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    26. 26. What Counts? Titles vs. VolumesAs of July 2012:• 12,546 titles in HKUL duplicated in HathiTrust with at least some public domain content• Amounts to 126,448 digitised volumes, of which 44,506 are designated as public domain outside of United States• @ $4.26 USD* or $33 HKD per volume / per year, represents between $1.5M and $3.3MHKD cost avoidance if moved from open stacks to high- density storage The world’s libraries. Connected. *based on US life-cycle book storage costs (Courant, 2010)
    27. 27. Library attention still focused on booksThe world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    28. 28. The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    29. 29. Humanities & Social Sciences predominate sizeable opportunity -- or big risk?The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    30. 30. Move to storage? Withdraw in favor of shared JURA collection?The world’s libraries. Connected. OCLC Research, 2012
    31. 31. Highly unusual distribution, likely a result of HKU’s productivity in original catalogingThe world’s libraries. Connected.
    32. 32. Among Asian research libraries, ~25% holdings overlap with HathiTrust Median Overlap = 24% The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: C. Malpas. OCLC Research, 2012.
    33. 33. Among (selected) JULAC libraries ~19% holdings overlap with HathiTrust Median Overlap = 19% The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: C. Malpas. OCLC Research, 2012.
    34. 34. How are profiles being used?• For HathiTrust partners, implications for how to derive maximum benefit from affiliation• For others, an opportunity to reconsider collective digitization priorities; rights distribution and rights-determination efforts; re- imagine subject bibliography• For all, occasion to reflect on collection management strategies, future of print fulfillment and library supply chain The world’s libraries. Connected.
    35. 35. Key Findings 90% of the print book collection in North America is concentrated in 12 mega-regions Access benefits and preservation risk are highly concentrated Regional collections are highly diffuse  Risk assessment requires system-wide view >50% of regional print books managed by academic libraries Changes in global higher education affect entire library system Despite high-levels of bi-lateral 2012 duplication, each mega region has something unique to offer  improving „flows’ will benefit allThe world’s libraries. Connected. players
    36. 36. Mega-regions: Why?• Applying novel conceptual frameworks from Economics, etc., Management literature to library environment is a core activity in OCLC Research agenda• Growth in shared print management initiatives at variable (and overlapping) scale: state- wide, consortium-wide, regional, national etc. are „natural experiments‟ in optimizing redistribution of print stewardship• Cooperative management of monographic collections may require a new organizational frame of reference; leveraging regional investment in logistics, HE infrastructure The world’s libraries. Connected.
    37. 37. Mega-regions of North America Orbis-Cascade Alliance Ontario Council of University Librarians Center for InstitutionalWestern Regional Cooperation Storage Trust Association of Southeastern Research Library The world’s libraries. Connected.
    38. 38. Monographic Publications and Library Holdings in North American Mega-regions 45M discrete publications – 60% of print books in WorldCat; 70% of holdings 889M library holdings (avg. 20/title) “Spiky” distribution The world’s libraries. Connected.
    39. 39. Bi-lateral Duplication with Aggregate BOS-WASH Collection, by Mega-RegionBOS-WASH alone duplicates 70% to 93% of other regional collections The world’s libraries. Connected.
    40. 40. Concentration of resource, concentration of risk 86% coverage BOSWASH CHIPITTS TORBUFFCHESTER NORCAL CHARLANTA The world’s libraries. Connected. Malpas, OCLC Research 2012.
    41. 41. Asian mega-regions, 2010 Asia Pacific in the vanguard of shift … APEC accounts for 9% of world population >50% of global economic output ~75% of global innovation Richard Florida, 2011 “… mega regions will be the drivers of Asian economies in 2050.” Asia Development Bank, 2011Population ~45M Sources: R. Florida. Cities & the Creative Class in Asia. The world’s libraries. Connected. Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century
    42. 42. Global Influence The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: A.T. Kearney. 2012 Global Cities Index
    43. 43. Asian cities poised to gain global influenceThe world’s libraries. Connected. Source: AT Kearney. 2012 Global Cities Index
    44. 44. “Where the World’s Brains Are” (2010) Research universities increasingly function as a key hub institution of the knowledge economy. Richard Florida The world’s libraries. Connected. Source: R. Florida. Where the World‟s Brains Are.
    45. 45. “Where the World’s Brains Are” 2010 vs. 2012 2010/11: Asian universities account for 7% of top 400 world universities 2011/2012: … 16% of top 400 Sources: The world’s libraries. Connected. THES Top Asian Universities 2012
    46. 46. Implications• A (mega) regional strategy for library print management could reduce redundant investment in „low-value‟ operations• Enabling academic libraries to refocus attention, resources on distinctive service contributions• Leveraging existing networks of cooperation and exchange• Raising the global profile of Asian library capacity The world’s libraries. Connected.
    47. 47. Thanks for your attention.Questions? Comments? The world’s libraries. Connected.