Government Resources: Ithaka Project

The volunteers at FreeGovInfo have posted an analysis of the Values Proposition and suggestions for improving it at FGI: http://freegovinfo.info/nod...

The comment below is a modified version of a comment that I originally posted on FGI in a continuing discussion there about the Models document and the issue of centralization. The complete comment and thread are at http://freegovinfo.info/nod...

I have some concerns that the Models will result in more centralization and will minimize the importance of most FDLP libraries. For me, simple "participation" does not automatically create a distributed system that focuses on users. Even with the participation of more than a few libraries in cooperative projects such as you describe (T5 and D3 and D4 collections and S3 services), I think that the Models will still result in fewer, larger collections and fewer service points with the staffing or resources or collections to focus on specific user communities.

In terms of services, I think the models allow and even encourage libraries to play a diminished service role by setting up a hierarchy of service. S1 and S2 libraries will have little or no dedicated staff and almost certainly no digital or tangible collections. Their role is the low end of a hierarchy where questions are referred up, ultimately to S3 libraries. It isn't clear that users will benefit from or use such a service. It is clear from what I see of user behavior that the existing services that are useful and popular are those that are built on collections of information that they select, control, organize, and deliver. I would anticipate that the unbundling of roles that you recommend will almost certainly encourage libraries to attempt to provide services without collections, which is the opposite of the models of success I have seen.

As for digital collections, as I understand the report, the models effectively eliminate the very concept of "selective" depositories. D2 libraries are allowed to build digital collections, but are under no obligation to do so, may discard at will, and have no formal status in digital preservation. How does this differ from what any library (with or without FDLP designation) can do today? I don't see how giving such a role a name (D2) makes it effective or sustainable or will attract libraries to choosing it.

The centralization that I see in the report is in the relatively few libraries that will participate in S3, T5, and D3 and D4 roles. These are, by definition, national and system-wide roles.

I see no place where the models encourage smaller libraries that wish to build selective collections and provide services for a focused user-community (not necessarily geographically based). I am not saying that it is impossible for such libraries to emerge. I am saying that the report is designed without such libraries in mind, that it discourages such participation, and that it encourages and envisions an FDLP made up of only a few institutions that provide "top priority" and "high value services" and attempt to ensure the preservation of digital information. I worry that the report blurs the distinction between, on the one hand, a library outsourcing responsibilities to others and, on the other hand, a library collaborating with partners and actively participating in the provision of services or building of collections.

I believe that is a bad idea to encourage only such centralization and outsourcing. I believe it would be better to recommend a mixed model in which some centralization and some outsourcing complement, but do not replace, a more distributed system. I believe the Models would be stronger if they emphasized and encouraged a robust community of libraries in which all participate actively in preservation and service. Such a system will be both more sustainable and more effective than a system designed to minimize the roles of the larger community. Such a community would certainly include some few that take on extra responsibilities (such as your S3, T5, D3, D4), but it would also encourage, facilitate, and include smaller libraries that (either on their own, or by collaborating with other libraries) would do on a smaller scale for specific user communities what the larger libraries would do for the nation and the system as a whole.

- Jim Jacobs

After reading the draft models and value proposition, I agree with the value proposition that model 3 is the "best" fit for how to reconstitute the FDLP for the future while realistically considering what should be done with the historical print collections.

I also agree that Model 4 doesn't seem likely due to huge constraints involved with trying to create complete collections that can be page verified.

FGI volunteers have sent Ithaka S+R our comments for the draft directions and draft models documents but feel that a more in-depth analysis and response is warranted.

While there is much to like about this draft -- as other commenters have rightfully pointed out -- it has some serious gaps that could have potentially dire consequences for the future of the FDLP.

To read our comments and in-depth response, please go to http://freegovinfo.info/nod...

I think the authors have done a good job in deconstructing the different component pieces of the program (current and future) and allowing for flexibility in how individual libraries might configure these building blocks to define their level(s) of contribution/participation.

I especially like the report’s specific identification of TRAINING in the use of government information as a special emphasis. I think this is an area of specialty in which FDLP participants can make great contributions, and it provides, in an increasingly electronic environment, enormous opportunities for expanding the reach of the program to non-depository libraries, non-specialist librarians, and others.

Re: the D3 option, I wonder if there is room for more granularity. Perhaps I’m misreading the intent, but it seems to be an “all or nothing” approach to the option of building and maintaining digital collections. I could envision libraries that might be reluctant to take on the responsibility of collecting the entirety of the FDLP digital collection, however, they might desire to build digital collections that focus on one or more areas (e.g., driven by local needs and interests, similar to the motivations of D2 libraries) and also willing to commit to being part of a permanent network of digital preservation (for that subset of digital materials).

It is also intriguing to see the “model-Ts” that focus on preserving tangible collections (i.e., T4 and T5). As the report points out, this takes us from “reliance on the hope that largely uncoordinated overlapping collections will effectively ensure the preservation of materials” to a real system of “providing for truly long-term continuity of access to tangible collections.” In other words, taking us from a system designed to provide “permanent public access” to one that actually preserves tangible materials. Given that we’re 150+ years into the life of the FDLP, it is high time such a coordinated system of preservation be developed. Like others, however, I wonder if the existing law enables the kind of system envisioned here. Also, while it is obvious that these new preservation responsibilities may be felt as an additional burden by the T5 libraries in particular, I wonder how realistic it is to rely on “extrinsic incentives” to accomplish this. If this means some sort of payment to libraries, then wouldn’t that diminish their independence in carrying out this function (i.e., when the government funding decreases/stops, so does the preservation activity)?

Finally, the linchpin in making the immediate future workable (as libraries and the program develop and transition into these new roles) seems to be the “simple, national needs and offers process.” This indeed would go a long way to alleviating some of the burdens felt by regionals and selectives in maneuvering through the current disposal process, and perhaps more importantly, would provide the necessary infrastructure to support the coordination of building comprehensive collections to preserve.

As others have said, I think the report gives us much to consider and helps further the discussion considerably.