Response to Ithaka S+R Modeling a Sustainable Future for the Federal

Depository Library Program in the 21st Century: Value Proposition

Your friendly FGI volunteers

thaka S+R Value proposition: the missing pieces

Focus on Libraries, not users.

The draft Value Proposition report [ http://fdlpmodeling.net/?p=55 ] from the Ithaka
S+R Modeling a Sustainable Future for the Federal Depository Library Program in the
21st Century project focuses explicitly and exclusively on the value of the program to
participating libraries, not on its values to users. It assumes that if the program is of
value to participating libraries, it will have value to the public.

[T]his value proposition focuses on considering the costs and benefits of
participation in the FDLP from the perspective of a participating (or potentially
participating) library under this new Direction and various new Models. While
we recognize and celebrate the value that the Program offers to the American
public and various specific communities, that value is only discussed here insofar
as it contributes to the value proposition of a library. Ultimately, structures that
offer positive value propositions encouraging libraries to take on a wide range
of roles and responsibilities in support of the overall mission of the Program will
directly support the interests of the American public in long-term, no-fee access
to government information and support for its effective use. On the other hand, a
Program that does not consider the value propositions perceived by the libraries
that are expected to serve in critical roles runs the risk of the failure of both the
Program and its ability to support the needs of the American public. (p. 3)

Thus, rather than building a Program that has values to users, it proposes trying to build
a Program that has value to libraries in hopes that they will participate and that their
participation will somehow have a trickle down benefit to users. We believe that this
logic has three fatal flaws.

First, the draft reports focus on the value to libraries results in a skewed and even
misleading understanding of the history and future of the FDLP. In the reports
description of the value of the FDLP, it repeatedly uses the phrase many libraries (by
my count, nineteen times in eleven pages) (I wouldnt bother mentioning the number of
times in our response -R). This phrase implies that there is either a consensus among
libraries, or demonstrable trends in one particular direction, or a consistent motivation
for changes to the Program. But neither this report nor the earlier FDLP Modeling
draft reports document any such consensuses or trends or motivations. If anything,
the reports document the diversity of motivations in the FDLP community. In fact, this
use of the phrase "many libraries" masks the existence of other views of the value of
FDLP. The report tells the story about the historical value of the FDLP from only one
perspective -- that of participating libraries and, more specifically, from the point of view
of library management (i.e.., What does my library get out of participating in FDLP?).
This narrative of the value of FDLP to libraries is plausible as far as it goes, but it is
seriously incomplete. There are other narratives that are as important if not more so.

A different narrative, from the point of view of users, for example, would tell a completely
different story. It would tell how libraries have helped users find and use government
information and have ensured the preservation of that information. It would tell the story
of how users are happy today with the access they have to government information on
the web directly from agencies. It would also provide a librarians view of the future of
free public access for users and compare the benefits and risks of different models.
Such a narrative would illuminate what the different models would actually mean to
users, rather than to library managers. Among other things, it would demonstrate the
need for building many user-focused services supported by and integrated with specific,
user-focused collections. It would result in models that benefit users. Participating
libraries would benefit because they would be providing useful services to users.

Second, it is not clear that the individual roles will actually provide any benefit or value
to participating libraries. In fact, the report does not even examine the costs and benefits
of the Roles, but focuses instead on the Models, which are comprised of Program-
oriented broad areas of activity (Building Blocks) that are implemented through library-
oriented Roles. In addition, the descriptions of the Roles in the Models draft report do
not adequately define what participation in the FDLP Program will mean. It blurs the
lines between FDLP libraries and non-FDLP libraries, and between FDLP libraries and
libraries that have specialized, non-Title-44 responsibilities. In short, it is not clear how
FDLP participation will provide any benefit over non-participation, or if any of the roles
will provide any real value to any libraries. (For more on Blocks, Roles and Models, see
our previous comments on the draft models report [ http://freegovinfo.info/node/3193 ]).

Third, this approach does not address the biggest issue facing FDLP libraries today: the
disintermediation effect of the Web. As documented by the Ithaka S+R Environmental
Scan and as repeated in the Values report, users do not see the need for -- and are
not using -- libraries as intermediaries to government information. Users are largely
happy to search the open Web or go directly to government web sites to get government
information. In this context, if participating libraries do not provide demonstrable benefits
to their users, no amount of libraries reducing costs and adopting most of the reports
Roles (reducing their responsibilities, or drawing down their collections, or unbundling
their commitments) will persuade users that libraries are a necessary or useful part of
their information seeking and using process.

The Models should, indeed, consider the value propositions perceived by the libraries
as the report says. But they should do much more. By focusing on the possible value to
libraries of ill-defined participation in a program that does not define its value to users,
the Value Proposition fails to demonstrate that it will be either sustainable or effective.

The missing piece: Digital Collections

Although the Ithaka S+R reports go further than any previous analyses of FDLP in
finding value in digital collections and in proposing ways to ensure their long-term
preservation, the reports still overlook the value of digital collections to participating
libraries, to their users, and to the program. And, the reports assume -- wrongly in our
estimation -- that collections and services can be usefully separated.

The Values report undervalues the importance of digital collections by implicitly adopting
several assumptions that GPO promulgated for many years and that most libraries have,
until recently, accepted or at least tolerated. These assumptions are: that "tangible"
collections are the only collections that provide value to libraries; that digital collections
do not provide value to individual libraries; and that "access" is as good as "ownership."
As more and more libraries are building digital collections or contemplating doing so,
and, as GPO is recognizing that FDLP libraries can be essential partners in digital
preservation, these assumptions are increasingly anachronistic and simply false.

The reports do modify these assumptions in one important aspect. They explicitly
understand the need for long-term preservation and the importance of (a few) libraries
in this role. The draft Values Proposition report does not, however, see any value of
smaller libraries (or many libraries) having digital collections. (For more on this issue,
see our comment here: http://fdlpmodeling.net/?p=52#comment-163173393 .) This
assumption can be seen most clearly when it describes the historical benefits of
participation in the Program:

The declining perceived value realized from tangible government materials
combined with the increasing perceived costs of the responsibilities of
maintaining these collections poses a complex dilemma for many participating
libraries. (p. 5)

[I]t is increasingly clear that the exclusivity once enjoyed by depository libraries
as the sole venue for accessing government information has largely disappeared.
The increasing ability of the average American to access [digital] government
information without the intermediary of the depository library has left some
depositories questioning the value that they realize by building and maintaining
tangible collections of government information. Although the provision of free
tangible copies of government information is intended to be one of the core
benefits of participation in the Program, many libraries no longer view this as a
particularly compelling incentive to participate. (p. 6) [emphasis added]

In the above passages, the report blurs the distinction between digital and tangible
information and between access and ownership. This results in the implication that,
if tangible collections are no longer of value to libraries, then digital collections must not
be of value either. This is another fatal flaw of the report.

We believe that, if digital government information were deposited with FDLP libraries,
those libraries would gain from building digital collections many of the same kinds of
value that they secured when they built paper collections. But not only libraries would
benefit. There are at least four kinds of value that would result from digital deposit.

First, users would gain. Users would benefit if libraries of all sizes addressed the
needs of their specific user communities by building digital collections that included
authentic, deposited, digital government information along with other digital information.
By building such collections, libraries could provide for their user communities
(regardless of geographic proximity) rich collections of information from many sources,
combined in a common user-interface, augmented by tools for discovery and use
customized for those collections and users. Users would find it easier to locate and
use information that best matched their needs, regardless of its original producer or
distributor. Rather than having to search for all information using generic search
engines, or search for information by producer using agency-specific search engines,
users could use rich content-specific tools designed and optimized for specific,
preselected, quality content. Additionally, with more libraries building more digital
collections, libraries leverage the inherent nature of the open Web in order to make
digital government information more findable. This seeding the cloud will help users
find government information in similar fashion to wikipedia, facebook and youtube.

Second, libraries would benefit. Participating FDLP libraries would have a digital
resource that other libraries would not have: authentic, officially-deposited collections
that would comprehensively match depositing criteria. By building digital collections of
public domain information, the libraries would have a valuable resource for data mining,
text indexing, and other computational research. By combining Title-44 materials with
non-Title-44 materials, libraries could build unique collections that no other library or
agency (including GPO) would have collections designed for their relevance to specific
user communities. By developing unique tools for discovery, access, and use, the library
could provide resources and expertise that would contribute to and enrich the digital-
library community at large and gain reputational benefits within that community.

Third, the Program would benefit. By encouraging and enabling FDLP libraries to
maintain collections of Title-44 digital materials, GPO could more securely guarantee
both preservation of and access to those materials. By building online tools that would
enable users to easily acquire government information from any of a number of digital
libraries seamlessly and transparently, GPO could better ensure long-term, free access
even if GPO itself becomes unable to do so itself. By facilitating the building of a
network of digital repositories, GPO could better ensure the long-term preservation of
authentic, unaltered copies of Title-44 material. By facilitating the building of collection-
specific and user-community-specific tools, GPO could enhance access to Title-44
materials far beyond what it could provide on its own.

Fourth, the Library Community would benefit. Every library, not just FDLP
libraries, will benefit from having a strong community of digital libraries providing
enhanced access and services for government information and rich, unique collections.
Government agencies would also fit in this broad category of beneficiaries to the extent
that they are like libraries in providing content and services to users.

Even though the report articulates the need for some libraries to participate in long-term
preservation, by ignoring the value of digital collections to libraries and users, it reduces
the opportunities for a more sustainable, effective Program of service and collections.

A different kind of Value Proposition

We propose a different kind of value proposition. We suggest that Ithaka S+R expand
their values proposition to examine the benefits to users, participating libraries, and
the Program. In addition, we suggest that the final report should examine the value
the way some economists do: examine the aggregate benefit across all stakeholders.
The final report should examine how the Program could maximize this overall social
benefit. The final report should ask if changes increase the likelihood that information
will be preserved and accessible for the long-term and if changes will increase the
social benefit that the public gets by actually using, sharing, and reusing government
information. Such an approach would change the focus from one side of the equation
(library managers, preservationists, GPO, "partners," private sector companies), to both
sides of the equation (including users). It would describe policies and Models that would
demonstrably maximize benefits to all.

The Value Proposition should identify value accrued -- or lost -- to current and future
users of government information including citizens in general as well as specific user
communities (e.g., economists, historians, journalists, political scientists, physicians,
geographers, lawyers, students).

The Value Proposition should look also at the value to GPO and other government
agencies of having a network of many congressionally-mandated (but non-government
libraries) participating in the preservation of government information. It should consider
the value to non-FDLP libraries of having, as part of the larger library community, a
community of libraries that, through the iterative process of building collections, have a
particular expertise in government information.

Rather than looking for incentives that might keep libraries nominally in the program
while actually reducing their commitment and participation in the program drastically,
the Values should measure benefits of Program changes to users. By providing actual
benefits directly to users, libraries will enhance their own relevance and sustainability. By
facilitating this, GPO can attract and retain libraries that will gain benefit from sustaining
or increasing their commitments rather than from dropping commitments.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation [ http://brtf.sdsc.edu/
] and Access (Ithaka S+Rs Roger Schonfeld was a contributor to the Task Force )
addressed the idea of Value Propositions in the digital environment. It said:

"When speaking about value, economists like to ask "Who benefits?" or "Who
cares?" because well-articulated demand starts with a clear and compelling
value proposition about the benefits to be gained by having, in our case, access
to information at some point in the future. The value of information is not to be
confused with its monetary or financial value per se, although it can often be
denominated in currency. The value of digital assets is best understood as what
digital materials are good for, and that is usually understood as the ways that the
materials are used -- to advance knowledge, entertain or bring pleasure, help
solve problems, or inform public policy."

"Each user community will identify its own set of values and benefits in the digital
materials they demand. For example, in scholarly discourse there is a clear
community consensus about the value of e-journals over time." (p. 24)

We believe that designing a Values Proposition that directly and explicitly addresses
the identifiable needs of and benefits to a wide variety of user communities will be more
effective than the current proposition. We believe that such an approach will benefit
libraries by benefiting users and will benefit the Program by benefiting libraries.