Moving d2d to the network level Lorcan Dempsey OCLC Rethinking access to information, IFLA Satellite Meeting, Boston,

1. Movingd2dto the networklevelLorcan DempseyOCLCRethinking access to information,IFLA Satellite Meeting,Boston, August 5-7 2008

2. I can�t claim to be a resource sharing specialist, nor to play one on tv.I can�t claim to be a resource sharing specialist, nor to play one on tv.

3. Credits I am grateful to colleagues Ed O�Neill, Constance Malpas, Katie Birch and Jim Michalko for some slides, and to Dennis Massie and Matt Goldner for additional advice. Sam Smith did the network pictures. OhioLink data from work in progress analysing historic circ data. Collaboration between OCLC and OhioLink. Scott Wilson picture from his blog: WOBL � One Big Library on the Web. Influenced by Dan Chudnov�s phrase, One Big Library.

4. Network evolution

8. Print network: distribution to libraries which are close to users; good libraries are big libraries because access=collocation (80s) Resource sharing. Cataloging/resource sharing/ejournals externalized to specialist services (90s-00s) �WOBL (one big library on the web). Library resource available in the idiom of the web (00s-). Global discovery/request supported by well-seamed logistics.� Seamless policy-aware interaction between local, group, global.

9. Some numbers

10. Total Interlibrary Borrowing / Total Fulltime Students This is the baseline: median ARL ILL borrowing activity (adjusted for enrollment) over two decades. In the 1980s, [click] inter-borrowing activity at ARL libraries increased by 2/3rds. In the 1990s, [click] the rate of increase almost doubled, crossing the threshold [click] of one inter-lending request per full-time student in 1999. What accounts for this accelerating pace of change? In part, general environmental shifts: The rise of Web-based OPACs and other network discovery systems (including FS, ca 1991) increased the visibility of library collections beyond the local user community. Local processes (cataloging, resource sharing) moved upstream � increased reliance on shared infrastructure fundamentally transformed organizational and collection behaviors. Rise of unmediated borrowing (1990s) made partner collections more immediately accessible, raising expectations of availability regardless of physical location. Transformations in scholarly communications, rise of e-journals changed economics of collection management, decreasing local purchasing power for many institutions and increasing reliance on distributed collections. [I.e., vertical disintegration and specialization. Cataloging/resource sharing/e-journals externalized to specialist services (80s-90s)] The impact of these changes was felt across the full span of ARL institutions; however, differences in local capacity resulted in different adaptational strategies � some more transformational than others. This is the baseline: median ARL ILL borrowing activity (adjusted for enrollment) over two decades. In the 1980s, [click] inter-borrowing activity at ARL libraries increased by 2/3rds. In the 1990s, [click] the rate of increase almost doubled, crossing the threshold [click] of one inter-lending request per full-time student in 1999. What accounts for this accelerating pace of change? In part, general environmental shifts: The rise of Web-based OPACs and other network discovery systems (including FS, ca 1991) increased the visibility of library collections beyond the local user community. Local processes (cataloging, resource sharing) moved upstream � increased reliance on shared infrastructure fundamentally transformed organizational and collection behaviors. Rise of unmediated borrowing (1990s) made partner collections more immediately accessible, raising expectations of availability regardless of physical location. Transformations in scholarly communications, rise of e-journals changed economics of collection management, decreasing local purchasing power for many institutions and increasing reliance on distributed collections. [I.e., vertical disintegration and specialization. Cataloging/resource sharing/e-journals externalized to specialist services (80s-90s)] The impact of these changes was felt across the full span of ARL institutions; however, differences in local capacity resulted in different adaptational strategies � some more transformational than others.

11. At a Tier I ARL institution� At this leading research institution, demand for extramural collections [click] is consistently above the ARL average [click] for more than two decades. A research-intensive university with extensive holdings and even greater information needs; no budgetary restrictions on access -- ILL supplements already rich collections. In 1987 [click] a dramatic threshold event: local discovery system is temporarily replaced by national union catalogue, resulting in increased borrowing activity. Even after local discovery system is replaced, appetite for external collections continues to outpace ARL average significantly � this is largely a reflection of the institutions undiminished purchasing power and refusal to deny any researcher request. Note that second and more persistent change in use of external collections happens a few years before change affects ARL community as a whole (1996 vs. 1999) [Harvard. I do not know what accounts for the sudden drop after 2001. Note that circ figures for Harvard suggest that they continue to invest in locally relevant collections � they have not substantially changed the way in which they acquire or manage holdings. This is a �non adaptive strategy� for anything but a behemoth without predators. Note also that Harvard is among the few research institutions that does not engage in reciprocal borrowing � they do not need to.] At this leading research institution, demand for extramural collections [click] is consistently above the ARL average [click] for more than two decades. A research-intensive university with extensive holdings and even greater information needs; no budgetary restrictions on access -- ILL supplements already rich collections. In 1987 [click] a dramatic threshold event: local discovery system is temporarily replaced by national union catalogue, resulting in increased borrowing activity. Even after local discovery system is replaced, appetite for external collections continues to outpace ARL average significantly � this is largely a reflection of the institutions undiminished purchasing power and refusal to deny any researcher request. Note that second and more persistent change in use of external collections happens a few years before change affects ARL community as a whole (1996 vs. 1999) [Harvard. I do not know what accounts for the sudden drop after 2001. Note that circ figures for Harvard suggest that they continue to invest in locally relevant collections � they have not substantially changed the way in which they acquire or manage holdings. This is a �non adaptive strategy� for anything but a behemoth without predators. Note also that Harvard is among the few research institutions that does not engage in reciprocal borrowing � they do not need to.]

12. At a Tier II ARL institution� We see a different and more evenly paced progression at this Tier II institution [click], where ILL demand is slightly below [click] the ARL median � until the late 1990s. This is an institution with a �progressive� strategy toward collection management, actively seeking to leverage external collections. Limited collections budget + flexibility in how institutional mission is served � polar opposite of first example. Same institution has pursued an aggressive transition from print to electronic � it has an access (not ownership) centric approach to collections. As in previous example, threshold event occurs a few years before the ARL median (1996 vs. 1999). [UAZ. Carla Stoffle became library director in 1991] We see a different and more evenly paced progression at this Tier II institution [click], where ILL demand is slightly below [click] the ARL median � until the late 1990s. This is an institution with a �progressive� strategy toward collection management, actively seeking to leverage external collections. Limited collections budget + flexibility in how institutional mission is served � polar opposite of first example. Same institution has pursued an aggressive transition from print to electronic � it has an access (not ownership) centric approach to collections. As in previous example, threshold event occurs a few years before the ARL median (1996 vs. 1999). [UAZ. Carla Stoffle became library director in 1991]

13. At a Tier III ARL institution� The impact of larger environmental shifts are most apparent at institutions in the bottom third of the ARL rankings, where local purchasing power is limited and reliance on shared infrastructure is a necessity. Here we see an institution that has variable but relatively stable ILL demand -- until the mid 1990s. At the smallest research institutions the "serials crisis�, in combination with other pressures, forced a re-evaluation of collection behaviors. In this instance, dramatically increased reliance on-demand delivery from library (and commercial) providers. This institution has ceased collecting beyond immediate and current curricular needs; the library provides graduate students and faculty members with no-cost access to document supply services from Ingenta Undergraduates are directed to consortial resources; net impact is an upsurge in borrowing activity. [Guelph. Benefits from OCUL RACER services for consortial inter-lending.]The impact of larger environmental shifts are most apparent at institutions in the bottom third of the ARL rankings, where local purchasing power is limited and reliance on shared infrastructure is a necessity. Here we see an institution that has variable but relatively stable ILL demand -- until the mid 1990s. At the smallest research institutions the "serials crisis�, in combination with other pressures, forced a re-evaluation of collection behaviors. In this instance, dramatically increased reliance on-demand delivery from library (and commercial) providers. This institution has ceased collecting beyond immediate and current curricular needs; the library provides graduate students and faculty members with no-cost access to document supply services from Ingenta Undergraduates are directed to consortial resources; net impact is an upsurge in borrowing activity. [Guelph. Benefits from OCUL RACER services for consortial inter-lending.]

14. Ohiolink

15. Subject Distribution

16. Circulation by Subject

17. Hot Subjects Computer Science (QA 75-76) Women, Feminism, Life Skills, Life Style (HQ 1101-2044) Medicine: Special Subjects (R 690-920) Buddhism (BQ) Nursing (RT) Broadcasting (PN 1990-1992) Collections are newer than average and have a higher that average circ rate.Collections are newer than average and have a higher that average circ rate.

18. Usage Distribution

19. The long tail

21. The long tail

22. Libraries and the long tail dynamic Aggregate supply? 1.7% of circulations are ILLs (60% of aggregate G5 collection owned by one library only) Aggregate demand? 20% of collection accounted for 90% of use (2 research libraries over ~4 years)

24. University of Washington July-Dec. 2006/2007 WorldCat Local and Resource Sharing Well, you can see the dramatic effect that WorldCat Local has had on resource sharing at the University of Washington. There was a 70 percent increase in borrowing within the Summit consortium And a 100 percent increase in ILL requests through OCLC. The increase in ILL requests through WorldCat is significantly more than their usual 5 � 8 percent growth. CLICK TO LIST OF WORLDCAT LOCAL PILOT SITESWell, you can see the dramatic effect that WorldCat Local has had on resource sharing at the University of Washington. There was a 70 percent increase in borrowing within the Summit consortium And a 100 percent increase in ILL requests through OCLC. The increase in ILL requests through WorldCat is significantly more than their usual 5 � 8 percent growth. CLICK TO LIST OF WORLDCAT LOCAL PILOT SITES

25. Orbis Cascade

26. The network age Behaviors in

38. Collective collection

40. Collective collection Visibility drives demand: discovery is global Pressure on space Mass digitization Rationalisation of off-site storage Preservation of print becomes a big issue �Optimal overlap� Yano/Ithaka work 2:13; 6:0

42. Thank you http://orweblog.oclc.org