Post on 18-Dec-2015
Like Topsy ……….
how CAUL became CEIRC: the rise of the library consortium
Diane Costello
Overview
Why form consortia?AustraliaCAUL/CEIRCGaining consensusThe trendsMulti-national consortiaOther consortial efforts
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
Australia
*CAVAL - VictoriaUSLA - South AustraliaQULOC - QueenslandWAGUL - Western Australia*UNILINC - New South WalesACTUAL - Australian Capital Territory*CASL/NLA Consortia and Licensing
Working Group - MoU March 2001
CAUL
38 AVCC member libraries;University/Chief/Principal Librarian;voluntary, subscription-based;1928 - first meeting;1965 - Committee formed;1992 - Council named;1995 - full-time executive officer.
CAUL Environment
Publicly funded HE http://www.detya.gov.au/ …
reducing …. 620,000+ FTE (including 63,000 HD)
Library expenditure $A390m ($US 201m) $A136m on information resources ($US 70m) library staff average 108
Exchange rate October 1996 - AUD 1.0 = USD 0.8055 April 3, 2001 - AUD 1.0 = USD 0.4833 May 9 - AUD 1.0 = USD 0.5198
CAUL Organisation
President - Helen Hayes (elected 1998)Executive Committee (elected)CEIRC Committee (election/nomination)Office staff 2 FTE (5/95, 6/98, 4/01)
Secretariat, Committee Support, Cooperative Activities (Statistics, NBS, 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 (+14 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”
Changing environment --> Changing decision-making processes
Each product assessed independently Licence conditions Overlap between products Choice of interfaces
Decision-Making (2)
Datasets Coordinator - coordinates communication & decision by given date! Acquisitions? Discipline-based liaison personnel? Electronic information coordinator? Chief librarian?
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
Product Full-text Contract Dates Local Presence1 Central Billing Participants2
Academic Press IDEAL 1997 - USA 22AccessScience 2000 - USA3 0 (1)ACM Digital Library 2000 - USA 24 (27)ACS e-journals 2000 - UK 20 (23)Australian Bureau of Statistics – AusStats x 1995 - 19994 x 29Australian Bureau of Statistics – Census x 1997 x 30Beilstein CrossFire x 1999- USA x 3Blackwell Science e-journals 2000 - x 34Britannica Online 1996- 2 (3)CAS SciFinder Scholar x 2000 - USA 22 (29)CSA x 1996- USA x 14Current Contents x 1994 - Singapore x 35EBSCO Megafile 2000- 5 x 5 (6)Gale InfoTrac 1996- x 30Grove Macmillan 2000 - x 11IBSS x 1999 - UK 9 (12)IEEE 2000 - USA x 8JBC Online 2000- USA 12Journals@Ovid 1998-6 x 15Lexis Nexis 1996 - 22 (29)License Depot x 2000 - 10LION 1999- x 8MathSciNet x 2000 - USA 19 (25)OCLC FirstSearch x 1995 - USA x 38Poole’s Paratext x 2000 - USA 3Project Muse 1997 - USA 21 (22)ProQuest5000 2001 - x 32 (40)RLG Citadel Files x 1996 - USA 19 (20)Standards Australia 1998- x 20UlrichsWeb x 2001 - USA 23Web of Science x 2001 - Singapore x 8 (12)Wiley InterScience 2001 - x 28 (36)
1 The location of the closest company office, if not in Australia. Many companies have agents in Australia, but their major role is customer support following thecontract negotiations.2 Number of CAUL participants, with total number of participants in parentheses.3 McGraw-Hill’s AccessScience was part of an international mega-consortium sponsored by ICOLC.4 When the service was upgraded from a gopher to a web service, the ABS contracted with the AVCC for all 38 universities to purchase.5 CAUL members are offered a “special CAUL price” which is taken up by individual members independent of the number of CAUL subscribers.6 CAUL members are offered a “special CAUL price” which is taken up by individual members independent of the number of CAUL subscribers.
CAUL Agreements 1996-
32 agreements, 18 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 (15) local office or agent
Average number of participants 20Highest number 40 (ProQuest5000)
Issues
Publishers Site definition (16 Oz single-campus
univ) Bundling print with online 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
Some Approaches
Tender for journal collection eg California State University
Mega-consortium eg SolinetManaging Agent eg NESLI / Swets /
Manchester ComputingICOLC Consortia Advisory Board (BHIL)VADL - usage-based multi-institution
licence
Pause ....
Very similar deals being done by a wide variety of consortia
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
… and progress
Cheaper than list pricesAccess to more titlesShift in licence conditions eg ILL,
course packs, etcUnbundling of print from electronicMore trust --> Simpler licences
Cooperative Opportunities
Shared ILMS eg UnilincJoint and/or bulk purchasing/processing eg
WAGULe-TOC (MEADS)Reciprocal borrowing/auto document
delivery (QULOC)Shared development eg JEDDS (Ariel),
LIDDAS, ADT, AEVL, AgriGate, MetaWeb, ALEG
International Opportunities
ICOLC 4, 1998 SoliNet
plusNew ZealandFiji
….