Optimising Storage and Access in UK research libraries

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 in the longer term • Extent of duplication of holdings • How prevalent are these issues • Storage solutions – costs and benefits • Alternatives and assessment of approaches/researcher/institution/national • Recommend most efficient and effective model • Risks/issues to be addressed

3. The Problem • Real pressures on space and these are big (CURL 90% high priority) 50% at capacity • Internal pressures in HEI’s, competing priorities, FEC, RAE etc • Some handling – others want national solution (many starting to deselect) • Different views about storage in different institutions speedy access and guarantees in perpetuity would help overcome • Critical point in next 5 to 10 years if not now

4. The Process • Research into collaborative schemes world-wide – CASS White Rose CARM • Surveys – 88% response rate (25 CURL 13 other HEI’S, 2 municipal) • Visits to 14 CURL, 2 municipal libraries • Interviews with key people – librarians, researchers and administrators

5. And you already know • Atkinson Report 1976 – self renewing library concept • Mid 1990’s confidence in e-journals • 1995 J-STOR – to save space 1.5KMS • Science Direct 4kms • Not just print but gateways to databases • Learning methods changing – pervasive computing, blended learning, information commons, learning grid, social spaces, learning experience – new priorities

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Option four – NRR based on BL*selected by all libraries and CURL • “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 (85%-90%?) material already held by BL

11. 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 • Most cost effective solution

12. 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 remit) • 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

13. Ranking for option four (p.36)Based on stakeholder concerns • Guarantee of preservation (Yes) • High quality access (Yes) • Access to whole national research collection (Yes) • Minimal cost outlay (Yes) • Potential cost savings all levels (Yes) • Encourages de-duplication (Yes) • Can exit strategy exist (No) • Sensitive to Welsh and Scottish concerns (Poss) • Is it managed for the research community (Yes- Jointly)

14. Further Discussion • Scope of NRR collection • Number of copies 1+ increases cost • Access arrangements (doc. Supply/reading rooms etc) • Depositing material with NRR - how • Cataloguing – home or host? • Terms of ownership to BL • Scope of holdings • Whether monographs?

15. 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?

16. 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

17. 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

18. Collaborative Storage Taskforce 1. Develop a consultation plan for discussion and debate on option 4 2. Consider issues raised, work with CURL, other libraries RIN and BL to respond 3.Develop guidelines on how NRR would operate 4. Assist BL to develop business service model 5. Assist with development of funding case

19. Questions and comments