Thinking the unthinkable:
a library without a catalogue
Reconsidering the future of our
discovery tools
University libraries are losing their
role in the discovery of scientific
information. Instead, they should
focus on delivery.
In the next twenty minutes I would like to
…share findings of our research on discovery and delivery
&
…present some convincing and inspiring ideas
My name is Simone Kortekaas
Head of Information & Marketing Department at Utrecht
University Library
In the summer of 2011 time had come to reconsider the
future of discovery tools for Utrecht University Library.
A study group within the library was formed to do research
and make recommendations on the succession of the Aleph
WebOPAC and Omega*
*Omega = search engine built in 2002 for discovery of
electronic journal articles
Pivotal in our discussion:
“We don’t need to build or buy a new library discovery
tool because alternatives are available in the public
cloud”
Questions
1. Are the currently available alternative discovery tools
adequate?
2. What are the risks and the conditions if we rely on these
alternative services?
3. What needs to be done to ensure reliable delivery?
Findings
International studies and user statistics show:
•
Students & scholars are moving away from the library
website and the online library catalogue
•
Users are finding their way to our licensed journals through
large and strong, freely available search engines like
Google
Patrons Switching Faster Than Libraries
Faculty and Students Already Looking Elsewhere for Search Help
Where Do Students Start a Search?
n = 2,229
83%
Search Engine
Wikipedia
7%
Social Networking Site 2%
E‐mail
1%
E‐mail Subscription 1%
Online Database
1%
Where Do Faculty Start Their Research?
n = 3,025
A specific electronic
research resource
37%
47%
21%
A general purpose
search engine
32%
28%
18%
Your online library
catalog
Ask an Expert Site 0%
Library Website
The library building
0%
2003
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company • www.educationadvisoryboard.com • 22852D
13%
4%
2009
Source: “Faculty Study 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers,
and Societies” Ithaka S+R; “Perceptions of Libraries, 2010,” OCLC.
Findings
•
Google Scholar was started in 2007 and is now highly
appreciated by scholars all over the world
•
Increase of usage of broad, licensed bibliographies and
abstract databases (such as Scopus, Web of Science and
Pubmed)
•
Worldcat is becoming increasingly popular at the moment
Trends in searching UU
Relative increase search engines
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company • www.educationadvisoryboard.com • 22852D
© 2012 MR/BK
Findings
We investigated to what extent our materials can be found in
systems and databases on the Internet.
•
Electronic articles can generally be found.
•
For printed books Google Books and Worldcat provide a
reasonable alternative to our own catalogue.
•
Findability of special collections is more problematic. The
same goes for EBooks. Up to now these materials have
been locked up into our own catalogue.
Despite the fact that we found out that other alternatives are
available and sufficiently adequate, we looked at the issue
from a different angle.
We addressed and discussed often voiced counter arguments,
which could be in favour of a new library discovery tool.
Counter argument 1
First year students want an integral search engine
•Even the new generation of library discovery tools cannot
provide a real and exclusive “ one stop shop”
•Google scholar and Worldcat try to fulfill this role as well
•Specific databases for special materials or disciplines will still
be necessary
Counter argument 2
First year students only want to search the Utrecht
collection
•
Most searched for and found articles in the public cloud are
accessible for Utrecht users
•
For books other solutions must be explored
Counter argument 3
With our own discovery tool we will be in control and
not depending on big commercial players
•
Buying a tool makes you dependant as well and there will
be the issue of configuration and maintenance
•
There are several competitive players in the cloud (Google,
Microsoft, OCLC, Elsevier etcetera)
Counter argument 4
The library will be less visible for our users
•
The library has already lost its role as the primary gateway
to scientific information
•
Even now, with a WebOPAC and Omega, it is already a
great challenge to stay visible as a partner in science for
our university users
Conclusions
•
The Library should not invest in a new library discovery
tool and focus on delivery instead.
•
Following from this the Library can phase out Omega.
•
For special collections and Utrecht scientific output
metadata should be added to national and international
initiatives. Hold on to parts of WebOPAC for the time being.
•
Rethink the role of the library in providing access to
scientific information.
The “easy” part : ensure reliable delivery
•
Make an inventory of what needs to be done
•
Plan the actions
•
Act
The challenge
•
To let go of our role in discovery
•
To admit that others can do a better job
•
To get used to a changing library identity
We think:
University libraries are losing their
role in the discovery of scientific
information. Instead, they should
focus on delivery.
Thank you very much for your attention,
please share your thoughts and ideas and ask
your critical questions.