Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

James Michalko
Constance Malpas
Arnold Arcolio
OCLC Research

A publication of OCLC Research

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

2010 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

All rights reserved
March 2010
OCLC Research
Dublin, Ohio 43017 USA
www.oclc.org
ISBN: 1-55653-375-6 (978-1-55653-375-4)
OCLC (WorldCat): 497229163
Please direct correspondence to:
James Michalko
Vice President, OCLC Research, San Mateo
[email protected]

Suggested citation:
Michalko, James, Constance Malpas and Arnold Arcolio. 2010. Research Libraries, Risk and
Systemic Change. Report produced by OCLC Research. Published online
at: http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf .

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 2

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 6
Risk Clusters and Register ................................................................................................................ 8
General Observations ..................................................................................................................... 11
Risk Cluster Observations ............................................................................................................... 12
Intensity of Risks ............................................................................................................................ 13
Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Strategies for Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 16
Residual Risks ................................................................................................................................ 18
Epilogue ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Notes ............................................................................................................................................. 20

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 3

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Tables
Table 1: Grading scale used in assessing risk .................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Register of categorized risks................................................................................................ 9

Figures
Figure 1: Categories used by interviewees in contemplating current risks ......................................... 7
Figure 2: Risk clusters....................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis: risk groups ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: Inherent risks: high impact & likelihood ........................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Proposed High risk mitigation strategy and sequence ...................................................... 17
Figure 6: Residual High risks .......................................................................................................... 18

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 4

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Introduction
Everything sort of looks the same, but everything has changed.
Michelle Rabinowitz, a producer at MTV News 1

In 2008, OCLC Research engaged an organization experienced in conducting risk assessments for
corporate, governmental and educational clients with the objective of identifying the most
significant risks facing research libraries. We thought that the techniques used to examine risks
facing an individual enterprise could be productively deployed to arrive at a measured assessment
of risks facing a distributed industry or enterprise in this case, United States research libraries.
For this group of related organizations, rather than any individual library, we wanted to examine
the following:

In a rapidly evolving information environment, what are the greatest risks to research
libraries?
o
o

Which of these risks is susceptible to mitigation?

o
o

Individuallyas local service providers

Collectively as a distributed enterprise

Feasibility is it a controllable risk?

Impactis it worth the investment to mitigate?

Where can collective action make a difference?

We recognized that the research library within an academic setting is unlike the independent
individual organizations that usually undergo this kind of risk assessment process. The research
library is not independent of the mission of its home institution. It is not entirely free to set and
change goals and objectives. It is a cost center within the academy not a revenue-generating entity.
It is often the recipient of specific directions and constraints dictated by the university in which it
delivers its services. Because of these differences the range of responses that research library
managers can muster to address acknowledged challenges and risks is considerably
circumscribed relative to their counterparts in private industry.
www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 5

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Risk assessment within a private company is usually based on interviews with senior managers
and board members with the process having two distinct stages. In the first stage, identified risks
are characterized, rated, ranked and evaluated based on their likelihood and estimated impact. In
the second stage, the resulting risks are assigned to individual managers who take responsibility
for action plans that mitigate each specific risk. In the first stage of this investigation our
consultants interviewed library directors and summarized the reported perceptions of the source
and intensity of risks. Then we in OCLC Research considered the distribution and implications of
these risks and explored which might be mitigated by collaborative action and collective resources.
No effort was made to assign responsibility for risk management to traditional library operating
units (collection management, systems, technical services etc.), since few of the risks appeared
susceptible to local institutional control.
Despite differences between the business and academic sectors, we found the methodology to
identify, characterize and rank risks effective. It revealed a convergence of perceived risks. It
yielded a shared perspective on a landscape of challenges facing US research libraries. It may
support movement toward cooperative mitigation of critical risks. We hope that our descriptive
categorization of risk clusters will provide libraries with a common vocabulary for identifying,
evaluating and responding to shared challenges. Finally, we believe that assimilating, ranking
and analyzing these risks will provide a sound basis for OCLC Research to formulate a
collaborative action agenda in partnership with the research library community.

Methodology
The risk assessment entailed interviews of 15 library directors from members of the Association
of Research Libraries (ARL) in the United States with whom OCLC Research works via their
participation in the RLG Partnership. The participating library directors were distributed across
the ranked ARL membership.
An interview questionnaire was provided in advance to each interviewee and included a section
to identify risks and their level based on a predefined risk category. Throughout this process
risk was defined as the possibility that an event will occur and adversely affect the achievement
of the librarys objectives. The risk categories provided consisted of general themes common
across industries as well as some library specific categories. Figure 1 shows the categories that
were used by the interviewees when contemplating current risks. This is a comprehensive
typology intended to encourage the interviewees to consider the fullest possible range of risks
that research libraries might be facing. Many are not applicable to the research library within
the academy (although they may be relevant to the librarys home institution) and interviewees
used this to prompt their reflections.

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 6

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Figure 1. Categories used by interviewees in contemplating current risks

The interviewees were asked to rank their inventory of risks (high, high/medium, medium,
medium/low or low) and provide supporting reasons for their rankings, as well as specific
examples. The questionnaire was used only to facilitate discussion during the interview.
Interviewees were then asked to assess the impact and likelihood of the risks they had identified.
The grading scale used in making an assessment is shown in table 1.

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 7

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Table 1. Grading scale used in assessing risk

Impact
Catastrophic

Major

Organization would not likely survive in present form

Sustained, serious loss in user share
Loss of library value where the cost of future library investment outweighs
the recovery
Major impact on libraryserious damage to librarys ability to service users
Serious diminution in library value and use with adverse publicity
Significant impact on librarywould affect users
Use and/or library value will be affected in the short term
Impact on internal organization only
There is a minor potential impact on use and library values
Insignificant impact on internal organization
No potential impact on use
No impact on library value

Event is expected to occur in most circumstances

Event will probably occur in most circumstances
Event might occur at some timemoderate probability
Event could occur at some timelow probability
Event may occur only in exceptional circumstances

Moderate
Minor
Insignificant

Likelihood
Almost certain
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Rare

The risks identified by the interviewees were consolidated in a risk register and an average risk
rating was calculated. This average rating took into account the frequency with which the risk was
mentioned, the impact assigned and the likelihood forecast across all the interviews. Based on
these three factors, an overall risk rating was computed and a designation of high, medium or low
was applied to each risk.
The resulting synthesis is a basis for assessment of the overall significance of these risks and the
degree to which they threaten the academic research library enterprise as it is currently organized. It
is important to note that this risk assessment is a snapshot amid continual changes in the challenges
faced by research libraries, such as new technology, regulatory requirements, organizational
restructuring, new leadership personnel, etc. It is also important to acknowledge that in research
libraries, as in all industries, a risk and challenge may be the shadow of an opportunity. The risks
enumerated in this report were assessed against the prevailing library business model, and hence
represent greater or lesser threats to the current institutionally-organized model of library service
rather than threats to the survivability of the research library enterprise as a whole.

Risk Clusters and Register

The full register of categorized risks is shown in table 2. Risks identified in the assessment effort
are grouped in thematic clusters defined by OCLC Research. Individual risks within each cluster
are presented in a sequence that Research staff found to be helpful in illuminating patterns and
dependencies within each group.
www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 8

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Value Proposition

. . . a reduced sense of library relevance from below, above and within

Human Resources

. . . uncertainties about adequate preparation, adaptability, capacity for

leadership in face of change

Durable Goods

. . . changing value of library collections and space; prices go up, value goes
downaccounting doesnt acknowledge the change

Legacy Technology

. . . managing and maintaining legacy systems is a challenge; replacement parts

are hard to find

Intellectual Property

. . . losing some traditional assets to commercial providers (e.g., Google Books)

and failing to assume clear ownership stake in others (e.g., local scholarly
outputs)

Figure 2. Risk clusters

Table 2. Register of categorized risks

Value Proposition: A reduced sense of library relevance from below, above, within
No.

Risk

Risk Rating

Availability of online and other resources (e.g., Google) may weaken the visibility
and necessity of the library.

High

User base erodes because library value proposition is not effectively communicated.

High

Library user satisfaction deteriorates due to lack of understanding of changing user

needs.

Medium

Operations are not managed effectively because library metrics are not established,
tracked or utilized and management's accounting and budgeting reporting is not
relevant, timely or useful.

Medium

Changes in academic leadership and administration result in changes in perceived

value and strategic function of research libraries.

Medium

Strategic planning in the library is not aligned with university goals and objectives.

Medium

Library funding or budget decreases as a result of increased internal competition

within the university.

Medium

Decreased institutional support for library fund-raising; lack of focus on capital

campaigns or endowment opportunities.

Medium

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 9

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Table 2. Register of categorized risks (continued)

Human Resources: Uncertainties about adequate preparation,
adaptability, leadership in face of change
No.

Risk

Risk Rating

Recruitment and retention of resources is difficult due to competitive environment

and reduction in pool of qualified candidates.

High

10

Difficulty identifying candidates for evolving library management roles.

High

11

Human resources are not allocated appropriately within the library or university to
provide the training, development, cross-training and re-training required to manage
change in the current environment.

High

12

Current human resources lack skill set for future needs (changing technology, etc.).

High

13

Library workforce fails to embrace implementation of organizational change as a

personal and professional responsibility.

Low

14

Conservative nature of library inhibits timely adaptation to changed circumstances.

High

Durable Goods: Changing value of library collections and space (prices go up,
value goes down; accounting doesn't acknowledge the change)
No.

Risk

Risk Rating

15

Increased challenges with building and maintaining collections as a result of rising

costs, limited budgets, and turbulence in foreign exchange rates.

Medium

16

Library physical storage space is not appropriately managed or optimized, placing

constraints on collection growth.

Low

17

Lack of investments in deteriorating physical space leads to declining user

satisfaction with library as place.

Medium

18

Loss of library assets, content or access due to natural hazard.

Medium

Legacy Technology: Managing and maintaining legacy systems

is a challenge; replacement parts are hard to find
No.

Risk

Risk Rating

19

Library cannot adjust fast enough to keep up with rapidly changing technology and
user needs.

High

20

Increased inefficiencies and expenses due to lack of functionality of legacy systems

and IT support.

High

21

Due diligence and sustainability assessment of local or third party services and
initiatives is not completed, tracked or analyzed.

High

22

Digital content is lost as a result of not being properly managed and preserved.

Medium

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 10

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Table 2. Register of categorized risks (continued)

Intellectual Property: Losing some traditional assets to commercial providers (e.g., Google Books)
and not assuming clear ownership of others (e.g., local scholarly outputs)
No.
23

24
25

Risk
Potential exists for increased cost burden to research libraries as access to content
previously owned and distributed by libraries (research outputs; digitized
collections) is increasingly controlled by commercial agents and online service
providers.
Collection development strategy fails to address changing nature of scholarly
record; appraisal and selection processes are out of step with proliferation of new
content.

Risk Rating
Medium

Medium

Public-private partnerships with external organizations (e.g., Google) are not

properly evaluated, balancing costs with potential benefits.

Medium

Uncategorized
26

Increased administrative burden due to changes to the library funding model.

Low

General Observations

The plurality of risks (30%) is associated with concerns about an uncertain library
value proposition.

The second largest class, and second priority in terms of medium to high risks, is
related to staffing and human resources.

Risks associated with legacy technology are all high.

The high risks are chiefly operational in nature and the results of general
organizational weaknesses.

The high risks represent circumstances that require continuous monitoring and are
mostly controllablethat is, either the occurrence or the impact can be managed.
This confirmed for us that there is an opportunity to collectively consider these risks
so that research libraries can appropriately calibrate local and group responses.

We expected to see serious concerns emerge about the custody of intellectual property
(peer-reviewed literature, locally created content) that supports the research enterprise.
Interestingly enough they did not. Libraries do not seem to perceive an immediate
threat to core operations or services from this.

Twenty-six key risks were identified by all participants, ten (38%) were judged to have a high
potential impact and likelihood; three (11%) were considered to have a low impact and likelihood.
Overall there were three times as many risks considered to be high versus low. This provides some
www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 11

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

measure of the pressure and uncertainties under which research library directors are currently
operating: the heat is on and its intense.

Risk Cluster Observations

Interviewees offered some illustrative observations about the changing library value proposition,
which we paraphrase here. A notable tautology emerges, in which a weakened value proposition
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:

Alternative service providers in the network are providing a more compelling research
environment and support tools.

Our current value proposition cant compete with the alternative service provider.

Our users have noticed this.

Were continuing to rely on the old success metrics.

The university has noticed.

We havent responded (with an aligned strategic plan).

Our internal competitors for dollars are winning.

We cant get other funders to help.

Interviewee observations about staffing and human resources conveyed a mix of frustration
and resignation:

I cant attract people to support the old (or new) tasks.

Im not certain where to find the next generation of leaders, I only know they wont look
like me.

The current staff isnt qualified or motivated to support new library functions.

There is considerable uncertainty about the value of continuing investments in the traditional
durable goods of research librariescollections and facilitiesand the technologies that
support them:

Im not able to acquire additional print collections due to price increasesand am not
certain that they are worth the investment.

I dont have the space for these collections, and Im not sure theyre worth the effort to find it.

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 12

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

I cant attract users to my sofas and workspaces.

My physical collections and facilities are still at riskbut does it matter?

Our infrastructure is ill adapted to new needsbuilt around old workflows and collections.

Its also inefficient.

Were hesitant to embrace alternativesshould we migrate now?

We havent invested in systems to manage or preserve a different kind of research collection.

Intensity of Risks
When these risks are arrayed on a graph that accounts for their perceived impact and forecast
likelihood a visual heat map emerges highlighting risks that require significant mitigation.

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis: risk groups

Notably, risks that were rated as potentially catastrophic and almost certain are dominated by
human resource and legacy technology concerns. These are, of course, the challenges that libraries
must address if the current organizational model is to be preserved. However, one might conclude
that a future research library model will be less dependent on local human resources and systems.
Risks considered possible but of limited impact include mismanagement of library space and low
motivation levels among library staff.
www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 13

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Mitigation
An inventory of the high risks prior to any mitigation is shown in figure 4 below. These are the high
risks that are perceived by library directors to constitute an immediate and debilitating threat to the
future of the research library. (Please note: Only risks identified as High in table 2 are included in
figures 4, 5 and 6; medium and low risks are not included.)

Availability of online information resources (Google, etc.) weakens visibility and

value of library (Risk 1).
User base erodes because library value proposition is not effectively
communicated (Risk 2).
Recruitment and retention of resources is difficult due to reduction in pool of
qualified candidates (Risk 9).
Difficulty identifying candidates for evolving library management roles (Risk 10).
Human resources are not allocated appropriately to manage change in the
current environment (Risk 11).
Current human resources lack skill set for future needs (changing technology,
etc.; Risk 12).
Conservative nature of library inhibits timely adaptation to changed
circumstances (Risk 14).
Library cannot adjust fast enough to keep up with rapidly changing technology
and user needs (Risk 19).
Increased inefficiencies and expenses due to lack of functionality of legacy
systems and IT support (Risk 20).
Due diligence and sustainability assessment of local or third party services is not
completed, tracked or analyzed (Risk 21).

Figure 4. Inherent risks: high impact & likelihood

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 14

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Two of these relate to the changed value proposition resulting from the ascendancy of external
information hubs like Google and the resultant defection of the library user base. We do not
regard these as risks that individual libraries can reasonably hope to mitigaterather, they
demand joint action at the group and network level. We think the inattention (or lack of
responsiveness) to changing user expectations is an area that demands further reflection and will
reward immediate collective action. We think these risks are best addressed through
cooperativerather than localactions.
Many of the risks rated as high (impact and certainty) pertain to:

human resources and organizational culture, including a lack of attention to cross-training

and reallocation of existing staff

lack of critical skill sets for managing data sets, engaging directly with research faculty, or
retooling technological infrastructure

an organizational culture that inhibits innovation

difficulty in attracting and retaining staff in a competitive environment where fewer

credentialed library professionals are available

uncertainties about the appropriate qualifications for library managers who may require
skills developed in other sectors .

We believe that a significant number of these can be effectively managed on a local or group level
to reduce the impact or incidence of specific risk events. While some of the risks identified are
beyond the immediate control of research libraries, at least half of them can likely be mitigated
through some combination of local and cooperative actions.
We note that there are a handful of risks that, while not ranked as immediate or catastrophic
threats, are associated with the changing value of the librarys traditional assets:

long-term investments in redundant print collections create a counterweight to

innovation in online service development

legacy library management systems dont adequately support the transition to

digital content

inadequate attention is given to benchmarking or assessing the efficiency or value

of current services.

If these underlying risks were addressed, a significant reallocation in library resources might
be achieved, resulting in a service profile that is more visible and valuable to the research
library clientele. In other words, some changes that are disruptive to the traditional
www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 15

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

organization of library operations at research institutions may ultimately revitalize the library
value proposition. These represent opportunities for a new generation of library leadership.
While many of the high risks identified in this study are inherent in the surrounding information
environment, legacy library technology is not one of them; rather it represents an obstacle to
effecting meaningful change in the librarys operations and value proposition. It is not obvious
that investment in renovating the librarys traditional technology platformupgrading or migrating
from one local system to anotherwill substantially reduce the systemic risks facing research
libraries. This is an area where less, rather than more, library investment may be needed.

Strategies for Mitigation

We think that several of the risks considered to have both high likelihood and significant impact
will be effectively and perhaps inevitably managed via changes that are already emerging in the
current research library landscape.
We believe that increased reliance on shared infrastructure along with increased outsourcing
and regional consolidation of services will enable more rapid deployment of the services that
research library users want and need moving the following risks into a more acceptable range of
impact and occurrence:
Library cannot adjust fast enough to keep up with rapidly changing technology and user
needs (Risk 19).
Increased inefficiencies and expenses due to lack of functionality of legacy systems and IT
support (Risk 20).
Due diligence and sustainability assessment of local or third party services is not
completed, tracked or analyzed (Risk 21).
If research libraries restructured workflows it would enable strategic re-deployment of resources
that could significantly mitigate the human resource skill set challenges that were perceived as
high risks, particularly:
Difficulty identifying candidates for evolving library management roles (Risk 10).
Human resources are not allocated appropriately to manage change in the current
environment (Risk 11).
Current human resources lack skill set for future needs (changing technology, etc.;
(Risk 12).
We believe these mitigations can diminish some high risks as shown in figure 5.

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 16

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Availability of online information resources (Google, etc.) weakens visibility and

value of library (Risk 1).
User base erodes because library value proposition is not effectively
communicated (Risk 2).
Recruitment and retention of resources is difficult due to reduction in pool of
qualified candidates (Risk 9).
Difficulty identifying candidates for evolving library management roles (Risk 10).
Human resources are not allocated appropriately to manage change in the
current environment (Risk 11).
Current human resources lack skill set for future needs (changing technology,
etc.; Risk 12).
Conservative nature of library inhibits timely adaptation to changed
circumstances (Risk 14).
Library cannot adjust fast enough to keep up with rapidly changing technology
and user needs (Risk 19).
Increased inefficiencies and expenses due to lack of functionality of legacy
systems and IT support (Risk 20).
Due diligence and sustainability assessment of local or third party services is not
completed, tracked or analyzed (Risk 21).

Figure 5. Proposed High risk mitigation strategy and sequence

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 17

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Residual Risks
The risks that remain high after these mitigations may be intractable, or mitigation might require
something more or something other than collective action among libraries, or it may be that an
adequate response is a change in goals rather than operational change.

Availability of online information resources (Google, etc.) weakens visibility and

value of library (Risk 1).
User base erodes because library value proposition is not effectively
communicated (Risk 2).
Recruitment and retention of resources is difficult due to reduction in pool of
qualified candidates (Risk 9).
Conservative nature of library inhibits timely adaptation to changed
circumstances (Risk 14).

Figure 6. Residual High risks

Two of the residual risks seem best addressed by new strategies and services:
Availability of online information resources (Google, etc.) weakens visibility
and value of library (Risk 1).
User base erodes because library value proposition is not effectively
communicated (Risk 2).
If the research library community could disclose its assets in the networked environment more
effectively and with an associated set of common service expectations, it might be possible to
retain some of the traditional user loyalty even as these services become one of many within the

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 18

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Amazoogle information environment. A more direct approach to the value proposition challenge is
to deploy new services within the academy that are in the flow of current networked research
practices. Presenting assets and services where the research library academic clientele do their
work might renew their view of and reliance on library services.
The other two residual risks are cultural ones:
Recruitment and retention of resources is difficult due to reduction in pool of
qualified candidates (Risk 9).
Conservative nature of library inhibits timely adaptation to changed
circumstances (Risk 14).
The pool of potential library workers might be very different after the library has restructured
traditional workflows in favor of a new emphasis on and investment in research support services.
That service set would attract a new generation and type of professional that emanates from a
variety of disciplines rather than traditional library or information school training. Deploying these
new professionals and support services in a parallel organizational structure may be the only way
to bypass the obstacles created by the conservative nature of todays library organizations.

Epilogue
In the eighteen months since this work was undertaken, our analysis has been used as the basis
for internal planning within OCLC Research as well as facilitated discussion in the broader library
community. Initially, our findings were met with resistance and skepticism. Library administrators
thought the risks were overstated and particularly resisted the idea that the library value
proposition was threatened. More recently there has been a general acceptance that these
challenges are real and need to be met with collective effort and a new vision of services. There is
some evidence 2 that research libraries are now confronting these risks and identifying
opportunities for cooperative action. In the absence of organizations within the U.S. library
community that can address strategy, operational requirements and implement change on a
system-wide basis some bolder institutions are implementing action plans at the local or regional
level fueled by the fiscal imperatives of the current dire economic times.
This is heartening but likely to be inadequate. Most institutions continue to direct resources in
traditional ways towards operations that are marginal to institutional and national research
priorities, towards processes and services that are ignored or undervalued by their clients and
towards staff activities that are driven more by legacy professional concerns than user needs. To
properly respond to the risks identified here, research libraries need to come together around an
action agenda aimed at improvement of the research enterprise they serve. Incremental revision of
traditional operational models will only hasten the movement of important new research services
to other entities within the academy, leaving the library with only the vestigial values of its bookdetermined legacy. It will look the same but everything will have changed.

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 19

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change

Notes
1

Carr, David. 2009. Stoking Fear Everywhere You Look. The New York Times (December 12).
Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/media/08carr.html

The deficiencies in the institutionally-organized research library model have been pointedly
addressed in
Maloney, Krisellen, Kristin Antelman, Kenning Arlitsch and John Butler. 2010. Future
Leaders' Views on Organizational Culture. Forthcoming in College and Research Libraries
(July). Preprint available online at:
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crljournal/preprints/MaloneyAntelman-Arl.pdf
Kenney, Anne. 2009. Approaching an Entity Crisis: Reconceiving Research Libraries in a
Multi-institutional Context. Presented at OCLC Research Distinguished Seminar Series, 23
September. Dublin, Ohio USA. Available online at:
http://www.oclc.org/research/dss/ppt/dss_kenney.pdf
New collaborative action is taking shape around
digital preservation and a shared repository infrastructure structure via HathiTrust
http://www.hathitrust.org and
National Science Foundations Sustainable Digital Data Preservation and Access Network
Partners (DataNet) http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503141
Cooperative print management projects are changing the approaches to physical collections
Western Regional Storage Trust initiative
http://cdlinfo.cdlib.org/blog/2009/11/03/mellon-planning-grant-awarded-to-uc-librariesfor-a-western-regional-storage-trust/
OCLC Research is collaborating with several library partners in a project funded by The
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to explore cooperative service models for shared print and
digital repositories. http://www.slideshare.net/RLGPrograms/cloud-library-precipitatingchange-in-library-infrastructure
Center for Research Libraries and University of California Libraries print archiving effort
http://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/current-projects/shared-print-archive
Descriptive practice is getting approached differently in
Cornell and Columbia University Libraries partnership (known as 2CUL)
http://www.library.cornell.edu/news/091012/2cul
Decisions limiting further institutional investment in locally-managed systems are becoming
common and vendors are providing some relief via for instance
WorldCat Local http://www.oclc.org/worldcatlocal/default.htm
Summon http://www.serialsolutions.net/summon/
Finally, the recent consolidation of regional library consortia is a sign of the community
organizing itself into larger and potentially more capable systems
LYRASIS: http://www.lyrasis.org/About-Us.aspx
BCR announcement of discussions with LYRASIS:
http://www.bcr.org/publications/bcreview/2010/02/bcr-and-lyrasis-explore-newmember.html

www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf
Michalko, et. al., for OCLC Research

March 2010
Page 20