1 / 28

Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion

Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion. Lluís M. Anglada Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya e-ICOLC Thessaloniki , 5th October 2002. Plan. Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations. Important issues in “cooperative games”.

mateo
Download Presentation

Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion

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. Sharing benefits,sharing costs:a discussion Lluís M. Anglada Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya e-ICOLC Thessaloniki, 5th October 2002

  2. Plan • Approach • Some (general) observations • Sharing costs: 3 situations

  3. Important issues in “cooperative games” • Focusing on benefits • Always remember that you’ll win more that in an “individual game”

  4. Sharing benefits,sharing costs • Background • Budget allocation formulae • Shared maintenance of computers and union catalogues • Now, licensing • Databases • E-journals • E-books

  5. Present situation • Pricing models • Are they stable? • Benefits • Are they stable?

  6. Stable pricing models (?) • Web databases • Consortium size • e-Journals • Expenditures in print + ‘premium’ + minimum • e-Books • Simultaneous users

  7. 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

  8. Plan • Approach • Some (general) observations • Sharing costs: 3 situations

  9. Some (general) observations • Pricing model matters • Big/medium/small • Collections and size • Net or relative benefits • “Failure games”

  10. 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

  11. Libraries in a consortium • Few are big • Some are medium • A lot are small

  12. Collections and size p- expenditure Students+budget A 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%

  13. Net or relative benefits non prev. Subs. Tit npst x students A 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%

  14. 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

  15. Failure games • There are a lot of allocation costs systems that are unacceptable by some of the “playing parts”

  16. Plan • Approach • Some (general) observations • Sharing costs: 3 situations

  17. Sharing costs: 3 situations • Central funding (p+e or e+p) • p+e (no central funding) • e+p (with or without central funding)

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. e+p (with or without central funding) • A: The immediate solution • B: A future model

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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?

  26. CBUC formula for e-journals • 50% based on historical print expenditure • 20% equal shares • 30% based on size (students + budget)

  27. 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%

  28. 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

More Related