zillane study preliminary findings dr. william e. moen texas center for digital knowledge school of...

zILLANE Study

Preliminary Findings

Dr. William E. Moen<[email protected]>

Texas Center for Digital KnowledgeSchool of Library and Information Sciences

University of North Texas

Illinois Library Systems Directors Organization (ILSDO) Meeting – July 2, 2002

July 2, 2002 ILSDO Meeting -- Preliminary Study Findings 2

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


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


Challenges

• Developing an accurate and complete story

• Working with rich, but dissimilar data from individual RLS

• We need your help…


General observations

• Systems see themselves in the middle– Expectations/requirements from ISL– Voluntary participation by member libraries

• Core services for the 21st century– Standards 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


Areas of findings

• LLSAP participation

• LLSAP operating costs & cost for participation

• LLSAPs’ business, operation, and technology

• LLSAPs and the broader bibliographic landscape


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


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


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


LLSAP costs, 1

• Finding: Annual operating costs vary widely

• Data from 2001 LLSAP Survey– Low: $165,264.00– High: $707,858.00– Average: $394,694.00

• Two systems with same vendor product and similar participation rates vary by $500,000.00

• Are RLS recording apples and apples when it comes to operating costs?


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


LLSAP costs, 3

• Finding: Costs of participation vary widely

• Data from 2001 LLSAP Survey to determine average cost per LLSAP– Low: $4,191.00 – High: $33,766.00– Average: $9,900.00

• Differences in fees buy different functionality– Full integrated library system functions– Simple union listing


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


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– $313,362.00 more revenue than cost– $310,080.00 more cost than revenue


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


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


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


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


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?


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


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?)


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


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?

zillane study preliminary findings dr. william e. moen texas center for digital knowledge school of...

Documents