Upload
oclc-research
View
7
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Keynote from ASERL 2011 Meeting (Nashville, TN).
Citation preview
Constance MalpasProgram Officer, OCLC Research
The Big Shift: Managing Research Collections in the Cloud
The Big Shift: Managing Research Collections in the Cloud
Annual Meeting28 April 2011
RoadmapRoadmap
• Think Big – sourcing and scaling, mega regions
• Emerging infrastructure – managing collections ‘in the cloud’
• Shared print service provision - opportunities, challenges
• ASERL in perspective – regional and system-wide context
You are … where?You are … where?
http://www.creativeclass.com/whos_your_city/maps/#Mega-Regions_of_North_America
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)
“Sharing of library and researchfacilities can augment scholarly production and assure fuller use of cultural assets without great extra cost to the state.” (p. 37)
Shared print is a prime example: a core operation that
is moving “outside” institutional boundaries
University of California Orbis Cascade WEST CIC TRLIN Hathi Print CAVAL, UKRR, JURA etc.
Boundary work and the library ‘service bundle’Boundary work and the library ‘service bundle’
A ‘Big Shift’ in attention, resourcesA ‘Big Shift’ in attention, resources
Shared Print: what’s the problem?Shared Print: what’s the problem?
Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value
Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaborative research vs. “warehouse of books”
Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate, capacity to support print preservation
As transaction costs for managing legacy print collections decrease, libraries will seek to externalize print operations to shared repositories
Shared Print: OCLC ResearchShared Print: OCLC Research
Active portfolio of work since 2007:
• North American library storage capacity (2007)
• ~70M volumes in storage; cooperative models in the minority
• Policy requirements shared print repositories (2009)
• critical need: disclosure of print preservation commitments
• Leveraging infrastructure: MARC21 583 Action Note (2009/2011)
• copy-level retention, condition statements are required
• Cloud-sourcing research collections (2010)
• mass digitization of monographs accelerates shift to shared print
Shared Print value proposition(s)Shared Print value proposition(s)
1) Ensures long-term survivability of ‘last copies’ and low-use print journals and books
Extension of traditional repository function; limited motivation to subsidize
2) Enables reduction in redundant inventory for moderately and widely-held titles, facilitating redirection of library resources toward more distinctive service portfolio
Strategic reserve provides a hedge against disruption in the marketplace, rapid fluctuations in scholarly value & function of print; provides tangible value to participant
Growth of US library storage infrastructureGrowth of US library storage infrastructure
1982
1986
1987
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
Built
Capaci
ty
in V
olu
me E
quiv
ale
nts
(2007)
Aggregate off-site capacity has increased exponentially
+ 70 million volumes in storage (2007)
Derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)
2 high-density facilities
68 high-density facilities
Date of Original Construction
Aggregate preservation resource: a black box?Aggregate preservation resource: a black box?
Of 68 storage facilities identified in Payne (OCLC, 2007):
• 2 are visible in WorldCat today: UC NRLF & UC SRLF
• Proxies: CRL, LC?
Among 9 ASERL storage collections profiled in 2004:
• 80% of monographic titles held in a single storage facility
SRLF (ZAS)
NRLF (ZAP)
CRL AZ State (AZS)
UC Irvine (CUI)
Rutgers (NJR)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
<25 libraries 25-99 libraries100-499 libraries >499 libraries
Titles in ‘shared print’ collections less widely held?
Less widely held
More widely held
Projected growth of HathiTrust Digital LibraryProjected growth of HathiTrust Digital Library
June-09Dec
June-10Dec
June-11Dec
June-12
Decembe...
June-13
Decembe...
June-14
Decembe...
June-15
Decembe...
June-16
Decembe...
June-17
Decembe...
June-18
Decembe...
June-190
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
June 2010 - June 2020
Growth in volumes Growth in titles
*
Harvard University Library in constant 2008 volumes
* Library of Congress in constant 2008 volumes
OCLC Research. June 2010
Premise of Cloud Library project (2009-2010)Premise of Cloud Library project (2009-2010)
Emergence of large scale shared print and digital
repositories creates an opportunity for strategic
externalization of traditional repository function
• Reduce total costs of preserving scholarly record
• Enable reallocation of institutional resources• Support renovation of library service portfolio• Create new business relationships among
libraries
A bridge strategy to guarantee access and preservation of long tail, low use collections
during ongoing p- to e- transition
25 years
+70M vols.
0101010101010
1010101010101
0101010101010
1010101010101
0101010101010
15 months
+5M vols.
Shared infrastructure: books & bitsShared infrastructure: books & bits
Will this intersection create new operational efficiencies? For which libraries? Under what conditions? How soon and with what impact?
HathiTrust
Academic off-site storage
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Rank in 2008 ARL Investment Index
% o
f T
itle
s i
n L
oca
l C
oll
ecti
on
A global change in the library environmentA global change in the library environment
June 2010Median duplication: 31%
June 2009Median duplication: 19%
Academic print book collection already substantially duplicated in mass digitized book corpus (HathiTrust)
OCLC Research. June 2010
A mirror of the academic print collectionA mirror of the academic print collection
Language, Linguistics & Literature
Unknown Classification
Philosophy & Religion
Engineering & Technology
Political Science
Sociology
Education
Physical Sciences
Medicine
Agriculture
Mathematics
Performing Arts
Psychology
Chemistry
Medicine By Body System
Health Facilities, Nursing
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000
Distribution of Titles in HathiTrust Digital Library by Subject and Copyright Status
(June 2010)
Public DomainIn Copyright
Titles / EditionsN = 3.64M titles
C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)
A critical mass of retrospective literature in the humanities, social sciences
An opportunity and a challengeAn opportunity and a challenge
>50% of titles are ‘widely held’
>80% of titles are in copyright
An opportunity to rationalize holdings, but…
library print supply chain will be needed for some time
OCLC Research. June 2010
Mass-digitized books in print repositoriesMass-digitized books in print repositories
Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-100
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Mass digitized books in Hathi digital repository Mass digitized books in shared print repositories
Un
iqu
e T
itle
s
~75% of mass digitized corpus is ‘backed up’ in one or more shared print repositories
~3.5M titles
~2.5M
PredictionPrediction
Within the next 5-10 years, focus of shared print archiving and service provision will shift to
monographic collections
• large scale service hubs will provide low-cost print management on a subscription basis;
• reducing local expenditure on print operations, releasing space for new uses and facilitating a redirection of library resources;
• enabling rationalization of aggregate print collection and renovation of library service portfolio
Mass digitization of retrospective print collections will drive this transition
WHAT WILL IT TAKE?WHAT WILL IT TAKE?Shared print service provision . . .
Shared Print provision: capacity variesShared Print provision: capacity varies
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.% o
f H
ath
iTru
st
titl
es d
up
licate
d in
pri
nt
rep
osit
ory
Shared print marketplace: who has the edge?Shared print marketplace: who has the edge?
C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)
Or, reconfigure resource to maximize value Or, reconfigure resource to maximize value
C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)
Management Perspective: How Much is Enough?Management Perspective: How Much is Enough?
Shared Print service must deliver• Space recovery equal to “one floor” at outset• Volume reduction equal to X years of print
acquisitions• Cost not to exceed current storage options• Minimize (visible) disruption in operations
If management of mass-digitized monographs could be externalized to large scale providers today: average space recovery of 20,000 ASF per ARL library cost avoidance of ~$1M for new storage module cost avoidance of $1M per year for on-site management
Staff Perspective: What’s Good EnoughStaff Perspective: What’s Good Enough
Shared Print service provision must equal or exceed
• Turnaround/delivery from local storage (<2 days)• Local loan period • Local access/availability guarantee, ability to
recall etc• Discoverability of local resource
Local retention mandated when title held by <10 libraries
No one mentioned . . . Home delivery option direct to patron Acceptable loss rate repository viability Penalties for late return impact on other clients
Implications: Shared PrintImplications: Shared Print
A small number of repositories may suffice for ‘global’ shared print provision of low-use monographs
Generic service offer is needed to achieve economies of scale, build network; uniform T&C
Fuller disclosure of storage collections is needed to judge capacity of current infrastructure, identify potential hubs
Service hubs will need to shape inventory to market needs; more widely duplicated, moderately used titles
If extant providers aren’t motivated to change service model, a new organization may be needed
LOCAL CONTEXTLOCAL CONTEXTShared print in perspective . . .
ASERL in system-wide contextASERL in system-wide context
~880 academic libraries in ASERL region (2008)
• represents 23% of all academic libraries in the US
• 134 (15%) support institutions offering doctoral programs
38 ASERL libraries provide backbone for academic institutions throughout the region
• Rich collections, robust infrastructure, reliable fulfillment
• ASERL holdings account for ~47% of regional academic collection
• Upholding print preservation mandate an increasing challenge
Diversity of institutional mandates Diversity of institutional mandates
OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey, 2008.
Least reliant on traditional
library infrastructure
Circulation per FTE student is on a declineCirculation per FTE student is on a decline
OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 1992-2000.
Declining ROA?
Same trend holds within ASERLSame trend holds within ASERL
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
5
10
15
20
25
Median Circulation Transactions per FTE Student
in ASERL Member Libraries
OCLC Research. Derived from ASERL Annual Statistics, 2002/2003 – 2009/2010.
-41%
A long term, system-wide trendA long term, system-wide trend
19771982
19851988
19921995
19971998
20002002
20042006
2008$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
US Academic Library Expenditures vs. Total Spending on Post-Secondary Education
Aggregate US Spending on Post-Secondary Education US Library Operating Exp. as % of Ed. Spending
$6.8 billion in 2008
OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.
Higher Education funding cuts in 43 StatesHigher Education funding cuts in 43 States
Institutional autonomy variesInstitutional autonomy varies
OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey, 2008.
Modes of cooperation will vary … as will motivation to share
Increasing privatization of Higher Education Increasing privatization of Higher Education
OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Surveys, 2000-2008.
Visible differences, hidden similarities Visible differences, hidden similarities
AAUMFM TM
AFX
GNGU
ERE
VPILR
UALM FD
AKUK
FUG
NDD
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
ASERL Member Holdings in WorldCat
Tit
les
AAUMFM TM
AFX
GNGU
ERE
VPILR
UALM FD
AKUK
FUG
NDD
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
ASERL Member Holdings Duplicated in HathiTrust
Tit
le O
verl
ap
(%
)
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
>56M holdings in aggregate
~34% of collective ASERL coll’n duplicated~2M unique (discrete) titles
Median ASERL duplication in HathiTrust: 33%Median ASERL duplication in HathiTrust: 33%
0
500,
000
1,00
0,00
0
1,50
0,00
0
2,00
0,00
0
2,50
0,00
0
3,00
0,00
0
3,50
0,00
0
4,00
0,00
00%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Holdings in WorldCat
Tit
les D
up
licate
d
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
Tennessee: 41%
Florida: 27%
[Standard deviation: 3%]
OCLC Research. Derived from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey, 2008.
This edition held in print by more than 2,200 libraries . . .
including all 38 ASERL members
A total of 3 ILL requests since 2007
0 from (or to) ASERL members
An example: the University of MiamiAn example: the University of Miami
Full ViewSearch Only
~1.2 million University of Miami (FQG) library holdings in WorldCat
393,877 (33%) duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library
30,472 titles
363,405 titles
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
Weighing risks and benefitsWeighing risks and benefits
12-
45-
9
10-2
4
25-4
9
50-7
4
75-9
9
100-
149
150-
199
200-
299
300-
399
400-
499
500-
599
600-
699
700-
799
800-
899
900-
999
1000
-149
9
1500
-180
0
2000
-249
9
2500
-0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
System-wide Print Distribution of University of Miami Titles Duplicated in HathiTrust Digital
Library
Search Only
Full View
Holding Libraries
Tit
les /
Edit
ions
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
77% of mass-digitized titles in Miami’s collection are held by >99 libraries … low risk but print supply chain still needed
96% of mass-digitized titles in Miami’s collection are held by >24 libraries
N = 393,877 titles
Sizing up a potential shared print supplierSizing up a potential shared print supplier
FUG could supply
Represents at least 2.75 miles of library shelving @ Miami
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
232,827 titles
~1.2 million Miami (FQG) holdings
Risk and opportunity profiles differRisk and opportunity profiles differ
>10 li-braries
0%
10 to 24 libraries
1%
25 to 99 libraries
9%
>99 li-
braries
90%
>10 libraries2% 10 to 24
libraries13%
25 to 99 libraries
34%
>99 li-
braries
51%
Locally held titles in mass-digitized corpus abundant in system-wide collection
HathiTrust undergirds stewardship mission, redistributes costs of curationOCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
N=1.16M titles
N=370K titles
Stewardship & sustainability: a pragmatic viewStewardship & sustainability: a pragmatic view
Using recent life-cycle adjusted cost model* for library print collections,
$4.25 per volume per year -- on campus$ .86 per volume per year -– in high-density storage
East Carolina University is spending, at minimum, between
[373K titles * $.86 =] $320K to $1.6M [=373K titles * $4.25 ] annually
to retain local copies of content preserved in the HathiTrust Digital Library and widely-held in the ASERL communityThe library is not financially accountable for
these costs but it is responsible for managing them
*Paul Courant and M. “Buzzy” Nielson, “On the Cost of Keeping a Book” in The Idea of Order (CLIR, 2010)
Where to turn?Where to turn?
• Existing cooperative network: UNC system
• UNC, NCSU & Duke are HathiTrust partners, participate in TRLN shared copy program – potential shared print suppliers?
~1.2 million ECU (ERE) holdings
Represents at least 4 miles of library shelving @ East Carolina
373,370 (32%) in HathiTrust Digital Library
Sep-
09
Nov-0
9
Jan-
10
Mar-1
0
May-1
0
Jul-1
0
Sep-
10
Nov-1
0
Jan-
11
Mar-1
1
May-1
1
Jul-1
1
Sep-
11
Nov-1
1
Jan-
12
Mar-1
2
May-1
2
Jul-1
2
Sep-
12
Nov-1
2
Jan-
13
Mar-1
3
May-1
3
Jul-1
3
Sep-
130%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Private non-ARL Linear (Private non-ARL )Public non-ARL Linear (Public non-ARL)Public ARL Linear (Public ARL)Private ARL Linear (Private ARL)
Sep 2012Dec 2012
Sep 2013
Jun 2013
ASERL libraries: a common trajectory, different timelines
ASERL libraries: a common trajectory, different timelines
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of April 2011.
The next few years are critical
How can regional infrastructure be leveraged to support this change?
% o
f title
s du
plic
ated
in H
athi
Trus
t Dig
ital L
ibra
ry
A closing thoughtA closing thought
If we don’t demonstrate a little backbone
developing shared print solutions
the future of legacy print could look likethis
Guillotined books en route to recycling station.
Thanks for your attention.Thanks for your attention.
Comments, Questions?
Constance [email protected]
@ConstanceM
For discussionFor discussion
• What criteria matter most in assessing potential shared print partners?
• Geographic proximity, institutional governance, scope of collection, delivery guarantee, etc?
• Is the economic integration of Southeastern mega-region(s) a factor to consider in shared print business planning?
• Are partnerships in zones of strong economic integration be likely to be more sustainable?
• How is the increasing privatization of higher education likely to affect regional shared print planning?
• Do private and charter universities have greater flexibility in externalizing print operations?