Serial Conversations

A Ten-year Retrospective

An Interview with Tina Feick:

Michelle Williams, Contributor

Bonnie Parks, Column Editor

Available online 2 April 2009

Williams is Student CoUniversity of Oregon, Eu

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.200

In November 2008 Michelle Williams interviewed Tina Feick, director of sales and marketing forNorth America at HARRASSOWITZ. Feick shares her views on how subscription agencies, publishers,libraries and the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) have changed over the last decadeand how they have been affected by economic and technological factors like shrinking budgets andthe growth of e-journals. Serials Review 2009; 35:98–104.

Nearly a decade ago, Tina Feick spoke withSerials Review about the constantly chan-ging landscape of serials, offering her pers-pective on topics ranging from e-journals toNASIG's impact, to the importance ofindustry standards, to relationships be-tween key players (libraries, publishers,vendors, etc.).1 This interview not onlyrevisits those topics and introduces newand relevant issues, but also measures thepassage of time and highlights changes

within the valuable context of Feick's history in the serials world.

Feick worked in both public and academic libraries early inher career but transitioned to the business end of the serialsworld in 1984 when she took a job with Blackwell's InformationServices (which merged with Swets Subscription Service in2000). After a brief retirement in early 2008, she accepted aposition at HARRASSOWITZ as director of sales and marketing inNorth America.

The majority of Tina Feick's career has been spent at large subs-cription agencies as an advocate for collaboration between keyserials entities, including vendors, publishers, and libraries. Herwork with NASIG extends from conception to birth to present, andshe has commented that being involved in an organization thatbrings different players in the serials world to work together hasbeen very gratifying. Feick also has been involved in the continuingeffort to create and promote serials standards that would improvethe ability of the various serials entities to communicate and sharedata with each other. She has extensive knowledge of the serialsworld and a proven desire to foster collaboration. Her perspec-tive on key issues—past, present, and future—continues to beinvaluable.

MichelleWilliams (MW): You very recently took a new positionas director of sales and marketing for North America at

ordinator and Assistant to Unit Manager, Knight Library,gene, OR 97403, USA; e-mail: mdw@uoregon.edu.

9.02.005

98

HARRASSOWITZ after retiring from Swets. What prompted youto come out of retirement for your current position?

Tina Feick (TF): Truthfully, I left Swets in order to spend time withmy husband. He had retired at the beginning of the year, and wedecided to take a little time to explore what we wanted to do withthe rest of our lives. During my three months of retirement, welooked at our options. After catching our breaths, we realized thatit was best for me to go back to work, to get a full-time job withbenefits and, most importantly, a job at which I could work fromhome. Our goal, really, was for both of us to be at home together asmuch as possible.

During this time, I heard from Dr. Knut Dorn, managing partnerof HARRASSOWITZ, who wondered if I might be coaxed out ofretirement to work for HARRASSOWITZ. At first, I thought thismight be more than I wanted to do, but Dr. Dorn can be veryconvincing. And when all of my criteria were met, I was delightedto accept the position offered. It was, in fact, a dream of mine towork for HARRASSOWITZ when I was working at PrincetonUniversity back in the 1980s.

It has been my privilege to work for two great companies,Blackwell's and Swets. Now I am honored to be a part of theHARRASSOWITZ organization that is both a global subscriptionagent and a continental European book dealer.

MW: How is your new job different from your previous position atSwets?

TF: As director of sales and marketing for North America forHARRASSOWITZ, my position includes development and imple-mentation of sales and marketing strategies for North America. Ialso supervise the sales team and, of course, I have direct contactwith customers—the favorite part of my job throughout my career.

My previous position as the vice president for customerrelations at Swets was designed to be the liaison position betweensales and customer service/operations. The marketing departmentreported to me as well, but I had no responsibility for sales. I

Williams / Serials Review 35 (2009) 98–104

worked very closely with sales and marketing on various projectsincluding RFP responses, presentations, and educationalworkshops.

So, I am very pleased to be part of a sales team again. It is aterrific experience to be able to meet with our customers and helpcontinue HARRASSOWITZ's reputation for quality service.

MW: You have worked for more than twenty years at asubscription agency. If you were to draw a timeline of thoseyears, what would you mark as the major milestones in the serialsworld that have affected libraries and vendors?

TF: There have been a number of major developments in the serialsworld over the past twenty years that I wish to highlight. First, themove from print to electronic format has certainly turned theserials world upside down and back again. In the early 1990s, webegan to see the growth of the electronic journal. It was a puzzlingtime as we all tried to find our way. Before, the serials print worldwas much simpler, and a high percentage of journals fit into theroutine workflow at both the library and the subscription agent.The serials electronic world has brought many more variables andconsiderations. Even with e-resource profiles, agents today spendso much time in discussion with the customer to ensure that thecustomer has selected the correct parameters for the order.

Next, besides the complexity of the electronic format, there hasalso been a tremendous growth in the number of consortia. Eachconsortium has a different structure and varying arrangementsand processes. No longer can any agent say that there is one pricefor all; now there can be as many as a thousand different pricingvariations for a title/package depending on the consortium, thepublisher, the various package options, and the institution.Communication among consortia, publishers, agents and indivi-dual libraries has added a new layer of complexity as theinformation that needs to be shared or exchanged is deeplyintertwined with these almost infinite variations. It is part of theagent's responsibility to track the consortia deals and accuratelyreflect those deals on orders and invoices, and we are doing so aslong as we have been informed.

When buying e-journal packages on behalf of a group oflibraries, a majority of consortia initially excluded the agent in theirbusiness transactions. With demand from member libraries, someconsortia are now authorizing agents to handle title verification forpackages, payment and invoicing (electronic), and even publishernegotiation. Agents are also investing time in building relation-ships with consortia. We have seen some return of orders thatwere cancelled to go direct through the consortia.

And finally, there are fewer subscriptions agents. Likewise in therest of the world, we havewatched companiesmerge, be absorbed,and fade out of existence. There are, however, other competitorsthat have developed: publishers (with direct sales forces), plat-form providers, Web solutions, aggregators, and other intermedi-aries. It is, indeed, a very different serials world fromwhen I startedin the industry.

MW: How has the relationship between libraries and subscriptionagencies changed since your last interview in 2000?

TF: Librarians, our colleagues, are being pulled in so many moredirections. With library positions being eliminated and the extralayer of complexity, a result from the electronic world, onelibrarian is performing a job that was previously held by two orthree people. Consequently, librarians do not have the time tomaintain and develop relationships as they used to. And I missthat! It is increasingly difficult to program appointments with busy

99

librarians. We all lead busy lives—“rush” and “urgent” seem to bethe norm.

Furthermore, with librarians being so overwhelmed, they arereaching out to agents and booksellers to provide more serviceslike consolidation (check-in) and shipment of print journal issuesand catalog records, as well as collection development and e-resources services. In order to keep within budgets, libraries arenot always able to pay for these additional services.

Librarians and agents have accepted the fact that the brief emailexchanges and quick phone calls are the norm in today's world. It israre that we see the extensive business letter. We, unfortunately,seem not to have as much time to educate each other and developprojects for our joint benefit.

Nowadays I look forward to conferences in order to see andmeet with people away from their offices where we can talk aboutour mutual world with minimal interferences (except getting tothe next meeting!).

MW:What are some of the challenges you experience as you workwith publishers?

TF: Publishers excel at producing “content” for books and journals.It is on the administrative end of the serials configuration that thepublishingworld has perhaps lagged behind the development of e-resources. Most circulation/distribution systems are gearedtowards the print world, making it difficult to place an order foran e-package with only selected titles. To explain, because thesystems are designed for the print world, they cannot enterelectronic package orders, so publishers must produce spread-sheets outside of their regular system for each deal or individualinstitution. For many publishers, manual intervention is requiredin order to make any kind of a change. This means that in the longrun, ensuring that orders are correctly and accurately entered in apublisher's system is neither easy nor simple for anyone. Instead ofexchanging spreadsheets, the library industry needs to beimplementing data exchange standards to guarantee that thereare no transcribing mistakes.

Further, with the advent of the e-world, some publishers havedecided to push the agent aside and require that libraries dealdirectly with them. Over the past three or four years, there hasbeen a trend of publishers allowing the agent to be involved, oftenat the insistence of libraries, now that we are beyond theexperimental stage. The challenge comes with the ongoing needto continually educate publishers that there are advantages to ourpartnerships to meet libraries' needs.

Libraries need to be willing to speak out to publishers andconsortia when they have demands for services, question pricing,or arewilling to partner to get the necessary enhancements. I thinkthat publishers sometimes forget that libraries deal with manypublishers and that the agent's role is to facilitate the libraries'communications with all their publishers.

MW: How have e-journals affected the relationships betweensubscription agencies and the publishing world?

TF: To expand onwhat I said previously, it is taking time to resolveand perfect the workflow issues. Ideally, agents would like toinstantly activate an e-resource when an order is placed, andtechnically that should be possible, but we are not there yet. Thereare now more intervening players—fulfillment centers, onlinehosts, activation staff—that require coordination.

In addition, with e-packages, publishers have created salesterritories with a single sales manager responsible for eachterritory. Instead of calling one central office and getting pricing

Williams / Serials Review 35 (2009) 98–104

for all customers, agents now must track down the sales managerfor the territory where the library is located to determine thedetails of the deal. I understand that there are valid reasons fordoing so, but with the inability to exchange data, it is challenging,needless to say, to get the information in order to make sure dealsare correctly recorded in the agent's system.

Essentially, this makes the relationship more complex as wemust contact and deal with more people for each order than weever did before. Presently, publishers and agents are starting towork together to ease the way through various partnershiparrangements.

MW: What are the most pressing issues in the serials world rightnow?

TF: Interoperability is our most pressing issue. In today's serialsworld, electronic data interchange (EDI) is crucial; in fact, I believeit is vital to the prospering of the industry. We are still sendingpaper orders or attachments to emails as the entity at the other endis unable to receive and load electronic order transmissions. Theindustry has created all of these exciting electronic publications,but for some constituents the ordering still remains back in whatfeels like the Stone Age of the print world.

To gather all of the detail with an electronic order, systemsvendors have developed electronic resource management (ERM)systems. Librarians are struggling to get the data into their ERMsystems. Initiatives such as NISO's Cost of Resource Exchange(CORE)2 will help to expedite the loading. To achieve interoper-ability, all of themajor agents are participating in thisworking group.

Participation in standards organizations is essential for us tobecome efficient and to provide a service that is deserving of thiselectronic world. With organizations such as the InternationalCommittee on EDI for Serials (ICEDIS)3 and EDItEUR4 along withNISO, agents, automation vendors, publishers, librarians, andothers are striving to make a difference with such work as ONIXfor Serials, Institutional Identifiers (I2), and ONIX for PublicationsLicenses (ONIX-PL).

MW: Have there been new developments or changes in the serialsworld that have surprised you?

TF: Given the creativity of the partners in the information world, Ihave been surprised by the slowness of innovation and imple-mentation of a structure for communication among partners.There continues to be manual re-keying of order-related data intovarious systems.

The initial EDI standards in X12 format (ordering, claiming,claim response, invoicing, etc.) were developed in the late 1980sand early 1990s. The Serials Industry Systems Advisory Committee(SISAC) was the original sponsor, and the completion, and promo-tion of the EDI standards occurred while I was chair of SISAC. Sincethen, the EDI transactions have been translated into the EDIFACT(UN) standard. The implementation guidelines are available fromthe EDItEUR Web site. ICEDIS is picking up momentum again, andwe do hope that there will be further developments that will makeit easier for everyone to transact business.

I have also been surprised by the slowness of the movement tothe electronic format. It has been a slow progression, probablyhealthier, as the new generation is far more accepting. The majorscientific, technical and medical (STM) journal publishers havenow converted and some are discussing not publishing print at all.I truly thought by now more publishers would have moved to theelectronic format. Over the past year, I must admit that there hasbeen an upswing in the number of subscriptions with an electronic

100

component and also in the number of libraries moving to packagesonly in electronic format. A primary motivator has been budgetary,as few can afford to pay for both print and electronic formats.

E-books have come full circle and are just now taking off asfar as major retrospective collections and reference/technicalmaterial. I also thought that there would be more use ofelectronic books than we have today. Every institution isgrappling with e-books, but I expect to see an upswing in thepurchase of e-books.

MW: To shift gears a little bit, let me ask you about your work withNASIG. You helped create NASIG and have been very involved withthe organization since then. How has your connection with NASIGinfluenced and affected your work as a subscription agent?

TF: NASIG continues to be a very important part of my professionalcareer. It is through NASIG that I havemetmany people; some havebecome customers who have become friends and many of thoserelationships have held true even after retirement. The essence ofNASIG continues to be to provide a space for all parties of theinformation chain to meet, talk, share thoughts and ideas, andwork together.

As I visit and talk with librarians, there is often the commonbond of NASIG which builds trust and makes the conversations somuch easier. Inherent in that bond, NASIG has taught me to reallylisten, to understand that there are many “best practices,” and thatwe need to keep brainstorming and working together to improvethe serials world.

NASIG has also challenged me to look for ways to educate theserials community, as well as my company's customer base. I haveled workshops and seminars, and been part of panels, discussiongroups and brainstorming sessions. We need to keep exchangingideas in order to move the serials world forward.

MW: You mentioned in your 2000 interview that a largemotivating factor in your initial involvement with NASIG was aneed to educate serialists and that you felt library schools weren'toffering enough in that area for students. Have you noticed a shiftat all? Do you think library schools are doing a better job preparinglibrarians for the inherent complexities in the world of serials?

TF: Yes and no. Some library schools, but not many, do offer acourse in serials acquisitions. Sometimes there's just a session in,say, a collection development class. There needs to be morecontent, especially as so much of an academic library's budget goestowards serials type material.

Overall what concerns me is that library schools do not offer abusiness course in how to work with vendors of all types. Whenmy husband teaches as an adjunct professor at the University ofArizona, I have the opportunity to talk to his class about workingwith vendors, not just subscription agents. Not surprisingly, I havefound the students have more questions than I have time toanswer. I can only think that this is an aspect of librarianship theyhad not expected nor anticipated. Right now, librarians need tounderstand the business aspects of their profession and then beable to communicate requirements, negotiate and interpretlicenses, in addition to determining value.

MW: How has NASIG changed since it was created in 1985, and inwhat ways has it stayed the same?

TF: One of the greatest changes has been the size of theorganization. At our first conference at Bryn Mawr College, beforeNASIG was a formal organization, the attendance was around 225;

Williams / Serials Review 35 (2009) 98–104

and now the NASIG Conference draws between 500 and 600registrants. Actual membership was about 300 while I was NASIGpresident (1987–1989) and had risen to about 1,000 and has nowsettled to around 800. With the attendance and membershipremaining at such high levels, NASIG is still a vital presence in theserials information world.

In the beginning of the organization, therewas support from thecommercial sector. While the commercial attendance was neververy large, there were certainly more publishers, book dealers andother vendors attending than there are today. Several publishershave commented that they do not feel as welcome as NASIG is sofocused on library concerns. As a result, recent NASIG executiveboards have been addressing this point.

Of course, conference programming also has become moresophisticated. At the initial conferences, NASIG was limited tospeakers that were local and/or would participate for free regis-tration. As money became available, NASIG expanded to includespeakers from outside the industry, for example, information“gurus.”

As the serials world has changed, so have the topics of theworkshops/tactics sessions. Managing electronic resources hasbecome the leading discussion thread. In 1985, at the first NASIGconference at Bryn Mawr, our worry was about serials check-inmodules within library automation systems and the pricing ofjournals. Yes, we still see “pricing” as the never-ending, ongoing,eternal topic.

At the first several conferences, there were more group acti-vities—all meals were on campus plus there was a major party,including dancing. Just as people's interests change and also asanother generation came along, the conference moved to offeringmore choices of activities. Being of the sixties generation, Ipersonally loved the dancing; I have fond memories of dancingthe bunny hop (am I revealing my age?) until 1:00 a.m. at thestudent center at Bryn Mawr College. From the standpoint ofcomfort, this older person is very happy that NASIG has changed tohotels instead of college dorms. I do think, however, that we missopportunities for networking.

MW: What is like for you to attend the annual conference, nearlytwenty years after you worked so hard to help get NASIG started?

TF: I have been fortunate to be able to attend every conference.Each conference is different and each one is better. NASIG is anamazing organization, and I am very proud to have been one of thefounding members. Our thanks must go to John Riddick who tookthe concept of the United Kingdom Serials Group conference andeasily convinced a study group to form a North American version.

MW: If you had the opportunity to write a to-do list for NASIGbased on current trends and future projections in the serialsindustry, what would you include on your list?

TF: The NASIG executive boards have continued to move theorganization to meet the needs of its membership. All of the pointslisted below are under consideration.

• Get more commercial members and include vendor exhibits. Inmy interview in 2000, I noted that I had always been againstexhibits. I have totally changed my mind after I talked withpublishers and other vendors. In order to justify attendance,publishers need to have a marketing opportunity. In addition,there is nothing more valuable to librarians than to ask vendorsspecific, technical and pointed questions. Needless to say, theseinteractions are extremely valuable to vendor and publisher aswell.

101

• Focus on continuing education, regional groups, Webinars andother meetings outside the NASIG conference. With travelbudgets see-sawing up and down, climbing and vanishing,NASIG must look to other venues to get its invaluable continuingeducation opportunities to the serials community. Continuing(and primary) education must remain as part of our mission.

• Become an important serials organization. Take on serials issuesand be the group that seeks solutions involving all parts of theindustry. There was a time that NASIG was considered the placefor “discussion.” I would like to see NASIG be the driving force.Working closely with NISO to implement standards is oneexample.

• Continue to look for ways to promote dialogue and discussion.We must network to determine “best practices.”

• Make sure to have fun. If not bunny hop, then hip hop!

MW: In your 2000 interview, you were asked to put on yourprognosticator hat and guess about NASIG's focus in 2005. Youlisted technology, budget and e-journals. Have there been anyother key issues you'd like to add to the list retrospectively?

TF: There is a greater need for standards. I cannot reiterate this oftenenough—not only the creation but also the implementation. I wishthere had beenmore of a focus on standards and/or “best practices.”

MW: Looking into the future another five years, what topics orissues will dominate NASIG's programs?

TF: One major area is the need to expand e-journals to e-resources.All forms of digital documents must be considered. To remain vitaland invaluable to the serials world, it must go beyond the serialformat.

Access to digital documents, especially the ease of access, is soimportant. We must seek better ways for the end user to get to thematerials that they require. Doing research in this electronic worldshould be simple, but the discovery process is not so easy.

How to pay for everything will still be ever-present in our con-sideration of what to purchase evenwhen the economic downturnreverses itself. Libraries cannot afford to pay for content in bothprint and electronic formats, and now especially, they must beeven more selective. The state of libraries' budgets will, I am sure,be at the top of the agenda.

With the emphasis on selection, there will have to be a growingneed for state-of-the-art evaluation tools to help with the decisionprocess. Perhaps NASIG, including all parties of the informationchain, can be the organization that provides brainstormingsessions to help develop these tools.

Along with budgetary constraints for materials, there will alsobe limitations on monies for personnel resources. If a librarycannot maintain an adequate serials staff, how can they affordcontinuing education activities, like NASIG, that enhance service aswell as knowledge? This is where we need discussions withvendors and other third parties to help find solutions.

Archiving will also continue to be an ongoing theme. The oldquestion of, “Who will ensure who holds the final copy?” is stillwith us.

MW: More library consortia like OhioLINK and the Orbis CascadeAlliance have created and continue to expand their electronicresource group purchasing programs. How have consortial e-resource purchases changed over the last decade?

TF: Initially, group purchasing was just for the large e-journalpackages from the major STM publishers. Purchasing has now

Williams / Serials Review 35 (2009) 98–104

expanded to second and third tier publishers, databases, and nowto e-books.

The process for purchasing e-journal packages has now settledinto an uncomfortable routine; at least, we know what to expect.Continuing to utilize spreadsheets, publishers have not yet dev-eloped distribution systems that define the e-package deals, so thetitle lists with pricing are maintained outside the print subscrip-tion systems.

MW: How much of an impact have group purchases had onsubscription agencies and journal pricing in general?

TF: Commenting on the last part of your question first, journalpricing has been dramatically affected by group purchasing. Priorto consortial buying, subscription agents received a price list fromthe publisher with one price for each title for the subscription year.That price was applied to all orders that were received. There weresome publishers that had prices for different types of libraries(academic, corporate or government) and also prices for combina-tions of titles.

Today, it is possible for each consortium to have a different dealfor an e-package; the titles to be included may vary as well as thepricing depending on the historical price used and the “cap”(maximum) percentage (3 to 7 percent) guaranteed for each year.Prices can also vary by the number of participants in the consortia.

Whereas subscription agents theoretically were tracking onlyone price per title, now they are recording unique pricing for eachconsortial deal. The potential is for hundreds of prices per title andfor a price to be unique for an institution or a consortium. In orderto handle the magnitude of pricing, agents have moved to enhancetheir subscription management systems.

Now to the first part of your question: Yes, group purchasing hashad amajor impact on subscription agents. Seeking a new businessmodel, publishers went directly to the market without goingthrough the traditional print subscription intermediary. Publishersneeded to know how to license, how to price, how to define theprocess and lastly determine if the market would buy.

Most of the e-journal package deals initially excluded the agentresulting in many cancellations as orders went directly to thepublisher. The agent was able to handle the print subscription forthese titles, but at a DDP rate (deeply discounted percentage)which tends to be 10 to 25 percent of the price of the electronicformat. All agents saw a drop in their revenue that could not becounterbalanced by new orders.

Agents have now remediated themselves back into handling theinvoicing of the package deals by turning to our area of unques-tioned expertise, subscription management. Agents are experts atEDI (electronic data interchange) invoicing as we sponsored thedevelopment of EDI standards; publishers have not moved intothis arena. Not having to manually input invoice line chargescertainly saves staff time for libraries. With EDI, libraries can havethe title by title invoicing that meets budgetary requirements.

Another administrative area where agents excel is the trackingof the titles in an e-package. Making sure that the titles charged bythe publisher match the title list in the license agreement hasbecome a major concern that agents are able to address. Librariesalso need to know when titles are removed or added to the e-package. Working with the publishers, consortia and libraries,agents can ensure that libraries pay only for what they agreed topurchase through consortia.

There are still publishers and consortia, and even libraries,which still won't permit agents to participate, so we are unable toregain totally what was lost. To be honest, agents were late inseeing our role in the buying of e-packages, as it was difficult to

102

discern at first. Whenwe came forward with our plans, the marketunderstandably also took some time to accept.

Group buying through consortia will continue to evolve, as willthe need for libraries to utilize the administrative services ofagents. The next plateau for agents, in our intermediary role, isgathering the detailed information about e-resources from pub-lishers and aggregators to electronically distribute to libraries andconsortia.

MW: How have group purchases themselves changed over theyears?

TF: In order to save money, group purchases have dramaticallyincreased throughout the world. Group deals are no longer just forlarge academic institutions; small public libraries are also nowparticipating in state and regional agreements. Canada and anumber of European countries are examples of country-widearrangements.

Deals have now moved beyond the major STM publishers tosecond- and third-tier publishers. We are also seeing packages ofmultiple publishers as well as e-book packages being offered toconsortia. Also, the consortial deals have now opened up to includesubscription agents. It seems to be a slow process that is nowgaining momentum. Defining the process with each publisher hasnot been easy as publishers are still seeking their own systems tomanage the e-deals. The deals remain complex and labor intensive.With experience, we have developed some processes, therebycreating new positions, to buy and maintain these e-packages.

MW: What are some of the benefits and drawbacks to workingwith consortia on group purchasing?

TF: Consortial deals have been a mixed blessing for subscriptionagents. Being excluded from the deals with major publishers wascertainly a drawback from being able to maintain the revenuestream. On the other hand, providing services for consortia hasbecome an additional revenue stream. These services can includenot only EDI invoicing but actual negotiating and processing of e-package deals.

To address new services, agents have implemented consortialprograms. We are out there selling to consortia. Some consortiawill permit visits and look to include agents; others have beenreluctant to do so. Many of the staff working in consortial officesare not aware of the services that agents offer to consortia memberlibraries. Championed by member libraries, agents are gainingaccess to consortia and being able to explain and offer our services.In the launching of new digital products, consortia offer an easyway to reach many potential purchasers. To do so, though, doesrequire that the price be discounted.

One of the most difficult aspects has been to define processes toget the deal from the publisher through the consortia to the libraryand finally to the end user. The consortia, though having economicadvantages, have created an additional layer of complexity.

MW: E-journals have affected title selection, acquisition methods,budget choices, technology support, access, archiving, and userexpectations. Publishers, vendors, and librarians have had to workout the details of selling and purchasing, managing, and providingaccess to these online collections. What kind of collaborationexisted between and within those groups during the early dayswhen e-journals first appeared on the scene?

TF: The cooperation that exists for the printed journal has, for themost part, carried over into the electronic world. Getting the

Williams / Serials Review 35 (2009) 98–104

logistics resolved for electronic resources has, however, takensome time and has made the transition somewhat awkward.

A few publishers have been unable to see the advantages oflibraries using subscription agents for electronic formats. It hasbeen interesting, though, to see some of these publishers comeback to agents in order to get help in obtaining sales for theirelectronic products. This illustrates a real, if belated, understandingof the benefits that agents bring to publishers as well as to libraries.

One of themajor concerns remains getting accurate informationfrom publishers to relay to our library customers. I seem to bebeating the same old drum, but the fact remains that being unableto easily exchange information electronically has resulted inlengthy delays in ordering and setting up electronic resources. Itshould be a snap!

MW: How has that collaboration changed or evolved?

TF: With the movement to electronic formats, some publishersbelieved that agents/vendors would not be needed. As a result,agents were excluded from the initial deals. So for some deals,there was no collaboration. Fortunately, other publishers did notfeel that way.

Some publishers today are still unwilling to permit agents to bethe intermediary in the e-journal deal, and that is too bad. In manyways, it is as if we have come full circle and are starting over againto define ourselves to the industry.

Nowadays, as libraries buy more and more electronic resources,they are finding that they are unable to cope with all of thearrangements involved, and so we are seeing libraries turn toagents again for what agents are able to do so well. We are seeingalso that libraries are pressuring consortia to permit agents tohandle the tracking of titles in packages and the invoicing on a lineby line basis via EDI.

Further, in order to handle the licensing of the “big deals,”publishers have added sales/licensing teams which did notpreviously exist. At times, there has been a bit of friction betweenthese sales teams and the sales staff of the agents as it hassometimes been difficult to determine who gets credit for a sale.Over time, much of the friction has diminished.

Agents have also added staff in publisher relations in order toimprove the partnership between agents and publishers/produ-cers. The publisher relations staff is needed in order to educatepublishers on agent services, explore options for interoperability,determine workflow processes, and ensure that our mutualcustomers are well served.

MW: What part does NASIG play in that collaboration effort?

TF: NASIG was founded with the intention of creating a placewhere all parties of the information chain would meet and discuss(and hopefully resolve) the issues of the day. Unfortunately, NASIGhas not yet convinced a significant number of publishers and othercommercial representatives to participate in the discussion.

This is an area where NASIG needs to focus: bringing in thecommercial sector so all parties are represented. The NASIG Exe-cutive Board has been focused on this concern and is seeking waysto improve the situation. For example, NASIG and the Society forScholarly Publishers are in discussions to explore options for jointprogramming. As a result, there is a plan for a publishers' forumwhere publishers will be asking for feedback on their projects fromNASIG conference attendees.

From the beginning I have believed that NASIG has a role to playin promoting the collaboration of all the partners in the serialschain by providing the forum for discussion. In short and most

103

important, I would like to see NASIG truly be themediating force infinding ways to streamline the process from order to activation,including supporting the creation, promotion and implementationof standards.

MW: You've mentioned the importance of standards several times.What progress has been made to apply standards to e-journals?

TF: With the rejuvenation of NISO, there has been a resurgence instandards of work relating to e-journals. In 2007, after only aboutfourteen months, a record for a NISO standard, the Standard UsageStatistical Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) became the NISO Z39.93standard. SUSHI is essentially a protocol for requesting and receivingusage statistics to load into a library's ERM system. Now, in order tobe Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources(COUNTER) compliant with “Release 3 for Journals and Databases,”5

publishers must implement SUSHI by September 2009.Other initiatives such as the Recommended Practice (NISO RP-

7-2008) Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) came out of thedesire to find an alternative to the license for an e-resource. Thegrassroots promotion of SERU by Judy Luther (Informed Strategies)on behalf of publishers, and Selden Lamoureux (now at NorthCarolina State University) on behalf of libraries, was truly amazingand resulted in a creative solution: the SERU Registry.6

Knowledge Base and Related Tools (KBART), CORE, and I2 aresome of the current NISO working groups now addressing issueswithin the e-resource arena. Currently, I am the co-chair of the I2

working group that focuses on the need for an institutionalidentifier that is unique to the institution and the same for alltransactions used to send information about electronic resources, e-learning, institutional repositories, and other library management.

As I noted before in responding to an earlier question, otherorganizations such as EDItEUR and ICEDIS have done extensivework to enhance the e-resource workflow. EDItEUR's ONIX worksets the stage for extensive interoperability.

MW:Where is there room for improvement in their standardization?

TF: Now what is needed is to organize all of these standards, re-commended practices, and common understandings into an ope-rational workflow for the various parts of the information chain.We need to look for what is missing and still needed and fill in thegaps. Let's be honest, the expectation with electronic resources isthat the user should be able to request and access an electronicitem within seconds! We need to make that expectation a reality.

Perhaps the Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI)will accept the challenge to develop an e-resource workflow? Thiswas suggested for ERMI in a NISO discussion group at the 2009 ALAMidwinter conference. I believe that other groups also need to beinvolved in designing an e-resource operational workflow. This iswhere I think NASIG could be a major player, taking the lead ontesting the concepts.

Another major concern is the slow implementation of some ofthese standards. Additionally, if a standard is rejected, it is im-portant to find out why and to revisit and revise the standard asnecessary. NISO alongwith other organizationsmust develop waysto get the “buy in” so these standards are implemented andutilized.

MW: How has discussion about e-journal issues shifted over theyears?

TF: The discussion has shifted primarily because the electronicjournal has become the dominant format. Most research institu-

Williams / Serials Review 35 (2009) 98–104

tions now have more electronic journals than print. The serialsworld revolves around the electronic format with agents alsohandling far more electronic subscriptions.

This means changing the workflow to address e-journal issues(licensing and access, for example). Following on the workflow isthe issue of restructuring of technical services areas in libraries(and agents)—going from one person handling electronic toincorporating the electronic format (no matter whether a serialor a monograph) into an electronic resource department.

We all struggled through licensing and, over time, it has becomeroutine but no less time consuming. Through licensing, librarieshave learned to define and articulate their needs in the areas ofarchiving, interlibrary loan, course packs, etc., making it easier forthem to respond to publishers.

Basically, gaining experience with the medium enabled allparties to be able to determine what was needed to improve theprocess. The next phase was to develop standards to address theproblems that had been encountered. Today, slowly, we are seeingan element of practicality. SERU, as described above, is an example.

Issues still persist around getting quick order placement andaccess to e-journals. There have been improvements especiallybetween agents and some publishers. It is amazing to me that wecontinue ordering e-journals in almost the same way we orderedprint. To improve the situation, we will all need, despite thedifficulties and occasional discouragement, to keep on working atit.

MW: Within the subset of serials librarianship, what technologychanges have most altered the way we all do business?

TF: When I became the serials librarian at the Free Library ofPhiladelphia in 1976, there were no computers in the serialssection. We checked in journal issues on 3×5 cards; we recordedinvoice line charges on the back of those check-in cards. It was averymanual process. Even the Free Library's periodicals listing wastyped on stencils and printed locally. By 1978, we had aWangwordprocessor where the listing was maintained on a daisy wheel. Thiscertainly was a major improvement and made it easy to update infuture years. (This really dates me!)

So, in my professional career, I clearly have to say that theautomation of serials operations in libraries has certainly alteredthe way we do business. The other technology change is theinteroperability between agents and libraries: EDI.

Lastly, the transition from print to electronic format for journalshas had a dramatic impact on the way we do business. The serialsworld has, during my professional career, been turned upside down.

MW: How closely have you worked with ILS (integrated librarysystem) vendors and on what type of projects?

TF: From 1990 through 1992, I was chair of the SISAC. SISAC, whichsince its inception in 1982, set as its mission to develop EDIstandards for the serials industry. Utilizing the ANSI (AmericanNational Standards Institute) X12 standard, SISAC created mappings

104

for every serials business transaction: orders, renewals, claims,invoices, etc.

ILS vendors were members of SISAC (now merged into NISO)and these vendors helped create and test the X12 implementa-tions. We worked together, and as a result, invoicing and claimingthrough ILS systems became a reality. Later SISAC's X12 mappingswere transferred into the EDIFACT standard which is utilized today.

Subscription agents, librarians, publishers, and ILS vendors allparticipated in SISAC. It was an exhilarating time for all of us and itwas an honor to be a part of this group. We actually spent sevenyears working on the X12 mapping.

Keeping up with EDI standards has continued to be a pro-fessional interest of mine. On a regular basis, a customer inquiresabout EDI and how HARRASSOWITZ can help in sending invoicesand in receiving claims for serials and for invoicing and orders formonographs. This all involves working with ILS vendors.

As we continue to work on other interoperability projects,agents still maintain close working relationships with ILS vendors.For example, helping libraries to populate ERMs is now a projectfor subscription agents through our participation in CORE.

MW: So, one final question, I promise. You only had a few monthsoff before you accepted your new job at HARRASSOWITZ. In thattime were you able to do any traveling or anything else you alwayswanted to when you had the time and opportunity?

TF: During our threemonths' interim, we traveled to the Yucatan inMexico and visited Mayan archaeological sites like Tulum, ChichenItza, and Coba. I majored in anthropology in college and did threeindependent studies on the Mayan culture and was anxious toshow my husband some of my favorite places on earth. We alsowent to England and spent time at the British Museum and visitingbookstores. The best part was spending time with our family; weattended our great-nephew's fifth birthday party.

The time off made us resolve to invest more time in friends andfamily and in spending time together, and also for both of us tocontinue our interests in poetry, collecting books, attending thetheater, and, yes, just reading. Yes, there's life away from work—orthere should be!

Notes

1. Roger L. Presley, “An Interview with Tina Feick,” Serials Review 26, no. 2 (2000):55–63.

2. National Information Standards Organization, “CORE,” http://www.niso.org/workrooms/core/ (accessed February 8, 2009).

3. International Committee on EDI for Serials, http://www.icedis.org/ (accessedFebruary 8, 2009).

4. EDItEUR, http://www.editeur.org/ (accessed February 8, 2009).

5. Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources, “COUNTER Codesof Practice,” http://www.projectcounter.org/code_practice.html (accessedFebruary 8, 2009).

6. National Information Standards Organization, “SERU Registry,” http://www.niso.org/workrooms/seru/registry/ (accessed February 8, 2009).