Okay folks, we can finally get started. Sorry for the technical difficulties and we still kind of have a little bit of the edge off But we'll be okay. I'm Andy Gross. I work for Lenaro. I'm part of the light team which deals primarily with IOT devices And for the past gosh six nine months something like that. I've been working on Zephyr for some of the ARM V8M support and some of the Security changes that came in before the ARM V8M work Some of the user space stuff So you'll see a notice and a nice abrupt change to the template I only kept the front slide to the to their template and then switch back to a Zephyr one But but anyway the agenda for today. I'm going to talk a little bit about what T means for microcontrollers We'll talk a little bit about the hardware requirements that you you may need for implementation of execution environment I'll talk about the Zephyr support specifically for ARM V8M and there'll be a little bit of a v7m Information as well because we do have some configurations where people want to have multiple cores doing a trusted execution environment versus an ARM V8M and I'll touch on the multiple image complications, which if you were able to attend David Brown's Presentation yesterday about MCU boot this also touches on some of the things that he brought up in his talk And then we'll talk about some of the current work items things that are coming down the pipes that are that are actively being worked today So trusted execution environments, you know, there are some solutions that are currently out there in the ecosystem Synopsis has their secure shield for their arc processors. They are currently working on adding support into Zephyr for that We have the TFM, which is the arm-trusted firmware for Cortex-M and then there's also some proprietary Multi-core solutions out there one good example is probably the Cypress PSock they have a multi-core with a I think it's an M0 that's designated as a security processor and they have some IPC where they go back and forth to do Calls to do certain secure functions and then there's probably some other ones out there that people have Have proprietary designs for So fundamentally when it comes down to it What are we trying to do? We're trying to keep from leaking information and that can mean a lot of things you know, whether it's a key or a Cert that you have stored off somewhere some information. You don't want Accessible from you know applications you may want to do something with the information But you don't want to expose it directly and that's really what all this is about. So how can this be done? So Arm v8m came out with a solution where they've They've added some they've separated some environments. There's a secure in a non-secure environment And you can actually divvy up the resources on the board, whether it be the flash the RAM the peripherals And only have access from secure or non-secure If you're running non-secure you you can't access the secure components if you do you get a fault This requires some access controls on the peripherals and also on the memory space So you you can kind of think of it somewhat like a memory protection unit except maybe Extended a little bit But for the peripherals you can actually flag a peripheral is being Owned by the secure or the non-secure and if you try to access it, of course, you'll get a fault For arm v7m. However people do this you through the use of multiple cores and So what you have is you actually have a physical separation of the peripheral and they may be on the same chip But one core may have its own memory and flash and the other core may have its own and you may have some IPC So if you're talking to the secure processor, it has its own set of resources that are not directly accessible by the non-secure Processor and that's how they do that. You may have some shared memory and things that you can use for your IPC, but Primarily you're going to be storing your secrets off on the secure processors resources So touching a little bit on the arm v8m specific hardware. So the things that they added So there's two types or two versions of arm v8m. There's the main line and the baseline And there's also what they call security extensions So the main line is a v7m compatible Processor the baseline is a v6m the differences are There's some instructions set differences And I think the v8m supports DSP extension and Gosh, I can't think of anything else, but there are a few other small differences So they added the secure non-secure environment They're already existed a privileged and non-privileged mode and this is true on the v7m and v8m And I think it's also an option in v6m if you if you have that extension They added a security attribution unit and this is where you can actually specify memory ranges flash peripheral address space you can actually set this to be accessible by one or the other and actually actually also set the Read write access permissions If you're a sock vendor You can implement an IDAU which is the implementation defined attribution unit So that's just taking it's like an SAU. It's just implementation specific for that chip for what the sock vendor wants to do and then there's also some Memory protection units that were added. I believe they're optional But you have an MPU on the non-secure side and you also have an MPU on the secure side And they use that I'll get to that But you can use the MPUs to firewall off some of the secure areas if you want to actually partition your secure Execution environment into multiple partitions So Zephyr support currently as it stands Nordic did a bunch of work in getting the base architecture support for the baseline and mainline in So baseline is the M23 mainline is the M33 if you hear people talk about these that's what they mean by them There's support for the memory protection unit and also what was really nice Arm did two things one they fixed their memory protection unit to be a little bit more user friendly In the v7m and any sock manufacturer who decided to use the base vanilla arm implementation It required power of two regions, which is very It's a pain What that meant is not only did you have to size your things by power of two You also had to actually start your region on a power of two and if you weren't careful Things could actually slide into an area where it actually wasn't covered by your region And that could either open up things to be accessed by Non-secure or you could very easily exceed that and fault thinking that you're doing the right thing The other thing that they did was is instead of using one of the regions for a stack limit Which is what we do currently on the v7m They added a stack limit register, which I believe is optional But it's really nice because when you're when you're running you just set the stack limit That will actually do the protection of your of your stack for you instead of having to deal with the protection unit So that's pretty nice The other thing that was added support for the MC MSE which is the security extensions You have to use a new newer compiler that actually has the Support for that and it's the option is that dash MC MSE and if you pick up one of the arm GCC compilers, I think it's 2017 q4 or newer you'll have support for that if you want to play around with it Where this comes in is is that if you want to create the veneers or Some of the security features you have to use that option the reason why is because they added an extra Linker region that's called the secure non-secure callable And what that allows you to do is when you actually do your transitions from Non-secure to secure you have some Rappers that are that are built in that area where you you jump into that and then that allows you to jump into the secure execution environment Another thing that was added was the secure library stub creation So if you've gone out and looked at TFM or looked at zephyr when you want to run an Environment where you have a non-secure and a secure image if you want to do secure functions You actually have to create a stub. This is the thing that allows you to actually progress across the boundaries There is support in zephyr to create that and I'll kind of talk in the next few slides about You know well You have a lot of choices when you decide what you want your secure code to be you can use TFM You can use zephyr if you really wanted to or you could just write your own But there are some specific things that you have to take into account if you do that Lastly we have some SDK work in progress So with the change in the compiler the current zephyr SDKs don't have a compiler that supports this So you either have two choices. Well, yeah, you have one choice You have to use an external compiler. We don't want that to be the case We want an SDK update and we want people to be able to pull that down and just use it like they would today with zephyr We don't want people to have to go around and try to find tool chains So I'm going to touch on the next three slides are going to touch on how how arm at least in the past and even in the present kind of describes how these systems are going to be Set up and this will become clear a little bit later I think when we start to talk about how the system works together So if you've gone to any of the arm presentations, they'll talk about level one level two level three of of PSA And what that means is is that if if you're running arm v8m and even if you're not really but this slide shows an arm v8m You're going to have a separation in the system You're going to have some some user application code Which is going to run in non-secure and then you're going to have a secure image that's running on The side that has some set of functions that you want to you want to actually do that may be You may have some resources over there like a key You want to make calls over to encrypt some some information? You may want to sign something The the hash line and the center is the separation between the two on an arm v8m This is a context which this isn't actually IPC. I think PSA now specifies that it's IPC, but That on the same processors. That's kind of that's kind of an odd thing to do But in level one what happens is you have your non-secure application on the left You have all the secure functionality on the right and there's no separation between any of the secure partitions So there they all have access to the same resources an SPE is a secure Processing process environment the SPM is the secure partition manager The SPM is supposed to be the one that when you switch context sets up all the security the way that you want it to be If you transition to a level 2 you'll see now that there's a separation between the SPM and all the secure functions And then if you take it even further You may have separation between all of the secure partitions or the secure functions And I think yesterday if you went to The presentation you would have seen the arm presentation you would have seen something similar to this so When we were talking about the hardware before I mentioned the MP use And the SA use and the ID a use When you are actually firewalling off these things on the right? I think this is where the MP use probably going to come in on some of these things You're gonna want to set this up to actually separate some out some of the partitions and when you're running in one context versus another And when I'm saying context, I mean even within the secure context you may be running on one of these functions You only have access to a certain amount of the resources Now currently in the TFM. We only have support for level one So when you do the transition everything on the secure side you have access to everything So that's something to keep in mind now in the future. I think they're gonna be adding in support for these other these other levels So in a single core implementation And this is true today in Zephyr if you if you try to run this This is an R&B 8m.  You're gonna have some API that you're gonna call that needs to call down into what what are called the What a lot of people call the veneers, but really they're stubs Those stubs reside in the secure non-secure callable region. That's When you go down the stack you eventually reach the point where you actually make the transition across and you access one of the SPEs Once you're on the other side the code on the other side does whatever function you want it to do In the current TFM. This is a blocking Synchronous call so You make the call it runs to completion you come back if you do something that that takes a long time well too bad and in one of our Current boards that we have that runs fairly slow We were doing something it was taking seconds and then of course you get back and your your cystic is completely wrong So so yeah, that that needs to be dealt with and I think in the future There's gonna be some improvement there to deal with that because I mean we're talking about an RTOS and making these synchronous calls You can't block for a long period of time You have to actually deal with other things and it's if you have things you need to deal with then you have to start thinking Well, then I have to start switching or moving things over to the other side because you know, it's able to handle them so so yeah, those changes need to be made and and this was something that was brought up in Lenaro connect I think in one of the arm presentations I'll say now if you guys haven't seen some of the presentations the previous ones or even the one yesterday from arm Please visit them and and check them out. There's a lot of information in these that's very useful to understand how some of these things work So in a multicore implementation Which this this is also being worked on right now It's very similar the difference is instead of having a context switch on the same processor. You actually have Open amp on the bottom with The stub is gonna the API is gonna be the same But once you get below that instead of doing the stub and doing the transition to the different context You're actually doing an IPC call across open amp, which utilizes some some mailbox Hardware and maybe some shared memory This would be true whether For the multicore and this is something where I think we have one of our boards that has to m33's on it We're gonna be modeling that We do have some current v7m hardware the psox 6 Which we're gonna be doing the same thing So the idea is is that tfm is gonna run on not only rm v8m But also run on v7m as well the only difference of course is gonna be how you do your transition so Going past some of the architecture and how things are gonna work When you actually create your images you run into kind of one of the first problems, which is Okay, how do I load the system? If you're running secure and non-secure you have two binaries so That means you have to you have one you have to have a bootloader So regardless of whether or not you're gonna use tfm on the secure side you have to have a bootloader The other thing you have to have is you have to actually implement some of the security configurations but so Today when you build a zephyr You can build zephyr to run secure single image and you can load it and run it just fine without any bootloader anything You're not getting the full Benefit of having the separation and the application being on the non-secure side and The other things running on the secure side, but you can do it if you decide to run a secure and non-secure image You have two binaries you have to Package them together in a way that both sides know where everything is and and what this means is is that on an RV 8m the way the Address map works is is that you actually have aliases that specify whether or not it's a secure and non-secure address space So every one of the peripherals and RAM and flash has two addresses There's a non-secure in the secure When you start to divvy up your flash and RAM You actually have to say okay Well, how much of my flash do I want for secure and how much do I want for non-secure? You lay it out in your in your in your address map and then For the secure side you have to start at those addresses for the non-secure side when you actually do the jump to the non-secure You have to know what that address is and not only that the non-secure application Zephyr has to know what that address is Today we currently Describe this in DTS. So if you go to Zephyr and you look at any one of the the the boards You'll see that it has device tree file that'll contain a RAM flash peripheral address map This isn't going to be any different for arm v8m. The the complexity is is that Whatever you describe or use on the secure side You also have to describe and use on the non-secure side using different address number Different address ranges and not only that different offsets So if you set aside, let's say 32k of ram for secure and let's say you have 96k of ram for non-secure The the non-secure side is not only going to be a different address It's going to be offset into that 32k into the RAM And if you set up your your configuration in a specific way If you don't do that properly One of two things happens either you get lucky and you you somehow manage to get an address that you can use or you You you have a violation and you get a fault And you don't get very useful information back. The system just it you stop Um, so that's that's not very useful So one of the problems that we have is we have to have a coherent description of the hardware On the Zephyr side, we already use dt. Um, we want to Use device tree also in the tfm to describe this And we want to use the same dts And one of the things that's one of the changes that's come in recently was support for the ranges property And if you're familiar with dts, that's great. If not Dts just allows you to describe your hardware. Um, the ranges property actually allows you to Map the address based on some rules So we can actually describe the hardware the complete hardware using one device tree file But we can generate two outputs based off of whether or not it's secure and non-secure So that's good. Um When an application developer decides how they want to divvy up the resources That comes into play You have to figure out which peripherals are owned by which Divvy up your flash and ram and all the numbers have to have to match up Um one nice thing about using the same file Um with the outputs we can actually compare them and make sure that there's no overlap That will save users a lot of problems So this is one of the things that's currently in work So to touch on all the items that we currently have You know in in progress, uh, there's some prs out there for Muska support those still need I think there's still a few comments that are outstanding Um, we're adding support for the mps2 if you don't know what that is That's one of the arm development boards that has an fpga on it It allows you to load different models so you can actually run more than just the m33 or m23 you can run A lot of other processors We have multi-core work going in on both the v7m and v8m side There's a group or Some individuals in light that are working on open amp. We have one guy working on the ipc for the v7m And we're going to be spooling up The v8m work since we do currently have a board that has two m33s on it There's ongoing work with the device tree Once we get that gets that that'll be put in place about at the same time that the musk is because those two are kind of Stuck together And then we have some of the tfm improvements that we want to do So tfm right now it's it's it's in its early stages There's Some some things that can be added changed improved Some of the things that we have to kind of wrangle our heads around is Some of the secure functions and kind of making it a little bit more modular Ideally from a zephyr perspective. We'd really like to Perhaps use zephyr without the scheduler and without some of the pieces as the core and then add in some of these tfm components and and that would be our secure image The tfm today I'm not sure if it really needs some os primitives But if it gets to the point where they do You know, you're going to have to have a selection of some some r-toss that acts as the the base Um, I think rtx is what they have some hooks in for right now. We really prefer that to be zephyr It's open source And then we still have some of the ongoing work with the integration. So We want to make a building zephyr with tfm to be kind of seamless That means, you know doing a make versus Making zephyr creating an image going over to tfm creating an image running some scripts to combine the images correctly We don't want it to be that complicated because you know Generic user is going to come in here and that's too much work for them to understand They shouldn't have to understand that really what they should come in and say, okay Make zephyr make tfm that goes over and makes a tfm image and then package it and be done So that's really the goal that we want when we get to the end and I think That's it. So I added some links at the end Last monday PSA opened up Well, they they put their documents out public documents. They're still I think an alpha But all of the documents are available. So if you go to that site, you have to click on each one of their Each one of their documents separately to download it But they are out there. So that's good. So I would I would suggest if people are interested in this go download all the documents and take a look at it They have some great information about PSA. They also have some really nice threat models Which which are very useful When you go and you actually create a product or you decide what you want to do you really need to think about Creating a threat model to understand what pieces of the of the system you need to protect And how you're going to do it. So their threat models are great examples Um, if you want to check out the trusted firmware itself the the code, um, there's the link to that I think that's going to change. Um, it's going to be Moved somewhere else. I think under lanaro But that is still accessible today and I ran through a bunch of information. Uh, we're at the end. So I We're at the I can field some questions. I'm sure there's quite a few. Um, if you have a question We need to get the mic to you so everybody can hear the question um So first question, uh In case of single core, um the contact switch Then it's a contact switch. Yes. What is the overhead uh on v8 for that? I don't think it's very high. Um, they use some banked registers. So really it's it's I don't know. Maybe one of the arm guys has has numbers on this, but I don't think it's very high It's definitely not like doing an ipc call Okay, all right I haven't timed it and really the boards that we have aren't good candidates for for timing it anyway I've I've seen on some uh, some t implementations It could be quite high on on android phones, which leaves me, um, do see sefer Moving away from tfm and all the way to t whereas tfm a spec that is That other architectures could possibly implement so the overarching Documentation or Process that that they want people to use is psa Tfm is is merely an implementation that is psa compliant. I think that's the language that arm uses They're very happy to say if you want to implement whatever architecture something that You know does the different requirements that psa requires then you would be have a psa compliant solution for that architecture as well So I think the important part is is that It adheres to the psa Any other questions? I don't know if that's good or bad Okay, well, I guess uh, well We're finished Thank you


Rick Jackson? George Wolfe. Man, I haven't seen you since you left night last year. Yeah, it's been pretty good though. I'm actually here depositing my bonus check for meeting my safety production goals. No way! Me too! Oh. With night transportations Keep America Truckin' Bonus, any production and safety bonus earned from July 1 through March 31 will be doubled when you stay with night through the end of March. I think I'm gonna have to go inside for this.


Hi, my name is John Asmason and I'm here with Future Electronics. Future Electronics is a global electronic components distributor. I represent Future IoT Solutions where we're helping customers to accelerate and simplify bringing to market IoT solutions or smart connected products. We help hardware developers that want to make their products connected and smart so that they can realize new business efficiencies or enhance a customer experience. Today we're demonstrating an application that we've built using STNucleo. The STNucleo has sensors on it that we're reporting to a dashboard that we've developed using Watson IoT platform. The custom dashboard will demonstrate to you visualizations of the sensor readings and we can also control the board that we have here in front of us to operate a fan and LEDs that are telling us about certain conditions with the development board. Within the application here, you can see that if I put my finger on the temperature sensor, the dashboard is reacting to the new temperature reading on the device. So it's a simple visualization tool for sensor values. I can now turn to an interactive thermostat that we've developed and here we're mimicking a working conditions environment where we want to remotely control and read the temperatures. I'll select that I want to modify what's happening at this board within the thermostat here on the screen. If I change the temperature, you'll notice that the green LED just turned on on my board and it's showing me that I'm in an ambient working condition. As the temperature accelerates, you can see that I've just moved into an alert stage where the LED has turned to yellow. If I further change, I'll move into a state that's not ideal for our working conditions and you'll see that it's actually triggered the operation of this fan, mimicking an environment where we want to turn on a heating or cooling system to move us back into an ambient working condition. So there's a simple demonstration of how IoT solutions from future electronics can be applied to your business case. We can extend this to many verticals within a number of industries. Appreciate your attention today.


Mystics and Saints, Saint John the Cross, Dark Knight of the Soul, and if you read the literature of the saints who have gone for this, you know, it's pretty dark. It's more dark than it is beatific, it's dark, but that's not meant to scare you away from the journey, it's just meant to kind of show you that you will have to go through the darkness to the light, but you're not alone, you definitely aren't alone. That's the whole message of the Course.  I am with you always, you know, the reassurance is there, that the journey to God cannot fail. You know, God would not give us a plan, God would not give us the means to awaken without an assurance, without a guarantee that the plan will succeed. That salvation is guaranteed, and it's of the mind. We don't have to try to save souls, we don't try to save any people, we don't have to save the animals, we don't have to save the planet, we don't have to save Mother Earth, it's kind of good when you really look at it, it gets easier and easier when you start to realize you don't have to save anything, salvation is for the mind the sleeping mind, and it's only achieved through peace. That eliminates a lot of things too, we don't have to get into anything else. You'll find here we're not into like, okay, eat a holy diet, and do the holy exercise routine, and look at the holy rocks on the holy south side of the canyon, you know, and bow down and pray, you know, on the holy grass, we just don't, we're not into spiritualizing matter. It was great, Elizabeth was talking to me today, what was the name of the people down around 1160, the Cathars, she told me about the Cathars, and living in the Pyrenees, and what was the name of the castle? It was so funny, I went to my Google and was like, oh, and I was reading about the Cathars, and they're pretty much known as a Gnostic group, and non-duality, there was, there was different of the Cathars, they did say that there was part of the Cathars that believed that there was this, this, this force or this thing that made the earth, it wasn't God, it was great, if you imagine 1160, God did not create the world, of course the Catholic Church burned 200 with these people. Almost, I don't know, they burned 200 at the last stand, but within the course of two centuries, all of them had to disappear or convert, they burned quite a few. You convert the Catholicism or you're killed, you're burned or killed, and there was, the core teachings, you know, was the world's not real, and then I read on about their views on the crucifixion, they, they did not see the crucifixion, they went further than denying the crucifixion. They said, it is impossible for the Son of God to incarnate on earth. 1160, you're taking the virgin birth out with that baby, you're taking, you're taking the whole theology out with one undercut, not that they went after the crucifixion, but they went after, that is an impossible, it is impossible for the Son of God to incarnate on earth. That's the teachings of the Course of Miracles, that's the teachings of Christian science, that's the teachings of non-duality, and talk about unpopular, we're talking that's so unpopular that they burn them all and then they get the final 200 and they give them a choice, it's not like just, like, like Jonah Vark, you know, put you up there and we'll burn you, it's, we'll give you a choice, you convert to Catholicism and you're free to go, or you keep talking about that stuff that you're talking about, you can just walk right into that fire over there and 200 of them walked right into the fire. Now that's faith. They're singing as they enjoy going into it. They're teaching philosophy and demonstration inspired St. Francis. St. Francis built his order a century later over in Italy, St. Francis, because some of you might have seen the story where his mother was actually French and his father was a merchant and was into dealing with fabrics and the Pyrenees and this area was where he got a lot of his fabrics. So St. Francis found out about this non-dualistic group living this way. So, and here you walk into our monastery, you see St. Francis there. So you can see these symbols just reverberate throughout history. It's said that, it didn't matter to them that it failed at the time, because they said it was like a seed that one day would, like the rose, move the song of the rose, the seed one day would blossom. So the symbol there for reincarnation is, is that we're talking about exposing and purifying and clearing. They could see that that was a process over time, not limited to one lifetime, and yet I come back to Wikipedia. They believe that the Son of God could not incarnate. So the reincarnation was more of, of the Holy Spirit's use of time to unwind, literally to unwind, however long it takes to unwind from time, from the belief in time. Beautiful, you know, when you think of it so high, so beautiful and high, that's, that's all that we really are looking for now are symbols of transcendence. Sharing the peace, shining the truth, singing and soaring in you.


Okay. Hi, everybody. It is 2.45 and I am really excited to get started and share some of the findings from our survey of library deans and directors at academic institutions, which is being published today. This is a great big room and I'm thrilled that we're going to be recording the session, so very few people actually have to show up in person. But I think the quality of the discussion is going to be very strong and I'm really looking forward to hearing some of your thoughts and reactions to some of the findings that we have today. I'm Roger Schoenfeld. I'm the, for those who don't know me, I'm the director of Ithaca SNR's library and scholarly communications program. The talk that I'm going to give today is from a study that my colleague Christine Wolfe, who is blissfully offline enjoying her honeymoon right now, was the principal author of, so I'm happy to be here to represent what I think is a really fine piece of work and an important piece of work. What I'm going to try to convince you of today is that we've heard a variety of things from library directors in the course of this project and other work that my colleagues and I have been doing in recent years. And in this project, I think we have gotten a slightly clearer shape of how the strategic trajectory of academic libraries is proceeding and some of the constraints that library leaders are feeling. And I want to have a chance to share with you some of what we're seeing but also, as I say, to hear if this resonates or not. The work that I'm sharing today was sponsored by EBSCO and Elsevier and JSTOR, so just to give you a sense of that and our gratitude for them for their support of the work, which really, as I say, gets at some of the directions that libraries are proceeding in. The project, one of the real positive characteristics about the project is that we achieved an incredibly high level of response from the library director community. When we had the survey open in December and November, just this past semester, we had essentially half of academic library directors in the United States chose to participate. It was a little bit higher among the doctoral institutions and just a little bit lower among the masters and baccalaureate institutions. And I'll talk a little bit in a couple of places about where we see some interesting distinctions between those two groups. One or two caveats, you'll notice that it does not include community colleges, which I think is something we would like to address in the future. But we do have really strong levels of participation among the directors at institutions that grant a baccalaureate degree or higher. One of the things, just in terms of basic descriptive statistics, one of the things that we had not asked in the past and surveyed for the first time in this particular cycle was how many years the respondent had been in their position as director of their library. And you can see that more than a quarter of our respondents have been in their position for two years or less. And more than half, a bit more than half, have been in their position for five years or less. So you can see some of the turnover that we're aware of anecdotally, the wave of retirements that some of us have certainly spoken about. You can really see that present in some of the participation numbers for this project. So the reason why we surveyed library directors and not librarians overall or another kind of category is that in this project, we've mostly been interested in the strategic directions, the resource allocations, and some of the staffing directions that libraries are taking. And I'm going to cover a few areas in the talk today. It's very clear that we're seeing an increase in resource allocation towards what we might call services as opposed to collections. Very clear that we're seeing a deep commitment to student success building on some of what we all just heard about from Allison's talk. We're seeing collections continue to transform and some indications of some next directions that directors might wish to take with collections. We're continuing to see a strong pivot away from discovery and a way from the library as a discovery starting point, which is something that we've been tracking for a number of years now. And interestingly, we're also seeing a number of consistent indications that there's been a decrease over the last three years since our previous survey cycle in perceptions that directors have of the support that they receive from their institutions. And so all of those things together, you can see this kind of fairly coherent strategic shift, pivot, if you like, transformation, from a more collections-oriented mindset towards a more research support, teaching support, learning support kind of mindset. But it's clear that we're in a period of change where the perceptions of institutional support are not what they have been in the past, or there's a number of institutions where it's declined. And I think that's something that probably deserves a bit of reflection and discussion because we're in the midst of a process rather than at an end point at certainly most of our institutions. So a big part of the vision that I want to talk about today is the increasing resource allocation towards what I'm calling services. And I'm really using services as a catch-all for all of the things other than collections that a library does. That's maybe a little bit of a shorthand. For each of these, I'm just going to share a subset of the findings. And if you're interested, you can dive in in much greater depth to the report which has been published to our website or the data set which we'll be releasing in the coming months. So here's a good example of a question that speaks to this. My library is systematically increasing the share of staffing and budget devoted to developing and improving services that support teaching, learning, and or research. And this is a pretty broad question. You can see that more than 50% of the doctoral university directors agree strongly with that statement. It's a bit lower at the baccalaureate and master's degree. Institutions, very, very few respondents disagree with that statement. And this is one of a series of statements where we're trying to kind of get at the sort of way that resources staffing budget are being reallocated. We kind of track the vision that the directors have a little bit less in terms of asking them what is your vision and a little bit more in trying to understand how they're making resource reallocations and how they expect to do so. Here's a similar kind of question in some ways. To the best of your knowledge, will your library add or reduce employee positions in any of the following areas over the next five years? So it's not a, and this is the share responding to a variety of different kinds of positions saying that they plan to add staffing in those areas. So I'm not sure if everyone will be able to read all of the items here well, but the first item is instruction, instructional design, and information literacy services. That's right there up at the top. Then it goes to specialized faculty research support, things like digital humanities, GIS, et cetera, digital preservation and archiving distinctive collections like archives and rare books, and assessment and data analytics. You can see that many of these have either increased or declined just a little bit, but the basic rank order hasn't changed all that dramatically over the last three years. We did introduce two new items this cycle, human resources and talent management, and where did it go, finance and business operations. Just to give a sense of where that is. We also asked where they would reduce staffing, and you can see that that clusters in a different set of areas. Clusters with reference access services, technical services, collections development and print preservation and print collections management. And unsurprisingly, not all, but most of these functions are more print oriented, more tangible collection oriented. That's where there's a pretty, pretty stronger sense of a willingness to make reductions. Now what's interesting is that now this is going back to the additions where they would add staffing. What's interesting is that when you look at the doctoral institutions, they're rather different than the masters and baccalaureate institutions. So instruction and instructional design is sort of equal for all three groups of responding directors. But when you look at specialized faculty research support, the doctoral institutions pop all the way out. Almost 70% of directors at doctoral institutions are planning to staff up in that area. And as you can see, other areas related to distinctive collections, special collections, preservation, assessment, et cetera. There's a much stronger sense of adding staff at the doctoral institutions in a variety of fairly consistent areas. Now at the same time, interestingly, so we asked this strongly worded statement, my library has a well-developed strategy to meet changing user needs and research habits. And I have to say I'm a little bit discouraged to see that at the baccalaureate and the master's institutions, we've actually climbed down a little bit from where we were in 2013. The doctoral institutions have continued to increase. But we don't see much more than 50% even of the doctoral institutions agreeing strongly with this statement. And so there's something to reflect on that there is a pretty clear sense of strategic reallocation among the doctoral institutions towards a certain kind of service portfolio. But that said, there's not as much confidence that there's a well-developed strategy for meeting changing user needs. And that sets against one against another to some degree. So I'll toss out a couple of questions. We'll see if you're interested in engaging now or if you want to hold questions until the end. I'm realizing maybe with the microphones where they're positioned, maybe we'll hold questions until the end. But I think there's a couple of questions that the slides have just shared, that the findings have just shared raised. One is, is it possible to pursue this fundamental strategy across different kinds of institutions to really clear where the doctoral institutions are going or relatively clear? It's much less clear when we look at the findings how the other kinds of institutions, what directions they are pursuing. And of course, the direction towards services is a direction that puts libraries in some of the same spaces as instructional technology or teaching and learning center puts the library in some ways in the same spaces that some other academic support services are placed as well. So there's some interesting questions about how the scope and partnership of those different organizations fit together. So I want to talk about another part of the vision, which is the library director's deep commitment to student success. So for all of the somewhat different perspectives that I was just sharing, when we ask a strongly worded statement like supporting student success is the most important priority for my library, we can get 90% of master's degree directors, master's degree granting institutions directors agreeing strongly with that statement, 70% or so of doctoral institutions, 85% of baccalaureate institutions. It's one of the strongest, most consistent findings across the survey. But when we ask in some ways a similar question, my library has clearly articulated how it contributes to student success. We see those numbers fall down 30, 40 percentage points. So from 90% among the master's institutions towards 50%, from 75% for the doctoral institutions to about 55% of institutions directors feeling that they have clearly articulated to the rest of the campus ultimately and perhaps to their own staff as well how they contribute towards student success. And I think that mismatch is a bit of what ACRL with the assessment and action program, what some of the other project information literacy too have been really pushing towards is how do we determine and articulate what that contribution should be and what in fact it is. And here's an area where I'm going to show you faculty members with the red bars and then library directors with the blue bars. So the faculty members are from our survey a year ago of faculty members across the United States. And library directors is of course what you've just seen. And the question is the undergraduate students at my institution have poor skills related to locating and evaluating scholarly information. It's a pretty blunt statement. And as you can see the faculty members 50%, 60% of them depending a little bit on institutional type agree strongly with that statement. The library directors not so much. The mismatch is perhaps greatest at the doctoral institutions where you can see that it's about 25% to about 55% in terms of the gap. Now the timeline of when this research took place may be worth mentioning. So the faculty members, the research took place a year ago in I believe the October to December range of 2015. The library director research took place in November and December 2016 where as you know sort of issues around fake news and so forth were much more part of the national attention. And so it's actually a little bit counterintuitive that the library directors are if anything more sanguine than the faculty members about the students' research skills. And there are differences here of course. The library directors are methodologically identified as one per institution. The faculty members are composed as a random sample of faculty members from across all institutions. So there's a little bit of caution that needs to be applied here. But you can see a pretty substantial difference here. And it's one that we will see again in a couple of other slides related to student success. And I think that's something that I really want to emphasize is that in this area we are not seeing as much consistency between the faculty members and the library directors as I might have expected. So here are two kind of parallel, they're not parallel, but they're related questions. Use a 10 to 1 point scale to indicate how well each of these statements describe your point of view. And the one is that librarians here significantly contribute to student learning by helping them find access and make use of a range of resources in their coursework. And then the second one is librarians here contribute significantly to student learning by helping them develop their research skills. And again, bearing in mind the caveat that the projects have slightly different methodology, you can see library directors by acclamation agree quite strongly with this statement. Faculty members above both statements, faculty members are a little bit more mixed. It's not that they strongly disagree, but their level of agreement is certainly rather lower. So there's some differences in terms of perceptions, maybe the library directors, maybe they respond a little bit more aspirationally to some of these claims, whereas the faculty members have a little bit more of their own sense of their students. We could speculate about some other causes of this mismatch, but you can see fairly consistently in questions where we've asked library directors and faculty members for similar views on issues connected to student learning, research skills, student success, that there are some pretty meaningful differences in the responses. That said, library directors clearly have a deep commitment in the libraries of our community, clearly have a deep commitment to student success. And I think it raises some interesting questions about how libraries have articulated that contribution, what kinds of challenges are faced in articulating that contribution in the actual context of the politics of a given campus or given institution. And of course the question about why there's this gap, what causes it, what libraries can do, if anything, to address that gap, there certainly is quite a bit of work that is taking place, has taken place on these kinds of topics. And I think I hope our research helps to drive home some of the importance of the issue here. So I want to talk now about how some of the ways that collections are continuing to transform. This is an area where of course we've been through some really, really widespread transformations in the last 10 or 15 years. And most of what I'm going to show you here is not some of the more, to be honest, not some of the most radical transformations that one might argue are taking place right now. So one might argue that some of the most radical transformations are shifts at some institutions ultimately away from collecting full stop. Shifts towards, away from library-driven collecting and towards more demand-driven acquisitions. Shifts towards much more cooperative collecting. Shifts towards licensing as against collecting. You can make a pretty strong argument that there are widespread transformations that either are ongoing or are on the horizon. But what I want to share with you is something a little bit more mundane is really what's happening with collecting budgets. And I think this is interesting too. So we've been asking for three cycles of this survey, so over the course of six years, the share of the library's materials budget that's spent on the following items. And this is an average across all of the institutions that responded. So, and this is an estimate, right? We weren't gathering budget, detailed budgetary information. We were gathering directors' best estimates of what they're spending their resources on. And you can see that the online journals has not increased dramatically over the course of six years. It's at about 60% of the budget, again on average, across the participants. You can see print books is declining a bit. E-books have increased a bit. Print journals declining a bit. But fundamentally, you know, the online journals continue to be the lion's share as I'm sure is not a surprise to anyone in this room of library materials budgets. What I do want to call to your attention though is the all other items, right? Because all other items is an awful lot of things that libraries, many libraries care quite a bit about, right, and as I'll show you in a minute, they care more and more about, or say they care more and more about. And it's curious that at least at the director level when they're offering up these estimates of what they're spending their budgets on, that we see it's almost an afterthought. We spend 5% again on average of our budget on everything else other than books and journals, right? Maybe that's accurate at many of your institutions. Maybe it's not. That to me is actually a really interesting question to dig into. I won't spend a lot of time on this only to say that we also ask directors for their predictions and their predictions seem to have some validity to them. They're predicting that the digital journals are going to continue to increase as a share of budgets, that digital books, e-books are gonna continue to increase as a share of budgets. The print things are going to continue to decline as a share of budgets. And all other items is going to be more or less flat. So again, just coming back to that question about, are we mostly about books and journals or are we in whatever print or digital format? Or are we taking a broader minded approach to collecting scholarship and cultural heritage? So I think that's something of what that might, what we might be thinking about there. Now, in terms of the strategy that directors tell us they're pursuing, we asked these two strongly worded statements. My library is systematically reducing the staffing and budget related to our general collections. I sometimes hear directors say that, at least aspirationally, we would like to do this.  We'd like to increase, the second item is, we are systematically increasing the staffing and budget devoted to rare special and other distinctive collections. And you can see that about a quarter of doctoral institutions agree strongly that they're trying to reduce the share of resources devoted to their general collections. And about 35% or so are trying to systematically increase the resources devoted to distinctive collections. It's by no means, neither one of these is as dramatic or as uniform of a strategy as sometimes we hear proposed or hear discussed. That said, these are the directions, as best we can tell them, that they're inching towards. So this is the share that strongly agree with these statements. The share that agrees somewhat with them is of course higher. But there's some, I have to say, there's a directionality, but there's also a, it's maybe a looser directionality than some might expect. Here's a case where the directors seem to have gotten much more confident over the last three years. Does your library have formal collections management policies for when and how to de-accession print materials that are available digitally? And here we've jumped up from 25, 30, 40% agreeing strongly to 50, 60, 70% agreeing strongly with this. So to all of you who have made an investment in thinking about collections management in a more systematic way over the last three years, you see yourself reflected in the findings here. Here's another item that I've sort of foreshadowed a little bit. As scholarship moves steadily away from its exclusive dependence on text, right, towards things like the fact that this session is being recorded and will be made available as a video, libraries must shift their own collecting to include new material types. When you pose a question that way, you get fairly strong majorities agreeing strongly with it, which is not as you saw reflected in their sense of budget allocations, right? Their sense of budget allocations was that the share devoted to text would remain approximately 95%, and the share devoted to all other things would remain approximately 5%. So it's interesting to think about, you know, this is again when I referenced a little bit earlier the difference between asking about, you know, what is your vision? This is a little bit about maybe someone's vision, but when you ask about resource allocations, you get a slightly, or in this case, a dramatically different answer. And I don't mean to suggest that one is right and one is wrong, but you can see that how you ask the question gives you rather different answers, right? And here just one more item. How much of a priority is each of the following functions in your library? The news on this slide is on the last item, purchasing print books to build research collections. I could not have foreseen that this was going to almost double from 2013 to 2016, right? In 2013, we had a really interesting story to tell, which was that the first item, it's all about facilitating access, and then the last item, it's not about collecting at all if you look across libraries broadly, was sort of an interesting kind of modern narrative, but it seems like a lot of libraries have really recognized that for whatever vision they may have for the long run about building print collections that in the near term, the format transition from eBooks, from print books to eBooks may not be proceeding as rapidly as some would expect. We have a number of findings that get at that, and it's sort of a moment where maybe the hype cycle, we're at a little bit of a trough of a hype cycle about the format transition for books. So there's a lot of things to ask about here. Whether we anticipate this emphasis, this claim about moving to new material types, whether we think it will actually develop or whether we think it maybe is something that sounds good, but is really beyond the capabilities of a lot of our libraries, whether new formats like video and so forth may never to the same extent be integrated into local collections practices. I think these are, we're starting to have some not just vision but evidence about what's going on in these areas. And I think there's also some questions about, although directors say they expect, I showed you in a previous section, directors expect that aggregate spending will increase for services, for non-collections considerations, but they don't seem to expect, other than on the staffing side, they don't really seem to expect to spend less on general collections. It's not very widespread or very high levels of confidence being expressed. So there's a little bit of, where's the money coming from? Is it coming from increased allocations from general university appropriations? Is it coming from outside external funding that library directors are securing? There's a sense of putting more into services and less into general collections, but the reallocation is on the staffing, not on other parts of the budget, at least as best as we can tell right now. And I think that has interesting implications, not just for libraries, but for publishers as well. So one of the things that we've been tracking for a while is where libraries are with discovery. Discovery, as you all know, is a fast-changing factor for scholars and for students. The environment for discovery is reshaping itself as new services are regularly introduced. And one of the things that is now emerging as a consistent finding over six years of these surveys is that library directors are de-emphasizing their commitment to serving as the starting point and serving as the switch, the router in the researcher's workflow. This is, to me, is really interesting because there's a strategic role there that 10 years ago, many directors were saying, things like we have to compete with Google, and there have been an array of services that have been developed and that libraries have offered that are designed to offer a single search box on the library homepage for all the collections, these kinds of services. And yet at the same time, we're seeing a kind of steady decline in the sense of this as a strategy. Let me share some findings. So it's strategically important that my library be seen by its users as the first place that they go to discover scholarly content. Now, this isn't so much about what they do. This is about how the library is perceived, right? This is ultimately a question about, about sort of a question about campus politics and user perceptions. And we had very high level of agreement when we first asked this question in 2010. And it has steadily, not dramatically, but steadily been declining through 2013 and then 2016. And it's been declining not just at small colleges, not just at large universities, really across the board. So I think that's actually pretty interesting. You might expect that in three years from now we're gonna be below 50% at all three of these institution types. That wouldn't be a surprise. Now, this question is much more pointed about the services and collections that the library offers. My library is always the best place for researchers at my institution to start their search for scholarly information. So this is less about politics. This is about, I'm the information expert on my campus and I'm going to assert that this is the best place for researchers to start. And you can see that although baccalaureate and master's institutions have more or less held steady with a slight decline over three years time, the doctoral institutions have fallen off at a somewhat greater clip. So we're now less than four out of 10 directors at doctoral institutions willing to go on record making that statement strongly. Which I think is interesting sort of in light of some of the findings that we just heard in the last session about where is the right place as it were the correct place to start one's research. Now, here's another item that the reason we added this item, I'll just sort of share a little bit of the kind of thinking that went into it. The reason that we added this item when we did was that we were interested in whether the library was going to, we were really interested in the connection between scholarly communications, kind of transformative agenda for scholarly communications and the role that the library might play with respect to discovery, right? So the idea here is identical online copies of the same item exist. So that might be that they exist on ProQuest and on EBSCO, let's just say, or it might be because they exist on an institutional repository and on ScienceDirect, or it might be because they exist on ResearchGate and on SpringerLink, right? Like it could be any two or more places and the question was whether it was important that the library be able to guide users to one of those preferred sources. Now I think in every single one of the three examples I just named, you probably as a library would have a preferred source, I suspect. But what we're hearing here is that whether you do have a preferred source or not, the sense that it's important to guide users to that preferred source has fallen off steadily, right? So we're now approaching a third of respondents who are saying that that is an important function for the library to serve. Now you could argue that that might not be the best way to achieve sort of a transformative scholarly communications agenda and I don't mean to push that that is the right way to do it. But it's clear that the directors don't seem to be endorsing that as the strategy that they see that you see. So, this has implications not just for a kind of transformative agenda for scholarly communications, though I do think it does have implications there. It also has implications for how you connect into student success and information literacy and those research skills, right? I mean, we are, if discovery is decreasingly the province of the library, which I think is what we're beginning to pick up fairly consistently from the library director respondents to the survey, then what are the strategies for what it means to offer information literacy instruction for engaging inside of a classroom in partnership with a faculty member for contributing to student success? It's not to say that libraries don't have strong answers to those questions, but it's not, those answers are probably not rolled out nearly as uniformly as some of these directionalities that I'm suggesting might indicate they should be. So, I think that's another interesting area that I'd love to hear reactions to. And then finally, because I didn't want to start on a down note, so now we're going to end in some way there. But I don't want to frame this as a down note. I think it's really important to recognize that the leaders of academic libraries have been pursuing a transformation agenda that's really no less wide-ranging and comprehensive than the transformation agenda of any other participant in the information industries over the last 10 years, right?  And so, when we think about that sort of cyclically or where are we in that process? How are we going? I think it is important to check in. Now, this is just the perception of the library directors, not the perception of provosts or faculty members or others, but I do think it's important to check in on how do we feel like we're doing. So, I'll show you a series of questions that ultimately point to the same conclusion, which is that we're not doing as well as we were, we're a little tired. Some of us are, that is. So, here the item is I'm considered by academic deans and other senior administrators to be a member of my institution's senior academic leadership. And, you know, whether a library director should be or shouldn't be, this is just measuring whether they feel that they are seen that way. And you can see a very consistent decline, not a radical decline, but a consistent decline across institutional types. You can also see that there's a pretty substantial difference between doctoral and masters in baccalaureate granting institutions, right, where about three quarters, two thirds to three quarters of doctoral institution directors agree strongly with this statement, but only a little more than a third of baccalaureate directors agree with that statement strongly. So, quite different institutional contexts in that respect. Here's one that's also declined. This one in some ways is perhaps more telling. My direct supervisor and I share the same vision for the library, right? And now, you know, look, I mean, we all have a direct supervisor, and you know, there's always some difference in perspective there, but it is interesting that this has declined, especially not especially the masters in baccalaureate institutions, but even at the doctoral institutions. Again, maybe not a radical decline, but a consistent one across institutional types. Here's a new item that we added, and I have mixed feelings about this based on the findings, but we wanted to try to get at how the library's position on campus was connected with its budget allocation, right? It's kind of a complicated thing. How do we, how is our budget connected to the way that we're perceived by the resource allocators at our institutions? So, the way we framed it was our university's budget allocations to the library in recent years have demonstrated that it recognizes the value of the library. It may be that that's a slightly confusing formulation, but the idea was, are we just going up or down depending on what the university's budget is doing? Or is there kind of a recognition of the value that the library especially is adding? And you can see that that's more of the case among our doctoral respondents, where about a third agreed strongly with that statement. Then it is among our masters in baccalaureate respondents where it was only about one out of five who agreed strongly with it. There's a lot of folks who fell very much in the middle on that statement, and that's a sense that maybe there was something a little bit off about the question, but it is something that we were trying to get at and hoping to be able to explore. We also asked, what are the primary constraints on your ability to make desired changes in your library? And once again, this has been consistent over time. Once again, lack of financial resources tops the chart. But interestingly, lack of employee skills in second place, a clear second place, and then a number of them that fall, maybe not in a long tail, but follow their inadequate cross-institutional collaboration, general resistance to change, and challenges in implementing new technologies are the three that follow. Now, this question has some very interesting differences for doctoral institutions in particular. So you can see that doctoral institutions are just a little bit less likely to say lack of financial resources, not dramatically so, but a little bit less likely than the others, and they're substantially more likely to say lack of employee skills in key areas, which tracks back to some of those questions we were looking at earlier where you could see just how many positions they were hoping to add or redefine in some of these new sort of services areas as I've talked about them. And then the other thing that is fascinating to me is the fourth item, general resistance to change, where no one is higher than about a third or 40%, but you can see that as the institution's size gets bigger, which is a general pattern between baccalaureate and master's and doctoral institutions, you can see that the director's sense that there is a general resistance to change is growing commentarily. And so that raises some questions for me about whether that's just the leader's distance, the director's distance from the people on the front lines as it were, or whether it's about the complexity of managing large organizations, or whether there are different cultures, maybe there's more likely to be like a faculty culture in some of the doctoral libraries and would be present in some of the smaller institution libraries, I'm not sure if that's the case, but there are some interesting differences there. So these declines that I'm calling out here are not dramatic, I don't want anyone to hear me say that the headwinds are being faced uniform, like that's not the point that we think the findings make, but we do think that they give a sense that some portion of academic libraries, 10 or 15 or whatever it is percent, the directors are reporting to us a noticeable decline in institutional support or institutional recognition over a three year period, and I think that raises some questions about whether is it just a blip, is it just a sort of oscillation, or is this the leading indicator of something? I don't mean to suggest that it is, I have no way of knowing, but I think that's something that really bears watching. Is it something that we would just expect to happen occasionally given the nature of the strategic transformations we're navigating? Is it something that we would, maybe there are some environmental factors associated with budget constraints and political dynamics over the last three years, I'm not sure, but there are some questions about what those mean and how to interpret them. And of course, question that follows is this something that libraries should work, that library leaders should work to reverse? And it's, I think probably a lot of the work that one does is at least indirectly aimed at trying to reverse this, or bolster the position of the library, but it does raise some questions about, specifically with things like my direct supervisor and I share the same vision for the library, when we see answers on that type of item declining, is that something that the director or the library team or others on campus indeed should work to reverse? And I think that that item in particular raises some interesting questions given the nature of this fairly clearly articulated set of visions of moving towards more of a services kind of role, more of a research and teaching and learning support or engagement role than a collections role. And that navigating that, the politics of that, the university academic leadership dynamics around that are clearly some of the issues that are challenging to some of our respondents. So I am going to stop there. So what I wanna let you know, I didn't, I'm sorry, I didn't think to bring a slide with the URL, but you all are very, very good web users. And so if you go to sr.ithaca with a K, ifithacawithaK.org, you can find it'll be right there on the homepage, the full report, the full publication and take a look at it, share it with others. I hope you find the findings useful and I appreciate the chance to present to you today. Thank you.