Movingd2dto the networklevel

Lorcan DempseyOCLC

Rethinking access to information,IFLA Satellite Meeting,Boston, August 5-7 2008

Early television history museum, Columbus Oh

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.

NETWORK EVOLUTION

1. Print network: distribution to libraries which are close to users; good libraries are big libraries because access=collocation (80s)

2. Resource sharing. Cataloging/resource sharing/ejournals externalized to specialist services (90s-00s)

3.  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.

SOME NUMBERS

1980s: +68%

1990s: +96%

Total Interlibrary Borrowing / Total Fulltime Students

At a Tier I ARL institution…

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Bo

rro

win

g t

ran

sact

ion

s p

er f

ull-

tim

e st

ud

ent

ARL Tier I Median ARL

Implementation of new local system puts OPAC access on hold; reliance on national union catalog increases visibility of collective collection -- temporarily

Information needs continue to exceed local collection capacity, even at the best-resourced institutions

At a Tier III ARL institution…

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Bo

rro

win

g t

ran

sact

ion

s p

er f

ull-

tim

e st

ud

ent

ARL Tier III Median ARL

Increased vulnerability to changes in information environment

limited purchasing powerlimited local infrastructure

Consortial lift … On demand research request

OHIOLINK

Subject Distribution

0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000

Language, Linguistics, and LiteratureHistory and Auxiliary Sciences

Business and EconomicsPhilosophy and Religion

LawSociologyMedicine

Engineering and TechnologyArt and Architecture

EducationPolitical Science

Library Science, Generalities, andBiological Sciences

Physical SciencesGeography and Earth Sciences

MusicMathematics

PsychologyPerforming Arts

AgricultureComputer Science

Physical Education and RecreationChemistry

Anthropology

Circulation by Subject

0 1 2 3 4

Computer SciencePsychology

SociologyPhysical Education and Recreation

MedicineAnthropologyMathematics

Art and ArchitecturePerforming Arts

MusicChemistryEducation

Engineering and TechnologyBiological Sciences

Philosophy and ReligionPhysical Sciences

History and Auxiliary SciencesAgriculture

Language, Linguistics, and LiteratureBusiness and Economics

Political ScienceGeography and Earth Sciences

Library Science, Generalities, and ReferenceLaw

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)

Usage Distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.001% 0.010% 0.100% 1.000% 10.000% 100.000%

% of Books

% o

f C

ircu

lati

on

12.86%(788,483

)

THE LONG TAIL

Library “Inventory”

20% head 80% long tail

Libraries aggregate supply at the local level…

“About the only places you could explore outside themainstream were the library and the comic book shop.”

Chris Anderson, “The Long Tail”

The long tail

Impact?

Systemwide efficiences

Aggregation of supply•Unified discovery•Low transaction costs

Aggregation of demand

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)

Limited aggregation of supply at network level:Fragmented discoveryManagement data not usedHigh transaction costs – find it/get itFragmented inventory/shipping

But the global library resource is diffused across thousands of locations …

Leads to weak gravitational pull and low network visibility for libraries and library collections

Limited aggregation of demand at network level:Difficult to mobilize a large number of usersNot projected into user environments

University of Washington July-Dec. 2006/2007

100%increase in ILL requests via WorldCat

70% increase in borrowing within Summit consortium

WorldCat Local and Resource Sharing

Orbis Cascade

WorldCat Navigator

THE NETWORK AGEBehaviors in

Then: Users built workflow around libraries Now: Library must

build services around user workflow

Discovery happens elsewhere

Disclosure

Then: Attention abundant;

resources scarce Now: Attention scarce;

resources abundant

Use benefits from visibility

Facebook

Google

Google

Facebook

LibraryThing

Phase Discovery Logistics

Print network

Resource sharing

WOBL

Local

Union catalogDiscover/locate/request may be intermittent

Discovery elsewhere:Aggregate demand

Greater aggregate presence

Request anywhere

Cumbersome

Local/Group/Global

Cloud based logistics:

Aggregate supply: location/tracking/accounting

Move to collective collection ….

COLLECTIVE COLLECTION

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

IFM

THANK YOUhttp://orweblog.oclc.org