Rethinking Library Resources: Print Books in a Digital Age Texas Council of Academic Libraries...

Rethinking Library Resources: Print Books Rethinking Library Resources: Print Books

in a Digital Agein a Digital Age

Texas Council of Academic LibrariesTexas Council of Academic Libraries

October 3, 2013

SCS Background

• Founded in February 2011

• Principals– Chief Analytics Officer [Andy Breeding]

– Chief Technical Officer [Eric Redman]

– Chief Operations Officer [Ruth Fischer]

– Chief Executive Officer [Rick Lugg]

– OCLC [Strategic Partner]

• 70+ projects to dateSustainablecollections.com 2

Sustainablecollections.com 3

SCS MissionSCS Mission

To help libraries manage and share print monographs

Sustainablecollections.com 4

Deselection: Defined Broadly

• ‘Deselection' can encompass a number of different goals:

• Transfer to offsite storage, automated storage & retrieval systems (ASRS) or compact shelving

• Shared Print Archiving

• Retention and Preservation

• Digitization

• Weeding or Withdrawal

Sustainablecollections.com 5

Today’s Specials

• The Why: The Changing Value of Local Print Collections

• The How: Collecting and Using Deselection Metadata

• Shared Print Monographs

Sustainablecollections.com 6

The why: The changing value of local print collections

7

Evolution of the Library Paradigm

Reader-centered: from monastic scriptorium and library; dominated by light and reading tables

Book-centered: collection growth; unrelenting need for more shelving

Learning-centered: digital content; information commons; learning spaces; information literacy

Source: Scott Bennett, Libraries and Learning:

A History of Paradigm Change (2003)8

The Problem

• Stacks are overcrowded• Use of print books is low and declining• Library space is wanted for other purposes• Print redundancy is significant• The cost of keeping books on shelves is high• Alternatives exist, but data is scattered• Traditional approaches to deselection are costly

and time-consuming

Sustainablecollections.com 9

Stacks are crowded and empty

10

Circulation in Academic Libraries: Declining Since 2004

11

37% Decline

37% Decline

Print Use Dwarfed by Electronic Use

12

-23%-23%

+76%+76%

Space Requirements: MonographsVolumes Square Feet100,000 20,000250,000 45,000500,000 80,0001,000,000 150,0002,700,000 405,000

Source: Stephen R. Lawrence, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Keith H. Brigham, “Life Cycle Costs of Library Collections” College & Research Libraries, November 2001, p. 546.

13

Library space is wanted for other purposes…

“The crowding out of readers by reading materials is one of the most common and disturbing ironies in library space planning.”

--Scott Bennett

Sustainablecollections.com 14

Lifecycle Costs: Monographs

• CLIR, June 2010

• Courant & Nielsen

• Estimated Annual Costs

$4.26/ volume annually in central stacks

$0.86/volume in high-density facility

15

Lifecycle Costs: Monographs

16

Print redundancy is significant…

17

Potential for shared printAnd local reductions

Potential for shared printAnd local reductions

The Case of Bertrand Russell…

Alternatives exist, but the data is scattered…

Just because it’s rational doesn’t mean it’s easy…

18

Sustainablecollections.com 19

Premises for Action

• Users value other library services more than print collections

• Opportunity for deselection with no impact on users and no risk to the record

• New tools and approaches will be necessary to make it safe & economical

20

What to do?

Sustainablecollections.com 21

How else could we…?

• Preserve collection integrity

• Assure low-use content is available if/when needed

AND

• Bear less unnecessary cost

• Free more space for users and other purposes

22

Shared Collections?

23

Store offsite?

24

Discard?

25

Create?

26

Regret?

27

Benefit?

28

Independent action in a collective context

Sustainablecollections.com 29

Shared print initiatives (Monographs)

• Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI) • Maine Shared Collection Strategy (IMLS-

funded; Statewide scope)• Connect New York Shared Print Archiving• Central Iowa Collaborative Collections Initiative• Washington Research Library Consortium• Virtual Library of Virginia• FLARE (Florida), GWLA, SCELC

Sustainablecollections.com 30

The how: Using data to inform monographs deselection

31

Two functions of library print collections

• Preservation function

• “Dispensing” function: accounts for the “the great preponderance of operating costs.

Sustainablecollections.com 32

Source: Michael Buckland, Redesigning Library Services: A Manifesto (Chicago: American Library Association, 1992).

Many monographs are digitally archived

Sustainablecollections.com 33

To a high standard…

• TRAC: Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification

• Site visit, sampling of archives content, review of documentation

• “preservation audit”– Organizational Infrastructure

– Digital Object Management

– Technologies, Technical Infrastructure, Security

34

35

But we still need a print archive…

‘Archive’ copies

• Digital Archives• Secure, high-quality

• Hathi Trust, Portico

• CRL certification

• Print Archives• Failsafe for technological or natural disaster

• New digital surrogates or re-digitization

• Dark, dim, or light?

36

‘Service’ copies

• Once content is securely archived, ‘dispensing’ function can be managed with fewer surplus copies

• Focus on distribution, convenience, speed of delivery

• Borrow or re-purchase; print, electronic (including PDA, DDA, Short-term Loan); POD

37

Surplus copies

• Archiving requirements satisfied

• Sufficient service copies to meet anticipated demand

• How many holdings/copies remain?

• Are all of them needed?

Sustainablecollections.com 38

Good Decisions Require Data

• How many holdings/copies?

• Where are they?

• Is the title secure?

• Can the title be accessed quickly?

• Can the title be re-obtained if needed?

• What options are available for each title?

Sustainablecollections.com 39

SCS and Collection AnalyticsSCS and Collection Analytics

• Assembles deselection metadata

• Supports library-defined rules that operate against that metadata

• Coordinates withdrawal and retention scenarios across all institutions (in a group setting)

• Incorporates ‘archival’ values and ‘service’ values into deselection decisions

Sustainablecollections.com 40

The SCS Approach: Data-Driven Decisions

• Circulation & other use data (ILL, in-house)

• Holdings in other libraries (peer, regional, national)

• Secure digital copy (Hathi)

• Authoritative title lists

• [Commercial availability]

• Library-defined rules

• Interactive rule sets

41

http://sustainablecollections.com

Sustainablecollections.com 42

Deselection Metadata

SCS Monographs Index 2013

Sustainablecollections.com 43

The Average SCS Monographs Collection

• Of the 459,000 circulating print books:

• 182,039 have no recorded uses in the past 15 years

• 342,551 have been used 3 or fewer times in the past 15 years

• 356,377 are held by more than 100 other libraries in the US

• 9,639 are held by fewer than 5 other libraries in the US

• 221,192 are securely digitized in Hathi Trust

• 22,216 of those Hathi Trust titles are freely available in electronic form

Sustainablecollections.com 44

Trinity’s Data

Sustainablecollections.com 45

Collaborative Analysis

Sustainablecollections.com 46

Shared print management: group projects

Sustainablecollections.com 48

SCS Group Projects to Date

• Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI) • Maine Shared Collection Strategy• Connect New York Shared Print Archiving• California State University System• Central Iowa Collaborative Collections Initiative• Tri-University Group (Canada)• Washington Research Library Consortium• Virtual Library of Virginia• Academic Libraries of Indiana

Sustainablecollections.com 49

Project Segments

• Planning & requirements gathering

• Getting usable catalog extracts

• Data preparation and review

• Group collection summary

• Scenario development

• Iterations

• Candidate lists

Sustainablecollections.com 50

High-level project schedule/dependenies

Sustainablecollections.com 51

TaskTask DescriptionDescription DatesDates

Planning MeetingsPlanning Meetings Key players discuss data extracts, anomalies, peers, etc. SeptSept 20132013

Collections DecisionsCollections Decisions Comparators, local interest rules, scoping refinements Sept-Oct Sept-Oct 20132013

Data PreparationData Preparation Libraries prepare and deliver extracts to SCS. SCS validates, normalizes, matches, and performs holdings lookups.

Sept-DecSept-Dec2013? 2013?

Group Collection Group Collection SummarySummary

Categorical overview of the group data set. Used to gauge opportunities and guide scenario development.

Early Early 2014?2014?

Scenario Scenario DevelopmentDevelopment

Project leaders suggest preliminary assessment criteria. SCS iterates and revises scenarios.

Jan-April Jan-April 20142014

Candidate ListsCandidate Lists Detailed Excel spreadsheets for review, bases on finalized criteria for retention and withdrawal. Modify as necessary.

April-June April-June 20142014

Discussions Discussions FacilitationFacilitation

This will be needed at many points – but especially around scenario development, allocation, and policy development.

Through-Through-outout

AllocationAllocation Assignment of withdrawal opportunities and retention commitments – based on many factors. TBD TBD

List ProductionList Production Once allocation decisions have been made, SCS will derive title/item lists for use by individual libraries. TBDTBD

Ongoing Data Ongoing Data ManagementManagement

SCS will maintain (but will not update) the VIVA dataset for 2 years, which can be used for additional projects. … …

You Are HereYou Are Here

Collections and Analytical Strategies

• Ensure a shared understanding of the scope of the project

• Most productive focus: circulating print monographs

• Which libraries, which branches?

• What comparisons will the group’s data support?

Sustainablecollections.com 52

VIVA Data Extracts: 10 Sources, 12 LibrariesInstitution ILS OCLC Symbol Estimated Records* Notes

George Mason Voyager VGM [750,000] Also in WRLC. Re-use extract for VIVA.

Old Dominion III Sierra VOD 713,995

University of Virginia SirsiDynixSymphony

VA@

1,240,421

Virginia Commonwealth Alma VRC 884,649

Virginia Tech Millennium VPI 660,000

James Madison Millennium VMC [460,443] Extract already paid via JMU-specific project

Radford Millennium VRA 233,809

Germanna CC Aleph PZJ 31,730 CC Libraries share a system, so the three pilot libraries count as a single data extract

J. Sargeant Reynolds CC Aleph PZL 66,062 See above

Mountain Empire CC Aleph PZP 37,205 See above

University of Richmond Voyager VRU 382,228

Washington & Lee Millennium VLW 405,409

Est. Total Records to be Processed**

5,800,000

Est. Total Records to be paid In Pilot***

4,600,000

53

Library Total Charges Earliest Last Charge Date

Library 1 20 years 6/29/1993

Library 2 11 years 6/26/2002

Library 3 7 years 1/20/2005

Library 4 23 years 7/23/1990

Library 5 15 years 9/22/1998

How to deal with uneven depths of data?

54

Extensive item data will be collected

• item call number

• volume

• last reserve date

• copy #

• in-house uses

• barcode

• last check-in date

• last check-out date

Sustainablecollections.com 55

• location code*

• item type code*

• note field*

• opac message*

• item status code*

• total checkouts

• item record number

• item create date

Comparator library groups

56

Library UNI UI ISU Other IPALUniversity of Northern Iowa NIU University of Iowa NUI Iowa State University IWA Ashford University IO9Briar Cliff University IOBBuena Vista University IOEClarke University IOCCoe College IONCornell College IMVDes Moines University IWODivine Word College DIVDordt College IOTGraceland College IOFIowa Wesleyan IOI

Loras College IOLLuther College IOHMaharishi University of Management MIUMercy College of Health Sciences Y4QMorningside College IOMMount Mercy College UIWNorthwestern College IOOPalmer College of Chiropractic PWTSt. Ambrose University IOJUniversity of Dubuque IOVUpper Iowa University IOYWaldorf College IX5Wartburg College IOWWartburg Theological Seminary IWTWilliam Penn University IOX

SCS normalizes the data from each libraryBibliographic, item, circulation, and holdings data extracted, transformed, and loaded to an SCS Postgres database

•Filter out-of scope bib records (eBooks, maps, DVDs, Gov Docs)

•Eliminate duplicate bib records

•Normalize call numbers

•Eliminate trailing spaces in control numbers

•Validate OCLC numbers

•LCCN/title-string lookups for records lacking an OCLC number

•Identify and accommodate unusual implementations of MARC

•Identify bibs without items and items with multiple bib records

•Map item-level data and interpret codes

•Assign LC (and/or Dewey) Classes to records

57

Compare group’s holdings to other libraries

• External comparisons– WorldCat Holdings

– Hathi Trust In-Copyright

– Hathi Trust Public Domain

– Internet Archive

– CHOICE

– CHOICE Outstanding Academic Titles

Sustainablecollections.com 58

Group collection summary

59

By “titles” we can mean two different things

60

1. Title Set

Adelphi Bard Canisius Cazenovia Colgate Hamilton

2. Title Holding

Library TotalCharges

Last ChargeDate

Last ItemAdd Date

Adelphi 2 5/1/06 7/25/94

Bard 1 9/11/96

Canisius 5 10/14/09 6/24/94

Cazenovia 1 1/29/96

Colgate 8 9/23/02 6/23/94

Hamilton 12 4/20/11 5/28/02

Le Moyne 3 3/27/95

Medaille 0 6/26/08

Pace 2 5/13/09 11/1/94

St Lawrence 2 4/4/12 10/25/94

Union 2 9/13/10 4/5/03

Vassar 8 9/4/12 1/11/95

Each Title-Holding can have different characteristics

Publication Year1994

Recorded Uses

62

Title-Holding Counts All Libraries %

1 All Title Holdings - Filtered 1,048,251 100%

Recorded Use Counts

2 Total Recorded Uses = 0 448,173 43%

3 Total Recorded Uses = 1 208,568 20%

4 Total Recorded Uses = 2 119,039 11%

5 Total Recorded Uses = 3 73,754 7%

6 Total Recorded Uses 4-9 150,156 14%

7 Total Recorded Uses > 10 48,651 5%

14 Last charge after 2010 104,933 10%

15 Last charge after 2007 211,842 20%

16 Last charge after 2005 272,626 26%

WorldCat™ Counts – US

63

WorldCat Counts - US - Specific Edition Title Holdings %

2 Unique in the US 2,804 0%

4 2-4 Holdings in the US 7,327 1%

6 5-9 Holdings in US 10,822 1%

8 10-19 Holdings in US 19,452 2%

10 20+ Holdings In US 1,007,213 96%

12 50+ Holdings in US 953,539 91%

14 100+ Holdings in the US 875,579 84%

16 200+ Holdings in the US 728,019 69%

Overlap based on SCS Matching – for a 5 Library Group

64

Overlap within the 5 participating libraries Title Holdings %

2 Unique in group 526,526 50%

3 Title-holdings in 2 libraries 280,360 27%

4 Titles-holdings in 3 libraries 154,351 15%

5 Titles-holdings in 4 libraries 68,681 7%

6 Titles-holdings in all 5 libraries 18,333 2%

Overlap with a Peer Group

65

Overlap with other IPAL libraries – specific editions Title Holdings %

29 WorldCat holding set in 1 other IPAL Library 170,962 16%

30 WorldCat holding set in 2-4 other IPAL libraries 293,053 28%

32 WorldCat holding set in 5-9 other IPAL libraries 155,259 15%

34 WorldCat holding set in 10+ other IPAL libraries 33,678 3%

Title-Holdings by Publication Year

66

Title Holdings by LC Class

67

Number of Title

Holdings

68

AverageUses per

Title-Holding

Holdings and Usage Levels Compared

Hathi Trust and Internet Archive

69

SCS Matches Title Holdings %

9 Hathi Trust Public Domain Match 53,595 5%

10 Hathi Trust In-Copyright Match 455,250 43%

11 Internet Archive Match 158,754 15%

12 In Internet Archive not in Hathi 60,875 6%

13 In Hathi not in Internet Archive 425,414 41%

High-level project schedule

Sustainablecollections.com 70

TaskTask DescriptionDescription Tentative Tentative DatesDates

Planning MeetingsPlanning Meetings Key players discuss data extracts, anomalies, peers, etc. October October 20122012

Data PreparationData Preparation Libraries prepare and deliver extracts to SCS. SCS validates, normalizes, matches, and performs holdings lookups.

November November 20122012

Group Collection Group Collection SummarySummary

Categorical overview of the group data set. Used to gauge opportunities and guide scenario development.

January January 20132013

Scenario Scenario DevelopmentDevelopment

Project leaders suggest preliminary withdrawal and preservation criteria. SCS iterates and revises.

Begin Begin February February

20132013

Candidate ListsCandidate Lists Detailed Excel spreadsheets for review, bases on finalized criteria for withdrawal. Modify as necessary. 20132013

Discussions Discussions FacilitationFacilitation

This will be needed at many points – but especially around scenario development, allocation, and policy development.

Through-Through-outout

AllocationAllocation Assignment of withdrawal opportunities and retention commitments – based on many factors. 20132013

Production of Picklists Production of Picklists and Keeplistsand Keeplists

Once allocation decisions have been made, SCS will derive title/item lists for use by individual libraries. 20132013

Ongoing Data Ongoing Data ManagementManagement

SCS will maintain (but will not update) the CNY dataset for 2 years, which can be used for additional projects. … …

You Are HereYou Are Here

71

TITLE-SETSwith

-Pub Year < 2000 -Pub Year < 2000 -Pub Year < 2000

TITLE HOLDINGS

with

-Last Add Date < 2000 -Total-Charges = 0

-Last Add Date < 2000 -Total-Charges = 1 or less

-Last Add Date < 2000 -Total-Charges = 3 or less

Keep 1 Title

Holding 599K withdraw 843K withdraw 1,085K withdraw

Keep 2Title

Holdings389K withdraw 538K withdraw 680K withdraw*

Keep 3Title

Holdings255K withdraw 346K withdraw 430K withdraw

Original Shared Print ScenariosOriginal Shared Print Scenarios

71

CRITERIA

500,000 Surplus Holdings

• 100,000 square feet

• Over 12 campuses & branches

• Still 2 title holdings available among the 12 libraries

• Highest circulating items: 1 circulation in 20+ years

• Impact on space: significant

• Impact on service: negligible

Sustainablecollections.com 72

Allocation of withdrawal candidates

• 548,314 allocable withdrawal candidates

• How many are on each library’s shelves?

• How does that match each library’s withdrawal target?

• How do we divide them equitably?• Proportionately to withdrawal candidates?

• Proportionately to collection size?

• How do we reconcile disparities?Sustainablecollections.com 73

Allocation of withdrawal candidates

• 548,314 allocable withdrawal candidates

• How many are on each library’s shelves?

• How does that match each library’s withdrawal target?

• How do we divide them equitably?• Proportionately to withdrawal candidates?

• Proportionately to collection size?

• How do we reconcile disparities?

Sustainablecollections.com 74

Closing thoughts

75

Strong preferences: print, self-sufficiency

Sustainablecollections.com 76

There are other solutions…

77

Amazing Desk Made From Recycled Books at Delft Universityby Bridgette Meinhold, 09/13/10

78

Q & A / discussion

Sustainablecollections.com 79

Contact details• sustainablecollections.com• Email

– rick@sustainablecollections.com– ruth@sustainablecollections.com

• Blogs– SCSInsight Blog

http://sustainablecollections.com/weed-feed/– Rick’s Blog – Google ‘rick lugg blog’ or go to

http://sampleandhold-r2.blogspot.com/

• Twitter: @SCSinsight; @ricklugg

Sustainablecollections.com 80