Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Big Shift: Managing Research Collections in the Cloud

2,360 views

Published on

Keynote from ASERL 2011 Meeting (Nashville, TN).

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

The Big Shift: Managing Research Collections in the Cloud

  1. 1. The Big Shift: Managing Research Collections in the Cloud<br />Annual Meeting<br />28 April 2011<br />Constance Malpas<br />Program Officer, OCLC Research<br />
  2. 2. Roadmap<br /><ul><li>Think Big – sourcing and scaling, mega regions
  3. 3. Emerging infrastructure – managing collections ‘in the cloud’
  4. 4. Shared print service provision - opportunities, challenges
  5. 5. ASERL in perspective – regional and system-wide context</li></li></ul><li>You are … where?<br />http://www.creativeclass.com/whos_your_city/maps/#Mega-Regions_of_North_America<br />
  6. 6. A Master Plan for a mega region<br />“[Midwestern universities ] work together on both regional and national agendas, merging library and research resources, and sharing curricula and instructional resources with faculty and students. Aggregating these spires of excellence by linking these institutions gives the Midwest region many of the world’s leading programs in a broad range of key knowledge areas.” (p. 37)<br />“Sharing of library and research<br />facilities can augment scholarly production and assure fuller use of cultural assets without great extra cost to the state.” <br /> (p. 37)<br />
  7. 7. Boundary work and the library ‘service bundle’<br />Shared print is a prime example:<br />a core operation that<br /> is moving “outside”<br /> institutional boundaries<br />University of California<br />Orbis Cascade<br /> WEST<br /> CIC<br />TRLIN<br /> Hathi Print <br /> CAVAL, UKRR, JURA etc. <br />
  8. 8. A ‘Big Shift’ in attention, resources<br />
  9. 9. Shared Print: what’s the problem?<br />Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value <br />Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaborative research vs. “warehouse of books”<br />Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate, capacityto support print preservation<br />As transaction costs for managing legacy print collections decrease, libraries will seek to externalize print operations to shared repositories<br />
  10. 10. Shared Print: OCLC Research<br />Active portfolio of work since 2007:<br /><ul><li>North American library storage capacity (2007)
  11. 11. ~70M volumes in storage; cooperative models in the minority
  12. 12. Policy requirements shared print repositories (2009)
  13. 13. critical need: disclosure of print preservation commitments
  14. 14. Leveraging infrastructure: MARC21 583 Action Note (2009/2011)
  15. 15. copy-level retention, condition statements are required
  16. 16. Cloud-sourcing research collections (2010)
  17. 17. mass digitization of monographs accelerates shift to shared print</li></li></ul><li>Shared Print value proposition(s)<br />Ensures long-term survivability of ‘last copies’ and low-use print journals and books<br />Extension of traditional repository function; limited motivation to subsidize<br />Enables reduction in redundant inventory for moderately and widely-held titles, facilitating redirection of library resources toward more distinctive service portfolio<br />Strategic reserve provides a hedge against disruption in the marketplace, rapid fluctuations in scholarly value & function of print; provides tangible value to participant<br />
  18. 18. Growth of US library storage infrastructure<br />Aggregate off-site capacity has increased exponentially<br />+ 70 million volumes in storage (2007)<br />68 high-density facilities<br />2 high-density facilities<br />Derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)<br />Date of Original Construction<br />
  19. 19. Aggregate preservation resource: a black box?<br />Of 68 storage facilities identified in Payne (OCLC, 2007):<br /><ul><li>2 are visible in WorldCat today: UC NRLF & UC SRLF
  20. 20. Proxies: CRL, LC?</li></ul>Among 9 ASERL storage collections profiled in 2004:<br /><ul><li>80% of monographic titles held in a single storage facility</li></ul>Titles in ‘shared print’ collections <br />less widely held?<br />More widely held<br />Less widely held<br />
  21. 21. Projected growth of HathiTrust Digital Library<br />*<br /> Library of Congress in constant 2008 volumes<br />Harvard University Library in constant 2008 volumes<br />*<br />OCLC Research. June 2010<br />
  22. 22. Premise of Cloud Library project (2009-2010)<br />Emergence of large scale shared print and digital <br />repositories creates an opportunity for strategic <br />externalization of traditional repository function<br />Reduce total costs of preserving scholarly record<br />Enable reallocation of institutional resources<br />Support renovation of library service portfolio<br />Create new business relationships among libraries<br />A bridge strategy to guarantee access and <br />preservation of long tail, low use collections <br />during ongoing p- to e- transition<br />
  23. 23. Academic off-site storage<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<br />15 months <br />+5M vols.<br />25 years<br />+70M vols.<br />Shared infrastructure: books & bits<br />HathiTrust<br />Will this intersection create new operational efficiencies? <br /> For which libraries?<br /> Under what conditions?<br /> How soon and with what impact?<br />
  24. 24. A global change in the library environment<br />Academic print book collection already substantially duplicated in mass digitized book corpus (HathiTrust)<br />June 2010<br />Median duplication: 31%<br />June 2009<br />Median duplication: 19%<br />OCLC Research. June 2010<br />
  25. 25. A mirror of the academic print collection<br />A critical mass of retrospective literature in the humanities, social sciences<br />C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)<br />
  26. 26. An opportunity and a challenge<br />An opportunity to rationalize holdings, but…<br />>50% of titles are ‘widely held’<br />library print supply chain will be needed for some time<br />>80% of titles are in copyright<br />OCLC Research. June 2010<br />
  27. 27. Mass-digitized books in print repositories<br />~3.5M titles<br />~75% of mass digitized corpus is ‘backed up’ in one or more shared print repositories<br />~2.5M<br />
  28. 28. Prediction<br />Within the next 5-10 years, focus of shared print archiving and service provision will shift to monographic collections<br /><ul><li>large scale service hubs will provide low-cost print management on a subscription basis;
  29. 29. reducing local expenditure on print operations, releasing space for new uses and facilitating a redirection of library resources;
  30. 30. enabling rationalization of aggregate print collection and renovation of library service portfolio</li></ul>Mass digitization of retrospective print collections will drive this transition<br />
  31. 31. What will it take?<br />Shared print service provision . . .<br />
  32. 32. Shared Print provision: capacity varies<br />% of HathiTrust titles duplicated in print repository<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.<br />
  33. 33. Shared print marketplace: who has the edge?<br />C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)<br />
  34. 34. Or, reconfigure resource to maximize value <br />C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)<br />
  35. 35. Management Perspective: How Much is Enough?<br />Shared Print service must deliver<br /><ul><li>Space recovery equal to “one floor” at outset
  36. 36. Volume reduction equal to X years of print acquisitions
  37. 37. Cost not to exceed current storage options
  38. 38. Minimize (visible) disruption in operations</li></ul>If management of mass-digitized monographs could be externalized to large scale providers today:<br /> average space recovery of 20,000 ASF per ARL library<br /> cost avoidance of ~$1M for new storage module<br /> cost avoidance of $1M per year for on-site management<br />
  39. 39. Staff Perspective: What’s Good Enough<br />Shared Print service provision must equal or exceed<br /><ul><li>Turnaround/delivery from local storage (<2 days)
  40. 40. Local loan period
  41. 41. Local access/availability guarantee, ability to recall etc
  42. 42. Discoverability of local resource</li></ul>Local retention mandated when title held by <10 libraries<br />No one mentioned . . .<br />Home delivery option  direct to patron<br /> Acceptable loss rate  repository viability<br /> Penalties for late return  impact on other clients<br />
  43. 43. Implications: Shared Print<br />A small number of repositories may suffice for ‘global’ shared print provision of low-use monographs<br />Generic service offer is needed to achieve economies of scale, build network; uniform T&C<br />Fuller disclosure of storage collections is needed to judge capacity of current infrastructure, identify potential hubs<br />Service hubs will need to shape inventory to market needs; more widely duplicated, moderately used titles<br />If extant providers aren’t motivated to change service model, a new organization may be needed<br />
  44. 44. Local Context<br />Shared print in perspective . . .<br />
  45. 45. ASERL in system-wide context<br />~880 academic libraries in ASERL region (2008)<br />represents 23% of all academic libraries in the US<br />134 (15%) support institutions offering doctoral programs<br />38 ASERL libraries provide backbone for academic institutions throughout the region<br />Rich collections, robust infrastructure, reliable fulfillment<br />ASERL holdings account for ~47% of regional academic collection<br />Upholding print preservation mandate an increasing challenge<br />
  46. 46. Diversity of institutional mandates <br />Leastreliant on traditionallibrary infrastructure<br />OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey, 2008.<br />
  47. 47. Declining ROA?<br />Circulation per FTE student is on a decline<br />OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 1992-2000.<br />
  48. 48. Same trend holds within ASERL<br />-41%<br />OCLC Research. Derived from ASERL Annual Statistics, 2002/2003 – 2009/2010.<br />
  49. 49. A long term, system-wide trend<br />OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.<br />
  50. 50. Higher Education funding cuts in 43 States<br />
  51. 51. Institutional autonomy varies<br />Modes of cooperation will vary<br /> … aswill motivation to share<br />OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey, 2008.<br />
  52. 52. Increasing privatization of Higher Education <br />OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Surveys, 2000-2008.<br />
  53. 53. Visible differences, hidden similarities <br />>56M holdings in aggregate<br />~34% of collective ASERL coll’n duplicated<br />~2M unique (discrete) titles <br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  54. 54. Median ASERL duplication in HathiTrust: 33%<br />Tennessee: 41%<br />Florida: 27%<br />[Standard deviation: 3%]<br />OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey, 2008.<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  55. 55. This edition held in print by more than 2,200 libraries . . .<br />including all 38 ASERL members<br />A total of 3 ILL requests since 2007 <br />0 from (or to) ASERL members<br />
  56. 56. An example: the University of Miami<br />~1.2 million University of Miami (FQG) library holdings in WorldCat<br /> 30,472 titles<br /> 363,405 titles<br />393,877 (33%) duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  57. 57. Weighing risks and benefits<br />96% of mass-digitized titles in Miami’s collection are held by >24 libraries <br />77% of mass-digitized titles in Miami’s collection are held by >99 libraries … low risk but print supply chain still needed<br />N = 393,877 titles<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  58. 58. Sizing up a potential shared print supplier<br />~1.2 million Miami (FQG) holdings<br />Represents at least 2.75 miles of library shelving @ Miami<br /> 232,827 titles<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  59. 59. Risk and opportunity profiles differ<br />N=370K titles<br />N=1.16M titles<br />Locally held titles in mass-digitized corpus abundant in system-wide collection<br />HathiTrust undergirds stewardship mission, redistributes costs of curation<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  60. 60. Stewardship & sustainability: a pragmatic view<br />Using recent life-cycle adjusted cost model* for library print collections,<br /> $4.25 per volume per year -- on campus<br /> $ .86 per volume per year -– in high-density storage<br />East Carolina University is spending, at minimum, between<br /> [373K titles * $.86 =] $320K to $1.6M[=373K titles * $4.25 ] annually<br />to retain local copies of content preserved in the HathiTrust Digital Library and widely-held in the ASERL community<br />The library is not financially accountable for these costs<br /> but it is responsible for managing them<br />*Paul Courant and M. “Buzzy” Nielson, “On the Cost of Keeping a Book” in The Idea of Order (CLIR, 2010)<br />
  61. 61. Where to turn?<br /><ul><li>Existing cooperative network: UNC system
  62. 62. UNC, NCSU & Duke are HathiTrust partners, participate in TRLN shared copy program – potential shared print suppliers?</li></ul>Represents at least 4 miles of library shelving @ East Carolina<br />~1.2 million ECU (ERE) holdings<br />373,370 (32%) in HathiTrust Digital Library<br />
  63. 63. Sep 2012<br />Dec 2012<br />Jun 2013<br />Sep 2013<br />ASERL libraries: a common trajectory, different timelines<br />The next few years are critical<br />% of titles duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library<br />How can regional infrastructure be leveraged to support this change?<br />OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.<br />
  64. 64. A closing thought<br />If we don’t demonstrate a little backbone<br />developing shared print solutions<br />the future of legacy print could look like<br />this<br />Guillotined books en route to recycling station.<br />
  65. 65. Thanks for your attention.<br />Comments, Questions? <br />Constance Malpas<br />malpasc@oclc.org<br />@ConstanceM<br />
  66. 66. For discussion<br /><ul><li>What criteria matter most in assessing potential shared print partners?
  67. 67. Geographic proximity, institutional governance, scope of collection, delivery guarantee, etc?
  68. 68. Is the economic integration of Southeastern mega-region(s) a factor to consider in shared print business planning?
  69. 69. Are partnerships in zones of strong economic integration be likely to be more sustainable?
  70. 70. How is the increasing privatization of higher education likely to affect regional shared print planning?
  71. 71. Do private and charter universities have greater flexibility in externalizing print operations? </li>

×