Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!

Don’t Be An Invisible Library!
November 8, 2013 – 10:30 a.m.
Gold Ballroom

Glenn
Johnson-Grau!

Moderated
by:

Franny Lee!

Matt Goldner!

Rick Burke!

Shedding
the
Cloak
of
Invisibility

Glenn
Johnson-‐Grau

Head
of
Collec>on
Development

Loyola
Marymount
University

Loyola
Marymount
University

Los
Angeles,
California

Howdy,
partner

•  We
spend
>me
on
rela>onship
building.

•  Rela>onships
are
built
upon
common
interests.

•  Exhibits
serve
as
launchpads
for
collabora>on.

ON
CAMPUS

LMU
Departments:
Theological
Studies,
English,
African

American
Studies,
Campus
Ministry,
Center
for
Religion
&

Spirituality

OUTSIDE
PARTNERS

Inglewood
Public
Library,
local
churches

RELATIONSHIPS
BUILT
ON
COMMON
INTERESTS
SPARK

NEW
COLLABORATIONS

Honors
Program
-‐>>
Gospel
performance

Partnership
Breeds
Partnership

Success
with
one
exhibit
leads
to

enthusiasm
for
another,
even
though
the

players
are
all
diﬀerent.

Photos:
www.programminglibrarian.org/dustbowl/

Presto
chango

Library
=
book
to
library
=
intellectual
engagement

PUB
NIGHTS:
Four
events
each

semester
where
faculty
discuss

their
recent
scholarly
or
crea>ve

works
over
beer
and
pretzels.

Presto
chango
II

Opening
the
door
to
students
and
their
ideas

Providing
selﬁe
opportuni>es

in
forbidden
library
loca>ons

Know
on
which
side

your
bread
is
bu[ered

Align
unit
with
ins-tu-on’s
mission.

–  Reﬂect
it
in
what
we
say
and
do

•  Mirror
language

Par-cipate
in
strategic
planning.

–  Librarians
develop
a
reputa>on
for
good
ci>zenship

Encourage
librarians
to
par-cipate
in
campus

governance.

–  Librarians
on
Faculty
Senate
&
commi[ees

–  Develop
peer
rela>onship
with
faculty
and

administrators
–
beyond
“library
as
support”

The
Vision
Thing

Adop>ng
an
expansive

vision
of
the
role
of

the
library
on
campus

–  Leadership
ma[ers

–  Librarian
buy-‐in

ma[ers

–  Funding
really

ma[ers

Align
Incen>ves

Give
librarians
tools

and
reward
them
for

outcomes.

Enact
a
promo-on

plan
with
incen-ves.

Provide
travel/
professional

development
funding

for
librarians.

Foster
and
Support
Staﬀ
Ideas

Beyond
the
Walls

SCELC

•  Beneﬁts
member
libraries
and
member
librarians

•  Support
for
small
libraries

•  Con>nuing
educa>on

•  Research
support

–  Research
Day
-‐>>
IMLS
Grant

»  Ins>tute
for
Research
Design
in
Librarianship

Catholic
Research
Resources
Alliance
(CRRA)

Associa>on
of
Jesuit
College
&
Universi>es
(AJCU)

Par>cipa>on
=
Visibility
=
Impact

Be
strategic

Be
a
partner

Be
persistent

Be
at
the
table!

SIPX, Inc. 
A web service for managing and measuring digital course materials!

Franny Lee!
Co-Founder, Vice President Business Development!
franny@sipx.com!

!
www.sipx.com!
@SIPXCopyright!
18!

Increase Library’s Value and Visibility!
•  Be proactive about your school’s needs – !
–  SIPX = Stanford-grown solution!
–  Deep library involvement in building the solution and features!
–  Easy to promote measured time and cost beneﬁts!

•  Consider technology and interface design opportunities –
library visibility should complement user experience!
•  Encourage inter-vendor cooperation – platforms working
together beneﬁt their mutual clients by creating more
integrated user experiences!
•  Keep on top of new trends and opportunities to bring
value – MOOCs, self-publishing!
•  Keep on top of actual usage and behaviors!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

19!

What is SIPX?!
End-to-end solution to manage, distribute and
measure course materials for higher education!
•  Cloud-based technology service that solves many
copyright frustrations!
•  Networks together all stakeholders and critical data;
combines open, licensed and publisher content options !
•  Can blend into campus systems like LMS’ and online
education platforms like MOOCs!
•  Uniquely capable of meeting challenges of new online
and multi-institution education models!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

20!

From Research to Ramp!
Background!

Today!

• 

Began as Stanford Intellectual
Property Exchange research
project!
•  Broad vision to create an efﬁcient
copyright marketplace!

• 

Venture-backed spinout based on
Stanford-licensed research and IP!

• 

Partnered with 17 leading schools –
Stanford, SUNY, CSU, UT Austin,
University of Illinois, Notre Dame… !

• 

Understood copyright challenges
in higher education ﬁrsthand!

• 

• 

Built and tested actual system at
Stanford (launched 4/11)!

Content agreements with over 50
leading publishers and platforms –
Elsevier, T&F, Nature, university
presses, open access publishers…!

©

Same Singular Focus = !
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

21!

Today’s Copyright Maze!
HathiTrust

Crea>ve
Commons

Copyright

Agents

Public
Domain

#%&?!

What
can
I
use?
Is

there
an
open

version?

Publishers
and

Creators

#@??

Where
is
my

content
going?

MOOC

Provider

#%$?!

Too
expensive!

?&@?

Can
I
put
this

online?

^*@#?!

Can’t
ﬁnd
the

owner!

#*@?!

Is
this
fair

use?

#%&?!

Permission

denied!?

/%$&?!

I
have
to
pay

for
the
whole

class!?

Educator

© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

@!#$?

Legal
liability?

#*¥?!

Can’t
ﬁgure
out

condi>ons
of
use

@?#$?

Which

subscrip>ons

ma[er
most?

Student

22!

Schools
and

Libraries

Librarian

SIPX in LMS Use!

SIPX’s copyright-intelligent links give users contextually
appropriate access and pricing, with no re-training of
faculty and students needed, and usage analytics!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

23!

SIPX in MOOCs and Online Education !
Flexible SIPX links can be posted
anywhere, ensuring each student
authenticated, easy access at the
lowest price (MOOCs span >140
countries and many school afﬁliations)!
•  Professors assign what they want!
•  Save schools time and $ from
clearing readings!
•  Pay-per-use for students to buy and
access their own copies!
•  Students beneﬁt from their school’s
library holdings!
•  Publishers experiment with options!

© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

24!

Participate in Policy with Usage Insights!
•  Course development insights!
•  Tools development insights!
•  Collections development insights!
–  What subscribed content is selected? !
–  What non-subscribed content is selected?!

•  Student retention and completion rates!
•  Efﬁcient market pricing!
–  “Perfect” price points; Cost tolerance across geography!

•  Content discovery and recommendations!
–  Readings used in other astronomy courses?!

•  Predictive data – student success factor?!
–  Inter-platform sharing of data to fully understand user behavior!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

25!

Evaluate, Share and Apply the Data !
EARLY OBSERVATIONS IN CAMPUS COURSES!
•  What content are instructors assigning? Where?!
•  Student engagement levels in course readings
and reserves !
–  # of students who actually retrieved readings!
–  Most popular readings!

•  Instructors’ choice of readings inﬂuenced by cost,
effort to clear, ability to add mid-stream in
course…!
–  An accessible market of viable options!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

26!

EARLY OBSERVATIONS IN MOOCS!
•  Generally…!
–  Very big classes, high attrition rates, global reach!

•  Most MOOC students differ from campus students!
–  Different motivations, desired outcomes and
commitment levels!
–  Long tail of interest!
–  There is a subset who engages in readings!

•  Instructors assign combination of $0 and non-$0
readings!
!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

27!

•  Publishers are experimenting – unbundled
options, context- and geography-based pricing!
•  Instructors and schools are experimenting –
self-publishing, services for faculty!
!
!

Daniel A. McFarland and Charles J. Gomez

value we affix to these scenarios. In the logic of
consequence model, we calculate the expected utility of each scenario. To do this, all we have to do
is multiply the chance of rain (which is 40%) by
the preference we have for the scenario of not
bringing an umbrella and it rains (which is -10).
That gives us the first value of -4.0. That’s the expected utility of not bringing an umbrella and it
rains on us. But say it does not rain and we do not
bring an umbrella. Then we take the chains of no
rain (%60) and multiply it by the value we affix to
that outcome (+6). As such, the we have 0.6 times
6 = 3.6. That's the expected utility of not bringing
umbrella if it doesn't rain. If we add the two together – of not bringing an umbrella in both cases
- then we get the net expected utility of not bringing an umbrella = -4.0 + 3.6 = -0.4.
If we go through the same kind of operation
in the lower branch for bringing the umbrella, we
will find the net expected utility to be 0.6. If we
compare the two, then it is clear that bringing umbrella - given our preferences or our sense of costs
and rewards for each outcome – is better than not
bringing an umbrella because we really do not
want to be wet.
Now let’s do this for a more interesting case
- dating! Many of you are single and perhaps looking for love. Say you are wondering whether to
ask someone out. Let’s consider the scenarios. (i)
You do not ask them out when they would have
said no. That is good, right? You're not embarrassed! (ii) You do not ask them out and they
would have said “yes”. In that case, you miss out
on someone quite interesting and wonderful. That
is a downer. (iii) You do ask them out and they
say “no”. That is kind of, mortifying, right? That
may be terrible. (iv) And then, there is the last scenario which is you ask them out and they say
“yes”. When that happens it is quite gratifying.
How would you value each of these options from
positive ten to negative ten?
It all depends. Are you a high-interest, lowcost person? Meaning, you ask people out all the
time and you do not see much cost to it. Or are
you a low-interest, low-cost person? Meaning,
you seldom ask people out and you do not worry

Organizational
Analysis

about it. Or are you a high cost person? Here you
see it as risky no matter what happens.
Let’s say you find it mortifying to be rejected, and you are a high cost person. We can depict this in the table you see here. (i) Not asking
someone else and them saying “no”, hey, that is
good for us. It saved us the trouble, so it is a plus
two. (ii) Not asking them out, and they would
have said “yes” - that is a downer. Let’s give that
a negative eight. Pretty bad, but not terrible. (iii)
But then, asking them out, and them saying “no” is
just awful. We feel miserable over that, so it is a
negative ten. And last, (iv) us asking them out and
them saying “yes” is a plus ten and that couldn't be
better. Best of all worlds right there!
No#(90%)#
Don’t&Ask&Out&

Yes#(10%)#

+2&

Ask&Out&

.8&

.10&

+10&

1)&

ept&(0.

Net#Expected#U4lity#
(2*0.9)&–&(8*0.1)&=&1&
(.10*0.9)+(10*0.1)&=&.8&
EU=&.0.8&

Acc

ut&

&Ask&O

Don’t

Ask&O

ut&

Net&
Expected&
UClity&=&1&

Reject

&(0.9)&

EU=&1.8&

)&

&(0.1

Accept

EU=&1.0&
Net&
Expected&
UClity&=&.8&

Rejec

t&(0
Ambiguity)or)uncertainty)
.9)&
about)consequences)and)costs?))

EU=&.9.0&

Figure. Decision Tree for Asking Out
If we go through the decision tree again, we
can predict the net utility of each option of asking
someone out or not. Let’s even say they are very
attractive so our chances are low at 10%. If we go
through the math again like before where we don't
ask them out and get a yes, that equals negative
eight. Then we multiply that by the probability of
yes at 0.10 (10% chance). As such, negative 8
times .1 = -0.8 expected utility. The opposite of
not asking them out and they reject you has a positive utility of 1.8. So, we have a net expected utility of not asking people out equal to one.

19

© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

28!

Worldwide View of 3 Fall 2013 SIPX MOOCs!

Interest by subject matter – !
Early data for September 2013 courses: “Age of Globalization” (edX),
“Ideas of the 20th Century” (edX), and “Organizational Analysis” (Coursera)!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

29!

Transactions by Country!

Subset of 127 countries represented in overall transaction data; !
50% of transactions occur from users outside of US and Canada!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

30!

Volume by Price!

•  Price and volume reﬂect usage, content, visibility and timing within courses!
•  Price is a key factor but volume is affected by other characteristics too!
•  Data above shows similarly situated cost-comparables, but readings are
from different courses and of different lengths, and not exact substitutes!
© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!
November 8, 2013!

!

31!

Role
of
the
library

MATT GOLDNER!
Product and Technology Advocate!

OCLC Online Computer Library Center


Library
Rela>onship

with
its
users



!


?


Today’s
online
informaGon
seekers
have
many
choices



Requirements

for
change



Today’s
online
informaGon
seekers
have
many
choices

• Select

• Acquire

• Describe

• Preserve

• Expose



How
OCLC
is
working
with
members

•  Managing
down
print

•  Understanding
our
cons>tuencies

•  Libraries
of
the
Web



library

service

partners

libraries

• 
Place(s)

• 
Collec>ons

• 
Scontent

ervices

partners

• 
People

• 
Events

• 
Concepts

REGISTRATION

consumer

service

partners

AGGREGATION


SYNDICATION


Content
Partners

Text



Library
service
partners



Consumer
service
partners

personal
consumer
services


insGtuGon
consumer
services


Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (18)

Similaire à Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!

Similaire à Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library! (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!