Downloaded 12 times
Uploaded byNITLE
David Lewis on Libraries
This document summarizes a presentation about the current state of college libraries and how disruptive innovation theory can help predict their future roles. It discusses how digital technologies and open access are disrupting traditional library collections and services. Specifically, it outlines how the shift from print to digital resources and from "just-in-case" to "just-in-time" collection development will significantly reduce the need for libraries to purchase extensive print collections. However, libraries can take on new roles curating special collections and providing services like research evaluation that the market cannot easily replace. The presentation aims to start a discussion about what new jobs libraries could perform and how to manage the disruption to traditional models and values.
More Related Content
Similar to David Lewis on Libraries
David Lewis on Libraries
- 1. All the King’sHorses and All the King’s Men: College Libraries at the Beginning of the Digital Age David W. Lewis NITLE October 31, 2012 © 2012 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
- 2. Abstract: This presentation willexamine what the current state of College Libraries. I will use the lens of Clayton Christensen’s theories of disruptive innovation to attempt to determine what jobs students and faculty will hire college libraries to do and what theories we can use to look into the future and make reasonable predictions about what is coming. A central consideration will be the role of collections. Collections are of prime importance because they are both where most of the money goes and because they have shaped library practice and values. They are core to how we see ourselves and how others see us. But collections have large opportunity costs, and if college libraries are to be successful in the next decade they must shed some of these costs, without impacting their users, and reinvest them in new services.
- 3. “That is whatreal revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place.” Clay Shirky, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” March 2009. Available at: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ Clay Shirky
- 4. Today’s Agenda 1. Importanceof Theory 2. Disruption in Our World 3. Clayton Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation Theory 4. What Job are We being Hired to Do? 5. Collections 6. Questions to Think About
- 5. The Importance ofTheory • Data is only available about the past • Every time we take an action it is based on a theory • The lens of theory lets you see the future • Usually our operating theory is that the future will be a continuation of the past
- 6. The Importance ofTheory • The future will be a continuation of the past is not the theory we need • Clayton Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation theory is a much better lens because it fits our time
- 7. “Disruptive Innovation transformsa product that historically was so expensive and complicated that only a few people with a lot of money and a lot of skill had access to it. A disruptive innovation makes the product so much more affordable and accessible that a much larger population have access to it.” Clayton Christensen, “Disruptive Innovation Explained,” HarvardBusiness, May 30, 2012. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrMAzCHFUU&feature=related
- 8. Our World isBeing Disrupted
- 9. 1. The BigShift 2. Ray Kurzweil 3. Clay Shirky
- 10. The Big Shift JohnHagel III, John Seely Brown, and Lang Davison, “Measuring the forces of long-term change: The 2009 Shift Index,” Deloitte Center for the Edge, 2009. Available at: http://www.johnhagel.com/shiftindex.pdf
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14. The Big Shift •First Order Effect: Technology substantially reduces barriers to entry and barriers to movement on a global scale • Second Order Effect: Competition intensifies on a global scale • Third Order Effect: As competition intensifies, instability and uncertainty increase
- 15. The Big Shift •Organizations have generally been unable to apply the capacities made possible by the technology to increase performance • Power moves to consumers • Power moves to trained and skilled individuals • Creates organizational and personal stress
- 16. See: Ray Kurzweil,“The Law of Accelerating Returns,” March 7, 2001, available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of- accelerating-returns Ray Kurzweil and “The Law of Accelerating Returns” When a technology becomes digital the pace of change becomes exponential.
- 17. See: Ray Kurzweil,“The Law of Accelerating Returns,” March 7, 2001, available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of- accelerating-returns
- 18. See: Ray Kurzweil,“The Law of Accelerating Returns,” March 7, 2001, available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of- accelerating-returns
- 19. See: Ray Kurzweil,“The Law of Accelerating Returns,” March 7, 2001, available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of- accelerating-returns
- 20. “The moment weare living through, the moment our historical generation is living through, is the largest increase in expressive capacity in human history.” Clay Shirky, “How Social Media Can Make History,” TED Talk, June 2009. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Clay Shirky
- 23.
- 24.
- 25. Disruptive Innovation • Thecapacity for customers to use new products and features increases, but at a slow rate • Products improve faster than customers can use the improvements • Products that are initially not good enough become too good
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29. Disruptive Innovation • UndershotCustomer – Wants and will pay new features – Where money can be made • Overshot Customer – Doesn’t care about new features – performance oversupply – Basis of competition changes – Wants product to be cheaper, faster, easier – Commoditization
- 30.
- 31.
- 32. Disruptive Innovation • Startsoff as not being good enough for established customers so they don’t care about the product • Often creates a new group of users who did not have the time, expertise, or money to use the established product • Begins by competing against non- consumption
- 33. Disruptive Innovation • Needs –NewTechnology (simplified solution) –New Business Model –New Value Chain • How products become cheaper, faster, and easier
- 34. Why can’t establishedfirms adapt disruptive innovations?
- 35. Business Models Value Proposition Aproduct that helps customers do more effectively, conveniently and affordably a job they’ve been trying to do
- 36. Business Models Value Proposition Aproduct that helps customers do more effectively, conveniently and affordably a job they’ve been trying to do Resources People, technology, products, facilities, equipment and cash that are required to deliver this value to customers
- 37. Value Proposition A productthat helps customers do more effectively, conveniently and affordably a job they’ve been trying to do Resources People, technology, products, facilities, equipment and cash that are required to deliver this value proposition to customers Processes Ways of working together to address recurrent tasks in a consistent way: training, development, budgeting, planning, etc. Business Models
- 38. Business Models Value Proposition Aproduct that helps customers do more effectively, conveniently and affordably a job they’ve been trying to do Resources People, technology, products, facilities, equipment and cash that are required to deliver this value proposition to customers Processes Ways of working together to address recurrent tasks in a consistent way: training, development, budgeting, planning, etc. Profit Formula/Values Assets and fixed cost structure, margins, professional values, career paths, etc.
- 39. Business Models Value Proposition Aproduct that helps customers do more effectively, conveniently and affordably a job they’ve been trying to do Resources People, technology, products, facilities, equipment and cash that are required to deliver this value proposition to customers Processes Ways of working together to address recurrent tasks in a consistent way: training, development, budgeting, planning, etc. Profit Formula/Values Assets and fixed cost structure, margins, professional values, career paths
- 40. Business Models • Establishedvalues make in nearly impossible for organizations to create disruptive innovation • Separation is the only strategy that works • Firms that survive sacrifice business units that don’t
- 41. Value Chain Product orService Sales and Service Supplier Customer
- 42. Value Chain Product orService Sales and Service Supplier Customer NEW Product
- 43. Value Chain Product orService Sales and Service Supplier Customer NEW Product
- 44. Value Chain Product orService Sales and Service Supplier Customer NEW Product NEW Supplier Sales and Service NEW Customer
- 45. Value Chain OLD Customer NEWProduct NEW Supplier Sales and Service NEW Customer
- 46. Response to DisruptiveInnovation • Cramming — Try to make the innovation work within old organization processes and culture This rarely works • Move up market — Focus make a better product for the best customers and concede lower end Eventually the market tops out
- 47. What Job areWe being Hired to Do?
- 48. Ronald Harry Coase “TheNature of the Firm” Economica 4 (16): 386–405 1937 Question: If markets are efficient, why do we have firms?
- 49. Ronald Harry Coase “TheNature of the Firm” Economica 4 (16): 386–405 1937 Question: If markets are efficient, why do we have firms? Answer: Transaction Costs
- 50. Ronald Harry Coase “TheNature of the Firm” Economica 4 (16): 386–405 1937 • Where the market has high transactions costs firms bring activities in house
- 51. “The Nature ofthe Firm” and Libraries • In the past the market could not answer questions • Now answering many kinds of questions is easy • What is hard now is evaluating what you find
- 52. “The Nature ofthe Firm” and Libraries • In the past the market could not manage collections • Now access to many kinds of collections is easy • What is hard now is curation and preservation of “unpublished” and special materials
- 53. Old Job: Provide documentsto users by building a local collection
- 54. Our approach tocollections has created our values and it is how others judge us. Changing this will be very hard!!
- 55. Redefining the AcademicLibrary: Managing the Migration to Digital Information Services, Advisory Board Company 2011. Available at: http://www.theconferencecircuit.com/wp-content/uploads/Provosts-Report-on-Academic-Libraries2.pdf
- 56. Redefining the AcademicLibrary: Managing the Migration to Digital Information Services, Advisory Board Company 2011. Available at: http://www.educationadvisoryboard.com/pdf/23634-EAB-Redefining-the-Academic-Library.pdf 10 M 20 M 22 M30 M ?
- 57. Two Drivers ofChange in Collections 1. Open Access 2. Change from Just-in-Case to Just-in-Time
- 58. Two Drivers ofChange in Collections 1. Open Access - Journals 2. Change from Just-in-Case to Just-in-Time - Books
- 59. Open Access “Open-access (OA)literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions).” – Peter Suber Peter Suber, “Open Access Overview,” at: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
- 60. Open Access • OpenAccess is a disruptive innovation (Clayton Christensen) – New technology – New business model – Starts out as an inferior product – Improves over time and its advantages make it dominant – Adoption follows an S-curve not a straight line David W. Lewis, “The Inevitability of Open Access,” College & Research Libraries September 2012. Available at: http://crl.acrl.org/content/73/5/493.full.pdf+html
- 61. Open Access 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Figure 3:Pace of Substitution of Direct Gold OA for Subscription Journals (normal scale) Laakso, et. al. Estimates S-curve Extrapolation Based on 2000-2009 S-curve Extrapolation Based on 2005-2009 David W. Lewis, “The Inevitability of Open Access,” College & Research Libraries September 2012. Available at: http://crl.acrl.org/content/73/5/493.full.pdf+html
- 62. From January 1,2012 to October 25, 2012 18,414 Articles Published
- 63. eLife is aresearcher-driven initiative for the very best in science and science communication. We promote rapid, fair, and more constructive review. We will use digital media and open access to increase the influence of published works. We commit to serving authors and advancing careers in science. At eLife, Publishing is just the beginning.
- 64. If we canset a goal to sequence the human genome for $99... then why not $99 for scholarly publishing? PeerJ is an Open Access publisher of scholarly articles. We aim to drive the costs of publishing down, while improving the overall publishing experience, and providing authors with a publication venue suitable for the 21st Century.
- 66.
- 67. Implications of OpenAccess 1. Changes in review practices because space is not an issue 2. “Journal” becomes less important than the article 3. Large sites replace individual journals, for example PLoS One or SSRN
- 68. Implications of OpenAccess 1. As more journals become open access, the library will have to pay for fewer journals 2. Escape from the grip of monopolistic publishers 3. Libraries in their role of information providers, won’t be part of the system
- 70. Just-in-Case to Just-in-Time •In a typical research library 50% of the books that are purchased never circulate • In the past this made sense as an insurance policy
- 71. Just-in-Case to Just-in-Time •Now nearly any book can be purchased at any time with very quick delivery • Why purchase before the user needs an item if you don’t have to? • Since past use is the best predictor of future use, books users “select” are likely to get use in the future
- 72. • Print booksdelivered nearly as quickly as digital files • Digital readers nearly as good as print books For what might come next, see: Mike Matas, “A Next-Generation Digital Book,” TED Talk, March 2011. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/mike_matas.html
- 73. Implications of Just-in-Case toJust-in-Time 1. Aggressively work at not buying books that will never be used 2. Book purchases will decline 3. But impact on readers will be minimal 1. Will impact scholarly publishers by reducing revenue They don’t see this coming
- 74.
- 75. 1. What dowe give up? • Disruptive Innovations have replaced our expensive and hard to use services • Can we free ride on commercial services or other libraries? • Implications for our role on campus • Implications for the status of the campus
- 76. 2. What DoWe Do Differently? • Can aggressively pursued sustaining innovations keep us ahead of our competitors? • Can we collaborate to achieve greater scale and efficiency? • Can we disrupt our own services?
- 77. 3. What NewThings Can We Do? • Can we disrupt others? • Are there new jobs we can be hired to do?
- 78. “That is whatreal revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place.” Clay Shirky, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” March 2009. Available at: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ Clay Shirky
- 79. Questions? Comments © 2012 DavidW. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Editor's Notes
- #12 The Foundation Index, with an index value of 153 in 2008, has increased at a 10 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) since 1993.This index, shown in Exhibit 4, tells the story of a swiftly moving digital infrastructure propelled by unremitting price performance improvements in computing, storage, and bandwidth that show no signs of stabilizing.The Flow Index, with an index value of 139 in 2008, has increased at a seven percent CAGR since 1993.The Flow Index, shown in Exhibit 6, measures the rate of change and magnitude of knowledge flows resulting from the advances in digital infrastructure and public policy liberalization.This index is designed to measure the rate of change and magnitude of the impact of the Big Shift on three key constituencies: Markets, Firms, and People. For People, it attempts to determine how effective they are as consumers and creative talent at harnessing the benefits of knowledge flows unleashed by advances in the core digital infrastructure. Because they are already good at doing this—and are only getting better at it—the index is set to increase as they derive more value from the Big Shift.At least in the short term, however, Markets and Firms appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Partly at the hands of the consumers and talent who are doing so well, pressures on returns are unparalleled, and the traditional way of doing business is increasingly under siege. So as markets grow more volatile, competition intensifies, and firm performance declines, the Impact Index will also increase.
- #13 Findings from the 2009 Shift Index suggest that deep changes in our economic foundations continue to outpace the flows of knowledge they enable and their impact on markets, firms, and people. Fitting a trend line to each of the three indices, we see that the Foundation Index has moved much more quickly in the past 15 years (with a slope of 7.83) relative to the Flow Index (5.95) and the Impact Index (1.93). These comparative rates of change are shown in Exhibit 3.Comparing the relative rates of change and magnitudes of the three indices reveals telling gaps. The gap between the Foundation Index (153) and the Impact Index (111), for example, defines the scope of the challenges and opportunities that arise from rapidly changing digital infrastructure. Essentially, it measures the economic instability that results from performance potential (reflected by the Foundation Index) rising more quickly than realized performance (reflected in the Impact Index). If realized performance is significantly lower than potential performance, there is growing room for disruptive innovation to narrow this gap.
- #14 Findings from the 2009 Shift Index suggest that deep changes in our economic foundations continue to outpace the flows of knowledge they enable and their impact on markets, firms, and people. Fitting a trend line to each of the three indices, we see that the Foundation Index has moved much more quickly in the past 15 years (with a slope of 7.83) relative to the Flow Index (5.95) and the Impact Index (1.93). These comparative rates of change are shown in Exhibit 3.Comparing the relative rates of change and magnitudes of the three indices reveals telling gaps. The gap between the Foundation Index (153) and the Impact Index (111), for example, defines the scope of the challenges and opportunities that arise from rapidly changing digital infrastructure. Essentially, it measures the economic instability that results from performance potential (reflected by the Foundation Index) rising more quickly than realized performance (reflected in the Impact Index). If realized performance is significantly lower than potential performance, there is growing room for disruptive innovation to narrow this gap.