1. Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion Lluís M. Anglada Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya e-ICOLC Thessaloniki, 5th October 2002

2. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Plan Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations

3. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Important issues in “cooperative games” Focusing on benefits Always remember that you’ll win more that in an “individual game”

4. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Sharing benefits, sharing costs Background Budget allocation formulae Shared maintenance of computers and union catalogues Now, licensing Databases E-journals E-books

5. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Present situation Pricing models Are they stable? Benefits Are they stable?

6. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Stable pricing models (?) Web databases Consortium size e-Journals Expenditures in print + ‘premium’ + minimum e-Books Simultaneous users

7. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Stable benefits (?) Economic benefits (short term) Savings (sometimes) and costs contention More information (medium term) Cross access and bundled e-journals Intangibles (long term) New money and lobbying

8. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Plan Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations

9. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Some (general) observations Pricing model matters Big/medium/small Collections and size Net or relative benefits “Failure games”

10. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Pricing model matters A global price for a new product Allows ‘ex-novo’ allocation formulae A global price determined by historical expenditure Suggests formulae based on historical spending

11. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Libraries in a consortium Few are big Some are medium A lot are small

12. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Collections and size p- expenditureStudents+budget A49.98%>32.42% B26.60%>20.46% C 7.70%<18.26% D 4.08%< 5.61% E 2.98%< 6.21% F 4.20%< 5.42% G 3.96%< 6.56% H 0.00%< 5.07% I 0.50%> 0.00%

13. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Net or relative benefits non prev. Subs. Titnpst x students A 99327.31% B111218.66% C134319.52% D1334 4.94% E1366 7.27% F1376 6.36% G1370 8.00% H1407 7.92% I1402 0.00%

14. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Why is size important? Because it has an effect on price Important in the short term Because it has an effect on usage Important in the long term

15. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Failure games There are a lot of allocation costs systems that are unacceptable by some of the “playing parts”

16. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Plan Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations

17. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Sharing costs: 3 situations Central funding (p+e or e+p) p+e (no central funding) e+p (with or without central funding)

18. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt A (general?) principle to share costs Two parameters to build the formula: Parameter A: equal shares Parameter B: based on size And a dynamic readjustment system if size changes

19. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Central funding (p+e or e+p) Total or majority central funding means that almost any allocation formula will be accepted However We cannot rely on this kind of central funding for a long time

20. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt p+e (no central funding) The relatively low amount (compared to the print amount) of the premium-e allows agreements But, p+e Doesn’t allow cancellations Doesn’t make evolution to e-only easy Is surely transitory

21. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt e+p (with or without central funding) A: The immediate solution B: A future model

22. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt A: The immediate solution Cost based on former print expenditure, for instance: Print expenditure + 5%, or Fixed cost, if print expenditure is lower than the minimum required Immediate allocation model Print expenditure + 5%, or Fixed cost

23. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt But... Historical print expenditure belongs to the past, cooperative subscriptions set up a new framework Will it make any sense to talk about “print expenditure” in 5-10 years time? This model allows a “sub-consortium” of big and medium libraries

24. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt B: A future model (?) One part in equal shares 20% ?, 30% ?, 40%?, 50% ?... One part based on size What does “size” mean? Dynamic readjustment system if size changes

25. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt What does “size” mean? Potential users? Budget? Collections? Print expenditure? Research activity? Benefits as non previus subscribed titles? Benefits as (Npst x potential users)? Usage?

26. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt CBUC formula for e-journals 50% based on historical print expenditure 20% equal shares 30% based on size (students + budget)

27. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt CBUC: comparisons p- expenCBUCsize dituresdistributionstudents+butget A49.98%36.94%32.42% B26.60%21.66%20.46% C 7.70%11.55%18.26% D 4.08% 5.94% 5.61% E 2.98% 5.57% 6.21% F 4.20% 5.95% 5.42% G 3.96% 6.17% 6.56% H 0.00% 3.74% 5.07% I 0.50% 2.47% 0.00%

28. L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002 B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt Final considerations “Big Deal” is a good deal if we can work at a medium-long term A good agreement means to get all members reasonably dissatisfied Central funding always helps