What’s in Store? Defining the Opportunity for Collective Storage

What’s in Store? Defining the Opportunity for Collective Storage

Constance MalpasProgram Officer, OCLC Research

Center for Library Initiatives

23 May 2011

RoadmapRoadmap

• Shared print and the (re)organization of the library

• Presidential perspectives on the future of HE

• CIC: scoping the opportunity for cooperative print

• Sourcing and scaling: poly-cooperative organizations

Shared print: books and boundariesShared print: books and boundaries

• Cooperative print storage represents a strategic externalization of library operations

• Enables a redefinition of the library ‘service bundle’

• Characterizing the value of cooperative print storage exclusively in terms of library space savings or institutional cost avoidance misses the pointShared infrastructure can transform the academic

library, enabling a redirection of resource in support of a

more distinctive service portfolio that maximizes institutional reputation and impact

Library ‘service bundle’ (Lavoie, Dempsey)Library ‘service bundle’ (Lavoie, Dempsey)

“An academic library is a bundle of information-related resources and services that a university has chosen to provide internally, rather than transact for them with external parties …Transaction costs help explain why academic libraries look the way they do today… As the pattern of transaction costs change, so too will the boundaries of the library”Brian Lavoie & Lorcan Dempsey “Rethinking the Boundaries of the Academic Library”

OCLC Next Space 17 (January 2011): 16-17.

[Shared print = a shift in the operational boundaries of the library]

Core library operations are moving “outside” institutional boundaries

cooperative cataloging ILL, resource sharing approval plans

licensed content digital preservation . . . print management

As transaction costs fall, so do boundariesAs transaction costs fall, so do boundaries

creating room for more distinctive library services

Source: Presidential Perspectives: the 2011 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College & University Presidents

Externalization is a strategic choiceExternalization is a strategic choice

In the opinion of university presidents, outsourcing campus services ranks

highest among preferred strategies for cost

reduction

Reorganizing the library systemReorganizing the library system

“Many academic libraries continue to maintain redundant and inefficient library operations, automating old workflows and resisting new combinations and outsourcing strategies to carry out the basic work. They are missing opportunities to take advantage of scale and network effects through aggregation and to move core functions and services to the cloud.”

James G. Neal “Prospects for Systemic Change across Academic Libraries” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 46, no. 2 (March/April 2011)

Reconfiguring academic collectionsReconfiguring academic collections

• Enabling a renewal and revitalization of the library’s core service mission to the University

• Redistributing the costs and benefits of stewardship across research library sector

• Ensuring the long-term survivability of low-use, long-tail content for future generations of scholars

Shared print is not about “getting rid of books” or

devaluing scholarly interactions with legacy print

Fractures emerging in HE systemFractures emerging in HE system

• Among 956 university presidents surveyed, budget shortfalls topped the list of current concerns

But the relative priority of funded activities differs by segment and sector, e.g.

• Presidents of private research institutions are more concerned about the decline of support for the humanities (66%) than presidents of public research institutions (56%)

• Institutional support for traditional local library infrastructure may become harder to justify at some public universities

• This could have important consequences for CIC and shared print efforts in general

Source: Presidential Perspectives: the 2011 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College & University Presidents

Libraries as humanities laboratoryLibraries as humanities laboratory

Sure, but…

• Infrastructure not supported by federal R&D dollars

• An institutional cost-center that must be managed

• Declining production of humanities PhDs means audience for traditional collection-centric service portfolio is smaller, less evenly distributed

• Institutional reputation increasingly driven by scholarly productivity measures, success in sponsored research

In desperate times, desperate measuresIn desperate times, desperate measures

Source: University of California Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee Library Planning Task Force Interim Report, May, 2011 .

UC libraries aim to achieve $15M in cost reductions in 2011-2012

In this climate, shared print must deliver real impact

Zones of economic integrationZones of economic integration

http://www.creativeclass.com/whos_your_city/maps/#Mega-Regions_of_North_America

CIC is the HE/research engine of this economic mega-region

A Master Plan for a mega-regionA Master Plan for a mega-region

“[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)

A snapshot of CIC library resourcesA snapshot of CIC library resources

OCLC Research. Based on WorldCat snapshot. Data current as of April 2011.

~2M holdings ‘unique’ to CIC~5% of institutional collection on average

~70% of CIC holdings are relatively abundant in library system

Combined resources of 3 largest CIC libraries sufficient to duplicate 2/3rds of individual member print coll’ns

N = 17M titles; 47M CIC holdings

CIC investment in library storageCIC investment in library storage

~84M vols in CIC libraries@ 4.25 / yr = $375M / yr?

[~$310 M / yr ?]~11M vols in CIC library storage

facilities@.86 = $9.5M / yr

Aggregate CIC library storage = nearly $320M per year*Some part of this represents redundant expenditure

*not accounted for in annual library operating budgets

~5M CIC vols in HathiTrust @.15 = $750K / yr

Shared storage: what’s it worth?Shared storage: what’s it worth?

Courant & Nielson (2010): high-density off-site 1/3 the cost of on-campus collections

• Assumes off-site collection remains low-use

• Erosion of aggregate print holdings may increase demand on shared print (storage) collection

• Increased reliance on digital surrogates may held moderate demand for print

• CIC can maximize value of shared print storage by leveraging investments in HathiTrust

Defining terms: you say oyster…Defining terms: you say oyster…

• You say: ~84M volumes in CIC libraries [~10M in storage?]

• You say: ~5M CIC volumes (6%) digitized in HathiTrust

since many titles in the CIC aggregate collection are held by

multiple member libraries, those 4M titles represent

between 4M and 50M print volumes in CIC institutions:

I say…

We see: 17M discrete titles held by CIC libraries

We see: 4M CIC titles (24%) digitized in HathiTrust

“That’s a lot of oysters” [photo by Paul Miller]

Economy of scale

Economies of scale in the CICEconomies of scale in the CIC

What is the impact of 6M digitized books?For open scholarship, research reputation, collaborative economies of scale?

Source: 2007-2010 CIC Strategic Priorities Impact Report Card

33% or more of individual CIC library

collections are duplicated in HathiTrust

33% or more of individual CIC library

collections are duplicated in HathiTrust

1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,0000%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Titles in Library

% o

f Tit

les D

uplicate

d in H

ath

iTru

st

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshots. Data current as of May 2011.

In context of shared print planning, this overlap represents significant opportunity

Sizing up the opportunity for CIC shared printSizing up the opportunity for CIC shared print

741,910 ti-tles 18%

3,348,495 titles 82%

Online Availability of HathiTrust Titles held in print by CIC libraries

Full-view Search-only

Shared print storage provides cost-effective alternative to local management of these resources

N = 4,090,405 titles

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshots. Data current as of May 2011.

Collective asset defined as aggregate digitized resource

Reductio ad absurdum: common good is that which every member holds

Reductio ad absurdum: common good is that which every member holds

3,111 ti-tles 5%

63,291 ti-tles 95%

Online Availability of HathiTrust Titles held in print by all 13 members of CIC

Full-view Search-only

Represents at least 863K items in CIC libraries, as much as $3.6M in total library print storage costs and54K linear feet of shelving across CIC

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshots. Data current as of May 2011.

N = 66,402 titles

Why all this emphasis on HathiTrust in context of print

storage?

Why all this emphasis on HathiTrust in context of print

storage?

• Affordances of online access -- even search-only access -– can help moderate demand for print, facilitating transfer to off-site storage

• Scale of HathiTrust as a digital preservation resource fundamentally alters the balance between libraries and e-content providers

• Scope of HathiTrust collection, expansive coverage of monographic literature in the humanities, is a critical component of emerging cyber-infrastructure

Shared print storage options in the CICShared print storage options in the CIC

• Leverage existing storage inventory in 10+ CIC facilities as shared preservation collection

• Opportunity: low barrier to implementation; Challenge: inventory not optimized for shared service provision; preservation/access value highly variable

• Look to other regional partners (UC RLF, ReCAP, etc.) for cooperative print provision

• Opportunity: maximize network effects – RLF alone provides coverage of 80% of CIC digitized titles Challenge: networks of trust not yet in place

• Hybrid solution – maximize reliance on existing infrastructure while deliberately constructing new cooperative print resource

• Opportunity: maximizes participation Challenge: difficult to achieve economies of scale

Universities are poly-cooperative organizationsUniversities are poly-cooperative organizations

Potential for many overlapping shared print networks

• Peer group: CIC, HathiTrust

• Regional: ASERL, CARLI, Minitex, PALCI, WEST etc

• Disciplinary: NN/LM, FDLP, Law

Who’s to say which ‘group interest’ will prevail for any given institution?

In the near- to medium-term, library system(s) will need to accommodate multiple shared print

arrangements

Scaling up: shared storage & network disclosureScaling up: shared storage & network disclosure

OCLC Print Archives pilot project (2010-2011)

• Leveraging existing bibliographic infrastructure to support disclosure of print archiving commitments

• MARC 583 (Action Note) in local holdings record provides item-level granularity

• New institution symbols used to distinguish print archives

• Group Access Catalogs (GAC) support discovery, resource sharing

• Aggregated data = evidence base for decision support

Print Archives Pilot timelinePrint Archives Pilot timeline

Recruit participants, assemble teams (Oct – Nov 2010)

Assess gaps in current infrastructure (Dec – Jan 2011)

Draft framework (Feb – Mar 2011)

Group review (April – May 2011)

Test implementation (Jun – Jul 2011)

Thanks for your attention.Thanks for your attention.

Comments, Questions? Constance Malpasmalpasc@oclc.org

@ConstanceM