Transcript Document

Prof. M.R. Kumbhar Memorial Lecture
16 April 2003
I.R.N. Goudar
Head, ICAST
National Aerospace Laboratories
Bangalore – 560 017
( E-mail: [email protected])
Definitions
A Strategic alliance with institutions that
have common interests
Consortia are all about sharing resources and
improving access to information
These resources are shared among libraries
that have common missions, goals, and
clients (users) and act on those
commonalties
Library Cooperatives

Inter library lending

Cooperative acquisition

Cooperative cataloguing

Shared library system

Physical storage facilities

Seminars/Training Programmes
E-Journals Major Players
 Primary publishers
 Aggregators
 Vendors
 Document delivery agencies
 E-print systems
Consortia Goals
 Increase the access base – More e-Journals
 Rational utilization of funds - A little more pays a lot
 Ensure the continuous subscription
 Qualitative resource sharing - Effective document delivery service
 Avoid price plus models - Pay for up-front products not for R&D
 Improved infrastructure
 Enhanced image of the library - Visibility for smaller libraries
 Improve existing library services - Boosting professional image
 Harness developments in IT - Facilitate building digital libraries
 Cost sharing for technical and training support
 Increase user base – Access from desktops of users
Consortia Services

Union catalogues: Books, Journals, Technical Reports, and Conference Procs.

Shared library systems – Hardware, Software and other infrastructure

Shared professional expertise – Develop and realize consortia goals

Human resource development – Training staff and users

Electronic contents licensing for providing access to
- Bibliographic databases, e-Journals, Full test reports, Conference Proceedings etc.


Inter Library Lending and Document Delivery
Electronic content loading – Contents generated by members and acquired on
common server.

Physical storage for archiving – Old back volumes and less used documents.

Seminar/training programmes – Professional development to serve user
community

Devept. of enabling technologies – IR systems, Portals and other web interfaces

Evolve standards for techniques, hardware, software and services for the benefit of
consortia members
Consortia Models
Participants Oriented Models
 Geographical location linked: Ex: - Bangalore Special
Libraries Group
 Libraries in the same discipline: Ex: - Aerospace Libraries
Group
 Libraries belonging to the same parent organization: Ex: CSIR LICs
 Libraries of academic organizations: Ex: - INFLIBNET
 Types of Libraries: Single type / Multi type / Specialized
Consortia Models
Purpose Oriented Models
 Consortia for avoiding duplicate collection
 Consortia for accessing electronic journals
 Consortia for training and library workshops
Consortia Models
Client Oriented Models
 Clients according to their educational background:
Ex: - Technical, Professional
 Clients according to their age: Ex: - Children, Senior
Citizen
 Clients according to their interest: Ex: - sports,
game
Consortia Values
Libraries Vs Publishers
Libraries
Publishers
Usefulness
Members driven
Full text access
Expert vs. Student
Lower price
Accessing Internet resources
Combined purchasing power
Simplify purchase procedure
Distribute financial and other risk
Increase participation of members
No storage & documentation problem
Instant Access
Quality of services
Free flow of information
Sharing – ideas, information
Pricing/Education
Usage Reporting
Linking/Delivery
Interface options
Indexing/Filtering
Gain credibility with libraries
Increased marketing
Reduced cost of production
Reduced surcharges like mailing
Less extra efforts and expenditure for giving
access to new customers
Get consortium tool
Contribution – time, resources
o Gather library information
o Invoice libraries
o Products support
Pricing Models
Influencing Factors
Publishers Issues
 Quantum of business
 Number of consortia members
 Types of institutions
 Contract period
 Number of IP enabled nodes
 Number of campuses
 Value added services
 Rights to archive
 Perpetual access
 Training facilities
 Multi year agreement
 Free titles on Internet
 Free access against print subscription
 All titles of a publisher for fixed fee
 Surcharge on print subscription
 Discounts for electronic journals
 Capped annual inflation
 Discounts on non-subscribed titles
 Access to subject clusters of the
journals
 Protection of current revenue
 Uncertainty of new subscription
 Single point payment
Pricing Models
• No Universally Acceptable E-journals
Pricing and Licensing Models
• Ongoing experimentation
• Negotiation possible
• Charge for content
• Delivery format optional
• Increasingly will be based on usage
Pricing Models in Operation
• Bundled – Free with print
AIP, APS, AMS, Elsevier, Wiley
• Print as base + surcharge on electronic
Premium payments range from10-25%
ACS (20%), OSA (25%)
• Electronic only
Small increase (ACS 105%)
Same price (OSA)
Discount from print (AIP 80%, AMS 90%)
• Totally unbundled – No discount for both
JBC (P- $ 1600, E- $1200, P+E- $ 2800)
• Free e-version only
Charge for print if required
British Medical Journal
Continue…
Pricing Models in Operation
…Continued
• Membership Fee
• Usage based pricing
Concurrent users
Site population
• All titles of publishers with print optional
• Subject clusters
• Pay – per – view
• Free completely – Differently funded
• Extra fee for software
Continue…
Pricing Models in Operation
…Continued
• Extra for value added services
• Consortium discount
Number of sites
• Consortium surcharge
Access to all consortia titles
All titles of publisher
• Subscription to core titles – Rest pay-per-view
• Pricing based on FTE, Concurrent users
Consortia Issues
Strategic
Tactical
Practical
Mission
Programs
Governance
Lobbying
Fund raising
Education
Purchasing
e-Journal subscription
Database access
Union catalogue
Digital libraries
Archiving
Resource sharing
Access rights
Outsourcing
Governing board
Council
Task Forces
Interest groups
Implementing
coordinating agency
Contd…
Consortia Issues
Strategic
Tactical
Practical
Funding
Services
Staffing
 Parent organization
 Funding agency
 Government
 Membership
 Service fees
 Cataloguing
 Training
 Consultation
 Preservation
 Document Delivery
 Copyright
 Program staff
 Support staff
 Volunteers
 Student trainees
Contd…
Consortia Issues
Strategic
Tactical
Practical
Geographical Coverage
Technology
Payment
 National
 Regional
 State
 Local
 Website development
 Shared infrastructure
 Shared systems
 Digital Library
 Negotiation
 Bill to library
 Central funding
 Vendor billing
 Aggregator billing
 Deposit account
 Doc Delivery bill
Library Types
National
Public
Academic
Special
Subject based
S tro n g L in k s M a k e f or S tro n g C h a in s
P aym ent
M ission
&
V ision
S ponsor
S taffing
F unding
C on sortiu m
G overnance
T ype of
Library
T echnology
S ervices
G eograph y
P rogram s
Archiving: Key Issues
–Perpetual access to bibliographic databases
–Perpetual access to e-journals
–Who does the archiving?
•Consortia, third party
–How do we preserve publishers’ interests?
–Incorporate archiving terms in agreements
–How the data is acquired?
–How do we create the access architecture from
this data?
–Are there software solutions?
Licensing Issues
National Site Licensing
Open Consortia
Walk-in-User’s Rights
Who will sigh MOU
Indian Consortia Initiatives
 Consortia of IIMs
 CSIR Consortia
 FORSA
 Consortia through MHRD (INDEST)
 ICICI- Knowledge Park
 ISRO Initiative
 INFLIBNET Initiative
CSIR Initiative
• Access to >1700 E-Journals
• Elsevier’s ScienceDirect
• 40 CSIR Laboratories
• IP Enabled Seamless Access
• Central Funding
• Price based on Print Subscription
• Certain % of US $1.3 M
The UGC Model
•Universities have a poor subscription base.
•Traditional consortium models therefore do not
apply.
•Electronic access only models are being
considered.
•These should prove to be attractive to users as
well as suppliers.
•This stream will allow suppliers to tap revenue
which exists but is presently inaccessible,
through a couple of hundred universities and
thousands of colleges.
FORSA
•Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR,
SO and CASA-OU..
 Facilitate e-access to journals
 Actively participate in resource sharing
 Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post)
 Database merging of all libraries holdings
 We have gone into two consortia formation, viz.
 Indian Astrophysics Consortium- with (KLUWER);
 FORSA Consortium for Nature On - Line – with (Nature
Publishing).
DEMO
COMSAC
• Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts
• Consortium Leader – NAL
• Open Consortium
• Consortium For Material Science And
Aerospace Collection
• 25 - 40% Discount
Consortia Constraints Specific to
Indian Libraries
 Lack
of awareness about consortia benefits
 Slow
acceptance of e-information by the users.
 Difficulties in changing the mind setup of librarians
 Maintenance and balancing both physical and digital library
 Inadequate funds
 Single point payment
 Rigid administrative, financial and auditing rules
 Problems of defining asset against payment
Consortia Constraints Specific to
Indian Libraries …Contd
 Pay-Per-View not yet acceptable
 Uncertainty about the persistence of digital resources.
 Lack of infrastructure for accessing electronic sources
 Unreliable telecommunication links and insufficient bandwidth
 Lack of appropriate bibliographic tools
 Lack of trained personnel for handling new technologies
 Absence of strong professional association
 Big brother attitude
ICOLC: International Coalition
of Library Consortia
 Consortial
leaders with a set of common interests
(directors, coordinators of consortia)
•Founded spontaneously in early 1997 following
discussions by a few people at other national
meetings
•First meeting 2/1997, Missouri, 30 consortia
•Meets twice a year, 12 meetings to date
•No dues, no staff -- purely a volunteer effort
ICOLC Documents
 Public
Web site:
<http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia>
•Documents are developed by volunteer committees
and working groups
•Documents are widely distributed
–Statement of Preferred Practices & Update
–Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage
–Privacy Guidelines
Tail Piece
“ Man can live individually, but can
survive only collectively. Hence, our
challenge is to form a progressive
community by balancing the interests of
the individual and that of the society. To
meet this we need to develop a value
system where people accept modest
sacrifices for the common good”
From Vedas – As quoted by Mr. Narayanamurthy
(IFOSYS)