Comparing Library Resource Allocations for the Paper and the Digital Library: An Exploratory Study

This exploratory study asked eleven Association of Research Libraries (ARL) librarians to identify the resources needed for the transition of an all-paper library to the all-digital library. Although the results cannot be generalized, the study identifies functions and resources associated with the provision of paper and electronic materials that can be used for further investigation of library resource allocations.

Introduction

Since electronic materials are becoming more prevalent in libraries, there has been discussion and interest in identifying and comparing the costs of providing print and electronic materials [California State University, 2002; Lawrence et al.; Mackie-Mason et al.; Montgomery and King; and Sanett]. With the current world economy, budget restrictions, and librarians' current challenge of planning and integrating the digital library [Carlson], the study of resource allocation costs is a timely and practical endeavor. An exploratory study of the resources needed for the selection, acquisition, organization, and dissemination of paper materials and electronic materials was done in Boulder, CO, in May 2002. Eleven Association of Research Libraries (ARL) librarians were selected to identify the resources required for providing an all-paper library and an all-digital library and to complete an interactive electronic spreadsheet [Survey].

The digital library or the library of the future may have materialized sooner than projected and reflected in today's libraries. There have been numerous digital library projects and initiatives developed by libraries and educational institutions. These projects may have been sparked by the acceptance of and reliance on electronic journals, the wide acceptance of the Internet for scholarly communication, and the need for access to materials from locations outside of the traditional library setting.

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education identifies major university library building renovation projects [Carlson]. The author of this article highlights university libraries that are devoting space to special collections, multimedia stations and instruction rooms, information commons, group study rooms, and computer labs. At the same time, these libraries are installing compact shelving and are moving lesser-used and older collections to remote storage locations.

In regard to these initiatives and the growing interest in electronic materials and communication, there have been several recent studies addressing the use and costs of electronic journals. The introduction of electronic journals and databases to libraries began in the 1980s; therefore, cost data are available for the comparison of print bound and unbound journals and electronic journals (ejournals).

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded a project "...to evaluate the economic implications of converting the current journal collection of a university library to an all-digital format" [Montgomery]". This study documented the costs of acquiring and maintaining print bound and unbound journals and electronic journals using overhead and fixed costs of Drexel University's W. W. Hagerty Library [Montgomery and King].

Since electronic books (eBooks) have only been introduced to libraries within the past four years, there is little available cost and usage data. Consequently, there have been very few studies that include the costs or resource allocations associated with the inclusion of eBooks in the collection. The research reported in this article is an attempt to identify resource allocations for an all-paper library and the all-digital library that provides ejournals, eBooks, electronic maps, and digital audio, video, and images, based on information gathered from a group of ARL librarians. The results of this study provide a foundation for future digital library costing studies—only with follow-on comparative research can the results reported here be generalized.

Literature Review

Research examining library costs has been ongoing for some decades. Rapidly evolving information technologies and media options provide substantial motivation for librarians to understand library cost structures so as to make informed decisions about acquiring and utilizing new technologies. Martin M. Cummings notes that "Analysis of costs in meaningful detail is essential to management, i.e., answering the question, 'Are there alternate, less costly ways to do the same thing?'" [Cummings]. Richard E. Quandt provides an overview of the determinants of journal pricing and the issues relating to pricing that includes an extensive literature review of the topic [Quant]. Lawrence, Connaway, and Brigham provide a recent review of the library costing literature [Lawrence et al.], so this review is restricted to research involving digital libraries that directly relates to the current article. For those interested, Stephen A. Roberts provides a good general discussion of library costing issues [Roberts].

The California State University Library System recently participated in an eBook pilot project that studied several different methods for acquiring and accessing eBooks [California State University, 2003]. The study reported usage statistics and patron satisfaction, and investigated the economics of eBooks. A cost model for the acquisition of each type of eBook and paper book (pBook) purchased by the libraries was developed. These costs include the purchase price of the books and the cost of processing and cataloging the books. A comparison of the break-even points for pBooks and eBooks was also included. The study concluded that eBooks are most economical for materials that receive high use over a short period of time, but did not estimate resource allocations required for the selection, acquisition, cataloging, maintenance, circulation, storage, and deselection of pBooks and eBooks.

Mackie-Mason, et al. examined the different pricing and bundling models of electronic resources in terms of usage and publisher revenues [Mackie-Mason et al.]. The authors compared their data with "those established for the bundling of information goods in the economic literature." Their research did not examine the costs associated with the selection, acquisition, organization, and dissemination of electronic resources.

As previously mentioned, Montgomery and King documented costs for space, systems, supplies and services, and staff by function for print bound and unbound journals and for ejournals [Montgomery and King]. These costs were calculated for a twenty-two week period at Drexel University's W. W. Hagerty Library. Montgomery, Dean of the W. W. Hagerty Library, had access to all of these costs and was able to initiate a study that required staff to document their time during a specified time frame. The results of the Drexel University library study support the findings of this exploratory study of the resource allocations associated with the print library and the digital library.

Shelby Sanett proposed the development of a cost model for preserving authentic electronic records [Sanett]. Using existing digital preservation processes and cost models, Sanett identified the elements that should be included in a cost model for preserving electronic records. Her proposed cost model includes capital costs, direct operating costs, and indirect operating costs (overhead) for both the preservation and use of electronic records. Although Sanett's terminology varies from that of this article, her cost elements are the same as those identified in this study, including labor, space, materials, and equipment required to select, acquire, catalog, maintain, circulate, store, and deselect materials.

Basic Assumptions

This study was based on several assumptions developed during discussions with practicing librarians during a three-year period and on librarians' responses and reactions to two pre-tests conducted prior to the distribution of the formal cost allocation spreadsheet to the study group. The first pre-test conducted with catalog, collection development, acquisition, and reference librarians provided sufficient feedback to warrant a major revision of the cost allocation interactive spreadsheet. The pre-test of the revised cost allocation instrument demonstrated that the interactive spreadsheet accurately portrayed the functions associated with providing print materials and electronic materials, but also indicated the need for discussion before and after the completion of the cost allocations. It was then determined that it would be most beneficial to distribute the cost allocation interactive spreadsheet to a group of librarians who were together in the same location. The assumptions are:

Methodology

To gather current thinking and experience regarding the potential benefits and costs associated with the paper and the digital library, a study group of librarians was convened. The group was comprised of eleven ARL librarians who have experience with the selection, acquisition, organization, circulation, maintenance, storing, and deselecting of both paper and electronic materials. There were ten academic librarians and one public librarian who represented different types of library services including two access services librarians (one public and one academic librarian), two collection development librarians, two reference librarians, two technical services librarians, one acquisitions librarian, one catalog librarian, and one electronic resources librarian. The group met on the campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder in early May 2002.

While no library of the recent past, of the present, or of the foreseeable future will match either of these hypothetical libraries [Sanett], considering these extremes helped focus the participants so that they could better evaluate anticipated differences in the resource requirements for paper materials versus electronic materials.

Participants were instructed that both hypothetical libraries were presumed to require the same set of operational functions needed to acquire and maintain its collection of paper materials or electronic materials, as shown in Figure 1. Principal functions include selection, acquisition, cataloging, maintenance, circulation, warehousing and storage, and deselection. Clearly, the resources required to execute these functions will vary significantly between a paper and a digital library. Each of these functions was subdivided into constituent subfunctions as shown in Tables 1a-b, which will be discussed later. Resources consumed by library functions were categorized into four major classes or categories; labor, space, materials, and equipment.

Labor

Labor allocations include professional, paraprofessional, and technical staff. Participants were instructed to evaluate labor using a metric of total labor hours consumed, not monetary expenditure for labor.

Space

Space allocations include workspace, private space, and public space. Participants were instructed to evaluate space using a metric of square feet of floor space consumed.

Materials

Participants were instructed not to include the purchase price of print materials or electronic materials in their comparisons, but only to consider the monetary costs of ancillary processing, maintenance, and security materials. The reason for this instruction was two-fold. First, the business model for selling and distributing electronic materials is rapidly evolving, so credible cost comparisons between print materials and electronic materials are difficult to estimate. Second, the purpose of this study is primarily to compare the life-cycle costs of ownership between print materials and electronic materials. The previous work of Lawrence, Connaway, and Brigham indicates that the purchase costs of pBooks are a relatively small fraction of the life-cycle costs of ownership [Lawrence et al.]. Montgomery and King report that the largest total expenditure for electronic journals is for publishers' packages, but "...the largest cost per title is for electronic journals that are subscribed to individually" [Montgomery and King]. The researchers also report that bound journals are the highest cost per use, although they do not represent the highest purchase cost per title.

These findings indicate that the need for accurate purchase cost comparisons between paper materials and electronic materials are not critical to cost allocations since the costs of selecting, acquiring, organizing, maintaining, circulating, storing, and deselecting represent the highest costs associated with providing print and electronic materials. An implicit assumption of the study is that the total purchase cost of print materials and electronic materials are essentially equivalent, whatever the business model (single title or article purchase or licensing, per use fee, bundling, publisher packages, etc.).

Equipment

Equipment resources included equipment for both library staff and patrons. Examples of equipment include bookshelves, tables, chairs, carts, network connectivity equipment, terminals, printers, and so forth. Participants were instructed not to include equipment necessary for digitizing materials, or for servers to store digitized materials. The reason for this instruction is that business models for in-print, copyrighted electronic materials are evolving toward one where third-party vendors undertake the digitization, storage, and network distribution of the materials, and where libraries are responsible for the network connectivity costs and for providing terminals, computers, printers, and other reading devices in the library itself. Participants were instructed to evaluate and compare equipment resources based on the monetary value of the equipment.

Paper Library Estimates

Given these preliminary instructions, participants were instructed to consider how resources would be allocated among the six principal functions of a paper library. For example, participants were asked to estimate the percentage of library operating space that would be allocated to selection, acquisition, cataloging, maintenance, circulation, warehousing and storage, and deselection. Participants were next instructed to consider the subfunctions within each major function and to allocate resources among the subfunctions. For example, participants assigned resources to the subfunctions authority control, catalog, classify, and maintain database that comprise the principal function of cataloging.

The aggregate allocations of resources for all library subfunctions were subsequently determined by multiplying the overall allocation of each major function by the allocation of resources to each of its subfunctions. For example, if 20% of equipment resources were allocated to the cataloging function, and within cataloging, 25% of cataloging equipment was assigned to the classify subfunction, then 5% (20% of 25%) of all library equipment resources were assigned to classify. Results from this analysis are summarized in Table 1a and Figures 2a - 2d. These results provide estimated resource allocations for operational functions and subfunctions of a paper library.

Digital Library Estimates

In the second half of the cost allocation exercise, study participants were instructed to estimate the resources that would be required by a digital library as a percentage of the same resource required in a paper library. For example, consider the authority control subfunction of the cataloging function. In a digital library, authority control could require more labor (gt;100%), the same amount of labor (=100%), or less labor (<100%) than authority control in a paper library. For each of the subfunctions of the digital library, participants made percentage estimates of the relative amount of resources required as summarized in Table 1b and Figures 3a - 3d.

Findings

The aggregated results of the participants' cost allocations are summarized in Tables1a and 1b, and in Figures 2-4.

Table 1a. Estimated mean resource use in a Paper Library, by operational function

RESOURCE TYPE	Labor	Space	Materials	Equip
TOTAL RESOURCE USE	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Selection	17.2%	5.2%	7.6%	9.4%
Jobber list maintenance	2.1%	0.7%	1.1%	1.4%
Review jobber submissions	5.9%	1.8%	1.9%	1.7%
Patron request	1.7%	0.4%	0.9%	1.4%
Bibliographer recommends	6.1%	1.4%	2.2%	3.5%
Receive gift	1.3%	0.9%	1.5%	1.3%
Acquisition	17.6%	8.6%	13.4%	16.4%
Purchase monograph	7.7%	2.7%	3.9%	6.8%
Receive	6.5%	3.4%	5.6%	5.9%
Process gift	2.4%	1.5%	2.5%	2.6%
Ship returns	1.0%	1.0%	1.4%	1.0%
Cataloging	24.5%	11.0%	23.8%	21.1%
Authority control	4.2%	1.7%	3.2%	3.2%
Catalog	9.7%	4.6%	11.7%	8.5%
Classify	6.3%	3.0%	5.5%	5.6%
Maintain database	4.3%	1.6%	3.4%	3.8%
Maintenance	9.9%	14.3%	19.9%	13.3%
Bind	1.9%	2.6%	4.3%	2.1%
Mark	1.7%	2.6%	2.8%	1.8%
Secure	1.1%	2.0%	2.0%	1.6%
Bar Code	1.1%	1.5%	1.9%	1.9%
Deacitification	2.2%	3.4%	4.7%	3.5%
Mend and repair	1.9%	2.2%	4.2%	2.4%
Circulation	21.1%	39.9%	20.5%	23.4%
Shelve / reshelve	4.5%	4.0%	2.5%	2.6%
Store in stacks	2.0%	21.3%	2.6%	5.6%
Checkout	2.9%	1.8%	2.8%	3.0%
Convert	1.2%	0.9%	2.1%	1.6%
Trace	1.2%	0.9%	1.3%	0.8%
Recall	1.0%	1.1%	1.3%	1.1%
Overdue	1.0%	0.7%	1.5%	0.9%
Return	2.1%	1.8%	1.2%	1.6%
Process lost book	1.3%	0.8%	1.5%	1.2%
Issue fines notice	0.9%	0.8%	1.4%	1.2%
Collect fines	1.0%	0.9%	1.0%	1.1%
Reading/viewing areas	1.9%	5.0%	1.4%	2.8%
Warehousing/Storage	5.2%	18.3%	12.1%	13.2%
Identify	1.2%	0.8%	1.2%	0.9%
Update database	1.1%	1.4%	1.0%	1.4%
Mark	0.6%	1.1%	1.3%	0.6%
Move	0.8%	1.5%	2.3%	1.5%
Store	0.6%	12.1%	4.3%	6.5%
Retrieve / Return	0.9%	1.3%	2.0%	2.3%
Deselection	4.5%	2.7%	2.7%	3.4%
Identify	1.2%	0.4%	0.4%	0.7%
Update database	1.1%	0.4%	0.4%	1.1%
Retrieve	0.7%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%
Pack	0.7%	0.6%	0.4%	0.4%
Ship	0.4%	0.4%	0.6%	0.4%
Dispose	0.4%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%

Percentages add to 100%

Table 1b.Estimated mean resource use in a Digital Library relative to a Paper Library, by operational function

RESOURCE TYPE	Labor	Space	Materials	Equip
TOTAL RESOURCE USE	59.0%	29.2%	34.2%	69.6%

Selection	98.1%	58.7%	73.5%	118.8%
Jobber list maintenance	173.6%	72.5%	73.3%	105.0%
Review jobber submissions	103.2%	58.6%	100.0%	147.7%
Patron request	78.6%	80.6%	51.3%	92.5%
Bibliographer recommendation	91.8%	69.5%	53.7%	94.1%
Receive gift	81.9%	47.8%	47.6%	81.9%
Acquisition	53.8%	41.0%	43.2%	78.7%
Purchase monograph	66.8%	66.0%	60.8%	90.5%
Receive	60.5%	39.6%	44.7%	80.9%
Process gift	64.2%	35.1%	46.1%	66.9%
Ship returns	6.6%	10.1%	6.3%	24.7%
Cataloging	84.9%	67.6%	65.3%	92.3%
Authority control	86.4%	78.5%	75.5%	105.0%
Catalog	89.5%	66.8%	66.4%	95.5%
Classify	70.9%	60.5%	58.2%	85.0%
Maintain database	98.6%	75.9%	72.3%	107.5%
Maintenance	39.3%	26.5%	19.6%	55.4%
Bind	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
Mark	35.0%	25.0%	14.5%	45.9%
Secure	66.4%	38.6%	31.4%	89.5%
Bar Code	3.2%	1.4%	2.7%	5.5%
Deacitification	114.5%	71.4%	49.1%	134.5%
Mend and repair	15.5%	1.8%	5.9%	20.0%
Circulation	19.7%	24.9%	18.4%	49.6%
Shelve / reshelve	3.0%	10.3%	6.6%	41.0%
Store in stacks	20.7%	9.4%	28.5%	100.2%
Checkout	23.6%	22.4%	10.9%	57.1%
Convert	42.3%	31.3%	23.7%	25.3%
Trace	20.0%	22.3%	17.6%	17.3%
Recall	3.3%	4.2%	0.9%	10.3%
Overdue	7.4%	7.0%	3.7%	12.5%
Return	8.7%	7.3%	5.9%	23.0%
Process lost book	2.7%	1.4%	1.3%	2.5%

D-Lib Magazine
December 2003

Volume 9 Number 12

ISSN 1082-9873