Sustainability
Abstract.
Chapter 2 considers the fundamental issue in digital library management and development: that of sustainability. It provides a definition of the term and looks at the basics of a sustainable approach, drawing on the authors’ own research, key relevant literature and the case studies.
Introduction
This chapter and the ensuing case studies look at how best to make digital libraries, collections and services economically viable and financially sustainable, drawing on research and experience to date. John Robinson describes some of the challenges of ensuring sustainability:
Librarians have always been engaged with the problem of sustaining their infrastructures … The generic challenges are the same: capital-intensive infrastructure which must be replaced every five or ten years; teams of people with the high-level systems administration and programming skills required to operate the infrastructure; new approaches to revenue budgeting which take into account the new operating costs and the requirement by the institution to defend these costs … (Robinson, 2009)
As we wrote in Digital Library Economics (Baker and Evans, 2009), there are a good many different activities (all of which cost) that need to be taken into account in order to ensure sustainability:
Paying for access to the information is only the first step, whether or not the costs are passed on to the user. It is then necessary to make it accessible, as for example by: marketing the existence of the resources to users; by developing good search and classification functions; by training staff in accessing the information and instructing others in how to access, evaluate and reference information. These overheads or ‘extras’ also cost money and may not be affordable on top of purchasing costs.
Defining sustainability
Abby Smith (2003) sums up the main challenge as being ‘how to pay for it all’, especially after the initial grants have finished (Bond, 2006). As Derek Law points out in Chapter 4, even projects that are set up for the public good have to be sustainable, for without sustainability there is no long term, and any benefits envisaged can either not be realised or realised only fleetingly. But, important though finding the money is, there is more to it than that. It is about thinking and planning for the long term, not least in order to ensure that up-front investment results in long-term benefit for the key stakeholders – funders, users, subscribers and so on. ‘Ensuring sustainability requires taking long hard looks at the environment and the service or collection required, including in relation to costs … sustainability is also about preservation and the risks associated with losing data if financial sustainability is not achieved’ (Baker and Evans, 2009). Sustainability is not the same as independent continuation, however:
Start-ups in the private sector aim for independent profitability but they also consider it a success to sell their companies to a larger enterprise with the means to take those assets forward. They may also seek to merge with complementary businesses. Not-for-profit projects should think similarly about their options and pursue different forms of sustainability based on their particular strengths, their competition, and their spheres of activity. It is enormously difficult to survive in a competitive environment with a single product aimed at a single market. (Guthrie et al. 2008)
Basics of a sustainable approach
The way in which sustainability should be addressed will depend on the context, the type of project, service or resource, and the desired outputs and outcomes. Table 2.1 lists what are widely seen as the basic requirements for a sustainable service or resource.
Table 2.1
Basic requirements for sustainability
| Valuable products | ‘The key to sustainability … is to reach a position where the digital library is no longer regarded as an add-on but as part of this integral core.’ (Bennett, 2001) ‘The starting point of your campaign towards sustainability has to be a product that is valuable, and not just to you and your colleagues … Beware the attractions of the technology-driven project: just because something can be done, does not mean it should be.’ (Hamilton, 2004) ‘Products must add value in order to create competitive advantage, attracting and retaining audience, for example by building up a strong presence in the marketplace or by providing tools and/or content that becomes integrated into the user’s workflows.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Robust business models/cases | Sustainability has to be ‘supported by a robust business model – whether this be through 100 per cent funding by the taxpayer or through the monetarisation of the content.’ (Dempster and Grout, 2009) ‘Economic viability for the production and distribution of information goods and services requires appropriate mechanisms for the recovery of costs and pricing mechanisms that are acceptable to users.’ (Brindley, 2009) |
| Strong set of processes and organisational structures | ‘Sustainability is most likely to be achieved if there is a strong set of processes and organisational structures in place that takes initiatives beyond the project and start-up stages.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Understanding of the users (secondary as well as primary) and their interests/needs | ‘Looking at the “fringe benefits” – the benefits to users outside the immediate community – as well will help, for example the general public or school children as well as academics. This will be one way of increasing value at little extra cost.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) Project MUSE (Case Study 2) suggests continuous engagement with key communities and users. |
| Market research | ‘Providing access to the digital world is expensive … and limited financial resources means informed targeting of resources, and a continual review of market penetration.’ (Macdonald and Kebbell, 2004) ‘Identification procedures to highlight services, resources and materials that are the most useful and are therefore likely to be funded [or income generating are needed]. This will be not just an understanding of the technology and the environment in which one is working but an understanding of demand as well as supply gained through market research.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Technology assessment | ‘Just because technology has made developments possible does not mean that they become feasible economically. The technology needs to be thought about before proceeding. It is necessary to make sure that the technology will add value. It is inappropriate just to use the same processes in a new environment. Rather, it is important to make sure that the process is appropriate for the digital environment.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Evidence of positive effects/ impact measures | ‘Libraries need to justify the investment in change and to prove the efficiency and positive impact of the new resources and services … funding institutions want evidence of positive effects … [in order to] gain a basis for resource allocation.’ (Poll, 2005) ‘New services always cost money. This may be needed for specific new resources or equipment, staff training, changes to workflows or work practices, new or different physical space, and so on. It will always be important to measure the impact of such services to see if they are worth it. For example, on the positive side, do they reduce the time taken, enlarge the scope or lower the costs associated with, say, the learning and teaching or the research process? On the negative side, do they result in information overload, technical problems, or the over-reliance on one type of resource, for instance? The impact will depend on the goals of the library and the reasons the users patronise it: what the library wants to achieve – and therefore the link between its aims and the actual end result.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Cost-efficiency and affordability | ‘The economic challenge [is one] of making our information systems both cost-efficient and affordable.’ (Bennett, 2001) |
| Capital programme (rolling, as necessary) | ‘Digital library managers must accept that capital spend will not be a one-off: there will be a requirement for rolling programmes of updates to software, hardware and other core infrastructural elements, together with basic running costs including commodities such as electricity and related bills. Otherwise, digital library provision will become increasingly unreliable, ending up as a greater financial risk to the providing institution.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Collaboration | ‘The digital world not only makes collaboration possible, it may make it economically imperative.’ (Lee, 1997) For institutions, the attractions will be: cost savings, or at least cost avoidance in the future; cost/time efficiency, providing more information for the same level of effort; and less investment risk. Suppliers may gain a bigger market share, a ready market or one bill or licence through collaboration. (See also Anglada and Cornelias, 2002; Anderson, 2008.) ‘The shared approach and the shared ownership of the repository resource makes real economic sense.’ (O’Connor, 2005) ‘Collaboration on many levels (local, regional, national, international and with non-academic and commercial partners) and coherence between groups and areas will make the … sector sustainable in the longer term.’ (Baker, 2006) Partnership provision – as noted in Table 3.1 – can often provide the necessary financial sustainability through the development of shared-risk business models (Cox, 2007), though agreements need to be in place to ensure equity. ‘We all benefit from (and generate) economies of scale, pooled expertise, larger funding, and more robust infrastructure when we collaborate.’ (Zorich, 2007). ‘On-line content is now an essential resource where significant economies of scale can be found by national procurement and delivery’ (JISC, 2007). Managed licensing agreements and central negotiation have led to better deals and good terms and conditions that allow the utilisation of materials for the benefit of research, learning and teaching development and also relationship management with other key stakeholders such as publishers. |
| ‘Responding to the challenges must include assessing and realising the potential for mergers or the aggregation of the offer through partnerships, public and private, with others … [also] collective licensing is increasingly valued and valuable as a way of ensuring both cost-effective provision and long-term sustainability.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009; see also Middleton, 2005) ‘Collaboration will also help with preservation. Much of the cost is fixed so the more people who collaborate, the more spread out the fixed costs are, and the more materials that utilise the fixed cost, the lower the cost per usage. No one institution can know whether it will be able to fund preservation indefinitely, so collaboration lowers the risk that money will be spent on digitising and archiving materials that might suddenly become unreachable if the institution stops funding the preservation programme.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) ‘Collaborative activities can influence the economics of digital libraries in several ways. Development of shared infrastructure and shareable software can assist in reducing the costs of developing and maintaining digital library services. Collaborative activities can also increase the value of digital libraries from the user perspective.’ (Cathro, 2009) ‘There is also an increasing emphasis on shared services, at regional, national and international level, though the ability to have localised – and indeed personalised – flexibility seems to be crucial to the success of such collaborative projects. The benefits are considerable, both in terms of cost efficiency and enhanced services to users.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009; see also Collier, 2004, 2005) ‘Linking in more closely with commercial providers and players is a way of dealing with declining budgets and rising costs as well as the opportunities provided by digital approaches. It is also a way of ensuring that library mechanisms remain up to date and attractive to users, both by utilising the existing interface styles such as Google and by getting hold of market research to ensure the targeting of key groups – for example students – successfully. There may be new costs here as well, for example staff time management of collaborative partnerships or the loss of the ability to develop internal economies of scale. Arguably prospective collaborators should be judged on a cost-benefit analysis: do they add enough value to be worthwhile? Collaboration will thus help everyone to access these resources and to utilise them fully as well as spreading the costs for their development and maintenance. Many authors suggest that the way forward may be to merge and to share resources, accessing them via aggregated tools, for example with metadata harvesting aggregators or with regional repositories. Collective licensing (as for example with the SHEDL initiative) is increasingly valued and valuable as a way of ensuring both cost-effective provision and long-term sustainability.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) Walters and Skinner (2010) ‘consider in detail the cooperative model and the path it provides toward sustainability as well as how it fosters participation by cultural memory organizations and their administrators, who are concerned about what digital preservation will ultimately cost and who will pay.’ |
|
| Flexibility | A product or service will need to be adaptable in respect of the environment that is emerging around it, and adept enough to respond to those changes that are perceived as being important for the future. ‘In a fast-changing environment [with constantly developing technology], it is crucial to ensure flexibility, continually finding ways of monetising the value of the product going forward, understanding the fact that costs are ongoing.’ (Baker and Evans, 2009) |
| Good risk management | There will always be a risk with any new (technology) development. The five categories of suggested response to risks are:* Prevention Terminate the risk − by doing things differently and thus removing the risk, where it is feasible to do so. Countermeasures are put in place that either stop the threat or problem from occurring or prevent it having any impact on the project or business. Reduction Treat the risk − take action to control it in some way where the actions either reduce the likelihood of the risk developing or limit the impact on the project to acceptable levels. Transference This is a specialist form of risk reduction where the management of the risk is passed to a third party via, for instance, an insurance policy or penalty clause, such that the impact of the risk is no longer an issue for the health of the project. Not all risks can be transferred in this way. Acceptance Tolerate the risk − perhaps because nothing can be done at a reasonable cost to mitigate it or the likelihood and impact of the risk occurring are at an acceptable level. Contingency These are actions planned and organised to come into force as and when the risk occurs. |
*Office of Government Commerce (2005) ‘Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2’, Management of Risk.
Sustainability criteria
Fulfilling the basic requirements listed in Table 2.1 will not necessarily guarantee sustainability. A number of more specific criteria typically need to be met in order to ensure – as far as it is possible to do so – that a project or service will be sustainable in the longer term. Table 2.2 aims to list and describe the key criteria. It is not expected that all of these questions can necessarily be answered or be relevant for every project or service.
Table 2.2
| Area | Key questions |
| Strategic fit | How closely does the product or service align with relevant strategies (funders, organisational and individual stakeholders)? |
| Demonstrable impact | What (positive) impact is likely to be demonstrated over a reasonable time period, as expected by the key stakeholders? |
| Differentiation | Where there is competition for resources, it will be important to ensure that the project, product or service can be differentiated from that of rival ones, whether by added value, competitive pricing or other attractant(s) or benefit(s) as listed in this table. |
| Value for money | Will the product or service provide good value for money, as perceived by all the key stakeholders? |
| Return on investment | Will the return on the initial or ongoing investment be deemed to be sufficient by those doing the investing? |
| Product or service performance | Is the product or service performing as well as it needs to do to fulfil other key criteria? Will it continue to perform well in the longer term? |
| User need | Is there evidence of user need? What do users value? What are their perceptions? Is there a developing market to deliver similar services freely or under different business models? Is there sufficient evidence of continuing user demand? |
| Level of innovation/ obsolescence |
How leading edge are the products or services? (This includes enabling innovative research or teaching to take place through lowering the barriers to take up of new types of resource, for example.) Are new products or technologies emerging that may render the product or service redundant or inefficient? Are more innovative approaches or technologies developing that could be adopted to improve the value or impact of the service? Can the product or service be re-engineered or refreshed if/when the technology being used starts to become obsolescent? |
| Competition | Is there evidence of emerging competition in the area, commercially or from other public sector organisations? Does acceptable alternative provision, either commercial or non-commercial, exist? |
| Consolidation | Are there opportunities for consolidation across operations, products or services, or between participating organisations? |
Case studies
All the case studies in this book refer to long-term sustainability and the challenge of achieving it. However, we have selected four studies in particular to complement this chapter on sustainability in general.
Case Study 1
The JSTOR service has become ever more vital as pressure on traditional libraries increases – not only in terms of budgets and physical space but also increased user demand and exponential growth in publications. The case study exemplifies some of the critical success factors in ensuring long-term sustainability: having a robust and attractive value proposition with ‘unique benefits’; ensuring that the products meet the needs both of the market and of the content suppliers; being flexible and open to change; emphasising collaboration. But it is the tiered pricing model that makes the JSTOR offer especially attractive for its users (including pricing stability) on the one hand and the organisation financially sustainable (not least in terms of JSTOR’s ability to generate capital for renewal and regeneration purposes) on the other.
Case Study 2
As with the JSTOR project, part of the initial rationale for Project MUSE was to respond to the growing budgetary crisis in humanities academic publishing. Again, the critical success factor has been the organisation’s vision, strategy and ability to evolve ‘in dynamic ways’, supported by collaborative approaches and tiered pricing structures. MUSE leaders were – and are – also willing to take risks. The end result has been an attractive product that people want to buy into because – as, for example, in the case of libraries and the need to make savings – it gives them what they want and need. In other words, it adds value at a price or a cost they can afford.
Case Study 3
One of the critical success factors most evident in this project is cooperation and collaboration on a community-wide scale. While grants and internal resource allocations provided the necessary start-up funds, partnership working enabled the project leaders to lever additional funds from other sources. Here, success has bred success, with other partners wanting to participate as a result of initial achievement. Care needs to be taken, however, when there is multiple bidding for funds as a partner institution and clarity of role is required in applications.
Case Study 4
The study focuses on the decision-making points through the various stages of a project undertaken by Emory University Library, all the time emphasising the importance and necessity of long-term sustainability. Joan Smith comments: ‘Sustainability is a recognised issue for academic research projects, particularly those in the humanities. Our intent was to creatively address the sustainability challenges of our own production system, thereby advancing digital library project sustainability more broadly.’
Other case studies
Chronopolis (Case Study 6) which only focused on funding for finite amounts of time as opposed to long-term sustainability. To address this, Chronopolis sought the support of an institution which is committed to a long-term existence. The authors also stress the need to build in work on sustainability from the start of any project rather than when it is well up and running.
Portico (Case Study 8) where the free-rider problem – a challenge to sustainability in many cases – and how to respond to it is discussed. The project is also a good example of cooperation at work, with the emphasis being on a good balance between the key stakeholders and flexibility in the choice and use of business models.
NARCIS (Case Study 14) where there is no arrangement yet for the sustainability of the research information (the information on researchers, research institutes, projects and programmes).
Conclusion
This chapter has considered the fundamental issue in digital library management and development: that of sustainability. It has provided a definition of the term and looked at the basics of a sustainable approach, drawing on our own research, key relevant literature and the case studies. Chapter 3 considers specific elements in a sustainability strategy for digital libraries.
References
Anderson, M. Evolving a network of networks: the experience of partnerships in the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. International Journal of Digital Curation. 2008; 3(1):4–14.
Anglada, L., Comellas, N. What’s fair? Pricing models in the electronic era. Library Management. 2002; 23(4/5):227–233.
Baker, D. Digital library futures: a UK HE and FE perspective. Interlending and Document Supply. 2006; 34(1):4–8.
Baker D., Evans W., eds. Digital Library Economics: An Academic Perspective. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2009.
Bennett, S. The golden age of libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2001; 27(4):256–259.
Bond, T. Sustaining a digital collection after the grants: the Early Washington Maps Project. OCLC Systems and Services. 2006; 22(1):56–66.
Brindley, L. Foreword: Digital library economics: an introduction. In: Baker D., Evans W., eds. Digital Library Economics: An Academic Perspective. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2009.
Cathro, W. Digital library economics: international perspectives: the Australian perspective. In: Baker D., Evans W., eds. Digital Library Economics: An Academic Perspective. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2009.
Collier, M. Development of a business plan for an International Cooperative Digital Library – The European Library (TEL). Program. 2004; 38:225–231.
Collier, M. The business aims of eight national libraries in digital library co-operation: a study carried out for the business plan of The European Library (TEL) project. Journal of Documentation. 2005; 61(5):602–622.
Cox, J. Investigative Study Towards Establishing a Scottish Higher Education Digital Library for Scottish Universities. Northants: John Cox Associates Limited. Online at http://its-ewds1. ds. strath. ac. uk/Portals/14/WG/SHEDL/documents/SCURLSHEDLREPORTfinal280907JE. pdf, 2007.
Dempster, S., Grout, C. Digitisation – trends in the economics of retro-conversion. In: Baker D., Evans W., eds. Digital Library Economics: An Academic Perspective. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2009.
Guthrie, K., Griffiths, R., Maron, N. Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online Academic Resources. Ithaka. Online at http://sca. jiscinvolve. org/files/2008/06/sca_ithaka_sustainability_report-final. pdf, 2008.
Hamilton, V. Sustainability for digital libraries. Library Review. 2004; 53(8):393–395.
JISC. Corporate Plan. Bristol: JISC; 2007.
Lee S., ed. Economics of Digital Information: Collection, Storage and Delivery. New York: Haworth Press, 1997.
Macdonald, J., Kebbell, A. Access in an increasingly digital world. Electronic Library. 2004; 22(6):498–508.
Maron, N., Yun, J., Pickle, S. Sustaining Our Digital Future: Institutional Strategies for Digital Content. London: Strategic Content Alliance; 2013.
Middleton, K. Collaborative digitization programs: a multifaceted approach to sustainability. Library Hi Tech. 2005; 23(2):145–150.
O'Connor, S. The economics of repository libraries in the context of the future conventional libraries. Library Management. 2005; 26(1/2):18–25.
Poll, R. Measuring the impact of new library services. World Library and Information Congress: 71st IFLA General Conference and Council. Oslo, 14–18. (August):2005.
Robinson, J. Spinning the disks – lessons from the circus. In: Baker D., Evans W., eds. Digital Library Economics: An Academic Perspective. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2009.
Smith, A. Issues in sustainability: creating value for online users. First Monday. 8(5), 2003.
Walters, T., Skinner, K. Economics, sustainability, and the cooperative model in digital preservation. Library Hi Tech. 2010; 28(2):259–272.
Zorich, D., Webwise: Stewardship in the Digital Age: Managing Museum and Library Collections for Preservation and Use. Conference proceedings, WebWise Conference on Libraries and Museums in the Digital World, 1–2 March, Washington, DC, 2007.