Transcript Slide 1

SHEDL : the long and winding
road
FinELib,University of Helsinki, 1st June 2010
SHEDL: FinELib
• Oldest University in
Scotland, 3rd in UK
• 7400 students
• Over 1/3rd from
overseas
• Research intensive:
top ranked for
Philosophy, Physics,
Modern Languages
SHEDL: FinELib
“This is good for Scotland, good for research and
teaching, for our academics and students. It will
contribute huge to the capacity of our worldleading researchers to maintain their
international standing”
Anton Muscatelli, V-C University of Glasgow
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background history of the Consortium
Scottish Dimension
UK Dimension
From theory to reality
First deals: deliverables
New structures
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
2010: process and observations
2011
Ongoing challenges
Review: funding models
Review: delivering value
Future observations
Background History
• Joint funding bid
Universities Glasgow
and Edinburgh
• Bid turned down but
picked up by
Principals
• Commission
consultants report
Background History
“Investigative Study towards establishing a
Scottish Higher Education Digital Library
for Scottish Universities” – John Cox
http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/reports.html
Background History: the report
• Experience of publishing and negotiation
combined with legal background
• Extensive consultation with stakeholders
Background History: the report
Reasons to believe would be successful
• Worked elsewhere in Europe: IReL.
FinELib: Consortia deliver value
• Strong culture of joint procurement in
Scotland
• Research Pooling, cross institutional
research projects
• Cost savings: time and money
Background History: the report
• Good spread of subscriptions across institutions:
allow incremental growth
• Strong representation of digital content, lower
cost delivery
• Scheme which could work within existing NESLi
structure
• Benefits for publishers
– Reduced costs with single payment
– Wider distribution
– Guaranteed income
Scottish Dimension
• Strong tradition of
collaboration and joint
procurement in
Scotland
• Scottish Government
interest
– APUC
– Shared services
agenda
Scottish Dimension
• Number of institutions in consortium: a workable
unit
• Understanding of benefits of national interest in
supporting small institutions, deeply embedded
– Little extra pain for political gain
– Extension of responsibility to the community
Scottish Dimension
Scottish Universities Physics
Alliance (SUPA)
ScotChem
WestChem
EastChem
Edinburgh Research Partnership
in Engineering and
Mathematics
Glasgow Research Partnership in
Engineering (GRPE)
Marine Alliance for Science &
Technology for Scotland
(MASTS)
Northern Research Partnership
in Engineering
Scottish Alliance for Geoscience,
Environment and Society
(SAGES)
Scottish Institute for Research in
Economics (SIRE)
Scottish Universities Life
Sciences Alliance (SULSA)
Scottish Imaging Network: A
Platform for Scientific
Excellence Scottish
Informatics and Computer
Science
UK Dimension
• Existing NESLi Deals, opt in not all in “sub
optimal”
• English interest in national consortia for
content
• JISC looking for ways to move forward
debate
From Theory to Reality
• Steering group formed to take
things forward: very limited
admin support
• Acceptance of report by SCURL
& SCURL Directors (Scottish
Confederation of University and
Research Libraries)
• Identification of first 3 publishers
• Achieving full set of signatures
for Letter of Commitment
SHEDL Membership
Aberdeen
Abertay
Dundee
Edinburgh
Edinburgh College of Art
Glasgow
Glasgow Caledonian
Glasgow School of Art
Heriot-Watt
Edinburgh Napier
Queen Margaret
Robert Gordon
Royal Scottish Academy
Music & Drama
St Andrews
Strathclyde
Univ Highlands & Islands
West of Scotland
Students 775 – 23735
SHEDL (2009) £0 - £31,500
From Theory to reality
Letter of Commitment
• Commit to maintain spend with 3
publishers at 2007 rate plus 10%
– ACS, Springer, CUP
• Online only: DDP extra
• 3 year deal
• Agreement to consider revised funding
model in year 3
• No separate negotiations
From theory to reality
• Negotiations conducted by NESLi Team
– Negotiation skills
– Legal input
– Financial management, single payment
• Regular input from SHEDL Steering Group
• Deals concluded late 2008
• New license agreed based on NESLi
license
First Deals: deliverables
• Uniform access to content across all
partner institutions: access to more than
1500 titles
• Every institution gained more content
• Achieved pricing goal: some cases lower
annual increases compared to standard
deals
First Deals: deliverables
• Simplified license and access
arrangements, same content for all
switched on at same time
• Guaranteed archival access
• Proof of efficiency and procurement good
practice at institutional level
• Delivery of content to key research pool
subject areas
New structures
• Creation of Working Group: representation
from all members
• Remit
– Inform decisions about new deals
– Report on operation of existing deals
– Support promotion of deals within institutions
and to researchers at large
– Share experience
• Well attended sessions, much interest
2010 process
• Voting for new deals: 2 stages
• Attempt to ensure even distribution of
subject areas
• Final veto with Steering Group
• Filter of what in real world can be
achieved,desirable but not practical
– Discussions with NESLi negotiators
– Co-ordinate with NESLi deals
2010 Process
• Considered trying to include re-negotiation
of one existing deal to achieve better value
• Scottish content
• Same financial targets for Negotiations
• Again publishers viewed desirable but not
practical to achieve successful
negotiations
• Look at aggregated content
2010 Process
Result
• 3 deals
– Oxford University Press
– Berg
– Edinburgh University Press
• Portico deal: logical extension
– New money
– Help collection development
– Future publishers expectation to sign up
2010: Observations
• Harder to achieve deals within target price
• Some failed negotiations
– Issue with Society Publishers
2011: Process
• Same voting procedure
• Currently considering 6-7 deals
• Expansion of Consortium to include
Scottish Colleges
• Possible NHS deals, into England?
• E-book packages
• Backfiles?
• Re-organization of governance
2011 Process
• Likely to see
increased strain on
funding model: 1520% cuts next 3 years
• High percentage
funds tied into big
deals
• VAT?
• Increased demand for
and increased
expectation of better
value
2011 Process
• More interest from publishers, approaches
being made to SHEDL
• Smarter use of consortial data: usage,
drive down cost for existing and new deals
– £0.66 to £1.86 cost per download for existing
deals
– Over £2.00 for deals being considered in
2011
– Identify concept of “at risk”
Ongoing challenges
• New title acquisitions by publishers
• Support for SHEDL packages by
knowledge base providers: information
flow
• Establishing accurate base pricing
information for each member: currency
• Society Publishers
• Pace of negotiation
Problem areas
Subscription agents
• Existing contract: managing loss of
business, impact on terms
• Concerns about fair competition
• Big questions about future role: should
agents be involved in managing these
deals
Review of funding models
• Promise in early Letter of Commitment
would look at funding arrangement
• Bloc Payment Mechanisms for Online
Journals: review and modelling of cost
redistribution criteria for UK HEIs’ – JISC
project, national interest
• Use of SHEDL as opportunity to look at
various models
Review of funding models
Options being reviewed:
Academic staff nos.
JISC Banding
Library Budget
RAE
Research income
Total income
Total staff numbers and
students
Usage
Attempt to look at
mixture of all above
Review of funding models
• All models are problematic
• Enormous swings from existing payments
to new model
– JISC Banding approach: swings over £100k
– Research Active staff: over £60k
– Staff & students: over £100k
Review of funding models
• Concerns about usage: across all deals
CPD from £0.41 - £3.01
Interesting questions about how institutions
assess value
Top slice only solution: must be able to
justify value and assess impact
Review: impact of SHEDL
Looking for data to support argument:
• Data so far:
– Usage up 41.3%, 2009 over 2008
– Usage in institutions previously without
access
– Increase also in institutions which already had
bundles
Review: impact of SHEDL
• RIN funded report: Evaluation of the
Impact of Scottish Higher Education Digital
Library
• Concentrate of first 3 deals
• Based on data (Counter stats pre- and
post-SHEDL
• Interviews with academics and subject
librarians
Review: impact of SHEDL
• What has been the impact on research
pools
• Has the quality of teaching and research
overall improved
• What has been the impact in small
institutions with previously limited
coverage
Review: impact of SHEDL
• Understand impact on different disciplines
• Understand value to different disciplines
• Potential develop best practice for
promotion
Real issues delivering review in timescale
Review: impact of SHEDL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Are you aware that you have increased online access to journals from CUP, ACS and
Springer – about 1,500 titles? How did your library announce this initiative to you?
Usage appears to have increased. What are the reasons for that?
Have you noticed that more articles are available to you right away? Have you even
noticed? What did you do before: inter-library loan, phone a colleague in another
institution, use the library at another institution?
Has it changed your work patterns in any way (particularly at smaller institutions)?
Does it reduce the need to obtain articles in some illicit or under-the-counter way?
Is there now material available for you to use in your teaching that was not there
before? Does it encourage you to use more digital content in teaching?
Are you using journal literature for teaching or research purposes that was simply not
available before (particularly in smaller/specialist institutions such as RSAMD,
Glasgow School of Art, Edinburgh College of Art)?
Has the availability of more journals promoted inter-disciplinary\study?
Do you have as many difficulties in accessing journal articles that you want as you did
two or three years ago?
Review: impact of SHEDL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What proportion of your materials acquisition budget was spent on SHEDL licences in
2009?
Is SHEDL participation restricting the choice you exercise over acquisitions?
Has ILL traffic reduced in volume?
Are reader support/help desk queries down?
Can you use cost-per-use as an argument for increased budgets for the library? If
more content is offered via SHEDL, does that increase the influence SHEDL has
brought to bear on budgetary issues?
Is your institution in favour of an effective top-slicing arrangement for Scotland-wide
purchasing of key resources?
Does the SHEDL Scotland-wide model protect the institution against malpractice by
researchers – illicit downloading or copying etc?
Observations for the future
• Continue to work in an imperfect world
where we have to muddle through to find
solutions
• Economically tough times shared
procurement is a strength, showing
delivering value
• Aim to introduce a top slice
Observations for the future
• Closure collaboration between research
assessment and content procurement
• Continue to highlight opportunities for suite
of national services, the University Library
of Scotland to match “Science for
Scotland?
• Optimum size?
• Continue with the campaign
Observations for the future
Many times I’ve been alone
And many times I’ve cried
Anyway you’ll never know
The many ways I’ve tried
But they still lead me back
To the long and winding road
Jeremy Upton
Acting Director, University of St Andrews
[email protected]
http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/index.html
Kidd, Tony: “Collaboration in Electronic Resource
Provision in University Libraries: SHEDL, a
Scottish Case Study” – New review of academic
librarianship 15 (2009), 97-119