zILLANE Study Preliminary Findings Dr. William E. Moen Texas Center for Digital Knowledge School of Library and Information Sciences University of North Texas Illinois Library Systems Directors Organization (ILSDO) Meeting – July 2, 2002

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings2 Goal of the study Identify strategies for enhancing access to Illinois libraries’ holdings, where the strategies ensure the best stewardship possible for state and federal grant dollars for library automation and resources

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings3 What we have done Agreed on study plan –ISL (Fall 2002) –ILSDO (January 2002) Site visits –All 12 regional library systems (Feb – April) Data Collection & Analysis (Jan – July) –Focus groups & interviews, focus group fact sheets –Cost survey of sample of RLS libraries –Literature review of consortia cost sharing formulas Project status reports –ISLAC and SP&D: March 21 and June 4, 2002 –Preliminary findings reported to ISL: June 12, 2002

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings4 Challenges Developing an accurate and complete story Working with rich, but dissimilar data from individual RLS We need your help…

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings5 General observations Systems see themselves in the middle –Expectations/requirements from ISL –Voluntary participation by member libraries Core services for the 21 st century –Stan dards for the Services of Illinois Multi- type Library Systems –Reality of what systems are doing Multi-type systems versus multi-type LLSAPs Library automation or resource sharing

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings6 Areas of findings LLSAP participation LLSAP operating costs & cost for participation LLSAPs’ business, operation, and technology LLSAPs and the broader bibliographic landscape

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings7 LLSAP participation, 1 Finding: Participation rates vary –Understanding the universe of potential participants – agencies versus buildings –What should we count as a participant? Full fee-paying Partial fee-paying Libraries using LLSAP at no cost –Participation in what? Differences in functionality offered to libraries –Rough estimate is between 4% and 70% rate of “full” participation

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings8 LLSAP participation, 2 Finding: Clear benefits for participants Key areas of benefits –Resource sharing –Cost savings –Services –Centralization –Intangibles Disadvantages also exist –Costs –Loss of autonomy

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings9 LLSAP participation, 2 Finding: Increasing participation rates may not be possible Characterizing non-LLSAP libraries –Willing/Able continua –Willing/Unwilling –Able/Unable Not clear whether RLS have formal recruitment plans to increase participation

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings10 LLSAP costs, 1 Finding: Annual operating costs vary widely Data from 2001 LLSAP Survey –Low: $165, –High: $707, –Average: $394, Two systems with same vendor product and similar participation rates vary by $500, Are RLS recording apples and apples when it comes to operating costs?

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings11 LLSAP costs, 2 Finding: Cost components reported vary Little standardization in recording cost components for LLSAP operation 1/3 of RLS do not have separate budget for LLSAP Many RLS use Program Budget areas of Bibliographic Access and Automation to record LLSAP costs

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings12 LLSAP costs, 3 Finding: Costs of participation vary widely Data from 2001 LLSAP Survey to determine average cost per LLSAP –Low: $4, –High: $33, –Average: $9, Differences in fees buy different functionality –Full integrated library system functions –Simple union listing

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings13 LLSAP costs, 4 Finding: Little commonality in cost sharing formula and fees Cost sharing components –Port fee (reflects a pre-Internet technology) –Simultaneous user fee/license –Number of records in database –Flat fee –Reserve fund (explicit or hidden) Other consortia –Flat fee / percentage of overall budget –Size of user community –Number of access ports or workstations

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings14 LLSAP costs, 5 Finding: Differences between operating costs and revenues vary widely Three possible scenarios –More revenue than cost –Cost recovery –More cost than revenue Data from 2001 LLSAP Survey –$313, more revenue than cost –$310, more cost than revenue

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings15 LLSAP costs, 6 Finding: No measures of cost- efficiency, cost- effectiveness, impacts, outcomes Data available through transaction logs not apparently being used Some data that could be used: –Searches –Circulation –Patron database size Simple cost analysis of storing item records –Low of $.02 per item record –High of $.40 per item record

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings16 LLSAP costs, 7 Finding: Non-LLSAP libraries have higher automation costs 28% response rate on survey (311 questionnaires sent) Cost of operations –Two to three times more costs for non-LLSAP libraries Percentage of budget –Generally a higher percentage of budget for non-LLSAP libraries

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings17 LLSAP business, operations and tech, 1 Finding: Technical landscape provides good foundation, but diversity creates challenges No published definition of LLSAP that articulates required/expected functionality Core functionality for resource sharing –Cataloging –OPAC –Circulation –Acquisition –Authority Control Common configuration for Z39.50 clients/servers

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings18 LLSAP business, operations and tech, 2 Finding: Quality of bibliographic records varies Issues of cataloging quality and maintenance of quality of records Three models –Centralized cataloging –Centralized with additional cataloging by certified libraries –Decentralized cataloging No longer a local LLSAP issue given OCLC Batch Loading and cross LLSAP searching –There is a cost to quality – who pays for it? –Use of other LLSAP databases for records? –OCLC

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings19 LLSAP business, operations and tech, 3 Finding: LLSAPs reflect different business, operational, and technical characteristics Preliminary categorization of LLSAPs: –Cost/revenue ratio model –Cataloging quality model –LLSAP participation rate –Technology platform/functionality Agreement on common aspects all LLSAPs should share?

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings20 Bibliographic landscape,1 Finding: LLSAP shared databases are one component of larger statewide landscape Data from 2001 LLSAP Survey –11,921,000 bib records (1996: 13,377,156) –38,009,800 item records (1996: 41,970,932) LLSAP participation or representing holdings? Components of Illinois bibliographic landscape –LLSAP databases –ILCSO –Other consortia –Major stand alone –Small stand alone –Non-automated libraries

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings21 Bibliographic landscape,2 Finding: Expectations for VIC have not been met Focus group respondents see the vision Design goals laid out ambitious application Many focus group respondents –Expressed disappointment leading to non-use –Questioned continued VIC effort Resource discovery leading to more efficient ILL? Addressing the current bibliographic landscape LLSAP Z39.50 clients can be basis for resource discovery (and improving cataloging?)

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings22 Change toward …? Given what we have learned together…  Can we build agreement on the goals? –Enhanced access to library holdings –Improved statewide resource sharing –Cost effective shared bibliographic systems –Use of technology to create virtual union catalog

July 2, 2002ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings23 Change toward …?  Can we build agreement on strategies? –100% of libraries members of a LLSAP? –100% of regional library system members’ records represented in at least one shared bibliographic database?  Can we build agreement on measures, targets, and outcomes? –Analyzing cost of LLSAP in terms of number of members? records (bibliographic/item)? circulation? –Target 75% of Illinois holdings in shared at least one shared database within 2 years, 85% within 4 years? –Outcome: Meeting these targets?