Emerging Regional Efforts for Shared Print Management

1. Emerging Regional Efforts for Shared Print Management Lizanne Payne Print Archives Consultant lizannepayne03@gmail.com

2. Driving the Shared Print Movement Shift in publication patterns from print to digital: low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value Changing cost/benefit for legacy print: Operating costs increase, libraries externalize print operations to shared repositories Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaboration vs. “warehouse of books” Diversity of missions: Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate and capacityto support print preservation

3. A Multitude of Shared Print Programs in the U.S. examples

4. Potential Mega-Regional Shared Print Initiatives New England CIC Mid-Atlantic RECAP WEST ASERL

5. Shared Print Archives: Getting to Scale • “The shared infrastructure needed to support a broad-based externalization of legacy print management functions is unlikely to emerge without directed action and decision-making by leaders in the academic library community.” • Constance Malpas.“Cloud-Sourcing Research Collections: Managing Print in the Mass-Digitized Library Environment”, p.11.

6. Planning for National Infrastructure Community Forum Information Infrastructure

7. Center for Research LibrariesShared Print Community Forum Print Archives Network (PAN) listserv hosted by CRL CRL’s new Global Resources Forum • A benefit of membership for current CRL libraries, non-CRL libraries may join GRF for nominal fees • Participate in community discussions of print archiving standards, norms and best practices • Access to online data, analysis, and assessments of print and digital archives

8. Information Infrastructure:Collection Analysis and Disclosure • Print archiving institutions need: • Decision support to identify titles and volumes suitable for archiving • A mechanism to record and disclose archiving commitmentsat title and volume level • Non-archiving institutions need: • Decision support to identify titles and volumes suitable for withdrawal and/or donation(to fill gaps in archive)

9. Complementary Information Infrastructure Projects Library Catalogs OCLC Disclosure and Resource-Sharing CRL Collection Analysis and Decision Support Holdings for comparison OCLC symbol, Local Holding Records (LHRs) WorldCat CRL OCLC Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR)

10. OCLC Disclosure and Resource-Sharing OCLC pilot project to define and implement metadata standards Pilot project to test the approach summer – fall 2011 Library Catalogs OCLC symbol, Local Holding Records (LHRs) OCLC symbol, Lender string WorldCat OCLC Resource-Sharing OCLC

11. CRL Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR) • CRL is partnering with California Digital Library to design and develop PAPR.  Ithaka S+R is advising CRL on the project. • PAPR Phase 1 will include holdings of WEST, CRL, and others (available mid-2012) Archiving Library OPACs Digital Archives, Other Decision-Support Data Titles, holdings Archived titles, holdings CRL Print Archives Preservation Registry Archived titles, holdings Library Holdings Overlap Data

12. Planning Regional Shared Print Programs Operating Plan (how it works) Administrative Plan (how it is managed)

13. Shared Print Programs: Operating Plan

14. Shared Print Programs: Administrative Plan

15. Key Features of Major Shared Print Programs

16. Ownership and Retention • In almost all programs, original owner (or archive holder) retains ownership, commits to long-term retention • Effect on volume counts? • No longer part of public ARL member index, one factor in decision about new members • Starting in 2005-06, ARL calculates Library Investment Index using library expenditures and staffing – emphasizes resources • Length of retention period: tension between “long” for benefit of deselecting libraries and “short” to reduce constraints on archiving libraries

17. Access: Who has access and in what form? • Dark or light archives? • Almost all current programs are “light” • PALCI and OhioLink plans include dark and light, Minnesota planning a dark archive • Members have privileged access, or not? • WEST: no special WEST borrowing privileges, low use not worth added complexity • Decided not to worry about “free riders” • Nonmembers have access, or not? • Almost all provide access outside the membership via ILL for nonreturnables … and often for returnables

18. Business Models: Who supports which costs? Member fees? Transaction fees? Absorbed?

19. Approaches to Shared Print Business Models Co-op Members contribute to shared costs Potluck No money changes hands, Members cover own costs

20. Examples of Cost-Sharing Business Models Five Colleges Library Depository, WRLC, ReCAP, PASCAL • Members share operating costs of a shared facility according to a formula WEST • Members share aggregate costs of accessions, validation, collection analysis, project management • Indirect support for Archive Holders’ space via fee discount • Advantage: front-loaded, minimizes long-term costs, facilitates financial sustainability CIC Shared Print Repository • Members provide financial support to Indiana U for accessions (up front) and space (ongoing) • Advantage: Encourages participation by archivers

21. “Disappearance of print will be like falling off a cliff, not gradual” • Tim O’Reilly • National Digital Stewardship Alliance • Partners Meeting • July 19, 2011

22. Let us create the safety net. New England CIC Mid-Atlantic RECAP WEST ASERL

23. Thank you.