Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
SHEDLScottish Higher Education Digital
LibraryNegotiating together: collaborative
academic library purchasing
Barbara HoustonCILIPS Shared services event, Dundee, May 2011
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 2
Context Scottish HE tradition of co-operation
Manageable size
Separate funding arrangements
Research Pools
Examples of other consortia, IReL, FinELib
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 3
Investigative Study SCURL sponsored – Scottish Confederation of
University and Research Libraries John Cox Associates Ltd Interviews
Libraries University administrators/Universities Scotland Academics/Research Pools Stakeholders – Scottish Funding Council/JISC etc
Report available on the SHEDL area of the SCURL website
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 4
Relationship with JISC Collections/NESLi2
Strong consensus that SHEDL should work within JISC Collections framework
But wish to fill in gaps, to move away from ‘opt-in’ arrangements, to ensure overall access for Research Pools
Plus possibility of wider range of deals (recognising NESLi2’s current work with ‘small/medium publishers’)
Structure & governance
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 5
SCOPNet
SHEDL Steering Group
SHEDL Working Group
SCURL
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 6
Phase 1 Initial agreement to work with 3 publishers,
covering a wide range of subjects
Agreements for 2009-2011 with: American Chemical Society Cambridge University Press Springer
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 7
Process Institutional verification of holdings and
expenditure with each publisher
Negotiation by JISC Collections
Licence agreement based on JISC model licence
Adjustments to holdings – link resolvers & OPACs
Monitoring of usage – locally and at consortium level
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 8
Costs Costs are fixed at the start of the contract, with
agreed annual price caps
SHEDL institutions continue to fund their own subscriptions, and do not expect to pay more than before
Option to buy print at ddp
Reduced overheads – single payment and early payment where possible
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 9
Phase 2 WG consultation resulted in 40 nominations
6 publishers approached, following consultation with JISC
3 new publisher agreements for 2010-2012 Berg Edinburgh University Press Oxford University Press
Portico licensed across SHEDL
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 10
Phase 3 Similar consultation process resulted in 46
nominations
7 publishers identified for 2011 Agreements for 2011-13
Intellect Project Muse
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 11
Phase 3 - Difficulties Negotiations more difficult in 2010
Agreements with publishers with greater ‘market penetration’ already achieved
Publishers still expecting market growth
More difficult for libraries to commit
Collaboration more essential in world of funding cuts, but also more difficult
Phase 4 Continuation of the difficult scenario of 2010
UK-wide deals for Wiley-Blackwell and Elsevier content due to be renewed
Renewals of phase 1 deals
Decided on one definite, one possibility and one reserve publisher
Awaiting outcomes from JISC
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 12
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 13
Benefits – the HEIs Shift to e-only Single payment Proof of concept
widening access increased availability of content increased usage efficiency gains
Shared services agenda
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 14
Benefits – the Publishers Reduced overheads – single point of contact for
administration and invoicing
Wider dissemination of content
Encourages adoption of e-only
Cash flow – protects market share
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 15
Benefits – the users More content, accessible at the point of need -
2000+ titles available
Analysis shows that previously non-subscribed titles are being used
Increase in usage across all Phase 1 publishers, and across all institutions
Usage increased by 41% from 2008 to 2009
Springer usage at QMU
May 2011CILIPS event, Dundee 16
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec
Dow
nloa
ds
Springer usage
2008
2009
2010
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 17
Evaluation - RIN Report evaluating the impact of SHEDL
John Cox Associates/Frontline GMS
Usage data
Interviews – academics/librarians
Single year of the Phase 1 agreements
RIN report
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 18
Evaluation - RIN Conclusions of the report
Confirmed overall usage increase of 41%, compared with 22% ‘average’ UK wide increase
Wide variation in increases – single year – whether or not titles already accessible
Some evidence that Research Pool participants benefiting
Cost/download was variable but all institutions achieved savings
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 19
Evaluation – JISC Collections
Bloc payment mechanisms Cost redistribution criteria
Albert Prior/John Cox
Not specifically SHEDL
JISC Collections report
Launched July 2010
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 20
Evaluation – JISC Collections
No “magic” formula Authoritative/credible data
JISC Banding Institutional income Research/contract income Staff/student numbers
Not usage Not SCONUL stats Not data from the 2008 Research Assessment
Exercise
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 21
Next steps Review of activities
2011 - a year to consolidate SHEDL model Allocation of costs Types of format procured Expansion to other sectors
Further Education? NHS? NLS?
May 2011 CILIPS event, Dundee 22
Further information Website – under development
http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/index.html
Tony Kidd, Acting Chair, SHEDL Steering Group [email protected]
Kidd, T. Collaboration in electronic resource provision in university libraries: SHEDL, a Scottish case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15 (1), 2009, pp 97-119 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/7637/
Kidd, T. & Stevenson, L. SHEDL – the Scottish Higher Education Digital Library: an update. Serials, 23(3), 2010, pp 196-200 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/44955/
