Emerging Regional Efforts for Shared Print Management

Lizanne PaynePrint Archives Consultant

lizannepayne03@gmail.com

Driving the Shared Print Movement

Shift in publication patterns from print to digital: low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value

Changing cost/benefit for legacy print: Operating costs increase, libraries externalize print operations to shared repositories

Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaboration vs. “warehouse of books”

Diversity of missions: Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate and capacity to support print preservation

A Multitude of Shared Print Programs in the U.S.

Shared Storage

Copy

UC RLFs

OhioLINK

PASCAL

WRLC

Minnesota MLAC

Library-Nominated Titles

TRLN

ASERL Journal Retention

By Publisher

UC Libraries

Orbis-Cascade Alliance

PALCI

Five Colleges (MA)

CIC Shared Print Repository

By Format

CRL International Newspaper Directory

(IMLS)

CIC Gov Docs

Other

WEST risk-management

categories

CRL domain-based archives

(IMLS)

Maine Shared Collections

Strategy (TBD)

Hathi Trust print management

(TBD)

examples

WEST

New England

ASERL

CIC

Potential Mega-Regional Shared Print Initiatives

Mid-Atlantic RECAP

Shared Print Archives: Getting to Scale

Library Collections

Print Archives

Digital Collections

“The shared infrastructure needed to support a broad-based externalization of legacy print management functions is unlikely to emerge without directed action and decision-making by leaders in the academic library community.”

Constance Malpas.“Cloud-Sourcing Research Collections: Managing Print in the Mass-Digitized Library Environment”, p.11.

Information Infrastructure

Community Forum

PrioritiesStandards

& Best Practices

Resource-Sharing

Archives Registry & Decision Support

Planning for National Infrastructure

Center for Research LibrariesShared Print Community Forum

Print Archives Network (PAN) listserv hosted by CRL

CRL’s new Global Resources Forum

• A benefit of membership for current CRL libraries, non-CRL libraries may join GRF for nominal fees

• Participate in community discussions of print archiving standards, norms and best practices

• Access to online data, analysis, and assessments of print and digital archives

Information Infrastructure:Collection Analysis and Disclosure

Print archiving institutions need: Decision support to identify titles and volumes

suitable for archiving A mechanism to record and disclose archiving

commitments at title and volume level

Non-archiving institutions need: Decision support to identify titles and volumes

suitable for withdrawal and/or donation (to fill gaps in archive)

Library Catalogs

Print Archives Preservation

Registry (PAPR)WorldCat

OCLC symbol, Local Holding Records (LHRs)

OCLC Disclosure and Resource-Sharing

CRL Collection Analysis and Decision Support

Complementary Information Infrastructure Projects

CRLOCLC

Holdings for comparison

OCLC Disclosure and Resource-Sharing

OCLC pilot project to define and implement metadata standards Pilot project to test the approach summer – fall 2011

Library Catalogs

WorldCat

OCLC symbol, Local Holding Records (LHRs)

Resource-Sharing

OCLC symbol, Lender string

OCLCOCLC

CRL Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR)• CRL is partnering with California Digital Library to design and

develop PAPR.  Ithaka S+R is advising CRL on the project.• PAPR Phase 1 will include holdings of WEST, CRL, and others

(available mid-2012)

Digital Archives, Other Decision-Support Data

Archiving Library

OPACsTitles, holdings

Library Holdings Overlap Data

Archived titles, holdings

Archived titles, holdings

Print Archives Preservation

Registry

CRL

Operating Plan(how it works)

Administrative Plan(how it is managed)

Planning Regional Shared Print Programs

Selection

Location

Validation

Disclosure

Access

Ownership

Retention

Business Model

Governance

Shared Print Programs: Operating Plan

•Retrospective vs prospective•By publisher, format, otherSelection Criteria

•Centralized, decentralized•Storage facility•Campus librariesLocation

•Review for completeness and condition•Volume, issue, page, none

Validation Standards

•How & where are print archive holdings displayedDisclosure

•Who can borrow•Delivery methods (digital, physical)

Access/delivery services

Shared Print Programs: Administrative Plan

•Original library (most) or archiving group?Ownership

•Perpetual, 25 years, 10 years, unspecified?Retention

•What costs are covered•Who pays•How divided

Business Model

•How are decisions made•Who handles costs and feesGovernance

WEST CIC-SPR ASERL

Archive facilities Libraries and storage facilities

Indiana U. storage facility

Libraries and storage facilities

Members ~ 100 10 38

Selection By risk profile STM from Elsevier, Springer, Wiley

Library-nominated

Ownership Archive Holder Original Owner Original Owner

Retention 25 years (to 2035) 25 years 25 years (to 2035)

Access Digital preferred; physical in-library only

[TBD] At owning library’s discretion

Business Model Share upfront costs of archive creation (validation)

Share upfront costs of archive creation AND ongoing retention

No cost sharing, libraries absorb own costs

Key Features of Major Shared Print Programs

Ownership and Retention

In almost all programs, original owner (or archive holder) retains ownership, commits to long-term retention

Effect on volume counts? No longer part of public ARL member index, one factor in

decision about new members Starting in 2005-06, ARL calculates Library Investment

Index using library expenditures and staffing – emphasizes resources

Length of retention period: tension between “long” for benefit of deselecting libraries and “short” to reduce constraints on archiving libraries

Access: Who has access and in what form?

Dark or light archives? Almost all current programs are “light” PALCI and OhioLink plans include dark and light,

Minnesota planning a dark archive

Members have privileged access, or not?WEST: no special WEST borrowing privileges, low use

not worth added complexityDecided not to worry about “free riders”

Nonmembers have access, or not? Almost all provide access outside the membership

via ILL for nonreturnables … and often for returnables

Business Models: Who supports which costs?

Overhead

Fixed Costs

Activity Costs (Providers)

Activity Costs (Contributors,

Borrowers)

• Project Mgt• Administration

• Space• Systems

• Accessions• Validation• Delivery

• Transport• Deaccessioning

Member fees?

Transaction fees?

Absorbed?

Approaches to Shared Print Business Models

PotluckNo money changes hands, Members cover own costs

Members contribute to shared costsCo-op

Examples of Cost-Sharing Business Models

Five Colleges Library Depository, WRLC, ReCAP, PASCAL Members share operating costs of a shared facility according

to a formula

WEST Members share aggregate costs of accessions, validation,

collection analysis, project management Indirect support for Archive Holders’ space via fee discount Advantage: front-loaded, minimizes long-term costs, facilitates

financial sustainability

CIC Shared Print Repository Members provide financial support to Indiana U for accessions

(up front) and space (ongoing) Advantage: Encourages participation by archivers

“Disappearance of print will be like falling off a cliff, not gradual”

Tim O’ReillyNational Digital Stewardship Alliance

Partners MeetingJuly 19, 2011

Let us create the safety net.

WEST

New England

ASERL

CIC Mid-Atlantic RECAP

Thank you.