1. Library Collaborations: Why and How David W. Lewis Living the Future 7 Transforming Libraries Through Collaboration Tucson, AZ May 2, 2008 © 2008 David W. Lewis. Permission to use this work is granted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license (3.0). You are free: to share, to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, to remix, and to make derivative works under the following conditions: 1. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), and 2. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Apart from the remix rights granted under this license, nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

2. Agenda Definitions My Sources Depressing Opening Quote Prologue: Winning at Prisoner’s Dilemma Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century Sustaining Changes Disruptive Changes ChaCha Free! Better Than Free Story 1 and Story 2 Rant Governing the Commons Learning from Open Source The Cooperation Revolution Final Optimistic Quote Our Task

3. col·lab·o·rate Pronunciation: ə-ˈla-bə-ˌrātbr />Etymology: Late Latin collaboratus, past participle of collaborare to labor together, from Latin com- + laborare to labor to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected co·op·er·ate Pronunciation: ō-ˈä-pə-ˌrātbr />Etymology: Late Latin cooperatus, past participle of cooperari, from Latin co- + operari to work — more at 1. to act or work with another or others : act together or in compliance 2. to associate with another or others for mutual benefit http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

4. Robert Axelrod The Evolution of Cooperation Basic Books, 1984 Revised edition, 2006 Elinor Ostrom Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Cambridge University Press, 1990

5. Clayton M. Christensen Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail Harvard Business School Press, 1997 Revised edition, 2003 Steven Weber The Success of Open Source Harvard University Press, 2004

6. Clay Shirky Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations Penguin Press, 2008

7. Opening Quote from Shirky “New technology makes new things possible: put another way, when new technology appears, previously impossible things start occurring. If enough of those impossible things are important and happen in a bundle, quickly, the change becomes a revolution.” “The hallmark of revolution is that the goals of the revolution cannot be contained by the institutional structure of existing society. As a result, either the revolutionaries are put down, or some of those institutions are altered, replaced, or destroyed.”

8. Opening Quote from Shirky “Many institutions we rely on today will not survive this change without significant alteration, and the more an institution or industry relies on information as its core product, the greater and more complete the change will be.” page 107

9. Prologue: Winning at Prisoner’s Dilemma Axelrod’s Question: “Under what conditions will cooperation emerge in a world of egoists without central authority?” page 3

10. Prologue: Winning at Prisoner’s Dilemma

11. Prologue: Winning at Prisoner’s Dilemma Axelrod ran several iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma tournaments for computer programs The winning program was TIT FOR TAT TIT FOR TAT’s Strategy: 1. Begin with cooperation 2. Respond to cooperation with cooperation 3. Respond to defection with defection TIT FOR TAT rarely won individual games, but was the best at eliciting cooperation from other programs and so won the tournaments

12. Prologue: Life Lessons from TIT FOR TAT Don’t be envious — the success of others is a prerequisite for your own success Don’t be the first to defect — cooperate as long as you get cooperation in return Reciprocate both cooperation and defection — not forgiving and forgiving to easily can both be costly Don’t be too clever — being incomprehensible is dangerous, to encourage cooperation you need to make it easy for others to see your intentions

13. Prologue: Final Word from Axelrod Enlarge the shadow of the future. “No form of cooperation is stable when the future in not important enough relative to the present.” page 129

14. Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century Complete the migration from print to electronic collections Retire legacy print collections Redevelop library space Reposition library and information tools, resources, and expertise Migrate the focus of collections from purchasing materials to curating content David W. Lewis, “A Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century,” College & Research Libraries September 2007 available at: http://idea.iupui.edu/dspace/handle/1805/1592

15. Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century Complete the migration from print to electronic collections Retire legacy print collections Redevelop library space We know how to do the first three things We can do then by ourselves or with established partners The change is sustaining, not disruptive

16. Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century Reposition library and information tools, resources, and expertise Migrate the focus of collections from purchasing materials to curating content Likely to involve disruptive change Good chance that the best solutions will be at the network, not the campus, level — the question of scale We will need to find and collaborate with new partners

17. Disruptive Change From Christensen Different value proposition — usually easier, faster, and cheaper Initially unappealing to high-end users because of limited functionality, but appeals to unsophisticated or new users for whom it is good enough New value proposition allows quality and functionality to develop more quickly than old approaches Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica Google Scholar versus traditional indexes

18. Questions of Scale Where are the economies of scale in operations? Where for innovation? Individuals can use the network (the “cloud”) to do their work without institutionally based infrastructure Neither libraries, nor their campuses, nor even collections of libraries or campuses are likely to be able to successfully compete with: Google to search the Web Google or YouTube to create collections of content Amazon for information on books Wikipedia as a source of quick answers

19. New Partners Traditional partners and alliances will not be sufficient Need to find ways to work with the network level providers They will not want to deal with individual libraries We can not create new forms of scholarly communication from within our current silos

20. Strategy for Academic Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century Reposition library and information tools, resources, and expertise Migrate the focus of collections from purchasing materials to curating content

21. “My experience with librarians, at least in scientific university libraries (I’m a scientist) is that they are basically incapable of anything beyond using the keywords in their database.” “Wikipedia is becoming the reference desk, because it actually provides lists of relevant materials instead of dropping users in front of databases.” — Chronicle of Higher Education, Wired Campus BLOG, June 27, 2007

22. “Nature Precedings is a free service from NPG that provides a way for researchers to share preliminary findings, solicit community feedback, and claim priority over discoveries. By promoting the rapid and open exchange of scientific information, the site ultimately aims to help accelerate the pace of discovery.” — Press Release from the Nature Publishing Group, June 8, 2007

23. “Scientists Get a YouTube of Their Own. The National Science Foundation, the Public Library of Science, and the San Diego Supercomputing Center are hoping that their new Web site — billed as a YouTube for scientists — will help demystify important research papers. The site, called SciVee, will allow scientists to upload highly technical papers. But it will also let the researchers post accompanying video presentations that serve as quicker, more approachable guides to their work.” Chronicle of Higher Education, Wired Campus BLOG, August 22, 2007

24. “By searching with a Guide your query is sent to a real person who is skilled at finding information on the Internet and knowledgeable on the subject at hand so that you get the few exact results you want, not the millions of results you don't. ChaCha only provides quality, human approved results. The more you use ChaCha, the smarter and faster ChaCha becomes! Because ChaCha saves, rates, and updates all the answers that are hand-picked by our Guides. ChaCha's intelligent Guide application learns from every search so our Guides know where to look to find information for you quickly.”

25. IU and ChaCha partner to create first of its kind academic search service Alliance to leverage IU’s knowledge assets and ChaCha’s innovative human-guided search technology FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Aug. 2, 2007 INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana University President Michael A. McRobbie and Scott A. Jones, co-founder and chief executive officer of ChaCha, an Indiana company that is creating a new and more focused way of providing Internet searches, today (Aug. 2) announced they have entered into a strategic alliance for research, development and services for the next generation of Internet search tools and practices. This new partnership will incorporate the collective knowledge and experience of the university's library and information technology staff into ChaCha's new search engine architecture, which combines a sophisticated machine-based search with skilled human guides who can quickly bring focus and precision to the search product... It will enable IU and ChaCha to develop a better understanding of how guided search can best serve the complex needs of students, faculty and academic researchers… By combining machine-based searches with input from human guides, ChaCha is able to offer users the ability to receive instant results, just like a traditional search engine, but the guides help the user focus on relevant information and eliminate unwanted material… IU librarians, information technology staff and others will serve as guides, available to help the IU community conduct searches through a live instant message chat interface, identify exactly what information the user is seeking, refine the search for the user and then display only the most relevant results.

26. See: https://www.chacha.com/ for what ChaCha is currently doing.

27. Lessons (so far) from IU/ChaCha Partnership We had hope to get access to technology to manage a knowledge base and chat interactions Network level services don’t scale down easily IU’s need to control access was problematic — Straddling the open content/proprietary content boundary is problematic Working with an early stage start-up company is interesting — They are not like us Short term focus Move quickly People change rolls and come and go

28. Lessons (so far) from IU/ChaCha Partnership Internal collaboration with computing organization has developed The university is thinking about search and responding to user queries in a different way We care about mobile answers, but… ChaCha is still developing technology to support the people answering questions — this could prove useful We are rethinking how the project should work

29. Collaboration to Reposition Expertise and Resources Many resources and services will move to the network level with disruptive technologies and new service models — most will be open Individual libraries will have an increasingly hard time competing Libraries have minimal capacity to innovate at the required scale Libraries have minimal capacity to change their existing service models

30. Chris Anderson, “Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business,” Wired Magazine 16.03 http://www.wired.com/wired/issue/16-03/

31. Movie is at: http://www.wired.com/wired/issue/16-03/

32. Better Than Free “When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied. Well, what can't be copied? There are a number of qualities that can't be copied. Consider "trust." Trust cannot be copied. You can't purchase it. Trust must be earned, over time. It cannot be downloaded. Or faked. Or counterfeited (at least for long). If everything else is equal, you'll always prefer to deal with someone you can trust. So trust is an intangible that has increasing value in a copy saturated world.” Kevin Kelly, “Better Than Free,” The Technium http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php

33. Eight Generatives Better Than Free “Immediacy -- Sooner or later you can find a free copy of whatever you want, but getting a copy delivered to your inbox the moment it is released -- or even better, produced -- by its creators is a generative asset.” “Personalization -- A generic version of a concert recording may be free, but if you want a copy that has been tweaked to sound perfect in your particular living room -- as if it were preformed in your room -- you may be willing to pay a lot.” “Interpretation -- As the old joke goes: software, free. The manual, $10,000. But it's no joke. A couple of high profile companies, like Red Hat, Apache, and others make their living doing exactly that.”

34. Eight Generatives Better Than Free “Authenticity -- You might be able to grab a key software application for free, but even if you don't need a manual, you might like to be sure it is bug free, reliable, and warranted. You'll pay for authenticity.” “Accessibility -- Ownership often sucks. You have to keep your things tidy, up-to-date, and in the case of digital material, backed up. And in this mobile world, you have to carry it along with you. Many people, me included, will be happy to have others tend our "possessions" by subscribing to them.” “Embodiment -- At its core the digital copy is without a body. You can take a free copy of a work and throw it on a screen. But perhaps you'd like to see it in hi-res on a huge screen? Maybe in 3D? PDFs are fine, but sometimes it is delicious to have the same words printed on bright white cottony paper, bound in leather.”

35. Eight Generatives Better Than Free “Patronage -- It is my belief that audiences WANT to pay creators. Fans like to reward artists, musicians, authors and the like with the tokens of their appreciation, because it allows them to connect. But they will only pay if it is very easy to do, a reasonable amount, and they feel certain the money will directly benefit the creators.” “Findability -- Where as the previous generative qualities reside within creative digital works, findability is an asset that occurs at a higher level in the aggregate of many works. A zero price does not help direct attention to a work, and in fact may sometimes hinder it. But no matter what its price, a work has no value unless it is seen; unfound masterpieces are worthless. When there are millions of books, millions of songs, millions of films, millions of applications, millions of everything requesting our attention -- and most of it free -- being found is valuable.”

36. How Will Academic Libraries Do? Immediacy— Can’t compete, will move to the network level Personalization— Can’t compete, will move to the network level Interpretation— Maybe if we develop deep relationships Authenticity— Maybe if we can maintain the library brand Accessibility— Maybe, but will require changes in faculty behavior Embodiment— Maybe since we have physical items Patronage— Only at the margins Findability— Can’t compete, has already moved to the network level

37. Collaboration to Move from Purchasing Materials to Curating Content Digitizing print-based content Capturing and preserving born digital content

38. Story 1 http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu/irishnews/

39. Story 2 http://www.policyarchive.org

40. Collaboration to Move from Purchasing Materials to Curating Content Open Access will succeed The structure of scholarly communication will change Users will be less dependent on local library collections Libraries will not have to purchase as much content We will be free to invest digital projects for our campuses

41. Or Not, the Rant “We need to begin with a fundamental fact — the cost of scholarly journals has increased at 10% per year for the last three decades. This is over six times the rate of general inflation and over two and a half times the rate of increase of the cost of health care. Between 1975 and 2005 the average cost of journals in chemistry and physics rose from $76.84 to $1,879.56. In the same period, the cost of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline rose from 55 cents to $1.82. If the gallon of gas had increased in price at the same rate as chemistry and physics journals over this period it would have reached $12.43 in 2005, and would be over $14.50 today.” David W. Lewis, “Library Budgets, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Communication,” Forthcoming in the May issue of C&RL News

42. Need to change the way scholarship is done or journal cost will continue to sap our resources Need to move from Proprietary Scholarship to Open Scholarship Opportunity costs of not doing so are very high

43. Governing the Commons Ostrom looks at self governing systems for managing common-pool resources (CPR) — for example, water or fishing rights Open Scholarly Commons is different The good provided is non-rival Appropriation of the resource is not a significant problem Provision of the good has both public good and CPR aspects Our problem will be on the provision side — How do we create the resource?

44. Governing the Commons Provision of the Open Scholarly Commons requires two things Infrastructure Scholars prepared to use the infrastructure Infrastructure is a public good which can be provided at a variety of levels from national to individual institutions There will be free riders — This is OK Vested interests will fight to stop or slow developments, especially at the national level This is the easy part

45. Governing the Commons Scholar’s decisions The work, and how it is put into the system, has both public and private benefits How do we rebalance how these benefits are exercised? Do institutions exert their rights to manage public benefits? Do scholars exert their rights to private benefits more responsibly? What are the incentives? Need to changes the norms that drive practice This is the hard problem

46. Learning from Open Source From Weber “I explain the creation of a particular kind of software—open source software—as an experiment in social organization around a distinctive notion of property. The conventional notion of property is, of course, the right to exclude you from using something that belongs to me. Property in open source is configured fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to exclude.” page 1 This makes large scale non-hierarchical cooperation is possible

47. Learning from Open Source Change the way scholarship, as property, functions — the right to distribute not to exclude Creative Commons licenses NIH or Harvard mandates Scholarship, like open source software, is not simply a nonrival — it is antirival Nonrival — Use does not diminish the good Antirival — Use enhances the value of the good “Open source turns what would have been called free riders into contributor to a collective good.” page 216

48. Learning from Open Source “Open source developers perceive themselves as trading many copies of their own (single) innovation for many single copies of others’ innovations.” page 159 Scholars don’t generally see the trade this way Rather access to other’s innovation is perceived as a right that they are owed by their institution Delivering this perceived right is the library’s problem We need to change the way this “bargain” is viewed

49. Learning from Open Source From Shirky — Open Systems are successful because they: Lower the cost of failure, but not the likelihood of failure — this provides the means to explore multiple possibilities and increases the likelihood of finding successful solutions Do not create a bias in favor of predictable but substandard outcomes Make it simple to integrate the contributions of people who contribute only one good idea page 245

50. The Cooperation Revolution From Shirky “The centrality of group effort to human life means that anything that changes the way groups function will have profound ramifications for everything from commerce and government to media and religion.” page 17 “We are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to share, to cooperate with one another, and to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional institutions and organizations.” page 21

51. The Cooperation Revolution “The difficulties that kept self-assembled groups from working together are shrinking, meaning that the number and kind of things groups can get done without financial motivation or managerial oversight are growing. The current change in one sentence is: most of the barriers to group action have collapsed, and without those barriers, we are free to explore new ways of gathering together and getting things done.” Page 22

52. The Cooperation Revolution Mass Amateurization — Large Scale Sharing “An individual with a camera or a keyboard is now a non-profit of one, and self-publishing is now the normal case… This technological story is like literacy, wherein a particular capacity moves from a group of professionals to become embedded within the society itself, ubiquitously, available to a majority of citizens.” pages 77-78 Publish then Filter — Mass amateurization of publishing requires mass amateurization of filtering

53. The Cooperation Revolution “When a profession has been created as a result of some scarcity, as with librarians or television programmers, the professionals are often the last ones to see it when that scarcity goes away. It is easier to understand that you face competition than obsolescence.” pages 58-59 Are we like the scribes?

54. The Cooperation Revolution Successful social tools require three things: A plausible promise — attracts users An effective tool — makes community possible An acceptable bargain — creates community How do we create a set of social tools that create Open Scholarship? The hard part is the plausible promise and the acceptable bargain

55. Final Quote From Shirky “Emblematic of the dilemmas created by group life, the phrase “free-for-all” does not literally mean free for all but rather chaos. Too much freedom, with too little management, has generally been a recipe for a free-for-all. Now, however, it isn’t. With the right kinds of collaborative tools and the right sort of bargain with users, it is possible to get a large group working on a project that is free for all.” page 253

56. Our Task Create the tools and communities for open scholarship so knowledge can be abundant in our communities Peter Senge — The world’s knowledge belongs to the world This can only be the product of cooperation and collaboration.

57. Comments orQuestions ?David W. Lewisdlewis@iupui.edu © 2008 David W. Lewis. Permission to use this work is granted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license (3.0). You are free: to share, to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, to remix, and to make derivative works under the following conditions: 1. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), and 2. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Apart from the remix rights granted under this license, nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.