Cooperative E Resource Licensing In Florida


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cooperative E Resource Licensing In Florida

  1. 1. Cooperative E-Resource Licensing in Florida Bringing together institutions of higher education CDRS Conference Florida State University, Tallahassee March 26, 2009
  2. 2. Higher education in Florida <ul><li>State University System (SUS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>11 institutions with a total FTE of 187,771, ranging in size from FTE of 629 (NCF) to FTE of 34,792 (UF) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supported by the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Florida College System (FCS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>28 community college and colleges (81 campuses) with an approximate FTE of 300,000, ranging in size from FTE of 722 (Florida Keys CC) to FTE 49,607 (Miami Dade College) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supported by the College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Independent Colleges and University of Florida (ICUF) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>28 institutions with a total FTE of 113,454, ranging in size from FTE of 112 (Beacon College) to 18,457 (Nova Southeastern) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No central organization supporting the libraries </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Licensing Activities <ul><li>CCLA and FCLA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Have staff positions dedicated to licensing activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Receive funding from the State Government for e-resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Act as agents on behalf of SUS and FCS libraries for independently funded resources. This (with a few exceptions) is a relatively new activity for FCLA when position of E-Resources Licensing Specialist was established to handle SUS Library funded e-journal packages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit from State Library funded e-resources from OCLC and Gale through the Florida Electronic Library </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Licensing Activities, cont’d <ul><li>ICUF </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Director of Stetson Library coordinates annual database renewal and acquisitions process between vendors and ICUF institutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Licensing done by individual participating libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No central funding source, but Stetson acts as single fiscal agent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Success of program is dependent upon the good will and efforts of a single individual </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Challenges of Expanding Cooperative Licensing Ventures <ul><li>Resolve and simplify legal & contractual issues </li></ul><ul><li>Reconcile varying vendor pricing models </li></ul><ul><li>Determine funding methodology and identify fiscal agent </li></ul><ul><li>Develop multi-system collection development process </li></ul><ul><li>Manage and coordinate communication across three disparate systems </li></ul>
  6. 6. Legal & Contractual Issues <ul><li>Do you need a separate legal entity? </li></ul><ul><li>How complicated is it to create contracts that cross SUS, FCS, and ICUF institutions? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it possible to set up multi-year contracts so that others might join mid-term? </li></ul><ul><li>What risk might be imposed on the contracting body – especially when participating libraries might be outside the “system”? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Legal & Contractual Issues: Answers <ul><li>Do you need a separate legal entity? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simple answer – no </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How complicated is it to create contracts that cross SUS, FCS, and ICUF institutions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not necessarily that complicated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Language in a piggyback contract which references original contract </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Letter by participating library authorizing the contracting body to sign on that library’s behalf </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Signed addendum by each participating library </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business terms centrally negotiated with individual contracts signed by each participating library </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Legal & Contractual Issues: Answers <ul><li>Is it possible to set up multi-year contracts so that others might join mid-term? </li></ul>
  9. 9. Legal & Contractual Issues: Answers <ul><li>What risk might be imposed on the contracting body – particularly for multi-year contracts? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limitation of liability clause </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Early Termination Due to Insufficient Budgetary Allotment clause </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Pricing Models <ul><li>For single institutional subscriptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FTE based pricing – on FTE only, FTE range (e.g. 1-5000, 5000 – 10,000)  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flat annual fee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pricing based upon number of simultaneous users. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pricing by institution type (associate’s, bachelor's, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pricing based upon number of degrees granted in a particular area.  Used primarily for highly specialized databases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Often, some combination of the above is used. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For consortia, all of the above might apply, plus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incremental discounts for increased level of participation – “Buyer’s Club” model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum spend required for participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multi year agreements </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Pricing Models: Solutions <ul><li>Develop general guidelines for cost-sharing between institutions of varying sizes </li></ul><ul><li>Establish guidelines for percentage discounts based upon participation levels </li></ul><ul><li>Work creatively to develop new models for pricing </li></ul><ul><li>Pricing models are ultimately dependent upon negotiations with vendors </li></ul>
  12. 12. Funding & Fiscal Agency Issues <ul><li>Working with centralized funding is the easiest -- but there is no legal entity established to serve all constituents </li></ul><ul><li>Institution serving as fiscal agent on behalf of others undertakes a substantial risk </li></ul><ul><li>Not all institutions are funded equally. How do you keep things equitable for smaller institutions? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Funding & Fiscal Agency: Solutions <ul><li>FCLA establish Auxiliary to position itself to handle more complicated fiscal relationships </li></ul><ul><li>Develop a proposal for the State Legislature to fund core e-resource collection for higher education institutions, with mechanisms for participation by all built into model </li></ul><ul><li>Explore use of a subscription agent to facilitate cooperative purchases </li></ul>
  14. 14. Collection Development <ul><li>Current mechanisms for determining databases to purchase </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CCLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Conducts online survey to collect interest level of products </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advisory Board process </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FCLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration with SUL Collection Planning Committee/Electronic Resources Subcommittee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Annual review process </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Collection Development <ul><li>ICUF </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fiscal Agent polls membership to assess interest in products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendors are invited to make proposal and establish database trial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendors present proposal at annual May meeting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Member libraries have a 4-6 week period to make decisions for fall cycle </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Collection Development Issues <ul><li>Identifying content that is relevant to the majority </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making process is time-consuming and lengthy, with extensive back and forth with both libraries and vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Some online resources – such as e-journal packages – require gathering of very detailed title level information from each participating institution </li></ul><ul><li>Savings on existing subscriptions may be achieved if new libraries are brought in – challenging in tough economic times </li></ul>
  17. 17. Collection Development: Solutions <ul><li>Form a small steering committee of FCLA and CCLA Licensing Staff, and ICUF representative to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>align and coordinate collection development efforts where appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Set-up joint FCLA, CCLA and ICUF meetings with vendors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>attend key annual meetings where collections are the focus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ICUF Annual Vendor Meeting in May </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CCLA Advisory Board or Executive Committee meetings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SUL CPC/ERS Joint Fall Meeting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Create a wiki (or other online forum) for discussion among concerned entities </li></ul>
  18. 18. Collection Development: Solutions <ul><li>Develop a mechanism for collecting information on existing e-resources and unmet curricular needs </li></ul><ul><li>Hold centralized trials </li></ul><ul><li>Establish rating criteria to facilitate the decision making process for adding new e-resources </li></ul><ul><li>Consider going to multi-year agreements for existing subscribed content at lower price caps where other savings mechanisms are unlikely to be successful </li></ul>
  19. 19. Management Issues <ul><li>E-resources require support beyond initial licensing and subscription, such as troubleshooting access problems, managing link resolvers and A-Z lists, usage statistics, etc.  </li></ul><ul><li>Current levels of staffing are insufficient to support expanded cooperative licensing efforts across the state.  </li></ul><ul><li>Communication at multi-campus, multi-library institutions can be a challenge at the institutional level, let alone at the state level  </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinating task and time lines with distant and diverse institutions with their own schedules, responsibilities, subscription terms and fiscal years (ICUF) can be difficult </li></ul>
  20. 20. Management: Solutions <ul><li>Additional staff would need to be put into place, particularly where efforts are on a volunteer basis </li></ul><ul><li>Responsibilities for all libraries and librarians should be clearly defined </li></ul><ul><li>Deadlines would need to be established and strictly maintained </li></ul><ul><li>A centralized tracking system for contracts and payments would need to be implemented </li></ul>
  21. 21. In Conclusion… <ul><li>Despite the issues, cooperation is doable </li></ul><ul><li>Current economic climate provides opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Next steps </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Report out to various constituencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish Steering Committee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop a plan of action </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish online communication tool (e.g. WIKI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Begin gathering data about the SUS, FCS, and ICUF </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Contact Information <ul><li>Melvin Davis </li></ul><ul><li>Digital Resources Consultant </li></ul><ul><li>College Center for Library Automation </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Claire T. Dygert </li></ul><ul><li>E-Resources Licensing Specialist </li></ul><ul><li>Florida Center for Library Automation </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Betty D. Johnson </li></ul><ul><li>Library Director and Professor </li></ul><ul><li>duPont-Ball Library </li></ul><ul><li>Stetson University </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>