Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP)
for Library and archives activities (ISIC 9101)
Despite being largely non-profit, the 'Library and archives activities' industry operates within a defined information ecosystem where its 'Structure' (e.g., funding models, regulatory environment, supplier power of content providers and tech vendors – MD05: 4) heavily dictates its 'Conduct' (e.g.,...
Strategic Overview
The Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) framework provides a valuable lens for analyzing the 'Library and archives activities' industry, even though it operates outside a traditional profit-driven market. By reframing 'market' as the broader information ecosystem, SCP helps understand how the fundamental characteristics of the industry (Structure) dictate the strategic choices and operational decisions made by libraries and archives (Conduct), ultimately affecting their ability to achieve their mission of access, preservation, and education (Performance).
Key structural elements include the unique public funding architecture, the significant bargaining power of content and technology vendors (MD05), and the restrictive regulatory landscape of intellectual property (RP03, RP12). These structures force specific 'conducts' such as reliance on consortia for licensing, continuous advocacy for funding, and strategic choices in collection development. The performance of the industry, measured by factors like patron engagement, resource accessibility, and successful preservation, is thus heavily influenced by these structural constraints and the resulting organizational conduct. This analysis highlights the need for strategic interventions to reshape or adapt to the prevailing industry structure.
5 strategic insights for this industry
Dominant Supplier Power and Vendor Lock-in
A significant structural characteristic is the concentrated power of major content publishers (e.g., academic journals, e-book platforms) and integrated library system (ILS) vendors. This results in high content acquisition costs (MD03: 2 - High Content Acquisition Costs) and substantial vendor lock-in (MD05: 4 - Vendor Lock-in), limiting libraries' and archives' negotiation leverage and flexibility in technology choices. This forces 'conducts' such as reliance on consortial purchasing and advocacy for open access.
Regulatory & Intellectual Property Structure as a Barrier
The existing intellectual property rights framework (RP03: 4 - Complex Cross-Border Copyright Clearance, RP12: 3 - Navigating Digital Rights) significantly constrains 'conduct' related to digital content acquisition, preservation, and dissemination. These legal structures often prioritize copyright holders over public access, creating friction for fair use and long-term digital preservation. This necessitates complex licensing negotiations and active participation in copyright reform efforts.
Funding Architecture as a Performance Determinant
The industry's structural dependence on public funding and subsidies (RP09: 4 - Chronic Underfunding & Budget Instability) directly influences its 'conduct' by dictating resource allocation (ER04: 4 - Inflexibility in Resource Allocation) and long-term strategic planning. Performance (e.g., service breadth, collection growth, technology adoption) is intrinsically linked to the stability and adequacy of this funding architecture, leading to 'conducts' focused on justifying value and securing sustained financial support.
Evolving Competitive Landscape for Patron Attention
While not traditional competitors, other information providers (e.g., Google, Wikipedia, streaming services) constitute a structural element challenging the 'market' for patron attention and information access (MD01: 3 - Maintaining Relevance and Patron Engagement). This forces libraries and archives to adapt their 'conduct' by diversifying services, enhancing user experience, and actively promoting their unique value proposition to maintain relevance (ER05: 2 - Value Proposition Justification).
Asset Rigidity and High Entry Barriers for New Models
The industry's structural asset rigidity (ER03: 4 - High Entry Barriers) due to substantial physical infrastructure, specialized collections, and long-term preservation mandates creates high entry barriers for new organizations attempting to offer similar comprehensive services. This also contributes to 'exit friction' (ER06: 4 - Perpetual Funding & Maintenance Burden), meaning existing institutions, even struggling ones, rarely disappear, leading to less market contestability but also potential inflexibility in strategic redirection.
Prioritized actions for this industry
Strengthen and expand consortial purchasing and licensing agreements.
To counter the concentrated power of content and technology vendors, libraries and archives must collectively leverage their combined purchasing power. Expanded consortial agreements can secure more favorable licensing terms, reduce per-institution costs, and potentially foster the development of open-source alternatives, thus reshaping the 'structure' of supplier power.
Advocate for legislative reforms to intellectual property and fair use laws.
The current IP structure often hinders broad access and digital preservation. Proactive lobbying for modernized copyright laws that better balance creator rights with public interest (e.g., expanded fair use, legal frameworks for digital preservation) is essential to enable more effective 'conduct' in serving the public and ensuring long-term access to knowledge.
Diversify service offerings and enhance the unique value proposition of physical spaces.
To compete for patron attention, libraries and archives must move beyond traditional roles. By transforming physical spaces into dynamic community hubs, offering unique programming (e.g., maker spaces, cultural events, digital literacy clinics), and emphasizing human-curated resources, they can differentiate themselves from purely digital competitors and strengthen their 'performance' in community engagement.
Actively explore and adopt open-source solutions for core operational systems.
Reducing dependency on proprietary ILS and other technology vendors mitigates vendor lock-in and high switching costs. Investing in open-source alternatives, contributing to their development, or collaborating with other institutions on shared platforms can reshape the 'structure' of technology provision, leading to more flexible and cost-effective 'conduct'.
Implement robust social and economic impact assessment frameworks.
To secure and stabilize funding, it's critical to quantitatively demonstrate the 'performance' and societal ROI of libraries and archives. Developing and regularly publishing metrics on educational outcomes, economic contributions (e.g., job search support), and cultural preservation impact can strengthen advocacy efforts and influence policymaker decisions, thereby affecting the 'structure' of funding.
From quick wins to long-term transformation
- Conduct an audit of current vendor contracts to identify potential areas for immediate collective negotiation through existing consortia.
- Launch a survey to gauge patron needs and identify gaps in current service offerings vs. community demand.
- Begin documenting existing community impact stories and statistics for use in basic advocacy materials.
- Participate in open-source library software communities (e.g., Koha, Evergreen) to understand potential alternatives.
- Develop a strategic plan for expanding consortial membership and collective bargaining targets.
- Form a dedicated task force to research and prepare policy briefs for IP reform advocacy.
- Redesign a specific physical space to pilot a new community-focused program or service (e.g., digital maker space).
- Pilot an open-source solution for a non-critical system (e.g., digital asset management) to gain experience and evaluate feasibility.
- Lead the establishment of new, or significantly strengthen existing, international consortia for content and technology procurement.
- Engage in multi-year lobbying efforts for fundamental changes to copyright and fair use legislation at national/international levels.
- Completely transform physical facilities into dynamic, multi-functional civic and learning centers based on community input.
- Migrate core operational systems to open-source platforms, actively contributing to their development and sustainability.
- Underestimating the resistance from entrenched vendors or the complexity of migrating to new systems.
- Failure to build broad consensus and sustained political will for legislative changes.
- Transforming physical spaces without adequate community input, leading to underutilized resources.
- Lack of internal expertise and resources to effectively implement and maintain open-source solutions.
- Inability to effectively quantify and communicate the long-term, non-monetary value of services, undermining funding appeals.
Measuring strategic progress
| Metric | Description | Target Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| % Budget on Vendor Licensing | Percentage of the operational budget allocated to external content and software licensing fees, indicating vendor dependence. | Reduce by 5% annually, reallocating savings to open access or internal development. |
| Consortial Savings Rate | Total cost savings achieved through participation in consortial purchasing and licensing agreements. | Achieve 15-20% savings compared to individual acquisitions. |
| Advocacy Impact Score | Qualitative and quantitative assessment of success in influencing legislative changes (e.g., number of bills supported, policy amendments). | Positive impact on at least 1-2 relevant legislative items per year. |
| Patron Engagement Score | Composite score based on unique visitors, program attendance, digital resource usage, and patron satisfaction surveys. | Increase overall patron engagement by 8% annually. |
| Open Source Adoption Rate | Percentage of core library systems or services migrated to open-source software solutions. | Achieve 25% adoption within 3 years, 50% within 7 years. |