experiences in a university- community college-private college consortium or…i am not young enough...
TRANSCRIPT
Experiences in a University-Community College-Private
College ConsortiumOr…“I am not young
enough to know everything.”
Oscar Wilde
Or…“Ignorance is the mother of admiration.”
George Chapman
Where anything is possible if you don't know what
you are talking about.
Topics for Comment – using OhioLINK as the stalking horse
• Structure/Governance• Library types served• Services offered and that can be
offered• Financial implications• Impact of changing technology• Different models• Philosophical underpinnings for
the futureBefore I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.” Ronald Reagan`
Models/Ranges of Consortia
HighlyDecentralized
HighlyCentralized
No common agenda
Large benefits
No external fundsNo central sponsorNo central staffSmall discountsLow involvementSmall benefits
Common agendaExternal funds
Central sponsorCentral staff
Large discountsHigh involvement
International Coalition of Library Consortia [ICOLC]
IndependentMultitype/Multistate
AmigosLYRASISMinitex
International
AustraliaChinaGermanyGreat BritainIsraelNetherlands South Africa
TighterFederations
BLCNERL PALCIASERLColorado Alliance
Loose Federations
GWLAeiFLIncluding Ad hoc buying clubs
State-based
GalileoOhioLINKVIVANAALCARLINC LIVECDLOrbis-CascadeMobiusVale
Marriage of Money and Politics
So, Are there Different Models?In Degrees only - for State based
programs• Relationship/structure to Libraries• Relationship /structure to state/campus
administrators• Policy versus Operational oversight by
state/campus administrators• Central vs Local technology architecture• Central vs Local funding: Operations vs
Content• Breadth of Program Initiatives• Technology vs Academic/Library mission
orientation• Tactical vs Strategic posture towards
global information and intellectual property issues
• The politics of cooperation
MEMBERS• State
Library• 49 private
liberal arts colleges
• 23 public two-year colleges
• 1 standalone medical school (7 total med)
• 2 private universities
• 13 public universities
• Includes 9 law
• 500,000 FTE +130 primary delivery sites• 60 Innovative ILS
Libraries Connect Ohio – Towards the Ohio Web
Library
CommonInformation
NeedsK-12
HigherEducation
StateGovernment
PublicLibraries
OhioLINK Mission• Economically sustainable,
increased student and faculty access to and use of library provided information to support and improve instruction and research…as a consortium
• In “USO” terms…provide world-class information access to support a globally competitive state education system…at efficient and affordable cost
Group Service Approaches• Do things for everyone- as a
system. Services/Technology at the group level is more about raising the bar for everyone – and enabling the system not just the institution
• The technology to make available services should not be (unnecessarily) duplicated
• Historic local service idiosyncrasies should be reduced
• Technology that works at the group level must leap over a higher bar
Leveraged, Common Services and Technology
With New Projects/Directions• Single Vendor Integrated Local Library
Systems and Central Cat - Patron-Initiated Borrowing– Project to redefine service needs and
architecture – more efficient, handle diversity, expansion, compatibility
• Common Core Reference Database Set +100– Vendor sites – Common interface for locally loaded databases– Federated Searching – multiple resources on one
search • Project to create new Discovery Layer -
Unified Index/Web 2.0 (Cent Cat, Ref DBs, EJC, EBC, EDC, DRC, local e-content, open web)
Leveraged, Common Services and Technology
with New Projects/Directions• Electronic Journal Center – access and
archive– Migrate to new platform and expand licenses –
current and deep archives, handle diverse formats, pre-prints, mobile devices
• Electronic Book Center – access and archive– Build and expand licenses – migrate to new
platform- build in access via mobile devices• Electronic Thesis/Dissertation Center
– Home Grown - Built to Grad schools specs with common submittal and approval mechanism
– Migrate and integrate with other services
Leveraged, Common Services and Technology
with New Projects/Directions• Digital Resource Commons – access and
archive – from working papers to peer-reviewed; images to animations; institutional and commercial– Expand storage– Build and expand institutional portals and
collections– Expand video/audio group licenses
• Multi-Service features– “Find It” capability - Resolver– Remote User Authentication – to Shibboleth– Chat Reference with Publics and K-12; plus local
IM options
Leveraged, Common Services and Technology
with New Projects/Directions• Regional Library Depositories – high
density archive and access– From Regional to Coordinated Statewide
Operations – Two-Year Coordinator position as of Nov 08
– De-duplication and preservation at Statewide level – first focus on Journals
– Space planning with statewide shared space and service efficiencies in mind
– Space planning in coordination with electronic archives
– Can we utilize beyond public university clientele??
OhioLINK Central Funding – 2 yr budgets
Capital funds• FYs 89-92 $9.2
million• FYs 93-94 $10.8
million• FYs 95-96 $6.8
million• FYs 97-98 $5.0
million• FYs 99-00 $6.3
million• FYs 01-02 $7.5
million• FYs 03-04 $8.2
million• FYs 05-06 $8.1
million• FYs 07-08 $8.9
million• FYs 09-10 $9.9
million• FYs 11-12 ????
Operating Funds• FYs 90-91 $ .4
million• FYs 92-93 $ 1.7
million• FYs 94-95 $ 4.4
million• FYs 96-97 $ 8.8
million• FYs 98-99 $11.5
million• FYs 00-01 $14.6
million• FYs 02-03 $14.2
million• FYs 04-05 $13.8
million• FYs 06-07 $13.8
million• FYs 08-09 $14.0
million• FYs 10-11 $12.9
million• FYs 12-13 ????
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
F89-90
F1991 F 1992
F1993 F1994 F1995 F1996 F1997 F1998 F1999 F2000 F2001 F2002 F2003 F2004 F2005 F2006 F2007 F2008 F2009 F2010
Mill
ion
s
Use of OhioLINK CombinedOperating and Capital Expenditures
Content and Content Delivery
Local Library Technical & CatalogInfrastructure
Staff and Admin
Central Site Technical Infrastructure
Annual Operating and Capital Appropriationplus membership fee
Where does the money to license electronic content come from?
Sum of Share Year-NSource of Funds F08-C08 F09-C09 F10-C10
Lib $25,802,899 $26,918,892 $27,265,196OLINK $7,882,017 $8,147,625 $6,587,322
Grand Total $33,684,916 $35,066,518 $33,852,519
Cost Effective Purchasing Power
• Costs controlled below market averages
• Costs controlled with expanded 2x-10x rather than diminished content2005 vs PY 2006 vs PY 2007 vs PY 2008 vs PY 2009 vs PY 2010 vs PY
Databases 2.5% 3.0% 1.5% 2.3% 1.5% 0%EJC 2.3% 1.7% 2.9% 2.6% 4.6% 0%
Some Economic Lessons• Besides any other criteria used –all activities must meet
this measure - dramatically improve the efficiency of library operations and outputs so that much more information access can be afforded and is made available
• Taxing libraries to build the new services/infrastructure is a limiting approach
• Not treating information efficiency and access as a necessary utility restricts effective long-term planning
• Use central funds to create the efficient, commonly needed service/infrastructure
• Use central funds as a catalyst to make change happen as a system
• Never utter the words – “cost savings”• OK- cost efficiency, cost effectiveness, cost
avoidance
OhioLINK Governance and Advisory Organization
Executive Director and staffTechnical AdvisoryCouncil
Library Advisory Council15 U, 3 IC, 3 CC, 2 M, 1 L, 1 SLO
Coop Information Resources Mgmt
User Services
Inter-Campus Services
Database Mgmt and Standards
Lead Implementers
Independent Colleges Library Directors
Community CollegesLibrary Directors
Med Lib Directors
Law Lib Directors
Chancellor of theOhio Board of Regents
Digital Resources Mgmt
Academic Programs Vice-Chancellor
Governing Board –13 provosts
8 public U’s
1 private U
1 private C
3 two-year CC’s
OhioLINK Governance and Advisory Organization Advisory Board
Provosts. CIOs
Executive Director and staffTechnical AdvisoryCouncil
Library Advisory Council15 U, 3 IC, 3 CC, 2 M, 1 L, 1 SLO
Coop Information Resources Mgmt
User Services
Inter-Campus Services
Database Mgmt and Standards
Lead Implementers
Independent Colleges Library Directors
Community CollegesLibrary Directors
Med Lib Directors
Law Lib Directors
Chancellor of theOhio Board of Regents
Digital Resources Mgmt
Vice-Chancellor for Ed Tech
Proposed Joint Board of OhioLINK and Ohio Learning Network
• BOARD COMPOSITION• Public University Provost 5• Public Community College CAO 5• Private College Provost 2• Library Director 2• Distance Leaning Dean 1• Adult Career Tech 1• University Research VP 1• CIO (each sector) 3• Fiscal Agents 2• Chancellors Representative 1• Executive Directors 2
A FEW WORDS ON HOW WE APPROACH THE
FUTURE Apologies to Joe Lucia and others
Bridging function:
Libraries serve as bridges
the proprietary domain of commercially valued intellectual property
-------------------------------------------------------
the gift economies of intellectual and cultural expression
A Foundational Claim“The cultural assumptions and social practices embedded within Open Access Information and Open Source software are congruent and co-extensive with the values and missions of libraries writ large.”
Embracing “Open” =Deepening & enhancing our
cultural mission & social function
A Foundational Position
–“all future investments in content and content creation, infrastructure & systems will flow toward non-proprietary regimes, which will mean a fundamental reordering of the library, and the academic publishing and library technology business environments.”
The Commons as the Core
The unique cultural and social role of libraries:– to support, expand, and preserve– the intellectual and cultural
commons– in all of its discursive & literary
forms– to nurture the generative
conversation– begetting new knowledge & cultural
expression
Embracing the Commons = Keeping Libraries Open:
Open StacksOpen Standards
Open AccessOpen Data
Open Source
Challenges to Library Open Source and Open Access
• Vendor dependency• Software maturity• Functionalist orientation• Technical confidence /
competence• Administrative buy-in• Strategic vision • Intellectual timidity• Herd mentality
“Open Libraries” Is the Goal
“ Radical Collaboration” may be the tool:
“To embed the values, processes and practices of the knowledge commons within libraries & the library community…”
“To harness the network effects of open practices for the benefit of the unique cultural & social function of libraries “
Thought Experiment 1
2008 Aggregate Annual Expenditures,Public, Academic & School Libraries:
$18,100,000,000Assume 1.5% goes to
technology support:$ 271,500,000
If we collectively redirect 20% of thisannual investment to open source work:
$ 54,300,000
Thought Experiment 2
200 Largest Public / Academic Libraries
Allocate 1 Staff position to open source
200 FTE Technical Staff Immense pool of library-native
talentbuilding apps & infrastructurefor the participative, commons-centeredlibrary of the future
Discussion/Questions
Any new venture goes through the following stages: enthusiasm, complication, disillusionment, search for the guilty, punishment of the innocent, and decoration of those who did nothing.” Unknown
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important. Bertrand Russell