1 / 16

Optimising Storage and Access in UK research libraries

Optimising Storage and Access in UK research libraries. A study for CURL and the British Library. Terms of reference. Scale of problem and implications for research Extent of duplication Storage solutions – costs and benefits

eden
Download Presentation

Optimising Storage and Access in UK research libraries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Optimising Storage and Access in UK research libraries A study for CURL and the British Library

  2. Terms of reference • Scale of problem and implications for research • Extent of duplication • Storage solutions – costs and benefits • Alternatives and assessment of approaches/researcher/institution/national • Most efficient and effective – recommend • Risks/issues to be addressed

  3. The Problem • Real pressures on space and these are big (CURL 90% high priority) • Internal pressures in HEI’s, competing priorities, FEC etc • Some handling – others want national solution (many starting to deselect) • Different views about storage in different institutions speedy access and guarantees would help overcome • Critical point in next 5 to 10 years if not now

  4. The Five Options • Shared with potential for some cost sharing (likely regional) • Collaboratively managed with savings on management • Collaborative – new. Not based on BL set up from scratch with all costs and ownership to be worked out • BL as base. NRR with copies held in perpetuity or until agreed otherwise • No change

  5. Option one – Shared regional • HEI’s rent space together • Tenants with access to own collections • Easier to persuade academic staff • Few political barriers but…. • Fills quickly as no incentive to discard duplicates • Costly and inefficient, unlikely to attract funding

  6. Option two – collaboratively managed • Full ownership retained- regional likely • Common management eg. Delivery • Management costs lower as shared • Easier to sell to academics etc • Fails to de-duplicate so costly and inefficient • Problems of agreeing arrangements with partners

  7. Option three – one or more collaborative • Collections managed on agreed policies for retention, disposal, delivery etc • Ownership ceded to store to manag’t body • Substantial new funding to deliver and extend as needed • Agreement needed on policies and practices is hard • De-duplication essential • Partner nodes but capital costs high

  8. Option four – NRR based on BL • “To create a national repository where last copies of materials will be preserved in perpetuity and made easily accessible for all UK researchers should they need them” • Most practical – based on existing activities of the BL. Infrastructure in place • BL document supply collections as basis • Substantial (90%?) material already held

  9. Option four - cont. • Other libraries can add unique material • Guarantee to maintain in perpetuity or agreed otherwise • Already informal activity based on assumption that BL fulfilling this role • No requirement to create anew – extension and formalisation

  10. Other suggestions and recommendations • Initially serials with focus on low use – greatest impact but does not preclude monographs later • RIN creates a management Board includes membership of CURL for NRR • RIN negotiates service level agreement with BL • Compensation from HE sectors to BL to be agreed based on BL business plan • BL RIN and CURL explore funding options • Disposal policies needed to make savings in HE sector– to be handled well

  11. Ranking for option four (p.36)Basis • Guarantee of preservation (Y) • High quality access (Y) • Access to whole national research collection (Y) • Minimal cost outlay (Y) • Potential cost savings all levels (Y) • Encourages de-duplication (Y) • Can exit strategy exist (N) • Sensitive to Welsh and Scottish concerns (Poss) • Is it managed for the research community (Y- Jointly)

  12. Further Discussion • Scope of NRR collection • Number of copies 1+ increases cost • Access arrangements (reading rooms etc) • Depositing material with NRR • Cataloguing – home or host? • Terms of ownership • Whether monographs?

  13. Further discussion • Governance –RIN involvement (strategic) • Management Board and Service level agreement with BL as operator • Funding - Considerable savings to HEI’s – how to compensate BL for making investment and make guarantees it may not otherwise make. How much is BL core mission? What is the business case? • Charging HEI’s Subscription? Transaction? Or flat fee?

  14. Consultation and Next Steps • With key players and questions for debate (eg. no. of copies, no. of stores) • Meetings with CASS, National Library of Wales, University of London • Study of serials overlap. Is 90% BL correct? • RIN, CURL and BL describe the NRR and develop communication plan

  15. If discussions successful… • Define mode of operation • Market the benefits • Agree governance • Whether to extend to monographs • Funding regime – capital and recurrent • Agree business plan developed by BL

  16. Questions and discussion

More Related