preservation statistics survey report fy2015 · preservation statistics survey: fy2015 report 3...
TRANSCRIPT
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 1
PreservationStatisticsSurveyReportFY2015
AnniePeterson,HollyRobertson,andNickSzydlowski
GuestCurator:JoshuaRangerStatistic
ASurveyforPreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)
AssociationofLibraryCollectionsandTechnicalServices(ALCTS)AmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)
December2016
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 2
TableofContents
INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND 3
SURVEYDESIGNANDIMPLEMENTATION 3
RESPONDENTS 4
RESULTS 7
USINGTHESURVEYDATATOTRACKLONG-TERMTRENDS 7SECTION1:CONSERVATIONTREATMENT 9SECTION2:CONSERVATIONASSESSMENT,DIGITIZATIONPREPARATION,EXHIBITPREPARATION 13SECTION3:GENERALPRESERVATIONACTIVITIES 15SECTION4:REFORMATTINGANDDIGITIZATION 16SECTION5:DIGITALPRESERVATIONANDDIGITALASSETMANAGEMENT 24
CONCLUSIONSANDLONG-TERMTRENDS 27
POTENTIALRESEARCHTOPICS 27
FY2016ANDBEYOND 27
CREDITS 27THANKYOU! 28
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 3
IntroductionandBackground
ThePreservationStatisticsSurveyisaneffortcoordinatedbythePreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)oftheAmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)andtheAssociationofLibraryCollectionsandTechnicalServices(ALCTS).
FormoreinformationonthePreservationStatisticsSurveyproject,visit:http://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstats
AnyculturalheritageinstitutionintheUnitedStatesconductingpreservationactivitieswasinvitedtocompletethissurvey,whichwasopenfromJanuary19throughMarch18,2016.Questionsfocusedonproduction-basedpreservationactivitiesforfiscalyear2015anddocumentconservationtreatment,generalpreservationactivities,preservationreformattinganddigitization,anddigitalpreservationanddigitalassetmanagementactivities.
ThissurveyisbasedonthePreservationStatisticsprogramconductedbytheAssociationofResearchLibraries(ARL)from1984to2008.WhentheARLPreservationStatisticsprogramwasdiscontinuedin2008,thePreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)ofALA/ALCTS,realizingthevalueofnationalpreservationmetrics,workedtowardsdevelopinganimprovedandsustainablepreservationstatisticssurvey.
Aninitialpilotsurveywasissuedin2012,withsubsequentsurveysin2013and2014.AllPreservationStatisticsSurveydatasetsandreportsareavailableat:http://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstats
In2014,thePreservationStatisticsprojectreceivedanALCTSPresidentialCitationinrecognitionforitscontributiontothetechnicalservicesprofession.
Thegoalofthissurveyistodocumentthestateofpreservationactivitiesinthisdigitaleraviaquantitativedatathatfacilitatespeercomparisonandabetterunderstandingoftrendsinthepreservationandconservationfieldsovertime.
SurveyDesignandImplementation
TheformerARLPreservationStatisticssurveyexaminedpreservationactivitiesinlargeacademicandresearchlibrariesfromafiscal,personnel,andquantitativerepair/conservationviewpoint.Ashighlightedinthe2009reportSafeguardingCollectionsattheDawnofthe21stCentury:DescribingRoles&MeasuringContemporaryPreservationActivitiesinARLLibraries,updatestotheARLPreservationStatisticssurveywereneededtobettercapturethewiderangeofpreventiveconservation,reformatting,digitization,anddigitalpreservationactivitiesofmodernpreservationdepartments.1
AninitialsurveyofthepreservationfieldconductedinFebruary2012indicatedthat1)ARLmemberlibrarieshadcontinuedtocollectpreservationstatisticsintheyearssincethefinal2007-2008ARLPreservationStatisticsdatacollection;2)librariesandotherculturalheritageinstitutionshadrobustpreservationprogramsthatbothcollecteddataaboutpreservationactivitiesandwerewillingtosubmitandsharetheirpreservationstatisticstoanorganizedeffort;and3)responsibilitiesfordigitization,reformatting,anddigitalpreservationwereeitherincreasinglymanagedwithinorcloselyalliedtopreservationdepartments,andthoseactivitiesshouldbeincludedinanyrevisedpreservationstatisticseffort.
Withthissupportfromthepreservationcommunity,ateamofsurveyorganizerscollaboratedtoexaminethe2007-2008ARLPreservationStatisticssurveyquestionnairewithneweyes.Questions,instructions,anddefinitionswererefinedoraddedtofillinthegapsidentifiedintheSafeguardingtheCollectionsreportandthe
1http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/safeguarding-collections.pdf
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 4
generalinterestsurvey.SurveyMonkeywasselectedastheonlinesurveyingplatformandanInstructionsandDefinitionsdocumentwasdevelopedtoclarifyproceduresandencouragesimilarreportingpracticesamongstinstitutions.
TheFY2015PreservationStatisticsSurveydidnotchangesignificantlyfromtheFY2014surveytool.Twominorchangestothewayrespondentsenteredtheirdatawereimplementedthisyear:first,allowingonlynumericalresponsestoquestionsaboutdatastandardizedtheentryoffootnotedexplanationsandfacilitatedthetaskofdataanalysis;secondly,respondentswereencouragedtototalthesumoftheirresponseswhenaquestionconsidereddatabymaterialformat(i.e.,book,unboundsheets,photographicmaterials,etc.)tobothassurethevalidityofthenumericalresponsesandfacilitateanalysis.
TheFY2015Surveydidnotmeetthestatedgoalofseventy-fiverespondents;onlysixty-nineinstitutionsparticipated.Asanall-volunteeroperation,wemustreconcilethecommunity’sinterestincontinuingthiseffortagainstthemanyhoursrequiredtoannuallyprepareandreleasethesurvey,todrumupparticipationthroughoutreachandtosupportparticipationthroughtroubleshooting,andtoanalyzethedataanddocumenttheresultsthroughareportthatstrivestosupportthecommunitythroughnewanalysisandongoingdocumentationofourefforts.Coupledwithmajorlifechangesinthelastyear–moves,newjobs,newmarriages–asprojectcoordinators,wearenotpreparedtoissueanFY2016SurveyinJanuary2017.WeareactivelyseekinganewhomeforthePreservationStatisticsprojectorarereadytoletitgo.
ViewtheFY2015SurveyQuestionnaire(.pdf):http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/FY2015-Pres-Stats-public.xls
AndaccompanyingInstructionsandDefinitionsdocument(.pdf):http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/PresStatsTLE-2012-2015.xlsx
RespondentsSixty-nineculturalheritageinstitutionsparticipatedintheFY2015PreservationStatisticsSurvey(FigureA).Fifty-sevenacademiclibrariesformedthevastmajorityofrespondents;additionallytherewerethreeresponsesfromarchives,twoeachfrompubliclibraries,nationallibraries,andspeciallibraries,andoneeachfromastatelibrary,anindependentresearchlibrary,andahistoricalsociety.
Academiclibrary,57
Archives,3
Publiclibrary,2
Nationallibrary,2Speciallibrary,
2
Statelibrary,1
HistoricalSociety,1
IndependentResearchLibrary,1
RespondentsbyInstitutionType(FigureA)
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 5
StateswiththehighestconcentrationofrespondinginstitutionsincludeNewYork(eight),California(six),Ohio(five)andIllinoisandTexas(four)(FigureB).Thesefivestatesareamongthetenmostpopulatedstatesinthecountry,butseveralofthesestatesalsoboaststrongstatewidepreservationnetworks,includingtheCaliforniaPreservationProgram,theOhioPreservationCouncil,andtheIllinoisCollectionsPreservationNetwork.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 6
ThedatacollectedbythePreservationStatisticsSurveyismostmeaningfulifarepresentativenumberoflibrariesandarchivesconsistentlysharetheirannualstatistics.ThelevelofdropoffinsurveyresponsesfortheFY2015surveywasdisappointing.Thiswasthesecondyearthesurveyprojectsetagoalof75respondentsinordertocontinuethesurveyeffort.Tobalancetheeffortrequiredtomanagethisprojectandperformanalysisthatinformsourfieldaboutcurrentissuesandongoingtrends,asignificantandsteadynumberofinstitutionsmustparticipateannually.
Sixty-nineinstitutionsparticipatedintheFY2015Surveycomparedtoeighty-seveninFY2014,fortyinFY2013,andsixty-oneinFY2012(FigureC).Academiclibrariescontinuetobecorerespondents,composingonaverage75%ofparticipatinginstitutions.Asthesurveyhasgrownandsteadied,outreachtospecialgroupshasoccasionallyresultedingreaterresponseratesinthatinstitutionalcategory;forexample,aneffortinFY2014toreachstatelibraries,archives,andhistoricalsocietiesresultedinamuchhigherturnoutinthatcategorythananyotheryear.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Numbe
rofR
espo
nden
ts
Respondents:FY2015vs.PreviousYears(FigureC)
Other
NationalLibrary
MuseumLibrary
IndependentResearchLibrary
StatelibraryandHistoricalSocietiesSpeciallibrary
Publiclibrary
Archives
Academiclibrary
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 7
Results
Asalways,theresultsofthePreservationStatisticsSurveyarenotrepresentativeofculturalheritageinstitutionswritlargebecausethesampleisself-selectinganddoesnotrepresentenoughinstitutionstobeabletomakedefinitiveextrapolations.Theabilitytoformulateextrapolationsaboutpreservationprogramsinculturalheritageinstitutionsisnotthepurposeofthesurvey;rather,thesurveydocumentsthequantitativepreservationactivitiesofinstitutionsforthebenefitanduseofthepreservationcommunity.Asyearsofdataaccumulate,wewillbeabletoidentifytrendsandlendquantitativeanalysistosupportordemystifyanecdotalobservations.
Continuingintheopen-accesspathestablishedbythepreviousPreservationStatisticsSurveysandtheARLPreservationStatisticsreports,datafromthesurveywillbesharedinordertofacilitatereviewandadditionalanalysis:
DownloadtheFY2015fullsurveydataset(.xlsx):http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/FY2015-Pres-Stats-public.xlsAlsoavailable:TotalLibraryExpenditure(TLE)scaleddatafor2012-2015,helpfulfortrackingtrendsovertime,whileaccountingforthevaryingrespondentpool.http://www.ala.org/alcts/sites/ala.org.alcts/files/content/resources/preserv/presstats/FY2015/PresStatsTLE-2012-2015.xlsxSee“UsingtheSurveyDatatoTrackLong-TermTrends”sectionbelowformoreexplanationofhowTLEisused.
UsingtheSurveyDatatoTrackLong-TermTrendsAsthissurveyisbasedontheARLPreservationStatisticsSurveyconductedfrom1984-2008,thedatafromthetwosurveyscanbecombinedtoevaluatelong-termtrendsinpreservationactivity.However,becausethegroupofinstitutionsrespondingtothetwosurveysdifferssignificantly,careshouldbetakenindrawingbroadconclusionsbasedontheavailabledata.FortheARLsurvey,allARLmemberlibrariesprovidedaresponse,andnonon-ARLinstitutionswerepermitted.ThecurrentALAsurveyrespondentsareaself-selectingpoolofinstitutionswhichincludebothARLandnon-ARLinstitutions.Withtheeliminationofbudgetandstaffingquestions,thissurveyshares18quantitativequestionswiththeARLsurvey.Forthesequestions,thisreportcomparesthetotalvaluereportedforeachquestiontothetotallibraryexpenditure(TLE)ofthereportinginstitutions.Totalexpenditureshavebeenadjustedtoaccountforinflation,andareexpressedin2015dollars.Allvaluesareexpressedpermilliondollarsoflibraryexpenditures(e.g.itemsdigitizedpermilliondollarsoftotallibraryexpenditure).Thisisintendedtomeasurethefractionoftheresourcesoftherespondinginstitutionsthatisdedicatedtoaparticulartaskoroutput.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 8
Asanexample,thegraphbelowshowstheextentofcommercialbindingactivitiesfrom2000-2015,expressedas
thenumberofvolumesboundpermilliondollarsoftotallibraryexpenditureforallrespondinginstitutions.
Foreachyear,theformulawhichproducesthecalculatedvalueis:
([totalvolumesbound]*10^6)/([totallibraryexpenditures]*[inflationadjustment])2Mosttablesinthisreportshowdatafrom2000to2015.TheARLdatawasmadeavailableasExcelfilesfrom2000-2008.Nosurveywasconductedfrom2009-2011,sonoinformationisavailableforthoseyears.The2012-2015figurescomefromtheALAsurvey.Institutionsforwhichinformationontotalexpenditureswasnotavailablewereexcludedfromthisanalysis.Forthisreason,itiscriticalthatinstitutionsprovideavaluefortotalexpenditureswhencompletingthesurveyinfutureyears.ForARLlibrariesthatdidnotprovideafigurefortotalexpenditures,thevaluefromtheARLStatisticssurveywasused.Thismethodallows53institutionsfromFY2012,37fromFY2013,80fromFY2014,and66fromFY2015tobeincludedintheanalysis.Aweaknessofthismethodisthatdifferencesfromoneyeartoanothermightbebetterexplainedbychangesinthegroupofrespondinginstitutionsthanbyageneralshiftinlevelsofresourcesdevotedtoaspecifictask.Forthisreason,itisprudenttofocusontrendsthatcontinueoverseveralyears,ratherthanchangesfromoneyeartothenext.
2InflationadjustmentswerederivedfromtheBureauofLaborStatisticsCPIInflationCalculator:http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
0100200300400500600700800
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
VolumesCommerciallyBoundPer$MillionTLE(FigureD)
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 9
Section1:ConservationTreatment
Thissectionsurveysthenumberofitemsconservedbyformatand/ortreatmenttimeaswellasthenumberofprotectiveenclosuresconstructed.Bothconservationtreatmentandenclosuresconstructionaretrackedaseitherin-houseprogramsoroutsourcedcontractorservices.
Ofthe69respondents,42institutions(61%)outsourceconservationtreatmentand/orprotectiveenclosureconstructiontocontractvendors.Ofthefiverespondentswithoutanin-houseconservationprogram,onlythreerelysolelyoncontractconservationservices.
Consistentwithprevioussurveys,themajorityofrespondents(61%)havein-houseconservationprogramsthattrackconservationtreatmentbytheARL-definedconservationtreatmentlevels:LevelIfortreatmentstakinglessthan15minutes;LevelIIfortreatmenttimesrangingfrom15minutesto120minutes;andLevelIIIfortreatmentsthattakemorethantwohours(FigureE).
InFY2015,respondinginstitutionsprovideditem-levelattentionto762,387items,downsignificantlyfromFY2014(1.6million)andFY2013(1.7million).Theseactivitiesincludeconservationtreatmentandhousingviacustomenclosuresaswellassurveyingorassessinganitemforcondition,preparinganitemfordigitizationorexhibition(discussedfurtherinSection2).
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 10
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
BooksandBoundVolumes
UnboundSheets
PhotographicMaterials
MovingImageRecordings
SoundRecordings
ArtObjects HistoricandEthnographic
Objects
Other
ConservationActivities(FigureE)
ExhibitPrep
DigitizationPrep
ConservationAssessment
OutsourcedTreatment
Inhousetreatment
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
ArtObjects HistoricandEthnographic
Objects
Other
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 11
WhileconservationtreatmentofboundvolumescontinuestoincreaseateverytreatmentlevelovertheirlowpointinFY2013,treatmentactivityremainsdramaticallylowerthanthedatareportedduringARL’sadministrationofthissurvey(FigureF).Since2000,conservationtreatmenthasdeclinedby59%,thesamedeclineobservedforcommercialbinding.Thisreducedleveloftreatmentactivityhasbeenconsistentlysupportedbythedata,includinganalysisinthepilotFY2012PreservationStatisticsSurveyReportwhichshowedsimilarresultsusingadifferentmethodfocusingonlyoninstitutionsthathadrespondedtobothsurveys.Thereasonsforthisdramaticdecreaseinconservationtreatmentactivitymightbeafruitfultopicoffutureresearch.
Level2repairsarealsodramaticallybelowthelevelsreportedontheARLsurvey,whilelevel3repairshaveexperiencedlessseveredeclines(FigureH):
050
100150200250300350
ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureF)
Level1
Level2
Level3
Total
01020304050607080
ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureG)
Level1
Level2
Level3
Total
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 12
Includingunboundsheetsandotherformatsintheanalysispaintsasimilarpicture:thelevelofconservationactivityin2015wasatapproximatelyhalfof2000levels,reboundingfromevenlowerlevelsinthe2013and2014surveys.(FiguresIandJ):
0100200300400500600700
ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureH)
BoundVolumes
UnboundSheets
OtherFormats
TotalTreatments
020406080
100120140
ConservationTreatmentsper$MillionTLE(FigureI)
BoundVolumes
UnboundSheets
OtherFormats
TotalTreatments
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 13
Section2:ConservationAssessment,DigitizationPreparation,ExhibitPreparation
Mostrespondentsansweredthisoptionalsectionandaretrackingconservationassessment,digitizationprep,and/orexhibitprep.Inanalyzingthedatafortheseemergingareas,itisinterestingtonotethematerialformatsoftheitemsmostfrequentlyassessed(booksandboundmaterials,movingimageandsoundrecordings),versusthoseprepared(photographicmaterialsandunboundsheet)(FigureJ).
Specialprojects,suchascollectionsurveysoreffortstoplanfutureconservationtreatmentordigitizationinitiatives,cangreatlyalterwhichformatismostfrequentlyexaminedwhenassessingtheconditionofmaterials.InFY2013,respondentsmostfrequentlyassessedtheconditionbooksandboundvolumes(73%);inFY2014,booksandboundvolumesaccountedforonly30%ofthematerialsexamined.Thisyear,FY2015respondentsindicatedthatbooksandboundvolumesaccountedfor25%ofmaterialsassessedforcondition;movingimagerecordswere36%,andsoundrecordings23%.
Whenpreparingcollectionmaterialsfordigitization,FY2015respondentsweremostfrequentlytreatingphotographicmaterials(42%)thenunboundsheets(30%).Effortsthisyeararesignificantlydifferentfrompreviousyears:inFY2014,respondentsfocuseddigitizationpreponunboundsheets(76%),whichwasconsistentwiththefindingsoftheFY2013report(75%unboundsheets).
Whenpreparingmaterialsforexhibition,respondentswereonceagainprimarilyfocusedonprintmaterials:preparingbooksandboundvolumes(36%)aswellasunboundsheets(22%).
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 14
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
BooksandBoundVolumes
UnboundSheets PhotographicMaterials
MovingImageRecordings
SoundRecordings ArtObjects HistoricandEthnographicObjects
Other
ConservationAssessment,DigitizationPrep,andExhibitPrepbyFormat(FigureJ)
ConservationAssessment DigitizationPrep ExhibitPrep
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 15
Section3:GeneralPreservationActivities
Thissectionofthesurveycollectedinformationonlibrarybindingandmassdeacidificationactivities.Disasterresponse,environmentalmonitoring,andoutreach/trainingactivitiesassessedintheFY2012andFY2013surveyswereremovedpriortotheFY2014surveyinanefforttoshortenthesurveytofocusonproductionactivities.
Respondinginstitutionscommercial/librarybound371,690monographsand227,003serials;195,450monographsand513linearfeetofunboundpapersweremassdeacidified.ItshouldbenotedthatthemassdeacidificationactivitiesoftheLibraryofCongressaccountsfor94%ofmonographsmassdeacidifiedand100%ofunboundpapermassdeacidificationinFY2015.
Inexaminingthelong-termtrend,thenumberofvolumescommerciallybound(ascomparedtototalinstitutionalbudgets)continuestoshowadramaticoveralldecline,butwithaslightuptickin2015.(FigureK):
Thenumberofboundvolumesreceivingmassdeacidificationcontinuedtofluctuaterelativetolibraryexpenditures(FigureL).BecausetheresultsinthisareaaredominatedbytheLibraryofCongress(whichconducts33%ofallreportedlibrarybindingofmonographs,and25%ofallreportlibrarybindingofserials),theresulttendstofluctuatefromyeartoyear,withthenumberofinstitutionsrespondingtothesurveyexertingasignificanteffectontheresults.
Thirteeninstitutionsreportedmassdeacidifyingcollectionsin2015,andthiscoregroupofrespondersareallARLresearchlibrarieswithgenerallysteadyyear-to-yearmassdeacidicationofboundvolumes,suggestingthatthiseffortistiedmoretobudgetthantospecialprojects.ResultsinthisareaarealsodominatedbytheLibraryofCongress,whichconducts93%ofallreporteddeacidificationofboundvolumesandpamphletsand100%ofallreporteddeacidicationofunboundpaper.
0
200
400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
NumberofItemsReceivingMass-Deacidificationper$MillionTLE(FigureL)
Bound
Unbound
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
VolumesCommerciallyBoundPer$MillionTLE(FigureK)
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 16
Section4:ReformattingandDigitization
Thissectionsurveyedthenumberofitems(fromtraditionalmaterialssuchasbooksandunboundpapertosoundrecordingsandmovingimageformats)reformattedviamicrofilming,preservationphotocopying,anddigitization.Bothin-housevs.outsourcedcontractservicesforreformattinganddigitization.
Trackingthenumberofitemsreformattedanddigitizedyear-to-yearwithavariablepopulationofinstitutionalrespondentsischallenging.Unlikeconservationanditsrelatedactivitiesofcollectionassessment,digitizationprep,exhibitprep,commercialbinding,andmassdeacidification–allofwhicharemorethanlikelytotakeplacewithinthepreservationunit–theactivitiesofreformattinganddigitizationmaybeadministeredwholeorinpartbyanentirelyseparateunit.Theseoutsideunitsmaynotsharetheirstatisticswiththepreservationunit,sowhilethebestdatawouldreflectreformattinganddigitizationactivitiesinstitution-wide,someresponsesmaybelimitedtojustthosereformattinganddigitizationactivitiescarriedoutbythepreservationunit.
Inlastyear’sFY2014report,respondentsindicatedthatunboundsheetscomprised91%ofdigitizationefforts.FY2015data(FigureM)showsamuchmorebalanceddistributionofdigitizationacrossallformats:unboundsheetscontinuedtolead,withmicrofilmaclosesecond.Twoinstitutionswereresponsiblefor99%ofthisyear’smicrofilmdigitizationdata,highlightinghowspecialprojectstargetingspecificformatscanskewdatafromyear-to-year(inFY2014,microfilmdigitizationaccountedforlessthan5%ofalldigitizationactivities).
AVdigitization,whichcomposedlessthan1%ofdigitizationactivitiesinFY2014wassignificantlyhigherthisyear–8%ofallformatsdigitizedin-houseoroutsourcedwereaudio-visualmaterials.Evenwithinnon-printitemsthatweredigitized,audiovisualcollectionsstillrepresentasmallpercentageofthosematerials(16%),especiallywhencomparedwithmicrofilm(59%).
Therateofaudiovisualdigitizationmaybeshifting,butformoreanalysisoffluctuationsovertime,thePreservationStatisticsteamturnedtoJoshuaRanger,PublicRecordsOfficer/Archivist,NYPDVideoProductionUnit,forspecialcommentary.
Books/boundvolumes17%
Unboundsheets34%
Photographicmaterials
9%
Microfilm29%
AV8%
Otherformats3%
DigitizationbyFormat(FigureM)
Microfilm59%
Photographicmaterials
18%
Soundrecordings
3%
Movingimage13%
Other7%
Non-PrintItemsDigitized(FigureN)
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 17
SpecialCommentary:AudiovisualPreservationandDigitizationJoshuaRanger,PublicRecordsOfficer/Archivist,NYPDVideoProductionUnit
Ialwaysliketostartsimply:duetoobsolescenceandrelativelyrapiddecay,thepreservationofaudiovisualmaterialsrequiresreformatting.Reformattingisthetransferofcontentfromonecarrier/formattoanother,eitherthesameformatoranewformat.Atthispointintime,digitizationistherecommendedmeansofreformattinginmostcases(Iwillnotgetintothedebateoverfilmdigitizationhere).That'sreallyit.Reformattingabsolutelyneedstohappentopreserveaudiovisualcontent,andneedstohappenatafrequencythatismuchmorerapidthanmightberequiredforothermediatypes–onthefactoroftensofyearsorlessratherthanhundredsofyears.Ifanorganizationisnotplanningfororperformingthedigitizationofmagnetic,optical,film,andotherphysicalmedianow,theyarerunninganincreasinglygreaterriskoflossofthoseassets.ImpactsofdigitizationofaudioandvideoThatsaid,thingsarenotsocutanddriedsimple.Thedigitizationofaudiovisualmaterialswillhaveasignificantimpactonanorganizationduetothecomplexityandsizeofresultingfiles,aswellasthecostofplanninganddigitizinglargecollections.Thecomplexityofthenewdigitalfiles,theexistenceofpreservationmastersandderivatives,andtheintricaciesofthereformattingprocessresultsinalargeincreaseinthepotentialamountofmetadatatocapture,andleadstothequestionofhowtocapture,whatschemastouse,andwheretostorethedatasothatitisuseful.Firstandforemost,however,istheimpactoffilesize.Whendigitized,paperand(toadegree)photographsarerelativelysmallinsize,andmanythirdpartystorageservicesandITdepartmentsgeartheirofferingsforstoragebasedonthat.Preservationqualityaudiovisualfiles(notnecessarilyuncompressed)willrangeupto100GBperhourforvideo,andtheneven1-4TB(ormoreinsomecases)perhourofdigitizedfilm.Theseimpactspresentdifficultroadblockstothepreservationofaudiovisualmaterials,especiallyinorganizationswhereexpertiseand/ortargetedfundingislimitedornon-existent.DigitizingIn-housevs.OutsourcingGiventheprevalenceofmicrofilmingandscanningstationsinarchivesandlibraries,thedifferentiationbetweenin-houseandoutsourcedworkforaudiovisualcollectionsdoesn'treallyneedtobeexplained.Howeverthereisahighlikelihoodofahybridapproach–partin-houseandpartoutsourced–duetothelargenumberofaudioandvideoformats(wellover80),thelimitedexpertiseorliteratureavailablearoundthelesspopularformats,andthelimitedorveryexpensiveequipmentforcertainformats.Forexample,whileVHS,U-matic,andaudiocassettescanbetransferredeasilywithtraining,2”Quadorwirerecordingspresentfussiertransferquality,andthereareonlyahandfulofQuadmachinescurrentlyavailable.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 18
ALookattheNumbersCombinedTotals,In-houseandOutsourced
Total Digitized, Audio Total Digitized, Video
2012 16,993 29,333
2013 67,471 1087
2014 83,618 33,808
2015 42,480 168,364 Whatweseeabovearethetotalnumberofaudioandfilm/videoitemsdigitizedbyrespondents.Whatwecan'tseehereareanyclearpatterns.Thenumbersareupanddownfromyeartoyear,ortakeextremedipsandleaps.Thoughitisnotstatedinthesurveyresponses,myguessisthatthesenumbersareanoutcomeoftheimpactofgrantandotherlargescalefundingfororganizationalinitiatives.Inmanycases,duetothehighcosts,digitizationdoesnottakeplacewithoutthesupportofsignificanttargetedfunding.Thisleadstoafeastorfaminesituationwithdigitization,whichIfeelwouldleadtothewildfluctuationsinaudiovisualitemspreserved.Andthisisimportanttounderscore:asoutlinedabove,digitizationofAVispreservationofthecontent.In-housevs.OutsourcedBeginningin2013,thesurveydifferentiatedbetweendigitizationperformedin-houseandworkoutsourcedtoadigitizationvendor.Insomecases,outsourcedworkmayactuallytakeplaceonsiteusinglaborandequipmentfromavendor.Thebulkofaudiodigitizationisperformedin-house:
Audio Total Digitized In-house Total Digitized Outsourced
2012 16,993*
2013 39,610 27,861
2014 54,478 29,140
2015 29,387 13,093 *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Thereisasignificantamountofvideobeingdigitizedin-house,thoughthatflipssuddenlyin2015whenoutsourcedworkleapstooverfourtimesthatofin-house.ThisislikelytheresultoftheLibraryofCongress'massdigitizationinitiativeusingSAMMArobots.Asdiscussedabove,thistypeoffunding/initiativeskewsthenumbersandmakesitdifficulttoseepatterns.Thisissuewillbeaddressedbelow:
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 19
Video Total Digitized In-house Total Digitized Outsourced
2012 29,333*
2013 573 514
2014 29,389 4,419
2015 30,187 138,177 *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Asanotherviewofthesenumbers,thecomparativepercentageofitemsshowsthataudioin-househoversaround60%-70%,somewhatstable.Video,ontheotherhand,showserraticpercentages(flippingbetweenyears)andextremenumbers.PercentageofIn-housevs.Outsourced:Items
Audio In-house
Audio Outsourced
Video In-house
Video Outsourced
2012 * *
2013 59% 41% 53% 47%
2014 65% 35% 87% 13%
2015 69% 31% 18% 82% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Togetaclearer,lessskewedviewofthenumbersweshouldlookatthetotalsminusthelargestcountfromamongtherespondents.Thisshouldalsogiveusabetterviewofhowmuchpreservationworkisbeingdonewithoutthesupportofverylargegrantsortargetedbudgetallocations.Totalsminusthelargestprojects
Audio Total Digitized In-
house Minus Largest Project
Percent of Total In-house
Total Digitized Outsourced Minus Largest Project
Percent of Total Outsourced
2012 6,368* 37.50%*
2013 2,026 5.10% 2,461 8.80%
2014 29,080 53.40% 4,140 14.20%
2015 23,599 80.30% 9,505 72.60% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Weseewiththeaudiothatin-houseworkremainstheprimarygeneratorofdigitization,andthatpriorto2015thelargestresponsemadeupasignificantportionofthegrandtotalofwork.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 20
Video Total Digitized In-
house Minus Largest Project
Percent of Total In-house
Total Digitized Outsourced Minus Largest Project
Percent of Total Outsourced
2012 5,193* 17.70%*
2013 573** 53.00%** 514** 47.00%**
2014 3,673 12.50% 3,669 83.00%
2015 6,450 21.40% 4,219 3.00% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.**Statisticallyinsignificantnumbers.Interestinglyhere,subtractingthelargestitemcountsbringsthetotalsclosetoeven.Andexceptforoutsourcedvideoin2014,theamountleftaftersubtractionisasmallpercentageoftheoverallgrandtotal.Thismightsuggestthat,comparedtoaudio,thereismuchlesspreservationworkoccurringwithvideoormuchlessbeingdonewithoutlargescalefunding/budgeting.Videoismoredifficulttoworkwiththanaudio,itismoreexpensiveinregardstoequipmentaswellasoutsourcing,andthelargefilesizesmakeitdauntingtodigitizeandstore.Sowhoaretheselargeprojectinstitutions?Well,manyyearsitwastheLibraryofCongress,whichmakessense–theyhaveoneofthelargestcollectionsofaudiovisualmaterialsintheworldand,whencongressionalfundingisprovided,theyhavethemassiveNAVCCcenterwheredigitizationcantakeplace.InotheryearswehavetheTexasStateLibraries&ArchivesCommission,whichIwouldguesssupportedstatewideoutsourcingofaudioforarchivesandlibraries,andthenseveraluniversitylibrarieswhichwouldlikelyhavereceivedgrantsorhadinternalinitiativesforlarge-scaleprojects.Listoflargestdigitizationprojects
Audio In-house
Audio Outsourced
Video In-house
Video Outsourced
2012 Library of Congress* Library of Congress*
2013 Indiana University Texas State Libraries & Archives Commission
** **
2014 Wake Forest Libraries Texas State Libraries & Archives Commission
Library of Congress University of Minnesota Libraries
2015 Library of Congress Library of Congress Library of Congress Library of Congress *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.**Statisticallyinsignificantnumbers.RateofChangeLookingattherateofchangeindigitizationfromyeartoyear(percentageincreaseordecreaseinthenumberofitems)weseearepeatoftheirregularityinthetotalnumberofitems.Forexample,withvideoweseein-houseworkincreasebyover5000%,andthendroptoonlya3%.Thisagainsuggestsafeastorfaminerealitywhereinstitutionsarewhollyreliantongrantsandtargetedfunding.Afterthoseareawardedtherearegreatincreasesinpreservationwork,butthatworkdisappearswiththefundingdriesup.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 21
Audio
In-house Outsourced
In-house Minus Largest
Outsourced Minus Largest
2012 * * * *
2013
2014 38% 5% 1335% 68%
2015 -46% -55% -19% 130% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.
Video In-house Outsourced
In-house
Minus Largest Outsourced
Minus Largest 2012 * * * *
2013
2014 5029% 760% 541% 614%
2015 3% 3027% 76% 15% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.RespondentsnotdigitizingThetotalnumberofitemstellsusonestory,butwealsoneedtolookatthenumberofinstitutionswhoareactivelypreservingaudiovisualmaterialstogetafullerviewofthings.Asweseeinthefirsttwotablesbelow,over50%oforganizationsarenotdigitizingin-houseoroutsourcing.Thenumbersaretrendingdownward(moreorganizationsdigitizing),butthereisstillagap.
Audio In-house
No Digitization In-house
Digitization Outsourced
No Digitization Outsourced Digitization
2012 52%* 48%* * *
2013 73% 27% 65% 35%
2014 64% 36% 72% 28%
2015 59% 41% 57% 43% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 22
Video In-house
No Digitization In-house
Digitization Outsourced
No Digitization Outsourced Digitization
2012 63%* 37%* * *
2013 70% 30% 63% 37%
2014 70% 30% 67% 33%
2015 57% 43% 52% 48% *Responseswerenotsplitin2012.Torefineourviewhereofhowmanyrespondentsaredoingpreservationwork,weshouldlookatorganizationsthataredoingnodigitization(neitherin-housenoroutsourcing)versusthosethataredoingoneorboth(in-houseand/oroutsourced).Whatweseehereisthatthegapgetsmuchsmaller,hoveringaroundthe50/50rangeuntilitdropstoagreaterdifferentiationin2015withthemajorityofrespondentsdoingsomesortofdigitization.
Audio No Digitization
Audio Digitization
Video No Digitization
Video Digitization
2012 52% 48% 63% 37%
2013 48% 52% 48% 52%
2014 52% 48% 48% 52%
2015 39% 61% 39% 61% ConclusionsSowhatcanweconcludeaboutthestateofaudiovisualpreservationfromthesenumbers?Well,firstoff,becausemanyofthenumbersincreaseanddecreaserapidlyfromyeartoyear,itisdifficulttoidentifyanypatternsintheworkbeingdone.Howeverfromthiswecanconjecturethataudiovisualdigitizationisnotaregular,consistentprojectwithinmostorganizations,butrathereithersmallscaleortiedtograntfundingorinternalinitiatives.Numbersgoupanddownbecausethereisnoreliablyconsistent(andreliablylarge)fundingsourcefromyeartoyearastherewaswithmicrofilmingorsomethingsimilar.Thatsaid,preservationishappening,atalargescaleinahandfulofcases,andthatisapositivesign.However,inmostyears,thetotalsofthenumberofitemsbeingdigitizedisdominatedbyoneortwoverylargeprojects.Whilethisispositivethataninstitutionisgettingalotofworkdone,overallitskewsthenumbersandwedon'tgetatruepictureofthebroadhealthofaudiovisualpreservation.Asurprisinglysignificantportionofthepreservationworkbeingdoneisoccurringin-house.Isaythisissurprisingbecause,thoughitcanbecheapertogowithin-housework,noteveryorganizationhastheappetiteorcapabilitytotakeitonwithaudiovisualcollections.FrommyexperiencethebulkofuniversityandresearchlibrarycollectionsareVHS,U-Matic,Betacam/BetacamSP,1/4”openreelaudio,andaudiocassettes,whichareformatseasilyhandledin-house,sothatmayexplaintheleaningtoin-housetoadegree.Finally,asdiscussedabove,thepreservationnumbersgoingupanddownsuggestastrongtietoinconsistentfundingavailability.Thisappearstohaveledtoastateoffeastorfaminewithgrantswhere
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 23
verylittlecangetdonewithoutexternalfunding.Inordertosaveaudiovisualcollectionsinthetimewehaveleftbeforedecayandobsolescenceovertakethem,thereneedstobeadedicationofinternalfundingorinternalsupportinfundraisingthatarenot100%tiedtogrants.Wecan'twaitorhopeforfuturegrantsthatareattheserviceofdistantgrantcycles,orthatarenotenoughtocoverthetotalamountofworkrequiredfordigitizationanddigitalpreservation,orthataresocompetitivethatitmaybeyearsbeforeoneisreceived.Theworktopreserveaudiovisualcollectionshastostartnow.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 24
Section5:DigitalPreservationandDigitalAssetManagementThissectionsurveyedtheactivitiesofdigitalpreservationprograms,includingthenumberofitemsandquantityofdataaddedtothedigitalrepositoryduringFY2015.Consistentwithpastyears’surveydata,mostrespondentsreportedthatdigitalpreservationresponsibilitiesareheldbyadepartmentorstaffoutsideofthepreservationunit.Digitalpreservationresponsibilityisheldbyvaryingentities(FigureO);32%ofrespondentsstatedadigitalinitiatives(orsimilarlytitled)unitwithintheorganizationisresponsibleforpreservingdigitalcollections.
The preservationunit19%
Adigitalinitiatives(orsimilarlytitled)unit
withintheorganization32%
AnIT/Systemsunitwithintheorganization
17%
Acollectionsdevelopment/
collectionsmanagementunitwithintheorganization
3%
Agrouporcommitteewithrepresentativesofmultipleunitsinthe
organization17%
Other12%
DigitalPreservationResponsibility(FigureO)
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 25
InFY2014,respondentsreportedthattheyweremanagingatotalof10PBofdata.InFY15,respondentsindicatedtheyaremanaging66PBofmaterial.Institutionsreportedaddingover18millionitemstotheirdigitalrepositories.Thesematerialsmaybeborndigitalordigitizedfromanalogcollections.
Inadditiontothesetotals,thesurveytracksformatsofitemsaddedtothedigitalrepository,whichhasproventobeachallengingpieceofdatatocollectuniformlyacrossinstitutions.“Webarchives”comprise39%ofthetotalnumberofitemsaddedtoadigitalrepositoryinFY2015,butinstitutionshaveindicatedthattheyaremorelikelytocountthoseasindividualfiles.Aninstitutionmightcounta1,000pagebookasoneitembutalsocountasinglestillimagefileasanitem,makingcomparisonsacrossformatschallenging.However,lookingatFY14and15data,wecanascertainthatwebarchivingisdefinitelyanareaofgrowthforinstitutions.InFY14,onlyoneinstitutionreportedaddinganywebarchivestotheirdigitalrepositories;inFY15nineinstitutionsreportedactivityinwebarchiving.
books0%
manuscripts3%
theses/dissertations
0%
othertextualdocuments
2%stillimages
5%audio1%
video3%
webarchives59%
other27%
ItemsAddedtoDigitalRepositories(FigureP)
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 26
DigitalPreservationActivityper$MillionTLE,2012-2015(FigureAA)
Digitalto
DigitalMigration
UniquedigitalcontentinGB
AddedtoRepository-books
AddedtoRepository-manuscripts
AddedtoRepository-theses/dissertations
AddedtoRepository-othertextualdocuments
AddedtoRepository-stillimages
AddedtoRepository-audio
AddedtoRepository-video
AddedtoRepository-webarchives
AddedtoRepository-emails
AddedtoRepository-datasets
AddedtoRepository-other
TotalNumberofItemsAdded
unitofmeasurement
numberoffiles
GB numberofitems
FY2012 NotAsked 5,281.88 15.51 944.59 2.61 18.67 108.81 1.04 1.43 270.07 0.24 0.13 793.48 2,156.59
FY2013 NotAsked 9,735.56 1.48 1.65 5.60 33.50 92.76 35.85 202.45 668,851.94
0.00 101.80 22.70 669,955.15
FY2014 25.01 123,440.98
6.93 28.90 7.46 347.68 184.24 1.20 2.69 890.02 1.66 0.14 3.19 8,841.49
FY2015 50.66 34,715.19 23.03 198.35 23.06 60.34 166.81 24.07 154.12 3491.30 0.58 0.19 1597.84 7022.33
SomeofthenumbersinfigureAAarelikelytheresultofmajor,grant-fundedprojectsatinstitutions,andvarybyformatbecauseofthe
differentwaysthatpeoplechoosetocollectthedata(i.e.filesvs.title).Astheseactivitiescontinueinlibraries,astandardwayoftracking
acrossinstitutionsandstandardscouldhelpgathermoremeaningfuldataovertime.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 27
ConclusionsandLong-TermTrendsFormanyquestionsonthesesurveys,theresultsvarysignificantlyyear-to-year,withoutaconsistenttrendinonedirectionortheother.Thesechangescanoftenbeexplainedbylargeprojectsatasmallnumberofinstitutionsor,fortheALAsurvey,changesinthecompositionofthegroupofrespondinginstitutions.However,thereareafewtrendsthatcanbeidentifiedfromthedatawithsomemeasureofconfidence,atleastastheyapplytotheinstitutionsthatrespondedtothesurvey:
• WebarchivingisatrackedactivityatmanymoreinstitutionsinFY15(nineinstitutionsreportingdata)thaninFY14(onlyoneinstitutionreporteddata)
• From2000tothepresent,totalconservationtreatmentsofboundvolumesappeartohavedroppedby59%.
• From2000tothepresent,totalconservationtreatmentsofallformatshavedroppedby51%.• From2000tothepresent,commercialbindingofboundvolumesappearstohavedroppedby59%.
PotentialResearchTopicsThePreservationStatisticssurveydataisavailablefordownloadasanExcelspreadsheetathttp://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/preservation/presstatsWeencourageotherstousethisdataforfurtherresearch,byfurtheranalyzingit,orusingittoinformothersurveyorresearchprojects.Somequestionsthataroseduringdataanalysisandreporting,whichmaybeansweredthroughfurtheranalysisand/orresearchinclude:
• Dodigitizationprojectshelppreserveanalogcollections?Doesanincreaseindigitizationeffortscorrespondtoadecreaseinthehandlingoffragilephysicalobjects?
• Arelibrariesreplacingsystematiccreationofprintsurrogateswithprint-on-demandservices,offeredmoreandmorebylibrarybinders?
• Howdoestheadministrationofpreservationchangeaspreservationdepartmentprioritiesandpersonnelshifttowardsdigitizationand/ordigitalpreservation?
• Whatdrivesconservationtreatmenttoday:condition,curatorialpriorities,exhibition,and/ordigitization?• Howcanwecollectstatisticsaboutpreservingborn-digitalcollectionsthatcanhelpustracktrendsin
digitalpreservation?• Canthisdatabeusedtohelpshiftaudiovisualpreservationeffortsfroma“feastorfamine”approachtoa
moresystemic,embeddedpartofpreservationprograms?
FY2016andBeyond
ThedatacollectedbythePreservationStatisticsSurveyismostmeaningfulifarepresentativenumberofinstitutionsandarchivesconsistentlysharetheirannualstatistics.Giventheeffortrequiredtomanagethisprojectandperformanalysisthatinformsourfieldaboutcurrentissuesandongoingtrends,thegoalofseventy-fiverespondentswillbefundamentaltoachieveeachyear.Withonlysixty-ninerespondentstotheFY2015Survey,wedidnotmeetthatgoal.Atthistime,thecurrentcoordinatorsarenotpreparedtoissueanFY2016SurveyinJanuary2017.WeareactivelyseekingnewvolunteersforthecontinuedmanagementforthePreservationStatisticsproject.
CreditsThePreservationandReformattingSection(PARS)ExecutiveCommittee:AnniePeterson,KristenKern,DavidLowe,IanBogus,GinaMinks,andJeanneDrewesreachedouttoacademiclibrariestoencouragerespondents.
PreservationStatisticsSurvey:FY2015Report 28
PreviousPARSChairsKaraMcClurken,BeckyRyder,KarenBrown,TaraKennedy,AnnMarieWiller,JacobNadal,andKaraMcClurkenhaveprovidedvaluablesupportandguidanceonthePreservationStatisticsproject.
ThepilotFY2012surveyquestionnairedevelopmentteamincludedHelenBailey(DigitalCurationAnalyst,MITLibraries),AnniePeterson(PreservationServicesLibrarian,Lyrasis),HollyRobertson(ExhibitsCoordinator,UniversityofVirginiaLibrary)andEmilyVinson(Archivist,RiceUniversity).
ThePreservationStatisticsSurveycoordinatorsfrom2012–2016wereAnniePeterson,HollyRobertson,andNickSzydlowski.
ThankYou!ThankstoeveryonewhotooktimefromtheirbusyscheduletoparticipateintheFY2015survey.Yourfeedbackisespeciallyappreciated:[email protected]