MAS 2010   Cornell University Library   MAS 2010: Project Team Website   Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organization   for Cost-Effective Information Services Funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the key goals of the project include: Explore new models for academic support - restructuring of information services in higher education to better fit the needs of the 21st century Offer economies of scale - explore models for efficient and economic operations Enhance quality of support for learning, teaching, and research Foster alliances to create synergy in service areas such as scholarly communication (e.g., CUL and CU Press, editorial offices of other publications) Transform the "annex concept" from high-tech storage to a new service center Present a solution to campus congestion Project Information Final Project Report Appendices Proposal to the Mellon Foundation   Research Questions Team Implementation Plan  (March 3, 2003)   Phase I: Feasibility Analysis (Nov '02 - Feb '03) CUL Consultant Team Reports CUL Consultant Team Report Synopses     Mary-Alice Lynch Visit Highlights January '03 External Retreat Summary   Phase II: Market Analysis (March '03 - July'03) Market Survey CUL Staff Presentation     Council of Librarians MAS 2010 Future Search Report Market Survey Findings   Supporting Documents Library Annex     Outsourcing Library Services   Last Updated June 7, 2004 Questions & Comments http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/[10/22/2013 1:01:53 PM] MAS 2010: Models for Academic Support Final Report to the Mellon Foundation PART I The real act of discovery is not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes. —Marcel Proust November 24, 2003 http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS Cornell University Library Models for Academic Support: Final Report to the Mellon Foundation Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 3 1. THE CHANGING UNIVERSITY ..................................................................................................... 3 2. THE CHANGING LIBRARY .......................................................................................................... 3 II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND KEY FINDINGS ................. 6 1. CUL CONSULTANT TEAMS......................................................................................................... 6 2. RETREAT WITH EXTERNAL ADVISORS......................................................................................... 6 3. EXTERNAL CONSULTANT ........................................................................................................... 7 4. ASSESSMENT OF THE NEEDS OF CORNELL STUDENTS AND FACULTY....................................... 7 5. DIGITAL CONSULTING AND PRODUCTION SERVICES (DCAPS) PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT ... 7 6. NEW YORK STATE MARKET SURVEY....................................................................................... 8 8. COUNCIL OF LIBRARIANS FUTURE SEARCH RETREAT ............................................................. 9 9. INSTITUTIONAL BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................ 9 10. NETWORKING—IDENTIFYING STRATEGIC PARTNERS............................................................ 9 11. CORNELL EDITORS’ FORUM ................................................................................................ 10 12. ONGOING MAS 2010 RESEARCH......................................................................................... 11 III. BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE NEW SERVICE MODEL................................................ 12 1. MISSION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 12 2. THE NEW MODEL—THE CONCEPT ....................................................................................... 12 3. STRATEGIES FOR CREATING SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES .......................................... 13 4. MARKETING PLAN ................................................................................................................ 18 5. COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 18 6. RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING ............................................................... 22 7. CORNELL’S ABILITY TO REALIZE ITS VISION ........................................................................ 22 Executive Summary Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, from November 2002 to October 2003 the Cornell University Library (CUL) investigated the potential of significant structural reorganization that would increase the value of the Library’s services to the University. The study revealed that the proposed benefits of restructuring are threefold: 1. Creation of a suite of services will support scholarly creativity and communication. 2. The reconceptualization of spatial requirements will • Advance academic programs, • Promote better use of space, and • Result in more-effective allocation of University resources. 3. The development of a new infrastructure will permit new relationships between libraries to flourish, enabling improved services at lower cost. To provide information from all the relevant stakeholders who would be affected by a reorganization, the project team engaged in a year-long research effort involving more than a dozen initiatives to collect and analyze data. The team studied analyses completed by Library consultant teams for ten potential service areas; explored ideas for entrepreneurial services with external advisors and consultants, surveyed peer institutions and contacted institutions considering similar services, examined a large body of data on the needs of the Cornell community, evaluated the results of a prototype for digital consulting and production services, and completed a market survey of 1,000 New York State libraries, archives, historical societies, and museums. The research project (dubbed MAS 2010) has shown that the Library is feeling the demands of a changing University, reflected in the way in which faculty and students perceive and use its facilities, collections, and services. A strong trend of increasing demand for sophisticated computing environments has developed, and a seemingly unquenchable thirst for online information resources has become apparent. At the same time, the popularity of the physical Library endures as the nature of its use is changing. The growth of Library collections continues unabated, creating enormous pressure on existing buildings. Faculty, graduate student, and undergraduate priorities often conflict: some focus on Library content (journals and books), others on flexible, adaptable user spaces. All seem to want: Easy-to-use library access systems, Integrated support from the library and other campus partners such as academic computing, New services such as digitization centers. The planning grant from the Foundation has enabled the Library to conduct extensive market research and conceptualize a new model for academic support that rebalances the allocation of collections, user, and staff space. That model focuses on changes that increase quality of service and lead to cost reductions or increased efficiency. A profile of the current Library system is included in Appendix 1. In the newly conceptualized Library, staff who perform services that are not dependent on real-time interactions with users will be relocated to a site in a less-congested area on or near campus. The Library will thereby attain the three goals: Increase the quality of service by freeing substantial space in the existing libraries for new uses, including group study, collaborative initiatives with faculty, increased support of learning management systems, and other cutting-edge activities. Increase efficiency by delineating certain services (those that can forgo public interaction without loss in quality) as common services for the benefit of the entire Library system and University. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Executive Summary, Page 1 Reduce costs by establishing an entrepreneurial service center that will market services to other cultural institutions, thus generating revenue and broadening the base over which the costs of the infrastructure are spread. The MAS 2010 team applied the results of its research both to articulate a new model for academic support and to prepare a business plan for implementation in 2004. The key recommendations are: For the Cornell Community— 1. Implement a feasibility study for the construction of a new service center and explore a new model for public services (instruction, reference, document delivery, access services) as potential campuswide common services. 2. In collaboration with Cornell colleges and units, support the development of innovative teaching and scholarly communication models that draw on the Library’s digital expertise (DCAPS) and outstanding content. For the External Community— 3. Create a shared print repository and document delivery service to benefit multiple participating institutions. 4. Assist other cultural institutions in resolving the space and service conundrum by marketing the Library’s services and disseminating the findings of the MAS 2010 project. This report first provides a brief view of the background and context of the project, followed by a presentation of the key insights gained through the extensive research. Next, a more-detailed discussion of the reconceptualization of the Library leads to the business plan, which outlines the primary strategies and goals of the new model to achieve the recommendations. Finally, marketing strategies, a financial analysis, and a risk assessment are included. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Executive Summary, Page 2 I. Background and Context 1. The Changing University Knowledge itself will be modified and research and development transformed by the new capacities provided by IT. Nothing will be left untouched. The liberal arts will be revived and transfigured, liberated from their age-long reliance on text alone. The silos of the departments will topple as new approaches to bewildering issues are pursued with new vigor by scholars in mind-boggling combinations of once insular and isolated disciplines. –Frank H. T. Rhodes, The Creation of the Future The university has hitherto weathered other periods of technology-driven social change without significant alteration. Information technology, however, is affecting the very nature of the activities of the university. James J. Duderstadt, the President Emeritus of the University of Michigan, makes the point that universities must see information technology as a strategic asset to sustain the university’s mission.1 Universities must prepare for new demands for sophisticated computing environments to fit the needs of twenty-first-century students, often characterized as the “multimedia” or “plug-and-play” generation. 2 One example of students’ more-active learning process is faculty members’ use of Web sites as virtual front ends to their courses. For students, information technologies are essential expectations. For faculty, information technologies are central to their increasingly interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research. The university’s challenge is to create an infrastructure capable of meeting student expectations, addressing pedagogical changes, and coordinating research activities that might otherwise be fragmented or redundant.3 Technology-driven change now requires the creation of successful “digital” universities. Scholars, educators, librarians, and academic leaders must develop a strategic framework capable of understanding and shaping the impact that this extraordinary technology will have on the university. 2. The Changing Library As is true for the university, information technology (IT) is transforming the library. At the same time that IT frees library users from the constraints of time and space, the popularity of the physical library endures while the nature of its use is changing. A number of factors support this observation. • The Library Building Hours and Services Survey, conducted by the Library in 2002, found that access to its collections—in both print and electronic formats—and the physical facilities are still considered top priorities.4 1James J. Duderstadt, “Technology,” EDUCAUSE Review, January/February 2001, http://www.educause.edu/ir/Library/pdf/erm011a.pdf. 2 Barone, Carole A., and Paul R.Hagner. Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning: Leading and Supporting theTransformation on Your Campus. San Francisco, Calif.; [Great Britain]: Jossey-Bass, 2001. 3 Duderstadt, James J., Daniel E. Atkins, and Douglas Van Houweling. Higher Education in the Digital Age: Technology Issues and Strategies for American Colleges and Universities. Westport, Conn.: Praeger; American Council on Education, 2002. 4 Cornell University Library. Library Building Hours and Services Survey, 2002, http://www.Library.cornell.edu/iris/hours/databook. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section I, Page 3 • Visits to Olin and Kroch, two conjoined libraries that occupy 244,046 square feet at the heart of the Cornell campus, average approximately 5,500 visitors per day during the semester, or 20% of Cornell’s students and faculty. • In the Library’s LibQual+ Spring 2003 Survey, 27% of faculty, graduate student, and undergraduate respondents said they use resources on Library premises daily. • As the University anticipated renovation of its chief social sciences and humanities library, necessitating the move of some seldom-used materials to an annex off campus, however, faculty members working in those disciplines were adamant about retaining collections on site. • In the 1990s the growth of library collections continued uninterrupted. Cornell’s libraries have increased their holdings by over 150,000 volumes annually in the last three fiscal years, straining the capacity of existing facilities. In 1997 the Library constructed a Harvard-style depository off campus holding 1.5 million volume equivalents. At the same time, user needs for collaborative workspace with multifunctional technological capabilities required an expansion of the user domain. On the other hand, the trend of increasing use of library electronic and digital collections and declining use of the traditional collections of major research libraries is well documented. A snapshot of Cornell’s circulation in April 2003 revealed that 97% of its volumes remained on the shelves, even at the busiest point of the semester. The Library’s Web presence is critically important. Visits to the Cornell Library Gateway pages average about 150,000 per day. According to the findings of the Library’s LibQual+ Spring 2003 Survey, • 32% of the respondents (faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates) access Library resources through Library Web pages daily, and 73% use Yahoo, Google, or non-Library gateways for information daily. • Although access to scholarly content on Library premises remains important, nearly all users, regardless of academic discipline, rely on online information sources and like the convenience of working online from their homes and offices. In the same survey results, three of the six largest gaps between users’ desired and perceived service levels related to the ease of use of the Library’s access systems. To respond to these service expectations, the Library must re-engineer its existing model to empower users to obtain content at the time and place they need it. Libraries have already developed new digital information technologies and methods that enhance the quality of teaching and learning at universities. The new challenge is to further transform the ways in which libraries support teaching, learning, and research to match the universities’ new paradigms. Libraries have the opportunity to become an intellectual commons that offers an inspiring shared space and common ground for campus-wide collaborations. As pointed out by the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education initiative, teaching and learning spaces need to be flexible and adaptable enough to accommodate a variety of furnishings and activities as needs warrant. Further, libraries can play a crucial role in enhancing coordination of faculty research and integration of scholarly work on campus and around the world. An example is the use of DSpace to establish institutional repositories. Other new library-based services could include streaming media, Web design and interfacing, digital content creation and preservation, management of intellectual property, electronic publishing, and distributed learning. Such services are particularly important for faculty as they incorporate information technologies into their teaching and research activities. As for library staff, they continue to move beyond the traditional custodial role of overseeing collections toward an increasingly enhanced service role, providing access tools and strategies for accessing all formats of information. The lines demarcating organizational functions and units will blur, and staff will become increasingly cross-functional and collaborative. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section I, Page 4 Faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates want different things from their libraries. Comparison of the “top three picks” in Cornell’s Building Hours and Services Survey showed that faculty and graduate students’ strongest preferences centered on content (journals and books), while undergraduates’ strongest preferences were for study space and public computing. Shifting and conflicting user preferences and needs, together with the integration of digital and traditional paper-based services, are transforming campus libraries into hybrid spaces: hybrids of user services, reader areas, and collection spaces, all within the framework of a collaborative work environment. To remain at the heart of the technology-driven “digital” university, library leaders must act forcefully and strategically to move libraries toward a new model for academic support. The diagram below is the conceptual basis of a new model for academic support. The research team's approach to developing the new model applies "systems thinking"5 to studying how the four fundamental elements that give life to a library--collections, staff, space, and users--dynamically interact with each other and the university. One of the key benefits of systems thinking is the ability to model the elements of an organization and its internal and external relationships. Gaining perspective on the library as a "system" permits a fresh vision of the library to emerge. Figure 1: Library Systems: Collections, Staff, Space, and Users 5 The concept "systems thinking" comes from the field of system dynamics, founded at MIT in the 1950s and later widely publicized by Peter Senge of MIT's Sloan School of Management in his book The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990). CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section I, Page 5 II. Research Methodology, Data Sources, and Key Findings The one-year study and planning effort included the components discussed below. Appendix 2 contains the project schedule and identifies the benchmark accomplishments. The research project included the following tracks of data gathering and analysis. 1. CUL Consultant Teams To begin, the CUL MAS 2010 consultant teams were formed to analyze ten service areas to assess the feasibility of relocating those services to a new library center, providing common services for CUL and Cornell, creating synergy among Cornell service providers, and offering services for external clients. In the Library’s current model for academic support, each of the nineteen libraries in the system has its own relatively independent configuration of users, staff, collections, and space. In the last ten years CUL has substantially improved the integration and coordination of the networked information space, and advances have been made to improve the integration and optimization of physical spaces. However, to continue effective Library support for Cornell academic activities, further progress is required. A synopsis of the consultant teams’ reports is included as Appendix 3. The reports have been fundamental in shaping the Library’s research, especially in identifying potential common service areas. Key insights from the consultant teams were the following: • The needs of the Cornell community must be addressed first, before external entrepreneurial services are developed. • A thorough external market analysis is needed to determine the interest level and available funds for purchasing services. 2. Retreat with External Advisors The goal of the retreat was to brainstorm and investigate innovative, entrepreneurial, and efficient library services. The external advisory group included Michael A. Keller (University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources, Stanford University Libraries), Clifford Lynch (Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information), Deanna Marcum (President, Council on Library and Information Resources), Don Waters (The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation), Karin Wittenborg (University Librarian, University of Virginia), and Ann Wolpert (Director of Libraries, MIT). Appendix 4 includes the highlights of the retreat. The group observed that by 2010 the research library community will be involved in mass digitization projects and there will be a shift in the structure, collections, and services of the library, including increasing entrepreneurial initiatives. Similar to the CUL consultant teams, the group emphasized the importance of putting the needs of local constituents first. In addition, they listed the following elements to take into consideration: • Segmentation of customers—undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty with diverging, even conflicting, interests and needs • Changes in pedagogy, as faculty are both teachers and researchers • The strategic importance of securing buy-in by faculty, students, unit libraries, and staff • Increasing importance of forging alliances with faculty and other campus service providers CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section II, Page 6 3. External Consultant Mary-Alice Lynch, Executive Director of Nylink,6 visited CUL for a daylong consultancy. Appendix 5 summarizes the discussion. Key insights from the meetings were: • Cornell should uncover gaps in services and identify CUL’s strengths to clarify a niche in which it provides what other libraries do not, rather than compete with other service providers. • Few organizations are offering packaged services, so integrated services such as Digital Consulting and Production Services may be valued by the market more than individual services. • There is a high demand for digital consulting and training services, and Nylink is interested in collaborating by brokering library services. It is becoming an institutional priority for libraries of all sizes to digitize. • CUL should expect to take on some risk as it explores entrepreneurial service ventures. 4. Assessment of the Needs of Cornell Students and Faculty During the last three years the Library has been actively gathering information about the needs of the Cornell community. Its Convenient Business Hours Study revealed what students expect from the Library in terms of business and service hours. Its collaborative working groups with Cornell Information Technologies, the Center for Learning and Teaching, Media and Technology Services, and other IT and pedagogy groups have been instrumental in assessing digital asset management needs. As described in the Research Methodology, Data Sources, and Key Findings section of this report, both the Editors’ Forum and the Cornell University Digital Repository and Asset Management Services Survey were designed to gather systematic information. As mentioned in the Changing Library section, last year Cornell distributed its third consecutive ARLsponsored LibQUAL+ Survey to 600 faculty and 3,000 students to gather feedback on their perception of the Library’s holdings, services, and staff. The findings of the Olin/Uris Study, which was a user-based evaluation of services and spatial commitments in Cornell’s two largest libraries, also contributed to the needs assessment. Significant needs include: • Access to collections: content any place and any time they need it • More study and collaborative spaces in the Library • A suite of services to support faculty members who are developing their own digital collections • Extended service and study hours • More computer workstations 5. Digital Consulting and Production Services (DCAPS) Prototype Development Leveraging the Library’s experience and expertise, DCAPS is comprised of associated services to ensure costeffective planning, creation, management, use, and preservation of digital collections. It was launched in January 2003 to test the demand for simplified access to services relating to digitization. The DCAPS model features a single contact point that connects behind the scenes to multiple distributed service points. During the ten months from January through October 2003, DCAPS responded to fifty-six queries from faculty, staff, and students. The DCAPS Interim Report, in Appendix 6, details the accomplishments and the lessons learned. 6 Nylink is a not-for-profit membership organization for all types of libraries and information organizations throughout New York State and surrounding areas that offers a range of cataloging, training, consulting, resource sharing and reference services to libraries. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section II, Page 7 Important findings from the DCAPS pilot include: • An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - an integrated approach to digital content development fosters best practices and ensures a collection that is easier to preserve. • There is growing use of, and strong satisfaction with, the Library’s ability to support digital life-cycle management. • The new service framework promotes financial accountability and business-plan development to make the best use of University funds. 6. New York State Market Survey Following the recommendations of the MAS 2010 consultant teams, the Library administered a market survey to 1,000 New York State libraries, archives, historical societies, and museums to gauge their interest in purchasing services from CUL. Appendix 7 includes a copy of the market survey, and the key findings are presented in Appendix 8. The survey covered functional areas of collection storage and access; preservation, conservation, and cataloging; digital library services; and a conference and training center. A total of 253 Web-based surveys were completed, making the final response rate 43.9%. The number of institutions expressing interest in different services fluctuated in the range of 128 (electronic document delivery) to 15 (renting Cornell’s conference center). The likelihood of purchasing services was higher in the digital library area and lower for collection access and storage. Digital content development and management services have the highest potential among the four service areas. Dissatisfaction with existing internal services was higher in this category. The project team identified the top service areas on which the Library should focus for external clients as: • Consulting and training programs covering a range of processes involved in digital library development • A suite of integrated production services to support digital library development, management, and sustenance, including digitization, metadata creation, e-publishing, collection delivery platforms, and long-term digital content management and access • Collection storage and access services, including a shared storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for the long-term storage of all types of traditional library materials coupled with a physical and electronic delivery system 7. Financial Projections An important part of the Library’s investigation was to develop a solid understanding of the costs of offering digital asset management services to Cornell and external clients. The results of this budgeting exercise are presented in Section III.6, Cost Analysis. The project team estimated costs of providing services for three consecutive fiscal years based on the findings of the internal needs assessment, DCAPS pilot implementation, and New York State Market Survey. The driving factors for the financial model were: • It will be a hybrid framework combining allocations, fee-based and subsidized services for the Cornell community, and a cost-recovery model for external organizations. • It is critical for the Library to understand the expense lines and the real costs for increasing accountability, reallocating library funds, and developing a fee structure for external services. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section II, Page 8 8. Council of Librarians Future Search Retreat In a discussion session, the Council of Librarians, CUL’s unit Library directors and department heads, provided their perspectives on various aspects of the MAS 2010 project. The brainstorming was structured as a future search session, a survey method of breaking a large group into small groups whose participants interview each other. The methodology and key findings of the retreat are presented in Appendix 9. The major trend noted in the discussion was the technology-driven increase in production, dissemination, and consumption of knowledge and information, as reflected in growing multidisciplinary and collaborative activities. Participants agreed that offering external entrepreneurial services would be likely to • Produce economies of scale • Result in new revenue potential that could subsidize the costs of infrastructure development for CUL The disadvantages they pinpointed were • Financial risk • The Library’s lack of marketing background. Participants recommended the following steps: • Increase the promotion of the Library’s existing services before expanding to new areas • Increase the amount of flexible space that can be converted from one function to another 9. Institutional Benchmarking The MAS 2010 team informally surveyed peer institutions in regard to current services, trends, and initiatives similar to MAS 2010. The two-part survey included an analysis of the Web sites of eighteen Association of Research Libraries institutions and informal talks with colleagues from eight peer institutions. Although there are several initiatives in various service areas such as storage facilities, document delivery, and digitization services, the Web survey of seventeen institutions indicated that Cornell’s approach was innovative and unique. Some institutions have shifted certain processing units, such as technical services, out of the main library to renovate and return space for users. Several libraries recently added digitization and campus-wide document delivery services. A few institutions have structured studies to examine the trends in digital scholarship, such as the University of Washington’s Digital Scholarship project, which is funded by the Mellon Foundation.7 The major conclusions were: • The Library's approach is unique and innovative and does not overlap with any major initiatives of this nature. • CUL needs to continue forecasting and learning from colleagues to make sure that it integrates existing studies and findings into its model. 10. Networking—Identifying Strategic Partners In addition to identifying and contacting institutions that are involved in similar initiatives, a related goal was to investigate strategic partnerships. The major contacts made during this component of the study included 7 http://www.lib.washington.edu/digitalscholar/project-report.html. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section II, Page 9 Five colleges: discussion with Will Bridegam, Library Director, Amherst College; Margo Christ, Director of Libraries, University of Massachusetts; and Christopher Loring, Director of Libraries, Smith College, about the potential for Cornell to serve as the repository of record for print copies with digital versions Information sharing with regional alliances and networks: assistance from Mary-Alice Lynch, Executive Director of Nylink, in introducing MAS 2010 in her regional and national library network meetings and gathering information about the related projects Liz Bishoff, Executive Director, Colorado Digitization Program: information sharing and advice on lessons learned during the Colorado Digitization Program New York State Archives: contact with Kathleen Roe, Chief, Archival Services, to share information and ask her opinion on the market survey New York State Higher Education Initiative (NYSHEI): visit from John Townsend, the Executive Director, to explore potential collaboration opportunities, especially in the areas of scholarly publishing and digital repositories, learning space/library integration and student portfolios, and digital archiving New York State Regional Library Network Directors: information sharing and needs assessment through Mary-Alice Lynch, the Executive Director of Nylink Nylink Council and Executive Director Mary-Alice Lynch: initial exploration of the role of Nylink in identifying, promoting, and delivering CUL’s services for external cultural institutions OCLC: phone conversations with Meg Bellinger, former Vice President, OCLC Digital & Preservation Resources, and Phyllis Spies, Vice President for Worldwide Library Services, about the MAS 2010 study and OCLC’s digital library services RLG, Robin Dale, Program Director: information sharing SUNY Office of Library and Information Services: e-mail correspondence with Carey Hatch, the Executive Director, to inform him of the project and to assess the library service needs of SUNY institutions In addition to reaching out to external colleagues, the project staff used several different channels to inform the Library staff of the project, including information sessions open to all staff. Key conclusions of the networking effort include: • The Library needs to work closely with library systems and consortia and take advantage of their strong knowledge of the market and the needs of local constituents • The most-promising future partners are NYLINK and the New York State Higher Education Initiative. CUL should also want to communicate closely with OCLC and align its services for the best interests of the cultural institutions 11. Cornell Editors’ Forum The goal of the Editors’ Forum was to introduce Cornell editors to the potential of digital publishing services offered collaboratively by the Cornell University Library and the Cornell University Press, including services such as editing, digitizing, creating metadata, publishing, providing access, supporting e-commerce, CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section II, Page 10 promotion, and archiving. The DPubS software, written to support the Mellon-funded Project Euclid, has given the Library and the Press the ability to publish and market journals. A chief activity in this track of research was to create an inventory of Cornell editors and scholarly societies to gain a better understanding of the landscape. The Forum program is included in Appendix 10. The highlights of the Forum are: • The meeting increased the awareness of the participant editors of electronic publishing and initiated a needs assessment process to investigate how they prepare journals for publication • There is need for collaboration in this area and the participants expressed interest in continuing the dialogue in various forums and forms (e.g., Cornell Editors Listserv) • The interest and participation in the Forum confirmed the Library and Press’s decision to create a service bureau to support the editorial process and the eventual migration of journals from commercial operations that focus on profits to a moderately priced University Press product 12. Ongoing MAS 2010 Research In addition to the studies reported above, there are various ongoing efforts that will provide insights into creating a new model for CUL. Library and Related Information Services Workforce Planning Review (LARIS) In 2002 Cornell University President Hunter Rawlings III initiated workforce planning reviews of six administrative functions of the University, with the goal of reallocating savings toward the realization of the academic mission. The objective of the review is to reengineer library operations and space to result in a more-efficient and effective organization. In the course of this review, a workforce-planning lead team consisting of an academic dean, faculty, and administrators and chaired by the University Librarian, has examined the Library in detail. Several broad themes have resonated in the review process to date. For example, economy of scale is important in the cost of many of the Library’s operations. Organizing service delivery by function and creating a unified operation to deliver services is projected to result in significant savings to the Library as well as improved ability to support the mission of the University. The review, concluding in February 2004, will provide the foundation for internal Library realignments that will result in efficiencies and strengthen the services proposed in the MAS 2010 planning effort. Workforce planning recommendations will be Cornell-specific, while MAS 2010 proposals will create new models for academic libraries in general. Cornell University Digital Repository and Asset Management Services Survey The survey is a joint project of the LARIS and MAS 2010 teams. The goal is to gather information from colleges, divisions, and programs on existing digital repositories and the need for associated asset creation and management services. This survey will be administered in November 2003. The draft survey is included in Appendix 11. The findings will be instrumental in gauging the internal demand for the envisioned services. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section II, Page 11 III. Business Plan for the New Service Model 1. Mission and Guiding Principles The findings of our research informed the conceptualization of a new model in which user spaces and services are proximate to users in centrally located campus buildings; staff and services related to content and infrastructure are nearby or remotely accessible. This model was conceived in accordance with the Library’s mission: “Provide outstanding support for faculty and students of the evolving research university by creating innovative and efficient information services for Cornell and other institutions.” Furthermore, in creating the model, the guiding principles derived from our research were: • Focus on services valued by Cornell users first and seek buy-in • Sequence the marketing of services for outside entities according to how much value each has in the eyes of paying customers • Emphasize changes that add value without increasing costs • Seek cost and efficiencies without compromising quality • Match CUL strengths with service gaps identified by potential users • Construct a model that is flexible enough to adapt to future changes in pedagogy • Segment the customer base—understand the specific needs of different user groups • Forge alliances wherever necessary and feasible • Seek an acceptable level of risk, one that is in line with potential returns 2. The New Model—The Concept Today’s libraries exist in physical and virtual space. A library is thus both a manifest place and an experience of real, but intangible, “cyberspace” for those who interact with it. One may describe a library system in terms of the relationships between users, collections, library staff, and space, with “space” defined both as buildings and as virtual, networked information space. With respect to library users, each of the other three elements may be immediately proximate, nearby, or remotely accessible. Building on this concept, the new model allocates less physical space on central campus to lowerdemand portions of the physical collections and collection-supporting staff and relocates them nearby but off campus, while increasing the space devoted to necessarily proximate services on central campus. The lever in reconceptualizing library services at Cornell is technology, for one may also conceptualize the system as having a front end—an “interface”—and a back end—content and structure. The interface is the point of direct interaction with the users, and the back end contains the content and structural functions behind the interface. Table 1 describes the distinct sections of the model, including their goals and components. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 12 Middle: Digital Collections & Front End: Central Campus Services Table 1. New Model for Academic Support Goals Components Provide state-of-the-art, flexible, and attractive user spaces Make available locations for the Library and other University staff who interact directly with users on the central campus Maintain intake desks for interlibrary lending and a variety of consulting services House the higher-demand and other selected portions of the physical collections Reference services Service and consulting desks for digital content development services Public computing equipment and services Instructional facilities Networked information space Circulation and interlibrary lending Digitize the Library’s outstanding print treasures and provide easy-to-use systems that allow campus communities to discover and use them Get content to users as effectively as possible, while still making content they do not need at the moment readily retrievable (just-for-me and just-in-time) Push Library content out to wherever users want it to appear, e.g., Web-based campus learning management systems and University portals. Find creative solutions to support browsing needs of users Digital collections Electronic document delivery system to users’ desktops Physical delivery to users’ offices Tools to integrate learning environments with digital libraries Back End: Off-Campus Nearby Free up prime space on central campus to enhance collaboration of researchers and learners in an increasingly multidisciplinary academic environment Locate resources for advanced scholarship and seldom-used portions of the collections, together with “common services” to support the Library’s content and infrastructure, in less congested areas of campus Allow growth space for newly emerging services in support of 21st-century scholarship Seldom-used library collections Collection maintenance and preservation Digital consulting and production Document delivery services and interlibrary lending Shipping and receiving Scholarly communication and digital repository services Technical services Library systems 3. Strategies for Creating Specific Products and Services Using the conceptual model, in combination with the findings gathered during the planning grant, the strategy of the Library during FY 2004/2005 is to create new products and services by attaining the following goals. 1. Conduct a Feasibility Study for the Construction of a New Service Center and Explore a New Model for Public Services The Library will propose to the University that several functional groups relocate to a new site in the developing areas of campus, freeing space in existing facilities for user services, including collaborative enterprises with other campus entities. This shift is key to releasing prime space for core academic use. The services that could be moved are also ideal for offering as common services (increased campus-wide coordination) to create efficiencies. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 13 During the MAS 2010 study the Library evaluated its staff operations to assess which functions could thrive independent of direct contact with users on a day-to-day basis. The areas of digital and print document delivery, acquisitions, cataloging, preservation and conservation, electronic publishing, and digital consulting and production services (digitization, metadata, copyright, information technologies), and shipping are prime candidates for relocation (see Figure 2). The decision on which units should move to the new location was based on the characteristics of the service points listed below. • Does not require daily direct contact with users or collections housed in unit libraries • Will not suffer from reduced interaction with users • Can be operated by relying on regular transportation between unit library buildings and the new center • Will benefit from expanded space and cutting-edge technologies to support efficient operations • According to the LARIS survey, show savings behind merging those operations The University plans to build a new facility in a developing academic precinct of campus, where the cost of construction would be less than half that of on-campus construction. The Olin/Uris Library renovation project will cost $80 million, including $40 million in life-safety and mechanical upgrades. The estimate for creating another high-bay storage repository plus a library service center is $14 million. Figure 2: Location of the New Library Center and Its Components in Relation to Central Campus During the study, the MAS 2010 team focused on functions other than public services because it was analyzing which functions could operate away from direct user contact, and this service was not seen as a candidate for examination. One of the areas that will be explored during 2004/05 as a follow-up study is the relation of public services to common CUL services and external services. The goal will be to reconceptualize the role of public services in the new service model. The Library is planning an extensive renovation of Olin and Uris libraries to enhance information services and provide an intellectual commons for all members of the Cornell community. Those libraries will include collaborative facilities and reference points to integrate the services of information technologists, librarians, instructional designers, and pedagogy experts to assist faculty and students. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 14 EXPECTED OUTCOMES • Reducing the number of certain library service points would result in efficiencies in staffing and could increase patron productivity, since patrons would find more services, including collections, concentrated in fewer locations. • Individual Cornell libraries will no longer need to have their own technical, systems, or digital life-cycle services—these will be shared in common and located nearby. They will be able to maintain their primacy among local constituents with regard to disciplinary specialization in services that benefit from face-to-face interactions and still take advantage of the economies of scale offered by the centralized approach. • Location-independent services will not just transform Cornell, but could demonstrate a restructuring of the way in which many universities and colleges manage academic support in the future.8 They will relieve the spatial constrictions of the libraries and regain prime space for Library users and for other academic purposes. • New models of public service will emerge as a result of the reconfiguration. Public services can benefit from the same type of review as the other functions of the Library. 2. In Collaboration with Cornell Colleges and Units, Support the Development of Teaching and Scholarly Communication Models that Draw on the Library’s Digital Expertise (DCAPS) and Content The Library predicts that increasing numbers of faculty and researchers will weave information technologies into their work and will need assistance in planning, creation, and management of digital information. DCAPS, which was launched in January 2003, will form the foundation for an expanded unit to support the new scholarship and digital assets management at Cornell. It will be based on a hybrid cost model: internal Library use of DCAPS will be supported through grants and other Library funds. External services will be funded on a cost-recovery basis. Included in DCAPS will be e-publishing services and the promotion of DPubS software to port it to other institutions. The DCAPS staff will assist faculty in writing successful grant proposals to obtain funding to create new teaching materials. The Digital Consulting and Production Service will contribute toward better use of University investment by helping faculty create and maintain enduring digital collections. The goal is to partner with faculty at the early planning stages of their projects to encourage them to consider life-cycle management issues. This gives the Library an opportunity to implement standards and best practices to ensure the best use of University funds. The implementation of DSpace at Cornell as a digital repository for accessing, managing, and preserving scholarly output and supporting electronic publishing initiatives requires a solid service framework. Services to support the development of the depository will fall into two categories: core services that will require minimal assistance, and premium services to ensure that DSpace offers a full set of resources to enable content development and conversion, a custom depository, and metadata creation. The MAS 2010 initiative is based on forging alliances with campus IT groups, learning and teaching support centers, and scholarly publication communities. Although the Library has a strong culture of collaboration, recent changes in scholarship, such as the emergence of interdisciplinary studies and multidisciplinary projects, more than ever require service providers to work together and complement each other with different strengths and experience. Shrinking budgets and rising performance measures demand a culture of 8 Other institutions, notably the Harvard College Library and the University of Pittsburgh, have successfully navigated the culturally unsettling transition of moving technical services, but this remains a controversial and unconventional strategy. Cornell proposes a more-sweeping relocation of staff, including other functions beyond cataloging and acquisitions. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 15 cooperation and sharing rather than competition and redundancies. The Library will engage in structured collaboration with Cornell Information Technologies and other service providers to provide integrated services. Foundations for these efforts have been laid through systematic planning.9 One of the key partners behind development and implementation of the digital content development and management services is Cornell University Press. The Library-Press alliance will be significant in promoting digital scholarly publishing on campus. One of the goals is to assist the Cornell community not only in creating new collections, but also in amalgamating existing ones to form new, rich collections.10 During the development of this component the Library will closely track other key initiatives, such as the University of Michigan’s Digital Library Production Unit, the Colorado Digitization Program, and the new, evolving Ithaka11 initiative. As described in the marketing section, the Library will develop and implement a strategy to increase the awareness of the Cornell community of its digital asset management services. EXPECTED OUTCOMES • Ability to identify digital projects early and establish a framework for guiding faculty and college projects when appropriate, from one-off, idiosyncratic initiatives to universal resources created according to best practices, thereby increasing the potential for open access to academic resources and their persistence for the future. • Efficiencies and synergies created by establishing closer partnerships among campus organizations that support academic activities, including seamless service to Cornell community and potential integration or sharing of IT space or services. 3. Create a Shared Print Repository and Document Delivery Service to Benefit Multiple Participating Institutions As an integral part of the reengineering process, the Library will develop a regional paper depository to house seldom-used materials from both Cornell and regional institutions. The depository will feature a robust document delivery center to offer efficient delivery. The digitization operation, which will be housed close to the depository, will provide just-in-time access to the materials by delivering a digitized version via the Internet to both campus and the repository partners in the area. The delivery service is a critical element in achieving faculty and graduate student acceptance of a new model of collection organization. It is also a prerequisite for a successful shared print repository. As discussed in Appendix 8, more than half of all respondents to the New York State Market Survey (128 organizations, 50.6%) expressed interest in electronic document delivery. A system of timely physical delivery of all library materials to the requesting institution was also found to be attractive, in which 94 organizations (37.2%) showed interest. Fifty-three institutions indicated need for a shared storage facility. The Library will follow up with those institutions that expressed interest and further investigate the 9 Currently, there are two related initiatives with leadership from the Library and the Cornell Information Technologies. The Unified Service Working Group initiative aims to develop a service framework to provide the Cornell community with systematic assistance in identifying relevant resources and services in support of distributed learning projects. The Digital Synergy Working Group seeks to establish a common view of the digital landscape at Cornell to create a framework for economical and robust delivery of digital services to the Cornell community. 10 For example, CUL and the Press are now collaborating in creating a collection of twenty-five Press books on race and religion enhanced with complementing special collections from the Library’s holdings. 11 Kevin Guthrie is leading this new not-for-profit enterprise. Its goals include “incubating new projects and enterprises; supporting a family of affiliated organizations by sharing resources, experiences and strategies (JSTOR and ARTStor will be the first affiliates); and conducting comprehensive research on the impact of technologies on the scholarly community.” From the March 2003 issue of JSTORNEWS CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 16 cooperative (storage for whatever materials the partners choose to store) vs. collaborative (keep only one copy that will be owned by all partners regardless of original ownership) model of storage. The University is currently conducting a site plan feasibility study of the area adjacent to the Library’s current storage facility. With approval to build estimated to come by February 2004, the Library anticipates opening the new facility by the end of 2004. This sets the stage for active solicitation of the participation of other libraries in an integrated storage facility. The shared facility is planned to begin operation by 2006. EXPECTED OUTCOMES • Aggregated collections will be less expensive to manage and house, whether they are held in browsable shelving or in high-density storage. • The document delivery service will appeal to busy scholars and compensate for the loss of the convenience of physical adjacency. 4. Assist Other Cultural Institutions in Resolving the Space and Service Conundrum by Marketing the Library’s Services and Disseminating the Findings of the MAS 2010 Project As described in the DCAPS Interim Report, the Library’s digital production and consulting services have already been extended to regional cultural institutions as a fee-based operation (for example, New York Archives and the Rochester Public Library). The decision to expand services is supported by the findings of the market survey, which identified a significant interest in consulting, production, and training programs in both traditional and digital services. The first phase of the expansion for external clientele will focus on a consultancy and training program, which will be promoted and delivered through collaboration with Nylink and other library networks. The Library will use this strategy as a promotion tool and as an opportunity to better understand the needs of organizations. Although digital preservation and archiving are among the top issues of interest to the Library, these services will not be included as external services during the first phase of the project. The Library will focus on its clientele and collections and first develop a robust system for the Cornell community. CUL will continue to participate in local and national digital preservation efforts and follow the developments closely for collaboration and learning opportunities. The second phase will focus on production services including digitization, metadata, e-publishing, preservation and conservation, and copyright. The unique aspect of the service for external clients will be the integrated packaging of services based on needs assessment, rather than à la carte marketing of individual tasks in a disconnected fashion. The Library believes that this service approach will foster life-cycle development activities for digital content by addressing the interconnected issues at the onset of projects. In early 2004 the Library will administer the second part of the New York State market survey by contacting the institutions that expressed interest in the envisioned services. This additional data will help to develop more-detailed projections of revenue and expense budgets and test different pricing models to determine what is affordable to cultural institutions. The Library will also disseminate the findings of the MAS 2010 project to assist other libraries in resolving the space and service conundrum. EXPECTED OUTCOMES • Opportunity to allocate the costs of infrastructure across a wider base. • Economies of scale associated with implementing the software tools, systems, work flows, and best practices developed for in-house use in external institutions’ initiatives. • Positioning the Library as an influential force in promoting best practices and standards for overall success. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 17 4. Marketing Plan The Cornell Community CUL staff resources will be allocated to prepare promotional materials and to identify and follow up on leads within the University. The Library will work with professional groups (such as Cornell’s Communication and Marketing Services) in developing and implementing a marketing plan for both internal and external clients. It will also implement a “pull technique” through its consultancy program and continue to work closely with other campus IT providers to promote services and assess the opportunities. For internal prospects, CUL staff will carry out the promotional campaign. External Customers The MAS 2010 Project Team recommended that CUL hire an agent to develop promotional materials, suggest direct marketing tools (for example, mail, phone, e-mail), develop materials for sales promotion, and prepare a public relations program. This strategy was strongly supported by external consultants as well as by the Library staff involved. The target audience for the promotional campaign will include the institutions identified in the market survey and by CUL’s marketing agent. The information gathered through the New York State Market Survey will be the basis for developing a plan for communications, calls, and visits to promising customers in the region. The Library will consider contracting with Nylink as the exclusive distribution channel on behalf of CUL. The advantages associated with this strategy include Nylink’s resources and expertise to carry out direct marketing, its valuable contacts with the cultural heritage institutions, and its extensive marketing experience. The functions of the marketing agent will include dissemination of persuasive communications about CUL services, identification and cultivation of leads, assistance with negotiation on terms, receipt and transfer of orders to CUL, and handling and transfer of payments to CUL. The Library budgeted $48,275 for FY 2004/05 to support the internal and external marketing campaign. 5. Cost Analysis The primary purpose of the financial projections was to develop a thorough understanding of the cost elements and expenses of offering internal and external services. The Library will implement a hybrid approach—some components of the internal projects will be subsidized because they are seen as a core component of the Library’s operations (for example, system development and maintenance). Back issues of a journal in an e-publishing project, for instance, may be scanned by the Library’s digitization team on a cost-recovery basis or can be sent out to a service provider if this option is more cost-effective. The financial analysis is based on the findings described in the Research Findings section. For example, the demand estimates presented in Table 2 are derived from the New York State Market Survey. The hoursspent-per-request estimate is based on the experience of the CUL consultant teams. The preliminary projections indicate that it is feasible to offer selected asset management services on a cost-recovery basis. Detailed spreadsheets, which formed the foundation for Projected Expenses and Revenues, can be found in Appendix 12. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 18 Table 2. Demand Estimates for Services Number of Requests CONSULTING Hours/Request 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Cornell External Cornell External Cornell External Metadata 12 hours/request 12 6 18 9 24 15 IT System 10 hours/request 7 5 11 8 15 12 Digitization 20 hours/request 12 6 18 10 24 15 Archiving 20 hours/request 4 7 5 9 6 14 Pres/Cons 15 hours/request NA 6 NA 8 NA 10 Copyright 2 hours/request 5 4 7 6 12 8 ePublishing 10 hours/request 5 3 7 6 15 10 Total 45 37 66 56 96 84 PRODUCTION Hours/Request 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Cornell External Cornell External Cornell External Metadata 25 hours/request 12 6 18 9 20 12 IT system 40 hours/request 7 5 12 7 15 10 Digitization images 111,500 25,000 134,800 36,800 142,000 45,000 Archiving -- NA NA TBD TBD TBD TBD Pres/Cons 40 hours/request NA 4 NA 6 NA 8 Copyright 10 hours/request 6 4 8 6 10 8 Doc delivery materials TBD 100,000 TBD 200,000 TBD 350,000 ePublishing 40 hours/request 6 5 8 7 10 10 Repository materials NA NA TBD 2,000 TBD 4,000 Total 31 24 46 35 55 48 TRAINING Hours/Request 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Number of sessions 10 15 20 2-day workshop fee $375 $400 $425 Number of participants/workshop 20 20 20 Staff time/workshop 100 100 100 (2 instructors/workshop) Key Assumptions • The financial projections are grouped into three categories. Consulting includes needs assessment; project or proposal evaluation; recommendations for database and system standards, models, and structures; suggestions for software, hardware, various information standards, etc.; and advice for planning or implementation stages of system development projects. Production is actual production and delivery of products, such as digitized images, conservation treatment of books, metadata created, etc. Training will occur via workshops conducted at Cornell or taken to other institutions. • The image demand figure only reflects images digitized in-house – especially for special collections and rare materials. The Library also plans to work with digitization service providers as needed to take advantage of the low costs offered through outsourcing arrangements. Also not included in this estimate is the digital production that will take place to support the repository and document delivery operations. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 19 • For FY 2004-05 the hourly service fees fluctuate in the range of $45 to $108. Although hourly rates specific to service areas were used for cost analysis, the plan is to price projects rather than the individual tasks. Table 3 includes the projected expenses and revenues. The cost analysis framework is presented in Table 5 to indicate the cost elements for each service area. • As summarized in Table 4, the training programs are estimated to be cost-intensive. During FY 2004/05 the costs associated with developing and delivering ten, two-day sessions for twenty-five participants per workshop is estimated to be $139,651. If the workshops were priced at $350 per person, which is the going rate suggested by the market analysis, the potential revenue of $87,500 would not be sufficient to recover costs, incurring a deficit of $52,151. Cornell University Library has a successful track record in securing external funding for subsidizing workshops, which should enable workshops to be offered at a competitive price. This issue will be closely examined as the Library gains more experience about the training, internship, and consulting needs of the cultural heritage institutions. • The financial analysis does not include the cost of building a new library center to accommodate selected library services. That expense line is seen as capital investment. Also not incorporated in the budget is the Library’s FY 2002/03 investment in its digital imaging lab (equipment, software and hardware, training, development of best practices). Table 3. MAS 2010 Service Center Budget Projections Projected Expenses and Revenues Summary FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Consulting Services $106,694 $106,694 $163,502 $163,502 $248,470 $248,470 Training Workshops $139,651 $87,500 $215,517 $135,188 $295,651 $185,658 Production Services Metadata $25,094 $25,094 $38,770 $38,770 $47,328 $47,328 IT $52,046 $52,046 $84,878 $84,878 $115,032 $115,032 Digitization $360,139 $371,500 $445,402 $472,400 $480,093 $526,000 Archiving TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Preservation & Conservation $12,392 $12,392 $19,145 $19,145 $26,293 $26,293 Copyright $6,196 $6,196 $8,935 $8,935 $11,832 $11,832 e-Publishing $47,709 $47,709 $67,009 $67,009 $92,026 $92,026 Regional Depository $0 $0 $32,580 $35,838 $65,850 $72,436 Document Delivery $0 $0 $28,555 $30,000 $58,822 $60,000 Totals $610,269 $621,630 $888,775 $920,477 $1,145,745 $1,199,416 Table 4. Training Program Budget Projected Expenses and Revenues Summary Training Workshops FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues $139,651 $87,500 $215,517 $135,188 $295,651 $185,658 CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 20 Table 5. Expense Categories and Total Expense Projection for FY 2004/05 Direct Expenses Staff Salaries (high level staff) FTE Average salary Fringe Benefits Staff Support Overhead Student/Temporary Wages Network Costs: Operations Backup Repair & Maintenance Travel (billed separately) Training Miscellaneous/Other12 General-Supplies, S/W, H/W, etc Marketing & Advertising Total Direct Expenses Indirect Expenses Equipment Depreciation Acquisition Cost (> $5,000) Depreciation (based on life/years) Service Center Administration/Mgt Library Administration Building Depreciation General O&M, utilities, etc Interest on Debt Total Indirect Expenses Total Expenses FY 04/05 7.01 48,048 $336,900 31% $104,439 5% $22,067 $43,104 $2,000 $1,000 $2,000 0 $1,000 $19,000 5% $29,422 10% $56,093 $617,025 140,000 15% 2% 3% 18% 1% $28,000 $92,554 $12,341 0 0 0 $132,894 $749,919 12 Miscellaneous expenses are in addition to general staff supplies included in support overhead and vary depending on the service area. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 21 6. Risk Assessment and Contingency Planning The Library recognizes that MAS 2010 is an ambitious undertaking with potential risks. An important component of the study has been exploring and extrapolating on impediments to introducing a new service model, including the drastic move of relocating staff and functions to a new library center. Change is never easy. Recognizing the inevitable inclination of staff (and faculty) to be apprehensive about reengineering, the Library plans to develop a careful strategy to involve them in the planning and implementation process. It is important, however, not to underestimate their capacity to adopt and embrace change, especially when the motivations for change are closely aligned with the organization’s mission. The Library’s role and future must be examined within the larger context of the University, for the Library is one of the essential components of this diverse and evolving environment. As libraries are having more experience in entrepreneurial ventures, they are developing more business acumen. To develop a crisp and clearly formulated business model, the Library will continue to work closely with Cornell faculty with business planning expertise in planning and implementing the new service center. Another important strategy for managing risk would be to provide business and financial training to Library managers or to hire business managers to take charge of entrepreneurial elements of plan. The goal is to combine the Library culture with a “business” one and to apply solid business principles to our academic, not-for-profit construct. Developing guidelines for governance is critical in designing and offering external services. Some cultural institutions are reluctant to outsource their services, as they want to ensure quality and a level of control over the products. This concern needs to be taken very seriously. Some institutions will prefer training and consultancy—teaching them how to fish, rather than fishing for them. It will be important to acknowledge and understand the role of library consortia and use these as effective channels in needs assessment and marketing. Another challenge for the Library will be to understand the operational differences among different types of cultural institutions—such as archives, college libraries, museums, public libraries, and historical societies. It will be important to customize services to meet different needs and priorities. 7. Cornell’s Ability to Realize Its Vision Cornell University Library is well positioned to implement the MAS 2010 initiative. It has a strong culture of entrepreneurship, and the staff are skilled in investigating and implementing new service models. For example, the Library was among the first to establish metadata services and offer training in digital preservation. It has undertaken extensive digitization projects and has been a leader in this area since the early nineties. CUL was among the first major academic libraries to have electronic reserves and digital reference services (chat reference) in full production in all units. The conceptualization and implementation of the Digital Consulting and Production Services unit has equipped the Library with firsthand experience in running a cost-recovery service unit. The Library is known for its creative and resourceful leadership and its significant collections. The feedback gathered from the Cornell community about the Library’s services and collections has been consistently praising and complimentary. CUL is in a position to offer new services to other cultural institutions because it is already providing them to the University and understands other institutions’ needs. It has a base established from which it can leverage what it does for Cornell to provide services for others. Strategic partnerships with other units in the University—such as Cornell Information Technologies and the Center for Learning and Teaching—enhance the Library’s ability by bringing in experts from other critical areas. CUL has a diverse staff, representing strengths in librarianship, information technologies, accounting, market survey, PR, and business management. It will also draw on the abundant supply of expertise and resources available in the Cornell community that support initiatives with entrepreneurial spirit. CUL MAS 2010 Report, November 2003, Section III, Page 22 MAS 2010: Models for Academic Support Final Report to the Mellon Foundation PART II: APPENDICES November 24, 2003 http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS Cornell University Library MAS 2010: Models for Academic Support Part II: Appendices Table of Contents 1. Cornell University Library 2. Project Team and Schedule 3. Consultant Team Charge and Summary Recommendations 4. January 14, 2003 Retreat with External Advisor 5. Mary-Alice Lynch Visit Synopsis 6. Digital Consulting and Production Services Interim Report 7. Market Survey Questionnaire and Cover Letter 8. Findings of the New York State Market Survey 9. Council of Librarians MAS 2010 Future Conference 10. Editors’ Forum Program 11. Digital Depository and Asset Management Survey 12. Service Center Budget Projections Appendix 1: Cornell University Library Cornell University Library: Gateway to ‘the World of Discovery and Imagination’ Andrew Dickson White, Cornell's first president, made the creation of a comprehensive reference library a high priority. Before the university opened, he traveled through Europe acquiring materials for the library, including an outstanding set of 15th- to 17th-century European books and manuscripts on witchcraft and an extensive collection of materials on the French Revolution. The library opened in the fall of 1868 with some 18,000 volumes, soon augmented by the donations of White's personal library and that of Willard Fiske, Cornell’s first university librarian. Today Cornell University Library – one of the 10 largest academic research libraries in North America– is truly a library for the 21st century. Within its 19 unit libraries are holdings of more than 7.5 million volumes, nearly 8 million microforms, 11,500 computer files and some 100,000 sound recordings. The library subscribes to over 65,000 journals and serial publications, and provides access to more than 40,000 networked databases and other electronic resources. On average, more than 125,000 volumes are added to the library’s collections each year. The library logs over 4 million physical visits a year, with more than 1 million volumes a year circulating. Cornell Library has adopted the latest tools and technologies to make its growing collections more readily accessible to users across campus and around the world. Through the Library Gateway (www.library.cornell.edu), users may search the library catalog, a wide range of databases, and some 20,000 online scholarly journals licensed for use by the Cornell community. The library has been a pioneer in digitizing and making available on the Web materials that would otherwise be available only to a few scholars. Examples range from collections of historical texts and photographs to multimedia images of three-dimensional objects. As a result of one of those projects, it is now possible to browse online a collection of more than 10,000 pamphlets, posters, newspaper articles, and manuscript materials that document the anti-slavery movement in the U. S. (www.library.cornell.edu/mayantislavery). In the past five years the National Endowment for the Humanities has awarded the library more than $550,000 to preserve such collections and increase their accessibility. In addition to making these materials more widely available, digitization preserves fragile items by reducing the need for students and researchers to handle the original source materials. The library has also pioneered in research to develop procedures to ensure that digital resources are preserved as media deteriorate and storage formats change. Among the many digital collections available online through the Library CUL, Page 1 Gateway are "Beautiful Birds," tracing the development of ornithological illustration in the 18th and 19th centuries; "The Fantastic in Art and Fiction," with graphic material from the Cornell witchcraft collections; "SagaNet," with full texts and images of handwritten and printed Icelandic saga literature and epics; "The Making of America," a digital library of important materials on the history of the United States, with full-text access to more than 900,000 pages of material from 19th-century serial publications; "Death of the Father," a multimedia site with text, digital images, audio and film clips from totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, and Yugoslavia; and numerous collections in agriculture, law, home economics, and the physical and social sciences. In addition, all gallery exhibitions from the library’s Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections are now accompanied by an online version, allowing visitors from across the globe to view Cornell’s treasures. "Although our use of digital resources and technology continues to skyrocket, libraries and their users remain grounded in the print world,” says Sarah E. Thomas, Cornell’s Carl A. Kroch University Librarian. “Working with Cornell’s superb collections is a delicious privilege because we are able to savor a great variety of materials which lead us, and those we serve, into the world of discovery and imagination." Cornell Library’s notable print collections include: the Witchcraft Collection, containing over 3,000 titles documenting the history of the Inquisition and the persecution of witchcraft; the History of Science Collections, with more than 35,000 volumes on the historical development of the physical and biological sciences, technology, and nonclinical medicine from the Renaissance through the 19th century; and the largest compilation of materials on the French Revolution held outside of Paris. Cornell also has one of North America’s largest and best-integrated library collections on Asia, with more than a million printed volumes. Among the library’s outstanding literary collections are: the E. B. White Collection of approximately 36,000 items; the Bernard F. Burgunder Collection with approximately 3,000 books and several thousand manuscripts and letters by or about George Bernard Shaw; and one of the world’s richest collections on the early writing career of James Joyce, including working drafts and typescripts of Ulysses and many of his other early manuscripts, correspondence, and other documents. For more information about Cornell University Library and its collections and services, visit . CUL, Page 2 Appendix 2: Project Team and Schedule MAS 2010 Project Team PI: Sarah Thomas, University Librarian Project Management Group: Oya Rieger (Coordinator) Karen Calhoun Susan Currie John Hoffmann Ed Weissman Linda Westlake Project Support: Marty Crowe Fiona Patrick Service Components Regional Paper Depository & Collection Development Regional Digital Depository MAS Liaison Ed CUL Consultants Team Ross Atkinson, Chair Janet McCue, John Hoffman, Pat Schafer, Elaine Engst, Yoram Szekely, John Saylor Oya Nancy McGovern, Chair Marcy Rosenkrantz, Bill Kehoe, Kizer Walker Document Delivery (Print & Electronic) Digitization Metadata Susan Oya Karen Howard Raskin, Chair Carmen Blankinship, Julie Copenhagen, Rick Lightbody Joy Paulson & Barbara Berger Eden, Chair Marty Kurth, Chair Jill Powell, Elaine Westbrooks, Bill Kehoe Cataloging & Acquisitions Karen Jim LeBlanc, Chair Bill Kara, Jean Pajerek, Boodie McGinnis, Scott Wicks, Don Schnedeker Preservation and Conservation Electronic Publishing Copyright Ed Karen Oya Conference Center Susan John Dean, Chair Barbara Berger Eden, Joy Paulson Tom Hickerson, Chair Kizer Walker, Ross Atkinson, Zsuzsa Koltay, Marcy Rosenkrantz, David Ruddy Fiona Patrick, Chair Peter Hirtle, Oya Rieger, Tracy Mitrano, Pat McClary Anne Kenney, Chair Lance Heidig, David Banush, Linda Bryan, Jim Morris-Knower, Mihoko Hosoi Project Schedule Nov 2002-Oct 2003 Refine research questions Gather information Convene CUL consultant teams Retreat with external colleagues Consulting with Mary Alice Lynch CUL consultant team reports due Analyze consultant team reports Establish operational priorities Develop scenarios based on priorities Investigate collaboration opportunities Establish a prototype (D-CAPS) Peer institution service review (Web) Peer institution service review (phone) Design market survey Define survey population Pretest market survey instrument Program Web survey Prepare cover letter from Sarah Design staff and CU survey Conduct market survey Conduct staff and CU survey Mid-point project assessment Analyze survey findings Outline a marketing plan Risks analysis Define services that will be offered DCAPS assessment Resource requirements analysis Outcomes assessment Write a business plan Report findings to Mellon No De Jan Fe Ma Apr Ma Jun Jul Au Se Oct Appendix 3: MAS 2010 CUL Consultant Teams Summary Recommendations Full Text Report Available at: www.library.cornell.edu/MAS MAS 2010 Consultant Teams Charge The MAS 2010 consultant teams are charged to explore the feasibility of their specific service area (e.g., metadata, scholarly publishing, etc.) as a potential component of an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center located away from central campus by: • Defining the service area and its new role • Answering (and expanding) the attached research questions by focusing on your service component • Identifying other issues related to this functional area that the MAS project team should investigate • Talking with CUL colleagues, calling external colleagues, and conducting literature/web searches Please see the MAS 2010 Website for more information about the project: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS The end product of your feasibility study is a report and recommendations for your MAS liaison. Your report should contain: • A definition of your service area • Your answers to the research questions • Any problems or issues you have discovered in the course of your investigation • Any suggestions for further study (including as appropriate the research methods that should be employed) • Your recommendations regarding the feasibility, advisability, key benefits and drawbacks of including this specific service area as a component of the new service center. In completing your work, feel free to call on anyone in CUL for advice. Your report and recommendations will be reviewed by the MAS core project team and by Sarah Thomas. You will be responsible for revisions up to the point of acceptance and approval of a final version of your report. The approved version will serve as essential input for the preparation of a business plan for the new service center. Time Frame Duration: Five weeks Start Date: December 16, 2002 (Library closed Dec. 25-Jan. 1) End Date: February 7, 2003 Tasks: Hold initial organizational meeting Gather and analyze information Draft report Review/revise first draft Submit report and recommendations When: By end week 1 Weeks 2-4 By beginning week 5 By end week 5 By end week 5 Feedback The chair of the consultants team should provide weekly updates in the form of meeting notes or brief status reports to the team’s MAS liaison. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 1 Budget The consultants team has no separate budget but if additional resources are needed, the chair should define and submit requests to the MAS liaison for consideration. CUL Consultant Teams Please see the Project Team document on the project website (under Project Information). Research Questions M - Core questions for the consultant team to explore. Core Questions M What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? M What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? M What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Organizational M What is the rationale behind creating this service component? M What are the expected outcomes and benefits? M How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? M How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? M What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? M What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? M Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? O - Optional questions that would be great for the consultant team to discuss but cannot be fully addressed due to their complex natures and data gathering needs. In its report, the consultant team is asked to include recommendations for survey needs, approaches, and specific questions that you can think of. These recommendations will guide the MAS core project team in preparing a formal survey to be conducted later in 2003. Economic O What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? O What would the operating costs be for each function? Market Analysis O What are the needs of our potential clients? O What is the size of the potential market (potential clients for individual services)? O What are the barriers to use of this service? How might they be overcome? O Which market should we be targeting? O What marketing strategy should be used? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 2 O What unique advantages might a university library bring to this service over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? O Who will be our competitors? What are the collaboration opportunities? O What will be our pricing policy (cost-recovery, market value, competitive pricing, etc.)? Report Format We suggest that you use the following format in writing your final report: Introduction Introduce your group and describe the service area you have examined. Executive Summary A short synopsis of your findings and recommendations: The feasibility, advisability, key benefits and drawbacks of including this specific service area as a component of the new service center. Methodology Describe how you conducted your investigation (e.g., discussion sessions, calling colleagues, literature review, etc.). Also highlight any problems or issues you have discovered in the course of your investigation Research Questions Take your best shot at answering the research questions. Recommendations In this final section, include your suggestions for further study (including as appropriate the research methods that should be employed). MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 3 Consultant Team Summary Recommendations COPYRIGHT Definition of the Service Area • Offer a suite of services, including securing copyright permission, education and awareness, information clearinghouse for CUL, offer consultancy, process copyright issues related to DCAPS projects, manage IPR over digital collections created by CUL Feasibility of Moving to Annex • Yes Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services • Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele • Not yet except DCAPS-related ones Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • New operation - need more experience Advantages Identified by the Group • One-stop-shopping for information, consultancy, and clearance • Maintain a rights management database for efficient processing of publisher and contact information (potential contributions to cost-effective database Disadvantages & Risks • New service – not ready for scaling yet • Cost-recovery is challenging • Legal liability • Difficulty in handling IPR of 3rd party digital assets • Competitive edge of commercial clearance services Synergy Creation Opportunities • Already based on a CU-wide coordinated model Potential Clients • Campus-wide and is likely to grow, especially depending on new copyright policies and interpretation Resource Requirements • Minimal resources requirements (other than copyright interpretation that may require counsel’s advice) Recommendations • Test external market • Locate close to DCAPS MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 4 DIGITIZATION Definition of the Service Area Consultation and referrals Production facility for CUL Scanning for CU Bulk scanning for non-CU market Education and training Digital audio and video services Feasibility of Moving to Annex • Yes Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services • Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele • Yes Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • Is there a market for our services? What kind of digitization projects? • Is there funding available? • Why would they buy it from CUL? What is the advantage we’ll be offering to them? • Do they have plans for digitization? Advantages Identified by the Group • Expertise in imaging • Our commitment for long-term care Disadvantages & Risks • Copyright – inability to obtain permission • Initial start-up costs high • Annex -communication with faculty, selectors, and curators may be a problem (provide central campus consultants) • Challenges with transporting special collections and fragile materials • Isolation of Ithaca as a service center Synergy Creation Opportunities • Lab of Ornithology • Multimedia Design Group • Johnson Museum of Art • Across campus CU staff interest for services Potential Clients • Broad internal and external market Resource Requirements • State of the art studio may be costly to develop –$200K-400K • 5FTE Recommendations • Merge with metadata, copyright, and digital depository services • Need to offer competitive pricing – DCAPS price model is not competitive MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 5 • If we offer services to external clients, what kind of work do we want to undertake? Do we want to become a scanning vendor? • External client services need to be cost recovery plus • Add digitized materials to national digital registries Competition • OCLC-Preservation Services • Partnerships with scanning vendors – they can do the lower-end scanning more efficiently, we can focus on handling special collections materials MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 6 REGIONAL DIGITAL DEPOSITORY Definition of the Service Area • The term 'regional' may be irrelevant for the digital depository as for other digital services • The scope of collections may be determined by the archive or by the depositor; it might subject-based or domain- oriented • Potential components: o Digital archive (Options: development partners, “build first, then launch,” collaborative digital depository, in-house vendor) o Consulting services o Training o Supportive services o Tools to support depository functions Feasibility of Moving to Annex Virtual team not a great space demand or saving associated with placing this service at the new service center. A strong need for synergy through co-location between staff working on this and related initiatives. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible, but some components more risky/valuable than others. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • Who are potential external clients? • Which services will be valuable for them? • How much would they pay? • What are their priorities for digital preservation? • What are their biggest concerns in investing in a digital archive? Advantages Identified by the Group • Developing this service point may support our own development plans • We have extensive expertise, some core modules to build upon, and a good conceptual framework • Cost-recovery opportunity by opening the service to external clients • Strengthen CUL by establishing it as a community hub for digital archive Disadvantages & Risks • Diverting our energies from building up the institutional digital archive program • May benefit Common Depository System, but creating this service point should not delay our own core mission work • Lack of cost models for digital preservation - how do we price our services? • Remote location may have negative impact on collaborative digital depository development efforts • Two types of quality concerns: Physical integrity of collections & Intellectual integrity • Securing the start-up costs Synergy Creation Opportunities Digitization, metadata, and electronic publishing services Potential Clients Market not known Resource Requirements Servers, data storage ~ 5 terabytes, software, etc. Four dedicated staff MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 7 Recommendations • Training to determine readiness of clientele may be the logical first step; offer workshops to assess the needs (Digital Preservation Management workshop) • Market analysis would be needed to scope and develop the components of this service area • Possibly better to add components in this service area to a second round of service offerings • “Build first, then launch” option for the digital archive component involves lowest risk to CUL mission; however, another option may lead to a faster and better development track for the digital archive • Limiting the client base to a restricted geographic area (or on subject-based depositories) may avoid competition with OCLC digital archive; subject-based or domain-based depositories would be the exception • Needs to be informed by OAIS & RLG-OCLC Attributes of Trusted Digital Repository MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 8 PRESERVATION & CONSERVATION Definition of the Service Area 1) Conservation services: not defined 2) Preservation services: not defined Feasibility of Moving to Annex No definitive statement 1) Advantages: • potential for state-of-the-art facility with more space, staff and equipment • increased parking making visiting the facility easier • reducing duplicative efforts within CUL and CU • increased revenue to expand service (?) • redirecting grant funds for other institutions • increased cooperation among library units 2) Disadvantages: • need to transport 90% of conservation work from Kroch increasing risk to materials • communication problems with curators and collection managers • lack of patron and donor contact • "end" to informal educational opportunities such as CAU courses because of distance from central campus • difficulty in recruiting student employees because of distance from central campus • more difficult to run education and training programs because of distance from central campus (e.g., exhibition preparation, collection surveys) Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services 1) Yes, for preservation operations that lend themselves to cooperative work (e.g., microfilming project management, education and training, commercial binding, preparation (stiffening), digital scanning 2) Conservation activities are already centralized for CUL Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible, but market analysis needed: a) Inside Cornell University: Conservation treatment work for Johnson Museum, Ornithology department, Hortorium, Textiles department, other academic departments b) Outside Cornell University: Consultancy services, staff training, microfilming project management, conservation treatment of rare and semi-rare materials, specialized conservation (e.g., photographs, audio recordings, video), collection surveying, grant-writing Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group “Stringent” market analysis to get answers to following questions: • What funds do you have available on an annual basis for conservation treatment? • Do you wish to seek grant funding for conservation and prerservation? • If Cornell University were to offer skilled conservation treatment on a cost-recovery basis, would you consider having Cornell perform work on your collection? • If Cornell University were to offer help in preparing grant funding awards for preservation and conservation, would you be interested in using this service? • Do you have endowments dedicated to preservation? • If you could be helped with project management, would you be interested in applying for reformatting grants? • Have you ever considered making a contractual arrangement with anyone to perform work on your collection? • What range of services have you considered having someone perform for your library? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 9 Advantages Identified by the Group In addition to advantages under Feasibility of Moving to Annex a) space freed up on central campus b) grant funding available in New York State for preservation Disadvantages & Risks In addition to disadvantages listed under Feasibility of Moving to Annex • tensions between local and external needs • more time spent on accounting • few institutions have funding for conservation although grant funding is available for preservation Synergy Creation Opportunities Reducing duplicative efforts within CUL and increasing cooperation particularly in the areas of microfilming project management, education and training, commercial binding, preparation (stiffening) and digital scanning Potential Clients • Within CU: Johnson Museum, Ornithology department, Hortorium, Textiles department, and some academic departments (mainly conservation treatment?) • Outside Cornell: Regional libraries, archives, historical societies, museums, cultural institutions. Large potential market. Potential Competitors • Two major regional conservation centers • Several microfilming production services • Little competition for microfilming project management services Resource Requirements • Significantly more space to accommodate new equipment, furnishings and staff • Substantial one time costs for “fittings” (sinks, fume hoods, special fittings) for conservation • Sufficient staff skill to proceed but significant training needed to bring new staff up to standard Recommendations “Stringent” market analysis needed (see Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group) MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 10 REGIONAL PAPER DEPOSITORY Definition of the Service Area Storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental, security, technological and operational conditions for the long-term storage of all types of traditional media. Two possible models: • Cooperative model in which partners store whatever they want • Collaborative model in which only unique items or the best copy of an item are retained and owned by the partners Feasibility of Locating at the Annex Yes • land is relatively inexpensive • convenient to highway • ample parking. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes, the current Annex already does Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Appears promising: a) growing need for regional depositories in New York State and, given the current financial climate, the State is not well positioned to accommodate this need b) evolving national sense that a system of coordinated regional depositories be created c) CUL is well-positioned to provide this service having created an effective local operation d) Plans are being discussed to add a new module to the Annex. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • Do a market analysis to determine the interest in the region for either a collaborative or a cooperative facility and whether funding support would be likely. • Discuss the potential for cooperation with the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services • Do these things as soon as possible or else other “competitors” may step in to meet the growing demands for storage Advantages Identified by the Group • Improved storage and security for materials currently stored under less than ideal conditions • Opportunities for efficiencies • Less need for new construction on central sites at universities and colleges • Could provide storage for Cornell text, graphic or artifactual collections not owned by the Library. • Could serve as a university-wide records center, providing records scheduling and management for university and college offices and departments. • Richer collection of material stored and available locally. Disadvantages & Risks • Perception that resources are being diverted from local constituency to a regional or national agenda. • Collaborative model, in which collections and services are shared, may make Cornell community feel less privileged. • Planning for a regional depository might impede the planning, funding and construction of the next module needed by Cornell • Possibility of not fully recovering costs. • In collaborative model, must make certain that agreements in place if original owning library is no longer willing or able to continue storing materials in the facility. • Collaborative approach could negatively affect Cornell’s rankings in collection size, and various service components, such as circulation and interlibrary loan. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 11 • “Centrally isolated” location. Synergy Creation Opportunities • Could provide storage for Cornell text, graphic or artifactual collections not owned by the Library. • Could serve as a university-wide records center, providing records scheduling and management for university and college offices and departments. Potential Clients • Within CU: university and college offices and departments • Outside Cornell: Regional libraries—Buffalo and Binghamton are know to have severe space pressures • SUNY, which is developing plans for storage facilities, but is having fiscal problems. Potential Competitors SUNY Resource Requirements • Funding for a site-plan study, an architectural feasibility study and an environmental land-use study and for building the facility itself. • Additional staff • Collaborative model requires more staff time and administrative space Recommendations • Do a market analysis to determine the interest in the region for either a collaborative or a cooperative facility and whether funding support would be likely. • Discuss the potential for cooperation with the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services • Do these things as soon as possible or else other “competitors” may step in to meet the growing demands for storage • Factor in the possibility that the Annex could serve as a regional depository in discussions with the University on expanding the present facility. • Take special care not to delay or derail planning to build module 2 which is needed to meet rapidly growing CUL space needs. • In general, select a few areas that show a strong potential for success as enterprise services and invest carefully in those, rather than trying to start-up too many ventures at once MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 12 REMOTE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT Definition of the Service Area • Start-up service: one-time activities such as evaluating existing collections, buolding a core collection, assistance in creating an approval plan profile, recommending serials and blanket orders (?), assistance in writing collection policies, assistance in collection management projects. • On-going service: o duplicated services involving the building of the collection by duplicating materials selected for Cornell within the confines of a profile o unique services: selecting materials that are not acquired for the CUL collections. o In all cases, selection would be done at the selection level desired. Feasibility of Locating at the Annex Basically NO! • If CUL selectors are used, it would be counterproductive to locate this service at the Annex, since selectors typically maintain continuous contact with their user constituencies. • If remote collection building is done exclusively by additional staff it could be based at the Annex, although this would limit any flexibility for using this staff to build local collections. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Not addressed. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Not a strong possibility. Possible opportunities for one-time jobs, such as building core collections, doing evaluations, and, for larger institutions, building specialized collections. Otherwise, collection building is likely to be the last operation an institution will outsource beyond approval plans. CUL is unlikely to be able to provide an effectively competitive service. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Market survey to determine potential demand Advantages Identified by the Group • Provide Cornell with an opportunity to play more of a leadership role nationally. • Provide Cornell with added staffing flexibility and/or expertise otherwise unavailable within CUL. • Allow Cornell selectors to increase their levels of expertise. • Increase CUL’s institutional prestige and visibility in the profession and its standing in the University. • Allow other institutions to build an improved collection without the need to hire locally full-time specialized staff. • Result in better standardized core collections across libraries. Disadvantages & Risks • Possibility of not fully recovering costs and damaging local collections. • Financial risk: must have sufficient flexibility to allow for esxpansion and contraction in response to changes in demand. • Risk to reputation: CUL could be viewed as a “:library corporate raider.” • May result in the creation of more homogeneous collections across libraries. • We lack subject and bibliographic skills in some subject areas, including areas that may be of specific interest to smaller institutions (e.g., nursing education.) Synergy Creation Opportunities • Could contract to build other collections on campus, e.g., the Alternatives Library. • Remote collection development necessarily entails some processing services (i.e., at least ordering and claiming— but also possibly receiving and cataloging.) MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 13 Potential Clients • Other libraries, not necessarily regionally based. Potential Competitors • Approval plan vendors Resource Requirements • Additional staff time required for selection, searching, processing, travel • Additional processing costs (i.e., ordering and claiming). • Additional travel costs • Training in business and consulting skills Recommendations • Defer action on this until further information on potential demand becomes available. • Charge CDEXec to monitor developments and to create a tentative plan, including methods for a market survey, so that CUL could move quickly to take advantage of opportunities that arise. • Encourage collection development to take a leadership role in the area of cooperation, aspects of which may eventually evolve into the kind of entrepreneurial program we are considering. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 14 DOCUMENT DELIVERY Definition of the Service Area A delivery system that supplies books, book chapters or journal articles to users. Bound volumes would be delivered to participating libraries’ for pick up by their patrons, and articles or book chapters would be shipped either as photocopies or digitized documents to end users. Feasibility of Moving to Annex Yes, would be a logical extension of current Library Annex document delivery services Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Service already exists Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Yes Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group A detailed cost analysis needs to be performed. What exactly do we mean by cost recovery? What are our start up costs? A specifications report needs to be written for the document delivery system. Database management software needs to evaluated. Information gathering From IT staff at other universities with document delivery services. From managers of other regional depositories Advantages Identified by the Group Space would be freed up on the central campus. There is already a core group of staff with needed expertise at the Annex. There is plenty of free, convenient parking. Disadvantages Electrical service to the Palm Road areas has historically been less reliable than to the central campus. Has this or is this going to change? Is this risk acceptable within the larger scope of operations proposed? Risks Increased staffing would be needed for additional responsibilities. An automated request and delivery system would be necessary, possibly an ILLiad-type system. Any system implemented must be scalable for use within the regional depository environment. Contractual arrangement with the vendor would be complex and precedent setting. User authentication issues need to be resolved. Adequate IT support structure needs to be in place. More complex shipping and receiving operations would be needed than currently exist at the Annex. Synergy Creation Opportunities Expanding the scope of operations by taking on a regional depository role would probably not, in the smaller view, benefit Cornell services and patrons. But in the larger view, the theoretical benefits would include additional revenue streams and the more robust infrastructures and better services that could be justified and subsidized by those streams. Potential Clients Not identified in report Resource Requirements Space: Although there is existing workspace now, expanded services for additional institutions would require more space for processing and extra staff. Additional space for packaging supplies will be necessary. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 15 Equipment: More desktop computers and scanners, perhaps more forklifts, shipping equipment. Special technologies: An automated request system, document delivery software, a more state-of-the-art inventory control system, and shipping tracking system would all be needed to handle the increase in requests. Networking: More phone lines and internet connections would be necessary. Furnishings: An increase in the number of staff would require additional furniture. More worktables would be needed to accommodate expanded document delivery and packaging for shipment. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 16 CONFERENCE CENTER Definition of the Service Area The Consultant Team believes there may be a market niche for a high-tech training facility that can accommodate up to 200 people and that provides for a flexible use of space Feasibility of Moving to Annex Yes Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Yes Additional Data Needs Marketing and cost analysis. What are our start up costs? A more thorough assessment of CUL’s projected need for center Advantages • Library space for Academic Assembly, Library show case, holiday parties, and other large staff gatherings currently does not exist within CUL (other library building projects have eliminated conference space due to budgetary constraints) • 1993-95 General Environmental Impact Statement for this part of campus mentioned a conference center as a possible need • As a critical mass of CUL staff move to the Annex Library, provides needed meeting space; could also provide “hoteling” space for central campus librarians going out for meetings Easier to access from outside Cornell (SCRLC will not longer meet on central campus because of the parking problem) • Parking • Possible revenue generation • Build from the ground up • Relieve congestion on campus at critical times, e.g., alumni weekend • Facility for use that will grow as center of campus shifts • Combine book delivery with bus service • Not-for-profit conference space –fills needed niche? • Can support north campus needs • Use to market other services (e.g., bringing in people to discuss outsourcing library functions) • Availability of land • Proximity to East Hill Plaza and projected academic growth (life sciences) of campus • Support/interest expressed by Director of Facilities Planning (Mina Amundsen) and Director of Transportation (Bil lWendt) • Could double as reader space • Possible use for large group instruction for students Disadvantages • Requires frequent bus service from central campus • Requires town/gown collaboration • Possible complications with zoning (new roads) • No experience in enterprise management • For it to thrive, half of the business must be non-library; could represent a diversion of MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 17 • library resources • Potential competition for land use by other CU units • Perceived as out of the way • Requires additional support not included in typical library functions, e.g., kitchen • facilities, increased custodial, facilities, conference planning, coordination, and • maintenance staff • Booking requirements • Coordinating arrangements with local hotels Risks • Creating a facility that gets underutilized • On-going expense of maintaining a state-of-the-art facility • Supporting the facility predominantly through non-library functions • Model of new enterprise activities for librarians • Represents library leadership • Outsourcing the management/marketing • The tail wagging the dog; having to generate business to “afford” the facility Synergy Creation Opportunities The group identified potential partners for collaborative effort, but it remains to be seen whether the library could not support this on its own. This should be explored during the marketing phase. Potential collaborators include: • Life Safety, Financial Affairs, Press, Vet School, Media and Technology Services, Cornell Store, Academic Departments, CAU, Extension, Alumni Affairs • Amalgamation opportunities would include co-sponsoring the conference center with several other CU divisions (e.g., extension, CIT); also collaborative arrangements with local hotels Potential Clients Within Cornell University: School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions, Cornell Store, Organizational Development Services Potential off-campus users: regional colleges and universities, professional organizations, small non-profits, trade show possibility, telemarketing, regional meetings, tradeshows, satellite teaching space for graduate schools of information studies (Syracuse, Albany), and others Resource Requirements • Must accommodate up to 200 (fewer than that is a disincentive) • Flexible, modular space (double as reading room, hoteling space, telemarketing, exploratory) • Breakout room capabilities • Rooms must breakdown/be subdivided when necessary • High tech (high-speed and wireless connections, sufficient quantity and quality of hardware/software, virtual conference center, video conferencing, exploratory) • Distance learning possibilities (some on-site, some DL) Recommendations As many of the facilities are currently being renovated to upgrade the existing technological aspects, it would be beneficial to gather more information from these sites. It may prove to be beneficial to visit the Johnson School and examine the facility there, as it seems to be the closest to what MAS 2010 had in mind. Lastly, it may be useful to inquire about what capabilities the new engineering building will be able to provide once completed as something like $100 million is being spent on its construction. Since the Johnson School, the Statler, the ILR Conference Center, and the new engineering building are all going to be on campus it would be wise to investigate and see if, after all of the renovations, these four “competitors” may be developing exactly what this project had in mind or if the MAS 2010 is really heading in a different direction and can better address the needs that are not being met at Cornell and the Cornell Library System. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 18 METADATA Definition of the Service Area Provide metadata consulting, design, development, production, and data conversion services to clients on a cost recovery basis. Includes grant writing support. Offer metadata classes, workshops, and internships. Offer metadata services as one component of a suite of digital production services. Feasibility of Moving to Annex 1) Advantages: • Metadata work can readily be done outside the library; ok to be at annex • Appealing to work in state of the art facility; also attractive to clients to be in innovative, business-like setting • At annex, metadata staff would not have to compete with rest of CUL for office and meeting space • More high tech meeting space • Free parking near the building 2) Disadvantages: • Physical separation reduces interaction with other CUL staff • Moving people away from the CU research and instruction client base at a time when we are trying to promote greater interaction with them • Bad idea to locate metadata services there unless other digital production services are also there Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Yes, both inside and outside Cornell. Must actively market metadata services to CU research and instructional staff and cultural heritage institutions in the region. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Formal market analysis to define and quantify market. Advantages Identified by the Group Can begin immediately (in fact, have already begun). If metadata services remains part of tech services, staffing can be flexible, can cope with varying levels of demand. Revenues from metadata services can help technical services deal with too much to do, not enough people to do it. University library has advantage of trust over commercial enterprise; Cornell has reputation as leader in digital initiatives. Disadvantages & Risks Must effectively regulate capacity to cope with varying market demand; can we? Are we willing to reallocate staff to meet demand? Short on capacity to do metadata consulting; must train/recruit more staff able to do consulting Clients tend to underestimate the cost of metadata; will clients be willing to pay the cost? Library lacks marketing skills. Turf interests run deep at CU; will collaborative efforts be successful in this environment? Synergy Creation Opportunities Collaboration with Academic Technology Center and Web Production Group Collaborate in support of scholarly publishing enterprises including university presses Potential Clients MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 19 Metadata services is a growth area; target market we know best: CUL, CU research and instructional staff, other libraries, cultural heritage institutions Librarians, residents/fellows, students/interns who wish to learn about metadata Potential market = 700 libraries and cultural heritage institutions in NY state Potential Competitors For CU clients: other CU service providers For external clients: OCLC, metadata units in DLF libraries, private sector firms, smaller libraries (as field matures) Resource Requirements 1. Direct IT support; fund a metadata technologist position as soon as feasible (see report for skill set) 2. High end workstations with networked storage space 3. Adequately trained staff (see report for skill set) 4. Access to promotional and marketing resources 5. 3 additional FTE by 2007/2008 Recommendations • Cultivate NYLINK as a broker for services to libraries/cultural heritage organizations in NY state • Actively market the service to CU clients • Do formal market analysis MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 20 CATALOGING AND ACQUISITIONS Definition of the Service Area Partnership with other CUL service center colleagues to offer new service “packages” with acquisitions and/or cataloging components. Relocate as much CUL tech services staff as practical. Retain alliance with metadata services. Feasibility of Moving to Annex Presents risks, would generate controversy, but report recommends relocation of as many technical services staff as practical to the new service center. 1) Advantages: • Eliminate redundancies in tech services operations; achieve economies of scale • Free up central campus space now occupied by tech services staff • Facilitate collaboration with other service center staff • Simplify tech services policy formation and implementation • Parking near the building • Appealing to work in new, well appointed building 2) Disadvantages: • Added expense to transport materials and people to and from central campus • Time spent traveling back and forth is nonproductive • Cost of new building • Possible negative impact on staff morale • Loss of tech service expertise on central campus; physical isolation; impediment to communications • Difficult to attract student workers • Loss of access to collections • Political and financial barriers to consolidation of all tech services units Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes. Some tech services are already partially or fully centralized in CUL. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible, but not in isolation from other service components and not in competition with established tech services providers (e.g. OCLC) • Inside Cornell University: Join forces with Campus Store to purchase materials at greater discount. Consolidate licensing and copyright functions. • Outside Cornell University: Partner with bookseller like YBP to support cataloging and metadata needs. Partner with OCLC TECHPRO/NYLINK to supplement TECHPRO’s language and format skills. Serve as a training ground for catalogers from other universities/colleges and for future OCLC TECHPRO catalogers. Offer a tech services training program in conjunction with Syracuse University SIS/other schools/SCRLC etc. Participate in other service center offerings that have cataloging/acquisitions components. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Market analysis is crucial. Marketing of the service center’s products is crucial. Other questions: • What organizational and budgetary support will be available to handle new demands while continuing to meet current processing demands? • How will unit library needs to customize technical services for their clienteles be addressed? • If new services fail to develop at the service center, will tech services still be relocated there? Advantages Identified by the Group See Feasibility sections MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 21 Disadvantages & Risks Other than Feasibility sections: 1. CUL does not have expertise to market services. Need to invest resources in marketing in order to generate and maintain business. 2. Do not have human resources needed for this service in the long term (demographics) Synergy Creation Opportunities Service center would bring together a collection of sought-after, cutting edge services that other institutions need by may be unable to support in-house. Potential Clients See Feasibility sections. Potential Competitors See Feasibility sections. Resource Requirements 1) 90-100 square feet per person, etc. (see report and data from Olin Uris working group) 2) High end workstations 3) Sufficient staff skill to proceed but problems with longer term due to demographic and budgetary pressures on tech services 4) More staff with training, management, mentoring and presentation skills Recommendations 1) Work toward developing and delivering focused training programs including for-credit and continuing education courses and workshops, as well as internships; in the process “grow our own talent.” 2) Transfer as much tech services staff as practical to new service center 3) Bring tech services staff in proximity with other service center staff (digital, preservation, education, collection development, storage services) and leverage partnerships/synergies with these groups MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 22 E-PUBLISHING Definition of the Service Area Four components: subscription-based journal publishing service (e.g., Euclid); disciplinary repository (e.g., arXiv); institutional repository (e.g., Dspace); discipline-based portal (e.g., CogNet). Cornell already has commitments to the first three components. Feasibility of Moving to Annex Potential clientele are world-wide and much of the activity could be conducted from annex. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible. Could draw on common technology infrastructure; however business models for the four components could vary substantially. Another concern is the initial capitalization requirements; each of the four components require significant expenditure of resources, both start-up and ongoing, but prospects for cost recovery vary greatly Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Further investigation should focus on business plan, initial investment, staffing and ongoing costs for each of the four components. Advantages Identified by the Group Highlights: • Subscription-based journal publishing: Location independent. Increase benefits to alternative publication methods. Reduce inefficiencies. If replicated at other institutions, CUL could reap benefits of their work. • Disciplinary repository: Location independent. Could change paradigm for scholarly communication. Could build stronger ties between library and faculty. Technology developments could be used in other systems. • Institutional repository: Location independent. Could change paradigm for scholarly communication. Preserve and broaden output of CU scholarly production. Enhance free and open access. Improves interoperability on campus and opens possibility of interoperability with universities around the world. Centralized place to store materials from various web sites. • Discipline-based portal: Location independent. One-stop shopping for finding and creating resources. Build ties with faculty and scholarly societies. Could share components and content with other e-publishing ventures. Provides model for focusing CUL resources and building on strengths Disadvantages & Risks Highlights: General: • Without mechanism for cost recovery, any of the four components seem like a poor investment (especially 2 & 3 as currently designed). • Risk of isolation at annex. • Hard to get students to come to annex. 1. Subscription-based journal publishing: Takes resources and focus away from issues that have more centrality to CUL; beneficiaries largely outside CU. Difficult to achieve revenue-neutral model. Might alter scholarly publishing paradigm only slightly. 2. Disciplinary repository: Repo must be maintained long term; long term commitment limits CUL’s ability to reallocate resources to other projects. Little potential for cost recovery or income. Could separate some systems staff from the rest of the group. 3. Institutional repository: Limited revenue potential and steadily increasing costs. Long term commitment limits CUL’s ability to reallocate resources. Potential to create a chaotic aggregation with inconsistent quality control. Hard to MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 23 manage a variety of document types. Many unknowns. Institution isn’t sensible basis for organizing repo—better if multiple institutions adopt it 4. Discipline-based portal: Not much precedent; program could fail to gain public acceptance. Takes library resources to produce something that doesn’t benefit CU over others. Would require assistance from many departments not located at annex. Synergy Creation Opportunities University press. Campus store. Print shop. Other publishers on campus. Potential Clients Not addressed directly. Potential Competitors Not addressed directly. Resource Requirements Subscription-based journal publishing: 6-12 full time staff and space/equipment for them. Storage space increasing over time. We have skill set but not necessarily the hours to devote. If want to market around the world, would need more people. Disciplinary repository: 4-6 staff and space/equipment for them. Storage space increasing over time. At least one person familiar with discipline(s). Institutional repository: No manpower estimate given. Steadily increasing storage. Have necessary human resources, would want to invest in metadata consulting, could put significant load on information organizing processes, would require regular interaction with faculty. Discipline-based portal: One to two dozen staff plus space/equipment. Resource requirements would be huge. Would need greater disciplinary expertise. Need to draw on graduate students and faculty. Recommendations • Four components could draw on common technology infrastructure but business model for each could vary substantially • Each component requires significant expenditure for start up and maintenance, but prospects for cost recovery vary greatly • Focus on business plan, initial investment, staffing, and ongoing costs for each of the four components • See “other thoughts about discipline-based repository” MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 24 Appendix 4: January 14, 2003 Retreat with External Advisors The goal of the retreat was to brainstorm to investigate innovative, entrepreneurial, and efficient library services to benefit and enhance quality of learning, teaching, and research at Cornell and other institutions of higher education. Appendix A includes the list of retreat participants and Appendix B outlines the day’s program. Major Shift for Research Libraries By 2010 the research library community will be involved in mass digitization projects, as well as using resources for customization and automation of common tasks. Already now we are managing a transition, not a steady state, and the rate of change is a major uncertainty for planning. We are going to experience a shift in the structure, collections, and services of the library, including an unprecedented expansion from the delivery of subsidized services to the entrepreneurial. The first requirement is therefore to clearly distinguish the subsidized from the entrepreneurial as we discuss options and to understand both the Cornell user community and the market. Privileging the Cornell User We must offer an array of high-quality services to our own constituency before offering to outside clients. In serving the local community, CUL’s most immediate interest is to use the resources on campus to the best advantage, which includes regaining prime space and establishing core services for the user. But “privileging the user” can be problematical because of different categories of users—undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty have conflicting interests and needs. We are seeing a segmentation of customers, although the digital environment allows us to think about ways to deliver the product according to customer segment. Of course faculty want books to stay on campus, and the library needs to communicate with faculty and students about moving collections around. UVa has been successful by offering book delivery to faculty offices, so faculty are not as concerned about where the materials are stored. It is important to keep in mind that faculty are both teachers and scholars and to pay attention to the changes in pedagogy. Teaching, learning, and research need to be supported in an integrated fashion. Discovery and retrieval is another factor—how to organize information so patrons can quickly focus on the smaller amount of material needed. Status of the Collections In the future we will perhaps not have hundreds of institutions with depth in collections, and many fewer will have specialized collections. We need to think about the role of big research institutions in that new environment. There is little mention of CUL collections in the information about MAS, and this will worry faculty. There is a sense of loss of quality—of no longer being able to build something completely. CUL needs to make a statement that our commitment to our collection strengths is as strong as ever. How do we view our collections—are they sunk costs or assets? If they are seen as “sunk costs,” we would want to manage them as an inventory in the most cost-efficient way. If they are our key assets, we need to deploy strategies to make the most out of them. Along these lines, can we make distinctions between our legacy collections, working collections, and rare collections? Some may be seen as assets, some as sunk costs. Some will be viewed as objects (physical objects), and we need to keep them in their original form for scholarship: special collections are what will survive. MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 1 Having collections that map to the core curriculum is critical. For example, MIT, acting as a collaborative agent with Harvard, has relinquished some areas that it does not collect in depth— such as humanities—and collaborates with Harvard in these areas. This kind of arrangement works if you can let go of things that are not core to teaching. This is a new age, in which faculty have to take responsibility for building collections, especially in the humanities. Some are already involved in independent collection building and usually come to the library for help after they start the process. In connecting collections to services, we should think about what the services are that make the library’s collections valuable (i.e., make them assets). It is important to consider which activities the library engages in are status-critical. The library should assess which services it offers to students and faculty are truly special and which closely track institutional priorities. Articulating the Services at Cornell The attraction of the CUL proposal to the Mellon trustees was the idea of offering a group of core services in a decentralized library system. Will faculty buy it? Will unit libraries buy it? Who are our own clients? It is important to collaborate with CIT as we envision this model. One of our first tasks should be to develop a new and common vocabulary for discussing MAS and communicating library services information to staff as well as to users. Staff will have an emotional context for the initiative, and we need to provide an organizational one with an exciting vision. Would everybody benefit? “Privileging the user” may not be the right motto for us. The real advantage is a service from which everybody benefits. MAS has to be seen as primarily for Cornell and secondarily for others. It must be built into the base of the library budget; if not, that is a risk, too. Benefits would be more and better space for staff and services, work enrichment opportunity, a professional opportunity to write for the literature and to present at conferences, and a moreefficient, more-interesting work environment. UVa has something like a circuit rider to make sure contact is maintained with the central workplace. Putting services into the big picture can evoke positivity, and it is also important to talk about the 21st-century library. When we speak with staff, we should set the change in the context of the library’s mission. When we talk with potential clients, we should focus on building trust and present MAS as a way to help other libraries. Entrepreneurial Services How do we define entrepreneurship in library terms? Are the services profitable or self-sustaining? Which services are already offered for CUL, and which are envisioned for others? This is really an organizational development project. We must first do a market analysis to begin to see what is really “do-able”—yet, if we are building a cost-recovery enterprise and it is a valuable service, we cannot know the results and pitfalls until we actually have the service operating. Feasibility. We must identify mission-critical library services—the mission is basic, but how we carry it out can adapt as times change. Whatever we do should be at the same level of excellence of Cornell as the parent institution, and we have tried to think ahead so that we will have established quality standards to apply. Good management with accountability is necessary; teams can address broader-based issues. Possible configurations. Self-sustaining services are outward looking. There are several possibilities to consider: 1. coordinate a geographic region—an assortment of small institutions; 2. see ourselves as one of the elite libraries among the 20 to 25 large institutions to exchange services; 3. set up collaboration without regard to geographic location—break away from traditional grouping. It would be helpful to check into the activities and plans of several organizations to get MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 2 an idea of what could be done and find potential collaborators: the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE), the vision for libraries in the institutional plan of the Council of Independent Colleges, and the Oberlin Group of colleges. 1. To assess the potential in serving the local geographic region, we could bring together people from regional libraries for discussion on issues and services—“take their temperature” by getting their input on how helpful MAS services might be to them (e.g., Alfred, Binghamton, Ithaca College, Wells, Hamilton, Colgate, TC3, Extension agencies). 2. If Cornell wants to be a collaborator with other large institutions with a balance of trade, it will have to answer the difficult question of whether that balance would be roughly equal. Would CUL buy similar services from others? Would we be each other’s customers? Every large library is going through the same things we are. We also have to ask what is critical to our status—those things we would not give up (e.g., particularly strong specialized collections). Are there things CUL can give up? Or can we do them differently? MIT’s D-Space is an example of the community approach—a model for creating a service that can be developed as a shared service. It also demonstrates the flexibility of offering a set of basic services and then a set of premium services. In the preservation of print resources it is likely that the investments being made by the top 25 institutions collectively would have a greater impact than one institution trying to do that as an entrepreneurial service. Cornell would be a large net exporter of services to smaller institutions that don’t have the resources themselves. For example, the services that DCAPS will deliver are already in demand by other libraries. Choosing services. In deciding which services fit each of these patterns, it would be best to include those that Cornell would provide for itself, and which we could then deliver on a larger scale to others. These would more easily become self-sustaining. Our current list of functional areas is too long—and there is already significant work done in some of them. We need to reduce our list to leverage off what we already do well to keep progressing. In our selection we should go where other libraries are not (that is, they haven’t developed these services yet). A model to consider is the “joint powers agreement” in California, which offers a range of services. If such an agreement could be struck with a set of Cornell collaborators, Cornell could be the major stakeholder. We should look into collaboration with publishers to digitize those works no longer copyrighted and allow publishers to market them, as well as consider strategies around university presses. Implementation. We should implement our model incrementally—prove that it is efficient before fully embarking on it. It is also necessary to consider an exit strategy, a contingency plan as part of risk analysis. The Expanded View First, we need to get our act together at CUL, not try anything before testing it at home. Then build our capacity. Whatever we do, we should relate our initiative to national or international activities (such as the DLF)—think about what an institution does on a local level that contributes to the national interest—and collaborate with others to agree on what needs to be done and who should do it. If we are going to give up some things in this transformation, we should stop thinking about the little changes and think big—about how we can contribute to significant change. It can begin with drafting a motivational and reward structure that will encourage success. If we demonstrate leadership, take some risks, fill some niches—we can articulate our experience as a national experience. MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 3 Appendix A: Retreat Invitees Michael A. Keller University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources Stanford University Libraries Clifford Lynch Executive Director Coalition for Networked Information Deanna Marcum President Council on Library and Information Resources Donald J. Waters Program Officer, Scholarly Communications The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Karin Wittenborg University Librarian University of Virginia Library Ann J. Wolpert Director of Libraries Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries Cornell Participants: Sarah E. Thomas University Librarian Ross Atkinson Associate University Librarian for Collections Karen Calhoun Assistant University Librarian for Technical Services MAS 2010 Project Team Member Susan Currie Director, Resources & Planning – IRIS MAS 2010 Project Team Member H. Thomas Hickerson Associate University Librarian for Information Technologies & Special Collections Anne R. Kenney Assistant University Librarian for Instruction and Learning, Research, and Information Services MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 4 Janet McCue Associate University Librarian for Life Sciences and Director, Mann Library Jean Poland Associate University Librarian for Engineering, Mathematics & Physical Sciences Oya Rieger Assistant Director for Services & Coordinator of Distributed Learning, Digital Library and Information Technology MAS 2010 Project Team Member Edward Weissman Assistant to the University Library MAS 2010 Project Team Member MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 5 Appendix B: Agenda January 14, 2003, Tuesday, 703 Olin Library 9am Opening Discussion Changes in Scholarship & Exploring New Academic Support Services Continental Breakfast Served 10:30am Review of Service Components: Regional Paper and Digital Depository, Electronic Publishing, Document Delivery, Digitization, Metadata, Cataloging & Acquisitions, Preservation and Conservation, Copyright, Conference Center noon-12:30pm Break Working Lunch Served at Noon 12:30pm 2:15pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4pm Discussion of Feasibility Questions, Part I • What are the mission critical library services that must continue to be provided locally? Which library services can be outsourced to allow us excel in what needs to be locally customized? • Who are our potential clients and what are their needs? Which services would benefit libraries most? • Who are the other service providers in these service areas? What are the collaboration opportunities? What are the advantages of locating such services at a university library? Break Discussion of Feasibility Questions, Part II • What are the risks and benefits associated with this new service approach (remote site + entrepreneurial)? Is this an economically feasible model? What would make it sustainable? • Which services should we consider phasing out? Can we continue to add new services without eliminating or downsizing some? Concluding Remarks Adjourn MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 6 Appendix 5: Mary-Alice Lynch Visit Synopsis Mary-Alice Lynch, Executive Director of NYLINK, visited CUL on January 8, 2003 for a day-long consultancy to advise us on MAS 2010 project. This document summarized the highlights of this meeting. Would other libraries allow us build their collections and sell them library services? CUL has the expertise & recognition and you may succeed if you find your niche. For example, there are new academic programs developed with no collections. Cost of tailored collections soon be challenged and CUL should be ready to play a role. NY State is changing and there are new programs in development and Cornell may play a key role in them. SUNY hired a consultant to assess repository. Another example is NYSHEI. Can small libraries continue to handle the complexities of new demands? There may be a huge market to support universities with virtual collections – no physical libraries/collections. Should we look at special collections rather than core/general collections? It may be less treating but your core collection maybe another library’s specialty. What is your sense of the market for the next few years? Promising at the director level but not at staff level. We need the sell the idea to line librarians. How about document delivery services? There is already a document delivery model laid out by Nylink with an upfront charge (no per book charges). There is a delivery service ready to use. CUL electronic delivery has a potential to complement the existing physical delivery. What is the potential of a CUL conference center? The facility will be expensive to support. However Nylink and other libraries do need such a space. Multi-day workshops and institutes would likely to work better due to challenges associated with Ithaca location (transportation and weather) for short events. Would like to see Nylink-CUL partnership. Mary-Alice Lynch Visit, Page 1 How do you define a region? Not clear any longer and not bound by geographic location. It is not physical connections – but is defined by your relationships. How is the market readiness for metadata? It may not a stand-alone service area yet. However, is promising in DCAPS context. Metadata is expensive so will be easier to sell in a package. Advice • You do not want to compete with Nylink and other groups. Find out what are other libraries not doing or not supporting. • Integrated services such as DCAPS may be easier to sell. Packaging services is a good idea. Very few places are offering integrated services. • Regardless of size, all libraries want to digitize. It is an institutional priority. Good area to investigate. • Selling innovation is easier than selling change. • Moving people causes staff anxiety. Staff is the most important asset. It is important to make staff the center of renovation. • Do not immediately limit the market – trial-error is essential part of starting a new business (calculated risk taking). • Try to identify your niche. CUL’s strength is we have a real library with rich collections. • There is interest in digital consulting and training. It is a sellable product and Nylink is interested in collaborating. Mary-Alice Lynch Visit, Page 2 Appendix 6: Digital Consulting and Production Services Interim Report For CUL internal use only. For additional information on DCAPS (Digital Consulting and Production Services) see http://dcaps.library.cornell.edu Appendix 7: Market Survey Questionnaire and Cover Letter Cornell University Library, Models for Academic Support (MAS 2010) Please check this box if you will not complete the survey because it is not applicable to your organization. Collection Storage & Access Collection Storage & Access services will include a storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for the long-term storage of all types of traditional library materials, including archival and other special collections. In addition, it will offer both a physical delivery system to participating organizations for books, audio and visual materials, microtexts, and other artifactual materials (e.g., maps, photograph collections, works of art on paper) and electronic delivery to clients’ desktops of book chapters, journal articles, and fiche and film articles. Storage and delivery services will be supplied on a cost-recovery basis. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Storage and security for your organization’s less-used materials 1 2 34 5 b. A system that provides timely physical delivery to your facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special 1 2 34 5 collections, and other library materials c. An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables 1 2 34 5 of contents from stored materials d. Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 1 2 34 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s storage and access services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely Likely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very 5 3. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Storage and security for your organization’s less-used materials 1 2 3 4 5 NA b. Document delivery for materials your organization does not own 1 2 3 4 5 NA 4. If your organization chose to participate in a shared storage facility, which model would you prefer? (please check one answer) Cooperative model: storage for whatever materials the partners choose to store Collaborative model: storage for only the “best copy” of an item—keep only one copy that will be owned by all partners regardless of original ownership Both Neither Do not know Other models (please specify:____________________________________________________________) 5. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your storage and access needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?___________________________________________________________) No 6. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your storage and access needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?___________________________________________________________) No Do not know Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging services aim to support and supplement the preservation, conservation, and cataloging functions of cultural heritage institutions. Services include microfilm project management, surveying collection condition, conservation treatment of rare materials, specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production), and cataloging. These services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, training, and grant writing to project management and production. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) a. Consultation on preservation and conservation Not at all interested 1 2 Very interested 34 5 b. Consultation on cataloging 1 2 34 5 c. Grant-writing assistance for projects involving preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging d. Staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging e. Microfilming project management 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 34 5 f. Surveying collection condition for preservation and conservation purposes g. Cataloging (all formats: print, audio, visual, and electronic) 1 1 2 34 2 34 5 5 h. Conservation treatment of rare and unique materials 1 2 34 5 i. Specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production) 1 2 34 5 j. Archival processing—conversion of guides to Encoded Archival Description (EAD) 1 2 34 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s preservation, conservation, or cataloging services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Cataloging and/or preservation/conservation staff training 1 2 34 5 NA b. Microfilming project management 1 2 34 5 NA c. Surveying collection condition for preservation and conservation purposes d. Cataloging (all formats: print, audio, visual, and electronic) e. Conservation treatment of rare and unique materials f. Specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production) g. Archival processing—conversion of guides to Encoded Archival Description (EAD) 1 1 1 1 1 2 34 5 2 34 5 2 34 5 2 34 5 2 34 5 NA NA NA NA NA 4. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your preservation and conservation needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 5. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your preservation and conservation needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 6. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your cataloging needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 7. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your cataloging needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 8. What is your planned annual budget for conservation and preservation activities within the next two to three years? (please check one answer) Less than $5,000 $5,001-$10,000 $10,001-$50,000 More than $50,000 Unknown DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Digital Library Services will offer a suite of services to support digitization projects (conversion of traditional holdings to digital format). It presents an integrated approach including digitization, metadata, technology support, and copyright clearance. Services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, needs assessment, and grant writing to project management and production. It aims to ensure the cost-effective planning, creation, management, and use of digital collections. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and microformat such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) 1 234 5 b. Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services to make your digital collections easier 1 234 5 to use, share, and repurpose (adapt for different uses) c. Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR—image to text conversion), image management databases, and 1 234 5 choice of digital library software d. Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital 1 2 3 4 5 collections e. Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections 1 234 5 f. Consulting on preserving digital collections—creating digital archives for permanent access 1 234 5 g. Archiving digital content for long-term preservation 1 234 5 h. Consulting on electronic publishing—providing assistance in creating online publications i. Other related services (please specify):_________________________________ 1 234 5 1 234 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s digital library services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. What is the estimated number of digitization projects at your institution that may require external assistance during the next several years? (please check one answer) 1 a year 2-3 a year Other (please specify):______________ Difficult to predict 4. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, 12345 NA microfiche, etc.) b. Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services for making your digital 1 2 3 4 5 NA collections easier to use, share, and repurpose c. Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR - image to text conversion), image 12345 NA management databases, and choice of digital library software d. Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and 12345 NA maintaining digital collections e. Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections 1 2 3 4 5 NA f. Consultation for preserving digital collections - creating digital archives for permanent access 1 2 3 4 5 NA g. Archiving digital content for long-term preservation 12345 NA h. Consultation for electronic publishing - providing assistance in creating online 12345 NA publications 5. What is your planned annual budget for digital library services within the next two to three years? (please check one answer) Less than $5,000 $5,001-$10,000 $10,001-$50,000 More than $50,000 Unknown 6. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of its digital library needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?__________________________________________________________) No 7. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of its digital library needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?__________________________________________________________) No Unknown Conference & Training Center The Conference & Training Center will offer a state-of-the-art facility to accommodate up to 200 people. In addition to hosting Cornell University’s training, staff development, and education programs, the facility will be available to other interested parties for a fee. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Access to a training facility for my organization’s events 1 234 5 b. Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations 1 234 5 c. Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by the Cornell University 1 234 5 Library 2. What is the likelihood of your organization renting this conference center for any of its activities? (please check one) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. Please rate the importance of the following factors in choosing a conference and training center, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. (please circle one answer for each item) a. Proximity to your organization (distance) Not at all important Very important 1 234 5 b. Rental fees 1 234 5 c. Availability of conference technologies (wireless, high-speed connections, audiovisual equipment, computers, etc.) 1 234 5 d. Capacity of the facility e. Availability of flexible and modular space f. Appeal of the Finger Lakes area g. Accessibility from your region via different modes of transportation (ease of transportation) h. Other reasons (please specify): ________________________________ 1 1 1 1 1 234 234 234 234 234 5 5 5 5 5 4. If your organization were to rent such a facility, how often would you do so? (please check one answer) Once a year 2-3 times a year Every other year Other (please specify):______________ 5. What is the likelihood of members of your organization attending training, staff development, or education sessions at this conference center? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 6. Do you have convenient access to a conference center that meets your organization’s needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which conference center(s)?_________________________________________________________) No General Questions 1. Do you know of any other initiatives like ours (planned or existing)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ 2. Are there other services that Cornell University Library might provide beyond the four listed in this survey (e.g., reference and instruction)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ 3. Would you be available for a follow-up phone call? Yes (phone number): (__________) - _________________________ No Cover Letter from Sarah Thomas May 9, 2003 John Smith Title Address Ref # 1234 Dear John Smith, The Cornell University Library is investigating how it might contribute to addressing the needs of New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies. We call this study, which is funded by the Mellon Foundation, “Models for Academic Support” (MAS 2010). In this study we are assessing the feasibility of a new library center on the southeast side of the campus—a center that has the potential to serve both Cornell University and regional organizations. We need your assistance to evaluate this possibility. I have enclosed a survey to gauge your organization’s interest. The information you provide will help toward a shared goal: to identify innovations that can enhance our organizations’ services while also minimizing costs. All participants in this survey will receive a report summarizing the survey findings, including what we have learned through our contacts with regional service providers and consortia. Please be assured that your organization’s responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey takes approximately twenty minutes to fill out. I have enclosed the print version for your information; however, we prefer that you use the Web version available at http://cast.cornell.edu/mas/survey.cfm. To login to the site, please use the following username and password: Username: 123 Password: 4567 Please complete the survey as soon as possible but no later than May 30, 2003. If this survey is not applicable for your institution, kindly take a moment to choose that option at the top of the survey. If you have any questions or comments about the study, please do not hesitate to contact Oya Rieger, Project Coordinator, at oyr1@cornell.edu (607 254-5160). Your input is invaluable and I thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Sarah E. Thomas University Librarian Cornell University Library Appendix 8: Findings of the New York State Market Survey Section Table of Contents Page 1. Purpose.........................................................................................................1 2. Methodology..................................................................................................1 Table 1. Response Outcome and Response Rates ................................2 3. Executive Summary .....................................................................................2 4. Demographics ................................................................................................4 Table 2. Distribution of Responses by Library Type ................................4 Table 3. Distribution of Non-Responses (services not Applicable) by Library Type..........................................................................4 5. Collection Storage & Access .........................................................................6 Chart 1. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Storage and Access Services .........................................................................6 Chart 2. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Storage and Access Services.....................................................7 Table 4. Percent of Organizations Interested in Storage and Access Services, by Library Type ...........................................................8 6. Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging .................................................9 Chart 3. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services......................................9 Chart 4. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services ............ 10 Table 5. Percent of Organizations Interested in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services, by Library Type ......... 11 7. Digital Library Services................................................................................ 12 Chart 5. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Digital Library Services.................................................................................... 12 Chart 6. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Digital Library Services............................................................. 13 Table 6. Percent of Organizations Interested in Digital Library Services, by Library Type ......................................................... 14 8. Conference & Training Center..................................................................... 15 Chart 7. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Conference And Training Center Services................................................... 15 Chart 8. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Conference and Training Center Services................................ 16 Table 7. Percent of Organizations Interested in Conference and Training Center Services, by Library Type ............................... 17 9. General Questions ...................................................................................... 18 10. Summary Statistics..................................................................................... 19 Table 8. Percent of Organizations Interested in Services……………… Table 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds……. 17 Chart 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds……. 17 Chart 10: Representation of Cultural Institution Types…….. 17 1. Purpose The purpose of the study is to gather data to support the assessment and planning of an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center. 2. Methodology Objectives The specific objectives of this research study were to solicit information from New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies to determine if there is a need and interest for a new library center that has the potential to serve both Cornell University and regional organizations, to identify innovations that can enhance the Cornell services while also minimizing costs. The survey covers the following areas: Collection storage and access Preservation, conservation, and cataloging Digital library services Conference and training center Questionnaire Development The questionnaire was developed and tested by the MAS 2010 Project Management Group. Sampling A complete list of 1127 New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies was compiled by the MAS 2010 Project Management Group as follows: Combined 2760 entries from American Library Directory and 600 from CareerSearch Remove duplicate listings Remove public library branches (378) and public libraries with < 75,000 volumes (600) Remove college/university division/branches of libraries (238) Remove private law firms, hospitals, prisons (500) Email contact addresses for survey follow-up messages were located via directory listings and Internet sites for 80% (902) survey contacts. Methodology and Timeline This survey was conducted as a multi-mode survey (mail and web). It was administered by Cornell’s Survey Research Institute (www.survey.cornell.edu). Individuals from New York State libraries, archives, museums and historical societies were sent an announcement mailing with a paper version of ● Cornell University Library ● Page 1 ● the survey. The announcement letter included an internet link (URL) to the web version of the survey. Below is the timeline of the survey administration: 05/01/2003 - N=1094 announcement letters with questionnaires were mailed out 05/02/2003 - N=33 additional announcement letters with questionnaires were mailed out 05/09/2003 - First reminder e-mail sent to all non-respondents who had e-mail addresses 05/27/2003 - Second reminder e-mail sent to all non-respondents who had e-mail addresses 05/30/2003 - Third and final reminder e-mail sent to all non-respondents who had e-mail addresses 06/11/2003 – Data collection ended. As seen in Table 1, The final response rate was 43.9%. Table 1. Response Outcome and Response Rates Total Mailed Questionnaires A. Complete B. Services Not Applicable C. Bad Numbers/e-mail addresses D. No Response Response Rates Response Rate (as a % of Total Valid Mailings) Completion Rate (as a % of Total Valid Responses) 1127 253 197 102 575 43.9% 56.2% 3. Executive Summary Based on a list of 1127, New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies were contacted to determine if there is a need and interest for an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center that has the potential to serve both Cornell University and regional organizations. Response Rates and Demographics • A total of 253 web-based surveys were completed • The final response rate was 43.9% of the total valid mailings. This response rate includes those who responded with ‘Services Not Applicable’ • The final completion rate was 56.2% of the total responses • The majority of organizations who completed the survey were Historical Society Libraries (39.5%), followed by College and University Libraries (35.6%). Collection Storage and Access Access services were more attractive than storage services. • More than half of all respondents (128 organizations, 50.6%) were interested in the electronic (or digital) document delivery system, and 94 organizations (37.2%) were interested in a system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for all library materials ● Cornell University Library ● Page 2 ● • The likelihood of organizations allocating funding to one or more of the storage and access services varied by type of service; • The questions about physical and electronic document delivery have been interpreted as independent services -- not necessarily within the context of a storage facility. Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging The top three services of interest were: • consultation on preservation and conservation • staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging • conservation treatment of rare and unique materials • Of those interested, the percent who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to the services ranged from over 13% to almost 20% Digital Library Services Many organizations showed interest in five out of the eight services offered, including • digitizing materials • training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections • assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections • consultation for preserving digital collections • archiving digital content for long-term preservation • Of those interested, more than 20% responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to the services Conference and Training Center Services Many organizations showed interest in two of the three services offered, including • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by Cornell • Of those interested, the percent who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to the services ranged from 10% to over 30%. ● Cornell University Library ● Page 3 ● 4. Demographics To determine whether there were differences in response patterns by library type, we categorized organizations into five major groups: CC-Libsys, College and University, Historical Society, Medical/Special/Government, and Public Library, where each group consisted of a collection of sub-categories, as seen in Table 2a. The majority of organizations were Historical Society Libraries (39.5%), followed by College and University Libraries (35.6%). Table 2. Distribution of Responses by Library Type LIBRARY CATEGORY TYPES INCLUDED CC-LIBSYS COUNCIL/CONSORTIUM LIBRARY-SYSTEM COLLEGE-AND- UNIVERSITY COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - 2 Year COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - LAW COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS HISTORICAL-SOCIETY HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM ART-AND-MUSIC MEDICAL-SPECIALGOVERNMENT SPECIAL MEDICAL SPECIAL - Newspaper SPECIAL - RELIGIOUS STATE-GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LIBRARY PUBLIC LIBRARY OVERALL *Total does not add up to 100% because of rounding and one missing response Number 14 5 9 90 59 26 1 3 1 100 40 46 14 31 22 2 1 2 3 1 17 17 252 Percent of Total 5.6% 2.0% 3.6% 35.6% 23.3% 10.3% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4% 39.5% 15.8% 18.2% 5.5% 12.3% 8.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 6.7% 6.7% 99.7%* ● Cornell University Library ● Page 4 ● Table 3 shows the number and the percent of library types, of those who responded that the services described in the survey were not applicable to their organization. Of all those who believed that the services were not applicable to their organization, a large percent belonged to Historical Society Libraries (34.5%), followed by Medical/Special/Government Libraries (27.9%), and by Public Libraries (19.3%). Table 3. Distribution of Non-Responses (Services not Applicable) by Library Type CC-LIBSYS COLLEGE-ANDUNIVERSITY HISTORICAL-SOC MEDICAL-SPECIALGOVT PUBLIC LIBRARY OVERALL LIBRARY TYPE COUNCIL/CONSORTIUM LIBRARY-SYSTEM COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - 2 Year COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - LAW COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM ART-AND-MUSIC SPECIAL MEDICAL SPECIAL - Newspaper SPECIAL - RELIGIOUS STATE-GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LIBRARY *Total does not add up to 100% because of rounding and one missing response Number 10 8 2 25 9 11 1 3 1 68 15 48 5 55 42 0 4 2 5 2 38 38 196 % 5.1% 3.2% 0.8% 12.7% 3.6% 4.3% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4% 34.5% 5.9% 19.0% 2.0% 27.9% 16.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 2.0% 0.8% 19.3% 15.0% 99.5%* ● Cornell University Library ● Page 5 ● 5. Collection Storage and Access Respondents were asked about their organizations’ interest in four different collection storage and access services, including a storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for the storage of all types of library materials, as well as the cold storage of nitrate and acetate films, a physical delivery system to participating organizations for books, audio and visual materials, microtexts, and other artifactual materials, and an electronic delivery system to clients’ desktops of book chapters, journal articles, tables of contents, and fiche and film materials, with storage and delivery services to be supplied on a cost-recovery basis. Of the four service areas, the most attractive were the access services. More than half of all respondents (128 organizations, 50.6%) displayed interest in the electronic (or digital) document delivery system. A system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for all library materials was also found to be attractive, with 94 organizations (37.2%) showing interest (see Chart 1). The two storage services evinced lesser interest: only 53 organizations (20.9%) showed interest in storage and security for less-used materials, and 33 organizations (13%) showed interest in cold storage of nitrate and acetate films. Chart 1. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Storage and Access Services Number of Organizations 140 128 120 94 100 80 53 60 40 33 20 0 Storage and Security Timely Physical Delivery Electronic Document Delivery Cold Storage ● Cornell University Library ● Page 6 ● When asked about the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s storage and access services, the percent of organizations that responded positively varied by type of service (see Chart 2). Almost one-fourth (24.2%) of the organizations that showed interest in the cold storage of nitrate and acetate films believed there was a likelihood of their organization allocating funding to this type of service. Interestingly, although the largest number of organizations showed interest in electronic document delivery, only a small percent of these (4.7%) believed there was a likelihood of their organization allocating funding to this type of service. Of those organizations interested in storage and security services, 11.3% responded positively to the likelihood of their organizations allocating funding to this service if it were provided by Cornell, and 8.5% percent of organizations were likely to allocate funding to the timely physical delivery of books and materials to their organization. Chart 2. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Storage and Access Services (of those who are interested in each service) 24.2% 25 20 Percent of Organizations 15 11.3% 10 5 8.5% 4.7% 0 Storage and Security Timely Physical Delivery Electronic Document Delivery Cold Storage ● Cornell University Library ● Page 7 ● There were differences in the level of interest in storage and access services by library type as well as by service type. An electronic delivery system and timely physical delivery for materials were the most attractive services for all five types of libraries. The cold storage of films was the least attractive service; none of the Public libraries or the CC/Library Systems was interested in this service. Historical Society Libraries were the most interested in this service (17%), followed by Medical/Special/Government Libraries (see Table 4). Table 4. Percent of Organizations Interested in Storage and Access Services, by Library type Storage and Security Timely Physical Delivery Electronic Document Delivery Cold Storage CC/Library System % 0 29 College & University % 22 44 Historical Society % 25 27 Medical/ Special/Gov % 19 52 36 54 45 0 11 17 61 16 Public Library % 12 35 53 0 6. Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Respondents were asked about their organization’s interest in ten different types of preservation and cataloging services, which aim to support and supplement the preservation, conservation, and cataloging functions of cultural heritage institutions. Services include microfilm project management, surveying collection conditions, conservation treatment of rare materials, specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production), and cataloging, with these services customized for the client organization and ranging from consulting, training, and grant writing to project management and production. As seen in Chart 3, the top three services of interest to respondents were consultation on preservation and conservation, staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging, and conservation treatment of rare and unique materials: the number and percent of organizations interested in these services was 125 (49%), 121 (48%), and 119 (47%), respectively. ● Cornell University Library ● Page 8 ● Chart 3. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services 140 125 120 121 114 119 Number of Organizations 100 80 72 60 96 67 51 81 70 40 20 0 Preservation Consulting Cataloging Consultation Grant-writing Assistance Staff Training Microfilming Project Mgmt Surveying Collection Condition Cataloging (all formats) Conservation Treatment Specialized Preservation Archival Processing A total of 114 organizations (45%) were also interested in grant-writing assistance for projects involving preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging. Microfilming project management appeared to be of least interest, with only 51 organizations (20.2%) displaying interest in this service. Of those interested in the ten different types of preservation, conservation, and cataloging services, the percent who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to these services ranged from over 13% to almost 20%. The largest percent of those interested who responded positively to a service was for microfilming project management (19.6%) and the smallest percent was for cataloging services (13.4%). Chart 4. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services (of those who are interested in each service) ● Cornell University Library ● Page 9 ● ● Cornell University Library ● Page 10 ● Preservation Consulting Cataloging Consultation Grant-writing Assistance Staff Training Microfilming Project Mgmt Surveying Collection Condition Cataloging (all formats) Conservation Treatment Specialized Preservation Archival Processing 0 2 4 6 8 10 Percent of Organizations 12 13.4% 14 14.6% 15.1% 16 15.3% 15.8% 16.5% 17.3% 17.1% 18 16.8% 20 19.6% As seen in Table 5, the percent of organizations interested in the ten types of preservation, conservation and cataloging services varied considerably by type of organization. For all ten types of services, the largest percent of libraries to display interest were Historical Society Libraries, followed by Medical/Special/ Government Libraries and College and University Libraries. Public Libraries showed interest in seven of the ten services, and CC/Library System Libraries showed interest in only six of the ten services. Table 5. Percent of Organizations Interested in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services, by Library type Preservation Consulting Cataloging Consultation Grant-writing Assistance Staff Training Microfilming Project Mgmt Surveying Collection Condition Cataloging (all formats) Conservation Treatment Specialized Preservation Archival Processing CC/Library System % 50.0 21.4 28.6 42.9 0.0 College & University % 40.0 17.8 31.1 41.1 12.2 Historical Society % 60.0 42.0 58.0 56.0 29.0 Medical/ Special/Gov % 41.9 35.5 48.4 41.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 35.7 14.3 0.0 31.1 17.8 33.3 26.7 28.9 46.0 42.0 61.0 43.0 34.0 41.9 29.0 51.6 29.0 29.0 Public Library % 52.9 0.0 47.1 52.9 35.3 17.6 0.0 41.2 17.6 0.0 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 11 ● 7. Digital Library Services Respondents were asked about their organization’s interest in digital library services, which offer a suite of services to support digitization projects (conversion of traditional holdings to digital format). It presents an integrated approach including digitization, metadata, technology support, and copyright clearance. Services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, needs assessment, and grant writing to project management and production. It aims to ensure the cost-effective planning, creation, management, and use of digital collections. As seen in Chart 5, more than 100 organizations (over 40%) displayed interest in five of the eight services, which were: digitizing materials, training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections, assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections, consultation for preserving digital collections, and archiving digital content for long-term preservation. Metadata consulting (which includes design, development, or production services to make digital collections easier to use and share) also evinced substantial interest, with 99 organizations (39.1%) of organizations responding positively. Chart 5. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Digital Library Services 120 110 108 113 110 110 99 100 85 80 75 Number of Organizations 60 40 20 0 Digitizing Materials Metadata Consulting Technology Consulting Training/Internship Grant Writing Assistance Digital Collections Preservation Consulting Digital Content Archiving Electronic Publishing Consulting Fewer organizations were interested in technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition, image management databases, and choice of digital library software (85 organizations; 33.6%), and in consulting on electronic publishing (75 organizations; 29.6%). ● Cornell University Library ● Page 12 ● Of those interested in the eight different types of digital library services, more than 20% responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to these services. The percent of organizations who responded positively did not vary greatly, and ranged from 25.9% for technology consulting to 19.1% for consulting on preserving digital collections (see Chart 6). Chart 6. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Digital Library Services (of those who are interested in each service) 30 25.3% 25.9% 25 21.8% 20 22.2% 20.4% 19.1% 21.8% 22.7% Percent of Organizations 15 10 5 0 Digitizing Materials Metadata Consulting Technology Consulting Training/Internship Grant Writing Assistance Digital Collections Preservation Consulting Digital Content Archiving Electronic Publishing Consulting ● Cornell University Library ● Page 13 ● Table 6 shows the percent of organizations interested in the eight types of digital library services by type of organization. A larger percent of Public libraries, College and University Libraries, and Historical Society Libraries were interested in the eight types of digital library services than CC/Library System Libraries and Medical/Special/Government Libraries. Table 6. Percent of Organizations Interested in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services, by Library type CC/Library System % Digitizing Materials 28.6 Metadata consulting 35.7 Technology Consulting Training/Internship 28.6 21.4 Grant Writing Assistance 14.3 Digital Collections Preservation Consulting 21.4 Digital Content Archiving 14.3 Electronic Publishing Consulting 14.3 College & University % 46.7 44.4 40.0 46.7 48.9 46.7 47.8 32.2 Historical Medical/ Society Special/Gov %% 43.0 38.7 38.0 35.5 31.0 29.0 44.0 32.3 46.0 38.7 46.0 35.5 46.0 35.5 31.0 32.3 Public Library % 52.9 29.4 29.4 52.9 47.1 47.1 47.1 17.6 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 14 ● 8. Conference and Training Center Respondents were asked about their organization’s interest in services offered by a Conference & Training Center, which will offer a state-of-the-art facility to accommodate up to 200 people. In addition to hosting Cornell University’s training, staff development, and education programs, the facility will be available to other interested parties for a fee. As seen in Chart 6, a substantial number of respondents showed interest in two of the three services offered, namely, attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations (107 organizations, 42.3%), and attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by Cornell (105 organizations, 41.5%). The third service, which was access to a training facility for the organization’s events, was of interest to only 26 organizations (10.3%). Chart 7. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Conference and Training Center Services Number of Organizations 120 107 105 100 80 60 40 26 20 0 Access to a training facility Attending training sessions Attending training sessions offered by other organizations offered by Cornell ● Cornell University Library ● Page 15 ● Chart 7 shows the percent of respondents who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization’s allocating funding to Cornell’s Conference and Training Center Services. OF those interested in each service, 34.6% thought their organization was likely to allocate funding to access to a training facility. The percent of respondents who believed their organization was likely to allocate funding to attending training sessions offered by other organizations, and to attending training sessions offered by Cornell, was 11.2% and 10.5%, respectively. Chart 8. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Conference and Training Center Services (of those who are interested in each service) 34.6% 35 30 25 Percent of Organizations 20 15 11.2% 10.5% 10 5 0 Access to a training facility Attending training sessions Attending training sessions offered by other organizations offered by Cornell ● Cornell University Library ● Page 16 ● The percent of organizations interested in Conference and Training Center Services, by library type, varied only slightly (see Table 6). The largest percent of those interested in attending training sessions offered by other organizations was Public Libraries (47.1%), and the largest percent of those interested in attending training sessions offered by Cornell was College and University Libraries (42.2%) and Historical Society Libraries (42.0%). Table 7. Percent of Organizations Interested in Conference and Training Center Services, by Library Type CC/Library System % Access to a training facility 7.1 Attending training sessions offered by other organizations 35.7 Attending training sessions offered by Cornell 35.7 College & University % 14.4 41.1 42.2 Historical Society % 9.0 Medical/ Special/Gov % 6.5 43.0 41.9 42.0 38.7 Public Library % 5.9 47.1 41.2 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 17 ● 9. General Questions • As indicated in the findings and notes in free-text question fields, there is significant interest in consulting and training programs both in traditional and digital services. • Only 18 out of 126 responses to the question “Do you know any other initiatives like ours?” included project names. We are already aware of these initiatives and did not uncover any unknown ones. • There were 38 responses to the question “Are there other services that CUL might provide?” The highest frequency is 8 for virtual reference services, followed by 5 for library instruction (information literacy). • There were several positive comments about the Cornell University Library taking the lead in looking at the “big picture.” ● Cornell University Library ● Page 18 ● 10. Summary Statistics Table 8. Number and Percentage of Organizations Interested in Services Percent Number of Total COLLECTION ACCESS AND STORAGE Organizations interested in • Storage and security for less-used materials • A system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special collections, and other library materials • An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables of contents from stored materials • Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 53 94 128 33 21% 37% 51% 13% Organizations likely to allocate funding to one or more of Cornell's storage and access services 10 4% Organizations satisfied with the results they are currently achieving in • Storage and security for less used materials • Document delivery for materials the organization does not own 69 27% 102 40% Organizations preferring • A cooperative model of shared storage • A collaborative model of shared storage • Both models of shared storage 71 28% 27 11% 34 13% Organizations currently using external services for storage and access 43 17% Organizations planning to use external service providers for storage and access in the future 38 15% COLLECTION ACCESS AND STORAGE Organizations interested in • Storage and security for less-used materials • A system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special collections, and other library materials • An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables of contents from stored materials • Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 53 94 128 33 21% 37% 51% 13% Organizations likely to allocate funding to one or more of Cornell's storage and access services 10 4% ● Cornell University Library ● Page 19 ● Organizations satisfied with the results they are currently achieving in • Storage and security for less used materials • Document delivery for materials the organization does not own Percent Number of Total 69 27% 102 40% Organizations preferring • A cooperative model of shared storage • A collaborative model of shared storage • Both models of shared storage 71 28% 27 11% 34 13% Organizations currently using external services for storage and access 43 17% Organizations planning to use external service providers for storage and access in the future • Organizations currently using external service providers to meet any of their cataloging needs • Organizations planning to use external service providers in the future to meet any of their cataloging needs 38 65 75 15% 26% 30% Planned annual budget for conservation and preservation activities within the next two to three years • Less than $5,000 • $5,000-$10,000 • $10,000-$50,000 • More than $50,000 131 52% 37 15% 26 10% 16 6% DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Organizations interested in • Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) • Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services to make your digital collections easier to use, share, and repurpose (adapt for different uses) • Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR-image to text conversion), image management databases, and choice of digital library software • Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections • Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections • Consulting on preserving digital collections-creating digital archives for permanent access • Archiving digital content for long-term preservation • Consulting on electronic publishing-providing assistance in creating online publications • Organizations likely to allocate funding to one or more of Cornell's Cornell's digital library services 110 99 85 108 113 110 110 75 29 43% 39% 34% 43% 45% 43% 43% 30% 11% ● Cornell University Library ● Page 20 ● Organizations that estimate the number of digitization projects they may require external assistance with during the next several years as • 1 a year • 2-3 a year Percent Number of Total 52 21% 27 11% Organizations satisfied with the results they are currently achieving in • Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) • Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services for making your digital collections easier to use, share, and repurpose • • Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR - image to text conversion), image management databases, and choice of digital library software • Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections • Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections • Consultation for preserving digital collections – creating digital archives for permanent access • Archiving digital content for long-term preservation • Consultation for electronic publishing - providing assistance in creating online publications 36 19 22 16 17 7 6 11 14% 8% 9% 6% 7% 3% 2% 4% Organizations with planned annual budget for digital library services within the next two to three years of • Less than $5,000 • $5,000-$10,000 • $10,000-$50,000 • More than $50,000 98 39% 18 7% 14 6% 8 3% Organizations currently using external service providers to meet any of their digital library needs 26 10% Organizations planning to use external service providers in the future to meet any of their digital library needs 34 13% CONFERENCE AND TRAINING CENTER Organizations interested in • Access to a training facility for the organization’s events • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by the Cornell University Library • Organizations likely to rent Cornell’s conference center for any of their activities 26 197 105 15 10% 78% 42% 6% Organizations that consider the following factors important in renting a conference center for any of their activities: • Proximity to your organization (distance) ● Cornell University Library ● Page 21 ● 207 82% Percent Number of Total • Rental fees • Availability of conference technologies wireless, high-speed connections, audiovisual equipment, computers, etc.) • Capacity of the facility • Availability of flexible and modular space • Appeal of the Finger Lakes area • Accessibility from your region via different modes of transportation (ease of transportation) Organizations which, if they were to rent such a facility, the number of times they would do so • Once a year • 2-3 times a year • Every other year Organizations whose members are likely to attend training, staff development, or education sessions at such a conference center Organizations that have convenient access to a conference center that meets their needs Organizations available for a follow-up phone call 209 83% 163 120 79 42 Number 64% 47% 31% 17% Percent of Total 171 68% 48 19% 11 4% 28 11% 75 30% 137 54% 140 55% Table 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds by Interested Organizations COLLECTION ACCESS AND STORAGE Funds Interested Storage 8 53 Physical document delivery 6 94 Digital document delivery 8 128 Cold storage of films PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AND CATALOGING Preservation and conservation consulting 6 Funds 21 33 Interested 125 Consultation on cataloging Grant-writing assistance 11 72 18 114 Preservation, conservation, and cataloging training Microfilming project management Collection condition surveying Cataloging Rare materials conservation 20 10 14 9 18 121 51 96 67 119 Specialized preservation Archival processing 14 81 12 70 DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Funds Interested Digitizing materials 24 110 Metadata consulting and design 25 99 Technology consulting 22 85 Training and internship 24 108 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 22 ● Assistance in grant writing Digital preservation consulting Archiving digital content Consulting on electronic publishing CONFERENCE AND TRAINING CENTER Access to a training facility Attending training by others Attending CUL training Likely to rent the conference center 23 21 24 17 Funds 9 12 11 11 113 110 110 75 Interested 26 107 105 15 Response rate: 44%, 255 completed surveys, and 199 “not applicable” responses ● Cornell University Library ● Page 23 ● Chart 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 allocate funds interested MAS 2010 Market Survey ● Cornell University Library ● Page 24 ● Number of Institutions COLLECTION STORAGE AND ACCESS Physical document delivery Cold storage of films Preservation and conservation consulting Grant-writing assistance Microfilming project management Cataloging Specialized preservation DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Metadata consulting & design Training and internship Digital preservation consulting Consulting on electronic publishing Access to a training facility Attending CUL training It is important to interpret these numbers by considering the distribution of institution types in the overall population. As indicated in the following chart, the “Historical Society, Museum, and Archives” category constitutes the majority of the respondents (47%). Chart 10: Representation of Cultural Institution Types Representation of Institution Types in Overall Population and Response Rate 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Percentage Consortia & Systems College & University Historical Society, Museum, Archives Special Libraries Public Libraries Institution Types Population Ratio Response Ratio Appendix 9: Council of Librarians MAS 2010 Future Conference Table of Contents Goal and Methodology ......................................................................................... 3 Council of Librarians, MAS 2010 Future Search Conference Schedule ............... 4 Council of Librarians Future Search Discussion Interview Questions .................. 5 Question Team Reports ....................................................................................... 6 Invitation............................................................................................................. 13 Future Search Meeting Attendees...................................................................... 16 Goal and Methodology This document summarizes the findings of the future search session that was held on June 11, 2003 at 700 Clark Hall. The goal of the session was to engage the CUL’s unit library directors and department heads in a productive, collaborative, and participative discussion to gather opinions on various aspects of the MAS 2010 project. The brainstorming session was structured as a future search session. After an introduction by Sarah Thomas and Chet Warzinski, the group divided into three teams of 12 and members interviewed each other, taking turns, on six questions. Chairs were arranged in pairs of rows participants facing each other. Each person in each row had one question and interviewed the person sitting across from him/her. Row A remained stationary and Row B moved one seat to the right after each question. ROW A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 ROW B B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 move one seat right After the interviews, each question group met to summarize their findings in three categories: Highly representative ideas, somewhat representative ideas, and unique ideas. Finally, there was a multi-voting process for Question 3, 4, 5 and the participants voted to express their priorities. Each person was given 6 votes to distributed among three questions. Council of Librarians, MAS 2010 Future Search Conference Schedule June 11, 2003, 9:30am-1:30pm 700 Clark Hall 9:30am-10:00am Arrival and Coffee 10:00am-10:20am Introduction & Overview of the Session Sarah Thomas, University Librarian Chet Warzynski, Director, Human Resources, Organizational Development 10:20am-11:15am Interviews 11:15am-11:30am Interviewers Organize Information 11:30am-12:00pm Question Teams Identify Highly, Somewhat, and Uniquely Representative Ideas 12:00pm-12:20pm Lunch Break 12:20pm-1:10pm Presentations & Lunch (5-Minute/Question) 1:10pm-1:30pm Conclusion – Next Steps Chet Warzynski Sarah Thomas Council of Librarians Future Search Discussion Interview Questions 1. What are the trends affecting higher education that are likely to have an impact on CUL? 2. In your opinion, what are the faculty and student needs that are not being addressed through the current CUL services and programs? 3. What are the new services that need to be created and promoted to address the trends in higher education? 4. Which CUL services will no longer be needed or will likely to be underutilized by 2010? 5. If CUL were to develop a suite of centralized services at a new library center in the Apple Orchards to be used by unit libraries and other Cornell divisions: (a) Which library services should be included in this center? Examples include preservation, conservation, digitization, digital archiving, etc. (b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of offering services to external clients? 6. What are the strategic collaboration opportunities at Cornell? Can you name some Cornell groups with which CUL might forge more effective alliances? What are the potential benefits of such cooperative efforts? Examples include the Cornell Press, CIT, Center for Learning and Teaching, etc. Question Team Reports 1. What are the trends affecting higher education that are likely to have an impact on CUL? Highly Representative • Budget constraints (doing more with less) • Increased use of technology has wide impact: increased production, dissemination, consumption of knowledge/information • Multidisciplinary activity • Collaboration increasing: delivering services and in teaching and learning • Greater diversity among library users: cultural experience, educational skills, age Somewhat Representative • Increased need for information literacy • Immediate access: easy, anytime, integrated (one-stop shopping) • Scholarly communication paradigm shift • Identity crisis in the library profession • Integration of library services (push out to users where they are) • Changed perception of education: "Sage on the stage becomes guide on the side" Unique • Proliferation of individually-generated collections (library becomes less important) • Tenure process change • Continual decline in humanities and social sciences study (more difficult to support) • "Overpublished": Inability to distinguish quality from mass • Value of marginalized collections • People come together to share information rather than to seek it privately (collaborative exchange) • Library as place: Shift from single point of access to information to library as everywhere (library without walls) 2. In your opinion, what are the faculty and student needs that are not being addressed through the current CUL services and programs? High Representative • Access from more locations • Education, promotion and marketing of what we currently offer • Flexible, space for varied needs (space can be converted from one type to another) • Instruction (formal) in information literacy, critical evaluation (a for-credit course offered by the Library) • Technical systems that are easy to use and intuitive Somewhat Representative • Integration of library into courses (We should be more actively involved with faculty in creating course curricula, websites & course content) • Working with faculty and graduate students on presentations and exhibits (this refers to physical space) • Support for scholarly publishing (journals, newsletters that are produced in departments) • Tailor services for different information needs and learning styles (individual, group, etc.) Unique • Put librarians where the attractors are (e.g. cafes) • Provide career information • Provide a multilingual medium for our diverse community • Embedded indicators of value objects of information • Increased focus on costs vs. benefits • Anticipation of needs of future users (be more forward thinking) • Continuing Education for adults regarding changes in technology • Depository for informal and formal publications created by faculty and students 3. What are the new services that need to be created and promoted to address the trends in higher education? Highly Representative • Information literacy: critical evaluation of sources for students; helping faculty cross disciplinary boundaries - 7 votes • Active participation in pedagogy: integration of library resources into courseware; outreach to faculty at an early stage in course development - 9 votes • Library as content provider: repository, organizer, publisher - 16 votes Somewhat Representative • Delivery of information ("take the Library to users"): content development, delivery--24/7, customized, self-service; interface development to make navigation through complex information space easier - 19 votes • Support for collaborative work: space - 5 votes • Dealing with different learning styles: pedagogical differences; learning capacities; oral vs. textual - 1 vote • Promotion of the Library and its services ("another form of external relations") 4. Which CUL services will no longer be needed or will likely to be underutilized by 2010? Highly Representative • Due to the decline in use of print collection, the following services are likely to be underutilized or no longer needed. This trend will be faster in some disciplines and formats. - 19 votes • Circulation • Bindery • Print reserve • Photocopy services • Stack maintenance • Serials check-in – 3 votes • Browsing • Book repair of stacks collections (shift to special collections) • Methods of current cataloging (less in-house cataloging) – 3 votes • Traditional desk based reference (less face-to-face interaction, more chat reference, types of questions will change and there may be less questions with more time requirement) – 19 votes • Types of questions (move to more research questions) – 2 votes Somewhat Representative • Current form of catalog & cataloging will be less needed– 9 votes • Collection development (increasing reliance on institutional and discipline based collection development, cooperative collection development may be preferred, we may stop collection and rely on other institutions except the disciplines that we identify as our core collection development areas) – 4 votes • Decline in hardcover – 3 votes • Coalescence of service points Unique • There may be less of a market for high quality digitization as lower quality is cheaper and faster • Less microfilm – 1 vote • Less standard storage and more collaboration – too expensive to maintain collections • Less need for public computing • Bibliographic instruction may be underutilized if we are not careful – users may think that they already know how to find and evaluate information– 1 vote • Library-provided customized services 5. If CUL were to develop a suite of centralized services at a new library center in the Apple Orchards to be used by unit libraries and other Cornell divisions: (a) Which library services should be included in this center? Examples include preservation, conservation, digitization, digital archiving, etc. Highly Representative • Preservation – 3 votes • Conservation – 2 votes • Digitization Production Services – 9 votes • Services not requiring patron contact – 2 votes • Technical Services (except where need for integration with public service/selection) – 11 votes Somewhat Representative • Physical Storage with document delivery – 11 votes • Technology/Systems support – 3 votes • Digital archiving – 0 vote • Shipping & Receiving – 1 vote Unique • Library Administration/Admin Operations – 1 vote • Microforms with document delivery • External Relations • Public Service expertise would be needed – 5 votes 5(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of offering services to external clients? ADVANTAGES Highly Representative • Economies of Scale • Increased revenue potential & subsidy of CUL costs Somewhat Representative • CUL, as provider, defines standards – 1 vote • Enhances collaboration with other institutions Unique • Define what we know • Good PR • Eliminates redundancy in collections • Cheap real estate • Influence profession through continuing education & consulting DISADVANTAGES Highly Representative • Financial Risk • May hurt primary CUL constituency – 1 vote Somewhat Representative • Loss of CUL identity (relating to physical collections) • Ability to adjust to fluctuating demand (staff & equipment) – 1 vote • Lack of expertise in developing business models in competitive market – 2 votes Unique • Orchards/Ithaca not a good location (for books & services) – 2 votes 6. What are the strategic collaboration opportunities at Cornell? Highly Representative • Faculty • CIT/OIT • Cornell University Press • Center for Learning and Teaching Somewhat Representative • Communication and Marketing Services • Johnson Art Museum • The Cornell Store • Slide Library • CU Libraries • Computer Science • Students Unique • Support staff for faculty and departments • Alumni Affairs/Development Office • Residence Life • Operations Research Department • Cornell Theatre & Other cultural events • Administrative units such as Registrar and President’s Office • Faculty “stars” • Postdocs • Statistical support groups • Cooperative Extension • Mail Services • OSP • Concentrate on faculty – existing collaborations are enough Invitation TO: Council of Librarians FROM: Sarah Thomas RE: June 11th MAS 2010 meeting The goal of the June 11 Council of Librarians meeting is to gather your opinions on various aspects of the MAS 2010 project. The meeting will begin at 10am sharp, with coffee/tea service starting at 9:30am at 700 Clark Hall. We will serve lunch and the meeting will end at 1:30pm. The discussion group design is dependent on the number of participants. Please let Oya Rieger (oyr1, 4-5160) know if you had already confirmed your attendance but will not be able to attend. We are looking forward to discussing the following questions with you during the meeting: 1. What are the trends affecting higher education that are likely to have an impact on CUL? 2. In your opinion, what are the faculty and student needs that are not being addressed through the current CUL services and programs? 3. What are the new services that need to be created and promoted to address the trends in higher education? 4. Which CUL services will no longer be needed or will likely to be underutilized by 2010? 5. If CUL were to develop a suite of centralized services at a new library center in the Apple Orchards to be used by unit libraries and other Cornell divisions: (a) Which library services should be included in this center? Examples include preservation, conservation, digitization, digital archiving, etc. (b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of offering services to external clients? 6. What are the strategic collaboration opportunities at Cornell? Can you name some Cornell groups with which CUL might forge more effective alliances? What are the potential benefits of such cooperative efforts? Examples include the Cornell Press, CIT, Center for Learning and Teaching, etc. Please review these questions and come prepared to present your perspectives. I appended a project synopsis for background information. I am looking forward to a productive and stimulating meeting! Sarah Thomas MAS 2010 Project Synopsis We are excited to have support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for a one-year planning grant (November'02-October'03) to explore new models for academic support that can result from innovative and efficient library services. Our research has four integrated tracks: * Investigate how to transform the Annex Library into a new service center that would include several library operations and how this new operation would affect staff and services. * Assess models for providing common library services for CUL for efficient & economic operations; explore which services would lend themselves to be centralized services. * Identify opportunities for fostering Cornell-wide alliances and synergy building. * Investigate the feasibility of offering services to New York State cultural heritage institutions (libraries, archives, museums, historical societies). At the heart of our investigation is the identification of mission-critical library services, in order to understand better what functions and staff libraries can relocate and also what libraries can delegate to others. Our two primary motivations are to relieve the spatial constrictions our libraries are experiencing and to use the analysis of what to relocate as the impetus for developing new structures and entrepreneurial roles for libraries. In conceptualizing this physical restructuring, we intend not only to regain prime space on campus for users, but also to define and design an entrepreneurial service center that can assist smaller libraries, university presses, publishers, and others. Our goal is to explore how to achieve better utilization of space, allocate university resources more effectively, and, ultimately, improve information access for scholars and students. Please refer to the project proposal for more information about the objectives: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/proposal.pdf During December 2002-February 2003, CUL MAS 2010 Consultant Teams analyzed ten service areas to assess the feasibility of locating these services to a new library center, providing common services for CUL and Cornell, creating synergy among Cornell service providers, and offering services for external clients. A synopsis of the consultant teams report can be found at: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/Synopses.pdf These reports have been fundamental in shaping our research, especially in identifying potential common service areas. Based on the recommendations of the MAS 2010 Consultant Teams, we are in the process of administering a market survey to 1,000 New York State libraries, archives, historical societies, and museums to gauge their interest in buying services from CUL. The web-based survey is at: http://cast.cornell.edu/mas/survey.cfm (User name: 9901; Password: 9901). The project website includes information about the project methodology as well as several interim reports: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/ Please see the attached Power Point presentation for a quick project overview, including the recommendations of the CUL 2010 Consultant Teams. Contact Oya Rieger (oyr1, 4-5160) if you have any questions about the meeting or need clarifications on any of the future search questions. Future Search Meeting Attendees June 11, 2003 10:00 am – 1:30 pm Scott Wicks Elaine Engst Sarah Thomas Barbara B. Eden Jane McCue Jean Poland Edward Weissman Zsuzsa Koltay Linda Westlake Peter Hirtle Terry Kristensen Oya Rieger Marty Kurth Martha Walker Susan Currie Karen Calhoun Pat Court Lee Cartmill Jim LeBlanc Nancy McGovern David Block Ross Atkinson Marcy Rosenkrantz John Dean Anne Kenney Thomas Hahn Oliver Habicht Allen Riedy Eric Acree Kathy Chiang Appendix 10: Editors’ Forum Program Cornell University Press & the Cornell University Library present: Editors’ Forum THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH • 8:30 - 12 NOON • 700 CLARK HALL Forum Goal: Bring together faculty and others on campus who serve as editors on important scholarly journals; some of these journals are published here at Cornell, some by societies, and some by commercial publishers. Forum will address publishing needs and the ways in which a collaboration of the University Library and the University Press might assist in meeting those needs. 8:30 Coffee/tea, and muffins 9:00 Opening remarks and introduction of speaker, Provost Biddy Martin 9:15 Opening Address, James Neal, Columbia University, Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian will describe his leadership in innovative library/press collaborations, previously at Johns Hopkins and now at Columbia. 10:00 Demonstration of Project Euclid, Terry Ehling, Director of Electronic Publishing, will provide a brief demonstration of Project Euclid's features and functionality and discuss the Library-developed technology (DPubS) behind Euclid in more detail. Project Euclid represents a robust and sustainable model for the publishing of serial literature on line. 10:25 Brief Break 10:40 Panel of Editors, Vice Provost Francille Firebaugh, moderator 3 Cornell-affiliated editors will speak about their their needs in journal publishing, their challenges, resource roadblocks, etc. Responses from Sarah Thomas, University Librarian and John Ackerman, Director of the Cornell University Press will include introduction of library/press collaborative effort. Deborah Homsher Managing Editor, Southeast Asia Program Publications Linda Johanson Managing Editor, Administrative Science Quarterly John Rowehl Managing Editor, Philosophical Review 11:45 12:00 Wrap-Up, Vice Provost Kraig Adler Forum concludes Appendix 11: Digital Depository and Asset Management Survey Library & Related Information Services (LARIS) Workforce Planning Survey ** draft 3.1 ** Last spring, President Hunter Rawlings and Provost Biddy Martin initiated the Library and Related Information Services (LARIS) Workforce Planning review. The goal of this review is to: • Clearly define management roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within the Cornell University Library and other related operations at the University. • Identify the structures and methods that will result in the most effective and efficient delivery of library and related information services. • Achieve savings in the library system and in associated library services (e.g., digital repositories) on the Ithaca campus to support emerging needs. As charged by the President, the LARIS review aims to gather information about: 1) how the resources of the Cornell University Library are being used. A review of the Library has been underway since March 2003. Information about this first phase of the review is available at http://www.library.cornell.edu/laris/. The LARIS Lead Team expects to make recommendations to the University Workforce Planning Committee in early 2004. 2) The investment in information resources occurring outside the envelope of the University Library. The objective of this survey is to collect data on the investment by colleges, schools, departments, programs and divisions in information resources and services outside the eighteen(?) units of the Cornell University Library in Ithaca whether they are supported by either endowed or contract college funding. (The list of these units is appended below.) These include things such as: a) books, journals, audio-visual materials (slides, films, DVDs, photographs, tapes, etc.) and other physical media; b) digital collections or databases of scholarly information. c) technical infrastructure and other support for the publication of pre-prints, articles, monographs, conference proceedings and/or journals in print or electronic form. d) artifact collections These resources and services may be aimed at faculty, students and staff within the supporting units, or externally to the entire University community and beyond. However, investments by individuals to support their own personal research should not be reported. By better understanding the University’s total investment in information resources and service, we hope to determine if there are efficiencies to be gained by reducing redundancy and leveraging services to insure that the Cornell remains at the cutting edge of … I appreciate your assistance in gathering this information. LARIS Survey, Page 1 Name of respondent:________________________________ Position title:__________________________________________ College, school, department, program or division:________________________________ 1) Does your college, school, department, program or division support any of the following information resources or services beyond the support you provide for one of the units of the Cornell University Library?: a) collections of books, journals, audio-visual materials (slides, films, DVDs, photographs, tapes, recordings, etc.) or other physical media: Yes ___ No ___ b) subscriptions to journals, indexing and abstracting services, or other databases, either in print or electronic form: Yes ___ No ___ c) the publication in print of pre-prints, articles, monographs, conference proceedings and journals: Yes ___ No ___ Examples include the Anne Carry Durland Memorial Alternatives Library, the Knight Visual Resources Facility, departmental resource centers and Administrative Science Quarterly, published by the Johnson Graduate School of Management. If you answered yes to any of the above questions, please fill in Form A for each discrete collection, service or publication. Duplicate Form A as needed. If someone else is better able to fill in Form A, please list the name of the collection, service or publication and the primary contact name and e-mail address. We will request this information from the contact you list. 2) Does your college, school, department, program or division: a) produce and/or maintain digital collections of print, still or moving images, audio, geospatial, numeric or other information: Yes ___ No ___ b) provide the technical infrastructure for the publication of pre-prints, articles, monographs, conference proceedings and journals in electronic form:. Yes ___ No ___ Examples include the Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research (CISER), the Lab of Ornithology’s McCauley Library of Natural Sounds, and BirdSource, published by the Laboratory of Ornithology. An aggregation comprised only of links to materials maintained elsewhere would not, however, be envisioned for inclusion here. If you answered yes to either of the questions, please fill in Form B for each discrete collection (repository), service, or electronic publishing endeavor within your unit. Duplicate Form B as needed. If someone else is better able to fill in Form B, please list the name of the collection (repository), service, or electronic publishing endeavor and the primary contact name and e-mail address. We will request this information from the contact you list. LARIS Survey, Page 2 3) Does your college, school, department, program or division hold artifacts (e.g., models and casts; plant, animal, and mineral specimens; costumes)? Yes _____ No _____ Examples of collections include the Anthropology Collections, Bailey Hortorium, Geological Sciences Collection, Insect Collections, Textile and Costume Collection, and Vertebrate Collections. If you answered yes to the above question, please fill in Form C for each discrete collection. Duplicate Form C as needed. If someone else is better able to fill in Form C, please list the name of the collection and the primary contact name and e-mail address. We will request this information from the contact you list. [Does this go here or in Form C?] Would you consider transferring these materials to secure space within the Library? ______________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 4) Would you be interested in a service coordinated by the Cornell University Library if it reduced your costs? Comments: ______________________________________________________________ LARIS Survey, Page 3 5) How interested are you in the following services?: Not at all interested Very interested Storage and security for your organization’s less used print materials and artifactual collections in a facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for longterm storage. 1 2 34 5 Consultancy services to help you make decisions in creating digital content, such as image databases. 1 2 34 5 Digital content development services to help you create collections that are easier to maintain, use, and share from digitization to web delivery. 1 2 34 5 Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections 1 2 34 5 Consulting on preserving digital collections—creating digital archives for permanent access 1 2 34 5 Archiving digital content for long-term preservation 1 2 34 5 Consulting on electronic publishing—providing assistance in creating online publications 1 2 34 5 Access to a state-of-the-art meeting facility for my organization’s events, accommodating up to 200 people. 1 2 34 5 Consulting/assisting in creating metadata (cataloging) for artifactual collections. 1 2 34 5 LARIS Survey, Page 4 Form A: For Collections of Print and Other Physical Media; Publishing Endeavors General information: Name of collection, service or publishing endeavor: Contact name: Contact information (e-mail, phone): Short description: Type of collection, or type of material published Quantity of items in collection by type or number of items published Principal audience: Access restrictions, if any: Costs Acquisition of materials Operating expenses (equipment, software, etc.) Personnel (salaries, wages, fringe benefits) Staffing: Number of FTE Space: Location of facility Size of facility (SF) LARIS Survey, Page 5 Form B: For Digital Collections/Repositories or Electronic Publishing Endeavors Please respond for each digital repository or electronic publishing endeavor within your unit: General Information: Name of digital repository/electronic publishing initiative: Contact Name: Contact Info (e-mail, phone): Status (existing, under development, planning stage): Type (collection, e-print server, e-journal, mirror site, etc.): Short description: URL: Content Types (monograph, serial, audio, still image, audio, AV clips, etc.) Quantity (of each type): Server Technologies: Client Technologies: Access Restrictions (Cornell community, none, etc.): Charge for Access (none, attach subscription or per-use fee structure): Costs: I. Equipment (Hardware/Software/Infrastructure/Support): Server Identifier (name or node name): Server Price: Annual Backup Costs: Annual Network Costs: Annual NUBB Costs: Software Applications: Software Licensing Costs: Software Maintenance/Service Contract Costs: Hardware Maintenance/Service Contract Cost: Security Costs (authentication/authorization or special network needs): CIT System Support Annual Cost: Other repositories/electronic publishing initiatives residing on this server: II. Staffing (prorate for endeavor identified): CU Maintenance/Production Staff FTE: Total Annual CU Staff Salary: If costs are shared with other institutions outside of Cornell, please estimate staffing effort: External Staff FTE: Total Annual External Staff Salary: III. Space: Equipment: Location of Production Equipment: Production Equipment Footprint (SF): Annual Space Rent (e.g., CIT Operations Costs): Staff: # of Maintenance/Production Staff: Staffing Footprint (SF): LARIS Survey, Page 6 IV. Other: List other equipment, staff, or space costs associated with this digital repository or electronic publishing venture that is not captured in I, II, or III. LARIS Survey, Page 7 Form C: For Artifact Collections General information: Collection name: Contact name: Contact information (e-mail, phone): Short description: Type of object(s) Approximate quantity Approximate size Custodial organization (who owns it) Principal audience: Access restrictions, if any: Is there additional descriptive information about the collection (e.g. catalog, lists) Costs Acquisition of materials Operating expenses Personnel (salaries, wages, fringe benefits) Staffing: Number of FTE Space: Holding organization (where is it currently housed) Location of facility Size of facility (SF) LARIS Survey, Page 8 Appendix12 : MAS 2010 Service Center Budget Projections LARIS Survey, Page 9 LARIS Survey, Page 10 MAS 2010 Service Center Budget Projections Table of Contents Summary Consulting Services Training Workshops Metadata Production Services IT Production Services Digitization Production Services Preservation and Conservation Production Services Copyright Regional Repository Document Delivery Service EPublishing Production Detail Totals – All Services Digitization Production Demand Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services A Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation From The Cornell University Library Sarah E. Thomas, University Librarian July 31, 2002 Summary The Cornell University Library seeks support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in the amount of $120,000 to develop a plan for an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center. The service center would leverage the assets of the Library to provide expert assistance to smaller libraries, university presses, publishers, and others. Among the features of the service bureau would be shared storage of physical collections, a digital repository, document delivery, technical services, a digital production unit, preservation, and electronic publishing. The purpose of the center would be to exploit Cornell’s expertise, collections, and technological infrastructure to achieve economy of scale in a number of synergistic activities common in libraries, presses, and universities. A successful implementation of the concept would result in a restructuring of the relationships and responsibilities of libraries to one another and to their host organizations. An important feature of the plan is its novel solution to the problem of campus congestion plaguing universities. During the one-year period of the planning grant, the Cornell University Library will seek answers to key questions about the feasibility of establishing an enterprise to serve internal and external clients and the desired mechanism for creating such a center. It will develop business and marketing plans. The Library will use its own funds to prototype one component, the digital production unit at the local university level. Transforming Libraries to Concentrate on Core Services Libraries have grown more comfortable with outsourcing aspects of their operations over the past decades, with approval plans, cataloging via utilities, or management of systems support being examples of work entrusted to other organizations. This proposal suggests that there could be a significant shift in the structure of libraries and their core activities over the next decade that goes far beyond currently accepted practices. In the future the core business of librarians may concentrate on direct service to users, on collaboration in the design and development of teaching and research tools, and on support for scholarly communications. There may be a trend to move the behind-the-scenes operations to offsite service bureaus, particularly if this transfer of responsibility results in a combination of savings, high quality products, and improved services for users. The proposal is, therefore, not only a plan to explore an entrepreneurial approach to library services that would have immediate benefits for both the providers and the consumers, Cornell University Library, Page 1 but it is also a potential transformative agent in the restructuring of information services within higher education. Heart of the University or Edge City? It is commonplace for university presidents to refer to the library as the heart of the university, and libraries invariably are located in the center of campus, where they are at the crossroads of social and intellectual activity. In the last quarter century, the accelerated growth of collections has strained the capacity of library buildings. At the same time, the rising price of publications, as well as other increases in the cost of higher education, has strained university budgets. The post-war period has also witnessed major growth in the number of students attending colleges and universities and in an array of campus facilities such as classrooms, laboratories, and residences. These forces converge to generate significant pressure on libraries to meet the needs of an expanding user population and to house expanding collections and at the same time, to contain costs.1 With space on central campus at a premium, institutions have supported the construction of off-site high-density storage facilities to house the overflow from campus libraries. Harvard’s Depository Library has served as a model for many of the remote storage book warehouses, which hold primarily lesser-used items. Although humanities faculty in particular deplore the loss of browsable collections, there is growing sentiment within the academy that active user space, be it classrooms, laboratories, group study rooms, or studios, should take precedence over book storage. As libraries seek to lower the overhead of the management of remote storage facilities, they sometimes band together, as have Columbia, Princeton, and the New York Public Library, to reduce costs in construction and management through a shared facility to hold 6 million volumes at Princeton’s Forrestal Campus. For the most part, these shared operations have not affected the collections of the partners, although the Five Colleges, Inc. has pioneered a policy in which partnering institutions agree to eliminate duplicate holdings. This reduces the need for capital construction. Willis Bridegam, of Amherst College, wrote of his fellow library directors at Hampshire, Mt. Holyoke, Smith, and the University of Massachusetts in his 2001 publication: “They understood the economies that might be realized through joint staffing of a shared off-site library storage center. They saw the potential advantage of being able to develop complete periodical backruns from fragmented sets of the five individual libraries. They supported the idea of choosing the best copy of a book or periodical volume of which there were duplicates for retention in a depository. They thought that it would be efficient to establish one conservation service at the bunker for all the materials transferred there.”2 1 Between 1962 and 1993 Cornell added only 300 library seats to accommodate an additional 7000 students. During the same period collections grew by 3.5 million. 2 Willis Bridegam, A Collaborative Approach to Collection Storage: The Five-College Library Depository, Washington: D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2001, ( http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub97/bodyb.html) 2 One of the driving forces behind this new way of thinking has been JSTOR. There is mounting evidence that JSTOR’s original intent of freeing institutions from dedicating miles of shelves to hold bound journals held in duplicate is now taking hold. At first only a few intrepid libraries were willing to move printed volumes available online through JSTOR to remote storage. More recently several libraries have announced their intention to dispose of “JSTOR” journals. This decision is usually predicated on the safety net of an archival paper copy of the journal being held by a library of record, such as a member of a consortium or an organization such as the Center for Research Libraries. Necessity is the Mother of Invention Bridegam also noted another common characteristic: none of the Five Colleges presidents embraced the concept of expanding campus libraries to accommodate growth, despite overcrowded shelves. Cornell administrators share some of the same reluctance, although the university has invested over fifty million dollars in expanding and enhancing library space in the past decade. In 1990, when Olin, Cornell’s main library and the principal locus of social science and humanities research, was bursting at the seams with books, the Trustees decreed that there would be no further library construction planned for central campus beyond that already in the queue for its contract colleges. Out of this was born the ingenious compromise of the spectacular underground Kroch Library, housing the Rare and Manuscript Collections and the Asian Division, which opened in 1992, and the Library Annex, a high-density storage module constructed in 1998 at the orchard abutting the east end of the Cornell campus. Yet Olin Library, erected in 1961 and now looking dated and worn, still needed reconceptualization in 2002. A library committee convened to recommend programmatic modifications developed a guiding principle to “privilege the user, “ by which was meant that user needs took precedence over collections and staff. However, an analysis of proposed space allocation revealed that the committee was actually proposing to reduce the space for collections (to accommodate sprinklers and mechanicals as well as expanded carrel space) and to expand staff quarters to reflect new services such as digitization assistance, a scholarly communications center, and an Office of Distributed Learning. 3 The Library Annex is located at the Cornell orchards, a five-minute drive from Olin Library . The Library Annex was a key component of the plan; the construction of another highdensity storage module would hold both the collections displaced through the planned renovation and materials removed in order to maintain steady state within Olin. With a second module, however, the number of volumes housed at the Annex would reach three million, exceeding the number shelved in Olin. Perhaps it was time to consider the Annex differently. Perhaps, instead as serving as a high-tech warehouse for banished books, it could become a vital complex on the expanding campus. Cornell has abundant land, and its campus is already far flung. The congestion on campus has resulted in a continuous expansion in all directions, with the consequence that many campus units are migrating toward the orchard and beyond. Imagining the depository as a strategic asset rather than an exile unleashed powerful possibilities. The new complex could become a second center of gravity, an edge city with a rich array of services for Cornell and other institutions. By developing the Annex more fully, the Library would also free up valuable space in Olin Library for teaching and learning. A preliminary review indicates that as many as 120 staff could be relocated to the Library Annex, resulting in a savings on central campus of 20,000 square feet. Other parts of the university would also benefit if certain services offered at the Annex relieved space pressures they were experiencing. For example, the editorial offices of several journals are dispersed throughout the colleges. Consolidating editorial support would free up space and create a more concentrated pool of expertise. The potential to reduce capital construction costs was great, if one could shift construction activity away from the crowded central campus to open expanses at the evolving margins. If Cornell can rethink which functions, staff, and collections are absolutely critical to house on central campus, and if it can embrace a new dynamic that lowers costs and increases efficiency, it is likely that other institutions could benefit from this approach as 4 well. Several academic libraries in New York (Syracuse, Binghamton, and Colgate, to name a few) have contacted Cornell about exploring the possibility of a common storage facility.3 The Cornell University Library operates highly successful programs in preservation training and conducts digital imaging workshops that attract participants from both New York state and international locations. Just as corporations in a global society have found it feasible to contract out human resources or information technology to others with greater depth and focus, so may it be appropriate for librarians to begin thinking more about the aspects of their work that are core and which activities another organization can undertake on their behalf. This proposal delineates a new model of support within universities and between colleges and universities. It presents a concept of a restructured library, both physically and intellectually. Driving the transformation are two goals: 1) enhanced quality of support for scholarship, teaching, and learning and 2) more efficient and economical operations. Defining the Service Bureau One potential new role for the library is to develop its capacity as a service bureau for selected campus initiatives, for university presses, publishers, other libraries, and cultural organizations such as museums or historical societies. In particular, a large research library, with a robust infrastructure and multifaceted functional expertise, is primed to extend its capabilities to support others. By establishing itself as a center for certain core information activities, the library both increases the scale of its operations in a manner which can achieve effectiveness and economy. It provides the opportunity for others outside the library to benefit from access to deep expertise and to realize savings for their own organization by contracting with the library service bureau at a lower cost than they could replicate the service internally. A few entrepreneurial models for research libraries have emerged in the past few years: Stanford’s HighWire Press, Michigan’s Digital Library Production Service, and Harvard’s Depository Library all tackle a piece of service provision. The Johns Hopkins University Libraries created a unit to which distance learning programs could outsource their information needs. The Center for Research Libraries is repositioning itself to move from being a repository of lesser-used materials with document delivery to an organization that coordinates the collections of libraries. No single institution, however, has promoted a suite of services which could provide a truly transformational route to a new manner of managing information. The Cornell University Library envisions leveraging the expertise of its staff, the assets of its collections, and its technological infrastructure to create a new leadership and service role for a major research library. For the past decade, the watchwords in digital library development and in collection building have been “scale” and “sustainability.” This proposal assumes that individual libraries will increasingly lack the means, breadth, and depth to manage effectively and efficiently all aspects of information service. If libraries, university presses, and others using certain types of information services would channel some aspects of their operations to a larger entity, they could save labor and infrastructure costs and obtain quality products created according to accepted standards. 3 Letter of July 30, 2002 from J.Noyes, University Librarian, Colgate. (see attachments for full text of letter.) 5 Large research libraries could extend their reach to provide selected services for other organizations, creating an economy of scale that would benefit both parties. In addition, the creation of a complex library and information service center would permit research libraries to reorganize staff and services, freeing up valuable real estate in the center of campus for teaching, learning, and other public use. More efficient and less expensive construction could house the center in a less congested environment. Specifically, Cornell’s model would comprise several components. The Library Annex, or high-density storage facility, is the precipitating factor. Other parts and services would include a digital repository, document delivery, a technical services operation, preservation and conservation, a digitization unit, electronic publishing support, and a collection development consulting service. Clients could avail themselves of any or all the services. In the ideal scenario, participating libraries would assess their collections and retain onsite access to those holdings essential for browsing and routine, immediate consultation. Low use materials and items for which electronic twins exist would be housed at the regional depository. Cornell would designate unique holdings as the title of record, enabling institutions with duplicates to deaccession materials. Cornell would ultimately be acting in concert with several other officially designated regional depositories, thus providing a measure of back-up protection for its copy of record. High Density Storage at Cornell Cornell would manage a document delivery service that features a combination of photocopy, digitization, and provision of the artifact. Practical assessment of the cost of provision and user needs would determine the form of document delivery. For the past year Cornell has been offering a document delivery service from its Library Annex in which requested articles are scanned and mounted on a server. Staff notify the requestor via email with the URL of the scanned article. Several campus libraries have tested a variation of this service with users, who have been overwhelmingly enthusiastic about it. 6 As part of its assessment of its document delivery service, the Library will review the costs of the various approaches, potentially establishing differential pricing. Digitization is an activity that is complex, and which demands state-of-the-art hardware and software. Creating a quality product requires knowledge of standards and expertise developed through continual exposure to many types of materials. Effective digitization programs consequently benefit from high volume. In the Cornell service center, we envision a unit specializing in digitization that could handle a wide variety of digitization requests within the Cornell Library, from the University, and from other clients. The digitization unit would, for example, conduct the scanning for document delivery. In addition, they could draw on the holdings of the depository for scanning for electronic reserves. Organizations, as well as individual faculty, could contract with them to digitize printed matter and special collections. Among its potential clients would be faculty developing teaching materials, university presses digitizing their backfiles, museums with grants to bring collections online, and other libraries wishing to avoid the costly investment in technology with rapid obsolescence. The Library would draw on its considerable experience in digitization projects now resulting in almost 3 million digital images that are part of Cornell’s digital library, including books, manuscripts, and works of art. However, even with a skilled staff and high-end equipment, the Cornell service center may not be competitive with offshore operations. Therefore, an important component of the process will be to assess the appropriate approach to any digitization project and to consult with the client on the various factors such as cost, speed, quality, care of the artifact, etc. that must be taken into account. Just as Cornell proposes to establish a paper repository, it follows that its digitization activity would lead to a common digital depository. The Library would employ its expertise in serving and sustaining access to digital files by becoming a service provider for digital materials contributed or owned by others. Cornell’s digital files currently receive over 125 million hits annually from over 100,000 hosts, not including its support for the arXiv, which it began hosting in September 2001. Participating libraries and institutions will, therefore, have access to a dependable service that can accommodate high traffic from a worldwide base. Ideally, the digital files would be cross-searchable and interoperable with other repositories. The capability exists to support both institutional and disciplinary repositories as well as mixed materials. In the past year Cornell has developed internal guidelines for a common depository holding its digital files, and these guidelines would be extended to include external documents.4 As the repository grows, it will become a site of scholarly content created and maintained according to a set of compatible standards and best practices. Through the contributions of many different digitization initiatives, the site will achieve critical mass more quickly, making it more valuable to searchers. 4Establishing a Central Depository for Preserving Digital Image Collections ( http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/IMLS/image_deposit_guidelines.pdf ) 7 An essential aspect of administering, accessing, and preserving digital files is an appropriate metadata structure. Through the Library service center, Cornell would share its deep expertise in the creation of metadata with others. The Cataloging and Metadata unit would coordinate its efforts with the digitization, repository, and preservation services. Ultimately libraries will develop confidence in the concept of integrated depositories of paper and digital materials. Users will learn that scholarship is assisted, rather than hindered through regional repositories. In the evolution of the truly integrated collection, libraries will develop a new strategy for collection development and knowledge management that depends more heavily on a priori coordination of selection and on a sharper definition of what is essential to locate onsite. Libraries will build on their experience in the assignment and use of titles in the shared storage facility to create a new policy for acquisition. Cornell sees a potential role in managing the collection development of smaller organizations. Multiple titles could be acquired simultaneously, reducing the cost of acquisition. Institutions would have the opportunity to concentrate on specialized local needs or conversely, to contract with Cornell’s subject and area studies experts to build particular strength. A natural outgrowth of outsourcing collection building to Cornell would be the desirability of receiving bibliographic records with titles acquired. Although the optimal solution is to obtain catalog records from the publisher or vendor, in the advent that no bibliographic record is available at the point of receipt, Cornell is well poised to create one of high quality through its cataloging service. The Cornell University Library is the largest contributor of bibliographic records to the Program on Cooperative Cataloging and is a large, efficient operation. Another library function that is readily encompassed into the service menu is preservation and conservation. Logically, collocating this activity with such a sizable collection is housed would lessen transport. In addition, it provides a location where the considerable space demanded by an active program is readily available. Cornell University Library has a leading preservation and conservation unit which has garnered many awards and which has offered a series of training opportunities and workshops for librarians, archivists, and other professionals from around the world. Appropriately, service offered would be both direct treatment of materials but also training to educate others in how to manage their onsite collections adequately. Another area of great potential is development of a scholarly communications or electronic publishing capability. Libraries have an expanding role in the creation of digital publications. They have pioneered in digital republishing, broadening access to thousands of documents held in their collections. Increasingly they are collaborating with both commercial publishers and university presses. In the creation or support of institutional and disciplinary-based repositories, they are charting a new path for scholarship. The Cornell University Library sees enormous potential for bringing publications to a wider audience using a combination of the digitization, metadata, and repository services described above. University presses, for example, could save the 8 overhead of establishing costly technological support in their already stretched environments. Using software developed for Project Euclid, a Mellon-funded activity, to deliver online access to mathematics journals, the library could offer alternative venues for the publication of journals within the academy. If the library were to collaborate with the university press, this approach has the potential of providing university presses with stable revenue and mitigating the serials crisis experienced by libraries. The service center’s digital repository can offer consolidated distribution of titles, bringing economy of scale to publishers. Presses can expand into new areas of online publication such as epublishing in the humanities that address problems about diminishing outlets for humanistic scholarship in traditional print publishing. Universities can consolidate the inefficient, distributed endeavors such as the publication of journals, reports from research centers, conference proceedings, and grey literature by taking advantage of the service center facilities. Like the concept of distributed regional repositories, this model of providing a more efficient approach to share scholarship within the academy can be replicated at other institutions with robust infrastructures. The Planning Grant Establishing a successful information service bureau requires careful planning. The Cornell University Library seeks support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to explore the organizational, legal, and economic issues associated with developing an innovative enterprise. Key questions the Library will address during the planning phase include: 1. Which services potentially offered by the service bureau would benefit libraries most? 2. Which information services would be of greatest value to others outside of libraries? 3. Where would the greatest economies of scale occur? 4. How many potential clients might there be for individual services? 5. What are the barriers to use of the service center? How might they be overcome? 6. Is it economically feasible for a university library to operate a service bureau? 7. What is the competitive market? 8. What unique advantages might a university library bring to such a service center over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? 9. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? 10. What would the cost of start-up be? 11. What would the operating costs be for each function? 12. What marketing strategy should the center use? 13. Should the center be a separate legal entity? 14. What relationship should the center have with users of its services: that of partner, collaborator, or vendor/client? 15. What are the implications for library recordkeeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? 9 Workplan The planning grant would cover two phases. During the first seven months (October 2002-May 2003), the Library and the Press will refine the questions that would gather information about the feasibility of establishing a library service center and would conduct surveys and interviews to collect feedback about the nature and priority of services, identify potential clients, and establish marketability. The Library will draw on the resources at Cornell, including CAST (Computer-Assisted Survey Team) and the Johnson School of Management, as appropriate, as well as others such as Nylink, a network service provider, who could play a role in directing customers to the Center. The Library has had preliminary discussions with the Nylink director, who sees the service center as meeting needs frequently expressed to her by her members, primarily New York academic libraries. The Library will study related enterprise models and other collaborative arrangements for effectiveness and applicability to the proposed Center. The Library intends to establish a prototype digitization service, including metadata creation, to consolidate many digitization projects such as e-reserves and conversion of selected collections within the Library and to publicize the services of the unit to faculty and others at Cornell. We currently support digitization for teaching and research opportunistically, often approached by faculty desperately seeking advice. The prototype will formalize our service and make it known throughout the university. We anticipate that we will learn about the nature and scale of demand over the coming academic year. A later phase will be to expand to organizations outside of Cornell. In the second five-month period, from June through September 2003, the Library will establish the operational priorities for the development of the center, define the specific services it will offer, create a business plan, and outline a marketing plan. Following the completion of the planning phase, the Library will seek funds from the University and funding agencies to construct and equip facility, hire staff, and launch the service center. 10 Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for CostEffective Information Services RESEARCH AGENDA Core Questions 1. What are the mission-critical library services? What can be outsourced so that libraries can excel in what needs to be customized for their clients? 2. Which services potentially offered by the service bureau would benefit libraries most? What are the performance measures? (Develop a set of criteria to assess the impact of service areas – assign relative values) 3. Which information services would be of greatest value to others outside of libraries? 4. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? 5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service center at the Annex Library? 6. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Organizational 7. What is the rationale behind creating the each service component? 8. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? 9. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? 10. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? 11. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? 12. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? 13. Do we have the human resources required to create this service model? What are the required skills and experience? Economic 14. Where would the greatest economies of scale occur? 15. Is it economically feasible for a university library to operate a service bureau? 16. What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? 17. What would the operating costs be for each function? Market Analysis 18. What are the needs of our potential clients? 19. What is the size of the potential market (potential clients for individual services)? 20. What are the barriers to use of the service center? How might they be overcome? 21. Which market should we be targeting? 22. What marketing strategy should the center use? CUL, Mellon Planning Grant, 12/2/2002, Page 1 23. What unique advantages might a university library bring to such a service center over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? 24. Who will be our competitors? What are the collaboration opportunities? 25. What will be our pricing policy (cost-recovery, market value, competitive pricing, etc.)? Legal Issues 26. Should the center be a separate legal entity? 27. What relationship should the center have with users of its services: that of partner, collaborator, or vendor/client? CUL, Mellon Planning Grant, 12/2/2002, Page 2 Project Management Group: Karen Calhoun (or Marty Kurth), Susan Currie, Oya Rieger, Ed Weissman MAS 2010 PROJECT TEAM CONFIGURATION Updated Feb 13, 2003 PI:� Sarah Thomas Project Management Group:� Karen Calhoun, Susan Currie, Oya Rieger (Coordinator), Ed Weissman RESEARCH SUPPORT:� MARTY CROWE, FIONA PATRICK   Service Components MAS Liaison CUL Consultants Team Regional Paper Depository Ed & Collection Development Weissman Ross Atkinson, Chair Janet McCue, John Hoffman, Pat Schafer, Elaine Engst, Yoram Szekely, John Saylor Regional Digital Depository Oya Rieger Nancy McGovern, Chair Marcy Rosenkrantz, Bill Kehoe, Kizer Walker Document Delivery (Print & Susan Electronic) Currie Howard Raskin, Chair Carmen Blankinship, Julie Copenhagen, Rick Lightbody   Digitization Metadata   Cataloging & Acquisitions Oya Rieger Karen Calhoun Karen Calhoun   Joy Paulson & Barbara Berger Eden, Co-Chairs�   Marty Kurth, Chair Jill Powell, Elaine Westbrooks, Bill Kehoe   Jim LeBlanc, Chair Bill Kara, Jean Pajerek, Boodie McGinnis, Scott Wicks, Don Schnedeker Preservation and Conservation Ed Weissman   John Dean, Chair Barbara Berger Eden, Joy Paulson     Electronic Publishing Karen Calhoun Tom Hickerson, Chair Kizer Walker, Ross Atkinson, Zsuzsa Koltay, Marcy Rosenkrantz, David Ruddy Copyright Oya Rieger   Fiona Patrick, Chair Peter Hirtle, Oya Rieger, Tracy Mitrano, Pat McClary Conference Center Susan Currie   Anne Kenney, Chair Lance Heidig, David Banush, Linda Bryan, Jim Morris-Knower, Mihoko Hosoi     January�03 Retreat Guests Don Waters (Andrew W. Mellon Foundation) Deanna Marcum (CLIR) Mike Keller (University Librarian, Stanford University Library) Cliff Lynch (CNI) Anne Wolpert (Director, MIT Libraries) Karin Wittenborg (UVA, University Librarian)   Project Consultant Mary-Alice Lynch   http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/Project%20Team.htm[10/22/2013 1:02:04 PM] Untitled Document http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/plan.htm[10/22/2013 1:02:05 PM] Untitled Document http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/plan.htm[10/22/2013 1:02:05 PM] Untitled Document http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/plan.htm[10/22/2013 1:02:05 PM] Untitled Document http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/plan.htm[10/22/2013 1:02:05 PM] Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services Consultant Team Reports http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/ February 2003 Cornell University Library Table of Contents Project Synopsis .......................................................................................................... 4 MAS 2010 Project Team......................................................................................... 5 MAS 2010 Consultant Teams Charge ............................................................... 6 Preservation and Conservation............................................................................. 9 Document Delivery (Print and Electronic)....................................................... 14 Regional Paper Depository/Collection Development ................................ 22 Regional Digital Depository................................................................................... 35 Metadata ....................................................................................................................... 44 Conference Center ................................................................................................... 55 Digitization .................................................................................................................... 77 Cataloging & Acquisitions...................................................................................... 82 Copyright Services.................................................................................................... 92 E-Publishing................................................................................................................. 99 Project Synopsis Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for CostEffective Information Services The Cornell University Library is excited to have support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for a one-year planning grant to consider which library services and functions must be offered at the center of the campus and which can be relocated to remote sites. We will explore new models for academic support that can result from innovative and efficient library services. In conceptualizing this physical restructuring, we posit that we may not only regain prime space on campus for users, but that we can define and design an entrepreneurial service center that can also assist smaller libraries, university presses, publishers, and others. At the heart of our investigation is the need to identify mission-critical library services to understand better what functions and staff libraries can relocate and also what libraries can delegate to others. The two strands of our thinking are finding ways to relieve the spatial constrictions our libraries are experiencing and utilizing the analysis of what to relocate as the impetus for developing new structures and entrepreneurial roles for libraries. We will explore how to achieve better utilization of space, more effective allocation of university resources, and, ultimately, improved information access for scholars and students. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 4 MAS 2010 Project Team PI: Sarah Thomas Project Management Group: Karen Calhoun, Susan Currie, Oya Rieger (Coordinator), Ed Weissman Service Components Regional Paper Depository & Collection Development Regional Digital Depository MAS Liaison Ed CUL Consultants Team Ross Atkinson, Chair Janet McCue, John Hoffman, Pat Schafer, Elaine Engst, Yoram Szekely, John Saylor Oya Nancy McGovern, Chair Marcy Rosenkrantz, Bill Kehoe, Kizer Walker Document Delivery (Print & Electronic) Digitization Susan Oya Howard Raskin, Chair Carmen Blankinship, Julie Copenhagen, Rick Lightbody Joy Paulson & Barbara Berger Eden, Chair Metadata Karen Marty Kurth, Chair Jill Powell, Elaine Westbrooks, Bill Kehoe Cataloging & Acquisitions Preservation and Conservation Karen Ed Jim LeBlanc, Chair Bill Kara, Jean Pajerek, Boodie McGinnis, Scott Wicks, Don Schnedeker John Dean, Chair Barbara Berger Eden, Joy Paulson Electronic Publishing Karen Tom Hickerson, Chair Kizer Walker, Ross Atkinson, Zsuzsa Koltay, Marcy Rosenkrantz, David Ruddy Copyright Oya Conference Center Susan Fiona Patrick, Chair Peter Hirtle, Oya Rieger, Tracy Mitrano, Pat McClary Anne Kenney, Chair Lance Heidig, David Banush, Linda Bryan, Jim Morris-Knower, Mihoko Hosoi MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 5 MAS 2010 Consultant Teams Charge The MAS 2010 consultant teams are charged to explore the feasibility of their specific service area (e.g., metadata, scholarly publishing, etc.) as a potential component of an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center located away from central campus by: • Defining the service area and its new role • Answering (and expanding) the attached research questions by focusing on your service component • Identifying other issues related to this functional area that the MAS project team should investigate • Talking with CUL colleagues, calling external colleagues, and conducting literature/web searches Please see the MAS 2010 Website for more information about the project: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS The end product of your feasibility study is a report and recommendations for your MAS liaison. Your report should contain: • A definition of your service area • Your answers to the research questions • Any problems or issues you have discovered in the course of your investigation • Any suggestions for further study (including as appropriate the research methods that should be employed) • Your recommendations regarding the feasibility, advisability, key benefits and drawbacks of including this specific service area as a component of the new service center. In completing your work, feel free to call on anyone in CUL for advice. Your report and recommendations will be reviewed by the MAS core project team and by Sarah Thomas. You will be responsible for revisions up to the point of acceptance and approval of a final version of your report. The approved version will serve as essential input for the preparation of a business plan for the new service center. Time Frame Duration: Five weeks Start Date: December 16, 2002 (Library closed Dec. 25-Jan. 1) End Date: February 7, 2003 Tasks: Hold initial organizational meeting Gather and analyze information Draft report Review/revise first draft Submit report and recommendations When: By end week 1 Weeks 2-4 By beginning week 5 By end week 5 By end week 5 Feedback The chair of the consultants team should provide weekly updates in the form of meeting notes or brief status reports to the team’s MAS liaison. Budget MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 6 The consultants team has no separate budget but if additional resources are needed, the chair should define and submit requests to the MAS liaison for consideration. CUL Consultant Teams Please see the Project Team document on the project website (under Project Information). Research Questions M - Core questions for the consultant team to explore. Core Questions M What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? M What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? M What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Organizational M What is the rationale behind creating this service component? M What are the expected outcomes and benefits? M How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? M How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? M What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? M What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? M Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? O - Optional questions that would be great for the consultant team to discuss but cannot be fully addressed due to their complex natures and data gathering needs. In its report, the consultant team is asked to include recommendations for survey needs, approaches, and specific questions that you can think of. These recommendations will guide the MAS core project team in preparing a formal survey to be conducted later in 2003. Economic O What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? O What would the operating costs be for each function? Market Analysis O What are the needs of our potential clients? O What is the size of the potential market (potential clients for individual services)? O What are the barriers to use of this service? How might they be overcome? O Which market should we be targeting? O What marketing strategy should be used? O What unique advantages might a university library bring to this service over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 7 O Who will be our competitors? What are the collaboration opportunities? O What will be our pricing policy (cost-recovery, market value, competitive pricing, etc.)? Report Format We suggest that you use the following format in writing your final report: Introduction Introduce your group and describe the service area you have examined. Executive Summary A short synopsis of your findings and recommendations: The feasibility, advisability, key benefits and drawbacks of including this specific service area as a component of the new service center. Methodology Describe how you conducted your investigation (e.g., discussion sessions, calling colleagues, literature review, etc.). Also highlight any problems or issues you have discovered in the course of your investigation Research Questions Take your best shot at answering the research questions. Recommendations In this final section, include your suggestions for further study (including as appropriate the research methods that should be employed). MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 8 Preservation and Conservation Introduction Team members for this part of the MAS study were: Barbara Berger Eden, Joy Paulson, and John Dean (chair). The task before the group was to examine the areas of preservation and conservation and to try to determine what types of services and operations could satisfactorily be developed as enterprise systems, bearing in mind that new facilities in an off-campus location might be available. Executive Summary It is clear that a wide range of preservation services will need to be considered for collaborative enterprise work. The work most likely to be sought from Cornell is highly skilled conservation treatment, project management for reformatting, and consultancies. There are likely to be difficulties in finding libraries and archives with the funding available for conservation. Funding may be less of a handicap for reformatting and consultancy projects assuming that there would be interest in having Cornell manage projects. Methodology The investigations were conducted through direct discussion among the team members. All three team members have considerable experience in various aspects of preservation and conservation, and it was felt that all the issues could be fully aired through our discussion. One of the most pressing problems is that the areas represented by preservation and conservation have not been the subject of any proper comprehensive analysis, thus there is little in the library literature and no institutional models that can be checked. It was agreed that an important factor in planning any new facilities is the underlying assumption that a new storage facility must be constructed as a first step. This is fundamental to our preservation and conservation concerns, and many of the operational decisions affecting what is treated and reformatted must follow. Research Questions 1. What are the risks associated with this new service? What is the potential impact on our library services? The risks include transportation issues, communication problems, and tensions between local and customer needs. The contention that "collocating this activity [conservation] where such a sizable collection is housed would lessen transport" is flawed as most preservation/conservation is use driven, and the "sizable collection" referred to is currently identified as lesser-used (i.e. items selected for annex storage are by definition lesser-used). In the annex planning selection committee it was already decided that books sent for storage would not receive conservation treatment. More than ninety percent of the work of conservation is executed on rare and unique materials that are stored in the Kroch Library thus there would be a significant increase in transportation and handling which would result in increased risk to the materials. The Department’s education and training programs have always combined practical and managerial concerns, including active collection surveys, the writing of grant proposals, and exhibition preparation, all of which would be difficult from on off-campus location. An activity that does some have potential for contract work is microfilming. Because of our experience with various cooperative grant programs, we feel that we could consolidate the management of grant-funded microfilming projects through our reformatting unit. The reformatting unit has the capacity to operate on a number of levels, and centralizing project management ensures consistency, expert processing, fewer errors, more expeditious production, MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 9 and higher quality results. Because existing reformatting staff are paid from outside sources, collective bookkeeping would not present too many difficulties. 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? The advantages consist of: potential for a state-of-the-art facility, increased parking space which will make visiting the facility easier, the reduction of duplicative effort on campus, increased revenue to expand services, and the possibility of redirecting grant funds for other institutions. Some preservation operations lend themselves to cooperative work (e.g. microfilm, project management, education and training) and an off-campus location could provide some focus for these operations, especially within the Cornell system as the annex would be seen as neutral ground. The disadvantages include: the need to transport virtually all conservation work from the Kroch Library (with the resultant risk to the materials), communication problems with curators and collection managers, lack of patron contact, lack of donor contact, an end to most informal educational opportunities such as the CAU courses conducted by the Department, an end to the employment of student assistants. The latter would be a serious loss given the present concern with reducing staff positions. 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach? What are the amalgamation opportunities? There is potential for amalgamated services for the Johnson Museum of Art, the Ornithology department, Hortorium, Textiles department, and some academic departments. The Department of Preservation and Collection Maintenance already performs conservation treatment work for the library system, including Mann, Law, and Music. Amalgamation really needs to begin among Cornell libraries as there is duplication of effort that could be eliminated in areas that are not presently covered by conservation, such as commercial binding, preparation (stiffening), and microfilming. There are other services that need to be consolidated whether or not major reorganization occurs, such as digital scanning. 4. What is the rational behind creating this service? The chief rational is that moving the unit away from the main campus would create space for more books and users in the centrally located libraries. 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? There could be more operations space than at present and more staff and equipment. Cornell could be placed in a position of leadership as the result of the centralization of services. It is hoped that centralization of services within Cornell would be the first step. However, seven out of ten conservation staff are presently funded wholly from grant sources, so it is imperative that our continuous efforts to gain grant funding for Cornel projects would not be compromised by seeking grant funding for others. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? Seems to align mainly with goals 7, 9, and 10. However, there is little in the goals statement that addresses preservation/conservation directly. 7. How does the University Library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? The service would have to significantly increase staff, space, and equipment to deal with increases in volume. A set percentage of production time would have to be set aside for external MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 10 customers. In terms of reformatting, much of the work conducted by the unit has been in collaboration with other non-Cornell libraries thus most of the customer problems have been worked out. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared environment? There would have to be a great deal more time spent in accounting, especially costs and raw numbers. It is difficult to assess the impact of a shared storage repository as this inevitably leads to shared collections. If we were to be the home of a regional repository, presumably our overall collection count would numerically decline as the result of a policy of retaining single copies. In terms of operational services, the statistical count of treated items, microfilms produced, etc, would increase, but there is no reason why separate statistics detailing work done for Cornell cannot be kept. 9. What are the resource requirements, such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc? Significantly more space to accommodate new equipment, furnishings, and staff. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skill levels and experience? We have sufficient staff skill sets to proceed, but significant training will be required to bring any new staff up to standard. Economic 1. What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? The costs would be substantial but essentially one-time. In terms of conservation, most of the costs would be for fittings (sinks, fume hoods, special lighting), with only a relatively minor outlay for new equipment such as a leaf caster. In terms of reformatting, decisions would have to be made concerning the level of service provided. 2. What would be the operating costs for each component? The cost factors would be for staff, space, equipment, transportation, and supplies. Preservation consists of a number of units providing different services that may or may not be suitable for cooperative work. As noted, reformatting seems to hold the greatest promise for cooperative work as it is currently wholly grant funded. The chief operating cost recovery would be based on salaries and supplies with a viable overhead rate for administrative costs. 3. What are the needs for our potential clients? There may be a need for consultancy services, staff training, project management, conservation treatment of rare and semi-rare materials, and specialized conservation (on photographs, audio recordings, video, etc). Most of the focus would be on high level conservation treatment, with medium level needs, such as large volume rebinding projects, performed by commercial binders. The consultancy portion of the services would be performed outside the new facility, perhaps with some of the project management. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 11 4. What is the size of the potential market? In terms of the numbers of potential customers, the market size appears to be quite large with hundreds of libraries, archives, historical societies, and museums, in the region. However, few institutions have funding for preservation and have to rely almost entirely on grants. Grant funding for conservation is very difficult to find, even with New York State grant funds, and the situation is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future. Reformatting, especially a combination of film and digital, does have some potential as many smaller institutions need the project management expertise that we could provide and there does appear to be some funding available. 5. What are the barriers to use of this service? How might they be overcome? The main barrier is financial. Many institutions have difficulty maintaining their regular operations, so it is doubtful that any excess funds could be made available for conservation. One way to overcome this would be for a grant writing service to be established that would help to funnel funds through the institutions to support the conservation/preservation service. However, grant funds are increasingly difficult to obtain, especially for conservation. Funding for reformatting might provide some potential for cooperative work in terms of project management and central film storage. 6. Which market should we be targeting? Libraries, archives, historical societies, museums, cultural institutions. 7. What marketing strategy should be used? The services need to be made extremely visible and a program of education would need to be established that will enable institutions to understand the services and try to apply them to their situations. The educational effort would have to include aggressive collection surveying programs and grant-writing for other institutions. 8. What unique advantages might a university library bring to this service over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? The university library has long experience in caring for collections and is able to explore alternative approaches. The library’s entire apparatus, bibliographic as well as technological, can be brought to bear on a customer’s project. 9. Who will be our competitors? What are the collaborative opportunities? For conservation two major regional centers already exist in the Northeast, the Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) and the Center for the Conservation of Artistic and Historic Artifacts (CCAHA). Both centers are heavily subsidized by NEH grants and both offer a wide range of services. There are also commercial competitors generally aiming at the lower end of the market, and the Etherington Conservation Center (North Carolina) offers high level treatments on a mass basis. In terms of microfilm and digital imaging, there is very little competition for project management services, although the actual production services can be provided by Preservation Resources, NEDCC, and Challenge Industries. The highest potential for collaboration comes from the Comprehensive Research Libraries of New York (the four SUNYs, Columbia, New York Public Library, New York University, The New York State Library, University of Rochester, Syracuse University, and Cornell.), and the other libraries and archives making up the discretionary granteligible group. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 12 10. What will be our pricing policy? Pricing must be rather more than cost-recovery to cover administrative costs. Conservation includes a range of treatment options, usually based on demand. Low level treatments, such as stiffening, and high level work, such as artifact conservation, may be viable. However, providing low- to mid-level treatments, such as periodical and monograph binding, would not be suitable. The commercial binding industry is very competitive and is a minimum wage industry. In terms of reformatting, we would be concerned that we had sufficient staff support to conduct the work and support staff salaries plus an administrative overhead. Recommendations Some functions are relatively easy to envisage as enterprise units and some functions are much more difficult. For example, much of the reformatting and some of the conservation might work out, but most of the conservation work would be problematical, as there is no real precedent and a distinctive lack of funding among potential customers. A stringent market analysis will need to be made that will have the library/archives respondents answer some of the following questions: 1. What funds do you have available on an annual basis for conservation treatment? 2. Do you wish to seek grant funding for conservation or preservation? 3. If Cornell University were to offer skilled conservation treatment on a cost-recovery basis, would you consider having Cornell perform work on your collection? 4. If Cornell University were to offer help in preparing grant funding awards for preservation on condition that the work be performed by Cornell, would you be interested in using the service? 5. Do you have endowments dedicated to preservation? 6. If you could be helped with project management, would you be interested in applying for reformatting grants? 7. Have you ever considered making a contractual arrangement with anyone to perform work on your collection? 8. What range of preservation services have you considered having someone perform for your library? As the most likely area of outside support for collaborative conservation is within New York State because of the availability of grant funding, the market survey would first focus on smaller libraries in the state to try to take advantage of the Discretionary Grant program, and the Big 11 libraries to try to gain from the Coordinated Grant program. As a secondary target, the survey might focus on those libraries with large dedicated preservation endowments, such as Harvard. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 13 Document Delivery (Print and Electronic) Introduction The MAS 2010 Document Delivery (Print and Electronic) Team is composed of: Howard Raskin, Chair Carmen Blankinship Julie Copenhagen Rick Lightbody Susan Currie is the MAS Liaison. The Team was charged to explore the feasibility of a document delivery service as a potential component of an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center located away from central campus. Executive Summary Timely access to materials stored at a regional depository at the Library Annex is critical. This would be accomplished by developing a robust document delivery system that supplies books, book chapters or journal articles to users. Bound volumes would be delivered to participating libraries’ for pick up by their patrons, and articles or book chapters would be shipped either as photocopies or digitized documents to end users. Once established, the service would operate on a cost recovery basis. Initially, additional funding may be necessary to develop (in house or with a chosen vendor) or purchase “off the shelf” document delivery software; funding would also be required for equipment, furniture and shipping supplies. We have a breadth of experience with document delivery here at Cornell. Staff in the Olin, Mann, Law, Vet and Geneva libraries ship bound volumes nationally and internationally, and staff in each of the five interlibrary loan centers has experience with ILLiad’s electronic delivery function. Document delivery services already exist in several libraries including the Annex Library’s document delivery service, Mann Library’s document delivery service to Cooperative Extension Educators in New York State, and the Engineering Library’s Scan and Deliver service. We have a firm foundation on which to build a new service model. However, key issues need to be resolved to make document delivery from a regional depository a reality— • Staffing: Would the current level of Library Annex staffing be adequate? The size of the collection at the regional depository and corresponding collection usage might dictate the need for additional staff lines. The current staff has the appropriate range of skills necessary to manage a new document delivery service, including digital document production, and familiarity with an inventory control and a library management system. • Software: We would require a robust and comprehensive database manager. The chosen system may need to interact seamlessly with the library’s management and inventory control systems. A detailed specifications report needs to be written. It may be beneficial to “piggy back” on the campus wide document delivery initiative; a group of librarians and staff in access services are working with Atlas Systems to adapt ILLiad’s functionality to meet Cornell’s on campus document delivery needs. The requirements for Cornell’s on campus document delivery service and the proposed regional depository document MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 14 delivery service are comparable. Any system implemented for on campus document delivery may be scalable for use within a regional depository system. An easy to navigate web based user interface needs to be developed. Should this interface stand-alone? Should it be integrated into our interlibrary loan (ILLiad) splash page? Authentication issues must be addressed, and IT support (structure and staffing) needs to be in place for this service to succeed. Recall and hold functions need to be part of any database manager that we implement. • Shipping: How will physical materials be shipped? All five ILL units presently use UPS for shipping; tracking and reliability are excellent. We may wish to explore SUNY’s new delivery service. Cornell is presently not participating in this service, and it does not have tracking mechanism at this point in time. New work areas and storage facilities for shipping supplies need to be integrated into the Library Annex. • Ownership/access to materials: Who actually owns the material stored at the depository? This has implications for statistical record keeping, including the information we supply to ARL, RLG and SUNY. Would partners retain the right to move materials back to their campuses if the material was highly circulated? Our assumption is that member institutions will not have access to any other materials at the Library Annex. Document delivery from a regional depository at the Library Annex would be a logical extension of current Library Annex document delivery services. We have a core group of staff with expertise in document delivery already in place. We believe a document delivery service originating from a regional depository will be successful if we employ a robust and comprehensive database manager, the appropriate level of IT support, and the proper number of staff to ensure fast turnaround times. Methodology The MAS 2010 Document Delivery Team investigation consisted of the following major steps: • We familiarized ourselves with the MAS proposal, the service bureau concept it articulates, and the relationship of document delivery to the entire suite of services proposed. • We brainstormed preliminary answers to the core research questions (under the “core” and “organizational” categories in the team’s charge). • We raised and discussed issues relating to, but distinct from, the core questions, and generated a myriad of additional questions (some of which were outside the scope of the team). This step occurred in an integrated way with the previous one, and both were accomplished during the first two meetings of the team. • We communicated with the regional paper depository team, seeking to understand their views on the issue of titles/copies of record. • We investigated, via the Web, the nature and scope of document delivery systems currently in use at other institutions. • We contacted several consortiums and regional depositories to inquire about their experience with and/or plans for providing document delivery. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 15 • In the third and fourth meetings of our team, we reviewed minutes, distributed writing assignments, and fine-tuned our work plan as we prepared to create our final report. External Colleagues: Conducting Literature Reviews/Web Searches/Phone Interviews 1. Document Delivery Services As part of our investigation we looked at document delivery services at other universities. Although these institutions are not delivering materials from regional depositories, we felt it was important to look at the types of services offered and their accompanying fee structures. These cost recovery services are designed to provide access to journal articles and books to faculty, students and staff. The following comments refer to UCLA’s Orion Express, the University of Wisconsin’s Library Express Document Delivery Service, the University of California at Berkeley’s Baker Document Delivery Service, Arizona State University’s Library Express and Document Delivery service, and the University of California at Davis’ Document Delivery service. Audience • These services are primarily for faculty, staff and students. • Several institutions restrict services to faculty only, or faculty and graduate students only. Services • Photocopies or electronic copies of articles or book chapters. • Book delivery. Delivery Options • Articles or book chapters—photocopies or PDF’s. Photocopies mailed to campus address only. • Books—delivered to campus office or to library circulation desk. Fees • All services are fee based and structured on a cost recovery basis except for the University of Wisconsin; the library subsidizes this service. Wisconsin’s service supports the delivery of documents from campus libraries in addition to articles from other sources (interlibrary loan or document suppliers). The latter service is free; its purpose is to provide articles from journals that have been cancelled by the library. • Fees ranged from $3.00 to $6.00 for articles. Most assume a 30-page average article length with extra fees for additional pages if the delivery mechanism is not electronic. • Book delivery charges ranged from $1.00 to $6.00. • One service delivered books to circulation desks for free. • Delivery to a central campus office entailed an extra charge, usually $1.00. • Delivery to circulation desks was always less expensive. Request Mechanism • Online—separate web form for document delivery service. • Online—via online catalog. • Online—via interlibrary loan form; library staff decide if request is a traditional interlibrary loan request or a document delivery request. It is clear from this investigation that document delivery services to users on and off campus can be successfully implemented on a cost recovery basis. Our own experiences with document delivery services—the Annex Library’s electronic document delivery service, electronic document delivery via ILLiad for interlibrary loan articles, Mann’s electronic (and book) document delivery service to Cooperative Extension educators throughout New York State, and the Engineering MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 16 Library’s electronic document delivery service—provide us with a firm foundation on which to build this new service. 2. Offsite Storage Facilities The New England Regional Depository is in the planning stage. It is mainly for Nelinet members but other libraries may be able to use it for increased fees based on membership status. William B. Meyer, Inc. is developing the physical building as well as helping with all aspects of the facility including development of building standards, an inventory control system, statistical reports, and facility management. • Item requests received by 3:00 p.m. will be retrieved and shipped by 10:00 a.m. the following business day. Requests will generally be processed on a first-in, first-out basis. Rush retrievals will be available, but an additional fee will apply. It is expected that batch delivery for multiple items will also be available. • Electronic delivery will be the preferred method for non-returnable items whenever practical. Multiple delivery options will be available, including use of Ariel to the library’s interlibrary loan department and posting of scanned images to private and secure web site for library retrieval. Direct delivery to the requester via email may also be available. • Multiple options will likely be available for ground delivery: (1) Meyer will cooperate with local or regional ground delivery services that the library already has in place; (2) delivery via a common carrier (such as UPS) will be available at competitive rates by employing the high volume discounts for which Meyer already qualifies; and (3) should traffic warrant, Meyer may offer custom courier services to certain libraries or regions that have very large deposits. The physical preparation of the material for shipment to and from the Depository will depend upon the method of shipment. For more information: http://www.nelinet.net/depository/ The Washington Research Library Consortium consists of a group of 8 member libraries in the Washington, D.C. area. WRLC members share the cost of operating the offsite storage facility through the annual member fees, which cover the cost of building utilities and maintenance, and staff to perform retrieval and delivery of requested items. There is no additional charge to member libraries for storage, retrieval, or delivery of library materials. Library materials ("ALADIN items") are those items that are described in the shared online catalog (the CATS database in ALADIN) are available for use by patrons of other WRLC libraries. Member institutions pay the costs of accessioning items into the storage facility (sorting, shelving, adding the actual shelf location to the ALADIN record). These are one-time costs for each volume or item. • Eligible borrowers from any WRLC member institution may use stored materials from any other WRLC member library in accordance with prescribed circulation policies. WRLC will charge and deliver circulating items to the requesting library, for subsequent charge to the patron. Items will not be routed first through the owning library, in cases where the requester is not the owner. WRLC will accept retrieval requests by telefacsimile or e-mail. Each request must contain sufficient information to identify the specific stored item (not just the desired title), so that WRLC may determine the correct shelf location. Requests received at WRLC by 5:00 P.M.will be delivered to the requesting library by WRLC courier the following business day. • WRLC will photocopy individual journal articles upon request. The delivery mechanism will be at the option of the requesting library: telefacsimile, hard copy (by WRLC courier) or ARIEL. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 17 • Nonmember libraries wishing to borrow stored items should make a request to the owning library via normal ILL request channels. The owning library will then forward the retrieval request to WRLC, which will retrieve and deliver the item to the owning library's ILL unit. For more information: http://www.wrlc.org/offsite.htm The Northwest Ohio Regional Book Depository is one of five regional Ohio depositories funded by the Ohio Board of Regents in the State of Ohio. This one is administered by Bowling Green University. There is no cost to members because it is mandated and funded by the State. • Materials are readily accessible to users through OhioLINK and through each university’s online catalog. While the Depository is not primarily designed for direct access by users, a reading room with tables and computer access to OhioLINK and the Internet is available for those who wish to use materials located in the facility. There is daily (Monday-Friday) pickup and delivery to and from each university using the OhioLINK delivery service (Pony Express). • Journal articles are delivered in several formats: paper, fax, Pony Express or Ariel to the web. For more information: http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/remote/info.html The Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (ReCAP) is a high-density shelving facility owned and operated by Columbia University, The New York Public Library and Princeton University located on Princeton University’s Forrestal Campus in Princeton. • Borrowers registered at one of the consortium libraries can request the retrieval of an item for delivery through their library catalog. Most material can be delivered in 24 hours. Princeton supplies their own pick up and delivery of ReCaps items. • Columbia and New York Public have a contract with a courier service. Users who are not registered at one of the libraries may request material through interlibrary loan. Short documents, up to one journal article or one chapter of a book can be delivered electronically. The requested items are scanned and posted to a ReCAP website, where the patron can view it for two weeks before it is removed. For more information: http://recap1.princeton.edu/about/general.html Harvard Depository is owned and operated by Harvard University, under the directorship of the Harvard University Library. The primary service responsibility is in meeting the storage and retrieval needs of the University’s libraries, archives and administrative offices. • Retrieval requests can be submitted by telephone, fax transmission or for library materials, through Harvard’s on-line catalog. • Access is restricted to individuals who are pre-authorized to submit retrieval requests and sign for receipt of Depository materials. • Library patrons can submit requests electronically by contacting the circulation desk of the library that owns the item. • Access to University records is restricted to the depositor of origin and University records to the Records management office of Harvard University Archives. • Deliveries are normally made on the business day following receipt of a request. For more information: http://hul.harvard.edu/hd/about-hd.html MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 18 Research Questions Core Questions 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? • Increased staffing would be needed for additional responsibilities. • An automated request and delivery system would be necessary, possibly an ILLiad-type system. Any system implemented must be scalable for use within the regional depository environment. Contractual arrangement with the vendor would be complex and precedent setting. • User authentication issues need to be resolved. • Adequate IT support structure needs to be in place. • More complex shipping and receiving operations would be needed than currently exist at the Annex. 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? Advantages: • Space would be freed up on the central campus. • There is already a core group of staff with needed expertise at the Annex. • There is plenty of free, convenient parking. Disadvantages: • Electrical service to the Palm Road areas has historically been less reliable than to the central campus. Has this or is this going to change? Is this risk acceptable within the larger scope of operations proposed? 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Expanding the scope of operations by taking on a regional depository role would probably not, in the smaller view, benefit Cornell services and patrons. But in the larger view, the theoretical benefits would include additional revenue streams and the more robust infrastructures and better services that could be justified and subsidized by those streams. Organizational 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? If we are offering a regional offsite storage facility, we must offer access to the stored materials. 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? • Premium access is a desired enhancement for Cornell patrons. • Revenue should be generated when other institutions are involved. • Space on central campus will be freed up for services that have the most impact there. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 19 The following sections of the Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives 2002-2007 are addressed: • GOAL V, 2: Expand document delivery capabilities. • GOAL VI, 2: Construct a second high-density storage module at the Library Annex in a timely manner, ensuring that this next module will be operational at the time it is initially needed. • GOAL VIII, 5: Establish a network of strategic partnerships to generate additional resources and share in the development and long-term maintenance of new services. • GOAL VIII, 6: Establish fee-based and cost-recovery mechanisms based on business plans and market assessment to support new services. • GOAL X, 1: Expand joint initiatives and relationships with peer institutions. • GOAL X, 3: Determine the strategic value of CUL’s membership in regional, national, and international library consortia organizations. 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? • Ensure the following: Adequate staffing Recall functionality Effectiveness of tracking material Robust technical infrastructure • Adequately plan statistical criteria before transitioning to the regional depository. Use these criteria to take sufficiently fine-grained “snapshots” of “before” and “after” to enable comparative studies. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? • Who would actually “own” the material that is to come from other institutions? We need to understand the implications of the “core holding” designation and of “deaccessioning”. • How would holdings be analyzed (originating institutions or Cornell)? This would drive the compilation of usage statistics. Perhaps a new category would need to be reported to ARL. 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? • Space: Although there is existing workspace now, expanded services for additional institutions would require more space for processing and extra staff. Additional space for packaging supplies will be necessary. • Equipment: More desktop computers and scanners, perhaps more forklifts, shipping equipment. • Special technologies: An automated request system, document delivery software, a more state- of-the-art inventory control system, and shipping tracking system would all be needed to handle the increase in requests. • Networking: More phone lines and internet connections would be necessary. • Furnishings: An increase in the number of staff would require additional furniture. More worktables would be needed to accommodate expanded document delivery and packaging for shipment. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? • New staffing lines will have to be created. It is impossible to predict how many until we know the scope of the collection. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 20 • Required skills: Ability to utilize computers, scanners, portable data terminals, inventory control system, Voyager and document delivery software to accomplish daily work Strong interpersonal skills; ability to drive a forklift; ability to lift 50 pounds; walk on grated floors. Recommendations for Further Study A detailed cost analysis needs to be performed. • How much will it cost to retrieve, scan, ship, and bill institutions for this service? • What exactly do we mean by cost recovery? • What are our start up costs? A specifications report needs to be written for the document delivery system. • What functionality does the system need to be effective? • Database management software needs to evaluated. Information gathering • From IT staff at other universities with document delivery services. • From managers of other regional depositories. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 21 Regional Paper Depository/Collection Development 1. Introduction. This is the final report of the MAS2010 Consultant Team on A Regional Paper Depository and Remote Collection Development. This Team consisted of Ross Atkinson (Chair), Elaine Engst, John Hoffmann, Janet McCue, John Saylor, Pat Schafer, and Yoram Szekely. We interpreted our charge as defining the boundaries and identifying the issues relating to: a. The extension of our own Annex Library, such that it would also serve as a depository for materials held by other libraries in the region. Such a regional paper depository may be linked to or coordinated with depositories in other regions. b. The building of collections for other institutions by CUL subject specialists—primarily by selecting items for other institutions that we are selecting for ourselves. Unlike the first part of the charge, this would not necessarily be regionally based. This effort might be linked with analogous processing services. This report does not provide systematic plans to undertake either of the two services in the Team’s charge. The purpose of this report is rather to summarize the various discussions and findings of the Team, some of which may be useful, should the decision be made to move ahead with such systematic planning. 2. Executive Summary. a. Regional Paper Depository. Making space available in future Annex Library modules for other libraries in the region appears to be a promising possibility for at least four reasons. First, there is clearly a growing need for regional depositories in the State--and there may be some question, given the current financial climate, as to whether the State can accommodate such a need in the immediate future. Second, there is an evolving national sense that a system of coordinated regional depositories should be created. Third, CUL is particularly well positioned to provide such a service, having created a highly effective local operation, and having played a national leadership role in library storage. Fourth, plans are already being discussed to add a new module to the Annex Library. b. Remote Collection Development. There is little or no precedent that we can find for a larger library, such as CUL, building collections of separate, smaller libraries to any extent, and there is a sense that collection building may be one of the last operations any library will be prepared to outsource. Approval plans are designed for outsourcing some aspects of selection, and it is unlikely that CUL could provide an effectively competitive service. There may be opportunities, however, for one-time jobs, such as building core collections and doing evaluations, as well as some opportunities to build specialized collections (e.g., Southeast Asian Studies, Hospitality Studies) for larger institutions. 3. Methodology. The Team had four meetings, at which both areas of the charge were discussed and reviewed by all team members. Some questions relating to the regional paper depository were sent to the ALA Library Storage Discussion Group listserv, which resulted in, among other things, the attached Washington Library Consortium Contract (Appendix 5). Pat Schafer contacted Tom Schneiter at the Harvard Depository. Pat also attended a colloquium on artifactual repositories at Princeton, at which collaborative storage was discussed. The visit of Mary Alice Lynch was particularly helpful, and we received further information from her subsequently concerning SUNY MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 22 storage needs. As a result of this, Ross contacted Carey Hatch at the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services, and obtained a copy of the new SUNY report on high density storage needs. For the remote collection development issue, a search of recent citations in Library Literature revealed no applicable information. A question was submitted to the Chief Collection Development Officers listserv which did yield a few helpful responses--although these discussions often returned to the issue of large library cooperation (as opposed to the possibility of building smaller library collections). The sense from this discussion was that smaller libraries would likely not be prepared to rely upon others to build their collections at the present time. (Note that this was a discussion among larger libraries: we did not approach smaller institutions directly.) Mark Sandler at Michigan did point out, however, that some institutions might be prepared to rely more on another institution for such assistance than on a commercial approval plan vendors trying to sell them a service. The input from Mark, Ann Okerson (Yale), and Michael Stoller (NYPL) are attached as Appendix 6. Draft answers to the MAS questions were also sent to CDExec. 4. Problems and Issues. a. Regional Paper Depository. 1) Costs. As can be seen in the responses to the MAS question, many factors affect the costs of materials storage. It is, however, especially important to note that significant costs derive from moving materials into and out of the facility. Depending upon the number of materials, there are likely to be substantial accessioning costs at the outset. Beyond that, the cost of maintaining materials will depend in part upon the extent to which those materials are used. The price charged to clients should be calibrated, therefore, to reflect the level of use. It should also be noted that CUL has good historical information on the costs of building and operating the first AOL module. 2) Collaborative Potential. Drawing upon the British study by O'Connor, Wells and Collier, which was cited in the Team’s charge, we distinguished between cooperation (sharing a facility) and collaboration (sharing a collection). There is a growing interest among research libraries in collaborative storage. Columbia, Princeton and NYPL, which now share a cooperative depository, are considering an experimental step into collaboration by eliminating the redundancy in their paper JSTOR holdings. These issues were discussed at the Princeton meeting on artifactual repositories, which Pat attended. Information from that meeting, written by NYPL, is attached as Appendix 4. Should CUL host such a paper depository, therefore, collaborative options should be considered. If a collaborative approach is to be tried, however, it will be essential that the complexities of such an arrangement be well understood, and that contractual agreements be in place at the outset. Statistics will likely be an important consideration. (It was reported at ALA that the directors of the eight University of California libraries are discussing the possibility of counting the same single paper storage copy in their individual statistics--so that could become a standard, if somewhat problematic, method of responding to this issue.) Probably the most significant concern, which would need to be agreed upon in the initial contract, would have to do with what would happen, were a client no longer willing or able to continue to store materials in the facility. If duplicates have been eliminated, so that several partners own the same copy, would the withdrawing library still hold “part ownership” of that copy—and if so, what would such part-ownership entail? (Should the withdrawing library have, for example, special ILL privileges—perhaps for a specified period of time subsequent to its withdrawal from the partnership?) 3) SUNY. A copy of the Executive Summary of the report by Reese Dill for SUNY on High Density Book Storage is attached as Appendix 3. Ross will send the parts that make up the full report to the MAS Project Management Group. As will be clear from the report, there are very severe space pressures at both Buffalo and Binghamton. Carey Hatch, Assistant Provost in the MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 23 SUNY Office of Library and Information Services, is aware that we are looking into the possibility of a regional depository and has expressed interest in discussing at some point the potential for cooperation. The Reese Dill report will next be presented to the SUNY construction fund committee, which will consider the allocation of funding. It would appear that the earliest that construction might begin on one or more SUNY facilities would be next year--although we should obviously monitor SUNY planning as it progresses. In discussing the report, Carey Hatch mentioned that Binghamton is presently spending ca. $250,000 per year on remote storage; that high cost would be one of the primary motivations for building a storage facility for Binghamton. 4) HARVARD. Pat contacted Tom Schneiter at Harvard, who reiterated that Harvard does not consider itself a regional repository along the lines we are discussing. 88% of the Depository consists of material from Harvard's own libraries and they currently have a moratorium on new clients because of anticipated need by Harvard. This is something we need to bear in mind: if we were to create an arrangement whereby we had on-going commitments to partner libraries in the region, we would need to plan far enough in advance to ensure that our own storage needs would continue to be met. Unlike Harvard, which probably does not have such an on-going commitment, we might not be able to refuse storage to other libraries, if we have entered into a partnership agreement with them. Tom also said that Harvard has encountered few problems involving client libraries. There was a difficulty with one client that was slow to pay fees. Fees are currently increased yearly by a set percentage, and both Harvard libraries and client libraries are charged the same fees, although that policy might be reviewed. Client libraries are encouraged to organize there own delivery services. 5) CRL-Led Actions. The Center for Research Libraries has been very active in providing national leadership in the planning for the coordinated storage of paper materials. CRL is currently writing a report, sponsored by CLIR, on multi-institutional library repositories that serve academic and research libraries. This report is apparently scheduled to be published in the spring. For further information on this study, see http://www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues30.html#repositories. CRL has also announced that it will be hosting a national conference, sponsored by IMLS, on 21-22 July, in order to have a national dialogue on, among other things, current and planned initiatives in regional storage. 6) Balancing Internal Needs. Shelf space in some CUL is under severe pressure, and those needs are exacerbated by such unexpected events as the reduction of stack space in JGSM and ILR, and the delay in the Mann Library renovation. It is essential, therefore, that Module 2 of the Annex Library be funded and constructed as soon as possible. The University is aware of this need, and planning is expected to begin soon. If CUL decides to offer space in Module 2 and future modules to regional libraries, special care should be taken to ensure that such an expansion of the facility's purpose not jeopardize or impede the planning, funding and construction of Module 2. b. Remote Collection Development. 1) Costs. Much of the work of such a remote collection development service would presumably be done by CUL subject specialists. As a general estimate, we should assume $80K per year (including benefits) for such a staff member. In addition, however, there will also be some overhead, depending upon the nature of the relationship. We should also bear in mind that it is not reasonable for shorter projects to hire temporary staff. (Often it would be difficult even to find someone with the necessary subject skills for such a short period.) We must also be careful not to overlook the inevitable processing costs, especially in the areas of ordering and claiming. As will be clear from the responses to the MAS questions, the major variable in the cost will depend upon whether any special selection is required. If there is agreement with the client institution at the outset that nothing will be selected for the client that the selector is not selecting for CUL, the costs will be less. The costs are likely to be substantial, on the other hand, if the selector is expected to select materials that are out of scope for CUL. We need also to pay special attention to the benefits received by CUL for the service--because, as is often the case in collection MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 24 development, these may not be easily quantifiable. In some cases, the most valuable benefit to CUL for providing the service may be the knowledge gained by the selector, which can then be applied to the selector’s work for CUL. Such an opportunity for personal and professional growth should be factored into any decision. 2) The Toughest Nut. Building another library's collection on a relatively permanent basis may well be viewed as undermining the rationale for the existence of the client library. For such political and cultural reasons, therefore, the best opportunities for remote collection development may well take the form of partial services, such as one-time projects or the building of smaller, highly specialized subsets of the total client collection. One possibility may be that, as the use and utility of print collections decline in certain fields, libraries will be prepared to outsource the building of some of those collections. It is also not impossible that budget pressures might become so severe at some institutions that such remote collection building will eventually become the most reasonable option, despite the perceived political risks. c. General. 1) The Primary Premise. If CUL makes a decision to provide services to external clients, then the costs of those external services must be fully recovered, lest we end up using Cornell resources to respond to the needs of other institutions. CUL's ability to recover such costs fully will likely be the Library’s and the University’s single most pressing question. Any project plan will therefore need to demonstrate very clearly how project costs will be calculated and met. Inclusion of fail safe mechanisms of some kind in the plan (including an exit strategy) will be essential. Even if it is the case that programs are designed to serve internal (Cornell) clients, success will still depend in part upon the Library's ability to cover its costs fully. There may be instances in which some costs can be written off as investments (gains in reputation for contributing to the public good--or, as noted above, professional development by participating staff)--but these will need to be calculated and monitored very carefully. 2) The Iterative Imperative. Select a few areas that show clearly a strong potential for success, invest carefully in those, and then ensure that there is sufficient agility in the system to expand services in rapid response to--rather than in tentative anticipation of--client demand. 5. Research Questions. Two sets of answers, in response to the two areas of the Team’s charge, are attached as Appendices 1 and 2. 6. Recommendations. a. Regional Paper Depository. Explore further the potential for this opportunity as soon as possible, because there may be growing demands that will be met by other "competitors," if CUL does not move quickly. Contact Binghamton, Syracuse, Rochester, and perhaps Buffalo soon, in order to re-gauge their interest. Discuss the potential for cooperation with the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services; if there seems to be reasonable potential, ask SUNY for an RFP. Factor the possibility for CUL to serve as a regional depository into the current discussion with the University on the expansion of the present facility. (Module 2 may need to be larger than anticipated, for example, in order to accommodate regional materials. Module 3 may also need to be built sooner than anticipated.) Take special care to ensure that current plans to build Module 2, which is essential to meet rapidly growing CUL space needs, are not delayed or derailed, as a result of the potential for Module 2 to serve as a regional facility. b. Remote Collection Development. Defer action on this, until further information on potential demand becomes available. Charge CDExec to monitor developments in this area and to create a tentative plan, including methods for a market survey, so that CUL could move quickly to take advantage of opportunities, should they arise. Encourage collection development to provide national leadership in the area of cooperation, aspects of which may eventually evolve into the kind of entrepreneurial program we have been considering. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 25 Appendices: 1. Depository responses to MAS2010 questions. 2. Collection development responses to MAS2010 questions. 3. Executive Summary of Reese Dill report to SUNY on high density storage. 4. Two NYPL documents for the 18 December Princeton meeting on artifact repositories. 5. Washington Research Library Consortium Offsite Storage Services Agreement. 6. Collection development officer listserv responses from Mark Sandler, Ann Okerson, and Michael Stoller. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 26 Regional Paper Depository 1. What would this service consist of? The service would consist of a storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental, security, technological, and operational conditions, including appropriate staffing, systems, and equipment for long-term storage of all types of traditional media. The facility would be based on two possible models or some combination of them. A cooperative model provides storage for whatever materials the partners choose to store. A collaborative model provides storage for only a unique item or “best copy’ of an item, regardless of original ownership. 2. Rationale for the service. The rationale for CUL serving as a state of the art storage facility for other institutions (in either a collaborative or cooperative mode) is that the institution already has a well-established storage facility and that the staff have both the expertise and the experience. A market analysis would reveal whether there were a regional need for either a collaborative or cooperative facility and whether funding support would be likely. 3. Outcomes & Benefits. Potential outcomes and benefits for either the collaborative or cooperative model include improved storage and security for materials that currently may be stored in less-than-ideal circumstances, as well as opportunities for efficiencies. Assuming an offsite storage facility, there will be less need for new construction on central sites at universities and colleges. In a collaborative model, the space needs of each institution may be further reduced, because duplication of collections will be avoided. 4. How would the service align with our institutional goals? The service would meet the following goals established by the “Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives 2002-2007”document: Goal VI. 2 Construct a second high-density storage module at the Library Annex in a timely manner, ensuring that this next module will be operational at the time it is initially needed. Goal VIII.5 Establish a network of strategic partnerships to generate additional resources and share in the development and long-term maintenance of new services. Goal VIII.6 Establish fee-based and cost-recovery mechanisms based on business plans and market assessments to support new services. Goal X.2 Expand relationships and joint projects with other Cornell University departments. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 27 5. Risks & potential impacts Cornell may encounter some risks, such as a perception that resources are being diverted from the local constituency to a regional or national agenda. As more material is stored offsite and is not available for browsing, there may be some additional political fallout. Because material is still “owned” by an institution in the cooperative model, the political risks may be of less concern than in the collaborative model. But, in the collaborative model where both collections and services may be shared, each institution, including Cornell, may be open to criticism. It may not be possible, for example, to customize procedures for individual institutions; volume counts that currently determine strengths of institutional collections may be problematic; borrowing procedures may not privilege the original “owning” institution. One significant benefit to the Cornell community in either model would be that a richer collection of material may be stored and available locally. 6. How do we protect Library services to the local constituency? We would have to prevent a diversion of resources from services to the Cornell community to operations supporting services to non-Cornell constituents. One approach would be to charge commensurate with a full scale cost recovery, including construction, maintenance, and all operational costs. Fees would be based not just on amount of storage, but also use of material in case a contributing institution stores higher use items. Cornell should own and manage the facility. Governance agreements for operating either a cooperative or a collaborative facility should be weighted toward Cornell’s needs and abilities. 7. What are the implications for record keeping and statistical rankings? The current GFA inventory control system (LAS) can easily accommodate new “customers.” It was originally developed to manage the material stored by Harvard’s many libraries and others from the Boston area. The LAS includes an accounting system which Cornell currently does not use. It would be important for Cornell to develop all of the rules for preparing material and their records prior to shipment to the facility. End users at all institutions should have access to a searchable interface for all material stored in the facility, ideally similar to the access all users have in the Borrow Direct Partnership libraries. The collaborative approach would affect Cornell’s rankings since ownership of the material would fall to the group (unless each member of the group could count the same item). That would affect not just collection size, but also the various service components, i.e. circulation and interlibrary loan/document delivery. The cooperative approach would not affect Cornell’s ranking for collection size. The potential effect on rankings for services is uncertain. 8. Advantages & Disadvantages of Locating Service at Annex Library? One advantage is that land is relatively inexpensive, convenient to major highways, and there would be ample parking. The Annex facility was designed to be able to accommodate additional modules. Conversely, since the Annex Library is located in upstate NY, travel between institutions is more difficult, and there are few other large institutions in the area that might take advantage of a storage facility here. 9. What are the benefits for other Cornell operations beyond the Library? The facility could provide storage for text, graphic, or artifactual collections not currently owned by or stored in the Library. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 28 With a broadened charge, the facility could also serve as a university-wide records center, providing records scheduling and management for university and college offices and departments. 10. What are the resource requirements (e.g., staff, space, equipment, technology, furnishing)? Given Cornell’s existing storage facility, and the continuing need for further expansion for CUL storage needs, there is the opportunity to take advantage of existing resources to test market need. Initial outlay of funds, depending upon commitment, could be kept to a minimum. However, a full-fledged effort to provide a cooperative or collaborative storage system would require many more resources. Initial efforts would require a site-plan study, an architectural feasibility study, and an environmental land use study. Projections, via market analysis, would be required to support space and staff projections that would be needed for the site plan and architectural study. Close involvement with Cornell’s Campus Planning Department would be essential. (Technology requirements could be an issue in the Apple Orchard site since this area is still under-developed.) Time intensive procedural requirements for building approvals within the Cornell system would also need to be factored into our plans. “Enterprise” issues within the Cornell system should also be considered. A collaborative model would have additional costs over the cooperative model. Additional space requirements and staff time for the collaborative model, to determine the “best copy”, may need to be considered. A collaborative model may also require additional administrative space. 11. Do we have the human resources to do this? What are the needed skills and experience? We currently do not have sufficient human resources to accommodate the material transfer and service operations necessitated by additional storage modules at the Library Annex. Any growth that would include either a cooperative or a collaborative approach would be even more labor intensive, especially the later. An added component to a collaborative approach could be, as noted above, the identification of the “best copy” of given titles. Furthermore, the governance of this type of facility would have to be shared, involving more administrative time at a high level. Either approach, cooperative or collaborative, would necessitate an on-site administrator. The current facility is operated by 5 FTE, i.e., 1FTE Band E supervisor, 1FTE Band C senior circulation/collection maintenance assistant, and 3FTE Band B circulation/collection maintenance assistants. All staff are hired and trained to perform all duties except for those of a supervisory and management nature. Those are performed by the E and C level members of the staff. Skills shared by all staff are physical strength, and the ability operate a forklift, a computer and scanning equipment. All staff need to understand circulation and bibliographic records, and have interpersonal and verbal communication skills. One person must have a license to train people to operate a forklift. Currently, that person is the supervisor. The supervisor must have supervisory, organizational, and management skills. Finally, the supervisor must have a thorough knowledge of the Cornell Library. If the facility expands significantly and becomes a cooperative or collaborative facility, then as the staff increases the current approach of cross-training and assignments in all areas might not be as necessary. There might be more specialized groups of staff devoted to only a couple of tasks. However, the supervisory component would also need to increase. There would have to be a higher level manager on-site as well a few more specialized supervisors. There might also be two shifts, instead of one, as well as weekend hours. Finally, a collaborative facility would necessitate a governing board of some sort, representing all of the contributors. There might also be a need for number of service subcommittees. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 29 Remote Collection Services 1. What would this service consist of? We would offer two types of services: start-up and on-going. a. The start-up service would include such one-time activities as (1) doing a collection evaluation of the existing collection, (2) building a core collection in all formats (3) assisting the institution in creating an approval plan profile, (4) recommending serials and blankets, (5) assisting in the writing of collection policies, (6) assisting in collection management projects, e.g., preservation selection, offsite storage selection, weeding. b. The on-going service could be subdivided into two categories, depending upon whether the service would duplicate our own selection, or whether we would be selecting materials for the client collection that we would not select for our own. The difference in costs for these two categories would be significant. (1) Duplicated services would involve the regular building of the collection, by duplicating materials that are being selected for Cornell, within the confines of a profile agreed to by Cornell and the client. This could involve duplicating some segment of the Cornell approval plan profile, but augmented by firm orders (“hand selection”). Any materials falling outside of the profile would be the responsibility of the client institution. No materials would be selected for the client institution that are not selected for Cornell. (2) Unique services would be a matter of selecting materials, using all methods, that are not acquired for the CUL collections. This could require creating new approvals and blankets, but it would also necessarily involve firm ordering materials that are out of scope for CUL. This would work best when the subjects complemented CUL holdings—but there may be opportunities for selectors to use selection and subject knowledge that they are not now using for CUL. The cost of the unique services would obviously be much higher than the cost of the duplicated services. It should, of course, also be possible to combine duplicated and unique services for a particular client. Levels of Selection: This is a descriptive list of the permutations that are theoretically possible. 1. Core level, covering only basic works in the subjects involved (roughly equivalent to RLG conspectus level 1 or weak 2). Materials would need to be hand selected because othe CUL approval plans are generally pitched above that level. 2. Basic level, corresponding 100% to CUL approval plans (roughly conspectus level 2+/3). 3. Basic level, based on approval plans that are similar to CUL's but modified somewhat based on the client’s customized profile (roughly conspectus level 2+/3). 4. Advanced level (roughly conspectus level 3+ and up). This would include approval plans either 100% identical to CUL's or with some modifications, complemented by hand selection of orders 100% identical to that done for CUL. 5. Same as # 4 but with hand selection different from that done for CUL, either by omitting some items ordered for CUL, or ordering some not ordered for CUL, or both, based on the client’s customized profile. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 30 These services would be provided for materials in all formats, and would also necessarily entail some processing services (i.e., at least ordering and claiming—but also possibly receiving and cataloging). 2. What is the rationale for the service? The primary rationale would be to provide institutions with the ability to build an effective collection, without the need to hire full-time, specialized staff. It would also provide Cornell with an opportunity to play more of a leadership role nationally. The rationale for the service depends, of course, upon whether there is indeed a real market for it. 3. What should be the outcomes and benefits? The outcome for the client would be an improved collection, built by an experienced selector, without needing to invest in a local selector. A longer term benefit may be that additional staff hired by CUL to support the service may provide overall added staffing flexibility and/or expertise otherwise unavailable within CUL. Revenues from the project should cover costs, but should also include support that permits selectors to increase their levels of expertise (e.g., funding to attend special conferences or to take particular courses). This service would increase CUL’s institutional prestige and visibility in the profession, thereby also contributing to its standing within the University. The service would also provide the selector with an excellent opportunity to learn about other collections, to review the basic values and methods of collection development, and to offer expert opinions. Another important outcome, if this method becomes widely used, would be the better provision of standardized core collections nationally. 4. How would the service align with our institutional goals? CUL Goal VII: “Foster an organizational culture that is agile, resilient and flexible, embraces change and encourages teamwork.” This service would increase opportunities for selectors, and would make selection work more interesting and rewarding. CUL Goal IX: “Effectively market the library’s products and services, and expand outreach to new and underrepresented constituencies.” This service provides a method to expand the range of the Library’s clientele beyond Cornell. It would also be a way for CUL to partner with smaller libraries, which is not usually an option for us. 5. What are the risks and potential impacts? a. There could be a financial risk for CUL. As with any self-supporting service, not only should it be structured so as to maintain financial balance, but it should also have built-in flexibility to allow for expansion and contraction in response to periodic ebb and flow in demand. This may not be an easy thing to do, but without it, CUL may run the risk of unanticipated financial pressure. b. There are also risks in creating more homogenous national collections beyond the core level. Fewer selectors building collections nationally could result in fewer unique materials being made accessible. c. There may also be a risk to CUL’s reputation, in that it could appear that CUL is trying to further its own interests by using its power and prestige to disintermediate smaller libraries. This is not a trivial issue. The implication of what we are really asking with this service is: could CUL MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 31 build the collection of a smaller institution as well as that institution—or “well enough”—for a significantly (or even somewhat) lower cost? By pushing the envelope, we may force institutions to ask just this question, and the answer could be one that the libraries of those institutions might not like. Cornell could gain a reputation as a kind of library corporate raider. In order to avoid this, CUL must ensure that it always deals only with libraries, and never goes around libraries directly to their institutions. d. The single greatest risk would be the potential damage to local collections and services, were the cost of the external services not fully covered; see item 6 below. 6. How do we protect Library services to the local constituency? There is only one effective way to protect local services: full cost recovery. If the cost of the service is not fully recovered, then those costs will be paid by reducing local services, and we will in effect be using Cornell funding to support another institution. Needless to say, full cost recovery entails understanding what the full costs are. Since selector time is the primary resource needed for such a service, this service can only be provided by increasing available staff time for selection purposes. If no additional resources are in place to accommodate the external service, then it is easy to visualize many situations where there would be tension between internal and external obligations and the latter, anchored in a legal contract, would tend to be privileged over the former whose imperative is often less compelling. The cumulative effect of such situations would result in long-term damage to the quality of CUL’s collections. 7. What are the implications for record keeping and statistical rankings? Statistical rankings for the CUL collection should not be affected, provided that costs are fully recovered. Selectors will need to have some kind of budget reporting available to track what is being spent on the client’s collection; the cost of that would need to be included in the total cost for the service. Especially in the case of any unique services provided, selectors will likely need full monitoring of acquisitions, including orders, receipts, claims, and electronic access issues. 8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating the service at the Apple Orchard Library? CUL selectors typically maintain continuous contacts with their user constituencies and need to be available to handle specialized information queries referred by public service staff. It would be counterproductive to relocate them to the Annex Library, if they continue to have responsibilities for building CUL's own collections. If, on the other hand, remote collection building is handled exclusively by additional staff, then it could be based at the AOL, but that would limit any flexibility for utilizing such staff for work directed to the local Cornell user community. 9. What are the benefits for other Cornell operations beyond the Library? CUL could consider contracting to build other collections on campus—e.g., the Alternatives Library. These would be, to be sure, mostly what we have defined above as unique services, and therefore very costly. (Some selectors and users might also feel that one of the main benefits of the Alternatives Library, for example, is precisely that it is not built by CUL--and thus provides a truly "alternative" perspective.) MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 32 10. What are the resource requirements (e.g., staff, space, equipment, technology, furnishing)? This service will require increased selector time. This may take one, or some combination, of three forms: a. Selection responsibilities would be added to that of a staff member who does not now do selection. This would not require additional space, equipment or furnishing. b. Non-selection work responsibilities of selectors could be reduced, in order to accommodate the external selection service. This would also not require additional space, equipment or furnishing (unless, of course, new staff were hired to assume the responsibilities the selector has relinquished). c. New selectors could be added to staff. Each new selector would require office space, office furniture, standard computer equipment, and easy telephonic communication with the client institution. Cost Estimates: Actual costs will vary from client to client depending on the type and extent of service provided. All that can be done at this point is to outline the possible types of costs and models for calculating them. 1. Hand selection. Cost calculation could be based either on the compensation of the actual CUL selector[s] involved, including both salary and fringe benefits at the prevailing University rate, or on an average figure for selector compensation. This would be the case whether the work is done by an existing CUL selector or additional selectors specifically hired for the service. Either way, it can be calculated on the percentage of the selector’s time spent on the client service. For example, assuming an average selector compensation (salary and benefits) of $ 80,000/year, then a service requiring 10 hours/week (= .25 FTE) of separate hand selection would cost ca. $ 20,000/year. CUL could still generate a profit either through the differential between the CUL rate for a senior selector charged to the client and a lower rate it would pay to additional staff hired, or by building into the rate some type of “management and facilities overhead” factor--or a combination of both. 2. Approval plans. Same cost model. At CUL, monitoring approval plan receipts and communication with vendors, if done consistently, can take on average 1-2 hours per week. 3. Searching support. For client services involving the building of retrospective collections, searching support would be required for checking selection candidates against client’s holdings, utilities’ databases and acquisitions sources (Books in Print, Amazon, Bookfinder, etc.). At CUL, the beginning rate for a level C support staff searcher, including salary and benefits, is ca. $ 17.50/hour, or $ 4,550/year for minimal level support of 5 hours per week. Searching support is not required for services concerned exclusively with acquisition of current titles. 4. Processing Costs. These costs will be calculated by the MAS group working on processing services. They would consist minimally of ordering and claiming, and could also include receiving and cataloging. 5. Travel costs. Customized services includes continuous interaction with the client to maintain current awareness of changing needs and satisfaction with the service. Part of this interaction may take the form of meetings at the client’s site, which will also make possible physical inspection of the client collection, should that be considered desirable. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 33 11. Do we have the human resources to do this? What are the needed skills and experience? We have the qualitative subject and bibliographic skills necessary to provide such a service in many—but certainly not all--subject areas. There are a number of areas where we lack expertise, including, for example, certain cultures and languages within Islamic Studies (Turkish, Persian) and Slavic Studies (Hungarian, Baltic and Caucasian languages). We also lack subject expertise in some areas that could be specifically of interest to smaller institutions, such as nursing, education, and "lower" levels of technology (e.g., auto mechanics). We must bear in mind that selection staff change with some regularity, such as retirements, so that our subject expertise, and the depth of that expertise, will vary at different times. As noted above, we do not have the quantitative human resources necessary for this service: selector time would need to be added. Some training in business and consulting skills may also be needed. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 34 Regional Digital Depository Introduction The members of the Regional Digital Depository consultant team are Bill Kehoe, Nancy McGovern (chair), Marcy Rosenkrantz, and Kizer Walker. We have been investigating the potential for the development of this service area for external clients that would consist of a digital archive, and its supporting services and accumulated expertise. Executive Summary The following points summarize the findings from and issues raised in our discussions: • There are at least five possible components that might be included in the digital depository service area: the digital archive, consulting services, training, supporting services, and tools, as discussed in the scope of the service section below (see the risk impact assessment in figure 1). • As with other digital service areas, the term regional may be irrelevant for the digital depository service area because the digital archive and other service area components could be developed at any location and delivered to any location. The service area may focus on subject-based depositories, which in most cases would not be bound by geography. It may be, however, that limiting the client base to institutions in a restricted geographic area and stressing the value of the associated service components in conjunction with the digital archive component would avoid overt and unproductive competition with services such as the OCLC Digital Archive. • Cornell has an institutional commitment to the establishment of a sustainable digital depository as evidenced most explicitly by Goal II of CUL’s Goals and Objectives, 2002-2007. The development of the digital depository service area would build upon, benefit from, and has the potential to further our work on the Common Depository System, the joint initiative to develop the CUL digital depository. Conversely, the development of the service area should not consume or delay our own core mission work. • The development of the digital archive component of the digital depository service area would be informed by two foundation documents: the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)( http://www.ccsds.org/documents/650x0b1.pdf ) and RLG-OCLC’s Attributes of a Trusted Digital Repository (http://www.rlg.org/longterm/repositories.pdf). • The lack of adequate cost models for digital preservation has been widely noted in the profession. If development of the digital depository service is pursued further, market analysis should define the most viable potential clients and acceptable fee levels for service area components. The response to mandatory question 9 identifies key cost factors, but cost estimates for each component would have to be fully and carefully prepared based upon the current market data to avoid underestimating the real cost of delivering the service. • Moving staff and activities associated with digital depository development to the Annex could potentially have a potentially detrimental impact on collaborative digital depository development efforts and related initiatives. Regular meetings, spontaneous information sharing in hallways and elsewhere, and team efforts currently sustain this synergy in what is now a distributed depository function. This will be a consideration for other groups, but is a particular concern for developing areas that must staycurrent with rapidly changing technologies and that may realize significant cost-efficiencies through centralized implementation. Service Area Scope: Regional Digital Depository General issues Our evaluation of a Regional Digital Depository as a potential service area for external clients has been fundamentally shaped by the ongoing efforts of Cornell University Library (CUL) to build a digital depository to preserve its own digital resources, an initiative that recently evolved into the Common Depository System (CDS). CUL has invested in the development of extensive digital collections for over a decade and the growth of these assets has led naturally to the exploration of a comprehensive program to preserve them. A number of CUL projects, e.g., Project Euclid, have provided vital pieces to build upon, but the implementation of a CDS is still in its early stages. The key barrier to developing a fully functioning digital archive has been the need to MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 35 secure the necessary startup funding. To date, external funding has furthered the development of some modules and thinking on our digital depository, but has not been sufficient to bring all of the necessary pieces together in what could be termed version 1 of the Common Depository System. Recent efforts to leverage developments to date, to identify key gaps that would be needed for a full system, and to seek internal and external opportunities to fill these gaps represent significant steps in our progress. However, further steps are required before CUL could host a digital archive that will meet our requirements as well as the needs of a broader Cornell constituency, and a set of external clients. We had extended discussions about the nature of the service area itself. The profession, largely led by Cliff Lynch, distinguishes between digital preservation, incrementally moving bits forward through iterative migrations and other means, and digital archiving, systematic preservation planning to ensure the integrity and viability of digital objects over time. The five components reflect and encompass this distinction, addressing for both effective current management of digital objects and comprehensive long-term preservation. CUL has a number of strengths that would support the service area in question. These include the extensive expertise of CUL personnel, an existing conceptual framework that reflects the scope of our requirements, and some of the key development pieces that will be needed for a fully functioning digital archive. The greatest potential benefit of developing the digital depository service area is that it could support our own development plans and provide a win-win opportunity for CUL and its extended clientele. The primary risk of implementing this service area at such an early stage in the development of a depository here at Cornell is the possibility of not only failing to meet our own development goals, but failing to meet the expectations of potential clients – a failure that might be high-profile, damaging to the reputation of our program, and costly. Beyond the technical and organizational infrastructure considerations presented in the descriptions of the digital archive implementation options, there are two types of quality concerns that would need to be addressed in developing the digital archive service component. First, there is the physical and presentation quality of the digital objects to be deposited in the digital archive. Image creation benchmarking and other quality control methods are examples of measures to insure this aspect of quality. Second, there is the intellectual quality of the digital collections. What collection development protocols would be imposed and by whom? For both types of quality concerns, there are key questions that would have different answers depending on which digital archive option is pursued: What quality requirements would have to be met for collections to be deposited? How would these metrics be maintained and applied? Who would be responsible for ensuring that quality is maintained? Possible Components The group spent considerable time discussing the possible components of a digital depository service, and, in particular, the possible approaches for implementing the digital archive component. • Digital Archive: This component is in the early stages of internal development, but CUL will develop a digital archive on its own, whether or not this service area becomes part of a suite offered to external clients. Of the range of components that might be included in a digital depository service area, the digital archive presents the greatest potential source of revenue, but it would also engender the greatest potential for associated risks. The OCLC Digital Archive model provides a useful example for determining levels of participation, and fees; OCLC is also the main competitor for this option, a significant factor to consider. If we choose to compete, we need to be sure that we can. There are several possible options for implementing this component, each with potential benefits and risks: o Development partnership. We could launch the digital archive in the near-term as a development partnership like ENCompass, with Cornell taking the Endeavor role. Market analysis might identify the level of financial participation that possible partners would be willing to contribute and what their core requirements would be. Accurately identifying the price per member, identifying MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 36 partners who could contribute to the development, and securing and retaining adequate participation would be the keys to success. To some extent, the development burden is shared, but the onus would really be on Cornell to deliver. o Build first, then launch. We could focus our available funding, and actively target additional funding, needed to complete the basic components of the digital archive. The completed implementation could be offered as a service to preserve the digital collections of potential clients. The risk for this option is lower than for the development partnership because the basic digital archive would be in place before we launch the service, the costs would be known, and the necessary fees to sustain it would be clearer. This option would require very explicit producerarchive agreements to establish the requirements for depositors, the responsibilities of the digital archive, contingencies in the event of significant changes in organizational integrity, and the scope of liability. o Collaborative digital depository. We could establish a collaborative digital depository that would jointly implement and maintain the infrastructure, as well as manage the collection development component by establishing and adhering to both content parameters and digital object creation benchmarks. This option combines the potential benefits of the first two options, but require an organizational infrastructure that will be more costly to maintain. o In-house vendor. We could establish an autonomous vendor-like unit that would support the needs of Cornell as well as external clients. In this option, CUL would have the role of producer, as our external clients would, and the in-house vendor would have the role of archive.1 The benefit of this option is that it isolates the potential risk from CUL operations, and focuses the development and maintenance in an autonomous unit that must be self-sustaining. The associated service components that could be offered, either as stand-alone components or as part of a package, are outlined below: • Consulting Services: This component might be the easiest to launch because we have the expertise in-house now to provide a range of consulting services, e.g., requirements definition, but it might also have a detrimental impact by drawing that expertise away from the primary goal of establishing a full-blown digital preservation program at Cornell with an OAIS-compliant digital archive at its core. Hiring, developing, and retaining consulting expertise is costly. This component might sell well as a service component and provide a valuable contribution to the profession, but possibly at the expense of Cornell’s program. External consulting would probably only be offered as part of suite of services and would not directly contribute to the current priorities for digital preservation. • Training: CUL is already developing a Digital Preservation Management workshop as part of an NEH-grant project. The first will be offered in August 2003. That workshop could be provided to a regional audience and sustained as an ongoing offering. It could be supplemented with additional offerings and would be part of the larger continuing education program. This component should be self-sustaining and would not require significant start-up costs, though training fees would have to cover supplementary staff to manage and deliver an ongoing program. CUL has an established commitment to training, and it is likely that some version of this component will be provided as part of a suite of services or on its own. • Supporting Services: Cornell could offer services to create or convert digital objects to ensure adherence to OAIS requirements for archival information packages, i.e., the content object with all of its cumulative administrative, descriptive, and technical metadata. Since we will need to do this ourselves with appropriate protocols, tools, and workflows to support this process in any case, we could offer this as a service. This service component is scalable and potentially saleable and self-sustaining, but there are competitors, such as OCLC, and there will likely be more. 1 See the Producer-Archive Interface Methodology Abstract Standard. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS), 2001. http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/storage.html, one of the follow-on documents of the Open Archival Information Systems (OAIS) Working Groups. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 37 • Tools: In the process of developing digital depositories, we are developing and will continue to develop tools to support depository functions. We could package these tools and provide modular toolkits as well as implementation consulting and training. The tools component may offer sustainable revenue, but probably not large amounts and has maintenance and support costs that reduce the potential revenue. These service area components could be packaged in a number of combinations or delivered individually. The Risk-Impact Assessment in Figure 1 below summarizes the potential of the components and the digital archive options based upon the perceived risk (both economic and the potential to distract from the CUL mission) and possible impact on achieving CUL’s mission. For example, consulting could be launched quickly with low immediate start-up costs, but it would drain staff from development work, have a low or even negative impact on achieving CUL’s mission (i.e., make no measurable contribution towards meeting goals and objectives), and additional staff would eventually be needed as consultants or to replace staff who launched the consulting component. Figure 1. Regional Digital Depository Risk-Impact Assessment Methodology Discussion sessions were the primary method for preparing our report. The disadvantage of working on a potential service area that is in its early stages of development is that much of the work focused on defining the scope of the area, the potential components, and the possible levels of delivery; whereas, more developed areas could begin with the questions. The real advantage is that since we are in the process of developing a digital depository, we have been actively tracking and maintaining current information on developments in the profession and at relevant institutions. A comprehensive literature review is an implicit as well as explicit element of the methodology, and there was no need to contact colleagues to have access to current information. By brainstorming, we have identified five potential components for the digital depository service area. We have tried to identify the potential risks and benefits, impacts, start-up costs, advantages and disadvantages for each. That makes for some unwieldy and uneven responses, but we have tried to highlight the most significant aspects for each component, knowing that it MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 38 was not{?} possible or perhaps even desirable to be exhaustive in our discussions for this round of exploration. We believe that the market analysis for this service area will be particularly important. The organizations who may be interested in some or all components of this service are very likely not at the point in their thinking about digital archiving to know what their needs are or how those needs might be met. Our recommendations propose possible implementation stages for the digital depository service area that address potential audience preparedness. Research Questions Core Questions 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? The primary risk associated with implementing this service area is that we will divert our energies from our institutional program to build and maintain a digital archive and associated services that meet our requirements and address the scope of our collections. Success would mean that we achieve our own goals and meet our clientele’s needs as well; failure might mean that we are unable to do either. 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? There is currently a virtual team working on digital depository initiatives. There is probably neither a great space demand nor space savings for the service, so there is no great space benefit in locating the digital depository service area at the Annex Library. The staff and equipment required for the service area would not have a large space footprint. As noted in the executive summary, there are risks associated with relocating this or any of the service areas being investigated, including: • an out-of-sight-out-of mind condition in which staff in the Annex feel isolated from the rest of the library staff and vice versa. • the lack of a critical mass of staff at the Annex, further isolating staff at the Annex from the rest of the library and from the university at large. The result may be that staff in the Annex or those on main campus will begin to develop their own duplicative efforts because they perceive that they are not getting the attention, service, or help they need from colleagues located elsewhere. This will lead to added expenses and increased staff, possibly at a time of retrenchments elsewhere, and the development of an ‘us against them’ mentality. 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Digitization Service: The components of the digital depository service area could be appended to the digitization service in very effective ways. Clients might have the option to include preservation costs when objects are created, potentially lowering overall costs for both CUL and its clients, as well as ensuring the longevity of objects. Metadata Service: Preservation metadata is the connection between the digital depository and metadata services. Fees could be structured to include preservation metadata creation and compliance with prevailing standards. Electronic Publishing: A digital depository could and even should be a layer of an electronic publishing service. An investment in electronic publications should be accompanied by the assurance of longevity. The range of objects in an organization’s digital depository will include electronic publications and other digital content. It is possible to segment the depository, whether MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 39 distributed or centralized, to manage publications as serials and to support electronic publishing functions. Organizational 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? A coordinated approach to digital archiving demonstrates and embodies an institutional commitment to the long-term storage and preservation of digital assets. Only such a commitment can insure the viability of the digital collections that are of increasing importance to CUL and can build the public trust that is necessary for the acceptance by core user groups of digital objects as substitutes for print versions. The knowledge, practices, skills, and workflows that would drive the Library’s operation of a digital depository for Cornell could be offered beyond the institution and harnessed to recover the costs of a depository operation. Along with the benefit of cost-recovery, opening the depository to external clients promises to strengthen CUL by establishing it as a community hub for digital archiving. 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? Establishing a digital depository service area would allow CUL to meet its objective to establish our own digital depository, to support the on-going development of the necessary tools and techniques to create and preserve selected digital resources, to leverage existing educational offerings in digital areas, and to maintain CUL’s standing as a leader in the digital preservation domain. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? CUL’s Goals and Objectives 2002-2007 cites the provision of “digital ‘life-cycle’ production services” in Goal II. This includes a plan to “[e]stablish and maintain a central depository system capable of ensuring systematic management and long-term preservation and accessibility of digital collections.” Goal VIII calls for the Library to “[e]stablish fee-based and cost-recovery mechanisms based on business plans and market assessments to support new services” as a means to “[s]ecure the resources to meet CUL’s goals and objectives.” The proposal to recover the costs of digital archiving by offering associated services to entities beyond Cornell is thus doubly aligned with current Library objectives. The question of institutional goals – those of CUL and of the university – also comes into play in determining the scope of the depository. According to its statement of Vision, CUL provides “a stable and reliable knowledge base” for the purpose of “enhanc[ing] campus vitality and scholarly productivity” (Goals and Objectives). If resources and organizational priorities are to be directed to the development and custodianship of digital archives for external clients, to what extent should the content of material archived at CUL be limited to what is accessible and valuable for teaching and scholarly research? Likewise, what is the threshold in terms of archival quality for acceptable submissions to the depository? (See also the previous discussion of quality under General Issues.) 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? The technical component of a digital depository—consisting of servers, data storage, administrative software, metadata resolvers—and the human component—a workforce dedicated to the depository’s management—do not currently exist at CUL. If a depository were to be built, a single installation would accommodate both CUL and an external market most efficiently, rather than duplicating the infrastructure. In that case, CUL becomes a data provider to the depository, in some ways no different than an external provider, in other ways, it is a privileged entity. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 40 If the depository were to take responsibility for long-term preservation of a collection or object, the depository’s administrators would most likely create a contract between the data provider and the depository. The contract would bind the external entity to provide data and metadata compliant with the agreement. It would bind the depository to a set of conditions and promises of quality service. Without a contract of this sort, the depository’s guarantee of commitment to preserving CUL’s collections would be only as strong as the commitment of the CUL community at any particular time. The possibility of different levels of “commitment to preserve”—the commitment to preserve a collection in its original file format and, at a more committed level, the promise to migrate the collection to another format when the original becomes obsolete, for example—would give the depository the flexibility of offering different levels of service quality. Individual collections with high commitment would receive more service, whereas low level collections would receive less, regardless of the origin of the collection. Another guarantee of service is the commitment to funding the perpetual care of a collection in the depository. If CUL or an external entity provides the funding stream to ensure long-term preservation, their collections would presumably be preserved. By its nature, CUL assumes that commitment. The need to guarantee long-term funding from the data provider differentiates CUL from the external market. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? By analogy to the guidelines listed in the Interim Guidelines For Counting Materials Housed In Library Storage Centers, http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/storage.html (ARL, August 2002), any objects deposited would be counted, for statistical purposes, by the depositor, not by the depository. A more pertinent view, perhaps, although one that doesn’t address shared storage concerns directly, is presented in Measures and Statistics for Research Library Networked Services: Procedures and Issues—ARL E-Metrics Phase II Report (ARL, October 2001). According to the definitions and procedures discussed there, the institution creating a digital resource can report statistics—under the category Library Digitization Activities—on the size and cost of collections it has digitized, similar to the shared storage situation mentioned above. The category Expenditures for Networked Resources and Related Infrastructure doesn’t discuss shared storage from the point of view of the storage provider, only from that of a library contracting for the storage. A third category of statistics, Patron Accessible Electronic Resources, would show increases for CUL if the collections stored in the depository were made accessible from CUL, and not only from the external providers. 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? Hardware requirements for a Regional Digital Depository will include additional storage. Initially, approximately 5 terabytes (TB) of storage should suffice, depending on the type of files we agree to store. Storage of audio and video material will require much more space. CUL will have to develop policies on the type, quality (both physical and intellectual), and other deposit requirements for digital objects we will store in our depository. An additional server to handle the ingest and extraction processes will also be needed. The Regional Digital Depository will require staff of about 3 people initially to develop the various information packages in the OAIS reference model and to act as consultants. One technical person will be needed to maintain the computing facilities and act as a system administrator. We will also require additional funding for backup and for a service agreement with CIT to house and maintain the hardware in Rhodes Hall. We will require office space, furniture, and desktop computers for the staff of the depository. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? It is difficult to see how we can ask existing staff to help us create this service and maintain the level of service required for our internal constituency. We will either need to hire new staff for the MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 41 depository or shift existing staff to the service and hire new staff for the library to compensate for the shift in manpower. Required skills include good interpersonal skills, and expertise in metadata development, system administration, etc. Optional Questions We provided responses to few of the optional questions that were most relevant and that could be answered prior to the completion of market analysis. Economic 1. What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? One of the greatest difficulties for digital preservation implementation initiatives continues to be the lack of comprehensive, modular cost models that are flexible enough to scale up or down as needed, and that allow organizations to plug in local parameters and experiment with ‘what if’ scenarios. This lack has been noted in the development of the NSF and NHPRC digital archiving research agendas and in other related initiatives. The response to mandatory question 9 provides a list of core cost components, but the particular costs would be pegged to the components of the service area that are developed and to expected participation levels identified in the market analysis. For example, the cost range for the necessary hardware for a digital archive has a critical point at which it would shift from the high end of lower cost equipment to the lower end of much higher cost equipment. The risk associated with opting for significantly more costly equipment to support a larger scale operation would dramatically increase the pressure to attract and retain clients. 2. What would the operating costs be for each function? The operating costs for the digital archive component of the service area would be much higher than those for the other components, which would be more readily self-sustaining. Market Analysis 3. What are the needs of our potential clients? The first stage in implementing this service could be a round of workshops for potential or actual clients. The goal of the workshops would for clients to complete a self-assessment to define their needs. We believe that most potential clients would not be able to define their needs absent this process. The Digital Preservation Management workshop could be repeated as often as needed for this purpose. Recommendations If the digital depository service is included in the next stage of investigation, the most important step will be to obtain market analysis information from potential clients. Which of the components would be of greatest value to them? How much would they be willing to pay specifically for each possible component? What are their highest priorities for digital preservation and biggest concerns in investing in or contributing to a digital archive? One or more of the components could be developed and selected components could be launched in a series of stages. Training, especially offerings aimed at defining the needs of potential clients, might be a logical first stage component to define the scope and sequence of succeeding stages. Of the digital archive implementation options we identified, the build first, then launch option seems to have the lowest potential risk and to be the most closely aligned with CUL’s current development path. However, if the potential risks are fully understood and accepted, one of the other options may lead to a faster and better development track that leverages the benefits of collaboration. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 42 It may be that the digital depository service area would make a good addition to a second round of service areas, if the first round included services such as metadata and digitization, which are much further along in their development as a service. However, market analysis may show that there is a vital potential client base looking for digital depository services. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 43 Metadata Bill Kehoe, Marty Kurth, Jill Powell, Elaine Westbrooks I. Introduction (Definition and role of an entrepreneurial metadata service) An entrepreneurial metadata service will provide metadata consulting, design, development, production, and data conversion work to clients on a cost-recovery basis. Services offered will be tailored project-by-project to meet client needs and address project requirements. Auxiliary services will include grant writing support for metadata components of externally funded projects, developing metadata production workflows for client-directed staff, writing documentation, providing training, and offering quality-control evaluations for client metadata processes. CUL staff engaged in metadata services will offer classes, workshops, and internships dealing with metadata principles and practices as continuing education opportunities for cultural institution staff in order to raise their awareness of metadata issues and to inform them of the ways in which CUL metadata services may help them achieve their institutions’ goals. CUL will offer the metadata service as one component of a suite of digital production services. II. Executive summary The rationale behind the creation of an entrepreneurial metadata service arises from CUL institutional goals to anticipate and meet the needs of (primarily digital) information creators and consumers by becoming more actively engaged in the information resource creation process. We see that establishing a metadata service is an opportunity for CUL to provide exemplary services to an expanded clientele by drawing on experienced personnel who are already highly in demand for their skills. We expect that Cornell will become known as a provider of affordable, high-quality metadata services. The CUL metadata service will add value to research and instructional resources by making them easier to access, use, share, and re-purpose. Fully establishing a metadata service will develop CUL staff in innovative, cutting-edge practices. Given the interest shown in the metadata services already offered by CUL, we recommend actively marketing metadata services to CU research and instructional staff and cultural heritage institutions in the region. We believe that the likelihood of recovering an increasing percentage of the cost of the service over the first five years justifies the reallocation of staff from other CUL operations to the metadata service. Because we feel that metadata conversion is a growth area in metadata services, we recommend using reallocation and cost-recovery revenues to fund a metadata technologist position as soon as it is feasible to do so. These activities to expand CUL metadata services can begin immediately. If CUL has the opportunity and resources to develop a library service center at the Annex Library, the new center is likely to offer a good fit for the metadata service. III. Methodology Key elements of an entrepreneurial metadata service are already in place at CUL, both at Mann and in CTS. Consequently, our answers to the research questions are largely based on our experience with colleagues and clients in planning, marketing, and offering the services we currently provide. In order to learn more about the potential markets for a metadata service, team members met with Mary-Alice Lynch from NYLINK in an open session with other MAS consultant teams. Further, one team member met informally with Mary-Alice and Lauren Pinsley from NYLINK to discuss metadata opportunities. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 44 IV. Answers to research questions A. Core questions 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? We have identified two risks associated with offering an entrepreneurial metadata service. First, clients inside and outside the library world tend to underestimate the costs behind the intellectual work that it takes to plan, create, and maintain adequate metadata, whether that metadata is manipulated through largely automated or largely manual techniques. Consequently, one of the biggest risks may be that clients will not be willing or able to pay for metadata when they are faced with cost estimates. Second, our ability to manage successfully our capacity for meeting client demands for service poses a risk. As designed to meet varying client needs, an entrepreneurial metadata service must be flexible enough to manage both smaller and larger projects. Small-scale projects in insufficient quantity may not generate enough revenues to cover salary costs for staff allocated to the metadata service. Conversely, large-scale projects or multiple concurrent projects could exceed the capacity that we can provide with available staffing. We are particularly concerned about client demands exceeding our capacity because we do not want to reject potential clients while we are trying to establish the service. Considered together, these two risks will challenge an entrepreneurial metadata service’s ability to manage costs and market the service successfully. The potential impact on the library can be both positive and negative. On the negative side, currently-offered technical services may receive less financial and administrative support because cost-recovery metadata services may be viewed as “more valuable.” During periods when the entrepreneurial metadata service is faced with a heavy project load, support for other technical services activities may be diverted to metadata activities in order to meet output or time requirements called for by agreements with metadata clients. On the other hand, staff reallocation to metadata services will likely prompt technical services as a whole to become more innovative than we would otherwise be without such additional demands. In addition, the staff education required to establish and sustain an entrepreneurial metadata service will help CUL to educate its workforce in an area that will continue to be important to libraries in the years ahead. Reallocating technical services resources to establish a metadata service will likely have other impacts on library operations. In technical services operations, there is always more work than there are people to do it. Technical services managers can direct any short-term surplus metadata labor toward other activities in need of support at the time. In addition, revenues generated by metadata services activities can support other high priority technical services operations. The option to use metadata service revenues to support other operations may put technical services managers in a position where they would need to decide whether to direct metadata revenues toward high priority print-based activities or toward marketing activities intended to increase the vitality of the metadata service. 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? There are numerous advantages to locating a entrepreneurial metadata service at the Annex. Metadata work can readily be done outside the library, given the necessary internet connectivity, software, and hardware. We see nothing in the nature of metadata work that requires it to be physically located in a library. An “off-campus” facility might even offer a social and psychological separation that would distinguish the new services from existing ones. A new facility that is state of the art and has the technological infrastructure (high speed telephony, wireless, teleconference) can make the service more efficient and appear to clients who come to the site to be an innovative, business-like atmosphere. Furthermore, an entrepreneurial metadata service located in the Annex would not have to compete with the rest of CUL for valuable office and meeting space. Personnel would also benefit from free parking, additional office space, and a MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 45 high-tech work environment that is more supportive to collaborative digital projects by containing, for example, built-in teleconference and digital video projection capabilities in office and meeting areas. We see these disadvantages to being located in the Annex: • Physical separation reduces interaction among CUL employees as a whole. The reduced interaction can foster isolation and insulation and can decrease the chance that “good things” will happen as a result of serendipitous contacts with colleagues. Insulation can negatively impact the kind of work we do, what we know, and what we are able to do. We have observed that two separate physical environments produce two groups who may be doing similar work, but who are nonetheless unable to share production knowledge in their day-today activities. In such situations, knowledge becomes parochialized. • Moving people away from the CU research and instruction client base at a time when we are trying to promote greater interaction with those clients is a risk. We would not want our clients to forget about us, so we would need to increase our marketing and outreach activities to compensate for the physical distance. • Moving the metadata service to the Annex without moving related operations exacerbates the risk that metadata labor supply may periodically exceed demand. If technical services operations were also moved, managers could direct excess metadata labor toward other high priority operations. • Digital production activities are inherently collaborative. If the metadata service were located at the Annex, other parts of the suite of digital production services would need to be located there as well. 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Potential Cornell synergies include collaboration with the Academic Technology Center (ATC) and the Web Production Group (WPG). The ATC promotes these services to support instruction with distributed learning technologies: • A suite of course technologies are available to instructors, such as Blackboard course web sites, online survey tools, hosting for web sites, video streaming and communication tools. • Ongoing support is available for Cornell instructors who wish to enhance teaching and learning with technology. • Consultants and instructional designers are available to assist in the use and integration of information technology within courses. We see that collaborating with ATC in the organization and management of learning objects to support technology-enhanced instruction would benefit ATC, CUL, and CU faculty and students. The CUL metadata service’s participation in the creation of digital course materials will bring the library’s long-term perspective into the mix, which will result in digital instructional resources that are easier to access, use, share, and re-purpose. WPG provides professional, customized Web solutions to Cornell University faculty, departments, schools, and programs. As a cost recovery unit within the university, WPG is a full-service Web production entity offering design, programming, photography, editing, marketing, testing, and cutting-edge technology to its Cornell University community clients. WPG’s services include creating Web-delivered databases for their clients. These databases, however, do not typically reflect metadata standards, which hampers their interoperability. A CUL metadata service clearly has value to add to the products that WPG provides. We see that opportunities to work with CU service providers such as ATC and WPG could involve project collaboration, cross-referrals, and an extension of the CUL suite of digital production MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 46 services to include services outside of CUL. Collaborating with partners with complementary strengths would allow us to: • focus on areas in which we excel; • enhance our ability to meet client needs in areas in which we are weaker; and • would improve the quality of the services we offer overall. Because a metadata service would be in a position to offer metadata harvesting, conversion, management, and production services to support Web access to scholarly resources, collaboration opportunities would naturally extend to scholarly publishing enterprises, including those involving university presses,. Indeed, CUL metadata staff are already engaged in such activities. We wonder about this use of the term “amalgamation” in this question. We suggest proceeding cautiously with regard to amalgamation opportunities, especially in a campus environment in which turf interests run deep and offers of collaboration are often seen as competition. B. Organizational questions 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? The rationale behind the creation of the entrepreneurial metadata service arises from a futureoriented interest in anticipating and meeting the needs of (primarily digital) information creators and consumers by becoming more actively engaged in the information resource creation process. We see that establishing a metadata service is an opportunity for CUL to provide exemplary services to an expanded clientele by drawing on experienced personnel who are already highly in demand for their skills. This rationale is evident in the vision statement of CUL Central Technical Services (CTS), contained in the CTS Future Search Priorities Team’s 2001-2003 Report: Central Technical Services seeks to be recognized as a team of experts who are central to the Library's mission and its digital future. We are known inside and outside the Library for our innovation, teamwork, productivity, and problem-solving skills. We work in an environment of respect, support, and continual learning. We see our departmental priorities as a reflection of the Library's priorities, supportive of the Library's mission, and evolving as the role of the Library evolves.2 That the vision statement will be reviewed every two years indicates that CTS has already begun to put itself in a position to evaluate regularly its ever-changing role within CUL. The report goes on to identify and describe CTS’ priorities: Content: Acquiring enduring access to both electronic information and physical artifacts; Services: Providing enriched access to information resources via a state-of-the-art infrastructure and innovative services; and Outreach: Extending outstanding service to newly defined Cornell University clienteles3 The three priorities capture the CUL spirit which conceived the idea of an entrepreneurial metadata service. An entrepreneurial metadata service extends the ways in which library 2 CTS Future Search Priorities Team. 2002. “The CTS Future Search CTS Priorities, 2001-2003 Report. Available at: [Accessed 26-Jan2003]. 3 CTS Future Search Priorities Team. 2002. “The CTS Future Search CTS Priorities, 2001-2003 Report. Available at: [Accessed 26-Jan2003]. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 47 technical services have historically worked to support the research and instruction of Cornell students, faculty, and staff. An entrepreneurial metadata service also can provide CUL with a research and development unit that can be a testing ground or laboratory to educate personnel, establish standards, and recommend best practices. The CUL community feels that it has a responsibility to share its expertise to help other cultural heritage organizations create and manage digital content. We envision that metadata services staff members could operate workshops and host librarians, residents/fellows, and students in the way that CUL preservation personnel have conducted institutes on digitization. Many units in CUL are already in the business of sharing knowledge and expertise. Metadata services should follow in their tradition. 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? We believe that a cost-recovery approach to metadata services promotes innovation, because innovation keeps costs down. We expect that Cornell will become known as a provider of affordable, high-quality metadata services. As we have already discussed, metadata services will add value to Cornell research and instructional resources. Establishing a metadata service will develop CUL staff in innovative, cutting-edge practices. Establishing a metadata service within a suite of digital collection services increases the likelihood that metadata will be considered as projects develop, which increases the potential volume of business. Integrating metadata concerns into digital collection creation and management will increase the quality of CUL digital collections. See, for example, the extent to which metadata is linked to quality digital collections in the IMLS “Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections” (http://www.imls.gov/pubs/forumframework.htm). Integrating metadata services into digital production services will also provide the infrastructure for building digital collections with inherent preservation elements, insofar as metadata is the glue that holds together such digital preservation models as the Open Archival Information Systems (OAIS) Reference Model. (The OAIS approach to digital preservation underlies the document, Attributes of a Trusted Digital Repository (http://www.rlg.org/longterm/attributes01.pdf.) We expect that increased support for digital production services will result in less support for print collections. Exceptions include cases in which digital collection development projects will involve processing and/or conserving print collections and circumstances in which revenues generated from digital services can support print-based library activities. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? An entrepreneurial metadata service is explicitly in line with CUL’s institutional goals, which embody a logical next step in the evolution of libraries. Collectively, librarians and library staff have been organizing and describing vast amounts of information in a variety of formats throughout library history. In other words, the creation of metadata has always been one of the core activities of librarianship. Moreover, metadata is an integral part of all aspects of librarianship from collection development to preservation, i.e., throughout the life cycle of data. Because of the intrinsic centrality and pervasiveness of metadata in library activities, it is not surprising that a metadata service relates explicitly or implicitly to each of the goals listed in “CUL Goals and Objectives 2002-2007,” issued in July 2002.4 For the purposes of this report, however, we will refer only to the CUL goals and objectives to which an entrepreneurial metadata service most obviously aligns: • Goal I Build the knowledge base of print, digital, and other materials ”Strengthen access to digital collections; innovative collaborations with information technology staff, publishers, consortia and other research institutions” • Goal II Provide digital ‘life-cycle’ production services 4 Cornell University Library. 2002. Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives 2002-2007. Available at: [Accessed 26-Jan-2003]. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 48 ”Establish and operate a ‘consulting to production’ metadata service capable of producing metadata in a variety of formats to organize, manage, and preserve collections over time and to enable effective discovery and use” • Goal III Support electronic publishing, scholarly communication, and creative expression ”Support innovative approaches to teaching, research, and creation, making the Library a site for exploration and experimentation” • Goal IV Support more effective organization and presentation of information for a diverse audience ”Implement an integrated technological and methodological framework Library-wide, providing users with an integrated approach to discovery and use of Library resources and enhancing collection building and managerial efficiencies (e.g. Encompass)” • Goal V Provide expert assistance, instruction, and an innovative suite of user services ”Expand services in support of multimedia collections and production” • Goal VI Create and maintain a physical environment that fosters learning and research through enhanced intellectual discourse and exploration ”Identify appropriate bench marks for technological infrastructure needed to support multiple, and even unexpected, uses and provide resources to ensure that this level is available in all libraries.” • Goal VII Secure the resources to meet CUL’s goals and objectives ”Establish fee-based and cost-recovery mechanisms based on business plans and market assessments to support new services” • Goal X Develop strategic alliances in support of CUL’s goals and objectives ”Determine the strategic value of CUL’s membership in regional, national, and international library consortia and organizations” • Among the full set of goals and objectives through 2007, these CUL Priority Objectives, 20022003,5 are directly addressed by establishing a metadata service: • I.1 and I.3 “Strengthen access to digital collections” and “Digitize library holdings” • II.3 ”Establish and operate a consulting to production metadata service” • VII.1 ”Identify the skills and resources needed for library innovation” 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? Consistent with the risks identified in our answer to Question 1, we feel that a central requirement in establishing a metadata service will be to regulate effectively its capacity for meeting client demands, increasing and decreasing available labor resources in response to fluctuating demand. Historically in technical services we have responded to peak workload periods by drawing on a pool of temporary staff with some experience in library work. We envision managing high-load metadata production projects for external clients in a similar way. As an alternative, we would consider outsourcing metadata production services when cost-effective, thereby assuming the role of a general contractor for all services provided. Maintaining effective local services will continue to remain a library priority. Because a metadata service would itself offer a suite of 5 Cornell University Library. 2002. “CUL Priority Objectives, 2002-2003.” Available at: http://www.library.cornell.edu/Admin/goals/objectives.html [Accessed 26-Jan-2003]. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 49 services, the competition for resources between local and external projects may be less acute than it would be if the metadata service only offered one service. On the other hand, we think it likely that consulting will be in greater demand in external markets than production services because metadata design and development skills are in shorter supply market-wide. The problem this poses for CUL is that the same is true for us, namely, that CUL staff able to do metadata consulting are few, which makes our capacity for responding to the demand for consulting relatively inflexible. We recommend anticipating this shortfall by developing more staff locally to be able to provide consulting services. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? This question does not apply to the establishment of a metadata service. 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? Staff in a metadata service require workstation configurations at the high end of most library staff with regard to speed, storage, and network access. Special considerations include: PC access to a shared, networked drive with multi-gigabyte storage space, regular and reliable data back-up, data validation if contractual agreements with clients call for short or longer term data archiving, access to multiple operating systems (Apple, Unix), and funding to acquire new software and hardware as the need arises. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? CUL has the human resources to offer quality metadata services. CTS has established a separate metadata services unit while Mann Library has mainstreamed metadata activities into its cataloging unit. Four staff members in CTS have been reassigned to the new CTS unit while two metadata librarians have been recruited for Mann Library. At Mann, several other cataloging staff members also have metadata responsibilities in addition to their cataloging responsibilities. Staff in the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections and the Division of Library and Information Technology have engaged in metadata design, development, and production activities to provide access to digital image collections, digitized text collections, and electronic journal aggregations. Staff in these units can form the labor and knowledge base for an entrepreneurial metadata service. To build on this base, we recommend developing more staff capable of offering consulting services, for the reasons we identified in the answer to Question 7. The desired skills for librarians in an entrepreneurial metadata service include: • Knowledge of new developments concerning metadata standards • Knowledge and experience in creating and maintaining repositories of nonMARC metadata, i.e., FGDC, Dublin Core, Encoded Archival Description, and Text Encoding Initiative • Familiarity with AACR2, MARC, XML Schemas, crosswalks The desired characteristics of librarians in an entrepreneurial metadata service include: • Very strong analytical abilities • Background in and talent for data modeling • Experience, demonstrable success, and comfort level in dealing with complex data structures • Willingness, if not strong desire, to be informed by existing metadata standards MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 50 To sustain an entrepreneurial metadata service, though, requires skills other than those necessary for metadata consulting, design, development, and production activities. The metadata service we have described, like any entrepreneurial service, must have at its disposal marketing skills and staff with knowledge to support drawing up contracts and service agreements with clients and sub-contractors. These skills need not reside in the metadata service, but CUL digital production services as a whole should have them at their ready disposal. Along these lines, CUL does not currently have the human resources to develop print and web promotional materials of a quality called for by an entrepreneurial service. Those resources are available on the CU campus, however, so we recommend working with units like Publication Services and the Web Production Group to develop the materials necessary to market the metadata service. Finally, we feel the near term need for the CUL metadata service to have direct information technology support. An IT specialist who is also familiar with DTDs, XML schemas, and metadata standards is a crucial asset in building applications and tools to automate metadata creation and management to the fullest extent possible. A metadata technologist would be necessary to build in-house capabilities for offering metadata conversion services, which we see as a growth area in metadata services as libraries, other cultural heritage institutions, and individual content creators seek to leverage or repurpose existing metadata, including metadata in MARC-based integrated library systems. The responsibilities of a metadata technologist would include: • Analyzing, evaluating, and creating programming scripts and applications for harvesting, generating, and transforming metadata files to support metadata service activities; keeping up to date on new and emerging technological tools, standards, and methods in order to take advantage of them where feasible • Developing customized metadata solutions for digital projects with a special emphasis on technology-supported solutions that maximize efficiency and minimize cost • Creating or adapting metadata schemas to meet digital project goals • Designing tools for innovating and streamlining metadata service processes • Providing training and leadership to CUL staff on matters pertaining to metadata technologies • Developing training sequences and documentation Desired skills and characteristics of a metadata technologist would include: • Working experience with metadata standards, digital content management systems, and software application design/development/customization in a networked environment • Demonstrated interest in metadata issues on the regional, national or international level • Evidence of ability to plan, to analyze, to solve problems creatively and flexibly, and to succeed in a complex, rapidly changing environment • Strong service orientation and interest in information users’ values and needs C. Optional questions (Economic) 1. What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? The majority of the costs associated with operating a metadata service are personnel costs. Thus far, CUL units have supported metadata service activities through reallocation. As previously noted, CTS and Mann Library have already established positions that are focused on metadata services. CTS’ metadata services unit contains four staff members. Mann Library has mainstreamed metadata activities within its cataloging unit, recruiting two metadata librarians and assigning metadata responsibilities to several other cataloging staff members. Based on increasing demand for metadata MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 51 services from CU clients alone, we see the need for three additional FTE ($240,000 in salary and benefits) over the next five years. These costs are likely to be covered by a combination of reallocation and revenues from cost-recovery metadata activities. Because active promotion of a metadata service is bound to increase client demand, these additional personnel costs can be seen as start-up costs. 2. What would the operating costs be for each function? Operating costs are largely personnel costs as well, the majority of which can be borne by reallocation at first, with an increasing proportion covered by cost-recovery revenues as the service matures. Additional costs include ongoing training and staff development, as well as the cost of upgrading and updating the software used to support the service. D. Optional questions (Market analysis) 3. What are the needs of our potential clients? To assess the needs of potential client groups we recommend a formal market analysis using a matrix that divides clients into groups (CU research and instructional staff, other libraries and cultural heritage institutions, private sector data providers) and queries members of those client groups regarding their interest in each aspect of the proposed service (consulting, design, development, production, data conversion). That approach will enable CUL to develop strategies for marketing each facet of the service to the client groups most likely to use it. 4. What is the size of the potential market (potential clients for individual services)? From a conversation with Mary-Alice Lynch we learned more about the size of the cultural heritage institution market in New York State. There are 7000 libraries in New York, 2600 of which are NYLINK libraries. Of those, 350 are full members, i.e., libraries who are full OCLC members contributing records to the WorldCat database. Those 350 libraries are the likeliest to have sufficient library material resources to drive digital production projects. Beyond that core group of 350 libraries, though, there are another 350 NYLINK affiliate members that are cultural heritage institutions such as museums and historical associations that would be likely to engage in digital projects given sufficient funding. 5. What are the barriers to use of this service? How might they be overcome? We identified these barriers to using a metadata service, along with potential remedies to each: • Short project deadlines, i.e., not enough time to design, develop, and produce adequate metadata. (This barrier came into play in the first round of CU Faculty Innovation in Teaching Grants.) Remedy: Tailoring services to client constraints. • Cost. Remedies: Use technology/innovation to minimize costs. Adapt services to available client support. Contract out (high-volume) production services. • Lack of understanding of the service. Remedy: Marketing and education. • Competition with other CU service providers for CU clients. Remedies: Build a history of collaboration and trust. Educate potential service partners. • Competition with staff in smaller institutions as the field matures. Remedy: Continuing innovation, i.e., staying ahead of the curve. 6. Which market should we be targeting? CUL should target the markets that we know best: CU research and instructional staff and cultural heritage institutions such as libraries, museums, schools, and learned MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 52 societies. Likely cultural heritage clients will be in the northeast region, but not exclusively so. We recommend pursuing these markets because we have complementary missions, because we already have name recognition in them, and because we have a history of collaboration with them. 7. What marketing strategy should be used? We recommend that CUL use these marketing strategies, some of which we have already begun using: • Media: Cultural heritage association publications, listservs/email, scholarly journals and newsletters, conference publications and presence at conferences, press releases to library publications • Campus outreach: Meetings with university administrators and faculty; participation in events such as the Teaching and Learning with Technology Expo • Educational programs: Workshops and presentations to cultural heritage institution staff that provide instruction related to metadata best practices and that also promote the CUL service. This can be done by doing workshops regionally as well as offering institutes at CUL. 8. What unique advantages might a university library bring to this service over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? One advantage that CUL as a university library has over a commercial/non-profit enterprise is trust. Over time, libraries have fulfilled a mission to preserve recorded knowledge while adding value to the resources they preserve for future use. This experience cannot be duplicated by commercial institutions. Furthermore, the reputation of Cornell and CUL provides an entrepreneurial metadata service with a stature in the community that commercial enterprises may not have. CUL and CU have built reputations as leaders in digital libraries, which, in addition to reputation, means that CUL has access to resources and personnel throughout campus that other enterprises do not have. 9. Who will be our competitors? What are the collaboration opportunities? We discussed in our answer to Core Question 3 the potential for collaboration and competition with CU service providers such as ATC and WPG. External competitors include OCLC, metadata units in Digital Library Federation libraries, and private sector firms. In addition to being potential competitors, other academic library metadata units offer opportunities for sharing best practices and exchanging referrals as well. We recommend cultivating NYLINK as a broker for services provided to libraries within New York State. 10. What will be our pricing policy (cost-recovery, market value, competitive pricing, etc.)? Initially we recommend cost-recovery pricing to keep prices attractive to clients and to generate a revenue stream to support expanding the service. As we have noted, the potential exists to use metadata income to support other high-priority CUL initiatives. We recommend seeding the service with reallocated staff rather than launching the service as an enterprise unit from the outset and running the risk that revenues will not cover staff costs. The pricing model should eventually cover the cost of training as well as equipment and software renewal. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 53 V. Recommendations regarding feasibility, advisability, benefits, and drawbacks Given the interest shown in the metadata services already offered by CUL, we recommend actively marketing a metadata service to CU research and instructional staff and cultural heritage institutions in the region. Marketing the service to CU clients should involve clear demonstrations of the ways in which digital resources enhance their research and instruction and the ways in which metadata increases the value of their digital resources. Marketing the service to regional institutions should include enhancing the educational programs in metadata best practices that CUL offers to those institutions. We believe that the likelihood of recovering an increasing percentage of the cost of the service over the first five years justifies reallocating staff from other CUL operations to the metadata service. We recommend a formal market analysis in order to match client groups with the services we offer. The results of the analysis will enable us to shape our marketing/education activities to highlight specific services for specific groups. Because we feel that metadata conversion is a growth area in metadata services, we recommend using reallocation and cost-recovery revenues to fund a metadata technologist position as soon as it is feasible to do so. These activities to expand CUL metadata services can begin immediately. If CUL has the opportunity and resources to develop a library service center at the Annex, the new center is likely to offer a good fit for the metadata service. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 54 Conference Center Introduction The Consultant Team on the Conference Center consisted of David Banush, Linda Bryan, Lance Heidig, Mihoko Hosoi, Anne Kenney (chair), and James Morris-Knower. The team investigated the role and potential market for establishing a conference center at the Library Annex Facility. Executive Summary The Consultant Team believes there may be a market niche for a high-tech training facility that can accommodate up to 200 people and that provides for a flexible use of space.6 Existing training/conference facilities fall into one of two categories: they are either high tech, but can accommodate fewer than 100 (usually fewer than 50) people, or they can accommodate a larger group but lack requisite technological capabilities. We do not believe that a training/conference facility that competes in either market will thrive. CUL will need to differentiate the service and identify a distinctive market niche. The first priority in establishing such a facility should be to meet current and projected needs of CUL. The need for such a facility increases as the size of the staff population to be relocated at the Library Annex increases, as CUL embraces its stated goals and objectives, and if CUL develops broad-based academic support services that incorporate training, conferences, and other gatherings of individuals as a significant aspect of the operations. This latter objective may well play the determining role: the need for a training/ conference center depends in large measure on the other components for MAS 2010 and should be considered auxiliary to those needs. In sum, the facility would be the capstone, rather than the cornerstone, of a fully mature service enterprise, serving as the physical counterpoint to services that are in large measure digital. Although CUL’s need for a training/conference facility must be the driving force behind creating it, we project that the facility will not become cost-effective unless important secondary uses can be made of it as well. Our research indicated that the average occupancy rate for college/university conference centers is 59%, which varies from season to season.7 Unfortunately, most such facilities also include lodging, so it may be unwise to extrapolate from this figure. Our very rough ballpark estimate is that CUL’s needs could represent between 25-40% of the capacity of such a facility on a regular basis, depending on how the MAS 2010 programs develop. We estimate that, at a minimum, a 60% use rate must be achieved for the facility to become self-sustaining, but that figure would have to be verified in the market analysis phase. Obviously, the greater the percentage utilized by groups external to CUL—within Cornell, the local community, and beyond—the greater the cost recovery. The national average breakdown by “Scope of Attendance” for college/university conference centers is: local 63%, regional 21.3%, national 10.4%, international 5.3%. The envisioned conference/training facility could appeal to two markets: it could serve as neutral ground for use by a range of clients, and also marketed as a “destination resort,” or place where high-end facilities, conveniences, and services all merged. The need for such a facility will increase as the university’s center shifts eastward and that growth is earmarked for academic programs, a projection supported by the Director of Facilities Planning.8 An obvious requirement 6 Note: Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation, suggested that we refer to this as a training center rather than a conference center to avoid unnecessary anxiety from the city. 7 The Conference Center Industry: A Statistical and Financial Profile North America, St. Louis, Missouri: PKF and IACC International Association of Conference Centers, 2002. Revenues are college/university conference centers were allocated in the following categories: Rooms 16%, Food & Beverage 30%, Net Income 15%, A&G and Management fees 9%, Fixed Charges 8%, Maintenance and Energy 9%, Other Operated Dept 9%, Marketing 4%. 8 See comment of Mina Amundsen in Appendix A. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 55 is regular and frequent bus service linking the central campus and the Library Annex. Given the current and projected needs of CUL and the potential external market, the team recommends further investigation into developing a business case for establishing a teaching/conference center. Methodology The Consultant Team met four times and in between conducted informal surveys and gathered additional data. We surveyed existing conference/training facilities both on campus and locally; we inquired into the need for and potential use of such a facility by campus, local, and state groups; and we researched the establishment and use of such facilities by other libraries. What Kind of Facility Might This Be? The consultant team envisions a flexible facility—perhaps one that could be phased in over time—that would have a capacity to accommodate up to 200 people, including a separate lobby/reception area. It would use state-of-the-art technology, providing high-speed Internet connections, teleconferencing, and video-conferencing).9 The conference facility would be modular, offering flexibility in terms of room sizes and arrangements. There should be 2-4 breakout rooms in addition to an auditorium, which itself should be sub-divisible into several sound-proofed smaller rooms. It should be possible to host more than one group at a time. The requirements for this facility should follow recommendations from the Classroom TechnologiesFacilities Design Group (http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/instruct/classtech/design/). In addition, the center should offer access to basic food and service amenities (at a minimum, a kitchen to support catering functions). It would be available to interested parties on and off campus for workshops, training, conferences, and other large group meetings. The facility should be operated on a not-for-profit basis, with a sliding scale of fees instituted for use by Cornell groups, non-profits, and for-profit groups. Developing a steady secondary clientele will require the services of a conference planning unit.;10 the team recommends that the bookings and operation of the facility be outsourced to an events planning group, such as Conference Services, a unit of CU Campus Life (http://campuslife.cornell.edu/home/conference_services.asp). Library Conference Centers at Other Universities University conference centers have been a major enterprise for universities since the 1950s. They have often been viewed as profit centers, representative of the outreach and service objectives of academic institutions. According to R. H. Penner,11 these conference centers generally fall into four major categories: 1) Executive education centers (usually affiliated with a business /medical school, e.g., Duke and Wharton School in Philadelphia) 2) Continuing education center (generally associated with each state’s land grand mission; e.g. the Oklahoma Center, Paul W. Bryant Conference Center at the University of Alabama, Penn State University, University of Miami) 3) University hotel and conference center (generic; e.g. Cornell Statler Hotel described as “the gateway to the University”) 4) University retreat (often remote from campus, e.g., Syracuse University’s retreat in the Adirondacks). 9 Aaron Park, Director of the Gutman Conference Center at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education opined that “high tech to the max is essential for today’s wired clients.” 10 The library staff at Washington University’s West Campus Library and Conference Center recommends hiring staff specifically to manage such a facility, see comments in Appendix C. 11 Richard H. Penner, Conference Center Planning and Design. A Guide for Architects, Designers, Meeting Planners, and Facility Managers, NY: Whitney Library of Design, WatsonGuptill, 1991. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 56 The training/conference center envisioned by the consulting team represents a new model—an enterprise associated explicitly with library functions. As such, we were interested in other libraries that have sponsored conference centers. Our literature search turned up very few of them. From an initial list of six possible facilities falling into this category (see list in Appendix B), we narrowed our review to three that most closely resembled the type of facilities we envisioned and contacted them to ascertain basic information regarding capacity, use, and the value of the library association. The chart located in Appendix C summarizes our findings. Of the three facilities investigated, two appear to have been consciously constructed as part of the library. The first is the Archives and Special Collection Center at the Anderson Library at the University of Minnesota. The use of this facility is primarily for events and outreach programs built around the archives and special collections. The Library Facilities Planner, Donald Kelsey, commented that the center meets the library’s needs, but is often inadequate for external groups. He added, however, that “ … we had no intention of getting into the conference center business when we built this space.” At Washington University in St. Louis, the West Campus Library and the Conference Center occupy the same building at the edge of campus. Originally intended as a place for the library staff to meet, the Library does not appear interested in marketing the conference center. Demand for use by other university groups has been overwhelming, however, placing considerable strain on the library staff. The last conference center investigated may best be described as library-proximate or libraryaffiliated rather than library-related. The Gutman Conference Center and Monroe C. Gutman Library at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, is also the most successful. It is heavily used, with over 900 events scheduled per year. Aaron Park, the Conference Center’s director is quite positive about the connection with the library: “…the conference center greatly enhances the function of the library. There is much discussion about the future of ‘libraries’ and what services they provide in the digital age. Our community has discovered that having a vibrant conference center within the Library has greatly enhanced its use. We like to think of the Library and conference center as a ‘scholarly commons’ where it becomes a multi-purpose center of interaction of academic teaching, learning, and discourse.” The conclusion from this review of library conference centers confirms the consultant team’s view that a library conference facility can succeed, but it must be aggressively marketed and managed by the library or its designated representative to be successful. Market demand may well hinge on how competitive the library conference center is with other conference facilities in the immediate area. Survey of Existing Conference/Training Facilities in Cornell and Ithaca The Consulting Team surveyed facilities both on campus and off to determine the potential competition and to gauge whether there was a market niche the library could fill. We developed a base set of questions in an effort to gain comparable data. Table 1 summarizes the findings. Appendix A contains notes compiled during the survey. The results of this survey led us to conclude that competition within the envisioned market niche (high tech, large venue capabilities) exists only on campus. Most of the area hotels fall into the small and medium sized categories, able to accommodate fewer than 100 people, and frequently many fewer than that. Only the Clarion, Holiday Inn, and Ramada Inn can accommodate more than 100 people and these sites lack advanced—or even adequate—technical capabilities. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 57 TABLE 1: CONFERENCE/TRAINING FACILITIES SURVEY RESULTS Bio-Tech Clarion Hotel Clark Hall Coop Ext Holiday Inn ILR Johnson School MVR Purcell Ramada Inn Statler Vet Min Capacity Max Capacity Catering Breakout Rooms 165 200 no no 50 700 yes yes 26 350 no no 8* N/A N/A N/A 20 270 yes yes 20 110 yes yes 20 122 yes yes Not Yet Available--- --------------- -------- ------------------- 20 150 yes yes 30 360 yes yes 30 100 yes yes -------- Not Yet Available--- ---------------- - ------------------- Teleconferencing yes no yes N/A no yes*** yes ------------------possible no **** ------------------- Internet yes yes yes N/A yes yes*** yes yes yes **** Ind. Network possible no possible N/A yes** yes*** yes possible no **** Tech Support yes (basic) no no N/A no yes*** yes no no **** *Cooperative Extension only has a small conference room that can accommodate 8 and a videoconferencing room, but they only use the facilities for their staff and other coop staff throughout the state for videoconferences. **Holiday Inn has done individual networking before but it is not standard. ***ILR Conference Center at Garden Ave is under renovation. The capabilities listed are what is currently planned and are subject to change; facility is set to re-open Jan. 2004. ****Statler is undergoing new renovations to upgrade its technical capabilities. The details of the new capabilities were unavailable before the report deadline. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 58 Cornell venues that have the capacity to host a function for 50+ people and offer some type of advanced technological capability are represented on Table 1. Although several of them—most notably the Johnson School and the Statler—come close to offering a similar capacity and capability envisioned by the team, availability is often a problem. These facilities largely serve the internal needs of the schools with which they are affiliated. Their remaining capacity is heavily marketed for use in professional training (e.g., executive education). Many of the campus facilities are currently being renovated and the technological capabilities upgraded. For example, it may prove to be beneficial to visit the Johnson School and examine the facility there, as it seems to be the closest to what MAS 2010 had in mind. It may also be useful to inquire about what capabilities the new $100 million engineering building will be able to provide once completed. Several new facilities are in the planning stage, most significantly the Bio-Tech building and a facility at the Vet school. In addition, planning for a CU hotel/conference center downtown is underway (see below.) Further investigation would be needed to determine if these facilities would meet the needs envisioned in MAS 2010 or whether the Library can develop a distinctive niche. Assessing the Need/Potential Use for such a Facility within CUL Although a comprehensive analysis of the Library’s current use and potential need for new conference/ training facilities was beyond the purview of this investigation, the team did review how current meeting spaces are being used in Olin and Kroch Libraries. Current demand for use of these spaces serves as a potential indicator of the future use of the envisioned facility. The combined total distinct uses for meeting spaces in Olin and Kroch was 1,224 for Fall semester 2002. Fall semester 2002 use statistics for Olin and Kroch meeting spaces Olin 106 67 class sessions12 Olin 303 106 class sessions Olin 403 106 class sessions Olin 603 100 class sessions Olin 702 Olin 703 Kroch 2B48 53 class sessions Kroch 2B49 37 class sessions 75 meetings 106 meetings 40 meetings 81 meetings 202 meetings 164 meetings 70 meetings 17 meetings 2 receptions 2 receptions Total number of class sessions: Total number of meetings : Combined total: 469 755 1, 224 Meeting and classroom space is at a premium on the central campus. If more meeting space is available for use in the Library Annex, then more meeting space in Olin and Kroch can be made available for privileging our users. Presently, the Library has no meeting space larger than Kroch 2B48 (49 chairs), so all large group activities need to be held in other campus facilities. Current CUL activities that could be held in this proposed conference facility include: 12 Includes library instruction sessions and CU classes taught in library space. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 59 • Academic Assembly (9-12 days/year) • IRIS Digital Library Institute (3 weeks/year) • Cornell Alumni University (1 to 6 weeks/year) • Library Learning Opportunities programs (1.5 weeks/year) 13 • Large group/class library instruction (3/semester) • Meetings for staff working in this facility • Library-sponsored conferences (1or 2/year, average of 3 days) • Meetings/conferences sponsored by MAS programs • Learning and Teaching with Technology Expo • CUL Holiday party • CUL cultural events/receptions As noted, the Consulting Team feels that CUL must be the primary user of such a facility. As this preliminary assessment reveals, current and projected use of a training/conference center for standard library operations is strong, but may not be sufficient to warrant the investment unless we factor in the needs of the MAS 2010 production units. A major unknown in assessing the need for this facility, therefore, is the degree to which each of the envisioned services will incorporate training, meetings, and outreach to “customers” that will entail their physical gathering in Ithaca. Until CUL has a sense of what those needs are—which should be addressed as part of the next phase of this process—it may be difficult to justify the expense of a high-tech facility that can support up to 200 individuals. Of course, the facility could be scaled back or developed incrementally as the Library Annex operation itself expands. We do feel, however, that plans should not go forward unless the Library can anticipate using somewhere between 25-40% of the facility’s capacity on a regular basis. The team recommends that a more thorough assessment of the Library’s projected needs be conducted. Assessing the Need/Potential Use for such a Facility beyond CUL As noted in the Executive Summary, a certain percentage of the business must be generated external to CUL if the training facility/conference center is to be self-supporting. Determining the non-CUL “occupancy rate” as a measure for self-sufficiency will be an important part of the market analysis. A marketing survey was recently completed for the Tompkins County Area Development and Strategic Tourism Planning Board in conjunction with the proposed CU downtown hotel/conference center. The results of this survey will provide valuable information on how much business would potentially be generated. Unfortunately, the results are not yet available, but should become public within the next few months. The contact person within Cornell is John Majeroni, Director of Real Estate (257-0818); Martha Armstrong (273-0005) is the contact at Tompkins County Area Development. We recommend that the MAS 2010 committee following up on this study once it is released. Because a formal market analysis has been conducted, the Consulting Team limited its investigation to informal surveys to gauge interest both on and off campus. The results of our surveys were inconclusive. On campus, we targeted Cornell departments that seemed most likely to utilize such a facility and did not have their own facility available or planned. These included: 13 During 2002, Library Learning Opportunities (LLO) held a total of 56 training sessions. 32 classes (57% of the total classes) were technical classes taught electronic classrooms. Most tech classes were 2-hour sessions. The demand for tech classes exceeded the supply availability of electronic classrooms (Stone Ctr. Mann, Engineering Library, Uris Library). MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 60 Center for Learning and Teaching Cornell Press Cornell Store Environmental Health and Safety Financial Affairs Human Resources Media and Technology Services Organizational Development Services School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions By February 3, we had received responses from 4 of the 8 units, and those that did respond were encouraging (see Table 2). The Organizational Development Services unit in particular expressed strong support for the idea of a conference facility, indicating “a new conference facility at Cornell would be a dream come true.” The team has heard anecdotally that there is growing interest in the development of conference facilities for other HR-sponsored programs. In the marketing phase, this interest should be carefully assessed. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 61 Table 2. Potential Customers within Cornell University CU Unit School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions Center for Learning and Teaching The Cornell Store Kind of use We offer a number of programs for non Cornell participants that last from 2 to 6 days. Training in Instructional Support, Student Disability Services, and TA training. Possible regional conferences and/or video conferences. Frequency Between 812 programs a year Most likely once or twice a semester. Other comments Dining facilities or at least a dining room for catering necessary; room layout is also important as we need to accommodate from 20-80 participants, and we need to feel comfortable with all size groups. Internet access and computer access essential. Videoconferencing a plus. The multimedia technology and the physical structure must be accessible to individuals with sensory and physical impairments. The cost of renting the facility would influence the amount of use by our unit. Association conferences, business meetings, training and business functions (e.g., strategic planning.) Depends on availability and costs. Organizational Development Services We do over 250 events, including 80 workshops and 147 programs and retreats each year for faculty, administration, and staff, with each event ranging from 10 to 200 people. ODS would be “a big user of such a facility, “ 25% of events have to be taken off campus. Currently we operate out of a suite of offices (11) and training room (capacity 20) at Business Technology Park. We are hard pressed to find rooms for these events on campus. A new conference facility at Cornell would be a dream come true for us. Please let me know if there's anything I can to do further this cause. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 62 Because of the anticipated release of the Ithaca market analysis, we conducted a very limited survey outside Cornell. Jean Currie, Director of South Central Regional Library Council, indicated that SCRLC would potentially use the facility on average six times/year for training, workshops, and annual and board meetings, depending on the fee schedule. The audiences would range from 10 to 100 individuals. Similarly, Mary Alice Lynch, Executive Director of NYLINK, expressed interest in using the facility for conferences and training sessions, perhaps on the order of 1015/year. We could imagine as well that the facility could be marketed as an educational satellite for schools and businesses that target this community. Regional professional associations, such as ENYCRL, would certainly be interested in using the facility, although the use rate would be fairly infrequent (on the order of once in three years). We surveyed the university librarians of regional research libraries (Syracuse, Binghamton, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo) to gauge their potential use of the center. The results revealed little interest in using such a facility without compelling programming associated with it; distance and a perceived lack of need were the most frequently cited reasons. We do believe, however, that there is strong potential interest in the region to attend programs and educational offerings produced by CUL. A just-released study by OCLC/Outsell reported over 2100 responses from libraries to a survey about the training and education needs of library workers. The survey findings confirmed that continuing education needs are rising and training needs in library standards and practices, management skills, and computer/information technology remain high.14 Nationally, training/continuing education programming represents 53.4% of the total meeting use by College/University Conference Centers.15 Both SCRLC and NYLINK have expressed interest in co-sponsoring training initiatives and conferences and CUL has engaged in a number of such collaborations in the past with SCRLC. NYLINK recently hired a Director of Instruction, Deb Schmidle (formerly Deb Joseph), with the mandate to build a larger educational program. She has approached CUL about collaborating in training programs that focus on management and digital librarianship. Business Forecasting We also investigated trends in conferences and meetings. In January, Benchmark Hospitality released “Ten Meeting Industry Trends for 2003.” Many of these trends support the recommendations of the team to concentrate on a market niche for high-end, high-capacity facilities. Also encouraging was the predicted growth in regional conferences to enable automobile transportation and growing interest in conference facilities in rural areas in response to concerns for safety and security. Websites are becoming important marketing tools for developing new clients. The trend is towards outsourcing meeting and event business to thirdparty planners. New booking activity for the first quarter 2003 is stronger than the same period in 2002. On the down side, there are shrinking meeting budgets, intense pricing pressure, and a demand for shorter more cost effective meetings. In this business environment, university conference centers can gain great advantage from their campus environment, from the reputation or branding of the host institution, from their competitive pricing structures, and, in the case of Cornell, from their rural, “safe” location. Conclusion The potential use of the proposed training/conference facility appears promising. Therefore, we recommend that a more formal and professional market analysis be conducted. As part of that analysis, CUL needs to determine the degree to which it wishes to develop education and training 14Outsell, Inc., OCLC Library Training and Education Market Needs Assessment Study, a Custom Report prepared for OCLC Institute, January 2003. http://www.oclc.org/promo/unlimited/edu01b.htm 15 The Conference Center Industry: A Statistical and Financial Profile North America, St. Louis, Missouri: PKF and IACC International Association of Conference Centers, 2002. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 63 programs. It is important that the decision to build such a facility be made in response to programmatic initiatives rather than be the cause of such development. There remain numerous outstanding questions about the true extent of the market for such a center and the business model required to make it self-sufficient; nevertheless, if further analysis demonstrates both sufficient demand and a workable business model, the center could become a revenue-generating operation and could help support the creation of new services. Research Questions 1. What are the risks associated with establishing a Conference Center? What is the potential impact on our library operations? o Creating a facility that gets underutilized o On-going expense of maintaining a state-of-the-art facility o Supporting the facility predominantly through non-library functions o Model of new enterprise activities for librarians o Represents library leadership o Outsourcing the management/marketing o The tail wagging the dog; having to generate business to “afford” the facility 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? Advantages: o Library space for Academic Assembly, Library show case, holiday parties, and other large staff gatherings currently does not exist within CUL (other library building projects have eliminated conference space due to budgetary constraints) o 1993-95 General Environmental Impact Statement for this part of campus mentioned a conference center as a possible need o As a critical mass of CUL staff move to the Annex Library, provides needed meeting space; could also provide “hoteling” space for central campus librarians going out for meetings o Easier to access from outside Cornell (SCRLC will not longer meet on central campus because of the parking problem) o Parking o Possible revenue generation o Build from the ground up o Relieve congestion on campus at critical times, e.g., alumni weekend o Facility for use that will grow as center of campus shifts o Combine book delivery with bus service o Not-for-profit conference space –fills needed niche? o Can support north campus needs o Use to market other services (e.g., bringing in people to discuss outsourcing library functions) o Availability of land o Proximity to East Hill Plaza and projected academic growth (life sciences) of campus o Support/interest expressed by Director of Facilities Planning (Mina Amundsen) and Director of Transportation (BillWendt) o Could double as reader space o Possible use for large group instruction for students Disadvantages o Requires frequent bus service from central campus o Requires town/gown collaboration o Possible complications with zoning (new roads) o No experience in enterprise management MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 64 o For it to thrive, half of the business must be non-library; could represent a diversion of library resources o Potential competition for land use by other CU units o Perceived as out of the way o Requires additional support not included in typical library functions, e.g., kitchen facilities, increased custodial, facilities, conference planning, coordination, and maintenance staff o Booking requirements o Coordinating arrangements with local hotels 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? We identified potential partners for collaborative effort, but it remains to be seen whether the library could not support this on its own. This should be explored during the marketing phase. Potential collaborators include: o Life Safety, Financial Affairs, Press, Vet School, Media and Technology Services, Cornell Store, Academic Departments, CAU, Extension, Alumni Affairs o Potential off-campus users: regional colleges and universities, professional organizations, small non-profits, trade show possibility, telemarketing, regional meetings, tradeshows, satellite teaching space for graduate schools of information studies (Syracuse, Albany), and others o Amalgamation opportunities would include co-sponsoring the conference center with several other CU divisions (e.g., extension, CIT); also collaborative arrangements with local hotels 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? o Need to think “big” about MAS 2010, a conference center is representative of a fully mature service o Will provide the library (and campus) with high-end, moderately priced facility that is within easy reach o Synergistic relationship for the rest of the Library Annex functions o Couple MAS services with MAS conferences, educational opportunities o Supports the envisioned continuing education program o Can double as reader space 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? See above. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? Development of a conference/training center would support a number of our institutional goals. The most natural and obvious alignment would be with goals V, VI, VIII and X of the Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives. Activities taking place at the center would highlight the role of CUL information professionals as consultants and participants in the instructional and research programs of the university (Goal V.3) and would also offer the opportunity to expand our continuing education programs (Goal V.6.) If the center were sufficiently modular and furnished appropriately and attractively, its construction and operation could also assist in meeting Goal VI.5, which calls for the creation of flexible spaces that encourage exploration, innovation and customization for all modes of information exchange. Another area of intersection is under Goal VIII, objectives 5 and 6. These objectives call for establishing networks of strategic partnerships to generate additional resources, sharing in the development and long-term maintenance of new services, and creating fee- and cost-recovery based services grounded in business plans and market assessments to create new services. The interest of NYLINK and SCRLC in such a facility is evidence of potential partnerships that the center would make possible or to MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 65 which it could add significant value. As we note above, there remain numerous outstanding questions about the true extent of the market for such a center and the business model required to make it self-sufficient; nevertheless the center has the potential to become a revenue-generating operation and could help support the creation of new services. The potential role of the conference/training center in creating or expanding potential alliances also dovetails nicely with Goal X, specifically objectives 1 and 2. In developing the center, CUL would be able to expand relationships with both our peer institutions and with departments, institutes and research centers across the university. We note again, however, that more analysis needs to be done before we can determine what role the center might play in the development of such relationships and whether a new facility of this nature is the most effective way to meet this goal. 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality services to an external market? o Reserve set amount of time for library only functions o Exploit external uses to subsidize internal uses o Calculate a “need vs opportunity” ratio (e.g., library “needs” 15% of the conference center’s time for normal –non-cost recoverable meeting), 20% requirement for outside use, etc. o Free up meeting/instructional space on central campus 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? N/A 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishings, etc. o Must accommodate up to 200 (fewer than that is a disincentive) o Flexible, modular space (double as reading room, hoteling space, telemarketing, exploratory) o Breakout room capabilities o Rooms must breakdown/be subdivided when necessary o High tech (high-speed and wireless connections, sufficient quantity and quality of hardware/software, virtual conference center, video conferencing, exploratory) o Distance learning possibilities (some on-site, some DL) 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What the required skills and experience? At present, we do not have the human resources necessary to open or operate successfully a conference or training facility. We can only speculate as to the exact number of FTE that would be required to run the center; we also recognize that the number will in any case be a function of the actual use of the facility. Nevertheless, we envision the need for staff with the requisite training and experience in the marketing, management, and support of such facilities. At a minimum, we foresee the need for (a) professional-level manager/marketing specialist(s) who would be responsible for overall operations as well as publicizing and selling space in the facility. We also see the need for support staff whose responsibilities would include (but not be limited to) answering questions from potential users, booking the site, arranging transportation, lodging and catering for guests, and providing other logistical support as necessary. Finally, the center would require technical support staff to ensure the smooth operation of the computer and audio-visual hardware and software, including tele- and videoconferencing equipment. The management of the center might best be handled on a contract or outsourced basis. We feel that this would allow CUL to hire qualified staff and may prove to be more cost-effective. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 66 APPENDIX A: MAS 2010 Research Notes on Survey of Existing Conference Facilities at Cornell and in Ithaca The purpose of this survey was to determine whether or not Ithaca already had the capabilities that a new technical conference center would provide. All of the major local venues that could hold events for 200+ people were called and asked about their facilities and the technical aspects that were in place. The venue was first asked about the seating capacity of the venue. If determined to be able to hold an event of 200 then the other main issue discussed was whether or not they had the equipment and technical support for a high-tech conference to take place. The following then is a brief summary of the results (A copy of the survey is also attached). Small-Medium Sized Venues Information about the following venues was gathered online or by a direct telephone conversation. Each venue failed to meet the capacity to hold a large event and was also determined to have no advanced technological capabilities. Name of Venue Best Western Comfort Inn Econo Lodge Ithaca Courtyard (Marriott) Meadow Court Inn Rose Inn Smallest Room Capacity 60 20 25 10 20 20 Largest Maximum Capacity N/A N/A N/A 50 95 60 Source: Most information gathered here was found on www.ithacameetings.com Large Venues Each of these venues has the capacity to hold an event for 200+ people. However, although this first criterion is met, these venues fail to meet the second, having the technical capabilities to make a high-tech conference feasible and successful. Following is a brief synopsis of each venue and the costs and benefits each convey. Clarion University Hotel and Conference Center: The capacity of the Clarion can hold a banquet for 400 people and a reception up to 700 in their main ballroom. The cost varies depending on the selected package, but catering is available at the site. Another benefit of the location is that they have 10 smaller rooms that vary in size from a reception of 50 to a reception of 120 that could easily be utilized as breakout rooms for smaller discussion sections. However despite these benefits, the site still lacks the technical abilities that MAS 2010 is seeking to develop. While Internet access is available, teleconferencing is not an option, and the facility only has standard audiovisual equipment. Furthermore, individual networking capabilities do not exist, and lastly no technical support is provided. As a result, the site fails to meet the standard to hold a high-tech conference. Holiday Inn Executive Tower: The ballroom can accommodate from 220 at a seated banquet to 270 for a reception. The flat rate for just the ballroom would be $400. Catering is available for the event and would lower the flat rate cost, and is taken care of by the hotel. There are also small breakout rooms that range from a boardroom that can seat 20 people to other private rooms that can hold up to 60. There is Internet access, although teleconferencing is not available. Audiovisual equipment such as tv/vcr or a mike and podium is included, and at an MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 67 extra cost to the client, an LCD projector can be obtained. They have also done individual networking in the past but it is not standard, and no technical support is provided. Ramada Inn Executive Training and Conference Center: The Ramada has about the same specs as the Clarion. Although fully capable of holding a function for 200+ people with a ballroom that could hold a reception of 360 people, the site lacks the technical abilities for a high-tech conference to work. The rate for the ballroom was quoted as $500 as a flat rate, but the sales manager did say it varied by package. Catering is available with dinner packages ranging from $17 to $23. Again the facility also like the Clarion, has many smaller rooms that range in design from boardrooms and classrooms to an amphitheater. Once again though, while Internet access is available, teleconferencing is not, only standard audiovisual equipment is available, which although built into the cost, would not meet the needs for a technical conference with individual networking capabilities. Lastly, no technical support is provided; only a banquet set-up person will be able to help out. Source: The information for this section was derived from individual phone interviews regarding the facilities. Contact information is listed at the end of the report. Cornell Venues, Facilities and Services The following venues are Cornell facilities that have the capacity to hold a function for 50+ people, and are facilities that have some type of advanced technological capabilities that would allow it to be used for a high-tech conference. Bio-Tech Building: Bio-Tech has a large facility that has the seating capacity for 165 with tables and chairs but that can hold up to 200 with just chairs. The rental cost on the facility is charged for the 3rd hour+ and it depends on the time of day, how long the facility is being used, and who is using the facility (more exact numbers are being sent to Library Human Resources in the next day or two). However there are no side breakout rooms. The utilization is about 75% Cornell affiliated groups and some outside groups. There is Internet access available, and teleconferencing is an option. Basic audiovisual equipment like projectors and mics are available as well as an LCD projector. The facility also has capabilities for distance learning, although these more technical capabilities are charged separately. Basic technical support is also provided. Clark Hall: Clark Hall has three different rooms that can be used. The first is 609, which is a conference room that can hold around 27. There is no cost to the facility, but there are no side breakout rooms. Mostly campus groups use the room. It does have Internet access, as well as teleconferencing capabilities. It has standard audiovisual equipment at no cost, and it may be possible to do individual networking. No major technical support is provided. Room 700 and 701 are the only rooms on the 7th floor and can accommodate 160 with tables up to 350 with no furniture. There is a rental cost for 700 of $30 for 4 hours and $50 for the day and 701 for $20 for 4 hours or $35 for the day. There is also a set-up charge if a lot of work is needed, and a kitchen charge of $25 if the kitchen is used. Catering for all of these rooms is the responsibility of the group, although it is allowed. Rooms 700 and 701 have Internet access, and the ability for teleconferencing. Again standard AV equipment is available, and an LCD projector is available only for physical sciences department. However, no individual networking is available and no real technical support is provided. The utilization of the facility is campus departments, as you MUST have a department sponsor to reserve the facility. Cooperative Extension: The Cornell Cooperative Extension only has a small conference room that seats about 8 and a videoconferencing room. However, both facilities are used primarily for the Cooperative’s own staff and it is not used for outside groups. As such it should not be considered to be a “competitor” of any sort. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 68 ILR Distance Learning Center and Conference Center at Garden Ave: Currently, ILR is renovating and drastically upgrading its conference facilities, which will be set to re-open in January 2004. The new conference facility will have a state-of-the-art distance learning amphitheater seating up to 30+ people, as well as capabilities to utilize teleconferencing and hopefully individual networking. The fourth floor will also be able to hold up to 110 people, and will also have many small breakout rooms and 2 larger rooms with more state-of-the-art technology. Each of the rooms will have floor boxes and depending on financial constraints may have individual networking capabilities. For more information about the ongoing renovations use the contact information at the end of the report for this facility. ILR however, currently, does have a few facilities that could handle a small technical conference. They have many classrooms that vary in size and cost (see website listed with contact information). ILR currently uses a few distance learning classrooms that are fully equipped for teleconferencing and presentations. Johnson Graduate School of Management: The business school ranks in the top 20 in the nation in almost every publication that ranks business schools. With this reputation, the school has developed state-of-the-art facilities that are extremely technological and are fully capable (if available) of hosting a high-tech conference. The facilities have classrooms that vary in size, but the largest can hold 122. Each of the classrooms has Internet access, and most can provide teleconferencing. Furthermore, according to the technology website, every classroom is equipped with person data ports at every seat (adds up to over 1,600 data ports). These superior characteristics would allow for a high-tech conference if the space were available. The drawbacks are only that it cannot hold 200 people, although the atrium could probably hold a reception for 200+. The only other drawback would seem to be availability. Current costs and availability are available only through email so those numbers will be gathered in the next few days. All in all though, this facility could handle a high-tech conference. Martha Van Rensselaer: Information not available; contact information at end of report. Robert Purcell Community Center: Robert Purcell Community Center has a few advantages that the large off-campus venues did not. However, there are still a few drawbacks. The auditorium on the second floor can accommodate up to 150 people. Any Cornell dept. can rent the facility for $40/hr or $250/day (8a.m.-5p.m.). Any outside organization or business can rent it for $60/hr. or $400/day. There is also a side lounge that is broken down into three parts and each part can be rented for $20/hr. The side lounge could hold at least 120 theater-style seating. Furthermore, there is a multipurpose boardroom that could accommodate up to 42. Catering for the facility is done completely through Cornell Catering, but is available. The first floor lounge is nice as it has the modularity needed for different purposes. Also, being a Cornell facility, the utilization of the facility was inquired about. The majority of use comes from student groups on campus as it on north campus in the community center itself with a main dining hall. However, they do conference business over the summer when classes are not in regular session, as well as doing a handful of weddings. However, overall it does not appear that Robert Purcell Community Center does a great deal of outside business. In terms of the technical capabilities, Internet is available, with an Ethernet port in the auditorium, as well as an active phone jack. Teleconferencing is possible but it would have to be determined whether a digital or analog connection is needed. The facility also has a built in LCD projector compatible with laptops to do things like PowerPoint presentations. It also has a built in sound system and dvd/vcr player. Rental costs are mostly built in to the cost of the facility. However, there are two drawbacks. First, it is not wired for individual networking capabilities even though it is probable that an outside group could do it on their own. The other is that the facility does not have the resources for any type of technical support, so it is encouraged to come in early to set it up or to make sure the facility will work for what the specific group needs. Statler Executive Education Center: The Statler comes close to the needs that MAS 2010 is looking to accomplish. The facility has an amphitheater that can seat up to 87 people with a cost of $21.50/per person, which includes morning and afternoon refreshments. Catering is also available. There are many breakout rooms as well that range from seating 30 theater-style to MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 69 100. The utilization of the facility ranges from overflow from the Johnson Graduate School and the ILR School to a lot of association businesses and day and multi-day meetings. The facility is considered to be the most widely used for these types of functions. Also in the coming months if not already, renovations are being carried out to upgrade the facilities even further. As a result, the current technological aspects are not available but will be within a few days when the facility forwards the new specs that the renovations will provide. Vet School: Information not yet available; contact information at end of report. Further Recommendations As many of the facilities are currently being renovated to upgrade the existing technological aspects, it would be beneficial to gather more information from these sites. It may prove to be beneficial to visit the Johnson School and examine the facility there, as it seems to be the closest to what MAS 2010 had in mind. Lastly, it may be useful to inquire about what capabilities the new engineering building will be able to provide once completed as something like $100 million is being spent on its construction. Since the Johnson School, the Statler, the ILR Conference Center, and the new engineering building are all going to be on campus it would be wise to investigate and see if, after all of the renovations, these four “competitors” may be developing exactly what this project had in mind or if the MAS 2010 is really heading in a different direction and can better address the needs that are not being met at Cornell and the Cornell Library System. Contact Information Regarding MAS 2010 Contact: John Majeroni, Director of Real Estate Phone: 257-0818 John has not been allowed to the marketing study conducted by the City of Ithaca. It is a public document and will eventually be published. It may be released in February or March at the latest. It will be helpful to the project, but not in the timeline that we need. John pointed me to the internal CU staff below to gather the more data. Contact: Mina Amundsen, Director of Facilities Planning University Planning Office Phone: 254-8226 Email: mma29@cornell.edu Amundsen response dated January 13, 2003 In response to your questions last week re: planning for the library annex expansion and the possibility of a training/conference center facility at the site, I did some checking out. Re: land ownership, the library does not 'own' any land in the Orchards area (what we refer to as Precinct 7), although the Annex is located there. Technically, all land is owned by the University, with exceptions for state and federal facilities. Facilities occupy different sites or areas depending on the type of land use. I do not see that as a problem for future planning for the library.(Bold Linda’s emphasis) On my part, I would be interested in the library's vision and your assessment of the needs and capacity for this new development. On the subject of a conference center, I looked up the GEIS (General Environmental Impact Statement) that was carried out for this part of the campus in 1993-95 to check the uses considered as part of the eventual development of that area. A conference center is mentioned as a possible University use but there are no details. Contact: Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation; Traffic Analysis – Impact Study Phone: 255-4628 Email: wew1@cornell.edu MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 70 Bill was also quite supportive of the concept. He did not see any major obstacles and is will to provide support to the project when we are ready. He suggested that we refer to this as a training center rather than a conference center to avoid unnecessary anxiety from the city. Before we can determine the parking issues, we need to determine the scope of the center including the number of 1) employees, 2) people expected to visit the site daily; 3) peak hour transportation needs. Andrew Estlick, planner shared between University Planning and Transportation, will be our liaison to investigate the Town of Ithaca requirements and all other aspects of moving the project forward once we have administrative support. Facilities Contacts Facilities Contact: Chuck Lyons, Robert Purcell Community Center Phone: 255-6290 Email: confserv@cornell.edu Chuck is also in the office of Cornell Conference Services, which is a Cornell based planning team that helps in every aspect of conferences that may want to come to campus. The web address for this service for further information is: http://campuslife.cornell.edu/home/conference_services.asp# Facilities Contact: Cindy Wyle (?), Sales Manager, Statler Hotel Phone: 254-2678 Cindy will be forwarding an email documenting the new renovations that are taking place with the Executive Education Center and the new technological capabilities that will be in place once the renovations are complete. Facilities Contact: Johnson Graduate School Phone: 255-4526 Email for costs/availability/reservations for rooms: js_room@cornell.edu Any more questions about specifics should be addressed to the email address above. The Johnson Graduate School is also supposed to be forwarding a website link to cost projections regarding the different rooms. To see more about the technology at the Johnson Graduate School visit www.johnson.cornell.edu/technology/services.html Facilities Contact: Ann Herson, ILR Distance Learning Center Phone: 255-4401 Email: amh11@cornell.edu Contact Ann for any further information regarding the renovations. If you want to learn more about current facilities contact Monroe Payne at 255-2028 or at ilrvtc@cornell.edu Also for ILR room costs visit www.ilr.cornell.edu/facilities/nonilr/fees.html. Facilities Contact: Nichole Lovejoy, Clark Hall Conference Room Phone: 255-3929 Email: nicholew@ccmr.cornell.edu Contact Nichole for information regarding the smaller conference room (609). If information is needed regarding the large rooms (700,701) contact Win Tanner at 255-5079. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 71 Facilities Contact: Steve Sparling, BioTech Conference Room Phone: 254-4817 Email: ss110@cornell.edu Facilities Contact: Kenna Snow-Tompkins, Martha Van Rensselaer Phone: 255-1833 Email: kms3@cornell.edu Facilities Contact: Margie Williams, Vet School Phone: 253-3769 Email: mbw4@cornell.edu MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 72 APPENDIX B: University Libraries with Conference Centers Washington University in St. Louis, West Campus Library and Conference Center http://library.wustl.edu/~westcamp/ Texas A&M The Presidential Conference Center and the George Bush Presidential Library http://www.tamu.edu/vpa/pcc/ Harvard Graduate School of Education, Gutman Conference Center and Monroe C. Gutman Library http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~conf/ Indiana University Northwest, Library & Conference Center http://www.iun.edu/~map/library.shtml http://www.iun.edu/~eventsnw/services.htm University of Minnesota, Institute of Technology, Walter Library Conference Center (Room 101) http://it.umn.edu/walter/room101.html University of Louisiana at Monroe New Library 1 December 2000, Louisiana Contractor 13 Vol. 49, No. 13 MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 73 Appendix C: Library-Affiliated Conference Centers Conference Center Contact Usage / Who Uses? Plan for Occupancy Improvement? Harvard Graduate School of Education, Gutman Conference Center and Monroe C. Gutman Library Aaron Park Director, Harvard Graduate School of Education Gutman Conference Center aaron_park@harvard.e du 6 Appian Way Cambridge, MA 02138 PH: (617) 495-7875 FAX: (617) 495-3243 http://www.gse.harvar d.edu/~conf/ Heavily used. 900 events per year. 60% HGSE based; 20% Harvard wide; 20% outside Harvard. Constantly trying to improve facilities, especially in the technological area. The entire school may move across the river to a new campus. He would advocate for continued existence within the Library but additional breakout room adjacent to the main conference area. Comments about Libraries with Conf. Centers “…the conference center greatly enhances the function of the library. There is much discussion about the future of ‘libraries’ and what services they provide in the digital age. Our community has discovered that having a vibrant conference center within the Library has greatly enhanced its use. We like to think of the Library and conference center as a ‘scholarly commons’ where it becomes a multi-purpose center of interaction of academic teaching, learning, and discourse.” Fee Fees are charged also for internal users but it depends. For outside users, see http://w ww.gse.h arvard.ed u/~conf/ gcccapac itycost.ht m ($330 ~ $990 per day dependin g on the area / space) Breakeven Requirement? Yes. “We are a cost recover y center. We must break even and it is expected that we generate "some" revenue for the school. We try to charge for everything!!! We are undergoing a leadership transistion and it is generally assumed that we will continue in this mode.” We wish we had… (other comments) “It would be ideal to have 4 rooms for breakouts nearby (cap. @30 each). In the ideal world I would also have lodging for 100. Catering is all outsourced (though we do all coffee and drink breaks). A separate lobby/reception area would be great. High tech to the max is essential for today’s wired clients.” MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 74 Conference Center Contact Usage / Who Uses? Plan for Occupancy Improvement? University of Minnesota, Andersen Library, Archives and Special Collection Center (1800 Sq. Ft; Can be used as a single room or divided into three room, two and one, etc, using moveable room dividers. Opened 2 years ago. Small kitchenette. Uses Catering services.) Donald Kelsey Library Facilities Planner 612-624-6335 d-kels@umn.edu (He knows John Dean very well.) Over 50 each month Libraryrelated events and outreach programs built around the eight archives and special collections in the building. A number of multi-day national conferences . No plans to expand. Comments about Libraries with Conf. Centers “We were quite naive about what we were getting into when we entered the ‘conference and event business’. For a short time, we did not charge any use fees and discovered that we were nearly buried with work getting the space back to the default arrangement following an event, cleaning up after groups that did not leave the space in presentable condition when they were finished, etc. Instituting use fees has helped discourage the potential users who are likely to be irresponsible in their use of the space. In the two years we have been in the building, the design of the space has proven to be well-suited to the purposes for which we intended it. We are particularly pleased with the brand of room dividers we chose. They are a long way from the least expensive, but they are as effective as solid walls in blocking noise from one room to another when multiple uses are being made of the space.” Fee No fee for internal users. For outside users, $75~ $200 per day dependin g on the event. Breakeven Requirement s? “We have not made any attempt to determine whether this pricing is a break-even for us. Given the fact that the Andersen space still gets a huge number of requests despite the fees, I do not think the fees are high enough.” We wish we had… (other comments) “We have two privately operated hotels very close to the Andersen Library. It has been a while since I was directly involved with the operations in Andersen but I believe we are equipped to support teleconferences, interactive video and Internet access, of course.” “It is ideally suited to our needs and we see no reason to change or expand it. We find that it often is not adequate for other outside needs, but then we had no intention of getting into the conference center business when we built this space. I suspect it will remain as it is for a long time to come.” MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 75 Conference Center Contact Usage / Who Uses? Occupancy Plan for Improvement? Washington University in St. Louis, West Campus Library and Conference Center West Campus Library westcamp@library.wu stl.edu http://library.wustl.edu /~westcamp voice: (314) 935-9889 fax: (314) 935-9890 (No names were provided although I asked…) “While the semester is in session, almost daily. Out session, maybe once a week.” “The original intent was simple: to have a place where the entire library staff could meet. However, we soon discovered that Washington University is sorely lacking in meeting space, so it was opened to the entire university. We also allow outside group to use the rooms for a fee; however, the university gets preference, which tends to keep the rooms steadily occupied. “No. unfortunately the money for any improvements would have to come out of the library budget, which has priorities elsewhere.” Comments about Libraries with Conf. Centers “If you're planning on opening a conference center for use by outside parties, you'll want to consider hiring staff to manage it. The West Campus Library receives no support in running the conference center, which tends to put an awful strain on the library staff during busy periods.” Fee Fees are charged for internal uses as well as outside users. “When Washingt on University was found, it was decided that each school was responsibl e for raising its own money. Thus each school is treated as separate financial entity. Unfortuna tely, this includes the library.” Breakeven Requirement s? “We have no break even requirements. If we did, I’m sure the fees would be much higher. I have no quotes from what would be considered competitors, but I feel that doubling our current fees would still be an incredible bargain.” We wish we had… (other comments) “The library's needs are not great. The center serves our purposes perfectly. I’ve heard other offices wish that the space was bigger, had more up-to-date equipment, and sound proofing, but since the library does not need these, nor has the money for them, these additions will not happen.” MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 76 Digitization Introduction Joy Paulson and Barbara Berger Eden are the team members. Peter Hirtle and John Saylor agreed to serve as consultants to the team. The team was asked to explore the feasibility of a service to provide digital imagining to campus libraries, to the Cornell campus, and to external clients. Executive Summary The digitization service would consist of a suite of services of use to units internal to Cornell and also of interest to external clients. The services provided would consist of the following: • Scanning of both library holdings and non-library items upon the direct request of the faculty and other Cornell-affiliated groups and individuals. • A production facility for CUL units that are involved in creating digital projects, either alone or in conjunction with faculty. • Direct scanning services for non-Cornell individuals and organizations. Bulk scanning of library materials would be the most likely market. • RFP preparation and assistance in selecting scanning vendors for out-sourced scanning. • Education and training in digital imaging. This could be simple workshops on how to use a scanner to more complex courses on how to manage digital imaging projects. • Digital audio and video services. Partnerships: This type of digitizing service would be of most use to both internal and external clients if combined with other services: metadata, copyright advice and clearance, and a digital repository. This would enable clients to chose any or all of the services, as needed, from a single service unit staff by knowledgeable and experience staff. Constraints: ! Copyright—Copyright will be a major issue for many of the projects CUL units, faculty, and external clients want us to undertake. An inability to obtain copyright waivers or permission costs that are too high may limit the materials we are able to digitize. ! Marketing—In order for a digitization service to flourish, an aggressive market campaign that is specifically addressed to our potential clients must be developed. Without this, there is little chance the service will develop to its full potential. ! Competitive pricing—If we offer digital scanning service to external clients our prices must be competitive with the service offered by OCLC and with that of commercial scanning vendors. The current pricing model for DCAPS does not come close to being competitive. ! Extent of digital imaging services—We need to determine if we want to offer digital imaging services to external clients, and if we do extend our service in this direction under what circumstances do we want to undertake this type of work? ! Initial funding—start-up funding for the first year of this service will be necessary for it to be successful. Funding will be necessary for staff with the appropriate MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 77 expertise and for equipment. If adequate funds are not available, it will be very difficult to fully develop this service. Methodology Our approach consisted of conversations among team members, review of the DCAPS model, and consultation with Peter Hirtle and John Saylor. There are few models for this type of service, and the team members were familiar with those that do exist. Research Questions: 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library services? Our major concern is one of effective communication with faculty members who we are serving. Locating the digitization service at an expanded annex facility, means that faculty members wishing to use our consultation or digitizing services will need to travel to the periphery of campus. We are concerned that unless the facility offers an attractive range of services, has plentiful free parking, and easy and frequent transportation from various part of the campus that this service will not be utilized as it should. Another way of approaching this problem would be to provide consultation services at various libraries across the campus (Olin, Mann, ILR, and Engineering, for example) several times each week. Consultation staff should also be willing to meet in faculty offices on an appointment basis. These services points and their times and dates would need to be well advertised to the faculty. The location at the periphery of campus presents challenges in effective communication with selectors and curators, who are likely to remain in their present locations, including setting up regular meetings and consultations. The location also would effectively cut us off from informal, day-to-day contact with patrons and make it more difficult for the staff to stay in touch with patrons needs. The location also raises concerns about transporting special collections and fragile materials for digitization, and there will be an increased risk to the material through the handling and transportation process. 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service center center at the Annex Library? Advantages: Potential to design state of the art digital imaging studio; a centralized digital production service offers one stopping shopping; larger, more centralized staff; productivity improvements made possible when sufficient space for operations is available; potential for growth in equipment and services if demand is high; ease of access to the bulk of the CUL library collection; ease of access for external customers and for delivery of materials; and parking. Disadvantages: Separated from collections, faculty, selectors/curators, and patrons; difficult to offer personalized service “long distance”. 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach? What are the amalgamation opportunities? All units that are interested in digitization are potential customers, and they would have access to specialized staff and equipment. There is potential for working closely with the Lab of Ornithology and the Multimedia Design Group to coordinate the services offered or MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 78 to make use of their facilities for audio and video digitization. There is also potential for continuing and enhancing the relationship with the Johnson Museum of Art and other cultural repositories on campus . There is also interest from faculty, researchers, and departments across campus for the suite of service that would be offered. 4. What is the rationale behind creating this new service approach? There is a demonstrated need and desire for a suite of services that offer digitization of cultural materials. There is also a demonstrated need for education and training on digitization for both internal and external clients. 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? To create a digitization service that will fill a need locally and regionally. It will also allow us to continue to increase our digital library collections and to move from a project-based to a program-based approach. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? The primary function of the service supports Goal 1: GOAL I: Build the knowledge base of print, digital, and other materials using selection criteria that reflect 1) the academic priorities of the University, 2) significant research in all areas of study pursued at the University, and 3) current collection strengths. The service also supports Goals III, IV, and V: GOAL III: Support electronic publishing, scholarly communication, and creative expression. GOAL IV: Support more effective organization and presentation of information for diverse audiences. GOAL V: Provide expert assistance, and instruction, and an innovative suite of user services. 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market. Services to external clients would have to be on a cost-recovery plus basis. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? Record keeping and accounting procedures would have to be in place to bill for services. Material digitized and added to the CUL collections should have records placed in RLIN and OCLC and digital registries indicating that Cornell has created electronic versions of the titles. 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc? State of the art studio—the studio will have special wiring requirements in order to support the cameras, lights, and scanners; hardware: digital cameras, scanners, light MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 79 arrays, and computers; software; high level of networking capability; and workstations for inspection of images and document structuring. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service model? What are the required skills and experience? We already possess the expertise to create this service. 11. What would be the start-up costs for each component and the integrated service? A digital camera would run approximately $60,000 including the workstation and software. Flatbed scanners (one color and one bitonal/gray-scale, light arrays, computer workstations, software, book cradles, camera lens, etc.) would be approximately $100,000. To be responsive to all digital demands, it may be necessary to make investments in digital equipment with higher throughput (such as the $200,000+ 4DigitalBooks scanner) as well as preservation-quality audio and video digitization equipment. An initial staff of 5 FTE would be a minimum with more staff necessary as the service grows. 12. What would the operating costs be for each function? Salaries and benefits of staff, equipment maintenance and upgrades, network services. 13. What are the needs for our potential clients? Cultural institutions of all sizes and varieties are under pressure to make all or part of their collections available electronically. They need any or all of the following services: ! Training in digital imaging and digital project management ! Consultation assistance in the following areas: RFP development and scanning vendor choice, grant proposal development, digital preservation, metadata creation, file format and resolution choices, etc. ! Digital imaging services ! Metadata services ! Copyright services ! Digital preservation services 14. What is the size of the potential market? There is certainly a need for a digital consultation and production service within CUL and across the Cornell campus. For training in digital imaging and digital project management our market would be the US and world-wide. We have an outstanding record as a leader in this area, and when we offered digital imaging workshops in the past we attracted attendees from around the world. There is also a regional market (New York State and surrounding areas) for a digital production services, a consultation service, and training. 15. What are the barriers to use of this service? How might they be overcome? Isolation of Ithaca for external clients, isolation of the service center from central campus for campus clients, and competitive costs. We also need to explore the question of whether we want to become a scanning vendor for external clients. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 80 16. Which market should we be targeting? Research libraries, other academic libraries, all types of cultural institutions 17. What marketing strategy should be used? The service will need to be well advertised: brochures, web-site, professional advertising, and conference outreach (both regionally and nationally) 18. What unique advantages might a university library bring to such a service center over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? Our expertise in imaging, our commitment to ongoing research in the field, and our commitment to the long-term care of the original material and the digital product. 19. Who will be our competitors? What are the collaboration opportunities? Vendors such as OCLC (specifically, Preservation Resources) and commercial scanning companies will be our competitors. It would be possible to develop a strong working relationship with one or more scanning vendors. For lower-end scanning (bitonal and gray-scale scanning of general collections material), they can probably do the work at less cost than we can. We could offer the vendors training for handling special collections materials, if we wanted them to work with this type of material. In the case of OCLC/Preservation Resources, we could explore the possibilities of partnering with them as a regional digital production venue, although with Preservation Resources being located in Pennsylvania this may not really be viable. 20. What will be our pricing policy? Cost-recovery plus: we should recovery somewhat more than our costs in order to purchase new scanners, digital cameras, and software as the technology changes and to increase the size of the staff. However, this does raise concerns about whether our pricing structure for scanning will be competitive. Recommendations: A comprehensive market analysis needs to be undertaken addressing the following questions: • Is there a need for the suite of services being offered? • Which services would potential clients be interested in using? • Is there an interest in obtaining these services from Cornell? • Is there funding available to pay for these services? • Is there interest in seeking grant funding for these services? Would you need assistance in grant proposal preparation? Would you be interested in Cornell managing the project for you? • Do you have endowment funds that could be used for these services? • Do you currently have a digital library program? • Have you undertaken any digital imaging, digital audio, or digital video projects? Do you have any plans to undertake such work? • Would you be interested in having Cornell as your digital imaging vendor? Do you think there would be any advantage to Cornell undertaking this work rather than a commercial vendor? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 81 Cataloging & Acquisitions I. Introduction This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the MAS 2010 Cataloging & Acquisitions Consultant Team. Specifically, it represents the team’s response to its charge to “explore the feasibility of a cataloging and acquisitions service as a potential component of an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center located away from central campus.” Team members: • Bill Kara (Mann Library) • Jim LeBlanc (CTS) -- Chair • Boodie McGinnis (ILR Library) • Jean Pajerek (Law Library) • Don Schnedeker (Management Library) • Scott Wicks (CTS) II. Executive Summary There are two broad sets of issues at stake in our findings and recommendations: those related to the service center component and those related to the relocation of technical services staff. As far as we can tell, the creation of an entrepreneurial library service center with a technical services component has never been attempted. Chief among the potential benefits to the Cornell University Library (CUL) in adopting the service center model will be the means and opportunity to create strategic partnerships with other Cornell departments and businesses, as well as with outside organizations, to recover at least some of our processing costs and to generate new sources of income. Competition with existing providers of traditional acquisitions and cataloging services will be difficult. We feel that partnership with our CUL service center colleagues to create new service “packages” is more promising. For instance, the service center could undertake a fee-based digitization of another library’s special collection and provide catalog/metadata records and archiving in the bargain. The service center approach to acquisitions and cataloging in a university environment is a new idea, and the market may not be ripe for such an initiative. Furthermore, we may not be able to keep up with processing responsibilities for our own CU clientele, while extending ourselves into these entrepreneurial ventures. However, we feel that by growing the service component gradually within a critical mass of technical services personnel devoted both to local processing and, in part, to cost-recovery tasks on a project basis, this risk can be mitigated. The relocation of acquisitions and cataloging staff to an off-site service center could present greater risks and would certainly generate more controversy. The most obvious benefit of moving staff, especially in large numbers, would be the freeing of a significant amount of prime space on central campus. We are not completely convinced that it is better to relocate people rather than collections to an off-site facility. Among the drawbacks of relocating technical services staff offsite are: the severing of immediate ties with constituents and colleagues, transportation and MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 82 amenity concerns (especially if the facility is located in Precinct 7), and potential difficulties in attracting student staff and new technical services librarians (who would prefer to work in a “library”). We do see an economy of scale in moving all of CUL technical services staff to a single facility, though the downside of any such large-scale relocation is not to be taken lightly. We recommend that CUL look further into the idea of a service center and the relocation of as much CUL technical services staff as practical to this service center. This staff could include all, or most of Central Technical Services (CTS), as well as staff from other CUL processing centers to the extent that their move is feasible and desirable given overall university, college/school, and library goals. Such a move would bring sufficient technical services staff into proximity with other service component staff with whom we expect to partner (digital, preservation, education, and collection development and storage services). III. Methodology The idea of an entrepreneurial library service center is a new and exciting concept. We were not surprised to find that there is very little to be gleaned from library literature on the practical implementation of this kind of initiative. The team conducted a literature search and discovered quite a bit of material on outsourcing of technical services (specifically, the outsourcing of library services to non-library vendors), but nothing on the sort of “insourcing” service envisioned in our charge. We met with the director of NYLINK, Mary-Alice Lynch, regarding collaborative opportunities with vendors. Most of our information on relocating acquisitions and cataloging services away from central campus was gathered through informal consultation with colleagues at other libraries (including Harvard, the University of Illinois Law School, the University of Washington, and Washington University), as well as from the “Report of the Working Group on Olin and Uris Libraries,” compiled here at Cornell. IV. Research Questions / Answers 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? The greatest risk factors in the planning and development of a service center with a technical services component are: The marketability of technical services work to others outside CUL -- If CUL technical services is unable to effectively market more traditional technical services activities or compete with other service providers, collaborations might be developed -perhaps in areas where CUL technical services has unique language or subject expertise. Technical services participation in projects undertaken for the digitization and preservation of collections will be important. If these and other services are marketed successfully, technical services could partner with other units, comprising part of a complete package of services. Significant change in technical services processing in the years to come -- There have been many changes in technical services procedures and workflow during the last few years. To look seven years into the future, one only needs to look at the last seven years to see dramatic changes in technical services work. The rise of e-journals, increased metadata work for large digital collections, and the use of technology to automate varied processing activities are just a few of the changes that technical services units have successfully undertaken. These changes have required a shift of staffing to meet new MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 83 responsibilities and the development of greater technical skills. Technical services will need to insure that it has skilled staff able not only to meet its current responsibilities, but to examine opportunities to incorporate new technologies and to participate in new initiatives and services. The supplanting of traditional academic values by corporate values as we enter into business relationships with outside entities -- As an example, consider a situation in which we are hired to create bibliographic records for the special collection of another library. Commercial outsourcers often stipulate that the client library cannot redistribute bibliographic records created by the vendor to any bibliographic utility. The needs of the client library are fulfilled, but nothing is contributed to the larger universe of bibliographic knowledge. Such a policy is at odds with our longestablished culture of cooperative cataloging and record sharing. When an organization that has long been guided by academic values such as scholarship, service, and cooperation begins to make decisions based on corporate values such as profit margin and competitiveness, it is likely to produce dissonance within the organization. The need to insure that there are sufficient technical services staff to continue to meet our local processing responsibilities -- Any new service will have an impact on the staffing needs in technical services. Technical services policies, priorities and procedures will need to be reexamined, especially if they are to be part of a larger service center and its mission. There would need to be significant planning, organizational decisions, communication, and consultation within the library system and with the varied constituencies served. In addition to building the skills of current staff, new staff, including librarians and support personnel, will need to be hired with good technical skills and the potential to work on a variety of initiatives. Technical services will need to attract and keep quality staff and involve them fully in the library of the future. Keeping technical services staff involved in interesting and challenging projects is important and new service initiatives have the potential to involve technical services staff in a variety of activities. The team identified a number of questions that will require further examination: • Will there be the necessary organizational and budgetary support to effectively handle new initiatives while continuing to meet the challenges of current processing demands? • If services are consolidated and there is a need to dedicate staff to new service initiatives, would those constituencies currently served by unit libraries continue to prefer more direct contact with their units or support some consolidation of activities? • Would there be a trend towards homogenization and away from customization in a consolidated technical services environment? • Would we be compelled to follow the example of commercial outsourcers and forbid redistribution of records we created for a client library, in order to protect our financial interests? • If new services fail to develop at a service center, would those technical services operations moved to the Annex be somewhat isolated from library activities? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? A wide range of factors must be considered in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of locating a consolidated technical services operation at the Annex. Beyond the potential efficiencies that could be achieved by such an arrangement, there are budgetary, political, personnel, service, and quality-of-work implications that must be examined. “Technical services” does not constitute identical functions in all of the technical services units across campus. Staff in different technical services units have varying responsibilities, not all of which are related to MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 84 technical services. While it is clear that there are some areas in which consolidation makes sense (e.g., approval plans, ILS management), any plan to consolidate such disparate operations would have to take these differences into account and resolve them in some way. Advantages: • Consolidation of all technical services operations campus-wide would eliminate existing redundancies and achieve economies of scale. Displaced staff could be diverted to outside projects. • Relocation of staff currently located in Olin Library would free up much-needed space in that library, although staff relocation may not be viewed as particularly beneficial in libraries that have ample space. • Centralizing technical services in the Annex location would simplify policy formation and implementation. Time spent traveling to and attending meetings with technical services colleagues would be reduced if everyone were in the same building. • Collaboration between technical services and other project partners in the service center would be facilitated by everyone being in the same building. • The Annex location could be designed to include ample employee parking close to the building. Employees might not have to pay such high parking fees, and could avoid driving their cars on the congested central campus. • The Annex location could be designed to include attractive meeting, training, and conference facilities, from which technical services could benefit. • Working in a brand-new, purpose-built building may appeal to staff who currently lack adequate space, if the workspace is attractive, functional, and comfortable. Disadvantages: • A new building would have to be built to house the service center, with a price tag in the millions of dollars. • Reliable, frequent transportation between the service center and central campus would have to be provided. This would be an ongoing expense. • Staff morale may suffer; some staff may feel they are being “exiled.” This is especially likely to be true of long-time library staff members. • There could be a significant loss to unit libraries of staff expertise in non-technical services areas. Many technical services staff, especially in the non-CTS technical services units, have responsibilities that include work in other functional areas, such as ILL, bibliographic instruction, collection development, reference, network administration, and special projects. Smaller libraries depend on these flexible, multi-skilled staff members to meet their operational needs most effectively. • It may be very difficult to attract student workers to jobs located so far from central campus. CUL may have to offer higher student wages (and/or other incentives) in order to be competitive with other employers. • Lack of physical access to library collections, selectors, and other personnel associated with the collections has the potential to slow down workflow, resulting in less effective service to patrons. This could become less of a concern as physical collections are eclipsed by electronic access to resources. • Physical isolation of technical services librarians from colleagues (e.g., reference librarians) could impede professional involvement in committees and collaborative projects, resulting in professional marginalization. • Time spent traveling between the service center and central campus would take away from time spent working. • Consolidation of all technical services units could potentially deprive ILR, Mann, Law, and other libraries of the specialized expertise of their technical services staffs, as these staff members are diverted to outside projects. Service to these constituencies could be compromised. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 85 • There may be significant political and financial barriers to the consolidation of all technical services units because of varying priorities within the schools associated with ILR, Mann, and Law. 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? Amalgamation opportunities can occur among units within CUL, between CUL and other Cornell units, or between CUL and outside parties, both commercial and non-commercial. We want to leverage skills and workforces to achieve higher resulting output. Politics aside, there are opportunities to merge parts of technical services within CUL. The balance between streamlining workflows and providing customized services to a local constituency would need to be addressed, but this should not be seen as an insurmountable obstacle that prevents all consolidation opportunities. There already exist several technical services functions that are partially or fully centralized for CUL: approval plans; e-resource licensing, processing, and payments; and authority control are just a few examples. Addressing local constituencies, serials check-in activities were decentralized in the recent past. These examples demonstrate that CUL can both consolidate and decentralize as appropriate. In addition, there are cultural and organizational differences among the current CUL processing centers. Organizational differences extend beyond funding and political issues, encompassing the way in which technical services staff and services are integrated into the individual libraries. There are libraries in which some non-technical services duties are performed by technical services staff, among these are: circulation and reference desk assignments, ILL and bindery work, bibliographic instruction, and consulting. Looking at consolidation of technical services would require some libraries to look at their larger staffing requirements. We have already participated in a number of collaborative ventures with state, federal, and international agencies on such projects as: CUGIR, the USDA Economic and Statistics System, and Law Websites. Such opportunities will continue to present themselves. Consolidating technical services -- Challenges include campus politics and funding resources (contract college vs. endowed university.) The difference in funding sources should not prevent collocation of staff within a shared structure at the service center. Having the staff collocated allows for a larger pool of skill sets and greater flexibility in assigning staff resources to address a shifting flow of materials. Consolidation also ensures common practices among technical services staff. However, in order to address local needs, some workforce would need to be assigned to and, perhaps, located near the local constituency. The end result may be that staff from all processing centers would be collocated off-site, but that a few staff from each processing center would remain on central campus to address local needs. Collaboration with other Cornell units -- Cornell University Library Technical Services (or CULTS) could join forces with the Campus Store to purchase some materials for the Library at a greater (book store) discount. We could consolidate licensing and copyright functions -- perhaps forming a single unit charged with managing all of the licensing and copyright issues for Cornell as a whole, whether access is purchased or sold. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 86 Collaboration with outside partners -- CULTS could join forces with a bookseller (BUSCA or YBP, for example) to support the cataloging and metadata needs of their client base. In exchange, CUL may realize reduced prices for materials ordered and/or receive real income. We need records for these titles -why not get paid by someone else to create them? We could partner with Collection Development (selection for other libraries) and Library Systems to support associated technical needs. CULTS could partner with OCLC to supplement their language and format skills. Rather than compete with OCLC for outsourcing contracts, we could pool our skill sets. OCLC could catalog Cornell material for which we lack coverage, and we take on cataloging those areas in which they lack coverage. We could also serve as a training ground for future OCLC catalogers. 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? As CUL stated in its original MAS document: “this proposal assumes that individual libraries will increasingly lack the means, breadth, and depth to manage effectively and efficiently all aspects of information service.”1 Libraries within academic institutions are being held increasingly more accountable for their resources. This includes staff and the collections that they acquire and house. Institutions will continue to search for cost effective ways to provide traditional services. In addition, we anticipate a shortage of librarians. This is particularly acute for academic librarians.2 While technical services librarians who leave the profession for retirement will be replaced, their skills and training may not. This service will leverage both the staff here in CUL and their expertise to provide cataloging, metadata, and acquisitions services to other institutions that may not have the appropriate staff to undertake these tasks. This service will include a training program that can target newcomers to the technical services workplace. We can also view it as an outsourcing operation or a cooperative venture. “In addition, the creation of a complex library and information service center would permit ... [CUL] to reorganize staff and services, freeing up valuable real estate in the center of campus for teaching, learning, and other public use. More efficient and less expensive construction could house the center in a less congested environment.”3 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? Cornell University Library has a well-established reputation for excellence in both traditional and innovative realms of academic librarianship. Our outstanding collections, staff, and services, as well as our groundbreaking efforts in digitization, preservation, and metadata, have positioned CUL as a leader and a model for other academic libraries to emulate. Creating a multi-purpose library service center gives us the opportunity to leverage CUL’s many strengths to benefit not just our own user population, but libraries beyond Cornell, while developing the pool of talent we will need to meet the challenges of the future. We will be able to ensure that technical services remain a relevant and integral part of CUL operations, developing new skills and cultivating additional staff as the demand for our services increases. The success of the service center may enhance CUL’s prestige in the library community and raise its profile within the University. Outside institutions may find the concept of having the resources of CUL at their disposal very appealing, especially if we plan to offer our services on a cost-recovery basis instead of a forprofit basis. They may find it easier to entrust their important projects to a library with Cornell’s MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 87 reputation for excellence and proven track record than to a commercial vendor with little understanding of, or stake in, the outcome of the project. As currently envisioned, the library service center would bring together a collection of soughtafter, cutting edge services that other institutions may need but may be unable to support inhouse. Much of the expertise we need to provide such services already exists at CUL, but one area in which we lack experience is in marketing to outside entities. While we are accustomed to encouraging use of library services by our core constituency through public relations efforts, that is not the same as bringing in paying customers from outside Cornell. It is to our advantage that Cornell is already a recognizable and respected “brand name” among research libraries. Resources would have to be devoted to promoting CUL as a provider of innovative services, whether we end up paying a marketing firm or developing marketing skills within our organization. We would probably have to invest these resources at the outset (even before the service center has earned any money) in order to generate business, and it would be an ongoing expense. 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? This proposal directly supports the following CUL goals and objectives:4 • Goal I -- This service would lead to “innovative collaborations with information technology staff, publishers, consortia and other research institutions.” • Goal VII -- It would “foster an organizational culture that is agile, resilient and flexible, [which] embraces change and encourages teamwork.” The service would also increase opportunities for technical services staff to work on interesting projects and to share their knowledge and expertise with other interested parties. • Goal VII -- It would help us to “establish a network of strategic partnerships to generate additional resources and share in the development and long-term maintenance of new services.” • Goal IX -- It would help us to “effectively market the library’s products and services, and expand outreach to new and underrepresented constituencies.” It would connect technical services staff with a clientele beyond Cornell. • Goal X -- It would help us to “expand joint initiatives and relationships with peer institutions.” Finally, we feel that sharing our expertise through training programs relates directly to the university’s educational mission. 7. How does the University Library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? The easiest way to protect our local constituencies is to ensure a cost-recovery model. Any work we perform for external clients must not interfere with resources required for local efforts; rather, it should support them. We need to consider how we can use our skills to support external clients, yet benefit the local client as well. Consider technical services training. The workforce for technical services is not born with these skills; they are trained. Were CUL to offer a formal technical services training program, perhaps in conjunction with Syracuse University or other professional schools, we would have income to support creation of a training staff to use for local needs and/or the work output of the students enrolled in the training program (internships). Moreover, we would have an MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 88 opportunity to pick from the best of the trainees to fill local recruitment needs. For shorter training sessions, we might partner with SCRLC to offer a suite of regional classes to support continuing education for catalogers. We need to train our own staff. Why not leverage the work put into creating the training sessions and materials and recycle them to others? An “iterative imperative” (or “cost-recovery plus”) comes into play in that we work from existing strengths and gradually build/expand these strengths as income-generating opportunities present themselves. We don’t need to have a full-blown service available from day one. Instead, we take a few, focused opportunities that use existing staff and fill in behind them. Alternatively, we use income from bundled services that may include provision of MARC or other metadata records as part of the contracted package. The income generated from the first few contracts supports adding staff for future contracts. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in a shared storage environment? Statistics already are kept in technical services for a variety of activities and cataloging statistics are encoded online in Voyager by all units. Different units have different reporting requirements or practices. These include reporting to their colleges, national organizations, and/or the state. For example, in addition to ARL, unit libraries have some reporting requirements varying from the American Bar Association to SUNY. In a shared storage environment statistics most likely would regard collections and their size. However, for technical services reporting needs, mechanisms for collecting any required and desirable statistics are already in place or could be easily developed. 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? Based on current configurations for most technical services staff, as well as published guidelines, a minimum of 90-100 square feet per person is recommended for workstations (including computer, work surface, chair, file, shelves, and guest chair).5 This does not include the space required for private offices for senior and/or supervisory staff, corridors, shelving, sorting tables, photocopiers, mailroom, shipping and receiving, meeting space (conference rooms for staff meetings and collaborative work, training space for educational programs), restrooms, staff lounge, onsite restaurant(s), and so forth. CUL will need to embark on a program study to fully determine the space needs for this service component in combination with others to be housed at the same location. If the technical services component of the new center is to remain cutting-edge, staff would need high-end workstations with regard to speed, storage, and network access. Special considerations would include large monitors for Voyager cataloging and acquisitions. In addition, acquisitions and cataloging staff, especially those working with specialized or foreign-language material, frequently avail themselves of their libraries’ reference collections. If these staff are moved away from central campus, additional copies of these resources will need to be purchased for the service center -- at least those that are not available online. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? CUL has an exceptional technical services staff made up of skilled experts who can capably handle every aspect of library cataloging and acquisitions. They include highly trained academic and non-academic staff who can handle traditional formats, electronic resources, and a wide range of languages and subjects. In recent years, great strides have been made in re- MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 89 engineering workflows and processes to more effectively utilize existing talent and resources. Backlogs are being eliminated, and traditional technical services staff have begun to feel increasingly comfortable with change. If we make certain assumptions -- that (a) current staffing and acquisitions will remain steadystate, (b) backlogs will continue to be significantly reduced (so that increasingly less staff time is required to deal with them), (c) “insourcing” from other institutions will be on a cost-recovery basis (thus providing funds, if needed, to support additional staff to handle increased workload), and (d) technological advances will continue to enable streamlining of processes and workflows -- we can say with relative confidence that we have the human resources required for the proposed service for the short-term. However, we probably do not have the human resources needed for this service in the long-term. Budget pressures have already resulted in a reduction of technical services staff and we expect such pressures to continue. Moreover, the literature is abundant on “the graying of the profession,” most especially in the area of cataloging. For example, a recent ARL study showed that 61.3% of catalogers in ARL libraries were over the age of 45 as of 1998.6 Age data are not readily available for CUL catalogers, but the head of CTS Acquisitions and Bibliographic Control indicated in a recent conversation that the CUL technical services staff is in fact “graying,” with many retirements likely in the next ten years. 7 Thus, for the continuation of this particular component of a CUL service center, and even for the continuation of cataloging and acquisitions for CUL, we will need to devote significant effort toward succession planning. The proposed cataloging and acquisitions service component can help CUL in this regard if we work toward development of focused training programs (including for-credit and continuing education courses and workshops, and internships) in collaboration with selected library schools. Many technical services professionals feel that library school programs are not offering students the courses needed for entry-level technical services positions, and studies confirm a significant drop in the number of library schools requiring students to take either a cataloging course or course in the organization of information.8 Further, most courses currently offered provide little focus on electronic resources, current developments, future trends, or management. And our own recent technical services searches confirm that the talent pool for positions of this nature is generally lacking. If we work toward developing and delivering appropriate educational programs, we can more systematically “grow our own talent” and, by doing so, help to better ensure the longer-term availability of human resources. Developing such educational programs does, of course, require human resources with special talents. Most of our existing technical services staff did not enter the field to become educators, and existing staff are not necessarily trained to do curriculum or program planning. Presentation skills, public relations abilities, mentoring abilities, and managerial skills may also be needed, as will staff skilled in marketing and public relations. There will thus need to be considerable retooling for some staff and reallocation of some staff toward new roles. Ongoing staff development will be key, as will involvement of human resources professionals, specifically in the areas of organizational change and development, to help staff adjust to continual changes in roles, workflows, procedures, and technology. In short, it will be crucial to continue to develop an organizational culture in technical services that “is agile, resilient and flexible, embraces change and encourages teamwork.”9 V. Recommendations If the library decides to pursue the development of a service center located away from central campus, we recommend the transfer of as much technical services staff as practical to this facility. This staff could include all, or most of CTS, as well as staff from other CUL processing centers to the extent that their move is feasible and desirable given overall university, MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 90 college/school, and library goals. Such a move would bring sufficient technical services staff into proximity with other service component staff with whom we expect to partner (digital, preservation, education, and collection development and storage services) to take advantage of the broad language, subject, and technical skills of our acquisitions and cataloging personnel. It would also allow us to develop service components within a large, flexible, critical mass of technical services staff, while maintaining strong levels of service to our local constituency. Finally, the relocation of technical services staff members to the new service facility would free up considerable space on central campus. To make this vision of a new CUL service center a reality, the upcoming MAS 2010 market analysis will be crucial. From a technical services perspective, that analysis will need to target both traditional acquisitions and cataloging services, as well as state-of-the-art services, including the marketability of machine-generated metadata records (in various formats) and digitization packages that would include everything from initial consultation to delivery of a digitized product with accompanying records to teaching others to perform the same operations themselves. We may discover that certain opportunities already exist or are likely to develop within the next 2-3 years. In any case, we should keep in mind that the recommendation we are presenting here does not necessarily require success as an entrepreneurial venture to rationalize the relocation of a large number of acquisitions and cataloging staff to the service center. -------------------- 1 Cornell University Library, “Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services, A Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (2002), p. 5. Also available online at . 2 Stanley Wilder, “The Changing Profile of Research Library Professional Staff,” 1 Feb. 2003 (as published in ARL 208/209). 3 Cornell University Library, “Models for Academic Support,” p. 6. 4 “Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives, 2002-2007,” 1 Feb. 2003 . 5 E-mail correspondence between John Hoffman and Scott Wicks, 1/22/03. See also the report from the American Library Association, Library Administration and Management Association, Buildings and Equipment Section, Functional Space Requirements Committee, Building Blocks for Library Space: Functional Guidelines (1995). 6 Wilder, “The Changing Profile of Research Library Professional Staff.” 7 Scott Wicks, personal conversation, 1/21/03. 8 Mary Grenci, “Library Schools and the Education of the Technical Services Professional: A Report of the ALCTS Role of the Professional in Academic Technical Services Discussion Group Meeting, American Library Association Midwinter Meeting, Philadelphia, January 1999,” Technical Services Quarterly 17:4 (2000), p. 65. 9 “Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives, 2002-2007.” MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 91 Copyright Services Introduction The Copyright Consultant Team was charged to explore the feasibility of a copyright center as a potential component of a new library center located off-campus. The consultant team addressed three key issues: • What are the copyright services needs in today’s learning, teaching, and research environment? • Could we offer copyright services from an off-campus location? • Could some of our services be offered to other libraries and cultural institutions? The team members include Fiona Patrick (Chair), Peter Hirtle, and Oya Y. Rieger. Pat McClary (Office of University Counsel) and Tracy Mitrano (Office of Information Technology) served on an advisory capacity through their collaboration with the CUL Copyright Service. CUL Copyright Service offers a suite of copyright services to assist faculty and staff in securing copyright permission and understanding copyright issues. It is a CUL-wide service point with the goal of helping all unit libraries and Cornell staff in need of copyright assistance. Our services include: • Develop and maintain Cornell’s Copyright Information Center website • Provide copyright clearance assistance • Offer consultancy on Intellectual Property Rights and copyright issues • Develop education and awareness programs • Provide support services for unit libraries as they manage intellectual property rights of collections created by the Library (e.g., digitization projects) • Investigate the copyright issues of documents for digitization as a part of DCAPS operation Appendix I describes services in detail. Copyright Services is based on a coordinated model, partnering with the Office of University Counsel, Office of Information Technology, Cornell Information Technologies (CIT), and The Cornell Store. Copyright services is also an integrated component within D-CAPS (Digital Consulting and Production Services). Currently our market (clientele) includes faculty and unit libraries (e-reserve and digitization operation), Cornell research units/institutes, Cornell administrative units, Cornell distance learning programs, and CyberTower. Executive Summary In the age of the distributed learning, copyright questions are becoming increasingly important. A journal article or illustration that was legitimate to hand out in class may not be so legitimate on a web site, where it might be seen or downloaded by millions of people. In the past, educators have often relied on the “fair use” provisions of the copyright law, which allow limited copying of protected works for educational purposes, but the rules of fair use are widely misunderstood, and it’s sometimes difficult to determine whether or not a particular work is covered by copyright. The CUL Copyright Service was created to assist instructional staff members with this ever-growing complexity. Another key motivation behind this service is to assist in the management of CUL’s digital rights in content created by the Library. We predict that the demand for copyright services will continue to increase and this will be an important strategic service area for the Library. We can envision this service to be a part of a new service center located at the Annex Library. Offering copyright services to an outside clientele is a thorny issue. Our service model is very new and needs to be tested before it can scale to outside demand. We predict that there is a market for such services and recommend this assumption to be tested during the market survey, which is planned for the second phase of MAS 2010 project. The Copyright Service is an integral MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 92 part of DCAPS and therefore digitization project-specific copyright issues that may arise from external projects should be handled by this service point. Methodology This report is partially based on a needs assessment study that was conducted during Summer 2001 to investigate the role of CUL in providing copyright-related services (http://www.library.cornell.edu/dl/copyright-findings.pdf). The report also reflects the information gathered during the last year as we develop our new service point. Core Questions 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? The risks of offering Copyright Services that can also assist smaller libraries, university presses, publishers and others include: • We have just started our Cornell operation. Are we ready to expand our operation to a larger audience? • Can we develop a cost-recovery model that allows us to compete with existing commercial “clearance service” and other licensing providers? • Do we want to position ourselves as a “service bureau” for mass clearance processing? • Are we willing to accept, and will the University Counsel’s office approve, the potential legal liability that Cornell will assume by providing clearance services outside CU? • If we assume management of other libraries’ digital assets, disagreements over our stewardship might arise. It would need to be clear in advance whether we passively responded to requests to use materials, or if we were expected to actively market digital resources to third parties. 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? Physical location of copyright services unit is flexible: • communication and consultation with clients mainly takes place via phone and email • resources required to perform service are mainly electronic (internet, databases) i. For researching copyright prior to 1978, access to the Catalog of Copyright Entries from the Library of Congress is necessary. These volumes are currently shelved on the second floor of Olin Library. If the Copyright Service is moved to the Annex Library, these volumes will need to be relocated to Annex as well and stored on accessible shelving. However, since copyright services is a functional unit of the DCAPS service offering, physical location of entire DCAPS operation should be a consideration. 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamation” opportunities? The existing business plan (August 2002) for CUL Copyright Services is based on an active collaboration (coordinated model) between CUL, CIT, The Cornell Store and the University Counsel’s Office. Existing clientele are already campus-wide (faculty, unit libraries, research units/institutes, administrative units, distance learning programs, CyberTower, eCornell). This service also aims to provide a clearinghouse for unit libraries as they assist their clientele with copyright-related questions. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 93 Organizational 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? With the increasing emphasis on technology-mediated teaching, we can anticipate a rise in demand for copyright services. Materials that potentially require clearance will include slides, images, illustrations, articles, chapters, multimedia content, video or audio clipping, etc. An important factor will be the future direction from the Office of the University Counsel in regard to faculty adherence to copyright regulations. Demand for copyright services will also be impacted by future legislation, case law, and technological developments. The trend over the past decade has been for copyright owners to tighten their control over the access, storage and dissemination of copyrighted information in digital form, with a concomitant decrease in the scope of the exceptions for instructional purposes. Digital rights management is emerging as a technological solution to the desire of copyright owners to control use of their works, and will further limit how instructional staff can use copyrighted material without permission. 5. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? Copyright services aligns with Goal II, no. 4 in Cornell University Library Goals and Objectives 2002-2007 Goal II. Provide digital 'life-cycle' production services. 4 – Establish and operate a copyright service capable of ensuring adequate observance and protection of intellectual property rights and facilitating effective administration of our digital assets. 6. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? Providing a “one-stop shopping” interface for Cornell faculty and staff with their copyright issues, we will streamline the copyright permissions process across the university. Depending on client needs, the appropriate level of service will be provided. This may range from directing clients to existing forms, checklists, letter templates, and FAQS, to conducting a “fair use” analysis, investigating copyright status, and obtaining permissions and determining royalties. Tracking copyright requests via a Rights Management database will allow more efficient processing as contact information and relationships with publishers will be captured and readily accessible for research and reuse. Furthermore, the database will provide a vehicle for analysis of activity by publisher and allow us to negotiate less-expensive, long-term agreements regarding use and permissions. The copyright services business model developed in August 2002 may be split into 3 broad levels of service. Tier I – Investigating Copyright Status “Is this item currently copyrighted?” Tier II – Clearance Processing Tier III – Copyright Advisory Services Request and track permissions and royalties via Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) and directly to publishers and copyright holders via form letters and document templates. A. Offering workshops B. Determine “fair use” – work with Advisory MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 94 board members C. Consulting on copyright services office setup (starting up copyright operation at other institutions by providing consultancy and a service model) 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? We predict that the demand for copyright services will continue to increase and this will be an important strategic service area for the Library. Offering copyright services to an outside clientele is a thorny issue. Our service model is very new and needs to be tested before it can scale to outside demand. We predict that there is a market for such services and recommend this assumption to be tested during the market survey, which is planned for the second phase of MAS 2010 project. The Copyright Service is an integral part of DCAPS and therefore digitization project-specific copyright issues that may arise from external projects should be handled by this service point. 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? This is a new service area and the library annual statistics at this point does not include data about copyright services. 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishing, etc.? Copyright Services currently has minimal resource requirements. There are two primary areas of expense. First, a copyright tracking management database needs to be developed and maintained. Second, staff in the service should have online or hard-copy access to Nimmer on Copyright, the standard text in the field. A subscription is about $1100/year. If services were to be offered to an external audience, it would necessitate additional workspace for student assistants performing copyright investigation and clearance processing tasks. 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? Human resources requirements will depend on services to be provided. Based on 3-Tier Service Model described in Question 7, skills and experience are listed. Tier I – Investigating Copyright Status Tier II – Clearance Processing With introductory training and process documentation student assistants will be able to investigate “is this item copyrighted” for % of requests. However, until our business model is operational for one year (2004) we will not have data on what that % will be. With introductory training and process MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 95 Tier III – Copyright Advisory Services A. offering workshops B. determine “fair use” C. Consulting on copyright services office setup documentation student assistants will be able to request and track permissions requests via Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) and directly to Publishers and Copyright holders via form letters and document templates. Lawyers and Librarians with background in copyright issues. In particular, if it is decided that the service should offer copyright legal advice (i.e., an opinion on whether a particular use is fair or not), as opposed to providing factual information (i.e., this book may be in the public domain; this is how much the CCC would charge for use of the work, etc.), it will be necessary to have an attorney either on-staff or on retainer. Market Analysis Offering copyright services to an outside clientele is a thorny issue. Our service model is very new and needs to be tested before it can scale to outside demand. We predict that there is a market for such services and recommend this assumption to be tested during the market survey, which is planned for the second phase of MAS 2010 project. At this stage we can address questions 8 and 9: 8. What unique advantages might a university library bring to this service over a commercial or non-profit enterprise? A library would understand better the unique position of educational institutions vis-a-vis copyright. Most commercial services have as a clientele other for-profit businesses, and so would not be aware of things like exceptions for educators, the TEACH Act exemptions, the exemption that allows libraries to put published copyrighted materials online during the last 20 years of copyright term, etc. 9. Who will be our competitors? The Cornell Store and external permissions firms, including XanEdu, BZ/Rights & Permissions, Copyright Resource Company, LLC and others may be found at http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Business_to_Business/Law/Intellectual_Property/C opyrights/ Additionally, organizations such as SCRLC which offer workshops including “Information Ecology: Digitization Rights Management” MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 96 APPENDIX I: Components of Copyright Services Education and Outreach Coordinate the collaboration among the key copyright service providers (CUL, The Cornell Store, ATC, OIT, Office of University Counsel). Manage the Cornell University Copyright Information Center Website (www.copyright.cornell.edu). Sponsor forums, workshops, handouts, interactive tutorials to educate/inform faculty, student assistants, and administrators of current copyright practices and upcoming changes Offer current awareness services – e.g., CU-Copyright-L to broadcast new legislative proposals, changes to the existing regulations, case law, and emerging practices as they apply to Cornell Copyright Clearance Assistance Offer consultancy services to provide information about copyright issues and to answer specific questions (guidance and referrals, not legal counsel). Provide Copyright clearance services to: # Identify whether the fair use guidelines would apply to a specific case or if the material is in public domain # Investigate source information (e.g., what is the source of a certain image file) # Track ownership # If owner found, negotiate rights, fees, terms of use # If owner not found, document “reasonable effort” # Maintain a database to store and manage copyright metadata # Provide administrative support for clearance services (PR, accounting, etc.) Offer services to support the Library’s e-reserve operation. NOTE: We will be relying on an advisory group composed of Cornell experts (Pat McClary, Peter Hirtle, Tracy Mitrano, etc.) to provide assistance with complicated copyright cases that can not be resolved at service point #5, #6, and #7. Other Services Offer consultancies and guidance for licensing – both for academic and administrative purposes (a future service area?). Contribute to the development of Cornell University guidelines and policies for faculty in regard to their use of copyrighted materials in teaching and research. Contribute to the development of Cornell University intellectual property policies pertaining to faculty’s rights over the digital content created to support their research or teaching activities. Copyright Advocacy MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 97 Contribute to the evolvement of new nation-wide copyright law and policies by commenting on new legislation (lobbying) Digital Rights Management (DRM) Over CUL-Owned Collections Provide support services for unit libraries as they manage intellectual property rights of collections created by the Library (create forms, database structure, rights management and tracking database etc. to support the activities). Collaborate with the Central Technical Services and The Cornell Store in broadening licensing agreements for online database vendors so that we reduce the need for seeking copyright permission for individual materials such as articles. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 98 E-Publishing Introduction The E-Publishing Consultants Team included Ross Atkinson, Tom Hickerson (Chair), Zsuzsa Koltay, Marcy Rosenkrantz, David Ruddy, and Kizer Walker. The Team was charged with examining the potential for the Library to successfully employ electronic publishing methods and technologies in an entrepreneurial manner and to contribute effectively to the evolution of new models for academic support. In this investigation, attention was also directed towards examining the benefits or disadvantages of conducting these activities at a new service center to be constructed at the periphery of the present campus. Executive Summary The Cornell Library is already actively involved in electronic publishing. The Team identified four principal categories of electronic publishing for investigation as part of this study: (1) Subscription Based Journal Publishing (2) Disciplinary Repositories (3) Institutional Repositories (4) Discipline Based Portals Of these four, the Cornell Library has already made significant commitments to active involvement in the first three categories. Additionally, activities in this area have been explicitly endorsed by the Library Management Team through the adoption of Cornell University Library: Goals and Objectives, 2002-2007, Goal III, “Support electronic publishing, scholarly communication, and creative expression.” Therefore, the Team strongly recommends continued involvement in this area of activity. Principal concerns are the initial capitalization requirements for some initiatives and, in some categories, devising and implementing selection guidelines that insure that we are making long-term retention commitments for material of significant value. Potential clientele are global for most categories, and much of this activity could be effectively conducted from the periphery of the campus. For some categories, the present D-CAPS model is well designed to incorporate the necessary services. Methodology Investigation was conducted through direct discussion among Team members. Although recognizing that there were overlaps among the various e-publishing categories identified, the team concluded that differences were sufficiently significant to justify answering all mandatory questions for each category. The prospects, costs, partners, liabilities, and operating procedures differ for each, even though many of the answers generated similar responses. Optional questions were not addressed. After our initial meetings, Morgan Elmore also attended and contributed to the compilation of this report. Research Questions The questions were answered for each of the following categories we identified in the field of electronic publishing: 1. Subscription Based Journal Publishing Service (Euclid) Defining characteristics: Library as publisher and subscription based access provider for formal publications. Library is not responsible for refereeing; the focus is on dissemination. Library MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 99 functions like the printer, also provides metadata and does some marketing. Library does not have journal ownership, just rights for web format. 2. Disciplinary Repository (arXiv) Defining characteristics: Collection of informal publications organized around a discipline. The Library may control submission; refereeing may be done by scholarly community. We provide free and open access as well as agreeing to maintain the contents permanently. 3. Institutional Repository (DSpace) Defining characteristics: Collection of informal publications organized around an institution. The Library may control submission; refereeing may be done by scholarly community. We provide free and open access as well as agreeing to maintain the contents permanently. 4. Discipline Based Portal (CogNet) Defining characteristics: Library produces discipline-based collection of formal and informal publications and resources. Cornell would add the value of its collection development and reference expertise. Some of the materials are CU produced and some are links outside the system. Could have variety of sections: Journals, Data, News, Announcements, Calls for Papers, Peer Review, Discussion. This unit could sit “on top of” or work in collaboration with any of the previous Electronic Initiatives. Subscription Based Journal Publishing Service Core Questions: 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? • Takes resources and focus away from issues that may have more centrality to CU • Spending CU resources to meet needs of beneficiaries largely outside of CU • Difficult to achieve revenue-neutral model; requires capital that may never be recovered • Legal liability • Taking risk on behalf of everyone, assuming that other universities will tackle similar projects that will in turn benefit us • Might alter paradigm only slightly (Highwire journals are still expensive even though administered by Stanford) 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? • Main function of electronic publishing does not depend on centrality, files can be transferred anywhere, our clients are already all over the world • Combination of physical isolation and having a task that is non-CU centered could make it especially difficult to remain true to CU goals • Physical presence is important marketing and bargaining tool • Might reproduce functions previously done by others, or miss key opportunities for collaboration 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamations” opportunities? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 100 • University Press - does not publish journals but they do editorial work, we could do the distribution and sales, both could do marketing, both have same service structure. We could provide a reliable place for long-term storage. Would allow a print alternative, which many journals have asked for. • Campus Store • Print Shop • Other publishers on campus (our services might even give birth to more journals on campus) Organizational Questions: 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? • Would allow us to scale up and receive better cost per unit • Better likelihood for sustainability • If replicated at other institutions, we will reap benefits of their work as well • Libraries need to move into new areas in order to retain our hold on traditional areas like cataloging 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? • Maintain and increase benefits to alternative publication methods • If consolidate publication mechanisms will reduce inefficiencies • We could use profit to fund other projects • Get journals cheaper especially if other universities follow our lead 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? • As a Library, we’ve decided to privilege electronic journals • Want to keep ownership of intellectual material within the University. We have a vital interest in switching the balance of ownership and distribution. If not us, then who? 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? This service already views all journals and all subscribers equally. The same level of service is provided and available to all 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? We might get more journals for our dollar but this effect would be fairly insignificant 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishings, etc.? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 101 • Service does and will continue to require 6-12 full time staff who would all need office space, equipment, furnishings • We will need increasing storage space over time including associated costs for back-up and retention • Increases driven mostly by system evolving and having new programming/service needs 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? • Skills required are: Marketing, Business Models, Design, Programming • We have the skill set but don’t necessarily have the hours to devote • If marketing person came and said we should be visiting universities around the world to promote project, we would need more people Disciplinary Repository Core Questions: 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? • We’ve agreed to maintain this resource long-term. We will never be able to shrink system, only to stop its growth. By making this commitment, we limit our ability to reallocate resources to other projects • Has little potential for income or cost recovery. Money that goes toward repository diminishes funds for other library activities • Operation requires constant commitment of resources • If we took on other disciplines, could weaken what we already have 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? • Project is mostly location independent (i.e. Kristrun working from the UK) • Concerns of invisibility are not as important because we’re not trying to recover costs • Might be cheaper • Student staff would not be as easy to get because of distance • Would separate some systems staff from the rest of the group which could affect efficiency and creativity • Isolation could contribute to the adoption of service norms that don’t mesh with those followed by the rest of the library 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamations” opportunities? • Could build stronger ties between the library and faculty in the disciplinary areas involved especially if we were to develop frameworks for new disciplinary areas • Technology developments could be used in other systems within and without the library, including other electronic publishing ventures • Could add some paid services from other units to assist in cost recovery (like metadata services) MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 102 Organizational Questions: 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? • Change paradigm for scholarly publishing and communication • Speed distribution • Cut costs • Allow creators to retain full rights to their work • Broaden access at no cost to users (including libraries) 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? • See #4 above 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? • Privileges electronic information 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? • NA 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? • Would increase hits and access numbers 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishings, etc.? • Need space, furniture and equipment for 4-6 staff • Steadily increasing and consistent data storage demands 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? • If we took on additional disciplines we would need at least one person familiar with each discipline • At least the physics portion of the system requires expertise with TeX • Requires a significant amount of user interaction with public • Doesn’t need marketing (except maybe new disciplines) • Technical development will be required over time • Currently, heavy reliance on student help MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 103 Disciplinary Repository Core Questions: 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? • Limited revenue potential and steadily increasing costs • Long-term commitment which limits future ability to redirect funds/resources to other projects • Potential to create a chaotic aggregation of resources with inconsistent quality control and ever-decreasing value to users • Hard to manage a variety of document types; generating good metadata will be difficult • Many unknowns (we haven’t done this before and more complex data set) • This kind of info doesn’t have a history of use because it’s been less accessible – thus it’s hard to tell whether it will be used at all or if has any long-term preservation value • Institution isn’t really a sensible basis for organizing information – system will be most useful if more institutions adopt it and you can search across institutions on a given topic 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? • This service is location independent 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamations” opportunities? • Repository could benefit from selling the package to other universities – would finance our own repository. If we had a proven track record, other institutions might very well want to have us design and build their systems • CU Press doesn’t really publish many of the materials involved. Repository could be supplement to print forms from Press. Limited research indicates that publishing electronically actually increases sales of print forms. Could provide infrastructure for redesigned model for the CU Press • Could be great alternative publication method for some departments on campus (i.e. the Cooperative Extension would save money on postage and printing of all of their flyers and info sheets) Organizational Questions: 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? • Change the paradigm for scholarly communication/publishing • Distribute materials in digital form • Place to archive new communication and art forms based on electronic technology • Improves interoperability on campus and opens future possibility of interoperability with universities around the world • Centralized place to store materials from various professor and departmental web sites 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 104 • Preserve and broaden output of CU scholarly production • Enhance free and open access • Would inspire discussion about standards and interoperability • Provide non-subscription-based alternative that is similarly accredited • Break down boundaries between formal and informal publishing • Provide alternative means for refereeing literature • Potential for greater discovery, unified search capability across institutions • Provides place for digital materials that might otherwise disappear 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? • Privileges electronic information • Provides additional means for scholarly output • Provides more materials for users 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? • Primary recipient is local both for submissions and user access • External audience will have viewing access but we won’t be promoting the system outside CU and thus not drawing resources 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? • Would increase hits and access numbers • Would want to track # of submissions and usage to gauge success of project • Would not increase our holdings 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishings, etc.? • Steadily increasing and consistent data storage demands (including system upgrades) 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? • We have necessary human resources • We’re familiar with the materials • Would want to invest some library expertise in metadata consulting • Could put a significant load on our traditional information organizing processes • In order to maximize potential, would draw on staff from a variety of departments • Would require regular interaction with faculty MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 105 Discipline-Based Portal Core Questions: 1. What are the risks associated with this new service approach? What is the potential impact on our library operations? • Without necessary respect in the field, program could fail to gain public acceptance • Not much precedent • Takes library resources to produce something that doesn’t benefit CU over others • Very similar to what reference already does – could cause reference overload • Since we don’t own any journals, we’d have to create or license them in order to offer that as part of the portal 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of locating this service at the Annex Library? • Primary clientele is remote – doesn’t care about centrality • Requires more intimacy with scholars in the field • Would require assistance from many departments that might not all be at Annex 3. What are the Cornell services that would benefit from this new service approach (e.g., University Press and other Cornell publishers that require similar service infrastructure)? What are the “amalgamations” opportunities? • CU Press - CogNet actually is a Press project • Could share components and content with other electronic publishing ventures Organizational Questions: 4. What is the rationale behind creating this service component? • One-stop shopping for finding resources as well creating them • Stronger links between reference and e-publishing • Build ties with faculty • Closest thing among categories we defined to a digital library • Includes added communication layer 5. What are the expected outcomes and benefits? • Closer relationship with faculty in field • Build ties with scholarly societies • Provides a strategic plan for focusing digital library efforts • We would need bibliographic control and core definitions - could help define parameters for the field 6. How would this service approach align with our institutional goals? • Build a knowledge base of print and digital media – I • Support Scholarly Communication MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 106 • Develop customized views for information – IV • Integrate CU products and services 7. How does the university library protect its service to its local constituency and simultaneously provide quality service to an external market? • Would have to choose an area that has traditionally been strong in the print realm for project to succeed • Provides model for focusing our existing resources and building on current strengths. • Would have to incorporate print resources and current funding into business plan, possibly shifting our method of providing materials. Portal might have to become the library for a given discipline • Could only justify in a cost-recovery situation 8. What are the implications for library record keeping and statistical rankings in the shared storage environment? • NA 9. What are the resource requirements such as space, equipment, special technologies, networking, furnishings, etc.? • Probably 1-2 dozen staff with associated space and equipment needs • Resource requirements would be huge • In humanities, technology demands would be greater due to high quality images 10. Do we have the human resources required to create this service? What are the required skills and experience? • Would need greater disciplinary expertise • Would need to draw on faculty and grad students • In Humanities, would need to provide greater level of user tech support Other thoughts about discipline-based repository: • Would be ideal to do it in collaboration with other libraries • To not rely too heavily on faculty, we should choose a subject we already have a recognized strength in. Math could be a good starting point since we have so many math collections and services already that could be joined together • This model might have more to offer Humanities or Social Sciences since their publishing isn’t so big and commercial. They have a real need for publishing of all kinds. Might provide a real alternative to explore before we hit a wall in the sciences • Humanists also have a stronger root in traditional collections which might be difficult to change • Would want to pick a small slice like math, Icelandic, Poetry or Medieval Studies • Would be good to start with a grant to do a feasibility study • Would require a real outlay of funds to begin with. Maybe 1 million a year over 5 years with costs increasing annually. • Would really have to shift further from print to electronic General Observations: • Without mechanism for cost recovery, any of these options seem like a poor investment (especially 2 & 3 the way they are designed currently) • Change in paradigm will only happen if we are financially successful MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 107 • There is a real link between the status of faculty and the “quality” of journal they publish in. Right now “quality” has a big price tag. • Categories are shaped by how things get into the repository and how they are organized. The other main factor that is not considered in the above categories is user access (open vs. restricted). Recommendations As described, the various categories considered here contribute to achieving similar results and could draw on a common technology infrastructure, but the business model for each could vary substantially. Each require significant expenditure of resources initially and on an ongoing basis, but the prospects for cost-recovery vary greatly. Further investigation should focus primarily on the business plan, initial investment, staffing, and ongoing costs appropriate to the various types of initiatives. MAS 2010: Consultant Team Reports, February 2003, Page 108 Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services MAS 2010 Consultant Team Report Synopses Cornell University Library COPYRIGHT Definition of the Service Area • Offer a suite of services, including securing copyright permission, education and awareness, information clearinghouse for CUL, offer consultancy, process copyright issues related to DCAPS projects, manage IPR over digital collections created by CUL Feasibility of Moving to Annex • Yes Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services • Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele • Not yet except DCAPS-related ones Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • New operation - need more experience Advantages Identified by the Group • One-stop-shopping for information, consultancy, and clearance • Maintain a rights management database for efficient processing of publisher and contact information (potential contributions to cost-effective database Disadvantages & Risks • New service – not ready for scaling yet • Cost-recovery is challenging • Legal liability • Difficulty in handling IPR of 3rd party digital assets • Competitive edge of commercial clearance services Synergy Creation Opportunities • Already based on a CU-wide coordinated model Potential Clients • Campus-wide and is likely to grow, especially depending on new copyright policies and interpretation Resource Requirements • Minimal resources requirements (other than copyright interpretation that may require counsel’s advice) Recommendations • Test external market • Locate close to DCAPS MAS 2010, February 2003, Page 1 DIGITIZATION Definition of the Service Area Consultation and referrals Production facility for CUL Scanning for CU Bulk scanning for non-CU market Education and training Digital audio and video services Feasibility of Moving to Annex • Yes Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services • Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele • Yes Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • Is there a market for our services? What kind of digitization projects? • Is there funding available? • Why would they buy it from CUL? What is the advantage we’ll be offering to them? • Do they have plans for digitization? Advantages Identified by the Group • Expertise in imaging • Our commitment for long-term care Disadvantages & Risks • Copyright – inability to obtain permission • Initial start-up costs high • Annex -communication with faculty, selectors, and curators may be a problem (provide central campus consultants) • Challenges with transporting special collections and fragile materials • Isolation of Ithaca as a service center Synergy Creation Opportunities • Lab of Ornithology • Multimedia Design Group • Johnson Museum of Art • Across campus CU staff interest for services Potential Clients • Broad internal and external market Resource Requirements • State of the art studio may be costly to develop –$200K-400K • 5FTE Recommendations • Merge with metadata, copyright, and digital depository services • Need to offer competitive pricing – DCAPS price model is not competitive • If we offer services to external clients, what kind of work do we want to undertake? Do we want to become a scanning vendor? • External client services need to be cost recovery plus • Add digitized materials to national digital registries Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 2 Competition • OCLC-Preservation Services • Partnerships with scanning vendors – they can do the lower-end scanning more efficiently, we can focus on handling special collections materials REGIONAL DIGITAL DEPOSITORY Definition of the Service Area • The term 'regional' may be irrelevant for the digital depository as for other digital services • The scope of collections may be determined by the archive or by the depositor; it might subject-based or domain-oriented • Potential components: o Digital archive (Options: development partners, “build first, then launch,” collaborative digital depository, in-house vendor) o Consulting services o Training o Supportive services o Tools to support depository functions Feasibility of Moving to Annex Virtual team not a great space demand or saving associated with placing this service at the new service center. A strong need for synergy through co-location between staff working on this and related initiatives. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible, but some components more risky/valuable than others. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • Who are potential external clients? • Which services will be valuable for them? • How much would they pay? • What are their priorities for digital preservation? • What are their biggest concerns in investing in a digital archive? Advantages Identified by the Group • Developing this service point may support our own development plans • We have extensive expertise, some core modules to build upon, and a good conceptual framework • Cost-recovery opportunity by opening the service to external clients • Strengthen CUL by establishing it as a community hub for digital archive Disadvantages & Risks • Diverting our energies from building up the institutional digital archive program • May benefit Common Depository System, but creating this service point should not delay our own core mission work • Lack of cost models for digital preservation - how do we price our services? • Remote location may have negative impact on collaborative digital depository development efforts • Two types of quality concerns: Physical integrity of collections & Intellectual integrity • Securing the start-up costs Synergy Creation Opportunities Digitization, metadata, and electronic publishing services Potential Clients Market not known Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 3 Resource Requirements Servers, data storage ~ 5 terabytes, software, etc. Four dedicated staff Recommendations • Training to determine readiness of clientele may be the logical first step; offer workshops to assess the needs (Digital Preservation Management workshop) • Market analysis would be needed to scope and develop the components of this service area • Possibly better to add components in this service area to a second round of service offerings • “Build first, then launch” option for the digital archive component involves lowest risk to CUL mission; however, another option may lead to a faster and better development track for the digital archive • Limiting the client base to a restricted geographic area (or on subject-based depositories) may avoid competition with OCLC digital archive; subject-based or domain-based depositories would be the exception • Needs to be informed by OAIS & RLG-OCLC Attributes of Trusted Digital Repository PRESERVATION & CONSERVATION Definition of the Service Area 1) Conservation services: not defined 2) Preservation services: not defined Feasibility of Moving to Annex No definitive statement 1) Advantages: • potential for state-of-the-art facility with more space, staff and equipment • increased parking making visiting the facility easier • reducing duplicative efforts within CUL and CU • increased revenue to expand service (?) • redirecting grant funds for other institutions • increased cooperation among library units 2) Disadvantages: • need to transport 90% of conservation work from Kroch increasing risk to materials • communication problems with curators and collection managers • lack of patron and donor contact • "end" to informal educational opportunities such as CAU courses because of distance from central campus • difficulty in recruiting student employees because of distance from central campus • more difficult to run education and training programs because of distance from central campus (e.g., exhibition preparation, collection surveys) Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services 1) Yes, for preservation operations that lend themselves to cooperative work (e.g., microfilming project management, education and training, commercial binding, preparation (stiffening), digital scanning 2) Conservation activities are already centralized for CUL Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible, but market analysis needed: a) Inside Cornell University: Conservation treatment work for Johnson Museum, Ornithology department, Hortorium, Textiles department, other academic departments b) Outside Cornell University: Consultancy services, staff training, microfilming project management, conservation treatment of rare and semi-rare materials, specialized conservation (e.g., photographs, audio recordings, video), collection surveying, grant-writing Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 4 Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group “Stringent” market analysis to get answers to following questions: • What funds do you have available on an annual basis for conservation treatment? • Do you wish to seek grant funding for conservation and prerservation? • If Cornell University were to offer skilled conservation treatment on a cost-recovery basis, would you consider having Cornell perform work on your collection? • If Cornell University were to offer help in preparing grant funding awards for preservation and conservation, would you be interested in using this service? • Do you have endowments dedicated to preservation? • If you could be helped with project management, would you be interested in applying for reformatting grants? • Have you ever considered making a contractual arrangement with anyone to perform work on your collection? • What range of services have you considered having someone perform for your library? Advantages Identified by the Group In addition to advantages under Feasibility of Moving to Annex a) space freed up on central campus b) grant funding available in New York State for preservation Disadvantages & Risks In addition to disadvantages listed under Feasibility of Moving to Annex • tensions between local and external needs • more time spent on accounting • few institutions have funding for conservation although grant funding is available for preservation Synergy Creation Opportunities Reducing duplicative efforts within CUL and increasing cooperation particularly in the areas of microfilming project management, education and training, commercial binding, preparation (stiffening) and digital scanning Potential Clients • Within CU: Johnson Museum, Ornithology department, Hortorium, Textiles department, and some academic departments (mainly conservation treatment?) • Outside Cornell: Regional libraries, archives, historical societies, museums, cultural institutions. Large potential market. Potential Competitors • Two major regional conservation centers • Several microfilming production services • Little competition for microfilming project management services Resource Requirements • Significantly more space to accommodate new equipment, furnishings and staff • Substantial one time costs for “fittings” (sinks, fume hoods, special fittings) for conservation • Sufficient staff skill to proceed but significant training needed to bring new staff up to standard Recommendations “Stringent” market analysis needed (see Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group) REGIONAL PAPER DEPOSITORY Definition of the Service Area Storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental, security, technological and operational conditions for the long-term storage of all types of traditional media. Two possible models: • Cooperative model in which partners store whatever they want • Collaborative model in which only unique items or the best copy of an item are retained and owned by the partners Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 5 Feasibility of Locating at the Annex Yes • land is relatively inexpensive • convenient to highway • ample parking. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes, the current Annex already does Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Appears promising: a) growing need for regional depositories in New York State and, given the current financial climate, the State is not well positioned to accommodate this need b) evolving national sense that a system of coordinated regional depositories be created c) CUL is well-positioned to provide this service having created an effective local operation d) Plans are being discussed to add a new module to the Annex. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group • Do a market analysis to determine the interest in the region for either a collaborative or a cooperative facility and whether funding support would be likely. • Discuss the potential for cooperation with the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services • Do these things as soon as possible or else other “competitors” may step in to meet the growing demands for storage Advantages Identified by the Group • Improved storage and security for materials currently stored under less than ideal conditions • Opportunities for efficiencies • Less need for new construction on central sites at universities and colleges • Could provide storage for Cornell text, graphic or artifactual collections not owned by the Library. • Could serve as a university-wide records center, providing records scheduling and management for university and college offices and departments. • Richer collection of material stored and available locally. Disadvantages & Risks • Perception that resources are being diverted from local constituency to a regional or national agenda. • Collaborative model, in which collections and services are shared, may make Cornell community feel less privileged. • Planning for a regional depository might impede the planning, funding and construction of the next module needed by Cornell • Possibility of not fully recovering costs. • In collaborative model, must make certain that agreements in place if original owning library is no longer willing or able to continue storing materials in the facility. • Collaborative approach could negatively affect Cornell’s rankings in collection size, and various service components, such as circulation and interlibrary loan. • “Centrally isolated” location. Synergy Creation Opportunities • Could provide storage for Cornell text, graphic or artifactual collections not owned by the Library. • Could serve as a university-wide records center, providing records scheduling and management for university and college offices and departments. Potential Clients • Within CU: university and college offices and departments • Outside Cornell: Regional libraries—Buffalo and Binghamton are know to have severe space pressures • SUNY, which is developing plans for storage facilities, but is having fiscal problems. Potential Competitors SUNY Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 6 Resource Requirements • Funding for a site-plan study, an architectural feasibility study and an environmental land-use study and for building the facility itself. • Additional staff • Collaborative model requires more staff time and administrative space Recommendations • Do a market analysis to determine the interest in the region for either a collaborative or a cooperative facility and whether funding support would be likely. • Discuss the potential for cooperation with the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services • Do these things as soon as possible or else other “competitors” may step in to meet the growing demands for storage • Factor in the possibility that the Annex could serve as a regional depository in discussions with the University on expanding the present facility. • Take special care not to delay or derail planning to build module 2 which is needed to meet rapidly growing CUL space needs. • In general, select a few areas that show a strong potential for success as enterprise services and invest carefully in those, rather than trying to start-up too many ventures at once REMOTE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT Definition of the Service Area • Start-up service: one-time activities such as evaluating existing collections, buolding a core collection, assistance in creating an approval plan profile, recommending serials and blanket orders (?), assistance in writing collection policies, assistance in collection management projects. • On-going service: o duplicated services involving the building of the collection by duplicating materials selected for Cornell within the confines of a profile o unique services: selecting materials that are not acquired for the CUL collections. o In all cases, selection would be done at the selection level desired. Feasibility of Locating at the Annex Basically NO! • If CUL selectors are used, it would be counterproductive to locate this service at the Annex, since selectors typically maintain continuous contact with their user constituencies. • If remote collection building is done exclusively by additional staff it could be based at the Annex, although this would limit any flexibility for using this staff to build local collections. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Not addressed. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Not a strong possibility. Possible opportunities for one-time jobs, such as building core collections, doing evaluations, and, for larger institutions, building specialized collections. Otherwise, collection building is likely to be the last operation an institution will outsource beyond approval plans. CUL is unlikely to be able to provide an effectively competitive service. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Market survey to determine potential demand Advantages Identified by the Group • Provide Cornell with an opportunity to play more of a leadership role nationally. • Provide Cornell with added staffing flexibility and/or expertise otherwise unavailable within CUL. • Allow Cornell selectors to increase their levels of expertise. • Increase CUL’s institutional prestige and visibility in the profession and its standing in the University. • Allow other institutions to build an improved collection without the need to hire locally full-time specialized staff. • Result in better standardized core collections across libraries. Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 7 Disadvantages & Risks • Possibility of not fully recovering costs and damaging local collections. • Financial risk: must have sufficient flexibility to allow for esxpansion and contraction in response to changes in demand. • Risk to reputation: CUL could be viewed as a “:library corporate raider.” • May result in the creation of more homogeneous collections across libraries. • We lack subject and bibliographic skills in some subject areas, including areas that may be of specific interest to smaller institutions (e.g., nursing education.) Synergy Creation Opportunities • Could contract to build other collections on campus, e.g., the Alternatives Library. • Remote collection development necessarily entails some processing services (i.e., at least ordering and claiming—but also possibly receiving and cataloging.) Potential Clients • Other libraries, not necessarily regionally based. Potential Competitors • Approval plan vendors Resource Requirements • Additional staff time required for selection, searching, processing, travel • Additional processing costs (i.e., ordering and claiming). • Additional travel costs • Training in business and consulting skills Recommendations • Defer action on this until further information on potential demand becomes available. • Charge CDEXec to monitor developments and to create a tentative plan, including methods for a market survey, so that CUL could move quickly to take advantage of opportunities that arise. • Encourage collection development to take a leadership role in the area of cooperation, aspects of which may eventually evolve into the kind of entrepreneurial program we are considering. DOCUMENT DELIVERY Definition of the Service Area A delivery system that supplies books, book chapters or journal articles to users. Bound volumes would be delivered to participating libraries’ for pick up by their patrons, and articles or book chapters would be shipped either as photocopies or digitized documents to end users. Feasibility of Moving to Annex Yes, would be a logical extension of current Library Annex document delivery services Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Service already exists Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Yes Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group A detailed cost analysis needs to be performed. What exactly do we mean by cost recovery? What are our start up costs? A specifications report needs to be written for the document delivery system. Database management software needs to evaluated. Information gathering Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 8 From IT staff at other universities with document delivery services. From managers of other regional depositories Advantages Identified by the Group Space would be freed up on the central campus. There is already a core group of staff with needed expertise at the Annex. There is plenty of free, convenient parking. Disadvantages Electrical service to the Palm Road areas has historically been less reliable than to the central campus. Has this or is this going to change? Is this risk acceptable within the larger scope of operations proposed? Risks Increased staffing would be needed for additional responsibilities. An automated request and delivery system would be necessary, possibly an ILLiad-type system. Any system implemented must be scalable for use within the regional depository environment. Contractual arrangement with the vendor would be complex and precedent setting. User authentication issues need to be resolved. Adequate IT support structure needs to be in place. More complex shipping and receiving operations would be needed than currently exist at the Annex. Synergy Creation Opportunities Expanding the scope of operations by taking on a regional depository role would probably not, in the smaller view, benefit Cornell services and patrons. But in the larger view, the theoretical benefits would include additional revenue streams and the more robust infrastructures and better services that could be justified and subsidized by those streams. Potential Clients Not identified in report Resource Requirements Space: Although there is existing workspace now, expanded services for additional institutions would require more space for processing and extra staff. Additional space for packaging supplies will be necessary. Equipment: More desktop computers and scanners, perhaps more forklifts, shipping equipment. Special technologies: An automated request system, document delivery software, a more state-of-the-art inventory control system, and shipping tracking system would all be needed to handle the increase in requests. Networking: More phone lines and internet connections would be necessary. Furnishings: An increase in the number of staff would require additional furniture. More worktables would be needed to accommodate expanded document delivery and packaging for shipment. CONFERENCE CENTER Definition of the Service Area The Consultant Team believes there may be a market niche for a high-tech training facility that can accommodate up to 200 people and that provides for a flexible use of space Feasibility of Moving to Annex Yes Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Yes Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 9 Additional Data Needs Marketing and cost analysis. What are our start up costs? A more thorough assessment of CUL’s projected need for center Advantages • Library space for Academic Assembly, Library show case, holiday parties, and other large staff gatherings currently does not exist within CUL (other library building projects have eliminated conference space due to budgetary constraints) • 1993-95 General Environmental Impact Statement for this part of campus mentioned a conference center as a possible need • As a critical mass of CUL staff move to the Annex Library, provides needed meeting space; could also provide “hoteling” space for central campus librarians going out for meetings Easier to access from outside Cornell (SCRLC will not longer meet on central campus because of the parking problem) • Parking • Possible revenue generation • Build from the ground up • Relieve congestion on campus at critical times, e.g., alumni weekend • Facility for use that will grow as center of campus shifts • Combine book delivery with bus service • Not-for-profit conference space –fills needed niche? • Can support north campus needs • Use to market other services (e.g., bringing in people to discuss outsourcing library functions) • Availability of land • Proximity to East Hill Plaza and projected academic growth (life sciences) of campus • Support/interest expressed by Director of Facilities Planning (Mina Amundsen) and Director of Transportation (Bil lWendt) • Could double as reader space • Possible use for large group instruction for students Disadvantages • Requires frequent bus service from central campus • Requires town/gown collaboration • Possible complications with zoning (new roads) • No experience in enterprise management • For it to thrive, half of the business must be non-library; could represent a diversion of • library resources • Potential competition for land use by other CU units • Perceived as out of the way • Requires additional support not included in typical library functions, e.g., kitchen • facilities, increased custodial, facilities, conference planning, coordination, and • maintenance staff • Booking requirements • Coordinating arrangements with local hotels Risks • Creating a facility that gets underutilized • On-going expense of maintaining a state-of-the-art facility • Supporting the facility predominantly through non-library functions • Model of new enterprise activities for librarians • Represents library leadership • Outsourcing the management/marketing • The tail wagging the dog; having to generate business to “afford” the facility Synergy Creation Opportunities The group identified potential partners for collaborative effort, but it remains to be seen whether the library could not support this on its own. This should be explored during the marketing phase. Potential collaborators include: Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 10 • Life Safety, Financial Affairs, Press, Vet School, Media and Technology Services, Cornell Store, Academic Departments, CAU, Extension, Alumni Affairs • Amalgamation opportunities would include co-sponsoring the conference center with several other CU divisions (e.g., extension, CIT); also collaborative arrangements with local hotels Potential Clients Within Cornell University: School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions, Cornell Store, Organizational Development Services Potential off-campus users: regional colleges and universities, professional organizations, small non-profits, trade show possibility, telemarketing, regional meetings, tradeshows, satellite teaching space for graduate schools of information studies (Syracuse, Albany), and others Resource Requirements • Must accommodate up to 200 (fewer than that is a disincentive) • Flexible, modular space (double as reading room, hoteling space, telemarketing, exploratory) • Breakout room capabilities • Rooms must breakdown/be subdivided when necessary • High tech (high-speed and wireless connections, sufficient quantity and quality of hardware/software, virtual conference center, video conferencing, exploratory) • Distance learning possibilities (some on-site, some DL) Recommendations As many of the facilities are currently being renovated to upgrade the existing technological aspects, it would be beneficial to gather more information from these sites. It may prove to be beneficial to visit the Johnson School and examine the facility there, as it seems to be the closest to what MAS 2010 had in mind. Lastly, it may be useful to inquire about what capabilities the new engineering building will be able to provide once completed as something like $100 million is being spent on its construction. Since the Johnson School, the Statler, the ILR Conference Center, and the new engineering building are all going to be on campus it would be wise to investigate and see if, after all of the renovations, these four “competitors” may be developing exactly what this project had in mind or if the MAS 2010 is really heading in a different direction and can better address the needs that are not being met at Cornell and the Cornell Library System. METADATA Definition of the Service Area Provide metadata consulting, design, development, production, and data conversion services to clients on a cost recovery basis. Includes grant writing support. Offer metadata classes, workshops, and internships. Offer metadata services as one component of a suite of digital production services. Feasibility of Moving to Annex 1) Advantages: • Metadata work can readily be done outside the library; ok to be at annex • Appealing to work in state of the art facility; also attractive to clients to be in innovative, business-like setting • At annex, metadata staff would not have to compete with rest of CUL for office and meeting space • More high tech meeting space • Free parking near the building 2) Disadvantages: • Physical separation reduces interaction with other CUL staff • Moving people away from the CU research and instruction client base at a time when we are trying to promote greater interaction with them • Bad idea to locate metadata services there unless other digital production services are also there Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 11 Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Yes, both inside and outside Cornell. Must actively market metadata services to CU research and instructional staff and cultural heritage institutions in the region. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Formal market analysis to define and quantify market. Advantages Identified by the Group Can begin immediately (in fact, have already begun). If metadata services remains part of tech services, staffing can be flexible, can cope with varying levels of demand. Revenues from metadata services can help technical services deal with too much to do, not enough people to do it. University library has advantage of trust over commercial enterprise; Cornell has reputation as leader in digital initiatives. Disadvantages & Risks Must effectively regulate capacity to cope with varying market demand; can we? Are we willing to reallocate staff to meet demand? Short on capacity to do metadata consulting; must train/recruit more staff able to do consulting Clients tend to underestimate the cost of metadata; will clients be willing to pay the cost? Library lacks marketing skills. Turf interests run deep at CU; will collaborative efforts be successful in this environment? Synergy Creation Opportunities Collaboration with Academic Technology Center and Web Production Group Collaborate in support of scholarly publishing enterprises including university presses Potential Clients Metadata services is a growth area; target market we know best: CUL, CU research and instructional staff, other libraries, cultural heritage institutions Librarians, residents/fellows, students/interns who wish to learn about metadata Potential market = 700 libraries and cultural heritage institutions in NY state Potential Competitors For CU clients: other CU service providers For external clients: OCLC, metadata units in DLF libraries, private sector firms, smaller libraries (as field matures) Resource Requirements 1. Direct IT support; fund a metadata technologist position as soon as feasible (see report for skill set) 2. High end workstations with networked storage space 3. Adequately trained staff (see report for skill set) 4. Access to promotional and marketing resources 5. 3 additional FTE by 2007/2008 Recommendations • Cultivate NYLINK as a broker for services to libraries/cultural heritage organizations in NY state • Actively market the service to CU clients • Do formal market analysis CATALOGING AND ACQUISITIONS Definition of the Service Area Partnership with other CUL service center colleagues to offer new service “packages” with acquisitions and/or cataloging components. Relocate as much CUL tech services staff as practical. Retain alliance with metadata services. Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 12 Feasibility of Moving to Annex Presents risks, would generate controversy, but report recommends relocation of as many technical services staff as practical to the new service center. 1) Advantages: • Eliminate redundancies in tech services operations; achieve economies of scale • Free up central campus space now occupied by tech services staff • Facilitate collaboration with other service center staff • Simplify tech services policy formation and implementation • Parking near the building • Appealing to work in new, well appointed building 2) Disadvantages: • Added expense to transport materials and people to and from central campus • Time spent traveling back and forth is nonproductive • Cost of new building • Possible negative impact on staff morale • Loss of tech service expertise on central campus; physical isolation; impediment to communications • Difficult to attract student workers • Loss of access to collections • Political and financial barriers to consolidation of all tech services units Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes. Some tech services are already partially or fully centralized in CUL. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible, but not in isolation from other service components and not in competition with established tech services providers (e.g. OCLC) • Inside Cornell University: Join forces with Campus Store to purchase materials at greater discount. Consolidate licensing and copyright functions. • Outside Cornell University: Partner with bookseller like YBP to support cataloging and metadata needs. Partner with OCLC TECHPRO/NYLINK to supplement TECHPRO’s language and format skills. Serve as a training ground for catalogers from other universities/colleges and for future OCLC TECHPRO catalogers. Offer a tech services training program in conjunction with Syracuse University SIS/other schools/SCRLC etc. Participate in other service center offerings that have cataloging/acquisitions components. Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Market analysis is crucial. Marketing of the service center’s products is crucial. Other questions: • What organizational and budgetary support will be available to handle new demands while continuing to meet current processing demands? • How will unit library needs to customize technical services for their clienteles be addressed? • If new services fail to develop at the service center, will tech services still be relocated there? Advantages Identified by the Group See Feasibility sections Disadvantages & Risks Other than Feasibility sections: 1. CUL does not have expertise to market services. Need to invest resources in marketing in order to generate and maintain business. 2. Do not have human resources needed for this service in the long term (demographics) Synergy Creation Opportunities Service center would bring together a collection of sought-after, cutting edge services that other institutions need by may be unable to support in-house. Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 13 Potential Clients See Feasibility sections. Potential Competitors See Feasibility sections. Resource Requirements 1) 90-100 square feet per person, etc. (see report and data from Olin Uris working group) 2) High end workstations 3) Sufficient staff skill to proceed but problems with longer term due to demographic and budgetary pressures on tech services 4) More staff with training, management, mentoring and presentation skills Recommendations 1) Work toward developing and delivering focused training programs including for-credit and continuing education courses and workshops, as well as internships; in the process “grow our own talent.” 2) Transfer as much tech services staff as practical to new service center 3) Bring tech services staff in proximity with other service center staff (digital, preservation, education, collection development, storage services) and leverage partnerships/synergies with these groups E-PUBLISHING Definition of the Service Area Four components: subscription-based journal publishing service (e.g., Euclid); disciplinary repository (e.g., arXiv); institutional repository (e.g., Dspace); discipline-based portal (e.g., CogNet). Cornell already has commitments to the first three components. Feasibility of Moving to Annex Potential clientele are world-wide and much of the activity could be conducted from annex. Feasibility of Offering CUL-Wide Common Services Yes. Feasibility of Offering Services to External Clientele Possible. Could draw on common technology infrastructure; however business models for the four components could vary substantially. Another concern is the initial capitalization requirements; each of the four components require significant expenditure of resources, both start-up and ongoing, but prospects for cost recovery vary greatly Additional Data Needs Identified by the Group Further investigation should focus on business plan, initial investment, staffing and ongoing costs for each of the four components. Advantages Identified by the Group Highlights: • Subscription-based journal publishing: Location independent. Increase benefits to alternative publication methods. Reduce inefficiencies. If replicated at other institutions, CUL could reap benefits of their work. • Disciplinary repository: Location independent. Could change paradigm for scholarly communication. Could build stronger ties between library and faculty. Technology developments could be used in other systems. • Institutional repository: Location independent. Could change paradigm for scholarly communication. Preserve and broaden output of CU scholarly production. Enhance free and open access. Improves interoperability on campus and opens possibility of interoperability with universities around the world. Centralized place to store materials from various web sites. • Discipline-based portal: Location independent. One-stop shopping for finding and creating resources. Build ties with faculty and scholarly societies. Could share components and content with other e-publishing ventures. Provides model for focusing CUL resources and building on strengths Disadvantages & Risks Highlights: General: Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 14 • Without mechanism for cost recovery, any of the four components seem like a poor investment (especially 2 & 3 as currently designed). • Risk of isolation at annex. • Hard to get students to come to annex. 1. Subscription-based journal publishing: Takes resources and focus away from issues that have more centrality to CUL; beneficiaries largely outside CU. Difficult to achieve revenue-neutral model. Might alter scholarly publishing paradigm only slightly. 2. Disciplinary repository: Repo must be maintained long term; long term commitment limits CUL’s ability to reallocate resources to other projects. Little potential for cost recovery or income. Could separate some systems staff from the rest of the group. 3. Institutional repository: Limited revenue potential and steadily increasing costs. Long term commitment limits CUL’s ability to reallocate resources. Potential to create a chaotic aggregation with inconsistent quality control. Hard to manage a variety of document types. Many unknowns. Institution isn’t sensible basis for organizing repo—better if multiple institutions adopt it 4. Discipline-based portal: Not much precedent; program could fail to gain public acceptance. Takes library resources to produce something that doesn’t benefit CU over others. Would require assistance from many departments not located at annex. Synergy Creation Opportunities University press. Campus store. Print shop. Other publishers on campus. Potential Clients Not addressed directly. Potential Competitors Not addressed directly. Resource Requirements Subscription-based journal publishing: 6-12 full time staff and space/equipment for them. Storage space increasing over time. We have skill set but not necessarily the hours to devote. If want to market around the world, would need more people. Disciplinary repository: 4-6 staff and space/equipment for them. Storage space increasing over time. At least one person familiar with discipline(s). Institutional repository: No manpower estimate given. Steadily increasing storage. Have necessary human resources, would want to invest in metadata consulting, could put significant load on information organizing processes, would require regular interaction with faculty. Discipline-based portal: One to two dozen staff plus space/equipment. Resource requirements would be huge. Would need greater disciplinary expertise. Need to draw on graduate students and faculty. Recommendations • Four components could draw on common technology infrastructure but business model for each could vary substantially • Each component requires significant expenditure for start up and maintenance, but prospects for cost recovery vary greatly • Focus on business plan, initial investment, staffing, and ongoing costs for each of the four components • See “other thoughts about discipline-based repository” Consultant Team Report Summaries, 2/28/2003, Page 15 Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services Mary-Alice Lynch Visit Synopsis Cornell University Library Mary-Alice Lynch, Executive Director of NYLINK, visited CUL on January 8, 2003 for a day-long consultancy to advise us on MAS 2010 project. This document summarized the highlights of this meeting. Would other libraries allow us build their collections and sell them library services? CUL has the expertise & recognition and you may succeed if you find your niche. For example, there are new academic programs developed with no collections. Cost of tailored collections soon be challenged and CUL should be ready to play a role. NY State is changing and there are new programs in development and Cornell may play a key role in them. SUNY hired a consultant to assess repository. Another example is NYSHEI. Can small libraries continue to handle the complexities of new demands? There may be a huge market to support universities with virtual collections – no physical libraries/collections. Should we look at special collections rather than core/general collections? It may be less treating but your core collection maybe another library’s specialty. What is your sense of the market for the next few years? Promising at the director level but not at staff level. We need the sell the idea to line librarians. How about document delivery services? There is already a document delivery model laid out by Nylink with an upfront charge (no per book charges). There is a delivery service ready to use. CUL electronic delivery has a potential to complement the existing physical delivery. What is the potential of a CUL conference center? The facility will be expensive to support. However Nylink and other libraries do need such a space. Multi-day workshops and institutes would likely to work better due to challenges associated with Ithaca location (transportation and weather) for short events. Would like to see Nylink-CUL partnership. MAS 2010, February 2003, Page 1 How do you define a region? Not clear any longer and not bound by geographic location. It is not physical connections – but is defined by your relationships. How is the market readiness for metadata? It may not a stand-alone service area yet. However, is promising in DCAPS context. Metadata is expensive so will be easier to sell in a package. Advice • You do not want to compete with Nylink and other groups. Find out what are other libraries not doing or not supporting. • Integrated services such as DCAPS may be easier to sell. Packaging services is a good idea. Very few places are offering integrated services. • Regardless of size, all libraries want to digitize. It is an institutional priority. Good area to investigate. • Selling innovation is easier than selling change. • Moving people causes staff anxiety. Staff is the most important asset. It is important to make staff the center of renovation. • Do not immediately limit the market – trial-error is essential part of starting a new business (calculated risk taking). • Try to identify your niche. CUL’s strength is we have a real library with rich collections. • There is interest in digital consulting and training. It is a sellable product and Nylink is interested in collaborating. MAS 2010, February 2003, Page 2 Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services January 14, 2003 Retreat Cornell University Library The goal of the retreat was to brainstorm to investigate innovative, entrepreneurial, and efficient library services to benefit and enhance quality of learning, teaching, and research at Cornell and other institutions of higher education. Appendix A includes the list of retreat participants and Appendix B outlines the day’s program. Major Shift for Research Libraries By 2010 the research library community will be involved in mass digitization projects, as well as using resources for customization and automation of common tasks. Already now we are managing a transition, not a steady state, and the rate of change is a major uncertainty for planning. We are going to experience a shift in the structure, collections, and services of the library, including an unprecedented expansion from the delivery of subsidized services to the entrepreneurial. The first requirement is therefore to clearly distinguish the subsidized from the entrepreneurial as we discuss options and to understand both the Cornell user community and the market. Privileging the Cornell User We must offer an array of high-quality services to our own constituency before offering to outside clients. In serving the local community, CUL’s most immediate interest is to use the resources on campus to the best advantage, which includes regaining prime space and establishing core services for the user. But “privileging the user” can be problematical because of different categories of users—undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty have conflicting interests and needs. We are seeing a segmentation of customers, although the digital environment allows us to think about ways to deliver the product according to customer segment. Of course faculty want books to stay on campus, and the library needs to communicate with faculty and students about moving collections around. UVa has been successful by offering book delivery to faculty offices, so faculty are not as concerned about where the materials are stored. MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 1 It is important to keep in mind that faculty are both teachers and scholars and to pay attention to the changes in pedagogy. Teaching, learning, and research need to be supported in an integrated fashion. Discovery and retrieval is another factor—how to organize information so patrons can quickly focus on the smaller amount of material needed. Status of the Collections In the future we will perhaps not have hundreds of institutions with depth in collections, and many fewer will have specialized collections. We need to think about the role of big research institutions in that new environment. There is little mention of CUL collections in the information about MAS, and this will worry faculty. There is a sense of loss of quality—of no longer being able to build something completely. CUL needs to make a statement that our commitment to our collection strengths is as strong as ever. How do we view our collections—are they sunk costs or assets? If they are seen as “sunk costs,” we would want to manage them as an inventory in the most cost-efficient way. If they are our key assets, we need to deploy strategies to make the most out of them. Along these lines, can we make distinctions between our legacy collections, working collections, and rare collections? Some may be seen as assets, some as sunk costs. Some will be viewed as objects (physical objects), and we need to keep them in their original form for scholarship: special collections are what will survive. Having collections that map to the core curriculum is critical. For example, MIT, acting as a collaborative agent with Harvard, has relinquished some areas that it does not collect in depth—such as humanities—and collaborates with Harvard in these areas. This kind of arrangement works if you can let go of things that are not core to teaching. This is a new age, in which faculty have to take responsibility for building collections, especially in the humanities. Some are already involved in independent collection building and usually come to the library for help after they start the process. In connecting collections to services, we should think about what the services are that make the library’s collections valuable (i.e., make them assets). It is important to consider which activities the library engages in are status-critical. The library should assess which services it offers to students and faculty are truly special and which closely track institutional priorities. Articulating the Services at Cornell The attraction of the CUL proposal to the Mellon trustees was the idea of offering a group of core services in a decentralized library system. Will faculty buy it? MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 2 Will unit libraries buy it? Who are our own clients? It is important to collaborate with CIT as we envision this model. One of our first tasks should be to develop a new and common vocabulary for discussing MAS and communicating library services information to staff as well as to users. Staff will have an emotional context for the initiative, and we need to provide an organizational one with an exciting vision. Would everybody benefit? “Privileging the user” may not be the right motto for us. The real advantage is a service from which everybody benefits. MAS has to be seen as primarily for Cornell and secondarily for others. It must be built into the base of the library budget; if not, that is a risk, too. Benefits would be more and better space for staff and services, work enrichment opportunity, a professional opportunity to write for the literature and to present at conferences, and a more-efficient, more-interesting work environment. UVa has something like a circuit rider to make sure contact is maintained with the central workplace. Putting services into the big picture can evoke positivity, and it is also important to talk about the 21st-century library. When we speak with staff, we should set the change in the context of the library’s mission. When we talk with potential clients, we should focus on building trust and present MAS as a way to help other libraries. Entrepreneurial Services How do we define entrepreneurship in library terms? Are the services profitable or self-sustaining? Which services are already offered for CUL, and which are envisioned for others? This is really an organizational development project. We must first do a market analysis to begin to see what is really “do-able”—yet, if we are building a cost-recovery enterprise and it is a valuable service, we cannot know the results and pitfalls until we actually have the service operating. Feasibility. We must identify mission-critical library services—the mission is basic, but how we carry it out can adapt as times change. Whatever we do should be at the same level of excellence of Cornell as the parent institution, and we have tried to think ahead so that we will have established quality standards to apply. Good management with accountability is necessary; teams can address broader-based issues. Possible configurations. Self-sustaining services are outward looking. There are several possibilities to consider: 1. coordinate a geographic region—an assortment of small institutions; 2. see ourselves as one of the elite libraries among the 20 to 25 large institutions to exchange services; 3. set up collaboration without regard to geographic location—break away from traditional MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 3 grouping. It would be helpful to check into the activities and plans of several organizations to get an idea of what could be done and find potential collaborators: the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE), the vision for libraries in the institutional plan of the Council of Independent Colleges, and the Oberlin Group of colleges. 1. To assess the potential in serving the local geographic region, we could bring together people from regional libraries for discussion on issues and services—“take their temperature” by getting their input on how helpful MAS services might be to them (e.g., Alfred, Binghamton, Ithaca College, Wells, Hamilton, Colgate, TC3, Extension agencies). 2. If Cornell wants to be a collaborator with other large institutions with a balance of trade, it will have to answer the difficult question of whether that balance would be roughly equal. Would CUL buy similar services from others? Would we be each other’s customers? Every large library is going through the same things we are. We also have to ask what is critical to our status—those things we would not give up (e.g., particularly strong specialized collections). Are there things CUL can give up? Or can we do them differently? MIT’s D-Space is an example of the community approach—a model for creating a service that can be developed as a shared service. It also demonstrates the flexibility of offering a set of basic services and then a set of premium services. In the preservation of print resources it is likely that the investments being made by the top 25 institutions collectively would have a greater impact than one institution trying to do that as an entrepreneurial service. 3. Cornell would be a large net exporter of services to smaller institutions that don’t have the resources themselves. For example, the services that DCAPS will deliver are already in demand by other libraries. Choosing services. In deciding which services fit each of these patterns, it would be best to include those that Cornell would provide for itself, and which we could then deliver on a larger scale to others. These would more easily become self-sustaining. Our current list of functional areas is too long—and there is already significant work done in some of them. We need to reduce our list to leverage off what we already do well to keep progressing. In our selection we should go where other libraries are not (that is, they haven’t developed these services yet). A model to consider is the “joint powers agreement” in California, which offers a range of services. If such an agreement could be struck with a set of Cornell collaborators, Cornell could be the major stakeholder. We should look into collaboration with publishers to digitize those works no longer copyrighted and allow publishers to market them, as well as consider strategies around university presses. MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 4 Implementation. We should implement our model incrementally—prove that it is efficient before fully embarking on it. It is also necessary to consider an exit strategy, a contingency plan as part of risk analysis. The Expanded View First, we need to get our act together at CUL, not try anything before testing it at home. Then build our capacity. Whatever we do, we should relate our initiative to national or international activities (such as the DLF)—think about what an institution does on a local level that contributes to the national interest—and collaborate with others to agree on what needs to be done and who should do it. If we are going to give up some things in this transformation, we should stop thinking about the little changes and think big—about how we can contribute to significant change. It can begin with drafting a motivational and reward structure that will encourage success. If we demonstrate leadership, take some risks, fill some niches—we can articulate our experience as a national experience. MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 5 Appendix A: Retreat Invitees Michael A. Keller University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources Stanford University Libraries Clifford Lynch Executive Director Coalition for Networked Information Deanna Marcum President Council on Library and Information Resources Donald J. Waters Program Officer, Scholarly Communications The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Karin Wittenborg University Librarian University of Virginia Library Ann J. Wolpert Director of Libraries Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries Cornell Participants: Sarah E. Thomas University Librarian Ross Atkinson Associate University Librarian for Collections Karen Calhoun Assistant University Librarian for Technical Services MAS 2010 Project Team Member Susan Currie Director, Resources & Planning – IRIS MAS 2010 Project Team Member H. Thomas Hickerson Associate University Librarian for Information Technologies & Special Collections Anne R. Kenney Assistant University Librarian for Instruction and Learning, Research, and Information Services MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 6 Janet McCue Associate University Librarian for Life Sciences and Director, Mann Library Jean Poland Associate University Librarian for Engineering, Mathematics & Physical Sciences Oya Rieger Assistant Director for Services & Coordinator of Distributed Learning, Digital Library and Information Technology MAS 2010 Project Team Member Edward Weissman Assistant to the University Library MAS 2010 Project Team Member MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 7 Appendix B: Agenda January 14, 2003, Tuesday, 703 Olin Library 9am Opening Discussion Changes in Scholarship & Exploring New Academic Support Services Continental Breakfast Served 10:30am Review of Service Components: Regional Paper and Digital Depository, Electronic Publishing, Document Delivery, Digitization, Metadata, Cataloging & Acquisitions, Preservation and Conservation, Copyright, Conference Center noon-12:30pm Break Working Lunch Served at Noon 12:30pm 2:15pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4pm Discussion of Feasibility Questions, Part I • What are the mission critical library services that must continue to be provided locally? Which library services can be outsourced to allow us excel in what needs to be locally customized? • Who are our potential clients and what are their needs? Which services would benefit libraries most? • Who are the other service providers in these service areas? What are the collaboration opportunities? What are the advantages of locating such services at a university library? Break Discussion of Feasibility Questions, Part II • What are the risks and benefits associated with this new service approach (remote site + entrepreneurial)? Is this an economically feasible model? What would make it sustainable? • Which services should we consider phasing out? Can we continue to add new services without eliminating or downsizing some? Concluding Remarks Adjourn MAS 2010 January’03 Retreat, Page 8 Cornell University Library, Models for Academic Support (MAS 2010) Cornell University Library, Models for Academic Support (MAS 2010)  Please check this box if you will not complete the survey because it is not applicable to your organization. Collection Storage & Access Collection Storage & Access services will include a storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for the longterm storage of all types of traditional library materials, including archival and other special collections. In addition, it will offer both a physical delivery system to participating organizations for books, audio and /visual materials, microtexts, and other artifactual materials (e.g., maps, photograph collections, works of art -on- paper) and electronic delivery to clients’s desktops of book chapters, or journal articles, and fiche and film articles. Storage and delivery services will be supplied on a cost-recovery basis. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Storage and security for your organization’s less-used materials 1 2 34 5 b. A system that provides timely physical delivery to your facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special 1 2 34 5 collections, and other library materials c. An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that supplies provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables of contents from stored materials 1 2 34 5 d. Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 1 2 34 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s storage and access services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Storage and security for your organization’s less-used materials 1 2 3 4 5 NA b. Document delivery for materials your organization does not own 1 2 3 4 5 NA 4. If your organization chose to participate in a shared storage facility, which model would you prefer? (please check one answer)  Cooperative model: storage for whatever materials the partners choose to store  Collaborative model: storage for only the “best copy” of an item—keep only one copy that will be owned by all partners regardless of original ownership  Both  Neither  Do not know  Other models (please specify:_______________________________________________________) Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 1 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 5. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your storage and access needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (which service providers?_________________________)  No 6. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your storage and access needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (which service providers?_________________________)  No  Do not know Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging services aim to support and supplement the preservation, conservation, and cataloging needs functions of cultural heritage institutions. Services in this category include microfilm project management, surveying collection condition surveying, conservation treatment of rare materials, specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production), and cataloging. These services are customized to the needs of for the client organization and may range from consulting, training, and grant -writing to project management and production. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Consultation on preservation and conservation 1 2 34 5 b. Consultation on cataloging 1 2 34 5 c. Grant-writing assistance for projects involving preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging 1 2 34 5 d. Staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging 1 2 34 5 e. Microfilming project management 1 2 34 5 f. Surveying Ccollection condition surveying for preservation and conservation purposes 1 2 34 5 g. Cataloging (all formats: print, audio, visual,AV and electronic) 1 2 34 5 h. Conservation treatment of rare and unique materials 1 2 34 5 i. Specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production) j. Archival processing— - conversion of guides to Encoded Archival Description (EAD) 1 1 2 34 2 34 5 5 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s preservation, conservation, or cataloging services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 2 3. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Cataloging and/or preservation/conservation staff training 1 2 34 5 NA b. Microfilming project management 1 2 34 5 NA c. Surveying cCollection condition for preservation and conservation purposes 1 2 34 5 NA d. Cataloging (all formats: print, audio, visual,AV and electronic) 1 2 34 5 NA e. Conservation treatment of rare and unique materials 1 2 34 5 NA f. Specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production) g. Archival processing— - conversion of guides to Encoded Archival Description (EAD) 1 1 2 34 5 2 34 5 NA NA 4. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your preservation and conservation needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich service providers?________________________)  No 5. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your preservation and conservation needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich service providers?________________________)  No 6. Does your organization currently use external services to meet any of your cataloging needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich service providers?________________________)  No 7. Does your organization plan to use external services in the future to meet any of your cataloging needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich service providers?________________________)  No 8. What is your planned annual budget for conservation and preservation activities within the next two to three years? (please check one answer)  Less than $5,000  $5,000-$10,000 range  $10,000-$50,000 range  More than $50,000  Unknown Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 3 Digital Library Services Digital Library Services will offer a suite of services to support digitization projects (conversion of traditional holdings to digital format). It presents an integrated approach including digitization, metadata, technology support, and copyright clearance. Services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, needs assessment, and grant writing to project management and production. It aims to ensure the cost-effective planning, creation, management, and use of digital collections. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and microformat such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) 1 234 5 b. Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services for to making make your digital collections easier to 1 234 5 use, share, and repurpose (adapt for different uses) c. Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as oOptical cCharacter rRecognition (OCR—image to text conversion), image management databases, and choice 1 234 5 of digital library software d. Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections 1 234 5 e. Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections f. Consulting on preserving digital collections— – creating digital archives for permanent access 1 1 234 234 5 5 g. Archiving digital content for long-term preservation h. Consulting on electronic publishing—provide – assistance in creating online publications 1 234 5 1 234 5 i. Other related services (please specify): _________________________________ 1 234 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s digital library services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 3. What is the estimated number of digitization projects at your institution that may require external assistance during the next several years? (please check one answer)  One 1 a year  2-3 a year  Other: P(please specify):______________  Difficult to predict Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 4 4. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, microfiche, 1 2 3 4 5 NA etc.) b. Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services for making your digital 12345 NA collections easier to use, share, and repurpose c. Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as oOptical cCharacter rRecognition (OCR - image to text conversion), 1 2 3 4 5 NA image management databases, and choice of digital library software d. Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and 12345 NA maintaining digital collections e. Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections 1 2 3 4 5 NA f. Consultation for preserving digital collections - – creating digital archives for permanent 12345 NA access g. Archiving digital content for long-term preservation 12345 NA h. Consultation for electronic publishing provide – assistance in creating online 12345 NA publications 5. What is your planned annual budget for digital library services within the next two to three years? (please check one answer)  Less than $5,000  $5,000-$10,000 range  $10,000-$50,000 range  More than $50,000  Unknown 6. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of its digital library needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich service providers?___________________________________________________)  No 7. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of its digital library needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich service providers?___________________________________________________)  No  Unknown Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 5 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Conference & Training Center Conference & Training Center will offer a state-of-the-art facility to accommodate up to 200 people. In addition to hosting Cornell University’s training, staff development, and education programs, theis facility will also be available for to other interested parties on a for a fee basis. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Access to a training facility for my organization’s events 1 234 5 b. Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations 1 234 5 c. Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by the Cornell University Library 1 234 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization renting this conference center for any of its activities? (please check one) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. Please rate the importance of the following factors in choosing a conference and training center, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very important important a. Proximity to your organization 1 234 5 b. Rental fees 1 234 5 c. Availability of conference technologies (wireless, high- speed connections, A/Vaudiovisual equipment, computers, 1 234 5 etc.) d. Capacity of the facility 1 234 5 e. Availability of flexible and modular space 1 234 5 f. Appeal of the Finger Lakes area 1 234 5 g. Accessibility to from your region (easy transportation) 1 234 5 h. Other reasons, ( please specify) : ________________________________ 1 234 5 4. If your organization were to rent such a facility, how often would you do so? (please check one answer)  Once a year  2-3 times a year  Every other year  Other: (pPlease specify): ______________ Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 6 5. What is the likelihood of members of your organization attending training, staff development, or education sessions at this conference center? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 6. Do you have convenient access to a conference center that meets your organization’s needs? (please check one answer)  Yes (wWhich conference centers?_________________)  No General Questions 1. Do you know of any other initiatives like ours (planned or existing)? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ ________________________________________ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 2. Are there other services that Cornell University Library might provide beyond the four listed in this survey (e.g., reference and instruction)? ________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 3. Would you be available for a follow-up phone call?  Yes. (pPhone number): (__________) - _________________________  No Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 7 Thank you for participating in this survey! Please return it in the postage paid self-addressed envelope provided. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 1-888-367-8404. Cornell University Library MAS Survey, April 2003, Page 8 MAS 2010: Models for Academic Support Explore new models for academic support - restructuring of information services in higher education to better fit the needs of the 21st century Trends • Integration of digital and traditional library services • New roles in developing, delivering, and managing digital content – Publish, distribute, archive • Integration of information technologies in learning, teaching, and research – Increasing reliance on digital resources & services – Forging new CUL-wide alliances • On-site library use will continue – Intellectual commons - collaborative and social space – Aging library facilities – Need for technology equipped user spaces – Challenge in housing collections, staff, and user spaces MAS 2010 GOAL Enhance quality of support for learning, teaching, and research & explore models for efficient and economic operations •Investigate how to transform Annex into a new service center and its impact on staff and services •Assess models for providing common services for CUL for efficient & economic operations •Identify opportunities for fostering Cornell-wide alliances and synergy building •Investigate the feasibility of offering services to NYS cultural heritage institutions www.library.cornell.edu/MAS MAS 2010 Project Team PI: Sarah Thomas Project Management Group: Karen Calhoun, Susan Currie, Oya Rieger, Ed Weissman Research Support: Marty Crowe, Fiona Patrick Regional Paper Depository & Collection Development Ross Atkinson, Chair Janet McCue, John Hoffman, Pat Schafer, Elaine Engst, Yoram Szekely, John Saylor Regional Digital Depository Nancy McGovern, Chair Marcy Rosenkrantz, Bill Kehoe, Kizer Walker Document Delivery (Print & Electronic) Howard Raskin, Chair Carmen Blankinship, Julie Copenhagen, Rick Lightbody Cataloging & Acquisitions Jim LeBlanc, Chair Bill Kara, Jean Pajerek, Boodie McGinnis, Scott Wicks, Don Schnedeker Preservation and Conservation John Dean, Chair Barbara Berger Eden, Joy Paulson Electronic Publishing Tom Hickerson, Chair Kizer Walker, Ross Atkinson, Zsuzsa Koltay, Marcy Rosenkrantz, David Ruddy Digitization Joy Paulson & Barbara Berger Eden, Co-Chairs Peter Hirtle Copyright Fiona Patrick, Chair Peter Hirtle, Oya Rieger, Tracy Mitrano, Pat McClary Metadata Marty Kurth, Chair Jill Powell, Elaine Westbrooks, Bill Kehoe Conference Center Anne Kenney, Chair Lance Heidig, David Banush, Linda Bryan, Mihoko Hosoi, Jim Morris-Knower Monsanto House of the Future “The floors on which you are walking, the gently sloping walls around you, and even the ceilings are made of plastic.” Phase I: Feasibility Analysis (Nov’02-Feb’03) CUL Consultant Team Reports External Retreat Mary Alice Lynch Consultancy • Expanded and refined the research questions • Hosted Mary-Alice Lynch to discuss market prospects for potential service areas • Held a brainstorming session with external guests • Gathered data from CUL Consultant Teams • Identified service providers to assist us with Phase II Mary-Alice Lynch Visit • Selling innovation is easier than selling change • Do not compete with other service providers – Find service gaps – Identify your niche • All libraries want to digitize & there is market for digital consulting and training • Offer integrated services such as DCAPS • Make the staff the center of innovation – Moving causes anxiety Retreat Highlights • We are managing a transition, not a steady state • Our first commitment it to our collections and local constituents • Pay attention to changes in pedagogy • “Privileging the user” – ambiguous concept – User segmentation – Balance collections, users, and staff needs: win-win situation • Libraries are “lousy” at running businesses – Need a crisp business model • Forge alliances with faculty and other CU operations • Change may be scary for staff • Remember to tie your activities into national & regional ones Synopsis of Consultant Team Reports Functional Area Regional Paper Depository Collection Development Regional Digital Depository Document Delivery (Print & Electronic) Digitization Metadata Cataloging & Acquisitions Preservation and Conservation Common Services NA Certain services Annex NA Electronic Publishing Copyright Conference Center External Services Need market data Need more data Yes (integrated) Yes for certain services Yes for DCAPS integrated services Phase II: Market Analysis (March’03-July’03) Market Survey Peer Institutions Service Review DCAPS Prototype Review CUL Info Sharing • Work with the Computer Assisted Survey Team to design an external market survey • Conduct an informal survey of some peer libraries for institutional benchmarking purposes • Assess the additional information needs from Cornell and CUL staff • Network and inform regional systems and consortia of the research project • Analyze DCAPS experience & the lessons learned from its development Phase III: Reporting (Aug’03-Oct’03) Service Definition Resource Requirements Scenario Analysis Marketing Plan • Set operational priorities & performance measures based on information gathered during Phase I & II •Develop a business plan • Business description • Market analysis & marketing plan • Resource needs • Contingency plans • Risks & benefits • Report findings to The Mellon Foundation Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organizations for Cost-Effective Information Services Council of Librarians, Future Search Conference Report Cornell University Library June 11, 2003 Table of Contents GOAL AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 3 COUNCIL OF LIBRARIANS, MAS 2010 FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE SCHEDULE....................................................................................................................... 4 COUNCIL OF LIBRARIANS FUTURE SEARCH DISCUSSION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 5 QUESTION TEAM REPORTS....................................................................................... 6 INVITATION .................................................................................................................. 14 FUTURE SEARCH MEETING ATTENDEES ........................................................... 17 Goal and Methodology This document summarizes the findings of the future search session that was held on June 11, 2003 at 700 Clark Hall. The goal of the session was to engage the CUL’s unit library directors and department heads in a productive, collaborative, and participative discussion to gather opinions on various aspects of the MAS 2010 project. The brainstorming session was structured as a future search session. After an introduction by Sarah Thomas and Chet Warzinski, the group divided into three teams of 12 and members interviewed each other, taking turns, on six questions. Chairs were arranged in pairs of rows participants facing each other. Each person in each row had one question and interviewed the person sitting across from him/her. Row A remained stationary and Row B moved one seat to the right after each question. ROW A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 ROW B B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Q6 ! Q5! Q4! Q3! Q2! Q1 " move one seat right " After the interviews, each question group met to summarize their findings in three categories: Highly representative ideas, somewhat representative ideas, and unique ideas. Finally, there was a multi-voting process for Question 3, 4, 5 and the participants voted to express their priorities. Each person was given 6 votes to distributed among three questions. Council of Librarians, MAS 2010 Future Search Conference Schedule June 11, 2003, 9:30am-1:30pm 700 Clark Hall 9:30am-10:00am Arrival and Coffee 10:00am-10:20am Introduction & Overview of the Session Sarah Thomas, University Librarian Chet Warzynski, Director, Human Resources, Organizational Development 10:20am-11:15am Interviews 11:15am-11:30am Interviewers Organize Information 11:30am-12:00pm Question Teams Identify Highly, Somewhat, and Uniquely Representative Ideas 12:00pm-12:20pm Lunch Break 12:20pm-1:10pm Presentations & Lunch (5-Minute/Question) 1:10pm-1:30pm Conclusion – Next Steps Chet Warzynski Sarah Thomas Council of Librarians Future Search Discussion Interview Questions 1. What are the trends affecting higher education that are likely to have an impact on CUL? 2. In your opinion, what are the faculty and student needs that are not being addressed through the current CUL services and programs? 3. What are the new services that need to be created and promoted to address the trends in higher education? 4. Which CUL services will no longer be needed or will likely to be underutilized by 2010? 5. If CUL were to develop a suite of centralized services at a new library center in the Apple Orchards to be used by unit libraries and other Cornell divisions: (a) Which library services should be included in this center? Examples include preservation, conservation, digitization, digital archiving, etc. (b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of offering services to external clients? 6. What are the strategic collaboration opportunities at Cornell? Can you name some Cornell groups with which CUL might forge more effective alliances? What are the potential benefits of such cooperative efforts? Examples include the Cornell Press, CIT, Center for Learning and Teaching, etc. Question Team Reports 1. What are the trends affecting higher education that are likely to have an impact on CUL? Highly Representative • Budget constraints (doing more with less) • Increased use of technology has wide impact: increased production, dissemination, consumption of knowledge/information • Multidisciplinary activity • Collaboration increasing: delivering services and in teaching and learning • Greater diversity among library users: cultural experience, educational skills, age Somewhat Representative • Increased need for information literacy • Immediate access: easy, anytime, integrated (one-stop shopping) • Scholarly communication paradigm shift • Identity crisis in the library profession • Integration of library services (push out to users where they are) • Changed perception of education: "Sage on the stage becomes guide on the side" Unique • Proliferation of individually-generated collections (library becomes less important) • Tenure process change • Continual decline in humanities and social sciences study (more difficult to support) • "Overpublished": Inability to distinguish quality from mass • Value of marginalized collections • People come together to share information rather than to seek it privately (collaborative exchange) • Library as place: Shift from single point of access to information to library as everywhere (library without walls) 2. In your opinion, what are the faculty and student needs that are not being addressed through the current CUL services and programs? High Representative • Access from more locations • Education, promotion and marketing of what we currently offer • Flexible, space for varied needs (space can be converted from one type to another) • Instruction (formal) in information literacy, critical evaluation (a for-credit course offered by the Library) • Technical systems that are easy to use and intuitive Somewhat Representative • Integration of library into courses (We should be more actively involved with faculty in creating course curricula, websites & course content) • Working with faculty and graduate students on presentations and exhibits (this refers to physical space) • Support for scholarly publishing (journals, newsletters that are produced in departments) • Tailor services for different information needs and learning styles (individual, group, etc.) Unique • Put librarians where the attractors are (e.g. cafes) • Provide career information • Provide a multilingual medium for our diverse community • Embedded indicators of value objects of information • Increased focus on costs vs. benefits • Anticipation of needs of future users (be more forward thinking) • Continuing Education for adults regarding changes in technology • Depository for informal and formal publications created by faculty and students 3. What are the new services that need to be created and promoted to address the trends in higher education? Highly Representative • Information literacy: critical evaluation of sources for students; helping faculty cross disciplinary boundaries - 7 votes • Active participation in pedagogy: integration of library resources into courseware; outreach to faculty at an early stage in course development 9 votes • Library as content provider: repository, organizer, publisher - 16 votes Somewhat Representative • Delivery of information ("take the Library to users"): content development, delivery--24/7, customized, self-service; interface development to make navigation through complex information space easier - 19 votes • Support for collaborative work: space - 5 votes • Dealing with different learning styles: pedagogical differences; learning capacities; oral vs. textual - 1 vote • Promotion of the Library and its services ("another form of external relations") 4. Which CUL services will no longer be needed or will likely to be underutilized by 2010? Highly Representative • Due to the decline in use of print collection, the following services are likely to be underutilized or no longer needed. This trend will be faster in some disciplines and formats. - 19 votes • Circulation • Bindery • Print reserve • Photocopy services • Stack maintenance • Serials check-in – 3 votes • Browsing • Book repair of stacks collections (shift to special collections) • Methods of current cataloging (less in-house cataloging) – 3 votes • Traditional desk based reference (less face-to-face interaction, more chat reference, types of questions will change and there may be less questions with more time requirement) – 19 votes • Types of questions (move to more research questions) – 2 votes Somewhat Representative • Current form of catalog & cataloging will be less needed– 9 votes • Collection development (increasing reliance on institutional and discipline based collection development, cooperative collection development may be preferred, we may stop collection and rely on other institutions except the disciplines that we identify as our core collection development areas) – 4 votes • Decline in hardcover – 3 votes • Coalescence of service points Unique • There may be less of a market for high quality digitization as lower quality is cheaper and faster • Less microfilm – 1 vote • Less standard storage and more collaboration – too expensive to maintain collections • Less need for public computing • Bibliographic instruction may be underutilized if we are not careful – users may think that they already know how to find and evaluate information– 1 vote • Library-provided customized services 5. If CUL were to develop a suite of centralized services at a new library center in the Apple Orchards to be used by unit libraries and other Cornell divisions: (a) Which library services should be included in this center? Examples include preservation, conservation, digitization, digital archiving, etc. Highly Representative • Preservation – 3 votes • Conservation – 2 votes • Digitization Production Services – 9 votes • Services not requiring patron contact – 2 votes • Technical Services (except where need for integration with public service/selection) – 11 votes Somewhat Representative • Physical Storage with document delivery – 11 votes • Technology/Systems support – 3 votes • Digital archiving – 0 vote • Shipping & Receiving – 1 vote Unique • Library Administration/Admin Operations – 1 vote • Microforms with document delivery • External Relations • Public Service expertise would be needed – 5 votes 5(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of offering services to external clients? ADVANTAGES Highly Representative • Economies of Scale • Increased revenue potential & subsidy of CUL costs Somewhat Representative • CUL, as provider, defines standards – 1 vote • Enhances collaboration with other institutions Unique • Define what we know • Good PR • Eliminates redundancy in collections • Cheap real estate • Influence profession through continuing education & consulting DISADVANTAGES Highly Representative • Financial Risk • May hurt primary CUL constituency – 1 vote Somewhat Representative • Loss of CUL identity (relating to physical collections) • Ability to adjust to fluctuating demand (staff & equipment) – 1 vote • Lack of expertise in developing business models in competitive market – 2 votes Unique • Orchards/Ithaca not a good location (for books & services) – 2 votes 6. What are the strategic collaboration opportunities at Cornell? Highly Representative • Faculty • CIT/OIT • Cornell University Press • Center for Learning and Teaching Somewhat Representative • Communication and Marketing Services • Johnson Art Museum • The Cornell Store • Slide Library • CU Libraries • Computer Science • Students Unique • Support staff for faculty and departments • Alumni Affairs/Development Office • Residence Life • Operations Research Department • Cornell Theatre & Other cultural events • Administrative units such as Registrar and President’s Office • Faculty “stars” • Postdocs • Statistical support groups • Cooperative Extension • Mail Services • OSP • Concentrate on faculty – existing collaborations are enough Invitation TO: Council of Librarians FROM: Sarah Thomas RE: June 11th MAS 2010 meeting The goal of the June 11 Council of Librarians meeting is to gather your opinions on various aspects of the MAS 2010 project. The meeting will begin at 10am sharp, with coffee/tea service starting at 9:30am at 700 Clark Hall. We will serve lunch and the meeting will end at 1:30pm. The discussion group design is dependent on the number of participants. Please let Oya Rieger (oyr1, 4-5160) know if you had already confirmed your attendance but will not be able to attend. We are looking forward to discussing the following questions with you during the meeting: 1. What are the trends affecting higher education that are likely to have an impact on CUL? 2. In your opinion, what are the faculty and student needs that are not being addressed through the current CUL services and programs? 3. What are the new services that need to be created and promoted to address the trends in higher education? 4. Which CUL services will no longer be needed or will likely to be underutilized by 2010? 5. If CUL were to develop a suite of centralized services at a new library center in the Apple Orchards to be used by unit libraries and other Cornell divisions: (a) Which library services should be included in this center? Examples include preservation, conservation, digitization, digital archiving, etc. (b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of offering services to external clients? 6. What are the strategic collaboration opportunities at Cornell? Can you name some Cornell groups with which CUL might forge more effective alliances? What are the potential benefits of such cooperative efforts? Examples include the Cornell Press, CIT, Center for Learning and Teaching, etc. Please review these questions and come prepared to present your perspectives. I appended a project synopsis for background information. I am looking forward to a productive and stimulating meeting! Sarah Thomas MAS 2010 Project Synopsis We are excited to have support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for a one-year planning grant (November'02-October'03) to explore new models for academic support that can result from innovative and efficient library services. Our research has four integrated tracks: * Investigate how to transform the Annex Library into a new service center that would include several library operations and how this new operation would affect staff and services. * Assess models for providing common library services for CUL for efficient & economic operations; explore which services would lend themselves to be centralized services. * Identify opportunities for fostering Cornell-wide alliances and synergy building. * Investigate the feasibility of offering services to New York State cultural heritage institutions (libraries, archives, museums, historical societies). At the heart of our investigation is the identification of mission-critical library services, in order to understand better what functions and staff libraries can relocate and also what libraries can delegate to others. Our two primary motivations are to relieve the spatial constrictions our libraries are experiencing and to use the analysis of what to relocate as the impetus for developing new structures and entrepreneurial roles for libraries. In conceptualizing this physical restructuring, we intend not only to regain prime space on campus for users, but also to define and design an entrepreneurial service center that can assist smaller libraries, university presses, publishers, and others. Our goal is to explore how to achieve better utilization of space, allocate university resources more effectively, and, ultimately, improve information access for scholars and students. Please refer to the project proposal for more information about the objectives: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/proposal.pdf During December 2002-February 2003, CUL MAS 2010 Consultant Teams analyzed ten service areas to assess the feasibility of locating these services to a new library center, providing common services for CUL and Cornell, creating synergy among Cornell service providers, and offering services for external clients. A synopsis of the consultant teams report can be found at: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/Synopses.pdf These reports have been fundamental in shaping our research, especially in identifying potential common service areas. Based on the recommendations of the MAS 2010 Consultant Teams, we are in the process of administering a market survey to 1,000 New York State libraries, archives, historical societies, and museums to gauge their interest in buying services from CUL. The web-based survey is at: http://cast.cornell.edu/mas/survey.cfm (User name: 9901; Password: 9901). The project website includes information about the project methodology as well as several interim reports: http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/ Please see the attached Power Point presentation for a quick project overview, including the recommendations of the CUL 2010 Consultant Teams. Contact Oya Rieger (oyr1, 4-5160) if you have any questions about the meeting or need clarifications on any of the future search questions. Future Search Meeting Attendees June 11, 2003 10:00 am – 1:30 pm 1. Scott Wicks 2. Elaine Engst 3. Sarah Thomas 4. Barbara B. Eden 5. Jane McCue 6. Jean Poland 7. Edward Weissman 8. Zsuzsa Koltay 9. Linda Westlake 10. Peter Hirtle 11. Terry Kristensen 12. Oya Rieger 13. Marty Kurth 14. Martha Walker 15. Susan Currie 16. Karen Calhoun 17. Pat Court 18. Lee Cartmill 19. Jim LeBlanc 20. Nancy McGovern 21. David Block 22. Ross Atkinson 23. Marcy Rosenkrantz 24. John Dean 25.Anne Kenney 26. Thomas Hahn 27. Oliver Habicht 28. Allen Riedy 29. Eric Acree 30. Kathy Chiang Cornell University Library Models for Academic Support (MAS 2010) Market Survey July 2003 Cornell University Library Section Table of Contents Page 1. Purpose.........................................................................................................1 2. Methodology..................................................................................................1 Table 1. Response Outcome and Response Rates ................................2 3. Executive Summary .....................................................................................2 4. Demographics ................................................................................................4 Table 2. Distribution of Responses by Library Type ................................4 Table 3. Distribution of Non-Responses (services not Applicable) by Library Type..........................................................................4 5. Collection Storage & Access .........................................................................6 Chart 1. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Storage and Access Services .........................................................................6 Chart 2. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Storage and Access Services.....................................................7 Table 4. Percent of Organizations Interested in Storage and Access Services, by Library Type ...........................................................8 6. Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging .................................................8 Chart 3. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services......................................9 Chart 4. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services ............ 10 Table 5. Percent of Organizations Interested in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services, by Library Type ......... 11 7. Digital Library Services................................................................................ 12 Chart 5. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Digital Library Services.................................................................................... 12 Chart 6. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Digital Library Services............................................................. 13 Table 6. Percent of Organizations Interested in Digital Library Services, by Library Type ......................................................... 14 8. Conference & Training Center..................................................................... 15 Chart 7. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Conference And Training Center Services................................................... 15 Chart 8. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Conference and Training Center Services................................ 16 Table 7. Percent of Organizations Interested in Conference and Training Center Services, by Library Type ............................... 17 9. General Questions ...................................................................................... 18 10. Summary Statistics..................................................................................... 19 Table 8. Percent of Organizations Interested in Services……………… Table 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds……. 17 Chart 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds……. 17 Chart 10: Representation of Cultural Institution Types…….. 17 11. Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 26 12. Cover Letter .............................................................................................. 34 1. Purpose The purpose of the study is to gather data to support the assessment and planning of an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center. 2. Methodology Objectives The specific objectives of this research study were to solicit information from New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies to determine if there is a need and interest for a new library center that has the potential to serve both Cornell University and regional organizations, to identify innovations that can enhance the Cornell services while also minimizing costs. The survey covers the following areas: Collection storage and access Preservation, conservation, and cataloging Digital library services Conference and training center Questionnaire Development The questionnaire was developed and tested by the MAS 2010 Project Management Group. Sampling A complete list of 1127 New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies was compiled by the MAS 2010 Project Management Group as follows: Combined 2760 entries from American Library Directory and 600 from CareerSearch Remove duplicate listings Remove public library branches (378) and public libraries with < 75,000 volumes (600) Remove college/university division/branches of libraries (238) Remove private law firms, hospitals, prisons (500) Email contact addresses for survey follow-up messages were located via directory listings and Internet sites for 80% (902) survey contacts. Methodology and Timeline This survey was conducted as a multi-mode survey (mail and web). It was administered by Cornell’s Survey Research Institute (www.survey.cornell.edu). Individuals from New York State libraries, archives, museums and historical societies were sent an announcement mailing with a paper version of ● Cornell University Library ● Page 1 ● the survey. The announcement letter included an internet link (URL) to the web version of the survey. Below is the timeline of the survey administration: 05/01/2003 - N=1094 announcement letters with questionnaires were mailed out 05/02/2003 - N=33 additional announcement letters with questionnaires were mailed out 05/09/2003 - First reminder e-mail sent to all non-respondents who had e-mail addresses 05/27/2003 - Second reminder e-mail sent to all non-respondents who had e-mail addresses 05/30/2003 - Third and final reminder e-mail sent to all non-respondents who had e-mail addresses 06/11/2003 – Data collection ended. As seen in Table 1, The final response rate was 43.9%. Table 1. Response Outcome and Response Rates Total Mailed Questionnaires A. Complete B. Services Not Applicable C. Bad Numbers/e-mail addresses D. No Response Response Rates Response Rate (as a % of Total Valid Mailings) Completion Rate (as a % of Total Valid Responses) 1127 253 197 102 575 43.9% 56.2% 3. Executive Summary Based on a list of 1127, New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies were contacted to determine if there is a need and interest for an innovative, entrepreneurial library service center that has the potential to serve both Cornell University and regional organizations. Response Rates and Demographics • A total of 253 web-based surveys were completed • The final response rate was 43.9% of the total valid mailings. This response rate includes those who responded with ‘Services Not Applicable’ • The final completion rate was 56.2% of the total responses • The majority of organizations who completed the survey were Historical Society Libraries (39.5%), followed by College and University Libraries (35.6%). Collection Storage and Access Access services were more attractive than storage services. • More than half of all respondents (128 organizations, 50.6%) were interested in the electronic (or digital) document delivery system, and 94 organizations (37.2%) were interested in a system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for all library materials ● Cornell University Library ● Page 2 ● • The likelihood of organizations allocating funding to one or more of the storage and access services varied by type of service; • The questions about physical and electronic document delivery have been interpreted as independent services -- not necessarily within the context of a storage facility. Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging The top three services of interest were: • consultation on preservation and conservation • staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging • conservation treatment of rare and unique materials • Of those interested, the percent who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to the services ranged from over 13% to almost 20% Digital Library Services Many organizations showed interest in five out of the eight services offered, including • digitizing materials • training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections • assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections • consultation for preserving digital collections • archiving digital content for long-term preservation • Of those interested, more than 20% responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to the services Conference and Training Center Services Many organizations showed interest in two of the three services offered, including • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by Cornell • Of those interested, the percent who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to the services ranged from 10% to over 30%. ● Cornell University Library ● Page 3 ● 4. Demographics To determine whether there were differences in response patterns by library type, we categorized organizations into five major groups: CC-Libsys, College and University, Historical Society, Medical/Special/Government, and Public Library, where each group consisted of a collection of sub-categories, as seen in Table 2a. The majority of organizations were Historical Society Libraries (39.5%), followed by College and University Libraries (35.6%). Table 2. Distribution of Responses by Library Type LIBRARY CATEGORY TYPES INCLUDED CC-LIBSYS COUNCIL/CONSORTIUM LIBRARY-SYSTEM COLLEGE-AND- UNIVERSITY COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - 2 Year COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - LAW COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS HISTORICAL-SOCIETY HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM ART-AND-MUSIC MEDICAL-SPECIALGOVERNMENT SPECIAL MEDICAL SPECIAL - Newspaper SPECIAL - RELIGIOUS STATE-GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LIBRARY PUBLIC LIBRARY OVERALL *Total does not add up to 100% because of rounding and one missing response Number 14 5 9 90 59 26 1 3 1 100 40 46 14 31 22 2 1 2 3 1 17 17 252 Percent of Total 5.6% 2.0% 3.6% 35.6% 23.3% 10.3% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4% 39.5% 15.8% 18.2% 5.5% 12.3% 8.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 6.7% 6.7% 99.7%* ● Cornell University Library ● Page 4 ● Table 3 shows the number and the percent of library types, of those who responded that the services described in the survey were not applicable to their organization. Of all those who believed that the services were not applicable to their organization, a large percent belonged to Historical Society Libraries (34.5%), followed by Medical/Special/Government Libraries (27.9%), and by Public Libraries (19.3%). Table 3. Distribution of Non-Responses (Services not Applicable) by Library Type CC-LIBSYS COLLEGE-ANDUNIVERSITY HISTORICAL-SOC MEDICAL-SPECIALGOVT PUBLIC LIBRARY OVERALL LIBRARY TYPE COUNCIL/CONSORTIUM LIBRARY-SYSTEM COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - 2 Year COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY - LAW COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE-AND-UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM ART-AND-MUSIC SPECIAL MEDICAL SPECIAL - Newspaper SPECIAL - RELIGIOUS STATE-GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LIBRARY *Total does not add up to 100% because of rounding and one missing response Number 10 8 2 25 9 11 1 3 1 68 15 48 5 55 42 0 4 2 5 2 38 38 196 % 5.1% 3.2% 0.8% 12.7% 3.6% 4.3% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4% 34.5% 5.9% 19.0% 2.0% 27.9% 16.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 2.0% 0.8% 19.3% 15.0% 99.5%* ● Cornell University Library ● Page 5 ● 5. Collection Storage and Access Respondents were asked about their organizations’ interest in four different collection storage and access services, including a storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for the storage of all types of library materials, as well as the cold storage of nitrate and acetate films, a physical delivery system to participating organizations for books, audio and visual materials, microtexts, and other artifactual materials, and an electronic delivery system to clients’ desktops of book chapters, journal articles, tables of contents, and fiche and film materials, with storage and delivery services to be supplied on a cost-recovery basis. Of the four service areas, the most attractive were the access services. More than half of all respondents (128 organizations, 50.6%) displayed interest in the electronic (or digital) document delivery system. A system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for all library materials was also found to be attractive, with 94 organizations (37.2%) showing interest (see Chart 1). The two storage services evinced lesser interest: only 53 organizations (20.9%) showed interest in storage and security for less-used materials, and 33 organizations (13%) showed interest in cold storage of nitrate and acetate films. Chart 1. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Storage and Access Services Number of Organizations 140 128 120 94 100 80 53 60 40 33 20 0 Storage and Security Timely Physical Delivery Electronic Document Delivery Cold Storage ● Cornell University Library ● Page 6 ● When asked about the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s storage and access services, the percent of organizations that responded positively varied by type of service (see Chart 2). Almost one-fourth (24.2%) of the organizations that showed interest in the cold storage of nitrate and acetate films believed there was a likelihood of their organization allocating funding to this type of service. Interestingly, although the largest number of organizations showed interest in electronic document delivery, only a small percent of these (4.7%) believed there was a likelihood of their organization allocating funding to this type of service. Of those organizations interested in storage and security services, 11.3% responded positively to the likelihood of their organizations allocating funding to this service if it were provided by Cornell, and 8.5% percent of organizations were likely to allocate funding to the timely physical delivery of books and materials to their organization. Chart 2. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Storage and Access Services (of those who are interested in each service) 24.2% 25 20 Percent of Organizations 15 11.3% 10 5 8.5% 4.7% 0 Storage and Security Timely Physical Delivery Electronic Document Delivery Cold Storage ● Cornell University Library ● Page 7 ● There were differences in the level of interest in storage and access services by library type as well as by service type. An electronic delivery system and timely physical delivery for materials were the most attractive services for all five types of libraries. The cold storage of films was the least attractive service; none of the Public libraries or the CC/Library Systems was interested in this service. Historical Society Libraries were the most interested in this service (17%), followed by Medical/Special/Government Libraries (see Table 4). Table 4. Percent of Organizations Interested in Storage and Access Services, by Library type Storage and Security Timely Physical Delivery Electronic Document Delivery Cold Storage CC/Library System % 0 29 College & University % 22 44 Historical Society % 25 27 Medical/ Special/Gov % 19 52 36 54 45 0 11 17 61 16 Public Library % 12 35 53 0 6. Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Respondents were asked about their organization’s interest in ten different types of preservation and cataloging services, which aim to support and supplement the preservation, conservation, and cataloging functions of cultural heritage institutions. Services include microfilm project management, surveying collection conditions, conservation treatment of rare materials, specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production), and cataloging, with these services customized for the client organization and ranging from consulting, training, and grant writing to project management and production. As seen in Chart 3, the top three services of interest to respondents were consultation on preservation and conservation, staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging, and conservation treatment of rare and unique materials: the number and percent of organizations interested in these services was 125 (49%), 121 (48%), and 119 (47%), respectively. ● Cornell University Library ● Page 8 ● Chart 3. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services 140 125 120 121 114 119 Number of Organizations 100 80 72 60 96 67 51 81 70 40 20 0 Preservation Consulting Cataloging Consultation Grant-writing Assistance Staff Training Microfilming Project Mgmt Surveying Collection Condition Cataloging (all formats) Conservation Treatment Specialized Preservation Archival Processing A total of 114 organizations (45%) were also interested in grant-writing assistance for projects involving preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging. Microfilming project management appeared to be of least interest, with only 51 organizations (20.2%) displaying interest in this service. Of those interested in the ten different types of preservation, conservation, and cataloging services, the percent who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to these services ranged from over 13% to almost 20%. The largest percent of those interested who responded positively to a service was for microfilming project management (19.6%) and the smallest percent was for cataloging services (13.4%). ● Cornell University Library ● Page 9 ● Chart 4. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services (of those who are interested in each service) Percent of Organizations 20 19.6% 18 16.8% 16.5% 16 15.3% 15.8% 14 17.3% 17.1% 14.6% 15.1% 13.4% 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Preservation Consulting Cataloging Consultation Grant-writing Assistance Staff Training Microfilming Project Mgmt Surveying Collection Condition Cataloging (all formats) Conservation Treatment Specialized Preservation Archival Processing ● Cornell University Library ● Page 10 ● As seen in Table 5, the percent of organizations interested in the ten types of preservation, conservation and cataloging services varied considerably by type of organization. For all ten types of services, the largest percent of libraries to display interest were Historical Society Libraries, followed by Medical/Special/ Government Libraries and College and University Libraries. Public Libraries showed interest in seven of the ten services, and CC/Library System Libraries showed interest in only six of the ten services. Table 5. Percent of Organizations Interested in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services, by Library type Preservation Consulting Cataloging Consultation Grant-writing Assistance Staff Training Microfilming Project Mgmt Surveying Collection Condition Cataloging (all formats) Conservation Treatment Specialized Preservation Archival Processing CC/Library System % 50.0 21.4 28.6 42.9 0.0 College & University % 40.0 17.8 31.1 41.1 12.2 Historical Society % 60.0 42.0 58.0 56.0 29.0 Medical/ Special/Gov % 41.9 35.5 48.4 41.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 35.7 14.3 0.0 31.1 17.8 33.3 26.7 28.9 46.0 42.0 61.0 43.0 34.0 41.9 29.0 51.6 29.0 29.0 Public Library % 52.9 0.0 47.1 52.9 35.3 17.6 0.0 41.2 17.6 0.0 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 11 ● 7. Digital Library Services Respondents were asked about their organization’s interest in digital library services, which offer a suite of services to support digitization projects (conversion of traditional holdings to digital format). It presents an integrated approach including digitization, metadata, technology support, and copyright clearance. Services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, needs assessment, and grant writing to project management and production. It aims to ensure the cost-effective planning, creation, management, and use of digital collections. As seen in Chart 5, more than 100 organizations (over 40%) displayed interest in five of the eight services, which were: digitizing materials, training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections, assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections, consultation for preserving digital collections, and archiving digital content for long-term preservation. Metadata consulting (which includes design, development, or production services to make digital collections easier to use and share) also evinced substantial interest, with 99 organizations (39.1%) of organizations responding positively. Chart 5. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Digital Library Services 120 110 108 113 110 110 99 100 85 80 75 Number of Organizations 60 40 20 0 Digitizing Materials Metadata Consulting Technology Consulting Training/Internship Grant Writing Assistance Digital Collections Preservation Consulting Digital Content Archiving Electronic Publishing Consulting Fewer organizations were interested in technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition, image management databases, and choice of digital library software (85 organizations; 33.6%), and in consulting on electronic publishing (75 organizations; 29.6%). ● Cornell University Library ● Page 12 ● Of those interested in the eight different types of digital library services, more than 20% responded positively to the likelihood of their organization allocating funding to these services. The percent of organizations who responded positively did not vary greatly, and ranged from 25.9% for technology consulting to 19.1% for consulting on preserving digital collections (see Chart 6). Chart 6. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Digital Library Services (of those who are interested in each service) 30 25.3% 25.9% 25 21.8% 20 22.2% 20.4% 19.1% 21.8% 22.7% Percent of Organizations 15 10 5 0 Digitizing Materials Metadata Consulting Technology Consulting Training/Internship Grant Writing Assistance Digital Collections Preservation Consulting Digital Content Archiving Electronic Publishing Consulting ● Cornell University Library ● Page 13 ● Table 6 shows the percent of organizations interested in the eight types of digital library services by type of organization. A larger percent of Public libraries, College and University Libraries, and Historical Society Libraries were interested in the eight types of digital library services than CC/Library System Libraries and Medical/Special/Government Libraries. Table 6. Percent of Organizations Interested in Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Services, by Library type CC/Library System % Digitizing Materials 28.6 Metadata consulting 35.7 Technology Consulting Training/Internship 28.6 21.4 Grant Writing Assistance 14.3 Digital Collections Preservation Consulting 21.4 Digital Content Archiving 14.3 Electronic Publishing Consulting 14.3 College & University % 46.7 44.4 40.0 46.7 48.9 46.7 47.8 32.2 Historical Medical/ Society Special/Gov %% 43.0 38.7 38.0 35.5 31.0 29.0 44.0 32.3 46.0 38.7 46.0 35.5 46.0 35.5 31.0 32.3 Public Library % 52.9 29.4 29.4 52.9 47.1 47.1 47.1 17.6 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 14 ● 8. Conference and Training Center Respondents were asked about their organization’s interest in services offered by a Conference & Training Center, which will offer a state-of-the-art facility to accommodate up to 200 people. In addition to hosting Cornell University’s training, staff development, and education programs, the facility will be available to other interested parties for a fee. As seen in Chart 6, a substantial number of respondents showed interest in two of the three services offered, namely, attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations (107 organizations, 42.3%), and attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by Cornell (105 organizations, 41.5%). The third service, which was access to a training facility for the organization’s events, was of interest to only 26 organizations (10.3%). Chart 7. Number of Organizations Showing Interest in Conference and Training Center Services Number of Organizations 120 107 105 100 80 60 40 26 20 0 Access to a training facility Attending training sessions Attending training sessions offered by other organizations offered by Cornell ● Cornell University Library ● Page 15 ● Chart 7 shows the percent of respondents who responded positively to the likelihood of their organization’s allocating funding to Cornell’s Conference and Training Center Services. OF those interested in each service, 34.6% thought their organization was likely to allocate funding to access to a training facility. The percent of respondents who believed their organization was likely to allocate funding to attending training sessions offered by other organizations, and to attending training sessions offered by Cornell, was 11.2% and 10.5%, respectively. Chart 8. Percent of Organizations Likely to Allocate Funding to Conference and Training Center Services (of those who are interested in each service) 34.6% 35 30 25 Percent of Organizations 20 15 11.2% 10.5% 10 5 0 Access to a training facility Attending training sessions Attending training sessions offered by other organizations offered by Cornell ● Cornell University Library ● Page 16 ● The percent of organizations interested in Conference and Training Center Services, by library type, varied only slightly (see Table 6). The largest percent of those interested in attending training sessions offered by other organizations was Public Libraries (47.1%), and the largest percent of those interested in attending training sessions offered by Cornell was College and University Libraries (42.2%) and Historical Society Libraries (42.0%). Table 7. Percent of Organizations Interested in Conference and Training Center Services, by Library Type CC/Library System % Access to a training facility 7.1 Attending training sessions offered by other organizations 35.7 Attending training sessions offered by Cornell 35.7 College & University % 14.4 41.1 42.2 Historical Society % 9.0 Medical/ Special/Gov % 6.5 43.0 41.9 42.0 38.7 Public Library % 5.9 47.1 41.2 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 17 ● 9. General Questions • As indicated in the findings and notes in free-text question fields, there is significant interest in consulting and training programs both in traditional and digital services. • Only 18 out of 126 responses to the question “Do you know any other initiatives like ours?” included project names. We are already aware of these initiatives and did not uncover any unknown ones. • There were 38 responses to the question “Are there other services that CUL might provide?” The highest frequency is 8 for virtual reference services, followed by 5 for library instruction (information literacy). • There were several positive comments about the Cornell University Library taking the lead in looking at the “big picture.” ● Cornell University Library ● Page 18 ● 10. Summary Statistics Table 8. Number and Percentage of Organizations Interested in Services Percent Number of Total COLLECTION ACCESS AND STORAGE Organizations interested in • Storage and security for less-used materials • A system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special collections, and other library materials • An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables of contents from stored materials • Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 53 94 128 33 21% 37% 51% 13% Organizations likely to allocate funding to one or more of Cornell's storage and access services 10 4% Organizations satisfied with the results they are currently achieving in • Storage and security for less used materials • Document delivery for materials the organization does not own 69 27% 102 40% Organizations preferring • A cooperative model of shared storage • A collaborative model of shared storage • Both models of shared storage 71 28% 27 11% 34 13% Organizations currently using external services for storage and access 43 17% Organizations planning to use external service providers for storage and access in the future 38 15% COLLECTION ACCESS AND STORAGE Organizations interested in • Storage and security for less-used materials • A system that provides timely physical delivery to the facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special collections, and other library materials • An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables of contents from stored materials • Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 53 94 128 33 21% 37% 51% 13% Organizations likely to allocate funding to one or more of Cornell's storage and access services 10 4% ● Cornell University Library ● Page 19 ● Organizations satisfied with the results they are currently achieving in • Storage and security for less used materials • Document delivery for materials the organization does not own Percent Number of Total 69 27% 102 40% Organizations preferring • A cooperative model of shared storage • A collaborative model of shared storage • Both models of shared storage 71 28% 27 11% 34 13% Organizations currently using external services for storage and access 43 17% Organizations planning to use external service providers for storage and access in the future • Organizations currently using external service providers to meet any of their cataloging needs • Organizations planning to use external service providers in the future to meet any of their cataloging needs 38 65 75 15% 26% 30% Planned annual budget for conservation and preservation activities within the next two to three years • Less than $5,000 • $5,000-$10,000 • $10,000-$50,000 • More than $50,000 131 52% 37 15% 26 10% 16 6% DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Organizations interested in • Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) • Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services to make your digital collections easier to use, share, and repurpose (adapt for different uses) • Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR-image to text conversion), image management databases, and choice of digital library software • Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections • Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections • Consulting on preserving digital collections-creating digital archives for permanent access • Archiving digital content for long-term preservation • Consulting on electronic publishing-providing assistance in creating online publications • Organizations likely to allocate funding to one or more of Cornell's Cornell's digital library services 110 99 85 108 113 110 110 75 29 43% 39% 34% 43% 45% 43% 43% 30% 11% ● Cornell University Library ● Page 20 ● Organizations that estimate the number of digitization projects they may require external assistance with during the next several years as • 1 a year • 2-3 a year Percent Number of Total 52 21% 27 11% Organizations satisfied with the results they are currently achieving in • Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) • Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services for making your digital collections easier to use, share, and repurpose • • Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR - image to text conversion), image management databases, and choice of digital library software • Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital collections • Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections • Consultation for preserving digital collections – creating digital archives for permanent access • Archiving digital content for long-term preservation • Consultation for electronic publishing - providing assistance in creating online publications 36 19 22 16 17 7 6 11 14% 8% 9% 6% 7% 3% 2% 4% Organizations with planned annual budget for digital library services within the next two to three years of • Less than $5,000 • $5,000-$10,000 • $10,000-$50,000 • More than $50,000 98 39% 18 7% 14 6% 8 3% Organizations currently using external service providers to meet any of their digital library needs 26 10% Organizations planning to use external service providers in the future to meet any of their digital library needs 34 13% CONFERENCE AND TRAINING CENTER Organizations interested in • Access to a training facility for the organization’s events • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations • Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by the Cornell University Library • Organizations likely to rent Cornell’s conference center for any of their activities 26 197 105 15 10% 78% 42% 6% Organizations that consider the following factors important in renting a conference center for any of their activities: • Proximity to your organization (distance) ● Cornell University Library ● Page 21 ● 207 82% Percent Number of Total • Rental fees • Availability of conference technologies wireless, high-speed connections, audiovisual equipment, computers, etc.) • Capacity of the facility • Availability of flexible and modular space • Appeal of the Finger Lakes area • Accessibility from your region via different modes of transportation (ease of transportation) Organizations which, if they were to rent such a facility, the number of times they would do so • Once a year • 2-3 times a year • Every other year Organizations whose members are likely to attend training, staff development, or education sessions at such a conference center Organizations that have convenient access to a conference center that meets their needs Organizations available for a follow-up phone call 209 83% 163 120 79 42 Number 64% 47% 31% 17% Percent of Total 171 68% 48 19% 11 4% 28 11% 75 30% 137 54% 140 55% Table 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds by Interested Organizations COLLECTION ACCESS AND STORAGE Funds Interested Storage 8 53 Physical document delivery 6 94 Digital document delivery 8 128 Cold storage of films PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AND CATALOGING Preservation and conservation consulting 6 Funds 21 33 Interested 125 Consultation on cataloging Grant-writing assistance 11 72 18 114 Preservation, conservation, and cataloging training Microfilming project management Collection condition surveying Cataloging Rare materials conservation 20 10 14 9 18 121 51 96 67 119 Specialized preservation Archival processing 14 81 12 70 DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Funds Interested Digitizing materials 24 110 Metadata consulting and design 25 99 Technology consulting 22 85 Training and internship 24 108 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 22 ● Assistance in grant writing Digital preservation consulting Archiving digital content Consulting on electronic publishing CONFERENCE AND TRAINING CENTER Access to a training facility Attending training by others Attending CUL training Likely to rent the conference center 23 21 24 17 Funds 9 12 11 11 113 110 110 75 Interested 26 107 105 15 Response rate: 44%, 255 completed surveys, and 199 “not applicable” responses ● Cornell University Library ● Page 23 ● Chart 9: Likelihood of Allocating Funds 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 allocate funds interested MAS 2010 Market Survey ● Cornell University Library ● Page 24 ● Number of Institutions COLLECTION STORAGE AND ACCESS Physical document delivery Cold storage of films Preservation and conservation consulting Grant-writing assistance Microfilming project management Cataloging Specialized preservation DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Metadata consulting & design Training and internship Digital preservation consulting Consulting on electronic publishing Access to a training facility Attending CUL training It is important to interpret these numbers by considering the distribution of institution types in the overall population. As indicated in the following chart, the “Historical Society, Museum, and Archives” category constitutes the majority of the respondents (47%). Chart 10: Representation of Cultural Institution Types Representation of Institution Types in Overall Population and Response Rate 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Percentage Consortia & Systems College & University Historical Society, Museum, Archives Special Libraries Public Libraries Institution Types Population Ratio Response Ratio 11. Questionnaire Cornell University Library, Models for Academic Support (MAS 2010) Please check this box if you will not complete the survey because it is not applicable to your organization. Collection Storage & Access Collection Storage & Access services will include a storage facility with state-of-the-art environmental conditions for the long-term storage of all types of traditional library materials, including archival and other special collections. In addition, it will offer both a physical delivery system to participating organizations for books, audio and visual materials, microtexts, and other artifactual materials (e.g., maps, photograph collections, works of art on paper) and electronic delivery to clients’ desktops of book chapters, journal articles, and fiche and film articles. Storage and delivery services will be supplied on a cost-recovery basis. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Storage and security for your organization’s less-used materials 1 2 34 5 b. A system that provides timely physical delivery to your facility for books, journals, audiovisual material, special 1 2 34 5 collections, and other library materials c. An electronic (or digital) document delivery system that provides access to book chapters, journal articles, and tables 1 2 34 5 of contents from stored materials d. Cold storage of nitrate and acetate films 1 2 34 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s storage and access services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely Likely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very 5 3. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Storage and security for your organization’s less-used materials 1 2 3 4 5 NA b. Document delivery for materials your organization does not own 1 2 3 4 5 NA ● Cornell University Library ● Page 26 ● 4. If your organization chose to participate in a shared storage facility, which model would you prefer? (please check one answer) Cooperative model: storage for whatever materials the partners choose to store Collaborative model: storage for only the “best copy” of an item—keep only one copy that will be owned by all partners regardless of original ownership Both Neither Do not know Other models (please specify:____________________________________________________________) 5. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your storage and access needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?___________________________________________________________) No 6. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your storage and access needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?___________________________________________________________) No Do not know Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging Preservation, Conservation, and Cataloging services aim to support and supplement the preservation, conservation, and cataloging functions of cultural heritage institutions. Services include microfilm project management, surveying collection condition, conservation treatment of rare materials, specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production), and cataloging. These services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, training, and grant writing to project management and production. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) a. Consultation on preservation and conservation b. Consultation on cataloging c. Grant-writing assistance for projects involving preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging d. Staff training for preservation, conservation, and/or cataloging e. Microfilming project management f. Surveying collection condition for preservation and conservation purposes Not at all interested 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Very interested 34 5 34 5 34 5 34 34 34 5 5 5 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 27 ● g. Cataloging (all formats: print, audio, visual, and electronic) h. Conservation treatment of rare and unique materials i. Specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production) j. Archival processing—conversion of guides to Encoded Archival Description (EAD) 1 1 1 1 2 34 2 34 2 34 2 34 5 5 5 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s preservation, conservation, or cataloging services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Cataloging and/or preservation/conservation staff training 1 2 34 5 NA b. Microfilming project management 1 2 34 5 NA c. Surveying collection condition for preservation and conservation purposes d. Cataloging (all formats: print, audio, visual, and electronic) e. Conservation treatment of rare and unique materials f. Specialized preservation (e.g., sound recordings, video production) g. Archival processing—conversion of guides to Encoded Archival Description (EAD) 1 1 1 1 1 2 34 5 2 34 5 2 34 5 2 34 5 2 34 5 NA NA NA NA NA 4. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your preservation and conservation needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 5. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your preservation and conservation needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 6. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of your cataloging needs? (please check one answer) ● Cornell University Library ● Page 28 ● Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 7. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of your cataloging needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?_____________________________________________________________) No 8. What is your planned annual budget for conservation and preservation activities within the next two to three years? (please check one answer) Less than $5,000 $5,001-$10,000 $10,001-$50,000 More than $50,000 Unknown DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES Digital Library Services will offer a suite of services to support digitization projects (conversion of traditional holdings to digital format). It presents an integrated approach including digitization, metadata, technology support, and copyright clearance. Services are customized for the client organization and may range from consulting, needs assessment, and grant writing to project management and production. It aims to ensure the cost-effective planning, creation, management, and use of digital collections. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and microformat such as microfilm, microfiche, etc.) 1 234 5 b. Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services to make your digital collections easier 1 234 5 to use, share, and repurpose (adapt for different uses) c. Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR—image to text conversion), image management databases, and 1 234 5 choice of digital library software d. Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and maintaining digital 1 2 3 4 5 collections e. Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections 1 234 5 f. Consulting on preserving digital collections—creating digital archives for permanent access 1 234 5 g. Archiving digital content for long-term preservation 1 234 5 h. Consulting on electronic publishing—providing assistance in creating online publications 1 234 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 29 ● 5 assistance in creating online publications i. Other related services (please specify):_________________________________ 1 234 5 2. What is the likelihood of your organization’s allocating funding to one or more of Cornell’s digital library services? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 3. What is the estimated number of digitization projects at your institution that may require external assistance during the next several years? (please check one answer) 1 a year 2-3 a year Other (please specify):______________ Difficult to predict 4. How satisfied are you with the results your organization is now achieving, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 5 being very satisfied? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very Not satisfied satisfied applicable a. Digitizing materials (text-based, pictorial, and micro-format such as microfilm, 12345 NA microfiche, etc.) b. Metadata consulting, design, development, or production services for making your digital 1 2 3 4 5 NA collections easier to use, share, and repurpose c. Technology consulting for making decisions on issues such as optical character recognition (OCR - image to text conversion), image 12345 NA management databases, and choice of digital library software d. Training and internship opportunities in various processes involved in creating and 12345 NA maintaining digital collections e. Assistance in grant writing to secure funding for creating digital collections 1 2 3 4 5 NA f. Consultation for preserving digital collections - creating digital archives for permanent access 1 2 3 4 5 NA g. Archiving digital content for long-term preservation 12345 NA h. Consultation for electronic publishing - providing assistance in creating online 12345 NA publications ● Cornell University Library ● Page 30 ● 5. What is your planned annual budget for digital library services within the next two to three years? (please check one answer) Less than $5,000 $5,001-$10,000 $10,001-$50,000 More than $50,000 Unknown 6. Does your organization currently use external service providers to meet any of its digital library needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?__________________________________________________________) No 7. Does your organization plan to use external service providers in the future to meet any of its digital library needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which service providers?__________________________________________________________) No Unknown Conference & Training Center The Conference & Training Center will offer a state-of-the-art facility to accommodate up to 200 people. In addition to hosting Cornell University’s training, staff development, and education programs, the facility will be available to other interested parties for a fee. 1. How interested would you be in the following services if they were available from the Cornell University Library, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested, and 5 being very interested? (please circle one answer for each item) Not at all Very interested interested a. Access to a training facility for my organization’s events 1 234 5 b. Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by other organizations 1 234 5 c. Attending training, staff development, and education sessions offered by the Cornell University 1 234 5 Library 2. What is the likelihood of your organization renting this conference center for any of its activities? (please check one) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 ● Cornell University Library ● Page 31 ● 3. Please rate the importance of the following factors in choosing a conference and training center, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. (please circle one answer for each item) a. Proximity to your organization (distance) Not at all important Very important 1 234 5 b. Rental fees 1 234 5 c. Availability of conference technologies (wireless, high-speed connections, audiovisual equipment, computers, etc.) d. Capacity of the facility 1 1 234 234 5 5 e. Availability of flexible and modular space 1 234 5 f. Appeal of the Finger Lakes area 1 234 5 g. Accessibility from your region via different modes of transportation (ease of transportation) h. Other reasons (please specify): ________________________________ 1 1 234 234 5 5 4. If your organization were to rent such a facility, how often would you do so? (please check one answer) Once a year 2-3 times a year Every other year Other (please specify):______________ 5. What is the likelihood of members of your organization attending training, staff development, or education sessions at this conference center? (please circle one answer) Very Unlikely 1 Unlikely 2 Undecided 3 Likely 4 Very Likely 5 6. Do you have convenient access to a conference center that meets your organization’s needs? (please check one answer) Yes (which conference center(s)?_________________________________________________________) No General Questions 1. Do you know of any other initiatives like ours (planned or existing)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ● Cornell University Library ● Page 32 ● ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ 2. Are there other services that Cornell University Library might provide beyond the four listed in this survey (e.g., reference and instruction)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ 3. Would you be available for a follow-up phone call? Yes (phone number): (__________) - _________________________ No ● Cornell University Library ● Page 33 ● 12. Cover Letter from Sarah Thomas May 9, 2003 John Smith Title Address Ref # 1234 Dear John Smith, The Cornell University Library is investigating how it might contribute to addressing the needs of New York State libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies. We call this study, which is funded by the Mellon Foundation, “Models for Academic Support” (MAS 2010). In this study we are assessing the feasibility of a new library center on the southeast side of the campus—a center that has the potential to serve both Cornell University and regional organizations. We need your assistance to evaluate this possibility. I have enclosed a survey to gauge your organization’s interest. The information you provide will help toward a shared goal: to identify innovations that can enhance our organizations’ services while also minimizing costs. All participants in this survey will receive a report summarizing the survey findings, including what we have learned through our contacts with regional service providers and consortia. Please be assured that your organization’s responses will be kept strictly confidential. The survey takes approximately twenty minutes to fill out. I have enclosed the print version for your information; however, we prefer that you use the Web version available at http://cast.cornell.edu/mas/survey.cfm. To login to the site, please use the following username and password: Username: xxx Password: xxxx Please complete the survey as soon as possible but no later than May 30, 2003. If this survey is not applicable for your institution, kindly take a moment to choose that option at the top of the survey. If you have any questions or comments about the study, please do not hesitate to contact Oya Rieger, Project Coordinator, at oyr1@cornell.edu (607 254-5160). Your input is invaluable and I thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Sarah E. Thomas University Librarian Cornell University Library ● Cornell University Library ● Page 34 ● 22 October 2002 Informing the DCAPS Business Model: Outsourcing Implications for Libraries and IT Literature Review by Ira Revels Office of Distributed Learning, Cornell University Library November 2002 Introduction Outsourcing can be defined as contracting the services of a company that is not part of the local library.1 In 1999 an ALA Task Force on Outsourcing conducted extensive research on the effects of outsourcing and privatization on libraries, library staff, and management. As a result of the study, the Task Force compiled for libraries a webliography and guide to the pros and cons of outsourcing. In addition, the findings of their investigation were offered at a mandatory joint meeting of the ALA Membership, Council, and Executive Board. The resulting meeting notes were published online2 and the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services published web pages describing the process of planning and implementing an outsourcing program for libraries 3 in addition to devoting a Preconference to outsourcing in 1996. Finally, in a study funded by a grant from ALA, students at the Texas Women’s University School of Library and Information Studies found evidence that supports the conclusion that outsourcing has been an effective managerial tool, and when used carefully and judiciously it has resulted in enhanced library services and improved library management.4 Issues Involved According to a web resource that was compiled by the year 2000 class of Syracuse University graduate students in library science, “typical library services that are outsourced include: ! Cataloging ! Indexing ! Researching ! Web development ! Archiving ! Technical services ! Management ! Development of automated systems. 1 Librarians in the 21st Century. “Outsourcing: What It’s All About.” Syracuse University Library School. Available: http://istweb.syr.edu/21stcenlib/where/outsourcing.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 2 Intellectual Freedom Committee Report. ALA Council Minutes 1999 Annual Conference. Available: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/outsourcing.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 3 Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. “Planning and Implementing an Outsourcing Program.” Available: http://www.ala.org/alcts/now/outsourcing4.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 4 Martin, R. S., Steven L. Brown, Jane Claes, Cynthia A. Gray, Greg Hardin, Timothy C. Judkins, Kelly Patricia Kingrey, Clara Latham, Thomas K. Lindsey, JoAnn Rogers, Roberta Schenewerk, Kathleen G. Strauss, Suzanne Sweeney, Marleen Watling and Lea Worcester. The Impact of Outsourcing and Privatization on Library Services and Management. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman’s University, School of Library and Information Studies, 2000. 121 pp. URL: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/ors/outsourcing/outsourcing_doc.pdf Last checked: 22 October 2002. -1- 22 October 2002 As a result of this practice, outsourcing can cause complaints by library professionals such as: ! Outsourcing personnel cannot deal with ‘sensitive’ materials pertaining to the organization ! A lack of familiarity with the library’s clientele ! Employee turnover is high, and therefore there is a lack of consistency with employee performance. To counter this argument, vendors argue that, ! Their personnel is professionally trained ! They can be brought in just for specific projects and then let go – no further expense to the company ! They are cost effective ! They are efficient ! They are Flexible.”5 Why Libraries and IT Outsource But, why do libraries outsource? Carol Ebbinghouse offers a unique perspective into outsourcing in the law library. Ebbinghouse describes issues that are similar to those discussed above and offers several additional positive and negative aspects of outsourcing.6 In an online article in the Library Journal titled, “Outsourcing Digitization” Roy Tennant describes the reasons why libraries should outsource projects and provides nine links to guides that describe standards for digitization. Tennant maintains that outsourcing digital projects generally has a positive impact upon libraries and offers three reasons why: expense, expertise, and time. 7 Tennant advocates for maintaining contact and control over in-house processes prior to shipping items to vendors for digitization, especially metadata. He also acknowledges the library’s need to be “explicit with the vendor about what (administrative metadata) is required.”8 ALA considers intellectual freedom and privatization to be the top two issues concerning outsourcing library services. With that in mind in 1998 ALA developed a Task Force on Outsourcing to investigate trends in outsourcing and privatization. In a report based upon initial findings of the TFO, 2000-2001 ALA President Sarah Ann Long describes the pros and cons of outsourcing to privately owned vendors. She states, “Outsourcing particular services can save money and time and improve quality of services. A private vendor focuses on certain services and therefore, can do them faster, better and cheaper. Outsourcing can also free up internal library staff to provide more and better services within the library. Using a vendor can give a library a certain added 5 Librarians in the 21st Century. “Outsourcing: What It’s All About.” 6 Ebbinghouse, C. “Library Outsourcing: A New Look.” Infotoday. Available: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/apr02/ebbinghouse.htm. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 7 Tennant, R. “Outsourcing Digital.” Library Journal. September 1999. Available: http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA156509. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 8 Ibid. -2- 22 October 2002 flexibility because the library may be able to tailor services based on changing needs or the library can choose a new vendor.”9 By 1999 the Task Force took a more focused position on outsourcing. It played close attention to privatization and its impact on the protection of rights of library staff and for access by nontraditional users. It was determined during the 1999 Midwinter Meeting at a mandatory joint meeting of the Membership, Council, and Executive Board “that a checklist of the issues that need attention in any consideration of or contracting for outside provision of services or performance of functions for the library be developed. Such a checklist will target librarians, library and government officials who would develop such contracts, and vendors who would become parties to the contracts.”10 The cons raised in outsourcing library services were also discussed. Again, Sarah Ann Long states, “Quality control can be hard to maintain because those providing the services are no longer directly held accountable by the internal library administration. To enforce changes in services, the library has to go through vendor’s layers. Vendors are motivated by profits and this can negatively affect quality (cutting corners, etc.) Loss of local control over services can also result in local needs not being met or met as well (depersonalization). Outsourcing can also result in downsizing local library staff, which can cause lower staff morale, etc.”11 In addition to Sarah Ann Long’s paper, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services division of the American Library Association also published on its website a guide to the pros and cons of outsourcing. These are useful when considering how to develop a strategy for describing the Digital Consultancy and Production Service. Using the pros from the ALCTS guide, the D-CAPS service can be described as one that provides: ! Cost savings- Examining cost savings in the aggregate, by looking at bottom line savings, is a good way of gauging the benefits of outsourcing. ! Timely turn-around- in some situations, outsourcing results in reduced turnaround time. In those cases, library patrons are better served by having material available to them in a timelier manner. ! Improvement of Core Competencies- Outsourcing can enable staff to focus on core competencies and improve customer services that cannot be outsourced.12 We must continue to be mindful however of the “cons” to outsourcing as we determine how to avoid the downside of vendor relations with libraries. The following are potential challenges to consider as we design D-CAPS services for library staff, faculty, and others: ! Advance planning- Outsourcing does not occur overnight. Significant lead-time is required to do it right. Time must be allocated for this purpose. ! Loss of control- Library staff will need to surrender control over some processes to their vendor(s). 9 Long, S. A., “Outsourcing Library Services.” Available: http://www.sarahlong.org/position2.htm. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 10 Intellectual Freedom Committee Report. ALA Council Minutes 1999 Annual Conference. 11 Long, S.A., “Outsourcing Library Services.” 12 Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. “Outsourcing Issues: Pros.” Available: http://www.ala.org/alcts/now/outsour2.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. -3- 22 October 2002 ! Quality control- Managers and staff need to develop new quality control and problem resolution procedures. ! Vulnerability- Managers and staff become vulnerable during outsourcing, in the sense that they are partially or totally dependent on their vendor(s) for services. Library managers need to be aware of their options, in case a vendor's operation slows down or ceases for unforeseen reasons.13 While the IT reasons for outsourcing may differ slightly from that of libraries, there still tends to be some similarity in its customer-driven focus. There are several reasons why IT businesses outsource that can be of use to us as we determine how best to deliver the D-CAPS. For IT professionals, outsourcing is necessary because of the difficulties associated with managing “the increasing number of new technologies effectively.”14 As these businesses manage ecommerce, digital content storage, supply chain management, and other services, it is increasingly important that their services are not under-managed at the risk of providing the highest levels of customer service. Like the outsourcing pros listed above, the Application Service Provider or ASP model for outsourcing eliminates, “to a great extent, the money and time involved in purchasing, installing, upgrading, and maintaining hardware and software.”15 Finally, the ability of the organization to save time is also an important factor in deciding to outsource necessary business applications. Likewise, there are similar cons to choosing to outsource IT applications. Many companies that have adopted ASP vendors as their outsourcing partners complain of poor service quality, security, costs and control.” Consequently, these new challenges are forcing companies to devise viable strategies for establishing more profitable relationships with their service providers. 16 In the literature relating to outsourcing and IT, since 1999 there have been many articles and resources published on developing such strategies. DCAPS Strategies Finally, as we plan the D-CAPS operation, it is important that we consider how past and present issues in outsourcing play an important role in presenting this service to libraries, library staff, faculty, and others. Some questions to consider are: ! How can D-CAPS improve cost-savings for individuals who wish to make their digital collections accessible online? ! Can we guarantee timely turn-around for certain services and if so, which ones? ! How can we articulate the process in simple terms so that individuals will feel comfortable expressing their needs without confusion, eliminating that loss of control people may experience when handing over their materials? ! What measures will we have in place to guarantee quality control and how will damages by assessed and handled? 13 Ibid. Available: http://www.ala.org/alcts/now/outsour1.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 14 Chen, Lei-da; Soliman, K.S. Logistics of Information Management. “Managing IT outsourcing: a valuedriven approach to outsourcing using application service providers.” V. 15, No. 3, 2002. Available: http://lucia.emeraldinsight.com/vl=34979547/cl=80/nw=1/rpsv/~1151/v15n3/s3/p180. Last checked: 22 October 2002. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. -4- 22 October 2002 Bibliography Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. “Planning and Implementing an Outsourcing Program.” Available: http://www.ala.org/alcts/now/outsourcing4.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. “Outsourcing Issues: Pros.” Available: http://www.ala.org/alcts/now/outsour2.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Chen, Lei-da; Soliman, K.S. Logistics of Information Management. “Managing IT outsourcing: a value-driven approach to outsourcing using application service providers.” V. 15, No. 3, 2002. Available: http://lucia.emeraldinsight.com/vl=34979547/cl=80/nw=1/rpsv/~1151/v15n3/s3/p180. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Ebbinghouse, C. “Library Outsourcing: A New Look.” Infotoday. Available: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/apr02/ebbinghouse.htm. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Librarians in the 21st Century. “Outsourcing: What It’s All About.” Syracuse University Library School. Available: http://istweb.syr.edu/21stcenlib/where/outsourcing.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Long, S. A., “Outsourcing Library Services.” Available: http://www.sarahlong.org/position2.htm. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Martin, R. S., Steven L. Brown, Jane Claes, Cynthia A. Gray, Greg Hardin, Timothy C. Judkins, Kelly Patricia Kingrey, Clara Latham, Thomas K. Lindsey, JoAnn Rogers, Roberta Schenewerk, Kathleen G. Strauss, Suzanne Sweeney, Marleen Watling and Lea Worcester. The Impact of Outsourcing and Privatization on Library Services and Management. Denton, Texas: Texas Woman’s University, School of Library and Information Studies, 2000. 121 pp. URL: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/ors/outsourcing/outsourcing_doc.pdf. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Intellectual Freedom Committee Report. ALA Council Minutes 1999 Annual Conference. Available: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/outsourcing.html. Last checked: 22 October 2002. Tennant, R. “Outsourcing Digital.” Library Journal. September 1999. Available: http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA156509. Last checked: 22 October 2002. -5-