a tale of two consortia

ATaleofTwoConsortia

Rogan Hamby

Feelfreetointerrupt.

SelectedReading

"TheConsortial EffectinDetail:TheSCLENDSExperience"

byRobertMolyneux &RoganHambyLibraryandBookTradeAnnual,

57thEdition,2012

DataCaveats

ThedatafrombothconsortiumsisfromtheirstartsuntiltheendofJuly2015.

Dataisaggregatedbyowner,libraryandtransactionsbutthereisnocopy,bibliographicoruserleveldatathatwouldhelpanswersomeofthelongtailquestions.

TheConsortia

NCCardinal

SCLENDS

TwoConsortia- Similarities

wellestablished2011/2009publicw/astatelibrary

similarmixorurbanandruralsimilareconomicdiversity

similarculturalandregionalinfluencesbothareresourcesharing

TwoConsortia- Similarities

longerperiodofconstantmembership

moremunicipalmore

regionals

CopyrightbyPuck,usedunderCCAttribution License2.5

Ididremovethestandarddeviants.

CirculationsinDataSet

45,629,855Circulations

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Jun-09

Aug-09

Oct-09

Dec-09

Feb-10

Apr-1

0

Jun-10

Aug-10

Oct-10

Dec-10

Feb-11

Apr-1

1

Jun-11

Aug-11

Oct-11

Dec-11

Feb-12

Apr-1

2

Jun-12

Aug-12

Oct-12

Dec-12

Feb-13

Apr-1

3

Jun-13

Aug-13

Oct-13

Dec-13

Feb-14

Apr-1

4

Jun-14

Aug-14

Oct-14

Dec-14

Feb-15

Apr-1

5

Jun-15

HoldsinDataSet

3,526,910holds

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Jun-09

Aug-09

Oct-09

Dec-09

Feb-10

Apr-1

0

Jun-10

Aug-10

Oct-10

Dec-10

Feb-11

Apr-1

1

Jun-11

Aug-11

Oct-11

Dec-11

Feb-12

Apr-1

2

Jun-12

Aug-12

Oct-12

Dec-12

Feb-13

Apr-1

3

Jun-13

Aug-13

Oct-13

Dec-13

Feb-14

Apr-1

4

Jun-14

Aug-14

Oct-14

Dec-14

Feb-15

Apr-1

5

Jun-15

TerminologyofHolds

LocalHolds– withinsystem

ICLs– IntraConsortiaLoans

ILLs– InterLibraryLoans(extraconsortia)

ICLs2009– 2015AllLibraries

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ICLs2009– 2015SmallerLibraries

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question1

IstherealongtermpatterntoICLs?

PercentageofHoldsOverTime

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

June2009- July 2015AverageICLsasPercentages

Question2

Dolibrarieshaveademandthresholdordoesitscalewithavailablematerials?CanwesaythereisapointthatICLswillmaxout?Wheyeven

askthis?

StableSample

• SCLENDSLibrariesthathavebeenlivesinceDecember2009

• 9insample• StateLibraryexcludedbecauseIcan’tmeaningfullyapplycriterialikepovertyandpopulationscorestoitwithit’sspecialuserbase

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

SCLENDSICLsasPercentageswithGoLives

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

SCLENDSLibrariesasofDec2009OnlyOnward

282%

247%

226%235%

212%

166%

vs414%Forall

vs349%Forall

NCCardinallibrariesdidnothaveasimilargolivepattern.Itwas16monthsfortheirfirstnine

systemstogolive.Alternativelytheyhad4librariesgoliveinsixmonth.Icouldhave

chosenthefirstsinglegolivebutthatwouldhaveahighvariance.Isplitthedifferencebychoosingthefirst7libraries,whichwentlive

over10months.

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

OriginalGoLiveLibrary’s RiseofICLsaspercentagesmonthtomonth

maxsclends 350%

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

NCCardinalLibrariesasofMarch2012w/PercentageICLsvsLaterGoLivesICLsasPercentages

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

PercentagesofHoldsMonthtoMonth

SCLENDS NCCardinal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374

GrowthofICLsofEarlyLibraries

SCLENDS NCCardinal

Resultisthatconsortiamagnifythedepthofcollectionsandhaveasignificantimpactbutitisinconclusiveifthereisapredictablesaturationpoint.SCdatasuggestsasaturationpointmet

whileNCdatadoesnot.

Isthereapopulationdifferencethatwouldexplainthesediscrepancies?

Population

58,192

101,374

mean

range

112,618

230468

TwoSmallerLibrariesFromEarlyAdopters

Smallestinearlyadoptersets.Popsof41,434and46,125.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69

NCCardinalvsSCLENDSSingleEarlyAdopter

TwoLargeLibraries

Popsof245,346and250,539.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

SClargelibrarypercentofholds vsNClargelibrarypercentofholds

Thistellsusweshouldprobablydigdeepercontrollingforpopulation.

Smalllibrarieshavegreaterpotentialforvariationbutherewesawitwiththelarge

libraries.

Inothervariables…

IndexMundi’s2009-2013indexofpopulationbelowpovertyindex

Itwouldbecriticalthatweadditionallycontrolforpatron,itemandbibliographicleveldatato

betteranswerthesequestions.

Addingon…ifIcan

FromCirc andHoldsreports:PatronID,ItemID

FromAsset/BibTables:ItemID,BibID,020/022/024,normalizedtitle,author,TCN

SCLENDS,NCCardinal,GAPINES