ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN THE AGE OF COOPERATION

staffweb.library.cornell.edu

academic libraries in the age of cooperation - Cornell University ...

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

IN THE AGE OF COOPERATION

Anne R. Kenney

IDS Project Conference 2011


Context for 21 st Century Collections







Financial crisis

Expanding content

Escalating prices

Networked digital access

User expectations

Common emerging needs


Some Assertions About US Libraries

There is a collective wealth bound up in redundant,

inefficient operations and duplicative collections in

academic libraries.

Many of the things we compete over don’t make our

institutions more competitive.

Our history of collaboration may ironically make it

more difficult to do radical collaboration.

Our staff end up doing more work rather than giving

up doing some things.


“I’d give it to you,

but it’s mine.”

Michael Kenney Hickerson

at age 4


Game Changers in Collection Building







Mass digitization

Post Google

Taking on publishers

Open access

Fair use

Scholarly diaspora






Blurring raw and

cooked

Crowd sourcing

Selection trends

Beyond reading

Deep collaboration


Mass Digitization

Google

Hathi Trust

Internet Archive

Digital Public Library

of America

Europeana

The Online Books Page

onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/


Post Google Age

Judge Chin favors opt in rather than opt out ruling

Sept 15 deadline for settlement

Legality of scanning and use w/o explicit permission

of rights holders: searching, snippets, full text

E-book lending restrictions

OP a thing of the past?

Asserting fair use


Fair use

GSU e-reserves case

In-Library eBook Lending Program

Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Illinois on

access to orphan works


Taking on Publishers

Bergstrom, Courant,

McAfee cost study

No more NDAs

No to Big Deals

ARL E-book Licensing

Project


Open Access

SPARC

NIH, NSF, NEH

arXiv

Taking on Nature and

Science

Open access is the future and we

will build on the pioneering efforts of

the Public Library of Science so that

scientists will have access to this

literature and the data anywhere

they are. Randy Schekeman


Distinctions Between Cooked

and Raw are Blurring





Scholarly communication, dissemination, publication, and peer

review are disaggregating and dispersing

Alternative forms of scholarship and creative expression defy

old models

Data is big and data management and use requirements are

growing

Beyond reading


Crowd sourcing

Citizen Science,

geneologists, and

Dead Heads


Selection Trends

Archiving web content

Patron driven acquisition

Use based decision making (Walker report)

staffweb.library.cornell.edu/system/files/CollectionUsageTF_R

eportFinal11-22-10.pdf


Deep integration of resources, collections,

services, and expertise


Why Columbia and Cornell?

Major research libraries

New York State

Private Ivies

Similar academic

characteristics

Record of collaboration

Record of innovation

Budget challenges

Will and interest


2CUL Goals


Initial Focus of Our Work

Collective collections

Backroom functions

Technology infrastructure

Business planning; governance


Collective Collection Challenges

Institutional identity, faculty acceptance

Better sense of overlaps and gaps

Financial restrictions, accounting systems

Delivery mechanisms, legal issues

Outreach/research support for faculty and

students


Collective Collection Challenges

Pre-nups

for shared

collections


2CUL Collective Collections

Focus on global collections

Ensure delivery analogous to

request from offsite storage

Share curatorial staff


Progress to Date

Shared Slavic/Eastern Europe Bibliographer and

Southeast Asia Curator

Shared staffing soon for Latin America, South Asia

Coordinated purchasing plan in China

Joint e-resource licensing negotiations

Collection overlap and use analysis underway

New delivery/access agreements

White Paper on resource sharing in 2015


Collection Overlap in WorldCat:

Columbia and Cornell

Columbia

5,579,486

3,511,636

63%

2,067,850

37% / 35%

Cornell

5,857,315

3,789,465

65%


Backroom Functions

Shared technical processing, centers of effort

Collective negotiation with vendors for content

and metadata

Connections with leading libraries in other countries


Backroom Functions Challenges

System of “credits” for

work done on behalf

of others

Standard definitions

of good enough

Budgets/funding

streams

Shared backend

systems


Progress to Date




Pre-order online form tool in use

Reciprocal cataloging pilot for Korean and Turkishlanguage

material

Chinese mainland vendor pilot

White Paper on 2CUL Technical Services in 2015


RFP and meeting with 3 LMS vendors in April


Technical Infrastructure

Building local cyberinfrastructures

Bridging Institutional Repositories

Layering services on top

Reimagining academic computing


Progress to Date






Chose not to build a joint archival repository

Business/workflow requirements for e-archives

Web archiving, data management, Vivo

Each party supports HathiTrust, Duraspace Gold

Sponsorship, and Archive-It

Digital preservation report for 2CUL e-journals


Most e-journals not in 3 rd Party Archives



Our analysis indicates that LOCKSS and Portico combine to

preserve only a relatively small percentage of the CULs' e-

journal holdings, for example, less than 15% of Cornell e-

journal holdings as a whole. There is overlap in coverage

between the two services, but both services preserve titles

uniquely.

The overall lack of e-journal publisher participation in

preservation programs such as LOCKSS and Portico offers the

two CULs an opportunity to use their individual or combined

influence with publishers [and third party preservation

programs] to improve the state of e-journal preservation as a

whole.


Business Planning

Achieving major integration of operations, services,

collections and resources

Reducing cost of overall library activities to direct

resources to new priorities

Increasing revenues through joint proposals

Offering services to other libraries

Bringing in other parties; building strategic

partnerships


Progress to Date






Developed process for comparing budgetary

apples to apples across institutional lines

Identified end goal in target for cost avoidance,

savings, redirected savings, and joint investment

Regularly submitting joint grant proposals

Initiated discussions around new service offerings

Contracted with legal/business expert to

investigate suitable collaborative models


Some “Ah Ha” Moments

Bringing two organizations together to perpetuate

traditional library models is not a goal but a dead end

It’s got to be seen as being about more not less

Enabling prerequisites for radical collaboration are key

Appreciating cultural differences and need for face

time—from me and thee to we

Importance of trusted third party at the table

Early wins are needed, but longer-term gains are key

Shared governance, budgetary and legal frameworks

come after not before trust and commitment


"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

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines