 All right. I think it's probably about time to get started at the long-awaited closing session. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for joining us. I hope that you've had a good meeting and that you've enjoyed catching up with colleagues, that you've found the sessions informative and thought-provoking, perhaps made a few new connections or added a couple of good ideas to your portfolio of things to follow up. I'm really just very grateful that you all were able to join us for this meeting. We have captured a video of all the sessions, and we will be making that available. So the parallel sessions that you didn't see should be available probably within a couple of weeks if you want to review them. I also just want to note that we had to cancel one session today because the folks presenting had their flight canceled out from under them. But they have told me that they are willing to do a recording of that session. So we will be following up with them. And if we can get that to happen, we will make that available with the other meeting videos. So before we start losing people, because I know there are always people trying to slip off to catch the last flight during the closing session, I just want to say a couple of thank yous before turning it over to Lorcan. First, I want to really thank all of our presenters. I think the sessions were really good, at least the ones that I was able to get to. I was, as always, really blown away by the breadth of topics that came up, and yet how all the sessions seemed to interconnect and cross-reference and resonate with each other in interesting ways. So I ask you all to join me in a round of applause for our presenters. And I'd also just like to ask for a round of applause for the CNI team that has put this together, made it seem like it's going smoothly and easily, as if by magic. And also the AV team that has been with us for many years and has done another great job at this meeting. It's because of all these folks that it looks like it's easy, and they work really hard at it. So thank you. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Lorcan. Now, I've known Lorcan for more years than I'm thinking either of us really want to admit at this point. We both go back several jobs and several lives ago, it seems. Lorcan, in the time I've known him, has moved across the ocean. The two of us have talked for many years as we've watched the world continue to change. Lorcan has done a long tour of duty at OCLC. And during his watch there has accomplished many things. He is stepping down this spring in his role at OCLC. What I would say about that is he may be retiring from OCLC, but knowing Lorcan as I do, I have every confidence that we are going to continue to hear from Lorcan and benefit from his perspectives on the world that we live in. However, given that he is making this transition after a long period at OCLC, it seemed to be a uniquely good moment to invite him to share some of his thinking with us about all of the things that he's seen about where we are now, how the world may change as we hopefully continue to come out of the pandemic and any other thoughts he wants to share with us. So I'm very, very pleased to welcome Lorcan to CNI. Over to you. Thank you very much, Cliff, and hello, everybody. This is a picture I took in DC at a CNI meeting a few years ago. I'm going to talk a little bit about system-wide types of issues. As Cliff said, I've worked in various environments, but typically I've been in a situation where I've had a system-wide issue. Before coming to OCLC, I worked for JISC in the UK. And before that, at the University of Bath for an organization that was funded by JISC to do work in a UK context, but again, from a system-wide point of view. So I'm going to talk a little bit about some system-wide issues. This is me now. Well, when I got these glasses first, I just end the context of where we are and so on. I did have a life before OCLC. I picked this picture because it sort of dates itself with the cassette tapes in the back there, whatever about my hair, and so on. But Cliff, I was trying to think. I wrote a book called Libraries, Networks, and OSI. I think it was published in 1989 or so. And I did a tour of the US at the time, and I visited Cliff in California. So it's, yes, over 30 years. The, that was my first failure in marketing because, of course, OSI, very few people in the room, probably remember what that was or know what that is. But it was just about to disappear when we released the book. So the book sort of languishes there with this name. That's just a historic artifact, despite all the wonderful stuff in it. Sebastian Hammer was talking to last night. Certainly will remember what OSI is because, as a result of that, we're both veterans of European projects that sort of spent a lot of time thinking about this. So in fact, I know Sebastian for almost as long as I know Cliff. But he did have a life, certainly, before OCLC and before the US. And as Cliff said, I do plan to continue, although I'm not sure where that path will lead. For those of you going to Ifla in Dublin in July, this is the south bull wall which goes out into Dublin Bay. And you should try and walk along it if you go there. But it's meant to indicate a path into the future. It's also one of my favorite pictures of my children there, their way out there. You have to get up sort of quite close to see them, though. This is a picture that was taken by a colleague and gained some currency. It was published in the magazine Ariadne. But I was looking for an early record of those times. But yeah, this is, I reckon, about 25 years ago. I used to have very fine hair. This is an overview of what I'm going to talk about. Those of you who are quick readers can leave now. Lots of pictures. And I'd better speed up as well, because there's quite a few slides there. This is a more structured overview. It's in three parts. First part, I thought I'd have a look at some general things that have happened in the last while. This is a report that we did with Ithaca SNR a couple of years ago. And it was very interesting, from my point of view, moving to the US, just the sheer scale and diversity of the higher education system in the US really mind-boggling. And we spent quite a while driving around Ohio the first couple of years who were here until our children protested. But the Tiffin, for example, which I'll use later, a town in Ohio has two universities. So the scale and diversity are quite incredible. And I think part of what we were saying here was that increasingly one wants to think about library excellence as it were in the context of the strategic fit with the institution, how well it supports the institution, rather than thinking about libraries in terms of the size of their collection, or thinking about some sort of evolutionary tree of which Columbia or Harvard is the terminus, thinking about libraries really supporting the needs of the institution that they're in. And this is especially, I think, to be seen over the last while when we're seeing this thinking that the collection is very important and a central part of what many libraries do, but thinking about shifting a model of excellence to think about supporting the distinctive needs of the parent community, researching, teaching, service, and so on. And in that work, we sort of identified three poles and said that typically universities have a mix of these and may lean in one or two directions. Distinctive focus on doctoral research, distinctive focus on education, a broad-based education. And then, especially over the last 20 years, I lean into a more career-focused preparing people for professional work, looking at credentialing, and so on. And if you think about, you know, higher here at three institutions that sort of show that in various ways. Tiffin, as I mentioned, Tiffin University, really about career success. And this is a list of student support activities. And it's carried around the website. So the library website actually has this list on it so that if the student can see the various other support services from the library and everything geared around student success. Oberlin, I really like this, you know, special spaces, all the spaces at Oberlin are special. But this focus on student success, retention, residential touch experience. And then, University of Cincinnati, Shimo is in the audience maybe. The research institution, but also obviously very strong educational component. And here you can see, drop down on the library, the range of research support services. And if you look at the missions of the institutions, I mean, Tiffin admirably short and brief, educate students by linking knowledge to professional practice. You know what you'll get if you go to Tiffin. Oberlin very focused on the individual personal growth development values. And then Cincinnati, an urban public research institution focused on career, on broad-based research, and on the vitality of the region. So really these focuses, and I think part of saying this, though, is to say that I think in the last while, and maybe especially then, pushed on by the pandemic, we're seeing institutions lean into some of that distinctiveness more. What is it that makes them distinctive? What is it that is their special offer, their niche, the way in which they add and create value? This is the universities in Ohio. Quite interesting. I never quite saw them this way before, but Cleveland and the Northwest, Columbus in the middle, and Cincinnati Dayton and the Northeast, Cincinnati Dayton in the Southwest. And some of that distinctiveness, because just of the sheer competition and the amount of activity that we are seeing. Actually, what jumps out at me there is Denison in the middle of the state, just outside Columbus, which of course is the institution where the idea and some of the early work around JSTOR was done. So if you think about research universities, thinking about this audience in this context, obviously over the last few years, a lot of discussion about trust and relevance of higher education, pressure on public funding, really strong importance of rankings. And I highlight that because then that plays into open access, plays into what's important to the institution. Importance of STEM, very strong importance of STEM and the research profile and the research enterprise and the funding profile of these institutions. And I think especially given the last couple of years revisiting the social mobility, regional role, and mission, I think it's very striking, for example, how land grant institutions are leaning into their land grantness in various ways. I think if you think about it, I've been slightly surprised not to see more of a pushback against some of the elite institutions in the context of supporting social inequity and structurally long term. We've had a lot of discussion about meritocracy, various books appearing, a lot of discussion about that and steps being taken in institutions to address that, but certainly an overall leaning into distinctiveness in a variety of ways. This is quite interesting when it comes to library cooperation. So one of the things, Constance Malpass did these pictures, but one of the things that is quite interesting is looking at the profiles then of various consortia when you think about the mix of institutions in them. So this is Ohio link and it shows against those three polls how institutions line up using a variety of attributes pulled from iPads data. So obviously, most research universities are also quite strong in teaching, but you can get a profile by looking at them against these three polls. So somewhere like Ohio link, just thinking of a cooperative venue, really, a broad mix of institutions, a broad mix of interests. Jason Price from Skelk was at the reception last night and he was sort of commenting on that. And I said, well, I have a picture for you tomorrow. And he said, well, I'm not there tomorrow. So from the point of view of consortial activity, when you're in a consortium like this, it's really quite interesting because you obviously, resource sharing, licensing, broad base. But once you begin to move into other particular areas, then the basis for that may shift. And also, different types of libraries have different requirements. So you can see this playing out in sort of consortial activity. Here are two more consortia. And let's see, can anybody guess what this one is? I'll give you a clue. Big. So that's BTAA, Big 10. And you can see quite a strong congruence of profile there. They're very similar institutions. The one that's a little bit of an outlier, very strong research, very strong liberal education is Chicago, less. And again, you can see that. But really, really strong congruence between those institutions. So I'm not sure whether we've shown this tomorrow or not if Morris is here. But really quite interesting. The other one, very different profile, but also strong congruence between institutional interests. That's Palney, the private academic libraries in Indiana. So a lot of small colleges, private colleges, big liberal arts focus. So you can see that those types of consortia sort of sit slightly different in the sense that they potentially can work across a whole range of things. And part of the issue is choosing which things to work on. So I think education leaning into distinctiveness and that ramifies for libraries. And I think the consortial pictures are just an interesting way of showing some of those differences. Second thing really that's changed the way in which we do things is sort of obvious. It's the network. So we have the web and the web changed everything. And no native identity, commerce, or search, though, which is quite interesting. Then we moved through. We had all the excitement of web 2.0. And it seemed to me that there were two ways, two directions, two emphases, two strands here. The first was what I called diffusion. And that was really the whole discussion around democratic leveling, participation, creation, mash-ups. I mean, who says mash-up anymore? RSS, web services, blogs, wikis. This explosion and profusion of creativity, interaction, individual voices appearing. And the idea that all these services were going to spring together. We're going to have mash-ups around the crowdsourcing, tagging, and so on. So all of these things still exist. But in parallel, there was a trend to concentration. So various platforms emerge showing network effects, where there are returns to scale, where the more people that participate benefit. So there's a natural dynamic here of Winner Takes All, the emergence of analytics, discussion about surveillance, then data aggregation, cloud computing, identity commerce search provided increasingly by powerful commercial entities. So we have a situation now where we are in an internet and a web environment that's sort of dominated by numbers of large providers. So that trend to concentration, if you like, is sort of stronger in the longer term than the trend to diffusion, which of course still exists. Because there is all this wonderful profusion. But at the same time, much of our activity is dominated by these large providers. And then we have Web3, which we're not quite sure what's going to happen, decentralized. I would say that the only thing more awful than listening to a library 2.0 presentation is listening to somebody telling you how blockchain is going to change libraries forever. So as a result of this, we observed various things happening. One of the phrases quite like discovery happens elsewhere, because we now have this network full of all of these things. We think about researchers, learners, they're in this network full of all this work. So you want to get into the flow of those people in the network. This is a recent report done by Lean Library based on some work that they did. And I thought it was quite interesting where basically three quarters of faculty and students begin discovery outside the library. And I just put this up as a number confirming something that we know from various sources. And it was interesting that their data, I presume based on their service, shows 48% of patrons begin on Google Scholar. So what this means is that over this time, the library has begun to think about right-scaling its activities. We're in this network. We're surrounded by all of these services. How does the library operate in a network environment where people are using all of these services? And certainly some emphasis on moving services, on thinking about library services at the network level, aggregating, moving up. And if you think about the environment we're in, I think the period during this time, we've seen the emergence of all sorts of really very central and critical network level, if you like, services that we, our users and libraries and so on, rely critically. And I've just assembled some icons there to show some of the things that we're all obviously very, very familiar with, in terms of services that aggregate attention, that create platforms that provide research and learning and discovery services. At the same time, I think, various consortia and cooperative activities have developed services at a level above the institution, sort of network level within their region, within their area. Scholars Portal in Ontario, I think, is an especially interesting service. If we're in the US, it'd probably be much more well known. Scholars Portal, interesting range of services. Ohio Link, really central to Ohio Libraries, California Digital Library, thinking about within a large federal institution, concentrating stuff at a higher level, at a sort of network level within the institution. And then what you get is a question about, okay, institution scale activity, sometimes is a little bit too fragmented, or what should we do at the institution? What should we do in some of these other environments and some of these other contexts? And this introduces what I've characterized, really, as the sourcing and scaling discussion. Where do I source stuff and what should be scaled? Where should something happen? And some interesting examples. At the last, I see an eye, very interesting discussion about CDL and Dryad. So thinking about sourcing CDL's research data management activity with Dryad, because if you source it with Dryad, you sort of get into a flow, you get into a platform, you are where other people are acting. There's an audience has been aggregated already for that, whereas if you do it in a more fragmented way, there may not be incentives for people to participate. It's difficult for you to aggregate a big audience for discovery. And what some of these services do is they aggregate an audience. They have some gravitational attraction on the web. So they overcome some of that fragmentation. Bruce Hedrick yesterday talked about community collections, which I thought was very interesting. So JSTOR, very strong academic brand, has aggregated a large research audience for scholarly materials. So the sort of exploring, what does it mean then to add other types of materials and can they benefit from that aggregated audience? Can they benefit from the relationship with other types of materials? Can they play in a network environment more readily? Can they get into the flow of researchers more readily because JSTOR has that gravitational attraction? And that's in process, and I think very interesting. I would also point to Hattie Trust actually here, because it seems to me, if Hattie Trust had been built 20 years ago, it would be built over institutional repository-type things. It would be federated across. It was built in a centralized way, partly I'm sure for financial reasons, and partly though because there was a feeling, well, what the network wants is aggregation and aggregation of an audience, if you try and do it over lots of individual repositories. So Hattie Trust, I think, quite interesting in that regard. So at the same time, it seems to me, libraries themselves have had these two views of the network, and one is a centripetal one, so you center the library presence on the website. And this is essential, and libraries are doing this. And I think we've seen a move from full collection discovery, where the focus was on a catalog and so on, to full library discovery. I mean, if you look at some of the bento boxes, if you look at some other things, exposing staff profiles, exposing events, exposing the full range of what the library does on the website, and I think we're now moving, especially post pandemic, to think about actually a fuller library experience overall. I think the University of Michigan website is really very full rich deep, compared to a lot of other websites. And it's like, what do we have to do to actually display here the full range of what the library does in some detail and move in. And I think they've done a very nice job with that. But of course, putting the library on the website is a different thing than putting a library on the web. And at the same time, so we've seen this centrifugal force, a sort of de-centered library presence. So unbundling functionality, and placing it in a variety of de-centered network places. So you have communication move to social networking sites, as with everybody else. Metadata being pushed out to a variety of aggregation sites. Even content, going to community collections, or the metadata to DPLA, various other things. Resolver, obviously, people configure the resolver for Google Scholar, embedding resources in a learning management system. SEO, I think, really thinking. I mean, SEO is interoperability with Google. And what is the big search engine that people use, Google? So SEO, something that's really quite important, and something maybe that doesn't get enough attention. Kenning Arledge talks a lot about this. It seems to me, though, this never really crystallized as a service area. A lot of activity happens doing this type of thing. And it's sort of pre-strategic and happens in different places. But the idea of managing that de-centered network presence, it seemed to me, hasn't crystallized as a particular library service area. The picture on the left is something, it's unpublished, it's something I did some years ago. And actually, Gwen Evans, who was here, certainly helped with this while she was in Bowling Green in Ohio. And it's just sort of looking at how the Bowling Green presence on the web is managed across a variety of places, different websites, different services that are sourced from the cloud, communication decoupled to a variety of places, and then content or metadata syndicated to a variety of places. As I say, I think for some reason, this hasn't sort of crystallized as a together-managed activity. So number three, what's a presentation without a four-quadrant picture? So which is convincing, partial, simple, and reductive? I just thought I wanted to get that in first before somebody says to me, that's a partial, simple, and reductive picture. Yes, it's a partial, simple, and reductive picture. So here you have a four-quadrant scale of the community. It's not a good way of expressing it really here. What I mean is thinking about governance, and it's really thinking commercial versus not-for-profit, but also is the organization characterized by a board, which includes community members that is oversight by a board. So if you populate that, you have some large organizations that have a commercial focus, no surprise. You have a variety of organizations, not-for-profit, and this is a little bit subjective where you put them, but very familiar with these. And this is a very limited selection. One could put lots of things here. You've got some organizations that sort of have transitioned over time, and I think it's quite interesting to think about that into larger organizations of greater scale, but still have not-for-profit and governance, including library element. And then you have a variety of smaller systems and services. So the vertical line and scale is a bit subjective. I think one of the, if you think about it again, OCLC and that move, I think one thing that's happened there, and I'll put a little definition of institutionalization earlier, is that they've institutionalized important sort of foundational activities and have managed to, as a result, develop some scale there. I think if you think about the other side, if you think about how she trusts, if you think about DPLA, that we haven't quite institutionalized some of those activities, and it'll be interesting to see how those develop or move over time. Center for Search Libraries obviously has a core role, and you could move it over, or it's, as I say, a little bit subjective. And then I could put hundreds of names in the bottom left hand. And then in the last 10, 20 years, a variety of organizations have either ceased to exist or been taken over by others, or merged, or done, and again, I could put lots of organizations here. DLF Aquifer is not really a separate organization, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask, did it ever hold water? The, you know, so, you know, jurors based into lyricists, a variety of companies set up and moved, the ones across the bottom, all acquired by Alzebir Research Library Group, merged with OCLC. So, and again, could have put a lot more on this. Actually, quite a lot of activity. It's quite a volatile information environment and in some ways, the bottom right, just a reference to the recent consolidation with Claribate there. And this is entirely natural. And, you know, I'm not sure what's normal or what one would expect or how it compares or how you'd even do that, you know. So if you think about some headlines in each of these places, if you think about the variety of organizations that are emerging or in that sort of not-for-profit emerging space, what, you know, it's interesting to think about what is the optimal community response? Do we spin up another organization? Do we look at piggybacking on something? Do we do this? And, you know, that's the question happens quite a lot, but you wonder how to best have that discussion. One big issue is investment for innovation and growth. There's a tendency to say, how much does it cost to run that service? And, you know, that's what we need to cover. But to actually grow, to innovate, to change, to evolve over time, you need to have some sort of injection to, you know, innovate and grow. If you don't have that, you're on this perpetual hamster wheel that, you know, of not changing or moving. And then a change agenda. I think various organizations in this space are set up with a mission to change an area, to move an area forward, to do things. So a lot of energy and a lot of coverage of different types of areas. If you think about, you know, OCLC, they have evolved in various ways. And as I say, I do think that institutionalization is an important aspect there. And then, you know, we get asked about, you know, scope, should we be doing X or Y or something else? In the bottom left, you have all of that start-up energy with smaller organizations. And, you know, as in any start-up environment, you know, things come and not all of them stick, some go entirely expected. And you expect discussion to change. You know, something has started up, we're gonna change the world, we're gonna smash X, Y, and oh, didn't quite work out that way, now we're selling to, you know, X, Y. But the, you know, it's that type of environment. And typically, organizations will have an exit strategy where they do plan to sell. Or they find a sustainable niche. And we have lots of quite resilient organizations, you know, smaller companies and so on that have a sustainable niche where they're providing very, very valuable services. The bottom right, we've seen over the years an awful lot of that consolidation and as a result, an awful lot of that market power. But typically, organizations in that space very focused on need, opportunity requirements. So I do that just to say that as a community, I think, it's good to be reflective about the industry, the structures, the organizations that support library work. And I do think that's a discussion that could potentially be a bit richer. At the same time during this period under this industry heading, we've had the emergence of open access in a very strong way. And obviously, sort of a long time ago, we had the Academy sourced reputation management and dissemination with third party publishers. So reputation management dissemination basically came back from thinking about publishing citation various other things. Publishing became consolidated, commercialized. So the rise of open access, then in response, we saw a new business models from publishers thinking about flipping various things, diversification into research flows, research analytics, so dynamic. I mean, if something changes over here, something will change over here. You have a, and we're in a situation at the moment where there are multiple paths and not necessarily a single destination. High confusion of colors and metals, I'd have to say. Green, gold, diamond, whatever. To the extent that there is, I think it's realistic to say that only these a hinge lift understands it all. Repository, APC, transformative deals, library publishing, variety of approaches, and then against the background of a broader open agenda. The point that I wanted to make here, though, is that it seems to me that this whole discussion and the environment, we really have very misaligned incentives, which are one of the complicating factors in this whole discussion. So if you think about incentives from a publishing point of view, the publishing field, whatever, it's a market to do business in, to provide value, and to prosper in that context. If you think about scholars and you think about universities concerned about ranking from a scholar point of view, it's a reputation economy, prestige, ranking, whatever. And certainly from certain policy points of view, it's a rational environment that we can design. We can change, but you've got publisher incentives, you've got scholarly incentives. So it's really a situation where I think there are misaligned incentives. And finally, equity and empathy. I'm not going to say very much about this. I thought there might be more discussion about this during the meeting. I mean, obviously we've come through a period where we realized that things cannot be the same. I wrote a sort of slightly more personal blog post than usual there recently, and I have a section in there talking about equity and empathy and a feeling that there has been a turn to recognize issues that need to be addressed. We did some recent work in the project realm, you know, the initiative that's been looking at pandemic issues, infection issues. And the two things that came out of that as areas that people would like support were how to support self-care and morale among their own staffs. I think we've seen this pivot to library staffs and then centering diversity and inclusion and equity during a crisis. So I think we're in a situation where we recognize that equity and empathy cannot just be a sort of verbal febrize that is applied in various places that some real changes is needed. And though that is difficult and has been a personal challenge for all of us in management positions and organizations and various other things that are affected in this way. Okay, so it seems to me those are various ways in which the environment we're working in has changed. And I've been writing, talking quite a bit about collections over the last while I thought might just say a little bit about collections again against that background. And, you know, we've been talking about three things, reconfiguration of library collaboration, collective collection. So basically the network has allowed the ways in which libraries work together to shift and that's one of the factors behind sort of collective collection. The network has reconfigured the information space we work in and that's background for what I've called facilitated collection. The network has reconfigured research work, the work that scholars and researchers do and that is the context for what I've called inside out collection. So collective collections, I'm not gonna say a lot about print collections or whatever, but I just think they're interesting in the context of what I was saying about sort of system wide activity as a collective action problem. So we did some work a while ago with Big Ten produced a report which is sort of very long and complicated. I doubt whether anybody has actually read it all but we were very gratified at the response and there is now a commitment from Big Ten to move forward in thinking about the collection as a single entity to be managed, Mars York and colleagues working on this, the big collection. What I wanted to do though was just to point out the complexity of the environment in which they're working. So if you think about the Big Ten, you've got shared infrastructure in the Big Ten but then various Big Ten libraries are also participating in adjacent networks in Ohio Link, in Palsy, Carly. So there's a complexity there and you take any one institution and you have this type of complexity. So thinking about how when operates there's a certain amount of complexity there. And in doing the work with Big Ten and we talked to a lot of people, sort of really began to think about the issues about working in consortia, about working together to get things done and it seemed to us you have this trade-off or a tension between consolidation and cooperation or autonomy. So consolidate everything. You can integrate user experience, you can manage things easier, you can reduce coordination costs, you can have consortial agency, you can have a body over here that operates on behalf of the consortium move thing forward. But thinking about autonomy, you can be locally optimized, you can be close to the user, pragmatic control costs. So you've got this sort of tension all the time between consolidation and cooperation and sort of trade-offs. And those trade-offs are things like efficiency versus control. Okay, we can be much more efficient but that means individually people might have less control. We can optimize locally but that means we're not optimizing system-wide. We want to optimize system-wide well it means people have to make compromises locally potentially and then there are a variety of other things. But these are all sort of classic collective action problems where people recognize the common good but it's difficult to make decisions or change things locally because you have to offend a faculty member, you have to change the way things are organized. So there are local factors impeding, moving towards something that people recognize common good. And I think that's a very big issue around a variety of things. And I think it's one of the reasons why consortia are actually so important because they've developed trust in a way of working together which doesn't mean they solve this but there is a basis on which some things can happen. Prospective collection coordination very good example of this that people feel yes, we should be within a consortial context really thinking about our collections together and managing stuff across but very difficult to achieve in practice because of what is required to be done locally. The facilitated collection where basically you have a move over time from the owned collection to the facilitated collection. We had the borrowed collection, the licensed collection, a demand driven collection, then a variety of collective collections, shared print, shared digital, shared scholarly outputs. And then we have all this external stuff, pointing researchers at Google Scholar including freely available eBooks in the catalog providing access to open access, open education, creating resource guides. So if you think about the landscape where people are actually solving people's information needs, the local owned collection or the acquired collection is one part of this panoply of resources which are articulated in various ways but again I think not articulated in a very purposeful way necessarily because a lot of these things happen in different places and so on. So a unified view of how information needs are being satisfied it seems to me hasn't crystallized. This is an article, a atoll presentation from Queens University in Kingston and Canada and it describes how using that sort of framework they began to think about facilitated collections and really it's sort of broadening the view to think about what is needed for research, teaching and learning. How do we articulate what's just available to us alongside what we own, alongside what's open and then thinking about the range of partnerships and at scale activity that that requires. I put in the corner a picture of a resource guide. I mean, I mentioned I had the LibGuides on the grid. It's really amazing seeing the growth of LibGuides. I mean, they're like the Star Trek where the, what were they called? Tribbles, you open the door and there's two tribbles and you close the door and you open the door and there's four million tribbles. You go to a library website and you look at it and you go to it next week and it's covered in resource guides. You know, it's remarkably successful but I think it's a, I mean, there are a variety of reasons they're easy to use. There may be an economic reason, whatever. But part of it is it's a facilitated collection activity. We want to provide a view onto all of these things that are available that we don't necessarily own but are available in this variety of ways. And again, you know, you sort of wonder how that's strategically managed. Inside Out Library, Workflow is the new content. I'm afraid to go and look at the Purdue website because I just thought this was such a lovely picture. I don't want to discover that they no longer use it. So this is unique collections at Purdue and I just thought it was, you know, you've got some special collections, you know, special things, you've got some digital scholarship, you've got a diamond access journal and then you've got sort of digitized archives, you've got research data management and you've got an institution repository. So, you know, it's just this illustration of the wide variety of materials that are now being digitized, born digital, managed in an institutional setting and then disclosed to the world, shared with the world. It's very different dynamic to other types of things where you take things from the world and bring them in. This is taking things from Purdue and sharing them with the world. Now, you also want to share them with people at Purdue but you're also sharing them with the world. So you want to push them out through a variety of these syndication and other channels. Now, if you think about the scholarly side of that, what we've seen is that if you think about the scholarly records, this is a picture that we've used in a variety of places, you know, the scholarly records used to be the monument, the exhibition that was the book or the journal, whereas now people are interested in methods, they're interested in research data, they're interested in discussion, working papers, preprints. So the scholarly record has become more diffuse, managed in a variety of different ways and we've seen whole range of services emerge, you know, to help manage these types of things in a variety of ways. A few years ago, Annette Thomas, who's obviously moved on since then, at the time was the CEO of McMillan Publishers, she said her view is that publishers are here to make the scientific research process more effective by helping them keep up to date, find colleagues, plan experiments and then share the results. After they've published, the processes continue at gaining a reputation, obtaining funds, finding collaborators and even finding a new job. What can publishers do to address some of scientists' pain points? Well, you could substitute University Library Director for a publisher there. What is happening here is a shift to say, how do we support the scholarly life cycle? How do we support the range of things that people want to do to seamlessly more effectively publish, do what they need to do, to do effective research? And I think in that context, workflow has just become so much more important and workflow is sort of tying data applications, people together and part of the reason it's so important is we're now in these sort of data-rich computational environments where people are doing their work in different ways and need different types of support. This is a picture Keith Webster kindly gave me of services at Carnegie Mellon and it shows the range of research support services that one can potentially articulate around needs and people very familiar with some of these. At the same time, obviously, we've seen, I used this phrase at the last meeting, research reputation industrial complex that basically three organizations building out a research graph, very usefully in many contexts, looking at how to create a resource that allows you to prospect research entities, people, works, institutions, grants and so on in a way that you can then build other services on top of that, a variety of research analytics, research evaluation comparisons, but then also these companies building out research workflow as well as content publishing services and clearly you have some alternatives or some of what they might do, but in the context of the overall research enterprise, that sort of building a research graph really very interesting. And from a workflow point of view, the central importance of ORCID and DOI really critical in this context and sort of moving forward then to institutional. So when you think about what one does on campus and you think about the variety of things one might want to serve, then there are a variety of stakeholders. So my colleague Rebecca Bryant sort of talks about social interoperability on campus is required to actually think about these services and the services might be provided in different combinations or by different groupings and so on and there's not necessarily a predictable role for the library because it depends on people and politics on the campus and the way in which historically things have developed and who has capacity and resource, but a whole array of services required there. And going back to sourcing and scaling, you can think about doing things in different ways. You can build stuff, you can collaborate to get stuff done, you can outsource stuff or you can just refer people. You can say use Dryad, use GitHub. So sort of four dominant ways of doing things and they typically tend to sit in the network in different ways. So if you build stuff, it might be a local activity. So per, per do sort of however, lots of people want to collaborate to get stuff done. So the four technical universities in the Netherlands have a collaboration around research, data management scholars, portal managers, research, data management. You could potentially outsource your research, data management to fig share or somebody else. That could be done by a collaborative organization as well or you could make a recommendation that you use Dryad. You use GitHub, CDL is using Dryad. So it gets very complex. You have a variety of options, variety of relationships, variety of players, variety of places in the network. So thinking about inside out library, content is the new workflow. Clearly supporting the science enterprises become much more important. Positioning the library as a research partner become very important. I owe this again to Keith Webster, workflow, he made the point to me in a conversation that he was very interested in really developing stronger workflow support and services because it was a way of engaging faculty and productive conversations. So years ago they might have talked about, collection talked about, come into the library. So this was a way of reaching out and engaging faculty in important discussions. Very important that the library is positioned as the part of the array of service providers. Different open access emphases. I was talking to Lisa Hinchliffe recently and she made a similar point that you have within potentially the same library a sort of open access advocacy activity here, managing variety of transformative agreements, managing compliance and so on. And then over here maybe a bibliometrics activity sort of telling people how to sort of work with rankings and so on. So and of course multiple stakeholders, diverse service providers and a great variety. I mean this is an area where research practices are so various, communities are so various that it's difficult to imagine any single provider or any single institution encompassing all of that. So really from an inside out point of view really this whole workflow support really quite interesting. In this context this may be a little bit too subtle requires writing out. I do think there's an important distinction between technology as artifact and technologies in practice which is a distinction that this scholar Wanda Orlikowski makes that we sometimes we tend to think about technology as here it is use it. Here's the arc come down, here's the institutional repository, put stuff in whereas in fact people are embedded in a variety of systems where they have different incentives, they have workflows, they have behaviors and so on and thinking about how to change practice, how to affect things in that context and then the technologies affect the behavior which I think just something as simple as citation management is a good example of this where you move from collecting references in word to a situation where you actually have sort of social networking activity built on top of people's citation management because it's sort of that sort of mutually constitutive behavior, technology behavior. Yeah, okay, so to conclude this is a picture I use talking about consortia, you know the four strong elements of consortial activity, scaling influence, ARL, ALA, they aggregate the voice of libraries in various ways. Scaling innovation and scaling learning very important part of what a lot of consortia do, central part of what organizations like CNI, RLP, a variety of organizations scale learning and innovation in various ways. Scaling capacity, individual consortia, individual service providers, scale capacity do things above the institution level for efficiency, for impact to move things forward. So it seems to me that against that background interesting to think about how one thinks strategically. So a lot of library focus is institution scale and it struck me doing the BTAA report and doing some investigation of consortia generally that if you looked at library strategies, library plans, it was a lot of focus on the institution level and a little bit less on the importance of the various collaborations, the ways in which external service providers might be used, approaches to that sourcing and scaling question, where do we want to do this, who do we want to work with, how do we want to get it done and that whole collaborative framework. And it does seem to me that there's a range of sourcing and scaling questions. There are complicated choices about how to source capacity and at what level and if you think about that upper left hand grid that sort of think quadrant, thinking about do we set up a new organization, do we work with these, do we do. And then even internally, do we externalize, do we, I thought the privacy discussion was really interesting from that point of view because it was saying, well, we're creating relationships with a variety of organizations and that introduces elements that we need to think about or we need to manage in that context. I just came from Helen Hock's presentation on storage and again, you have a variety of organizations, you can potentially store things with what happens in relation to them and there is some sort of higher level strategic direction that might be wanted to guide how one thinks about those types of decisions. When to build, when to collaborate, when to buy. Consortia clearly have a vital role but does that come into planning in the same way as some of the local issues? I do think there's an equity issue there because I think a large variety of things moving forward are going to happen in these collaborative contexts where groups of libraries are doing things together and if you're outside of one of those as many smaller libraries or other libraries are, what does that mean? So then you get into the question, do you need system-wide coordination or not for a variety of other things, whether the system is here, here or here and we already are in research, information management, open educational resources and so on, a whole range of issues here where there's a whole variety of activities happening is anything going to, is it sensible to address that in a coordinated way? And then that gets you into the collective action problem. I did say, I really love this definition of institutions that I came across some years ago. It's in this book on networking. Our notion of institution here is very broad. It can be any set of rules, conventions or mechanisms that serve to synthesize individual actions into a pattern of aggregate behavior. So if you think about how do you synthesize across groups of libraries things into an aggregate behavior. If you think about shared print, for example, we're still in an institutionalization phase there because we haven't got to what is the aggregate behavior across individual groups or an individual library may have to make choices about what's the relationship between this and you can think about that in a variety of other ways. So I think there is a set of interesting community questions about when is something useful? When is it, when is trying to do stuff together actually a break on progress? And question is where are those choices made and those conversations, where do they happen? And obviously, we have a variety of organizations that can do that. So to finish a lot of what I say depends on the excellent work of my colleagues which I invite people to go and look at. Here's an overview of the themes that we operate in. Some years ago I spoke at a conference and they mistakenly sent the evaluations of everybody out to everybody. So it was a bit embarrassing because you know some people were, but anyway, I was a bit shocked to read in mind that it said Dempsey is better in print than he is in person. So those of you who want to follow me in print, this is where I am and thank you very much. Are we going to round? We have questions. I'm told we can take a few gentle questions. Thank you. So back to Cliff. Well, Lorcan, I think you left everybody kind of dazzled by that journey through, gosh, probably 25 years of the evolution of libraries as a large scale system. And certainly, as you say, you've been ideally placed to observe that. I really found that fascinating and I hope that you did too. I think there's a lot to think about in there. I hope Lorcan is gonna be willing to share his slides with us as well. So I'm just gonna ask you to join me in thanking Lorcan one more time for a great talk. I wish you a safe journey. I hope to see many of you in the course of the next few months, either in person or virtually. And I look forward to bringing us back together in December in Washington. So thank you again for joining us. Take care.