right-scaling stewardship: cic and osu print book collections
DESCRIPTION
Webinar for CIC library directors and collection managers on results of OCLC Research analysis of CIC and OSU print book collections. 16 January 2014TRANSCRIPT
A multi-dimensional perspective on OSU & CIC print collections
Brian Lavoie, Research Scientist
16 January 2014
Right-scaling Stewardship
Constance Malpas, Program Officer
SELECTED FINDINGS
CIC Webinar
Roadmap
• Background• The print book landscape• Ohio State & CIC: View from the “supply
side”– Profiles of rare and core
• Centers of distinction & Network demand– Local and group dimensions
• Policy and strategy implications– Regional Print Management symposium
• Discussion
Background• Future of print books
– Declining use of print collections (OCLC/Ohio Link study); ever-expanding array of digital alternatives
– Resources supporting print needed for new service priorities
• Trends in cooperative print management– Locus of print management moving above the institution– Regions favored as appropriate scale of cooperation– “Distributed consolidation”: local collections
supplemented by shared, centralized collections
• Questions– What to manage locally?– What to manage above the institution?
4
OSU/CIC print book study• Explore regional-scale cooperative print strategy
– From an institutional (OSU) perspective– From a consortial (CIC) perspective
• Based on shared, centrally managed core and network of local collections
• Counterfactual– Use WorldCat bibliographic & holdings data to simulate
this organizational structure
• Findings intended to inform, not prescribe– Do not necessarily reflect intentions of OSU or CIC– Not making recommendations, but an evidence base to
inform strategic planning– Specific to OSU/CIC; patterns of analysis of broader
interest
5
The Print Book Landscape
2.7m
12.4m
CHI-PITTS:19.0m
N. America:49.8m
World:157.4m
*As represented in
Print books: Distinct manifestations*
January 2013
7
Key Insights
• Scale adds scope and depth• Uniqueness/scarcity is relative• Coverage requires cooperation
8
OSU & CIC
Size: Distinct print book manifestations
12.4 million
2.7 million
Bilateral overlap
OSU vis-à-vis CIC
MICHIGAN 49ILLINOIS 49CHICAGO 46WISCONSIN 44INDIANA 43MINNESOTA 41IOWA 37PENN STATE 37MICH STATE 35NORTHWESTERN 32NEBRASKA 26PURDUE 20
% of OSU’s print book collectionalso held by comparison institution CIC vis-à-vis OSU
PURDUE 59NEBRASKA 58PENN STATE 48MICH STATE 48IOWA 47NORTHWESTERN 42INDIANA 39MINNESOTA 39ILLINOIS 35MICHIGAN 34WISCONSIN 34CHICAGO 31
% of comparison institution book collection also held by OSU
Distinctiveness is relative
# of Books Overlap w/CICPURDUE 0.9m 0.93NEBRASKA 1.2m 0.93IOWA 2.1m 0.89MICH STATE 2.0m 0.88PENN STATE 2.1m 0.85NORTHWESTERN 2.0m 0.83OHIO STATE 2.7m 0.83INDIANA 3.0m 0.83MINNESOTA 2.9m 0.81WISCONSIN 3.9m 0.80ILLINOIS 3.8m 0.79MICHIGAN 3.9m 0.76CHICAGO 4.1m 0.76
% of local collection held by at least 1 other CIC member
OSU: Rare and core
3 or less:38%
4 to 7:30%
8 to 10:18%
More than 10:14%
Total # of CIC holdings
Percent of OSU collection
OSU’s“rare” print book
asset(~1 m books)
OSU’s“core” print book asset
(~400K books)
CIC: Rare and core
3 or less:76%
4 to 7:16%
8 to 10:5%
More than 10:3%
Total # of CIC holdings
Percent of CIC collective collection
CIC’s“core” print book asset
(~400K books)
CIC’s“rare” print book
asset(~9.4 m books)
OSU rare & core: LanguageEnglishGermanRussianChineseJapaneseFrenchHebrewArabicSpanishOthers
EnglishGermanFrenchOthers
Rare
Core
236 distinct languages
65 distinct languages
EnglishGermanFrenchSpanishRussianLatinItalianGreek, AncientOthers
EnglishGermanFrenchSpanishChineseRussianItalianJapaneseArabicPortugueseOthers
CIC rare & core: Language
Core
Rare
458 distinct languages
67 distinct languages
pre1850
18501860
18701880
18901900
19101920
19301940
19501960
19701980
19902000
2010
unknown0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Rare Core
Decade
Perc
ent
OSU rare & core: Age
Rare:23% published pre-1950
Core:9% published pre-1950
pre1850
18501860
18701880
18901900
19101920
19301940
19501960
19701980
19902000
2010
unknown0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Rare Core
Decade
Perc
ent
CIC rare & core: Age
Rare:27% published pre-1950
Core:9% published pre-1950
OSU rare & core: Subject
Rare
Core
STEM: 16%
STEM: 20%
Social Sciences: 18%
Social Sciences: 30%
Humanities: 66%
Humanities: 50%
CIC rare & core: Subject
Humanities: 50% STEM: 20%
Social Sciences: 30%
Humanities: 63% Social Sciences: 22%
STEM: 15%
Rare
Core
20
Some takeaways …• Re the three insights …
– Scale adds scope and depth: “Collective rare” ~25x larger than “collective core”; language diversity ~2x “collective rare” vs. “OSU rare”
– Uniqueness is relative: no single CIC member accounts for more than half of OSU’s collection; CIC as a whole accounts for 83%
– Coverage requires cooperation: Three-quarters of CIC collective collection held by 3 or fewer members
• Re the two fundamental questions …– Rare print book in institutional /collective collection:
• Highly likely to be non-English-language• Highly likely to be humanities-focused• Probably older than average
– Core print book in institutional/collective collection:• Almost certainly English language• Even chance that book is humanities or social sciences/STEM• Probably more recent than average
– Profiles virtually identical at both scales: micro (OSU) & macro (CIC)– First step toward characterizing areas of convergence & divergence in
local and collective collecting decisions
21
Centers of distinction
22
Centersreveal patterns in local investmentinstitutional prioritiessingular strengths
Comps reflect scope of local holdingscoverage of global literaturecooperative synergies
http://outgoing.typepad.com/outgoing/2013/05/centers-and-coverage.html
More information:
Many related titles
Many representative works
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Distribution of 'Centers' among CIC Libraries(Based on Top 25 Centers for 13 CIC Symbols)
Libraries in Group
Top
ical
Cen
ters
58% of centers are associated with single CIC member
“Scale adds scope and depth”
OSU Centers and Comps
FAST
Coverage compared to
WorldCat Heading
OSU Rank compared to
other WorldCat libraries
OSU Rank compared to
other CIC libraries
fst01008312 67.20% Manuscripts, Church Slavic 1 1fst00848081 61.20% Cartoonists 1 1fst00980348 59.80% Israeli poetry 4 1fst00807464 43.80% American wit and humor, Pictorial 1 1fst00954398 36.80% Hebrew poetry 13 1fst01205076 33.10% Ohio—Columbus 1 1fst00812274 30.30% Arabic fiction 10 2fst01108635 26.90% Science fiction, American 11 1fst00812533 23.70% Arabic poetry 13 2fst00869145 20.40% Comic books, strips, etc. 1 1
“Coverage requires cooperation”
Shared Centers
South Asia: Chicago & Wisconsin
Africa: Northwestern, Michigan State, Indiana, Chicago . . .
Women & Literature: 12 of 13 libraries
&c
Opportunities to deepen collaboration
26
CICHathiTrust
Holding Libraries (OCLC symbols)
Cove
rage
9 of the 50 most comprehensive collections related to Chad are held by CIC institutions
27
Centers and Print Management
• Shared centers represents areas of shared investment that can be leveraged as collective asset – Candidates for ‘above the institution’ management
• Institutionally distinctive centers may be important differentiators for library, university ‘brand’– Local management priority
• Coverage requires cooperation– Preserving scope of collective resource is a shared
responsibility
28
Network Demand
29
Demand-side Analysis
CIC borrowing
• 1,215,831 requests• 801,700 titles borrowed• 5,160 libraries
(symbols) filled requests from 29 CIC libraries
• Avg. requests per title: 1.45
• Avg. holdings per title: 138 (median = 44)
• 84% books
CIC lending• 1,330,831 requests• 888,996 titles requested• 29 CIC libraries (symbols)
filled requests from 5,266 libraries
• Avg. requests per title: 1.43
• Avg. holdings per title: 128 (median = 43)
• 90% books
Analysis based on all returnable CIC borrows/loans placed via WCRS 1 Jan 2006-10 May 2013
InboundOutboun
d
CIC Libraries
WorldCat Libraries
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
< 5 libraries63%
12%
25%
8%
12%
17% 29% > 99 libraries34%
Group and System-wide Supply for Titles Requested from CIC Libraries> 5 libraries 5 to 9 libraries 10 to 24 libraries 25 to 99 libraries > 99 libraries
Percent of Titles Requested
88% held by 5 or more libraries in WorldCat
37% held by 5 or more libraries in CIC
< 5 libraries
“Uniqueness/scarcity is relative”
31
38% of requesting libraries are located within ChiPitts
51% of request volume originates within ChiPitts region
Aggregate CIC print book resource supports broader inter-lending economy
Distributed curation requires deliberate coordination
52044843%
69538357%
CIC Returnable Borrowing Requests by Source of Fulfillment
Filled by CIC Filled by Non-CIC
More than half of all CIC requests were filled by non-CIC libraries
N= 1,215,831 requests placed 1 Jan 2006 - 10 May 2013
Because CIC inventory is ‘incomplete’? Unavailable? Hard to find/request?
544,616 titles68%
257,084 titles32%
CIC Returnable Borrowing Requested titles held by CIC libraries vs. non-
CIC librariesHeld by CIC Not held by CIC
CIC collective collection looks sufficient to meet 68% of demandN = 801,700 titles requested 1 Jan 2006 – 10 May 2013 compared to CIC/non-CIC holdings as of June 2013
Lack of availability or discoverability?What impact will UBorrow have?
34
Alternative Supply Chain: HathiTrust
Titles Borrowed by CIC Libraries
Titles Loaned by CIC Libraries
Digital surrogates available for 2-3% of titles borrowed and loaned by CIC
35
Policy & Strategy Implications
36
Selected Implications
• Aggregate CIC print book resource is rich and varied; it supports thousands of libraries across North America– Institution and group-scale decisions about
print retention will affect larger library system
• ~75% of CIC print book collection is held by fewer than 4 CIC libraries, yet system-wide supply of these resources is comparatively abundant– Shared print strategy will need to assess
strength of external partnerships if CIC is to reduce in-group holdings
37
Implications [cont.]
• Cumulative network demand is relatively low compared to total collection size; most titles are available from alternative suppliers– Removing frictions in discovery/delivery of
collective CIC resource may increase its value
• 30% of titles loaned by CIC libraries, and 20% of titles borrowed by CIC, are duplicated by HathiTrust; 3% or less are available as public domain– CIC shared print strategy should be
articulated in coordination with HathiTrust
38
Panel and Plenary Sessions Right-scaling: Group, Region & System-wide Approaches Selecting for Sustainability: Shared Monographs Service Models: 21st Century Operations
Keynote speakers: Carol Diedrichs, Roger Schonfeld, Brian Lavoie & Constance Malpas
Hear from organizations shaping the future of print management CIC, HathiTrust, Ithaka S+R, MCLS, Maine Shared Collections, OSU OCLC Research, OhioLINK, Orbis-Cascade, ReCAP
27-28 March 2014OCLC Conference Center, Dublin OH
Regional Print Management Right-Scaling Solutions
Registration details forthcoming
* sponsors
©2013 OCLC. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Suggested attribution: “This work uses content from [presentation title] © OCLC, used under a Creative Commons Attribution license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/”
[email protected]@oclc.org
Questions and feedback are welcome.
40
For Discussion
41
Right-scaling Stewardship
• To what degree is the CIC responsible for long-term stewardship of widely-held print book titles vs. distinctive or uniquely-held titles?
• Would your university library consider a strategy that relies on external (non-CIC) stewardship guarantees for “commodity” titles or works?
42
“Above the Institution” strategies
• Does your library engage in cooperative collection development or management programs with other CIC libraries? With non-CIC libraries? If you partner with non-CIC libraries, is it for reasons of geographic proximity, distinctive collection strengths, past partnership or something else?
• How is your library leveraging CIC investments in HathiTrust in its current print book management strategy?
43
Local, group, network demand
• What do you know about print book circulation and inter-lending trends at your institution?
• Over the past five to ten years has internal or external demand for your monographic collections increased, decreased or remained about the same?