1 / 28

Like Topsy ……….

Like Topsy ………. how CAUL became CEIRC: the rise of the library consortium Diane Costello. Overview . Why form consortia? Australia CAUL/CEIRC Gaining consensus The trends Multi-national consortia Other consortial efforts. Why form a Consortium?. Reduce costs - Discount for volume

isolde
Download Presentation

Like Topsy ……….

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Like Topsy ………. how CAUL became CEIRC: the rise of the library consortium Diane Costello

  2. Overview • Why form consortia? • Australia • CAUL/CEIRC • Gaining consensus • The trends • Multi-national consortia • Other consortial efforts

  3. Why form a Consortium? • Reduce costs - Discount for volume • Increase 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

  4. Principles • Better price and/or conditions than possible as a single institution • Entry level which allows the largest number to participate • Advantages for larger institutions • Information gatheringhttp://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/offers.htm http://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/ip.htm • Simplify administration

  5. … and the Publishers? • Single point for wide distribution of information • Single point of contact for negotiations • Single invoice … but • Maintain (or increase) bottom line

  6. Australia • *CAVAL - Victoria • USLA - South Australia • QULOC - Queensland • WAGUL - Western Australia • *UNILINC - New South Wales • ACTUAL - Australian Capital Territory • *CASL/NLA Consortia and Licensing Working Group - MoU March 2001

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. CEIRC (2) • Guidelines for external participants • Guidelines for licences - no strict model • Checklist for “negotiations”but • No preferred pricing model • No minimum participation • No schedule of negotiations

  12. CAUL Office • Instigation via member, publisher or office • Distribution of information re product, licence, price & trial via email list • Negotiation/liaison re price & conditions • Maintenance of details on web site http://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/ • Participation list, IP addresses, contacts • Invoicing & payments

  13. 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

  14. Decision-Making (2) • Datasets Coordinator - coordinates communication & decision by given date! • Acquisitions? • Discipline-based liaison personnel? • Electronic information coordinator? • Chief librarian?

  15. 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

  16. 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)

  17. 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

  18. 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 20 • Highest number 40 (ProQuest5000)

  19. 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

  20. Issues (2) • Members • Variation in size / wealth / research emphasis / discipline base • Cost-sharing parameters • Competition • “Subsidy” of less well-resourced institutions • Relative gain, rather than the NAAL ideal • Agreement on priorities

  21. Issues (3) • Subscription Agents • Publishers dealing directly • Overlap with consortia • Invoicing members • Paying publisher • Finding new roles • Agent for consortia • Collections management and support

  22. Some Approaches • Tender for journal collection eg California State University • Mega-consortium eg Solinet • Managing Agent eg NESLI / Swets / Manchester Computing • ICOLC • Consortia Advisory Board (BHIL) • VADL - usage-based multi-institution licence

  23. Pause .... • Very similar deals being done by a wide variety of consortia • National Site Licence - an ideal which requires either • top-sliced or additional funding or • internal agreement about what is wanted and how much the individual institutions are prepared to pay for it

  24. … and progress • Cheaper than list prices • Access to more titles • Shift in licence conditions eg ILL, course packs, etc • Unbundling of print from electronic • More trust --> Simpler licences

  25. Cooperative Opportunities • Shared ILMS eg Unilinc • Joint and/or bulk purchasing/processing eg WAGUL • e-TOC (MEADS) • Reciprocal borrowing/auto document delivery (QULOC) • Shared development eg JEDDS (Ariel), LIDDAS, ADT, AEVL, AgriGate, MetaWeb, ALEG

  26. International Opportunities • ICOLC 4, 1998 • SoliNetplus • New Zealand • Fiji….

More Related