Potential new programs and services -- November 2008Summaries of "Speed Dating" sessions and other initiatives presented at the November 2008 Council Meeting.1. Information Literacy Why Information Literacy? I just returned from a 2-day consulting visit to Earlham College, my alma mater. And where they continue to call their teaching with faculty “BI.” Evan Farber’s vision is still alive and well, it’s just changed to encompass the larger concept that IL embodies, the idea that beyond discovery which is everywhere, we in the library need to participate in the teaching and learning environment so that our students graduate with the capacity to do smart searching and skeptical thinking about any and all resources they come across, be the sources print, digital or human. I contacted many of the librarians engaged in information literacy at your institutions over the past two weeks. All enthusiastically embrace the idea that the Alliance could do more to promote and support IL initiatives. Indeed I discovered that a lot already goes on because IL is all about collaborating beyond the bounds of the library or those of the institution. This resonates with what the Alliance is already all about: moving resources up to the network level. In this case the resources are our librarians and their IL work with faculty. Librarians from all around The Alliance want more professional development opportunities sponsored by the consortium in order to engage in more deliberate conversation about current practice, assessment issues, content of classes, content of tutorials, program practice, curricular integration, and how to have these kind of elevator speeches with faculty. I would also encourage us to think beyond IL for our students to IL or media literacy for our faculty. At Earlham the librarians are also instructional technology experts. I suspect that many of our IL librarians work with faculty to improve their online course presence or to work with clickers or to incorporate video bits into classes. IL practice can and should encompass this area that is so critical to our faculty as they seek to improve their teaching and learning practice with students so many of whom are more engaged in the Web 2.0 world than in the print world. How do we move our teaching practice into this world of collaborative content creation through Flicker, You-Tube, delicious, Facebook, 2 nd Life, blogs and wikis and so forth? We have natural teaching partners engaged in this quest, particularly those new to our institutions. The Alliance already supports collaboration and opportunity for our librarians engaged in collection development, resources sharing, e-resource management. Does it not make sense to add to this an opportunity for our librarians who engage in IL practice? We have a great opportunity within The Alliance to demonstrate to ourselves, our colleagues and our faculty that we are as intentional about IL as we are about resources. Personal Note: Interest is so high among IL librarians within the consortium, that I would guess that they would organize and put on an annual workshop/program with merely a nudge from Council. A digital repository is grand, but needs the accompaniment of a f2f opportunity. I think that this would not cost the consortium much, if anything. I volunteer to work on this with the IL librarians. Susan the “never-ending” IL Don Quixote. 2. Leadership Development In thinking about this topic, I made some assumptions: Leadership in libraries happens on many different levels and can be encouraged in many different ways. While not all library leaders are library directors, all library directors are called upon to be library leaders. While we think and talk a great deal about our ability to share collection resources and database purchasing power, another enormous resource we can and do share is our people resources. One of the recruitment issues we face is preparing and motivating librarians to assume formal leadership positions within our libraries. Many of our best, most energetic and exciting new librarians have come into the profession looking for the action of providing direct service to users, of wrestling with the intricacies of delivering information in an electronic age. They don’t necessarily want our jobs. And yes, there are formal educational opportunities like the Frye Institute and the Harvard Leadership Institute and the many options for involvement in professional associations. BUT, also assembled in this room today is a wealth of library leadership expertise. Could we not imagine creating some combination of internships/staff rotations/shadowing experiences that would offer both our staff and possibly library school students the chance to experience this side of academic librarianship as represented within our consortium. One such internship could be working with the central Alliance staff to experience consortial administration firsthand. Many of you attended last week’s NW Academic Library Director symposium and heard Harry Bruce of the UW iSchool talk about his focus on leadership for the profession. I am confident that he would be interested in talking about possible collaborations with the Alliance. I suspect many of you already work with library school students and have placements for them in your libraries, and perhaps you also have found ways to offer current staff special leadership-development placements and opportunities. And I recognize that the larger the school, the more likely it is that you can create these experiences internally. I’m wondering if there isn’t some synergy that could be found in imagining an Alliance-based program that provided librarians and budding librarians with this kind of opportunity to think about leadership in libraries, leadership in consortia, and the skills and satisfaction to be found there. 3. Shared Staff Expertise [text not available] 4. Cooperative Collection Development This year, the University of Oregon Library will lose four positions. Next year, we will cut $750,000 worth of serial subscriptions, and the year after that, we will cut an additional $350,000 from our materials budget. And these plans assume no further cuts to the library’s budget, which is highly unlikely in this economic climate. Our costs continue to escalate well beyond any budget augment. At the same time, we need a number of new positions related to classroom technology, programming support, resource sharing, manuscripts processing, data services, etc. As difficult as this situation seems, I believe a significant portion of our financial challenges and emerging needs could be met with a better allocation of existing resources. By this, I mean a drastic reduction of the duplicative effort that exists in terms of building local collections. The costs are not only associated with the duplicate items themselves, but the duplicative processes related to selecting the same title, purchasing the same title, cataloging the same title, and housing the same title across many institutions. So, there are huge opportunities costs associated with the status quo, and that leads me to ask several questions. Who is benefiting from the status quo? I do not think anyone is benefitting from the status quo. Certainly not our faculty. Our faculty would benefit more from easier access to more scholarly content, not multiple copies of the same title. Certainly not the students. They are oblivious to who owns what, and don’t care where content comes from. Why do we continue to spend significant resources on duplicate collections and services? What are the barriers to cooperative collection development? And what are the benefits? Enormous. Stronger collections, and the ability to redeploy resources to where they are needed most. In fact, is more than likely that our future depends upon these changes. What could a more robust system look like? We could establish a small cadre of general selectors who would purchase titles for the consortium. The time spent on collection development could be significantly reduced, and subject specialists could shift their professional responsibilities to do more teaching and more collaboration with faculty. Most importantly, in order to go from a rather anemic effort of cooperative collection development to something that is more robust and meaningful, we have to change our mindset. Building a cooperative collection cannot be one thing we do, it has to be what we are about. It has to happen first; first, we work at the consortium level, then we go to the local level. There are certainly challenges in the implementation, but I think we are strongly poised work through those issues…we’ve already made a commitment to the concept. We have nothing to lose. In the recently published CLIR report, A Brief Candle, one of the major recommendations states: The research library should be redefined as a multi-institutional entity. The current model of the library as a stand-alone service provider to the university is obsolescent. Exploiting digital networks and emerging digital libraries and research environments, many libraries should deaccession duplicate copies of printed books, form coalitions that minimize costs for collection development, and consider sharing staff on a consortial, federated basis. Collaboration can generate savings that the library can allocate to other activities supporting teaching and research. 5. Data Management and Curation Social science data (economic, political, social, demographic), geospatial data (boundaries, locations, topography, vectors, aerial photos, scanned maps, etc) and e-science data (e.g. chemical structures, genus/species) are all “raw” information, requiring special software to be usable. Unlike most library files that require software to view it (e.g. PDF), social science, geospatial, and e-science data require software to use the information. These kinds of data have unlimited “views” – not just the one view. These data files are useless without detailed metadata that describes the content of those data files. Such metadata may be contained in the same file with the data, in a separate file, embedded in the software or databases that accompany the data files, or even printed in books. Such metadata is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the descriptive metadata that libraries have traditionally maintained. Such metadata can include administrative, preservation, technical, and use information, but it also includes very detailed information about the contents and layout of the data files. Without this, the data cannot be processed, analyzed or used. The acquisition of data has its own complexities, as does access to and extraction. Much data is licensed and restricted because it deals with human subjects; however, there is now the Open Data Movement as well, so data are available that can range from highly restrictive to highly open. Overlaid on this is data services, or what we might traditionally think of as reference services, which can be an integral to identifying data to acquire and extract. In addition to traditional data users, such as sociologists who use social data, for example, new users are emerging that run the gamut from humanists to environmental scientists to geneticists. It used to be only researchers required data but now even the undergraduate needs access to this information. Library staff who work with data need to have a broad range of highly specialized, in-depth skills because in addition to understanding the complexities of data, they also require knowledge of disciplines and disciplinary research methodologies. Given the many facets involved in data management and curation, they become a good candidates for consortial cooperation. Across the Alliance we could have individuals with different talents who together form a whole data management program. One institution could handle the web services for data, several institutions could take responsibility for XML metadata production, another, data extraction or database management. Others could provide the data reference services. Those who do not have capacity in data can build it through cooperative training, shared expertise, commitment of resources. Those who have capacity can expand it or gain “credits” for their contributions to their partners. Data services are an unmet need for many of our users, so we need to think creatively about how to provide such a service without each of us attempting to do so independently. It’s too big for any one of us, so we can bring a strong service to our users by building a program together. 6. RLSC & What To Do With all the Stuff
North American Academic Libraries hold 1 billion books and add 25 million/year 7. Space Planning There has been a failed collaborative attempt by ALA and “Library Journal” to create such a database over the past 3 years. The failure has largely been due to an inconsistent effort by “Library Journal”.The Alliance could create and maintain such a database for NW academic libraries so that members of the Alliance, and others, could share useful information about new buildings and renovations. Such a database would likely include the following project information: If the database framework were available, each library project manager could enter and update the data himself/herself. 8. Next Generation Catalogs This topic is of more immediate relevance to the group now that the migration to the new Summit system is freeing us all up to pursue ILSs other than Innovative. I want to start by reading my short list of what I think a next generation catalog should do. While I’m reading, please keep in mind - How long we’ve been talking about these features and how many successful implementations we see around us in non-library applications. A next generation catalog needs to have the following: - An interface that is simple, elegant, and makes sense to patrons who grew up searching Google. I think we could all agree on these features – we know what we want from a next generation catalog, but its no secret that our ILS vendors are simply moving too slowly to provide these enhancements that we all want. As a result, we’ve ended up with a de-coupling of the OPAC from the ILS. We have products like Endeca, designed to sit on top of an ILS and provide the next-gen catalog functionality for the OPAC module. And because of products like this, our concept of the ILS is also changing. We’ve realized that the ILS doesn’t have to be this big, centralized, everything included piece of software that essentially defines the library. Now we’re seeing the ILS as a concatenation of modules that work together and communicate - but perhaps ideally, as separate modules that can be independently chosen, and swapped in and out as our needs (and our pocketbooks) dictate. Not only that, but I think the OPAC is just the first of many ILS modules that we are going to realize need a complete overhaul. 9. Single Catalog for Alliance libraries Local practices are expensive and local computer systems entail extensive and sometimes hidden support costs, especially in the valuable time of dedicated librarians and systems staff. It is rare that a benefit deriving from local control and features match the investment of the time and funds necessary to establish and maintain them when compared to well-run central systems. Our cumulative effort is many times greater than it needs to be. The chorus that tells us to move to the network is sometimes annoying in that many people professing the sentiment do not know what it means or apply it willy-nilly to any situation – but the idea it is nonetheless true in many aplications. Moving our offerings to the network, to a universal service actually frees up local talent and resources to concentrate on problems and enhancements that are truly local. Indeed, as Orbis Cascade implements the new Summit and its members adopt WorldCat Local it becomes even more rational that we stop supporting our local systems. A central system working with the OCLC products will be less costly than the sum of our current investments – probably significantly so. In Illinois, for example, the 71 I-Share members use a centrally supported system and pay much less than if they ran their own systems. Duplicating development efforts, compounding the number of people and hours required in providing what can easily be seen as the commodity services of access and funding control in our systems is more than we can afford. Also, as the Alliance moves forward into more cooperative endeavors, a truly shared core system will make it easier to adapt and adopt new undertakings. Most cooperative efforts are made easier by having uniform situations. The new Summit allows us to consider bringing in new members who have not shared in the common denominator. This is an exciting development but one should not minimize how difficult it is to bring dissimilar systems together. Growth is easier if there is a central system and a truly shared expertise It is true we may lose some valued feature that our individual catalogs could offer because we did not have to worry about anything but no such bell is absolutely essential to the needs of our students and faculty. 10. Technical Services/Cataloging Center As an Aquarius, I am an idealist—even a utopian—who desires change and aims to show how to live within society without being bound by it in such a way as to stifle creative activity. I think these traits are appropriate in looking at the concepts of technical services and a cataloging center within the Alliance. Collaboration and thinking/acting strategically are my “turn-ons” while I dislike unbeneficial redundancy and doing things because that’s the way we’ve always done them. These too are relevant to the discussion of technical services/cataloging center as I feel we have built too much unbeneficial redundancy into our current business model of cataloging and processing items in each of our 36 libraries represented in the Alliance while maintaining the “status quo” in terms of the staffing and nature of technical services operations. 11. Digitization -- Overview In the survey of digitizing initiatives done a year ago, we learned that the vast majority of our membership has some type of digital project in process – all but six of our libraries. The survey reported that 83% of us strongly supported finding collaborative opportunities within an Alliance digital program. 60% of us wanted this program to include training; 53% of us were interested in the consortium hosting digital content; 43% were interested in aggregated content. Almost all of us were concerned about the cost of our digital projects, and while we have a lot of accumulated expertise among our institutions, there was still considerable concern about our levels of technical expertise, and we were concerned about preservation of digitized material. In short, we were concerned about the sustainability of our individual efforts. Sustainability is a big issue. The Alliance can allow us as a group to address that through shared services. But a consortial approach to digital projects can take us far beyond sustainability. It will allow us to integrate our collections, create aggregated collections – aggregated subject collections – to allow us to truly share content and to create rich, unique collections, searchable across collections, and to create a model for other consortia to follow. And it can allow us to effectively address preservation of digital content – to create a dark archive. You have seen the most recent survey done by Jodi (Allison-Bunnell) and the NWDA Digital Program Working Group and Jodi will be discussing it in greater detail later today. Many of us struggled with the survey, but its results provide us with broad direction – the five point plan Jodi has forwarded to you. The information Jodi has gathered over the last year provides a framework and direction to our interest, clearly evidenced in the results of the Council Survey of June 2008, to develop digitization programs or services as an Alliance initiative. I don’t believe there is another strategic goal we are so well-positioned to move forward on. With NWDA’s relationship to the Alliance, we have an infrastructure to build on. NWDA brings us not only technical strengths, but also administrative strengths. The pieces are all here – we need to bring them together to do what we have always done so well: create a whole which is much more than the sum of our parts. And as we pursue a consortial strategy, I think we will discover opportunities to do even more than what we are envisioning today. 12. Digitization -- Digital Preservation Develop a digital preservation solution for born-digital and digitally reformatted content, most likely in the form of a dark archive. There are some serviceable models in existence, such as the MetaArchive Cooperative. 13. Digitization -- Discovery Tool Develop a discovery tool or system that will harvest and integrate the presentation of content from systems used by Alliance institutions, including DAMs, IRs, and the NWDA database. Presentations and user services will be informed by user studies that are currently underway. 14. Digitization -- Hosting Content Develop options for hosting content for access for institutions that do not have hosting in place or those that are interested in other options. 15. Digitization -- Scanning and Reformatting Services Develop options for scanning/reformatting services. These could initially focus on group-rate contracting for special formats and facilitating “adoption” of institutions without scanning equipment and staff by institutions that have the necessary infrastructure in place for reasonable fees. In the long term, some or all of these services could he hosted in the RLSC. 16. Institutional Repositories Why Go It Alone When We Can All Soar Together? THE BENEFITS 17. Alliance as a Source for R&D Why would the Alliance want to set aside people and funds for Research and Development? There several reasons for this some of which are:We are a membership of 36 libraries – so we have a multitude of ideas and talent available to usWe have agreed to see where we can move services to the network levelEach of us is doing small letter r&d –it makes sense to leverage these activitiesOur work on Navigator demonstrates we can move quickly, we can trust a small group of people representing us to be innovative and we are willing to be boldA culture of R&D will position to us respond to new ideas/situation and problems with agility.Finally, a culture of R&D will result with our librarians understanding that they can adopt or create the tools they need to solve library problems rather than waiting for a vendor to do this for them. Specifically what can the Alliance do: - these include lower case r&d as well as upper case R&DWe can look to cloud computing such as services as Amazon Web Services to see what function we can move to the network levelWe can inventory some of our locally developed solutions such as OSU LibraryFind or Ala carte to see how they could scale to benefit the entire AllianceWe can collectively look at our institutional repositories and the software we use to modify it in ways that make it easier for our usersWe look at a variety of web 2.0 application e.g. del.icio.us Zotoro, to see where they might be modified and applied to libraries Finally, we can identify a small R&D group within the Alliance who have responsibility for giving members a 20 minute update at each meeting on the hardware/software trends and helps to know when we should look to bring the applications into the Alliance. 18. Scholarly Communication Source: Council member discussions at the ARL/ACRL Institute on Scholarly Communication. Capitalize on the success of the ARL/ACRL Scholarly Communication Institute to help members build and |