1. Outcomes of a National Consortium ICOLC, Rome Oct 12 th -14 th, 2006 Arja Tuuliniemi, Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen

2. FinELib-Consortium Publishers Vice- chancellors council International collaboration Researchers Students Professors Members: Universities, polytechnics, research institutes and public libraries 100+ organisations The National Library of Finland FinELib service unit Ministry of Education Financiers Other interest groups Software suppliers Improving access to information Licensing of electronic resources Nelli – portal services

3. Methods used to analyse outcome Usage statistics (since 1998) User surveys (since 1998) –Researchers, teachers, students –Libraries Evaluation –International evaluation of the consortium –Evaluation of the strategy 2004-2006 Research –6 Master Thesis since 2003 –International scientific papers based on FinELib data Trends in use in different disciplines; Bibliometrics

4. Strategic goals of the consortium 2004-2006 Improve access to information in the society Meet service needs of the libraries

5. Outcomes – access to information 131%18,5 million8 millionSearches 220%3,2 million1 millionDownloaded articles 28%11590Reference databases 232%195006000Electronic journals Growth %20052000Indicators Central indicators of material provision and usage

6. Outcomes – access to information Researchers at universities 100 Total 48Bad or not at all 2638Moderate 2005 (n=466)2000 (n=459)Perceived availability 5244Good 1710Very good Perceived availability of central material in FinELib (%) Source: Vakkari, P. 2006. Trends in the use of digital libraries by scientists in 2000-2005: A case study of FinELib

7. Outcomes – access to information Researchers at Universities 7766Medicine (76/72) 7666Engineering (103/71) 7674Economics (69/28) 6956Natural Sciences (153/50) 4927Humanities (97/71) 20052000Discipline (n) The proportion of those perceiving availability at least good by discipline (%) Source: Vakkari, P. 2006

8. Importance of services provided by FinELib to the libraries 82%71%Coordination of training (train the trainers) 91%80%Customer service 96% Budgetary support 98% National licensing 2005 Important / very important 2001 Important / very important IMPORTANCE

9. Satisfaction of the libraries on the services provided by FinELib 79%43%Coordination of training (training the trainers) 85%75%National licensing 2005 Satisfied/very satisfied 2001 Satisfied/very satisfied SATISFACTION 82%49%Customer service 78%39%Budgetary support

10. Outcomes Access to information has improved How can we motivate students to use the services? FinELib service unit meets well the needs of the libraries Working environments are changing radically – how to meet the new needs?

11. Thank you! arja.tuuliniemi@helsinki.fi