Date post: | 14-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | oclc-research |
View: | 713 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Constance MalpasProgram OfficerOCLC [email protected]
Shared Print Collections: leveraging collective infrastructure
Shared Print Collections: leveraging collective infrastructure
ALA RUSA/STARS
Cooperative Collections
27 June 2010
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
this trend is unlikely to continue
Derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)
2 high-density facilities
68 high-density facilities
Date of Original Construction
Aggregate Preservation Resource: Black Box?Aggregate Preservation Resource: 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
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
Inertia: a hidden cost driver?Inertia: a hidden cost driver?
Cost of management decreases as collections move off-site; the sooner they leave, the greater the savings
Source: P. Courant and M. Nielson (CLIR, 2010)
If 13% of on-campus collection circulates, more than 80% of the expenditure on locally managed collections delivers ‘symbolic’ value
Medium Discounted Life Cycle
Cost (per unit)
Total Life Cycle Cost (per unit)
Purchase Cost
(per unit)
Total Cost / Purchase
Cost (per unit)
Monographs $ 119.56 $ 343.03 $ 47.78 718%
Current serials
$ 634.91 801.87 590.97 134
Microforms $ 0.27 0.45 0.11 256
Govt. Docs $ 14.13 55.40 0.00 311
MSS & Archives
$ 20.26 126.79 4.46 1130
Maps $ 26.78 73.82 11.05 247
Graphic materials
$ 1.65 2.91 0.06 216216
Sound recordings
$ 22.64 24.77 6.80 219
Video & Film $ 128.95 107.50 15.70 307
Computer files
$ 0.17 0.07 0.01 331
Potential life-cycle
cost savings of
(119.56-47.78)*500,000 titles
=$35,890,000
S. Lawrence et al. (2001) Based on 1999 ARL Data
“monographs are overwhelmingly the largest source or driver of library costs . . . If research libraries want to control their costs, they must work to control and reduce the life cycle costs of maintaining their monograph collections” Lawrence , Connaway & Brigham (2001)
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
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
Mass Digitized Books in Shared RepositoriesMass Digitized Books in Shared 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
Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
% o
f M
ass D
igit
ized C
orp
us D
uplicate
d
Shared Print Service Provision: Capacity VariesShared Print Service Provision: Capacity Varies
Library of Congress
UC NRLF/SRLF
ReCAP
CRL
NRLF holdings visible
xID enrichment
Union of 5 major shared print collections
who knows…
What’s in this ‘starter set’ of shared print?What’s in this ‘starter set’ of shared print?
Language, Linguistics & Literature
Business & Economics
Engineering & Technology
Political Science
Library Science, Reference
Government Documents
Law
Geography & Earth Sciences
Biological Sciences
Performing Arts
Health Professions & Public Health
Mathematics
Psychology
Preclinical Sciences
Chemistry
Health Facilities, Nursing
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000
Titles in the Public Domain Titles in Copyright
e.g., [+90K] public domain titles in literature and history; just-in- case print access
[+600K] titles in the humanities held by >24 libraries; surrogate print management & access at reduced cost, subscription model
Opportunities for shared print service provision
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 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
Some (surmountable) obstaclesSome (surmountable) obstacles
•In-copyright titles will require a print supply chain for foreseeable future
Political
•Shared print supplier role more socially acceptable than shared print consumer role
Cultural
•Print preservation infrastructure latent, not explicit or actionable
Technical
•Bi-lateral agreements (one consumer, one supplier) won’t produce sufficient value
Structural
Recommendations: Where to StartRecommendations: Where to Start
• If your institution has significant holdings in storage swap your symbol so that aggregate preservation resource is addressable and carrying capacity can be assessed
• Use the mass digitized book corpus as driver for de-duplication and storage transfers; strengthen preservation infrastructure where it is most needed
• Retain on-site only those titles for which demand and local value exceeds the (significant) economic and opportunity costs of local management; est. 13% circ rate does not justify current expenditure pattern
Recommendations: What to StopRecommendations: What to Stop
• Storage transfers that don’t meet a known preservation need; local space pressures (alone) shouldn’t dictate what moves first or farthest
• Preservation strategies that presume local autonomy; the scholarly record is a shared asset and its preservation is a collective responsibility
• Enhancing bibliographic records for digitized content, beyond the addition of standard identifiers; let network visibility and full-text search hasten the migration of inventory from stacks to storage
Proposal: Pilot a Strategic Print ReserveProposal: Pilot a Strategic Print Reserve
Largest shared storage collections use mass-digitized titles held in common to characterize generic service offer and common price point for a ‘national print reserve’
Compare:• Availability in print (restricted collections, NOS,
loss rate) • Delivery timetable (including home-delivery
option)• Repository characteristics (environmental
conditions, etc.)• Transaction costs (establish baseline, look for
efficiencies)
subscription cost based on N titles * (.86 * x) / no. participants in region holding print version; service
level sufficient to enable reduction in inventory
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Project staff:
Michael Stoller, Bob Wolven, Matthew Sheehy (NYU & ReCAP)
Kat Hagedorn, Jeremy York (HathiTrust)
Roy Tennant, Bruce Washburn, Jenny Toves (OCLC Research)
Sponsors:
Carol Mandel, Jim Michalko, Jim Neal, John Wilkin
Funder:
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation