Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Rightscaling, engagement, learning: reconfiguring the library for a network environment

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige

Hier ansehen

1 von 55 Anzeige

Rightscaling, engagement, learning: reconfiguring the library for a network environment

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

The edge of the world. Theta 2013: the Higher Education Technology Agenda. Hobart, Tasmania, 7-10 April, 2013.
The network continues to reconfigure personal and organizational relationships. Libraries face three important challenges in this environment.

1. Rightscaling infrastructure.
Libraries were predominantly ‘institution-scale’ – they provided services at the level of the institution for their local users. However, their users now look to the network for information services (e.g. Google Scholar, Wikipedia, …). And libraries now look to the network to collaborate or to externalize services (e.g. HathiTrust, cloud-based discovery or systems, shared systems infrastructure, …). In this environment the need for local infrastructure declines (e.g. extensive print collections, redundantly deployed local systems which provide necessary but not distinctive services). The scale advantage manifests itself in both impact and efficiency.

2. The shift to engagement.
Users used to build their workflows around libraries. Now the library needs to build services around user workflows, as those workflows form around network services. Libraries used to acquire and organize ‘published’ materials. Now they are engaged with the full range of creation, management and disclosure of learning and scholarly resources. Library spaces were configured around print collections; now they are configured around experiences, expertise, and specialist facilities. These are all examples of how libraries are reallocating resource and effort to engage more strongly with the learning and research lives of their users, improving the learning experience and making research more productive and research outputs more visible.

3. Institutional innovation
Innovation is important, especially to support greater engagement. But in many ways the most important form of innovation is institutional. Libraries have to develop new and routine ways of collaborating to achieve their goals. At the same time they have to negotiate internal boundaries and forge new structures within institutions. In each case, they are developing new ‘relationship architectures’. Think for example of the institutional innovation required to move to shared systems and collections in the Orbis Cascade Alliance or 2CUL for example. Or think of the innovative approach which makes new relationships within institutions (with Learning and Teaching Support, with the Office of Research, the University Press, emerging e-research infrastructure, IT, etc, for example, or with various educational or social services in a public setting). Evolving such relationships requires an enterprising approach and ensures continual learning.

The edge of the world. Theta 2013: the Higher Education Technology Agenda. Hobart, Tasmania, 7-10 April, 2013.
The network continues to reconfigure personal and organizational relationships. Libraries face three important challenges in this environment.

1. Rightscaling infrastructure.
Libraries were predominantly ‘institution-scale’ – they provided services at the level of the institution for their local users. However, their users now look to the network for information services (e.g. Google Scholar, Wikipedia, …). And libraries now look to the network to collaborate or to externalize services (e.g. HathiTrust, cloud-based discovery or systems, shared systems infrastructure, …). In this environment the need for local infrastructure declines (e.g. extensive print collections, redundantly deployed local systems which provide necessary but not distinctive services). The scale advantage manifests itself in both impact and efficiency.

2. The shift to engagement.
Users used to build their workflows around libraries. Now the library needs to build services around user workflows, as those workflows form around network services. Libraries used to acquire and organize ‘published’ materials. Now they are engaged with the full range of creation, management and disclosure of learning and scholarly resources. Library spaces were configured around print collections; now they are configured around experiences, expertise, and specialist facilities. These are all examples of how libraries are reallocating resource and effort to engage more strongly with the learning and research lives of their users, improving the learning experience and making research more productive and research outputs more visible.

3. Institutional innovation
Innovation is important, especially to support greater engagement. But in many ways the most important form of innovation is institutional. Libraries have to develop new and routine ways of collaborating to achieve their goals. At the same time they have to negotiate internal boundaries and forge new structures within institutions. In each case, they are developing new ‘relationship architectures’. Think for example of the institutional innovation required to move to shared systems and collections in the Orbis Cascade Alliance or 2CUL for example. Or think of the innovative approach which makes new relationships within institutions (with Learning and Teaching Support, with the Office of Research, the University Press, emerging e-research infrastructure, IT, etc, for example, or with various educational or social services in a public setting). Evolving such relationships requires an enterprising approach and ensures continual learning.

Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Ähnlich wie Rightscaling, engagement, learning: reconfiguring the library for a network environment (20)

Anzeige

Weitere von lisld (13)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

Rightscaling, engagement, learning: reconfiguring the library for a network environment

  1. 1. Rightscaling, engagement, learning: reconfiguring the library for a network environment Lorcan Dempsey @LorcanD The edge of the world. Theta 2013: the Higher Education Technology Agenda Hobart, Tasmania, 7-10 April, 2013
  2. 2. Credits John Hagel and John Seely Brown Institutional innovation: creating smarter organizations to scale learning http://www.scribd.com/doc/129958072/Institutional-Innovation-Creating-Smarter-Organizations-to-Scale- Learning John Hagel and Marc Singer. (January 01, 1999). Unbundling the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 77, 2. January 1, 1999. Constance Malpas: Provided the U Tasmania and U Melbourne collection analyses. Brian Lavoie, Constance Malpas and JD Shipengrover: Print Management at “Mega-scale”: A Regional Perspective on Print Book Collections in North America. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2012/2012-05.pdf
  3. 3. Distinctive Subjects (rank in worldcat for no. of holdings attached to this subject, no. of holdings)
  4. 4. 2 switches Attention switch Workflow switch
  5. 5. Attention switch Then Resources were scarce and attention was abundant. Now Attention is scarce and resources are abundant. “Discovery happens elsewhere”
  6. 6. Workflow switch Then Researchers/learners would build their workflow around the library. Now The library must build its services around the user workflow. “In the flow”
  7. 7. Harvard Business Review (1999)
  8. 8. Engagement Innovation Infrastructure •Back office capacities that support day-to-day operations •“Routinized” workflows •Economies of scale important •Develop new •services and have them accepted •Speed/flexibility important •Attracting and building relationships with researchers and learners •“Service-oriented”, customization •Economies of scope important Note: Engagement substituted for Customer relationship management
  9. 9. Rightscale infrastructure Shift to engagement Institutional innovation Reconfiguring libraries for the new environment – 3 imperatives
  10. 10. Rightscale infrastructure The example of print The example of discovery
  11. 11. Ronald Coase Pic: Wikimedia
  12. 12. ?
  13. 13. “aggregate and scale toward a common infrastructure”
  14. 14. 2% 28% 30% University of Melbourne Library (UMV) Titles Duplicated in Hathi Trust Digital Library - January 2012 Digitized public domain (US) Digitized in copyright (US)
  15. 15. 3% 32% 35% University of Tasmania (LT0) Library Titles Duplicated in Hathi Trust Digital Library - January 2012 Digitized public domain (US) Digitized in copyright (US)
  16. 16. Colleges and universities have long competed against one another, measuring themselves in comparison to each other and holding tightly to their idiosyncrasies as defining elements of their status. But today, the distribution and reuse of information digitally via the Internet is rapidly changing the game, rewarding those who instead aggregate and scale toward a common infrastructure. It is becoming increasingly clear that neither the challenges that confront colleges and universities nor the solutions to those challenges are unique to each institution. Chuck Henry and Brad Wheeler The game has changed Educause Review, March 2012 “
  17. 17. “aggregate and scale towards a common infrastructure” Infrastructure redundantly distributed to institutions
  18. 18. Beyond the mobile web. Stephanie Rieger. http://www.slideshare.net/yiibu/beyond-themobilewebbyyiibu
  19. 19. the example of print towards a collective collection
  20. 20. Mega-regions Geographic area defined by high level of economic integration, underpinned by robust supporting infrastructure (transportation, logistics, etc.) “Lights from space” definition (Richard Florida et al.) In some respects, a “natural” unit of analysis?
  21. 21. North American Mega-regions OCLC Research, 2013
  22. 22. OCLC Research, 2013 North American print book resource: 45.7 million distinct publications 889.5 million total library holdings
  23. 23. Regional coverage of the North American print book resource BOS-WASH 57 % CHI-PITTS 41 % TOR-BUFF-CHESTER 32 % NOR-CAL 27 % CHAR-LANTA 22 % SO-CAL 21 % CASCADIA 15 % DAL-AUSTIN 14 % HOU-ORLEANS 11 % SO-FLO 11 % DENVER 9 % PHOENIX 8 % OCLC Research, 2013
  24. 24. WorldCat Holdings Distribution for Titles Held by the University of Melbourne Library (UMV) - March 2013 WorldCat Holdings Distribution for Titles Held by the University of Tasmania Library (LT0) - March 2013
  25. 25. Institution: opportunity costs challenge •Growing misalignment between investment in print collections and practices of research and learning •Reconfigure space around engagement rather than around collections •Stewardship and efficient access still (variably) important Systemwide: balance contributions •Manage down institutional collections •Collectively managed – regional, national based on existing/emerging infrastructure •Include different obligations: –Mid-level HEIs look for third party or collaborative solutions –Research HEIs manage stewardship responsibility within broader framework of digital and cooperative
  26. 26. Mega-regions & Shared Print Initiatives OCLC Research, 2013 Orbis-Cascade CIC ASERL SCELC MSCS WRLC OCUL GWLA WEST FLARE We expect that in 5-7 years a large part of the North American ‘collective collection’ will have moved into shared management.
  27. 27. „Cloud‟ storage (Ohio State) http://library.osu.edu/blogs/cartoons/2012/02/28/blog-launch-and-the-construction-of-our-new-home-in-sullivant-hall/
  28. 28. The example of discovery a mixed environment of inside-out and outside-in approaches
  29. 29. Local discovery: towards whole library discove
  30. 30. Ithaka s+r Network-level discovery tools include disciplinary resources and powerful search tools which dramatically improve research efficiency while also increasing effectiveness. As a result, faculty discovery practices across all disciplines have continued their marked shift to the network level. This key finding has important implications for resource providers and libraries alike. Faculty members are reducing their usage of local library services for discovery purposes and, as a result, put less value on the library‟s traditional intellectual value-added role as a gateway to information.
  31. 31. Outside in Bought, licensed Increased consolidation Move from print to licensed Manage down print – shared print Move to user-driven models Aim: to discover Inside out Institutional assets: special collections, research and learning materials, institutional records, … Reputation management Increasingly important? Aim: to *have* discovered … to disclose Collections
  32. 32. John Doe University Library Cloud Sourced Decoupled Communication External Syndication Website A decentered network presence: putting the library in the flow
  33. 33. Microsites Archives and spec colls Digital library Institutional repo Youtube Decoupled Communication Flickr Twitter Facebook Blogs Google Knowledgebase Resolver Discovery Cloud Sourced Libguides
  34. 34. Digital Archive External Syndication Services Data RSS Metadata Europeana WorldCat Scirus Ethos ArchivesGrid Suncat Summon Jorum Linked Data (Catalog) OAI-PMH (Dspace) Z39.50 Library APIs Proxy Widgets Proxy Toolbar Mobilepp Discovery Catalogue Dspace Blogs KB registration
  35. 35. Outside in collections: books and journals Discovery layer Resolver registered in Google Scholar, Pubmed, Mendeley, ... Union catalog links in Google Books Toolbars, widgets, etc Inside out collections: Growing engagement around scholarly communication, data curation, institutional asset management, reputation/profiles. SEO (interoperability with search engines) Appropriate metadata (e.g. for Google Scholar) Syndication of metadata to other services … Effective discoverability requires purposeful action at different scales with multiple partners….
  36. 36. Other examples? Look for solutions above the level of the institution? Where there is no local advantage … DPN ... Digital Preservation Network Patron Driven Acquisition? Library systems? Knowledge base?
  37. 37. Shift to engagement The service turn (Scott Walter) Distinctive services to improve the student experience and enhance research Evolving library role - enterprise ‘If libraries are to be seen as expert their expertise must be visible’
  38. 38. U Minnesota, ARL Institutional profile “In alignment with the University's strategic positioning, the University Libraries have re- conceived goals, shifting from a collection- centric focus to one that is engagement- based.” http://umcf.umn.edu/awards/2006/images/margo_library_lg.jpg
  39. 39. Explore new scholarly forms: American Folklore Society and libraries at Indiana U
  40. 40. http://blogs.bgsu.edu/librarysleevefacing/2012/08/15/bookends/ Creating conversations around collections: Sleevefacing at Bowling Green State Univ
  41. 41. accessCeramics merges a traditional academic digital image collection's metadata capabilities with Flickr's openness and flexibility. It seeks to take advantage of Flickr's software tools and social network while also providing a web interface customized to this collection. Collaboration with department around community and learning resource
  42. 42. Curating data assets
  43. 43. Bibliometrics and researcher identity
  44. 44. Space reconfigured around experience, expertise and communication rather than collections
  45. 45. A shift to engagement .. the library as an actor in research and learning environments of its users. An evolving role … an enterprising mentality … Explore service requirements and possibilities. Reallocate resource from infrastructure?
  46. 46. Institutional innovation ….
  47. 47. ... a more fundamental level of innovation, institutional innovation – redefining the rationale for institutions and developing new relationship architectures within and across institutions to break existing performance trade-offs and expand the realm of what is possible … John Hagel III and John Seely Brown
  48. 48. A new architecture of relationships: rightscaling
  49. 49. A new architecture of relationships: engagement University Press Office of Research IT Learning and teaching support E-research Writing centre Academic departments ….
  50. 50. The journey … • Rightscale infrastructure services: find appropriate level in the network. • Shift resource to engagement: evolving information services which improve the student experience and enhance research. • Internal/external institutional innovation: building new relationships requires enterprise and promotes learning ….
  51. 51. @LorcanD

×