1. Knowledge Exchange Multinational Licensing Tender: New alliances?
Wilma Mossink SURFfoundation
IFFRO Amsterdam

2. My story today in more detail
Introduction to the Knowledge Exchange
Tendering for content
background information to the multinational licensing tender
reasons for tendering
Innovative aspects
licensing aspects
business model
Some evaluative comments on proces & results
Conclusions
9 February 2010

3. Knowledge Exchange and tender
Umbrella organisation with 4 sponsoring partners
Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF)
German Research Foundation (DFG)
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)  
SURFfoundation (SURF)
Intention to make a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available on the internet
European tender procedure for a multinational, multi-year deal for different sorts of content important element
Tender aimed at new, creative ideas and concepts from smaller publishers willing to develop and try out innovate business models
9 February 2010

4. 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
9 February 2010

5. 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 licences and framework agreements
Create a route to market for content often left out of national deals
9 February 2010

6. The destination: agreements with publishers
April 2008 agreements with 5 publishers:
TheScientificWorldJournal: a hybrid open-access / fee-based online journal in the life sciences
MultiScience Journal: an aggregator of 34 engineering journals
BioOne: an aggregation of bioscience research journals run by a non-profit consortium
SWETS/ALPSP: a collection of 543 journals from 36 diverse publishers, in a single collection with a single umbrella licence, pricing model and delivery platform
Wiley InterScience OnlineBooks: a package of e-book offers from Wiley/Blackwell
9 February 2010

7. The outcome of the tender
Denmark:
some expressions of interest
Germany
national licence for TheScientificWorldJournal & BioOne
United Kindom
national licence for TheScientificWorldJournal
Netherlands
national licence for TheScientificWorldJournal, MultiScience & BioOne
9 February 2010

8. Innovative aspects: licensing structure
Overarching agreement between 4 partners of Knowledge Exchange & publisher
establishes rights & obligations between publisher & Knowledge Exchange partners
Agreement contains 4 annexes
Schedule A: Basic and extended list
Schedule B: Licensed material, types of licences & fees
Schedule C: Licence agreement
Schedule D: Support
Licence agreement
agreement regarding User Rights in respect of the Licensed Material between publisher and institution via Knowledge Exchange as intermediary
9 February 2010

9. Innovative aspects: business model
Basic list
list representing research universities and larger teaching universities
Extended list
list defining affiliated higher education and publicly funded research institutions
National & multinational licence model
Opt in framework
9 February 2010

10. Business model: innovative elements
Publishers asked to state
Final prices (no negotiation on fees)
Single fee for all institutions on basic & extended list for each country and for countries together
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
9 February 2010

11. Business models: suggestion
4 different levels which refer to the discount offered to all institutions included in Basic and Extended Lists.
Discount structure is based on participation through subscription by institutions included in the Basic List
Level 0: No discount
Level 1: 45 % discount plus (for journals) 4% cancellation rate permitted for all subscribing institutions
Level 2: 60 % discount plus (for journals) 5% cancellation rate permitted for all subscribing institutions
Level 3: 80 % discount plus (for journals) 6% cancellation rate permitted for all subscribing institutions
Specification of number of subscribing institutions from the Basic List required to reach each level of discount.
Tiered pricing based on standardised model that applies to all institutions in the 4 partner countries to be specified by the publisher
9 February 2010

12. 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 %)
9 February 2010

13. What does KE 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
provision central evaluation of contracts by legal experts
reduction in administration costs for the publisher
9 February 2010

14. Disadvantages 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 commitment of the organisations needed
Still difficulties to estimate whether prices are fair
Libraries are offered content they have not asked for
9 February 2010

15. Advantages 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
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
9 February 2010

16. The ride: the take up
Libraries have to be convinced of taking up the offers
price
content libraries have not asked for
ALPSP interesting example
not a very good offer for the institutions on basic list
too expensive for institutions on extended list
Wiley
take up slowly rises
9 February 2010

17. The destination and the ride: the conclusion
Raised attention to other and new products
Created new business model that rewards multi-country participation
Increased transparency
Current framework useful for future licences
Created possibility to take an active part in shaping the market
Working together in a multinational context leads to better position for libraries
9 February 2010

18. Thank you for your attention!
KE Tender working group:
Anette Schneider (DEFF) (till October 2008)
Janne Vendt (DEFF) (from October 2008)
Max Vögler (DFG) (till October 2008)
Christoph Kuemmel (DFG) (from October 2008)
Hildegard Schäffler (Bavarian State Library)
Markus Brammer (German National Library on Science & Technology)
Lorraine Estelle (JISC Collections)
Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam/SURFdiensten)
Wilma Mossink (SURFfoundation/SURFdiensten)
9 February 2010