Credits I am grateful to colleagues Ed ONeill, 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 Chudnovs phrase, One Big Library.
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.
1980s: +68% 1990s: +96% Total Interlibrary Borrowing / Total Fulltime Students
At a Tier I ARL institution… 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 II ARL institution… Move to electronic; less consortial impact
At a Tier III ARL institution… Increased vulnerability to changes in information environment limited purchasing power limited local infrastructure Consortial lift … On demand research request
Library Inventory 20% head80% long tail Libraries aggregate supply at the local level… About the only places you could explore outside the mainstream 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 discovery Management data not used High transaction costs – find it/get it Fragmented 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 users Not 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 Group catalog on.org VDX for intra-consortia requesting Circulation interoperabilityOCLC network WorldCat Navigator
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
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