Research Collaborative Management of Shared Print Collections Jim Michalko Vice President OCLC Research Association of Research Libraries Membership Meeting

Research

Collaborative Management of Shared Print Collections

Jim MichalkoVice PresidentOCLC Research

Association of Research Libraries Membership Meeting21 May 2009Houston, TX

with thanks to Constance Malpas for her significant contributions

Research Collaborative Management of Shared Print CollectionsARL Membership Meeting 21 May 2009

2

Books have held us up


3

Overview

• Context• Implications• Library Collaboration• OCLC Research activities and reports

• Storage Facility• Shared Print Policy Review

• [Development of complex infrastructure]• Necessary conditions• A model project • Early insights


4

THEN


5

NOW


6

Viewpoint and vision: Research collections deliver maximum value to

the scholarly enterprise when they are managed as a network resource that supports a broadly distributed community of scholars.

Implications:

Manage in new ways for both service satisfactionand cost imperatives


7

Library Collaboration

Shared Policies

Shared Operating Practices

Shared Infrastructure

Shared Assets


8

2007: Surveying the Landscape

• Structured interviews with managers of shared print collections in North America, England and Scotland• From shared space to shared ownership• Rationalisation of regional holdings

• Assessing aggregate collection as a collective asset• Institutional distribution of unique print book titles in

North American research institutions – 6.9M titles in 128 institutions; median 19K

• Implications for long-term preservation

• L. Payne “Library Storage and the Future of Library Print Collections in North America” - commissioned report• New incentives for inter-institutional collaboration• Shared infrastructure should be more effectively

leveraged to produce a broader system-wide approach


9


10

ARL Libraries are the ones still investing in print

The investment is very unevenly distributed


11

Duplication Rate in an Aggregate Academic Collection

1

2

3

4

5

6

1900 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 2005

Publication Date

Ave

rag

e N

o. o

f C

op

ies

4.5


12

Circulation in an Aggregate Academic Collection

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.001% 0.010% 0.100% 1.000% 10.000% 100.000%

% of Books

% o

f C

ircul

atio

n

12.86%

(788,483)


13

2008: Assessing Infrastructure Requirements• Shared print policy review

• Content analysis of 18 single- and last-copy policies: how much is enough?

• Incentives and imperatives vary but common themes prevail: explicit commitment to retain, escape clauses and exemptions

• Core requirements: network disclosure of locally negotiated partnerships; a new business model that acknowledges deepening inter-dependencies; common terms of reference

• Have what’s needed to move with confidence

• Now implement change:• Is about building new infrastructure to create shared assets• Have facilities, storage and supply practices, have policies• What structures needed?


14

Structures

• Suppliers• Reliable suppliers of digital publications

- the publishers and aggregators from whom we license• Reliable suppliers of print

- the existing library storage facilities transformed• Reliable suppliers of digitized print

- the HathiTrust (others? OCA? GBS?)

• Shape these structures?• Non-owning ‘customer’ institutions

- other ARL and academic libraries e.g. NYU• Service extension to broad audience


15

Registry

Transfers

Borrowing System

SharedCollections

WIthdrawals

Retrievals

DigitizedLibrary CollectionsOff-Site Collections

Commitments

Holdings

Loans

Disclose

Aggregate holdings and joint commitments constitute a

shared assetenabling collaborative

management strategies

ProceduresPolicies

InfrastructureAssets

Local Collections


16

Complex infrastructure development – a word

Never from above

Modular

IncrementalDistributed construction

CombinedRecombined


17

TLC project - Toward(s) a Cloud Library

• NYU – motivated customer• Space pressures• Limited mandate to comprehensive collection

• ReCap• Large-scale shared academic storage collection

• HathiTrust• Large-scale shared digital repository

• OCLC Research and CLIR –consultants and convener

GOAL• an implementation framework to rely on HT and ReCap• model costs and opportunities• requirements for sustainable business partnerships


18

N=2.3M

Opportunities for Institutional Cooperation Shared Policy Frameworks

Joint Service Agreements Increased Operational Efficiencies

Material that NYU can already source through existing ILL – enhance local collection

Material that NYU can obtain through HT dependent on copyright status – means of enhancing ‘local’ collection

Material that NYU may choose to relegate based on copyright/ availability Material that NYU

may choose to relegate with appropriate service level agreement

N = 7.4 M

ReCAP

ReCAP

N=2.8M

Intersections

Material that NYU can relegate with a high degree of confidence

Network Effects Increase as Number of Participants Grows


19

Plan of Work

• Phase I: Characterize Aggregate Collection (May-June?)Assess duplication rates across NYU, ReCAP and HathiTrust; compare to existing data on supply and demand patterns in aggregate academic collections

• Phase II: Model Service Expectations (July-August?)Identify core svc req’ts to increase NYU reliance on Hathi and ReCAP; draft sample RFP

• Phase III: Calibrate Supplier Service Offering (August–September?)

Evaluate feasibility and cost requirements for meeting stated expectations; draft implementation framework

• Phase IV: Test Implementation Framework (October ?)Test reliability of joint service agreements against targeted space savings / cost avoidance at NYU


20

Some early observations and analysis

Currently examining intersection of HathiTrust corpus (ca. May 2009), NYU library holdings and a subset of WorldCat representing widely-held scholarly titles

Titles in the public domain, representing greatest potential library ‘cost avoidance’ benefit:• History, Language & Literature content

predominates• Subject areas where print circulation is relatively low …but also• Disciplines most resistant to digital format transition

• Government publications are well represented…but also present challenges for relegation


21

Managing Risk . . .

• Lowest-risk targets for relegation: widely duplicated scholarly print titles that are held in ReCAP and available as public domain content in Hathi

High redundancy rate = low preservation risk Digital formats support new forms of scholarly work Regional print repository elevates confidence in

preservation & access

• As of May 2009, nearly 12,000 such titles at NYU• Rate of duplication increases each month as new

content is added to Hathi and ReCAP -- at a rate faster than annual collection growth in ARL libraries


22

• Much greater opportunities for space/cost savings for in-copyright titles -- and much greater reliance on robust physical delivery networks.

Success of shared digital repositories like [Hathi] in creating operational efficiencies for academic

libraries is highly dependent upon reciprocal service agreements

with shared physical repositories like [ReCAP]and

the emergence of joint business agreements with institutional consumers like [NYU].

. . . Maximizing Benefit


23

Registry

Transfers

Borrowing System

SharedCollections

WIthdrawals

Retrievals

DigitizedLibrary CollectionsOff-Site Collections

Commitments

Holdings

Loans

Disclose

Aggregate holdings and joint commitments constitute a

shared assetenabling collaborative

management strategies

ProceduresPolicies

InfrastructureAssets

Local Collections

ReCAP

Documents

Research Collaborative Management of Shared Print Collections Jim Michalko Vice President OCLC Research Association of Research Libraries Membership Meeting