1. 1 A Model for Cost Division within a Homogeneous Consortium

2. 2 UKB, Dutch consortium of research Universities Homogeneous in nature, heterogeneous in size and composition: 6 broad, comprehensive universities 3 technological universities (engineering schools) 3 smaller, more or less specialised universities 1 agriculture university 1 open university

3. 3 Problem Under Big Deals all participants have access to the same content. This content however represents different interests for different institutions. How to measure the ‘impact’ of a specific publisher’s portfolio for a specific university? Next question: How to move from current division of costs (based on previous print subscriptions) to the outcome of a ‘fair’ cost attribution model?

4. 4 Analysis of portfolio 1 Divide the portfolio in a limited number of ‘bundles’ of discipline When chosen too narrow, it becomes difficult to attribute journals to one of the bundles. We used: Medicine Science/Technology/Agriculture Social Sciences Economics Law Humanities

5. 5 Analysis of portfolio 2 Define the share of each bundle within the portfolio: Add listprices of all titles that represent the bundle and define the relative share of that discipline, for instance: Medicine40 % Science etc35 % Social Sciences12.5 % Economics 5 % Law 5 % Humanities 2.5 %

6. 6 Analysis of portfolio 3 Translate these figures to the total costs of the portfolio, f.i. Elsevier. Total costs in the Netherlands are ± K€ 7000. Medicine 40 % K€ 2800 Science etc35 % K€ 2450 Social Sciences12.5 %K€ 875 Economics 5 %K€ 350 Law 5 %K€ 350 Humanities 2.5 %K€ 175 NB. Figures are fictitious

7. 7 Analysis of Institutions Define the composition of each university re bundles: which disciplines are taught at which university? F.i. UvA covers all bundles/disciplines, Tilburg just Economics, Law, Social Sciences and Humanities Define the share of each institution in each discipline, using student numbers as parameter (we had no reliable staff numbers to support the model”: f.i. UvA list 10 % of medical students in the Netherlands vs Utrecht listing 15 %; and so on

8. 8 Calculation of ‘fair share’ Attribute costs of each discipline to each institution that teaches that discipline on a student based ratio. f.i. UvA pays 10 % of the ‘medicine bill’ of K€ 2800 = K€ 280; and 15 % of the ‘economics bill’ of K€ 350 = K€ 52.5 Add up all shares of a university to define the ‘fair share’ of that university in the total consortium bill. NB. We had to make some minor adjustments with respect to special assignments of two universities. We solved this by multipliing their real student numbers with a factor of 0.15 and 0.5

9. 9 What we found The model results in rather large differences with the existing division of costs Unfortunately the pattern tends to be stable, i.e. that some institutions have to pay more for each portfolio (we used the model for 4 large publishers: Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, Blackwell) The differences as a whole were rather modest (< 10 %), but exceeded for some institutions 30/40 % The turnover of the institutions turned out to be a useful second parameter, squeezing out much of the differences

10. 10 Implementation Introduction of the second parameter (turn over) helped to overcome problems; we weighted it 50 % of total costs. We use a very long implementation period (10 years), which implicitly means that history is introduced as a third parameter, with a yearly decreasing weight. It also means that the model will be re-activated after a few years (when the current agreement ends), in which case the cycle starts again, departing from the then current situation.

11. 11 Winners and loosers Every new division of costs will show winners and loosers. Redefinition of costs can only be succesful on the basis of: Understanding about the fairness of the chosen model Realistic approach re the implementation: no library can accept or digest large cost-increases. Introduction therefore is only possible in small steps. It’s much easier to accept a smaller gain than a bigger loss!!