Thinking the unthinkable:a library without a catalogue

Reconsidering the future of our discovery tools

University libraries are losing their role in the discovery of scientific information. Instead, they should focus on delivery.

In the next twenty minutes I would like to

…share findings of our research on discovery and delivery

&

…present some convincing and inspiring ideas

My name is Simone Kortekaas

Head of Information & Marketing Department at Utrecht University Library

In the summer of 2011 time had come to reconsider the future of discovery tools for Utrecht University Library.

A study group within the library was formed to do research and make recommendations on the succession of the Aleph WebOPAC and Omega*

*Omega = search engine built in 2002 for discovery of electronic journal articles

Pivotal in our discussion:

“We don’t need to build or buy a new library discovery tool because alternatives are available in the public cloud”

Questions

1.Are the currently available alternative discovery tools adequate?

2.What are the risks and the conditions if we rely on these alternative services?

3.What needs to be done to ensure reliable delivery?

Findings

International studies and user statistics show:

•Students & scholars are moving away from the library website and the online library catalogue

•Users are finding their way to our licensed journals through large and strong, freely available search engines like Google

Patrons Switching Faster Than Libraries Faculty and Students Already Looking Elsewhere for Search Help 

Where Do Students Start a Search?  Where Do Faculty Start Their Research? n = 2,229  n = 3,025 

Search Engine  83% 

Wikipedia 

Social Networking Site 

E mail ‐

E mail Subscription ‐

Online Database 

Ask an Expert Site 

Library Website 

7% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

A specific electronic research resource 

A general purpose search engine 

Your online library catalog 

The library building 

2003 

37% 47% 

21% 32% 

28% 18% 

13% 4% 

2009 

Source: “Faculty Study 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers,© 2011 The Advisory Board Company • www.educationadvisoryboard.com •  22852D and Societies” Ithaka S+R; “Perceptions of Libraries, 2010,” OCLC.

Findings

•Google Scholar was started in 2007 and is now highly appreciated by scholars all over the world

•Increase of usage of broad, licensed bibliographies and abstract databases (such as Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed)

•Worldcat is becoming increasingly popular at the moment

Trends in searching UU Relative increase search engines 

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company • www.educationadvisoryboard.com •  22852D© 2012 MR/BK

Findings

We investigated to what extent our materials can be found in systems and databases on the Internet.

•Electronic articles can generally be found.

•For printed books Google Books and Worldcat provide a reasonable alternative to our own catalogue.

•Findability of special collections is more problematic. The same goes for EBooks. Up to now these materials have been locked up into our own catalogue.

Despite the fact that we found out that other alternatives are available and sufficiently adequate, we looked at the issue from a different angle.

We addressed and discussed often voiced counter arguments, which could be in favour of a new library discovery tool.

Counter argument 1

First year students want an integral search engine

•Even the new generation of library discovery tools cannot provide a real and exclusive “ one stop shop”

•Google scholar and Worldcat try to fulfill this role as well

•Specific databases for special materials or disciplines will still be necessary

Counter argument 2

First year students only want to search the Utrecht collection

•Most searched for and found articles in the public cloud are accessible for Utrecht users

•For books other solutions must be explored

Counter argument 3

With our own discovery tool we will be in control and not depending on big commercial players

•Buying a tool makes you dependant as well and there will be the issue of configuration and maintenance

•There are several competitive players in the cloud (Google, Microsoft, OCLC, Elsevier etcetera)

Counter argument 4

The library will be less visible for our users

•The library has already lost its role as the primary gateway to scientific information

•Even now, with a WebOPAC and Omega, it is already a great challenge to stay visible as a partner in science for our university users

Conclusions

•The Library should not invest in a new library discovery tool and focus on delivery instead.

•Following from this the Library can phase out Omega.

•For special collections and Utrecht scientific output metadata should be added to national and international initiatives. Hold on to parts of WebOPAC for the time being.

•Rethink the role of the library in providing access to scientific information.

The “easy” part : ensure reliable delivery

•Make an inventory of what needs to be done

•Plan the actions

•Act

The challenge

•To let go of our role in discovery

•To admit that others can do a better job

•To get used to a changing library identity

We think:

University libraries are losing their role in the discovery of scientific information. Instead, they should focus on delivery.

Thank you very much for your attention, please share your thoughts and ideas and ask your critical questions.