the caul experience: changing with the times and tips for new players. diane costello
TRANSCRIPT
Why form a Consortium?
Reduce costs - Discount for volumeIncrease access - To all titles owned by
the consortium; to publisher’s list; to aggregator’s packages
Reduce work Information gathering Trial coordination Licence negotiation Price negotiation
Principles
Better price and/or conditions than possible as a single institution
Entry level which allows the largest number to participate
Advantages for larger institutionsInformation gathering
http://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/offers.htm http://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/ip.htm
Simplify administration
… and the Publishers?
Single point for wide distribution of information
Single point of contact for negotiations
Single invoice… butMaintain (or increase) bottom line
CAUL
38 AVCC member libraries; 1965 - Committee formed; 1992 - Council named; 1995 - full-time executive officer CEIRC Committee (election/nomination) Office staff 2 FTE (5/95, 6/98, 4/01)
Secretariat, Committee Support, Cooperative Activities (Statistics, ULA, Performance Indicators, CISC), Liaison/Representation, Current awareness, Web site, CEIRC program.
CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee)
NPRF funds $2m 1993-1996 for datasets “Trials” of ISI Current Contents, Academic Press IDEAL,
IAC Expanded Academic ASAP, etc
Evolved into consortial purchasing Committee recommends policy to CAUL CAUL Office handles day-to-day
Now includes CSIRO, CONZUL (+24 total)CEIRC Levy
CEIRC (2)
Guidelines for external participantsGuidelines for licences - no strict
modelChecklist for “negotiations”
butNo preferred pricing modelNo minimum participationNo schedule of negotiations
CAUL Office
Instigation via member, publisher or officeDistribution of information re product,
licence, price & trial via email listNegotiation/liaison re price & conditionsMaintenance of details on web site
http://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/ Participation list, IP addresses, contactsInvoicing & payments
Decision-Making
Self-selected consortium vs National Site Licence “Buying club”
National Site Licence - an ideal which requires either top-sliced or additional fundingor internal agreement about what is wanted and
how much the individual institutions are prepared to pay for it
Decision-Making (2)
Changing environment --> Changing decision-making processes
Each product assessed independently Licence conditions Overlap between products Choice of interfaces
Datasets Coordinator - coordinates communication & decision by given date!
Cost-Sharing
Determined by Publisher & passed on to group eg Subscription history (current spend) Carnegie Classification Percentage discount by volume
# Institutions# Databases# Titles
EFTSU / FTE - all or discipline-specific
Cost-Sharing (2)
Determined within Consortium eg Equal share FTE-based Usage-based Resources budget, or … a combination of the above eg 50% equal
share (entry level) + 50% FTE-based … or what it is worth to the institution eg
NAAL (Alabama)
Cost-Sharing (3)
Gaining consensus Current Contents - 50% fixed + 4 tiers
based on FTE (+ choice of interface) MathSciNet - Costs of current
subscribers reducing with added subscribers
ProQuest5000 - Minimum entry cost per institution + Minimum total cost
CAUL Agreements 1996-
49 agreements, 20 full-text, 4 factual databases, the rest bibliographic
Half commenced in 2000 or later burgeoning of available electronic products increasing willingness of publishers to deal with
consortia
Billing handled centrally (24) local office or agent
Average number of participants 20Highest number 40 (ProQuest5000, PsycINFO)
Issues
Publishers Site definition (16 Oz single-campus
univ) Bundling print with online (mainly UK) Maintaining bottom line Premium for electronic and/or enhanced
product eg WoS Access to “purchased” data & archiving
Issues (2)
Members Variation in size / wealth / research
emphasis / discipline base Cost-sharing parameters
Competition“Subsidy” of less well-resourced institutionsRelative gain, rather than the NAAL ideal
Agreement on priorities
Issues (3)
Subscription Agents Publishers dealing directly Overlap with consortia
Invoicing membersPaying publisher
Finding new rolesAgent for consortiaCollections management and support
Issues (4)
For the new kid on the block: content - find a product that many
own/want coordinate - volunteer, employee contribute - to the cost of running the group confide - know your starting point by
sharing information about current expenditure
communicate - web, lists
Issues (5)
Newbies (cont.) knowledge about your group members -
physical sites# staff (professional & total)access mechanism eg IP addresses, intranet
requirementsgovernment/department legal/purchasing
requirements consider - whether an agent can assist, act as a
broker eg DA, EBSCO, Swets etc
Pause ....
Very similar deals being done by a wide variety of consortia internationally
Value in sharing informationValue in clubbing together in discipline-
based groupsValue in a group facilitator
not distracted by “regular job” knowledge base
Pitfalls ….
Setting unachievable deadlines rolling start-dates possible
Creating unnecessary legal obstacles with the publisher or with each other
Shift in cost centres - from personal & laboratory subscriptions to Library
Unsustainability - the “big deal” leaves little room for flexibility