scottish higher education digital library (shedl)

1

SHEDL

Scottish Higher Education

Digital Library

Tony Kidd

CILIPS Conference, June 2010

June 2010 CILIPS Conference, Glasgow 2

Context

Scottish HE tradition of co-operation Manageable size Separate funding arrangements Competitive concerns Research Pools Examples of other consortia


History

Previous attempts to implement ‘Scotland-wide’ access too ambitious Cross-sectoral funding

Continuing concerns over patchy access Investigative funding from Principals of

Glasgow/Edinburgh Universities


Investigative Study

May-October 2007 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 launched Oct 2007 SCURL website: scurl.ac.uk


Relationship with JISC Collections/NESLi2

Strong consensus that SHEDL should work within JISC Collections framework

SFC and Principals expect SHEDL to co-exist with and complement JISC

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

SCURL SCOPNet SHEDL Steering Group

Interest groups SHEDL Working Group

Buy-in from all 19 HEIs Procurement – APUC


Phase 1

Steering Group & Working Group – collaborative working

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


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


Process

Verification of holdings and expenditure with each publisher

Confirmation of contract entitlement Licence agreement, based on JISC Model

Licence Local consultation on print retention Adjustments to holdings – link resolvers &

opacs Monitoring of usage – locally and centrally


Phase 2

Consultation across all 19 HEI’s 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


Phase 3 – in progress

Consultation process completed 46 nominations 7 publishers identified for 2011 Details of expenditure and holdings provided Negotiation process underway Letters of Commitment in process


Benefits – HEIs Institutional buy-in and support Shift to e-only Single payment Cost containment Proof of concept

widening access increased availability of content increased usage efficiency gains

Shared services agenda


Benefits - Publishers

Reduced overheads – single point of contact for administration and invoicing

Wider dissemination of content Improved compliance Encourages adoption of e-only Cash flow – protects market


Impact – the users

More content, accessible at the point of need 1800+ titles available Increase in usage across all Phase 1

publishers, and across all institutions Usage increased by 41% from 2008 to 2009 Analysis shows that previously non-

subscribed titles are being used


Issues

Impact on intermediaries and consortial purchasing agreements

Impact on institutional workflows Monitoring – within and across institutions,

changing patterns of use Resource Discovery and findability User expectations are raised – sustainability Budgets – impacts on collection management

decisions


Evaluation - RIN

Evaluation of the impact of SHEDL

John Cox Associates Usage data Interviews – academics/librarians Single year Reporting July 2010


Evaluation - RIN

Impact of SHEDL – provisional findings Confirmed overall usage increase of 41%,

compared with 22% ‘average’ annual increase Wide variation in increases – single year –

whether or not titles already accessible Some evidence that Research Pool participants

benefiting Heavy use of top 10 titles, but also long tail Cost/use variable, and declining (by 20%+)


Evaluation - RIN

Impact of SHEDL – interviews SHEDL accentuates existing trends

Access/convenience/power browsing Student expectations/VLE/Google

Cross-institutional research Marketing – variations Large target list of publishers Extend to e-books/databases/datasets/back runs


Evaluation – JISC Coll

Bloc payment mechanisms

Cost redistribution criteria Albert Prior/John Cox Not specifically SHEDL Experience elsewhere/modelling Reporting June/July 2010



Bloc payment mechanisms – provisional findings No ‘magic formula’ Six consortia using cost distribution models

Size Expenditure Usage



Bloc payment mechanisms Authoritative/credible data

JISC Banding Institutional income Research/contract income Staff/student numbers

Not usage Variable Discourages promotion etc



Bloc payment mechanisms

Use >1 variable Transition period, from ‘current spend’ Maximum rate of change

Top-slicing…


Sectors

National Library of Scotland Portico

National Health Service Current discussions

Further Education Scottish Funding Council


Funding

Scalability/viability? Funding cuts? UK countries/regions ‘Journals as infrastructure’ Top-slicing – current climate??


Questions/Discussion Website – under development

http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/index.html

Gillian Anderson, Chair SHEDL Steering Group [email protected]

Tony Kidd, Vice-Chair [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/

scottish higher education digital library (shedl)

Education

groups shedl

shedl ex

institutions usage

agreements impact

benefits publishers

evaluation rin evaluation

smallmedium publishers

overheads single payment