Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion

Sharing benefits,sharing costs:a discussion

Lluís M. AngladaConsorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya

e-ICOLC

Thessaloniki, 5th October 2002

L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt

Plan

Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations


Important issues in “cooperative games”

Focusing on benefits Always remember that you’ll win

more that in an “individual game”


Sharing benefits,sharing costs Background

Budget allocation formulae Shared maintenance of computers and

union catalogues Now, licensing

Databases E-journals E-books


Present situation

Pricing models Are they stable?

Benefits Are they stable?


Stable pricing models (?)

Web databases Consortium size

e-Journals Expenditures in print + ‘premium’ +

minimum e-Books

Simultaneous users


Stable benefits (?)

Economic benefits (short term) Savings (sometimes) and costs contention

More information (medium term) Cross access and bundled e-journals

Intangibles (long term) New money and lobbying


Plan



Some (general) observations

Pricing model matters Big/medium/small Collections and size Net or relative benefits “Failure games”


Pricing model matters

A global price for a new product Allows ‘ex-novo’ allocation formulae

A global price determined by historical expenditure Suggests formulae based on historical

spending


Libraries in a consortium

Few are big Some are medium A lot are small


Collections and size

p- expenditure Students+budgetA 49.98% > 32.42%B 26.60% > 20.46%C 7.70% < 18.26%D 4.08% < 5.61%E 2.98% < 6.21%F 4.20% < 5.42%G 3.96% < 6.56%H 0.00% < 5.07%I 0.50% > 0.00%


Net or relative benefits

non prev. Subs. Tit npst x studentsA 993 27.31%B 1112 18.66%C 1343 19.52%D 1334 4.94%E 1366 7.27%F 1376 6.36%G 1370 8.00%H 1407 7.92%I 1402 0.00%


Why is size important?

Because it has an effect on price Important in the short term

Because it has an effect on usage Important in the long term


Failure games

There are a lot of allocation costs systems that are unacceptable by some of the “playing parts”


Plan



Sharing costs: 3 situations

Central funding (p+e or e+p) p+e (no central funding) e+p (with or without central funding)


A (general?) principle to share costs

Two parameters to build the formula: Parameter A: equal shares Parameter B: based on size

And a dynamic readjustment system if size changes


Central funding (p+e or e+p)

Total or majority central funding means that almost any allocation formula will be accepted

However We cannot rely on this kind of central

funding for a long time


p+e (no central funding)

The relatively low amount (compared to the print amount) of the premium-e allows agreements

But, p+e Doesn’t allow cancellations Doesn’t make evolution to e-only easy Is surely transitory


e+p (with or without central funding)

A: The immediate solution B: A future model


A: The immediate solution Cost based on former print expenditure,

for instance: Print expenditure + 5%, or Fixed cost, if print expenditure is lower

than the minimum required Immediate allocation model

Print expenditure + 5%, or Fixed cost


But...

Historical print expenditure belongs to the past, cooperative subscriptions set up a new framework

Will it make any sense to talk about “print expenditure” in 5-10 years time?

This model allows a “sub-consortium” of big and medium libraries


B: A future model (?)

One part in equal shares 20% ?, 30% ?, 40%?, 50% ? ...

One part based on size What does “size” mean?

Dynamic readjustment system if size changes


What does “size” mean?

Potential users? Budget? Collections? Print expenditure? Research activity? Benefits as non previus subscribed titles? Benefits as (Npst x potential users)? Usage?


CBUC formula for e-journals

50% based on historical print expenditure

20% equal shares 30% based on size (students + budget)


CBUC: comparisons

p- expen CBUC size

ditures distribution students+butget

A 49.98% 36.94% 32.42%B 26.60% 21.66% 20.46%C 7.70% 11.55% 18.26%D 4.08% 5.94% 5.61%E 2.98% 5.57% 6.21%F 4.20% 5.95% 5.42%G 3.96% 6.17% 6.56%H 0.00% 3.74% 5.07%I 0.50% 2.47% 0.00%


Final considerations

“Big Deal” is a good deal if we can work at a medium-long term

A good agreement means to get all members reasonably dissatisfied

Central funding always helps

Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion

Documents

Transcript of Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion