Presentation to Minnesota Library Access Consortium , February 2011

1. Reconfiguring Academic
MLAC
Advisory Board Collections: the role of
23 February 2011 shared print repositories
Constance Malpas
Program Officer, OCLC Research

2. Roadmap
• The Big Shift - why shared print, why now?
• Emerging infrastructure - shared repositories
• Shared print service provision - opportunities, challenges
• Minnesota in perspective - maximizing MLAC value

3. What once made us great no longer matters
Declining return on assets
Brand loyalty on the decline
A workforce that‟s lost its passion
Fewer leaders, with a precarious
hold on the top
Digital infrastructure is driving
change
Sound familiar?

4. A „Big Shift‟ in attention, resources

5. Shared Print: what‟s the problem?
Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means
low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to
deliver less library value
Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning,
collaborative research vs. “warehouse of books”
Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions
with mandate, capacity to support print preservation
As transaction costs for managing legacy print collections
decrease, libraries will seek to externalize print operations
to shared repositories

6. Boundary work
Shared print is a prime example:
a core operation that
is moving “outside”
institutional boundaries
University of California
Orbis Cascade
WEST
CIC
Hathi Print
CAVAL, UKRR, JURA etc.

7. Shared Print: OCLC Research
Active portfolio of work since FY2007:
• North American library storage capacity (2007)
• ~70M volumes in storage; further capital investment unlikely
• Policy requirements shared print repositories (2009)
• critical need: disclosure of print preservation commitments
• Leveraging infrastructure: MARC21 583 Action Note (2009)
• copy-level retention, condition statements are required
• Cloud-sourcing research collections (2010)
• mass digitization of monographs accelerates shift to shared print

8. Growth of US library storage infrastructure
140,000,000
Aggregate off-site capacity has increased exponentially
120,000,000
Built Capacity in Volume Equivalents (2007)
+ 70 million volumes
68 high-
100,000,000
density
facilities
80,000,000
60,000,000
this trend is unlikely to continue
40,000,000
20,000,000
2 high-density facilities
0
1982 1986 1987 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Date of Original Construction Derived from L. Payne (OCLC, 2007)

9. “No room, no room” in MLAC (and elsewhere)
Total contributions
from UMTC
From other contributors
Derived from MLAC Statistical Overview, 2010.

10. Projected growth of HathiTrust Digital Library
June 2010 - June 2020
Growth in
Linear (Series1) volumes Growth in
Linear (Series2) titles
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
*
25,000,000 Library of Congress
Harvard University Library in constant 2008 volumes
20,000,000
in constant 2008 volumes
15,000,000 *
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
OCLC Research. June 2010

11. Aggregate preservation resource: a black box?
Of 68 storage facilities identified
in Payne (OCLC, 2007):
Titles in „shared print‟ collections
less widely held?
• 2 are visible in WorldCat
100%
today: UC NRLF & UC SRLF 90%
80% More widely held
70%
• Proxies: CRL, LC? 60%
50%
40%
30% Less widely held
20%
10%
0%
Among 9 ASERL storage SRLF NRLF CRL AZ State UC Irvine Rutgers
(ZAS) (ZAP) (AZS) (CUI) (NJR)
collections profiled in 2004:
<25 libraries 25-99 libraries 100-499 libraries >499 libraries
• 80% of monographic titles held
in a single storage facility

12. 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

13. Premise of Cloud Library project
Emergence of large scale shared print and digital
repositories creates an opportunity for strategic
externalization of traditional repository function
• Reduce total costs of preserving scholarly record
• Enable reallocation of institutional resources
• Support renovation of library service portfolio
• Create new business relationships among libraries
A bridge strategy to guarantee access and
preservation of long tail, low use collections
during ongoing p- to e- transition

14. Shared infrastructure: books & bits
Academic off-site storage
0101010101010
1010101010101
25 years 0101010101010 15 months
1010101010101
0101010101010
+70M vols. +5M vols.
HathiTrust
Will this intersection create new operational efficiencies?
For which libraries?
Under what conditions?
How soon and with what impact?

15. A global change in the library environment
60%
Academic print book collection already substantially
50% duplicated in mass digitized book corpus
% of Titles in Local Collection
June 2010
40% Median duplication: 31%
30%
20%
10% June 2009
Median duplication: 19%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
OCLC Research. June 2010
Rank in 2008 ARL Investment Index

16. A mirror of the academic print collection
Distribution of Titles in HathiTrust Digital Library by Subject and Copyright Status
(June 2010)
Communicable Diseases & Misc.
Health Facilities, Nursing
Physical Education & Recreation
Medicine By Body System
Preclinical Sciences
Chemistry
Computer Science
Psychology
Medicine By Discipline
Performing Arts
Anthropology
Mathematics
Health Professions & Public Health
Agriculture
Biological Sciences
Medicine
Geography & Earth Sciences
Physical Sciences Public Domain
Law
Education In Copyright
Music
Foreshadows a shift in
Sociology
Library Science, Reference
Political Science
Government Documents
Engineering & Technology
Art & Architecture humanities scholarship?
Philosophy & Religion
Business & Economics
Unknown Classification
History & Auxiliary Sciences
Language, Linguistics & Literature
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000
N = 3.64M titles Titles / Editions
C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)

17. An opportunity and a challenge
An opportunity to
>50% of titles are ‘widely held’ rationalize holdings, but…
library print supply chain
will be needed for some time
>80% of titles are
OCLC Research. June 2010 in copyright

18. Mass-digitized books in print repositories
~3.5M titles
3,500,000
~75% of mass digitized corpus is ‘backed up’
3,000,000
in one or more shared print repositories
~2.5M
2,500,000
Unique Titles
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10
Mass digitized books in Hathi digital repository Mass digitized books in shared print repositories

19. 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

20. Shared print service provision . . .
WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

21. Shared Print provision: capacity varies
% of HathiTrust titles duplicated in print repository
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.

22. Shared print marketplace: who has the edge?
C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)

23. Or, reconfigure resource to maximize value
C. Malpas Cloud-sourcing Research Collections (OCLC, 2010)

24. UMTC as Shared Print Supplier?
UMTC could provide just-in-case print fulfillment for almost 30% of titles
in the HathiTrust Digital Library
32% 27%
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.

25. Sizing up a Supplier: the 76% solution
738,556 MSU Mankato (MNM) holdings in WorldCat; 1.2M volumes
Represents
at least
1.9 miles
of library
shelving @
MSU
[not held by UTMC]
~213K duplicated in HathiTrust Digital Library
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.

26. 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 ARL library
cost avoidance of ~$1M for new storage module
cost avoidance of $1M per year for on-site management

27. Staff 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

28. Implications: 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

29. Example 1: MLAC as collection of record
One of 26K volumes MSU Moorhead has
deposited in MLAC
• a relatively scarce edition, 13 holdings in
WorldCat
• 17 editions published between 1910 and
1960, a ‘popular classic’

30. Example 1: MLAC as collection of record
Available in full-view from
HathiTrust
• Satisfactory surrogate for at
least some use cases
• May reduce demand for MLAC
copy, improving chances of
survival
• Retain in MLAC as state-wide
preservation asset

31. Example 2. MLAC as surrogate print source
One of the 800K titles UMTC has on deposit in MLAC
• this edition held by more than 2000 WorldCat libraries, including 33 in MN
• low network demand; 42 WCRS requests since 2007, none in Minnesota

32. Example 2. MLAC as surrogate print source
In copyright, search-only
version available from
HathiTrust
• end of the value chain?
• not quite . . .

33. Example 2. MLAC as surrogate print source
• searching in this text
can tell me if the book
is really the one I want
• restores a level of
browsing access
• can moderate ‘just
MLAC can offer partner libraries the opportunity to winnow
checking’ demand from
local holdings safely, for thousands of low-use titles
MLAC, keeping
delivering real value to library network costs down
operational

34. Shared print in perspective . . .
LOCAL CONTEXT

35. Academic libraries in Minnesota:
a common trajectory, different timelines
Oberlin Non-ARL academic Community College ARL
80%
70%
The next few years are critical
60%
Jan „12 Mar „13
50%
*Apr „12
* * *„13
May
40%
30%
20%
Where is the regional infrastructure
10%
to support this change?
0%
OCLC Research. Analysis based on HathiTrust and WorldCat snapshot data. Data current as of February 2011.

36. Diversity of educational mandates
Less reliant on
traditional library
infrastructure
OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Survey, 2008 .

37. Circulation per FTE student is on a decline
Declining ROA?
OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 1992-2000.

38. A long term, system-wide trend
US Academic Library Expenditures
vs. Total Spending on Post-Secondary Education
$400,000,000 3.00%
$350,000,000
2.50%
$300,000,000
2.00%
$250,000,000
$200,000,000 1.50%
$150,000,000
$6.8 billion in 2008 1.00%
$100,000,000
0.50%
$50,000,000
$0 0.00%
Aggregate US Spending on Post-Secondary Education US Library Operating Exp. as % of Ed. Spending
OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.

39. Shift in provision of higher education
Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions
in the United States by Source of Funding
Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions
(derived from NCES data)
in the United States by Source of Funding
3,000
No. of Institutions
2,500
2,000 For P
1,500 Public
1,000 Privat
Distribution of Post-Secondary Educational Institutions
500 in the United States by Source of Funding
(derived from NCES data)
0
3,000
No. of Institutions
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
2,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
2,000 For Profit
00
1
02
03
04
05
06
07
0
1,500 Public
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1,000 Private Not-for-Profit
OCLC Research. Derived from data reported in NCES Digest of Education Statistics: 2008.
500
0

40. Increasing privatization of higher education
Academic Libraries in Minnesota by Control & Funding
Public Private
100
90
80
48% 48% 56% 57%
70
60
50
40
52% 52% 44% 43%
30
20
10
0
2000 2004 2006 2008
OCLC Research. Derived from NCES Academic Libraries Surveys, 2000 , 2004, 2006 and 2008 .

41. Higher Education funding cuts in 43 States

42. Minnesota: the big freeze
$370M cut in higher education spending for FY12-FY14
Impact on MINITEX?
MLAC ~3% of MINITEX budget
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/11HF130.pdf
8 February 2011

43. Moving forward: maximizing MLAC value
Leverage MINITEX „brand‟ as resource-sharing partner to build
confidence in MLAC as regional source of surrogate supply
• FY10 saw decline in request activity; might centralization of
(some) supply help reduce overhead?
Life-cycle costs of managing print in MLAC less than a third of costs
on campus
• is total value of MLAC collection being realized?
MLAC serves diverse clientele of HE, public and private libraries,
some of which may opt to „outsource‟ print management services
• will an existing partners help model a new set of behaviors?

44. A closing thought
If we don‟t
demonstrate a little
backbone
developing shared
print solutions
the future of legacy
print may look
something like this
A swift end of life
or a scandalous spectacle?

45. Thanks for your attention.
Comments, Questions?
Constance Malpas
malpasc@oclc.org