Wilma Mossink SURFfoundation ICOLC fall meeting 2007 Stockholm

1. Knowledge Exchange Multinational Licensing Tender:A personal evaluation: weighing the pros and cons. Wilma Mossink SURFfoundation ICOLC fall meeting 2007 Stockholm

2. This presentation • Introduction to the Knowledge Exchange • Background information to the multinational licensing tender • Proces of tendering • Results of the tender • Pros of the tender procedure • Cons of the tender procedure • My personal evaluation

3. Introduction to the Knowledge Exchange • Established in 2005 • 4 sponsoring partner organisations • Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) Denmark • German Research Foundation (DFG) Germany • Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) United Kingdom   • SURFfoundation (SURF) the Netherlands • Umbrella organisation aimed at supporting the use and development of ICT infrastructure for higher education and research • Rationale is adding value to activities of funding partners • Common vision to make a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available on the internet

4. Background information • Initial meeting in Bonn July 2006 created a framework (Bonn Accord) • publishers will continue to play an essential role in evaluating and distributing secondary literature • partner organisations currently use different models & strategies for the procurement of digital content on a national level • engagement for a joint pilot project to procure digital content • Working group meeting, September 2006 • question: how to frame joint activity? • legal issues (is Knowledge Exchange a cartel?) • timeframe issues (running deals) • transparency issues (confidentiality clauses) • proposal: joint tender

5. Reasons for tendering • Lack of innovation among publishers: • in creating new business models for electronic resources • in creating new access strategies for content • Tender creates a ‘virtual marketplace’ to engage the publishing community • Transparency for benchmarking national licence and framework agreements • Create a route to market for content often left out of national deals • Forward move of Bonn Accord while minimising many risks involved

6. EU Competitive Dialogue Procedure Conduct of the procedure • Request for Information • contracting authority makes known its ‘needs & requirements’ in contract notice & defines them in Descriptive document • dialogue with bidders • aimed at identifying & defining means best suited to satisfy needs contracting authority • Descriptive document • detailed award criteria specified on the basis of which bidders have formulate their proposals. • award of contract • assessment on basis of award criteria & most economically advantageous tenders

7. Time frame tender procedure • Request for Information • issue Request for Information‚ 14 February 2007. • deadline for responding, 23 March 2007 • Dialogue • decision about which bids to move forward 30 March 2007. • one by one interviews with selected bidders 16 April 2007. • Descriptive document • issue Descriptive document, 18 July 2007 • deadline for responding, 27 August 2007

8. What did we ask of the publishers Working group compiled 2 types of lists • basic list representing research universities • extended list defining other affiliated institutions Bids must contain: • Final prices (no negotiation on fees) • Single fee for all institutions on basic & extended list for each country • Opt in framework should show an innovative character: • discount structure based on participation through subscriptions in basic list • requirement to offer discount level to subscribing institutions in both lists • tiered pricing differentiating institutions in basic & extended list.

9. Award criteria • 3 overarching criteria: • innovation and value for money offered by the proposal (40 %) • level of compliance with the access strategy (10 %) • fit of content to the academic strategy of the country (50 %)

10. What do we offer the publishers • No allocated money but: • provisions for a route to market to 190 research universities & large teaching universities • endorsement and promotion of the bids to the libraries • provisions for a single point for contact resulting in better efficiency • reduction in administration costs for the publisher

11. Result of the tender procedure • Final offers from 9 publishers from the target group • decision to conclude agreement with 5 publishers • Final offers for journals, e-books and databases • Pleasingly pleasant score on the criteria set for innovation and value for money • Interesting discounts for multinational licensing

12. Cons of the tender • Time consuming process • time frame of tender procedure itself • writing the several documents with severe deadlines • evaluating the bids by markers • Process rather inflexible: • careful structuring of bids needed • no further negotiations on prices/licences possible • bid is final bid but considerations could possibly influence bid • Takes up time & money of the organisations involved • strong committment of the organisations needed • Still difficulties to estimate whether prices are fair • Libraries are offered content they have not asked for

13. Pros of the tender • Ability to benchmark the prices • Higher degree of transparency • Reaching a group of interesting/unknown publishers which normally are not on the short- or longlist of consortia • Some innovative business models & access strategies • Fees don’t reflect former print collections • Worthwhile discounts especially on multinational level • Concept of national licences comes into view because of economies of scale • Model licence with most favourable provisions of the 4 countries • Test system for multinational negotiation and national implementation

14. My personal evaluation • Tipping the balance to a positive evaluation: • discussions about & attention for drafting new business models • attention for access strategies • thorough evaluation of the bids on several aspects • transparency & clarity gained • efforts of publishers to come with appealing offers • valuable information regarding possible deals & structuring the process • active part in shaping the market • working group fulfilled part of very ambitious vision of KE

15. Thank you! KE Tender working group: • Anette Schneider (DEFF) • Bo Öhrström (DEFF) • Max Vögler (DFG) • Hildegard Schäffler (Bavarian State Library) • Markus Brammer (German National Library on Science & Technology) • Lorraine Estelle (JISC) • Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam/SURFdiensten) • Wilma Mossink (SURFfoundation/SURFdiensten)