Bringing Players to the Table: Consortial Ebook and DDA Selection,

Purchasing, and Management:USMAI

Presented by Lynda Aldana, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Amy Elliott, OCLCRandy Lowe, Frostburg State University

Charleston Conference 2014November 6, 2014

• USMAI is the University of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions, a consortium of libraries at public universities and colleges in the state of Maryland.

• The16 member institutions represent a diverse group of institutions with respect to the programs offered and size of the institutions as well as the diversity of the student populations and include professional schools in law and the health sciences, liberal arts colleges, a research university, HBCU institutions, and two system centers

• Member libraries have a long standing commitment to sharing resources among the member institutions

• Serve well over 160,000 students on campuses and via distance education.

• One campus, University of Maryland University College (UMUC), is primarily distance education.

• Our consortium is governed by the Council of Library Directors, which consists of Directors from each member library. The USMAI hired its first Executive Director in 2013.

USMAI : Who We Are

• It is a limited lending model.

• All USMAI Campuses have access to all of the titles in our collection both prior to the STL/autopurchase and after an autopurchase occurs.

• There is no multiplier.

• Additional copies are purchased based on use.

• Consortium determined where to set the autopurchase level (i.e. after the 3rd STL or 4th STL, etc.).

Overview of our DDA model

• We have a broad profile with few subjects or call number ranges removed.

The exceptions are:

• LC Subject Exclusions: Agriculture, Architecture, Manufacturing Engineering, Mining, Home Economics, Publishing

• LC Class Exclusions: RB (Pathology), RC (Internal Medicine. Practice of Medicine), RD (Surgery), RE (Ophthalmology), RF (Otorhinolaryngology), RK (Dentistry), RL (Dermatology), RV (Botanic, Thomsonian and eclectic medicine)

• Limited to 2012 – later.

• Originally included a small group of publishers who had said yes to our model.

Our Profile

• Autopurchases occurred after the 6th Short Term Loan (STL).

• When a user downloads a title, the STL period is 1 week and the title cannot be returned early.

• For each title we have 14 one-week loans per year per title. If that number of loans is exceeded then we purchase a second copy (at list price) and have an additional 14 one-week loans for the title. The number of available loan instances for an ebook renews to 14 at the beginning of each year of ownership.

• Upper limit for cost of titles in the program: $200. 

• For non-owned, non-mediated loans we agreed to the set the price limit at $30.

• The project would be funded using a single fund that was managed by the USMAI Central Services.

Original Setup

OCLC Options for Auto-loading

USMAI using EBL autoload to WorldCat Knowledge Base & WorldShare Collection Manager

OCLC has several DDA providers who work with us to offer automatic loading of ebook holdings to libraries’ OCLC WorldCat Knowledge Base

To check on available providers, go to http://www.oclc.org/support/services/knowledge-base/documentation/ebookproviders.en.html

Benefits of Auto-loading DDA

Opting in usually just takes an email to OCLC & provides◦ Holdings on records in WorldCat for better

discovery◦ Links maintained by WorldCat Knowledge Base◦ Option to get MARC record delivery for an ILS◦ Sharing options for consortia

Sharing Features

Sharing to consortium libraries is easy

Auto-loading Details

Consortium & Local EBL collections OCLC loads data from EBL weekly When purchases are triggered they will

appear in the purchased collection

Link Maintenance

OCLC maintains the linking with proxy information appropriately on the libraries’ behalves

Year One Usage/Expenditure Summary

August 2013 – May 2014

Total spent on Short-Term Loans (STLs) $50,036.46

Total spent on Autopurchases $7,195.31

Total Spent $57,231.77

Total number of STLs 4,636

Total number of Autopurchases 57

Total Usage (STLs, Autopurchases, Free Browses, Owned Title Loans)

23,902

Total Titles Accessed 5,225

Total Titles Available (August 2013) 6,650

Total Titles Available (June 2014) 14,710*

Average cost of STL $10.79

Average cost of Autopurchases $126.23

*15,532 titles available as of October 2014

Number of STLs & Autopurchases by Title (August 2013-May 2014)

Number of Titles

% of Total

7 or More Requests 57 1.99%6 Requests 27 0.93%5 Requests 47 1.62%4 Requests 75 2.58%3 Requests 174 5.98%2 Requests 540 18.57%1 Request 1,988 68.33%Total Titles 2,908 100.00%

STLs and Autopurchases by Title

92.88% of the titles were used three or less times during the first ten months of the pilot.

‣ This data, in addition to our desire to make this model more attractive to publishers, played a strong role in the decision to lower our STL level from 6 to 3 before triggering an autopurchase. Through October 21, 2014, 93.45% of titles have been used three or less times (3,610 of 3,863).

‣ Second copies have been purchased for 3 titles since pilot inception; a 4th title has been purchased 7 times.

CampusExpenditures(Percent of

Total)

Percent Paid In

Total Browses &

Loans

Percent of Total

Browses & Loans

Bowie State University 5.34% 3.10% 1,318 5.51%

Center for Environmental Science 0.03% 1.25% 12 0.05%

Coppin State University 2.74% 1.97% 521 2.18%

Frostburg State University 1.49% 4.04% 408 1.71%

Morgan State University 4.33% 4.58% 1,226 5.13%

Salisbury University 6.19% 3.93% 1,596 6.68%

St. Mary's College of Maryland 3.91% 3.11% 1,062 4.44%

Towson University 12.08% 7.39% 2,998 12.54%

University of Baltimore 2.45% 2.54% 709 2.97%

University of Baltimore Law Library 0.48% 2.86% 129 0.54%University of Maryland Baltimore County 9.43% 11.45% 2,241 9.38%

University of Maryland College Park 34.04% 38.17% 8,238 34.47%

University of Maryland Eastern Shore 6.33% 2.93% 1,236 5.17%

University of Maryland Health Sciences and Human Services Library 3.39% 5.53% 789 3.30%

University of Maryland Law Library 0.24% 3.23% 100 0.42%University of Maryland University College 6.02% 3.93% 1,319 5.52%Unknown* 1.53% 0.00% -- --Totals 100.00% 100.00% 23,902 100.00%

Expenditures/Usage by Campus

*Campus affiliation for some transactions on the Sales Report were not reported by EBL

• STL Change – September 2014, we lowered the number of STLs from 6 to 3 STLs allowed before a title is autopurchased.

• For non-owned, non-mediated loans we agreed to change the amount from $30 to $45 dollars.

• In response to feedback and in an effort to simplify the process of borrowing or downloading the ebook, we have made changes to our user interface.

• Working to add additional publishers • The USMAI Ebook Implementation Group is using a list from ProQuest to

consider which publishers we might want to add. • We are trying to be mindful of the needs of our system centers (Shady

Grove and Hagerstown) users.

After one year -

  September 2013 October 2013Sept 22, 2014 - Oct 21,

2014

Number of Short Term Loans 390 469 486

STL Expenditures $4,349.41 $4,985.12 $7,532.46

Autopurchases 9 2 50

Autopurchase Expenditures $1,250.40 $317.18 $4,207.91

Expenditures/Usage Since Lowering Short Term Loan Levels

STLs levels were lowered from 6 to 3 on September 22, 2014.

‣ While the number of STLs is slightly greater in 2014 (3.62% compared to October 2013), STLs expenditures rose 51% from October 2013, reflecting publisher price increases.

‣ Autopurchases and autopurchase expenditures in Sept/Oct 2014 rose significantly over the same period in 2013 since lowering the loan level for STLs.

• The pilot was extended to a second year.

• We will monitor data with new STL level.

• Continue to make adjustments to attract additional publishers to this model.

• Compare effectiveness of consortial initiative with individual campus programs.

• We would like to engage in a dialogue with publishers to explore ways to make this model a win for both libraries and publishers.

• Pilot rent-to-own model through ProQuest with willing publisher partners.

• Evaluate the long-term sustainability of the limited lending model:  can we get additional consortia/other players to adopt this model for it to continue to be viable in the marketplace?

Future Plans