Sustainable Collections UMTC

Reconfiguring Academic Collections: Stewardship, Sustainability and Shared Infrastructure

Reconfiguring Academic Collections: Stewardship, Sustainability and Shared Infrastructure

Constance MalpasProgram Officer, OCLC Research

University of Minnesota

24 February 2011

RoadmapRoadmap

[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 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 areOCLC 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 portfoliosOCLC Research: current portfolios

System-wide organizationSystem-wide organization

• Characterization of the aggregate library resourceCollections, services, user behaviors, institutional

profiles

• Re-organization of individual libraries in network contextInstitutions 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 Stewards

hip

High Stewards

hip

In few collectio

ns

In many collectio

ns

Collections Grid

Licensed

Purchased

Purchased materialsLicensed E-Resources

Research & Learning Materials

Open Web Resources

Special CollectionsLocal Digitization

Credit: Dempsey, Childress (OCLC Research. 2003)

Low Stewards

hip

High Stewards

hip

In few collectio

ns

Licensed

Purchased

Limited

High attention

Less attention

Limited Aspirational

Occasional

Intentional

Library attention and investment are shiftingIn many collectio

ns

OCLC Research, 2010.

Low Stewards

hip

High Stewards

hip

In Few Collection

s

In Many Collection

s

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 CollectionsChange 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 ReactionAn 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?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 boundariesAs transaction costs fall, so do boundaries

creating room for more distinctive library services

Boundary work at the University of MinnesotaBoundary 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 mission Supporting 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 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.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

No

. of

Ins

titu

tio

ns

Shift in provision of higher educationShift in provision of higher education

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

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 pressureA limited population, growing economic pressure

19771982

19851988

19921995

19971998

20002002

20042006

2008$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

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

US Academic Libraries & Operating Expenditures1977-2008

Operating Expenditures Libraries

x 10

00

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 …In US research libraries, a tipping point …

$- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Library Materials Expenditures (2007-2008)

Lic

ensed C

onte

nt

as %

of

Lib

rary

Mate

rials

$

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

Majority of research libraries shifting toward e-centric acquisitions, service model

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

HarvardYale

Center of gravity

… the books have left the building … the books have left the building

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)

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 prioritiesIt’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)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 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

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

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

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

A third of titles held in UMTC Libraries are duplicated in the HathiTrust Digital Library

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.

Language, Linguistics & LiteratureHistory & Auxiliary Sciences

Business & EconomicsGovernment Documents

Philosophy & ReligionArt & Architecture

Engineering & TechnologyLibrary Science, Reference

SociologyPolitical Science

EducationMusic

Biological SciencesAgriculture

Physical SciencesGeography & Earth Sciences

LawMathematics

Performing ArtsUnknown Classification

Health Professions & Public HealthAnthropology

PsychologyMedicine By Discipline

ChemistryComputer Science

MedicinePreclinical Sciences

Physical Education & RecreationHealth Facilities, NursingMedicine By Body System

Communicable Diseases & Misc.

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

Titles / Editions

Subject distribution of UMTC-owned titles duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library

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

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 LibraryThe 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

Value of Hathi preservation increases

Market for shared print provision increases

System-wide print distribution of UMTC titles duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library

System-wide print distribution of UMTC titles duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library

How HathiTrust adds value at UMTCHow 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 HathiTrust1) UMTC title contributed to HathiTrust

This edition held by only 3 libraries

UMTC copy stored in MLACIncreased discoverability & accessReduce wear & tear on local copy

UMTC collections deliver more value in webscale environment

2) Public domain content not held by UMTC2) 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 HathiTrust3) UMTC-owned title duplicated in HathiTrust

Full text available from HathiTrust (contributed by Michigan)Also held by 218 other libraries, including 5 in MinnesotaHeld in Wilson; transfer to MLAC to reduce costs or withdraw?

3) UMTC-owned title duplicated in HathiTrust3) UMTC-owned title duplicated in HathiTrust

A relatively common book.

Published 1962Snippet view in GoogleBooksFull view in HathiTrust

UMTC can manage this asset more efficiently

It all adds up: ROI for shared infrastructureIt all adds up: ROI for shared infrastructure

Sep-

09

Oct-0

9

Nov-0

9

Dec-0

9

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar-1

0

Apr-1

0

May-1

0

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-1

0

Sep-

10

Oct-1

0

Nov-1

0

Dec-1

0

Jan-

11

Feb-

110

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

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

Tit

les /

Edit

ions

Lin

ear

feet

of

lib

rary

shelv

ing

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 contextUniversity 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 MandatesDiversity 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 sectorsCirculation 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 educationIncreasing privatization of higher education

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

2000 2004 2006 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

Sep-

09

Dec-0

9

Mar-1

0

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec-1

0

Mar-1

1

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec-1

1

Mar-1

2

Jun-

12

Sep-

12

Dec-1

2

Mar-1

3

Jun-

13

Sep-

13

Dec-1

30%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Oberlin Linear (Oberlin)Non-ARL academic Linear (Non-ARL academic)Linear (Non-ARL academic) Community CollegeLinear (Community College) ARLLinear (ARL)The next few years are

critical

Academic libraries in Minnesota: a common trajectory, different timelines

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?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 futureA 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 . . .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.Thanks for your attention.

Comments, Questions? Constance [email protected]