1. Adriana Popescu Douglas McGee Princeton University University of Pennsylvania 2014 IFLA WLIC 21 August, 2014 Assessing the Shared Usage of Collaboratively Acquired Ebooks within the Borrow Direct Network

2. ●Expedited interlibrary loan network among eleven independent U.S. research universities: Brown Johns Hopkins University Columbia Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cornell Princeton Dartmouth University of Chicago Harvard University of Pennsylvania Yale ●Provides unmediated patron searching and selection from a joint catalogue ●Established 1999

3. Share ebooks? ●Few models at present for providing access to titles across institutions: ○ Short Term Loans via aggregator platforms ○ Occam’s Reader (occamsreader.org) - Under development ●Joint acquisition – consortial purchasing arrangements

4. Borrow Direct Engineering Pilot - Goals ●Develop a sustainable method for building a shared engineering research collection for the Borrow Direct libraries. ●Demonstrate through a cooperative acquisitions model we can build a collective comprehensive research collection in engineering areas, beyond what each individual institution in the Borrow Direct group might accomplish on its own. ●Initial Participants: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, MIT, Princeton, UPenn, Yale

5. Borrow Direct Engineering Ebook Pilot - Directives ●Work with ebook aggregator vendors rather than directly with publishers. ●Incorporate Demand Driven Acquisition as the primary means of purchasing titles.

6. Borrow Direct Engineering Ebook Pilot - Structure ●Partnered with Proquest/ebrary and YBP Library Services ●Demand Driven Acquisition (DDA) model based on a jointly prepared subject/non-subject parameter profile. ●Joint BD deposit account held by YBP and invoiced by Proquest/ebrary when title purchases are triggered ●DDA MARC Records downloaded from either Proquest/ebrary or YBP ●Purchases triggered by either 10 page views, OR 10 minutes in book, OR any printing/downloading/copying

7. Challenges ●Aligning the goals of seven independent institutions with no administrative body for oversight ○ Managing duplication ○ Integration with existing technical services workflows ●Developing a model that would work for both libraries and vendors/publishers ○ Licensing ○ Financially sustainable. ●“Institutionalizing” the model so it is less dependent on specific individuals. ●Recruiting publishers to participate

8. Assessing the Pilot – Access by Institution (57 Titles)

9. Assessing the Pilot – Title Access Across Institutions Titles Accessed Institutions

10. A word about our data… Penn data, and likely MIT’s, is skewed as it includes access by Tech Services staff (testing resolver links, etc.). That being said: Of Penn’s 56 accessed titles, 23 have had 12 or more page views, including 11 that have had over 50 page views. Of MIT’s 52 accessed titles, 31 have had 10 or more page views, including 13 with over 50 page views. Overall, 26 Titles have had 10 or more page views at 2 or more institutions each.

11. Assessing the Pilot-Expenditures Total expenditure for Pilot Cost per InstitutionCost per Institution outside of Pilot Percentage savings $23,991$3427$615545% Borrow Direct DDA Expenditures as of July 2014 (57 Titles / 399 copies)

12. Future steps ●Report to our Directors of Collection Development our assessment of the Pilot and whether it should continue with suggested changes. ●Draft addendum to memorandum of understanding to continue the program. ●Offer expansion to other disciplines at our institutions. ●Consider working directly with publishers ready for DDA. ●Recruit other Borrow Direct partners.

13. Thank you!