reconfiguring academic collections - oclc · 2020-05-18 · oclc research: what we do special focus...

Reconfiguring Academic Collections:

Stewardship, Sustainability and

Shared Infrastructure

Constance Malpas

Program Officer, OCLC Research

University of Minnesota

24 February 2011

Roadmap

[OCLC Research]

• A framework for academic collections

• Some remarks on libraries and the higher education

landscape

• Emerging infrastructure and its impact on the organization

of academic libraries

• University of Minnesota libraries in a system-wide context

OCLC Research: what we do

Special focus on libraries in research institutions:

in US, libraries supporting doctoral-level education account for

<20% of academic libraries;>70% of library spending

changes in this sector impact library system as a whole;

collective preservation and access goals, shared infrastructure, &c.

Supports global cooperative by providing internal data

and process analyses to inform enterprise service

development (R&D) and deploying collective research

capacity to deepen public understanding of the evolving

library system

OCLC Research: who we are

• ~45 FTE with offices in Ohio, California and (soon) Leiden

• Sponsored by OCLC and a partnership of research libraries

around the world that share:

• A strong motivation to effect system-wide change

• A commitment to collaboration as a means of achieving collective gains

• A desire to engage internationally

• Senior management ready to provide leadership within the transnational

research library community

• Deep and rich collections and a mandate to make them accessible

• The capacity and the will to contribute

OCLC Research: current portfolios

System-wide organization

• Characterization of the aggregate library resource

Collections, services, user behaviors, institutional profiles

• Re-organization of individual libraries in network context

Institutions adapting to changes in system-wide organization

• Re-organization of the library system in network context

„Multi-institutional‟ library framework, collective adaptation

Research theme addresses “big picture” questions about the

future of libraries in the network environment; implications

for collections, services, institutions embedded in complex

networks of collaboration, cooperation and exchange

Low

Stewardship

High

Stewardship

In few

collections

In many

collections

Collections Grid

Licensed

Purchased

Purchased materialsLicensed E-Resources

Research & Learning Materials

Open Web

Resources

Special CollectionsLocal Digitization

Credit: Dempsey, Childress (OCLC Research. 2003)

Low

Stewardship

High

Stewardship

In few

collections

Licensed

Purchased

Limited

High attention

Less attention

Limited Aspirational

Occasional

Intentional

Library attention and investment are shifting

In many

collections

OCLC Research, 2010.

Low

Stewardship

High

Stewardship

In Few

Collections

In Many

Collections

Academic institutions are driving this change

Licensed

Purchased

Redirection of library

resource

Univ. library spend on e-resources in 2008:

Total US ARL = $627M US (41% total library exp.)

today +5 yrs

OCLC Research, 2010.

Change in Academic Collections

• Shift to licensed electronic content is accelerating

Research journals – a well established trend

Scholarly monographs – in progress

• Print collections delivering less (and less) value at great (and

growing) cost

Est. $4.25 US per volume per year for on-site collections

Library purchasing power decreasing as per-unit cost rises

• Special collections marginal to educational mandate at many

institutions

Costly to manage, not (always) integral to teaching, learning

An Equal and Opposite Reaction

As an increasing share of library spending is directed

toward licensed content . . .

Pressure on print management costs increases

Fewer institutions to uphold preservation mandate

Stewardship roles must be reassessed

Shared service requirements will change

• Erosion of library value proposition in academic sector

institutional reputation no longer determined (or even

substantially influenced) by scope, scale of local print collection

• Changing nature of scholarly record

research, teaching and learning embedded in larger social and

technological networks; new set of curation challenges

• Format transition; mass digitization of legacy print

Web-scale discoverability has fundamentally changed research

practices; local collections no longer the center of attention

What factors are driving this change?

Core library operations

are moving “outside”

institutional boundaries

cooperative cataloging

ILL, resource sharing

approval plans

digital preservation

. . . print management

As transaction costs fall, so do boundaries

creating room for more

distinctive library services

Boundary work at the University of Minnesota

Externalization of ‘core business’ operations:

From infrastructure to customer relationship management:

A new emphasis on innovation and moving ‘into the flow’:

New vision for library discovery environment emphasizes

decentralized discovery; proposes strategies for making local

collections discoverable in external systems Discoverability: Phase 2 Final Report [http://purl.umn.edu/99734]

Collection development/management reconceived as Stewardship

in a Global Context; proactively leverage CIC and HathiTrust

partnerships

A shift from acquiring the products of research to supporting the

lifecycle of knowledge, strengthening campus capacity by

contributing to university’s teaching/learning missionSupporting the Lifecycle of Knowledge: Strategic Priorities for the University Libraries

[http://www.lib.umn.edu/pdf/ULibraries_strategic_planning.pdf]

A long-term, system-wide trend

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

$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

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.

Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions

in the United States by Source of Funding

(derived from NCES data)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

No

. o

f In

sti

tuti

on

s

For Profit

Public

Private Not-for-Profit

Shift in provision of higher education

Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions

in the United States by Source of Funding

(derived from NCES data)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

No

. o

f In

sti

tuti

on

s

For Profit

Public

Private Not-for-Profit

Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions in the United States by Source of Funding

OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.

Limited reliance on library infrastructure

A limited population, growing economic pressure

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

x 1

00

0

US Academic Libraries & Operating Expenditures1977-2008

Operating Expenditures Libraries

OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.

Increasing expense, decreasing purchasing power

In US research libraries, a tipping point …

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

$- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000

Lic

ense

d C

onte

nt

as

% o

f Lib

rary

Mate

rials

$

Library Materials Expenditures (2007-2008)

OCLC Research. Derived from ARL Annual Statistics, 2007-2008

Majority of research libraries shifting towarde-centric acquisitions, service model

Shrinking pool of libraries with mission and resourcesto sustain print preservation as a ‘core’ operation

Harvard

Yale

Center of gravity

… the books have left the building

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

1982 1986 1987 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Built

Capacit

y

in V

olu

me E

quiv

ale

nts

(2007)

Derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)

In North America, +70M volumes off-site (2007)

~30-50% of print inventory at many major universities

Growth in library storage infrastructure

Est. 13% (?) of UMTC holdings

managed in MLAC . . .

It‟s not about space, but priorities

• If the physical proximity of print collections had a

demonstrable impact on researcher productivity, no

university would hesitate to allocate prime real estate to

library stacks

• In a world where print was the primary medium of

scholarly communication, a large local inventory was a

hallmark of academic reputation

We no longer live in that world.

Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (2009/10)

• Case study in de-composition of library service bundle:

externalization of print repository functions

• Data-mining Hathi and WorldCat to determine where cost-

effective reductions in print inventory can be achieved for

individual libraries (micro-economic context)

• Characterizing optimal service profile for shared

print/digital service providers; collective market for

service (macro-economic context)

• Exploring social and economic infrastructure

requirements; technical infrastructure a separate,

secondary challenge

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

% o

f Tit

les

in L

ocal C

ollecti

on

Rank in 2008 ARL Investment Index

A global change in the library environment

June 2010

Median duplication: 31%

June 2009

Median duplication: 19%

Academic print book collection already substantially

duplicated in mass digitized book corpus

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data, Jun 2009 – Jun 2010.

Mass-digitized books in print repositories

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10

Uniq

ue T

itle

s

Mass digitized books in Hathi digital repository Mass digitized books in shared print repositories

~75% of mass digitized corpus is ‘backed up’ in

one or more shared print repositories

~3.5M titles

~2.5M

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data, Jun 2009 – Jun 2010.

Prediction

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

A third of titles held in UMTC Libraries are

duplicated in the HathiTrust Digital Library

993,088 titles

214,770 titles

~3.9 million University of Minnesota (MNU) holdings in WorldCat

~1.2M duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library

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

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Language, Linguistics & Literature

History & Auxiliary Sciences

Business & Economics

Government Documents

Philosophy & Religion

Art & Architecture

Engineering & Technology

Library Science, Reference

Sociology

Political Science

Education

Music

Biological Sciences

Agriculture

Physical Sciences

Geography & Earth Sciences

Law

Mathematics

Performing Arts

Unknown Classification

Health Professions & Public Health

Anthropology

Psychology

Medicine By Discipline

Chemistry

Computer Science

Medicine

Preclinical Sciences

Physical Education & Recreation

Health Facilities, Nursing

Medicine By Body System

Communicable Diseases & Misc.

Titles / Editions

Subject distribution of UMTC-owned titles

duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library

Represents approximately

14 miles of library shelf space

(2.5 if restricted to public domain)

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

Stewardship and 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

the University of Minnesota is spending between

[1.2M titles * $.86 =] $1M to $5M [= 1.2M titles * $4.25 ] annually

to retain local copies of content preserved in the HathiTrust Digital Library

The 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)

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.

Value of Hathi preservation increases

Market for shared print provision increases

System-wide print distribution of UMTC titles

duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library

How HathiTrust adds value at UMTC

UMTC holdings contributed to HathiTrust

Increased visibility, accessibility

Shared investment in repository infrastructure

HathiTrust content not held by UMTC

Extends local collection at reduced cost

UMTC-owned content duplicated in Hathi

Redirection of local print management

Reduces costs as inventory is rationalized

Supports reconfiguration of library space & service portfolio

1) UMTC title contributed to HathiTrust

This edition held by only 3 libraries

UMTC copy stored in MLAC

Increased discoverability & access

Reduce wear & tear on local copy

UMTC collections deliver more

value in webscale environment

2) Public domain content not held by UMTC

Source via ILL @ ~$20?

Purchase reprint @ $25?Or offer free down-loadable version?

This edition held by 52 libraries

More cost efficient, just-in-

time fulfillment

3) UMTC-owned title duplicated in HathiTrust

Full text available from HathiTrust (contributed by Michigan)

Also held by 218 other libraries, including 5 in Minnesota

Held in Wilson; transfer to MLAC to reduce costs or withdraw?

3) UMTC-owned title duplicated in HathiTrust

A relatively common book.

Published 1962

Snippet view in GoogleBooks

Full view in HathiTrust

UMTC can manage this asset

more efficiently

It all adds up: ROI for shared infrastructure

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Lin

ear

feet

of

lib

rary

shelv

ing

Tit

les

/ Edit

ions

Titles duplicated at UMTC Public domain not held by UTMC Titles contributed by UMTC

Content UMTC can now manage more efficiently

Content UMTC can source at lower cost

Content UMTC contributes to transform library environment

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011

University of Minnesota in regional context

• 98 academic libraries in 2008

• represents 3% of all academic libraries in the US

• 1 ARL / AAU member

• UMTC (with MINITEX) provides essential backbone for state

academic libraries

• Rich collections, robust infrastructure, reliable fulfillment

• UMTC library holdings account for ~18% of state-wide academic

collection

• Upholding print preservation mandate an increasing challenge

Diversity of Educational Mandates

Doctor's

Master's

Bachelor's

Less than 4-year

Hig

hest

level

of

degre

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

16%

20%

27%

35%

Academic Libraries in Minnesota

OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Survey, 2008 .

Less reliant on

traditional library

infrastructure

Circulation per FTE student declining in all sectors

OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 1992-2000.

Expectations for long-term preservation are greatest here

Increasing privatization of higher education

OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 2000 , 2004, 2006 and 2008 .

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2004 2006 2008

Academic Libraries in Minnesota by Control & Funding

Public Private

48% 48% 56% 57%

43%52% 52% 44%

Decreasing

proportion

with

mandate

to serve

state HE

community

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Oberlin Non-ARL academic Community College ARL

The next few years are critical

Academic libraries in Minnesota:

a common trajectory, different timelines

*Jan „12

Apr „12

Mar „13

May „13* * *

OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011

The end game?

• 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

Reconfiguring academic collections is

not about “removing books” or

devaluing scholarly interactions with legacy print

A vision of the future

University of Minnesota Libraries will . . .

• fulfill its preservation mandate by partnering with regional

and national partners to ensure sustainable stewardship of

shared print and digital repositories

• provide faculty, students and citizens of Minnesota with

access to an increasingly broad array of legacy and current

content by sourcing content by the most efficient means

• enhance the University‟s teaching and research reputation

by supporting the process of scholarship, increasing the

visibility impact of locally created content

Academic print: it‟s not the end . . .

but it’s no longer the means

“Archive of the available past” photograph by Joguldi.Abandoned books at the Detroit Central School Book Depository (6 May 2009) Flickr

Ongoing redefinition of scholarly

function and value of print

will entail some loss

and some gain in library relevance

Thanks for your attention.

Comments, Questions?

Constance Malpas

malpasc@oclc.org