ARL Redefining Libraries As Multi-Institutional Entities Carole Moore, University of Toronto Wendy...

ARL

Redefining Libraries As Multi-Institutional Entities

Carole Moore, University of TorontoWendy Lougee, University of Minnesota

Anne R. Kenney, Cornell UniversityKevin Guthrie, Ithaka

May 21, 2009

Redefining Libraries as Multi-Institutional Entities

Wendy Pradt LougeeAssociation of Research Libraries

May 2009

Twin Cities Deans CouncilFebruary 2008

A Parable, Paradigm, & [modest] Proposal

• Parable: is sharing enough?• Paradigm: a new framework• Proposal: virtual communities as a

model

THE PARABLE…

The Future of the Library: A View from the Provost’s Office” (1990)

“…Stating the problem is easy; and if we set aside our traditional prejudices, it takes no genius to name cooperation as the only tenable solution….

we ought to envision a time when the autonomous individual collections of our nation’s research libraries are in substantial degree melded into a large dispersed collection to which we all contribute and in which we all share equally….”

Billy E. Frye

Multi-Institutional Models:Dimensions of Resources, Expertise,

Governance

• Coordinated/shared collections: Farmington, FDLP, RLG Shares

• Coalescing resources: consortia licensing, cooperative purchases

• Collaborative goals/shared expertise: Making of America, Hathi

• Collective action: SPARC, SCOAP3

THE PARADIGM…

The Paradigm: Diffuse, Engaged “With the incorporation of distributed

technologies and more open models, the library has the potential to become more involved at all stages, and in all contexts, of knowledge creation, dissemination, and use. Rather than being defined by its collections or the services that support them, the library can become a diffuse agent within the scholarly community.”

Lougee, Diffuse Libraries, 2002

Shifts

Collection-centrico Expertise

Shifts

Collection-centrico Expertise

Publication-focusedo Process

Shifts

Collection-centrico Expertise

Publication-focusedo Process

Access = controlo Sense-making

Shifts

Collection-centrico Expertise

Publication-focusedo Process

Access = controlo Sense-making

Service = mediationo Enabling

Shifts Collection-centric

o Expertise Publication-focused

o Process Access = control

o Sense-making Service = mediation

o Enabling Local

o Global

A conceptual or methodological model underlying the theories and practices of a science or discipline at a particular time; (hence) a generally accepted world view.

PARADIGM

Oxford English Dictionary

Paradigm shift

“when…the profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the existing tradition of… practice -– then begin the extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at last to a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science.”

Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962

THE [modest] PROPOSAL…

Virtual Communities

• Gravitational pull of network, grid resources• Collaborative, interdisciplinary scholarship• Tools for discovery, management,

collaboration• Social contributions (“Wisdom of Crowds”)• E-research model: multi-institutional, data-

rich, collaborative

“The time is right for taking a more cross-cutting, multidisciplinary approach to understanding the basic organizational abstractions, communication models, trust mechanisms, and technology infrastructure required to form and operate effective VO’s [virtual organizations] across a broad range of target domains.”

• Mellon Foundation-funded Scholarly Communication Institute (practical ethics)

• Pilot: A place for bioethics community: discovering, managing, analyzing, sharing

• Develop sustainable, multi-institutional, interdisciplinary community

EthicShareA Virtual Community Model

• High quality (selective) content• Comprehensive access to all material types (full

text)• Domain-sensitive discovery & access• Space for (global) community discussion,

exchange, commentary• Group & private work space• Tools for information management, sharing• Community-governed, developed

Community Requirements(Defined through focus groups, surveys)

Virtual Research Environment Components

Collection Development

Content aggregationIngest mechanismsHarvestingResolution

CONTENT

Discovery Tools

Automated ontologyCommunity terms

Faceted searchingDrupal, Solr

ACCESS

Policy & Sustainability

Editorial policiesCommunity participation

User privacyIntellectual Property

GOVERNANCEEngagement & Collaboration

Social tools to add valueEditorial participation

COMMUNITY

Content Harvesting Resolution Services News & Events Community defined discovery Tags, commentary, sharing Editorial policies Governance

Library Role in Virtual Communities?• Content selection, conversion; adding value• Preservation, curation• Tool development• Integration of content, content & tools • Catalyst for collaboration?

• Who hosts the collaborative?• Who sustains the collaborative?• Who contributes to the collaborative?

Exclusive roles? Collaborative roles?

ARL

Redefining Libraries As Multi-Institutional Entities

Anne R. Kenney, Cornell University

May 21, 2009

ARL

Some Bold Assertions

1.There is a collective wealth held hostage by redundant operations and collections at ARL libraries.

2.Many of the things we compete over don’t make our institutions more competitive.

3.Our history of collaboration may ironically make it more difficult to do radical collaboration.

4.Our staff would rather do more work than give up doing some things.

ARL

Collective Wealth of ARL Members

• Total ARL library expenditures: $3,914,758,950

• Total materials expenditures: $1,219,796,179

» E-resources expenditures: $536,033,744

» Monographs: $315,757,710• Total salaries and wages: $1,709,969,994

• 10% savings = $391M!

ARL

Every state and every region in the country is stuck with some form of anachronistic and expensive local government structure that dates to horse-drawn wagons, family farms and small-town convenience

Tom BrokawNYT op-ed, 4/20/2009

ARL

Reconsidering Collective Wealth

• Stop measuring “success” by how much money spent/dedicated to libraries

» as % of university budgets or ARL investment index• Measure instead success by operational efficiencies,

institutional effectiveness, resource reallocation, consortial work, or addressing big challenges at the university

» eliminate backlog and multiple purchases of same title through vendor packages; press for resource sharing in licensing

» ROI» Reversing attrition rates, supporting x-disciplinary work

ARL

Competing ≠ Institutional Competitiveness

• Success of Borrow Direct

• Failure of IRs

• Wagon wheels rather than webs

• Wanting to be a “model” for peers

• Think local, act global

ARL

Shift ARL Measures to Promote Collaboration

• Move from volume counts to title counts

• Measure degree of uniqueness

• Quantify collaboration and use in rankings

» Collective purchasing, shared collections» Number of shared staff» Combined functions

• Define collective measures to complement institutional ones

ARL

“Even farmers don’t use silos anymore.”

Alice PellVice Provost, International Initiatives

Cornell University

ARL

But We Already Collaborate

• Valuing process over progress

• Collaborating at the edges

» borrowing over building » collection responsibilities in esoteric areas» Sharing cataloging but not catalogers» Focusing on IT standards not pooled resources

• Assessing collaborative approaches through a new lens (e.g., Hathi Trust)

• Connecting the dots

ARL

“I’d give it to you, but it’s mine.”

Michael Kenney Hickersonat age 4

ARL

•A preference for perfection and service

“The national library of the United States is giving away the birthright of American scholars in

exchange for a mess of Internet pottage.”

Thomas Mann“What is Going on at the Library of Congress”

Doing More with Less

ARL

Doing More with Less

• Layering on experiments but maintaining all other functions

• Less with less vs. focusing efforts

• ARL: should we stop collecting reference statistics and focus on documenting faculty/library collaborations?

ARL

Potential Areas for Collaboration

• Collective collections

• Backroom functions

• New domains

• The power of many

ARL

“A lack of inventiveness isn’t the problem. A lack of will may be.”

"In a Time of Crisis, Colleges Ought to Be Making History"

Chronicle of Higher EducationMay 11, 2009

ARL

Collective Collections

• Collections by the numbers

• Begin with prospective co-ownership and then fold in retrospective

• Revisit Janus Conference and RLG Conspectus

“Is there any reason beyond local pride to maintain duplication?” Tom Brokaw

ARL

Collective Collection Challenges

• Institutional identity, faculty acceptance

• Better overlap/analysis and use tools

• Zero sum budgeting, financial restrictions, accounting systems

• Pre-nups for shared collections

• Delivery, legal issues

• Outreach/research support for faculty and students

ARL

Backroom Functions

• Shared technical processing, centers of effort

• Collective negotiation with vendors for content and metadata

• Contract potential with leading libraries in other countries

ARL

Backroom Functions Challenges

• System of “credits” for work done on behalf of all

• Standard definitions of good enough

• Budgets/funding streams

• Shared end processing systems

ARL

New Domains

• Building local cyberinfrastructures

• Bridging IRs

• Services layered on top

• Re-imagining academic computing

• Difficulties in collaborating in new areas

ARL

The Power of Many

• Exercising collective clout

» Providing cover to do what’s needed» Reaching the tipping point on OA» Abjuring NDAs with publishers and others» Negotiating for scholarly media collections» Collective action demands as much attention as

institutional action• Reexamining anti-trust issues in library

negotiations

ARL

"Faced with the choice between change and proving there is no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."

John Kenneth Galbraith

Making “Multi-Institutional Entities” Work: Reflections on Strategy and Governance

Kevin GuthrieIthaka

21 May 2009

Background

• Redefining Libraries as Multi-Institutional Entities

CLIR’s 2008 report No Brief Candle, and the current economy, point to “no more business as usual” for libraries. Our speakers have agreed to discuss what they see as opportunities for new ways of libraries working together to reduce redundancies, align resources, and take collective action toward a desired, innovative future. We have asked each speaker to illustrate their remarks with examples of opportunities and to pose questions that the community must address to redefine libraries as multi-institutional entities.

What is different about this conversation? Is this new?

Libraries do have experience with various forms of multi-institutional “collaboration” and organization

• Consortia• State Systems• ILL services• Outsourcing• Vendors and service providers

“This time we mean it.”

“This time we mean it.”

“Really.”

Smaller college libraries have been here

• Five Colleges of Ohio• Merged off-site storage and specialized functions

• Tri-College Libraries• Shared library catalog, some shared staff roles

• Appalachian College Association• Shared supplemental central library

• Claremont Libraries• Individual libraries fully merged into one system

Why and What

• This is about effective sharing of resources.

• The focus of my reflections will be on strategy and governance.

• The greatest challenge to multi-institutional entities will be defining success and accepting who is in charge. By “governance,” I just mean who makes decisions and who takes responsibility for delivering successful outcomes.

• These issues will always come back, eventually, no matter how many times they are deferred.

Why might libraries be thinking about working on multi-institutional initiatives?

• Networked technology environment favors economies of scale; big is better

• Challenging economy causes libraries to reduce costs• Changing expectations of library users; might

combinations lead to better services?• Expose library content to a wider audience• Aggregate library content with other related content

Why, specifically?

• Need to make sure that the strategic objectives lead your choices and remain primary

• When choosing to join up with other libraries, what locally held strategic objective is the library pursuing?

• Whose strategic objective dominates? How do you balance local mission and objectives and multi-institutional or even system-wide “public good” benefits? Which locally-held objectives will need to be compromised?

Sample Research Library Mission Statement

…University Library advances teaching, learning, research and community service by providing outstanding collections, access to the world of knowledge, excellence in service and an appropriate library environment, all of which are client-focused and responsive to the needs of the [University] community.

[This] Library • Facilitates excellence in teaching, learning and research • Creates an appropriate environment to support teaching, learning and

research • Anticipates and responds to student and faculty needs • Contributes to positive student and faculty outcomes and experiences • Provides the information resource infrastructure necessary for leading

edge teaching, learning and research activity • Supports community outreach and community partnerships

Break it down

• The right model for “collaboration”—in other words, the best form of governance for that activity—is likely to depend on the nature of the objective being pursued

How do we define “multi-institutional entity”?

What qualifies? Some points on a continuum:

• Loosely organized group of institutions that work together informally to achieve a common purpose

• Libraries that contribute their labor to pursue a common objective

• Libraries that “delegate” a responsibility to another library• Libraries that establish a separate organization to achieve

a common objective• Libraries that pay another entity to perform a particular

service

Hypothesis

• The complexity of the objective and the nature of the benefits drive the degree of central coordination and/or oversight required. • Is the objective easily defined and measured?• Is the benefit realized locally or is it a system benefit?• Does the group activity benefit the members of the group

directly, or is it designed to serve third parties?• Are the benefits gained by the participating libraries

“symmetrical”?• Does the entity most closely associated with the activity gain

prestige?

Rough Framework and Examples

Examples

• A consortium negotiates content licenses for a group of libraries• A group of libraries manage a service for each other• A group of libraries offer a service for each other and other

libraries• Individual libraries operate through an enabling organization that

facilitates networked and direct interaction• A group of libraries offer a coordinated end-user service• Individual libraries pay for an end-user product or service

• Commercial organization offers a product• Not-for-profit offers products or services to members or a

collaborative

A consortium negotiates content licenses for a group of libraries

• Example: Northeast Research Libraries (NERL) Consortium• The problem: Research libraries

wished to jointly negotiate license terms and prices for electronic resources

• NERL formed in 1996 with Yale as the “anchor”; currently has 27 member research libraries

• Representatives from member libraries field individual proposals from publishers and forward information to the group

• Extremely modest central staffing: two employees and one coordinating librarian from Yale

<http://www.library.yale.edu/NERLpublic/>

A group of libraries manage a service for each other

• Example: Borrow Direct• The problem: Three northeast research libraries (Columbia, Penn,

and Yale) wanted to streamline costs associated with existing ILL programs and interfaces

• Commercial software modified to allow registered library users to directly request items from other partner libraries

• Early survey showed staff time and item delivery time for ILL requests lowered

• Service expanded to include four other Ivy libraries; no plans to expand further

Reference: <http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/past/borrowdirect.htm>

A group of libraries offer a service for each other and other libraries

• Example: HathiTrust• The problem: CIC research

libraries desired a joint repository for storing, preserving, and providing services for the books digtiized through the Google project

• Each university contributes to the finances during the start-up phase

• Business model being considered. As service scales and as complexity increases governance questions will take on greater importance

An enabling organization facilitates networked interaction

• Example: OCLC ILLiad software• The problem: Lack of coordination for inter-library lending• Libraries license ILLiad software, which provides an interface for

library users to request materials and another interface for library staff to coordinate lending

• Activity between libraries is direct (a volume travels from lending institution to borrowing institution), but a coordinating tool must be in place

A group of libraries offer a coordinated end-user service

• Example: DigiZeitschriften• The problem: Early journal

aggregators like JSTOR did not include key German-language scholarly journals

• Head library engaged 14 partner research libraries across Germany to create “German JSTOR”

• Partner libraries bear cost of journal selection and rights negotiation

• Digitization and decision-making happen at host library, Goettingen

• Modest goals, modest budget…

Libraries pay for an end-user product or service

• Example: Project MUSE• The problem: In early 1990s, JHU

Press wanted to move its journals online

• Press partnered with the Milton S. Eisenhower Library (MSEL) at JHU to build Project MUSE

• Other publishers added in 2000• Resource sustained through

institutional subscriptions• “Today, MUSE is still a not-for-

profit collaboration between the participating publishers and MSEL”

Conclusion

• Consider a broad definition of multi-institutional entity when thinking about these collaborations

• Think carefully about governance models as you consider multi-institutional collaborations

• Understand and define the level of complexity in objectives

• Understand that with increasing complexity will come a need for more heavyweight structures to ensure success

• Are there existing organizations that can be re-oriented to play a role in accomplishing the specific objective?

Thank youKevin Guthriekg@ithaka.org