Knowledge Exchange Multinational Licensing Tender: A personal evaluation: weighing the pros and cons. Wilma Mossink SURFfoundation ICOLC fall meeting 2007 Stockholm

2 October This presentation Introduction to the Knowledge Exchange Background information to the multinational licensing tender Proces of tendering Results of the tender Pros of the tender procedure Cons of the tender procedure My personal evaluation

2 October Introduction to the Knowledge Exchange Established in sponsoring partner organisations –Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) Denmark –German Research Foundation (DFG) Germany –Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) United Kingdom –SURFfoundation (SURF) the Netherlands Umbrella organisation aimed at supporting the use and development of ICT infrastructure for higher education and research Rationale is adding value to activities of funding partners Common vision to make a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available on the internet

2 October Background information Initial meeting in Bonn July 2006 created a framework (Bonn Accord) –publishers will continue to play an essential role in evaluating and distributing secondary literature –partner organisations currently use different models & strategies for the procurement of digital content on a national level –engagement for a joint pilot project to procure digital content Working group meeting, September 2006 –question: how to frame joint activity? legal issues (is Knowledge Exchange a cartel?) timeframe issues (running deals) transparency issues (confidentiality clauses) –proposal: joint tender

2 October Reasons for tendering Lack of innovation among publishers: –in creating new business models for electronic resources –in creating new access strategies for content Tender creates a ‘virtual marketplace’ to engage the publishing community Transparency for benchmarking national licence and framework agreements Create a route to market for content often left out of national deals Forward move of Bonn Accord while minimising many risks involved

2 October EU Competitive Dialogue Procedure Conduct of the procedure Request for Information –contracting authority makes known its ‘needs & requirements’ in contract notice & defines them in Descriptive document dialogue with bidders –aimed at identifying & defining means best suited to satisfy needs contracting authority Descriptive document –detailed award criteria specified on the basis of which bidders have formulate their proposals. award of contract –assessment on basis of award criteria & most economically advantageous tenders

2 October Time frame tender procedure Request for Information –issue Request for Information‚ 14 February –deadline for responding, 23 March 2007 Dialogue –decision about which bids to move forward 30 March –one by one interviews with selected bidders 16 April Descriptive document –issue Descriptive document, 18 July 2007 –deadline for responding, 27 August 2007

2 October What did we ask of the publishers Working group compiled 2 types of lists basic list representing research universities extended list defining other affiliated institutions Bids must contain: Final prices (no negotiation on fees) Single fee for all institutions on basic & extended list for each country Opt in framework should show an innovative character: –discount structure based on participation through subscriptions in basic list –requirement to offer discount level to subscribing institutions in both lists –tiered pricing differentiating institutions in basic & extended list.

2 October Award criteria 3 overarching criteria: –innovation and value for money offered by the proposal (40 %) –level of compliance with the access strategy (10 %) –fit of content to the academic strategy of the country (50 %)

2 October What do we offer the publishers No allocated money but: –provisions for a route to market to 190 research universities & large teaching universities –endorsement and promotion of the bids to the libraries –provisions for a single point for contact resulting in better efficiency –reduction in administration costs for the publisher

2 October Result of the tender procedure Final offers from 9 publishers from the target group –decision to conclude agreement with 5 publishers Final offers for journals, e-books and databases Pleasingly pleasant score on the criteria set for innovation and value for money Interesting discounts for multinational licensing

2 October Cons of the tender Time consuming process –time frame of tender procedure itself –writing the several documents with severe deadlines –evaluating the bids by markers Process rather inflexible: –careful structuring of bids needed –no further negotiations on prices/licences possible –bid is final bid but considerations could possibly influence bid Takes up time & money of the organisations involved –strong committment of the organisations needed Still difficulties to estimate whether prices are fair Libraries are offered content they have not asked for

2 October Pros of the tender Ability to benchmark the prices Higher degree of transparency Reaching a group of interesting/unknown publishers which normally are not on the short- or longlist of consortia Some innovative business models & access strategies Fees don’t reflect former print collections Worthwhile discounts especially on multinational level Concept of national licences comes into view because of economies of scale Model licence with most favourable provisions of the 4 countries Test system for multinational negotiation and national implementation

2 October My personal evaluation Tipping the balance to a positive evaluation: –discussions about & attention for drafting new business models –attention for access strategies –thorough evaluation of the bids on several aspects –transparency & clarity gained –efforts of publishers to come with appealing offers –valuable information regarding possible deals & structuring the process –active part in shaping the market –working group fulfilled part of very ambitious vision of KE

2 October Thank you! KE Tender working group: Anette Schneider (DEFF) Bo Öhrström (DEFF) Max Vögler (DFG) Hildegard Schäffler (Bavarian State Library) Markus Brammer (German National Library on Science & Technology) Lorraine Estelle (JISC) Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam/SURFdiensten) Wilma Mossink (SURFfoundation/SURFdiensten)