sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion lluís m. anglada consorci de biblioteques...

Sharing benefits,sharing costs:a discussion

Lluís M. AngladaConsorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya

e-ICOLCThessaloniki, 5th October 2002

L. Anglada, e-ICOLC 2002B1/eICOLC/0209eICOLC.ppt

Plan Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations


Important issues in “cooperative games” Focusing on benefits Always remember that you’ll win

more that in an “individual game”


Sharing benefits,sharing costs Background

Budget allocation formulae Shared maintenance of computers and

union catalogues Now, licensing

Databases E-journals E-books


Present situation Pricing models

Are they stable? Benefits

Are they stable?


Stable pricing models (?) Web databases

Consortium size e-Journals

Expenditures in print + ‘premium’ + minimum

e-Books Simultaneous users


Stable benefits (?) Economic benefits (short term)

Savings (sometimes) and costs contention More information (medium term)

Cross access and bundled e-journals Intangibles (long term)

New money and lobbying


Some (general) observations Pricing model matters Big/medium/small Collections and size Net or relative benefits “Failure games”


Pricing model matters A global price for a new product

Allows ‘ex-novo’ allocation formulae A global price determined by historical

expenditure Suggests formulae based on historical

spending


Libraries in a consortium Few are big Some are medium A lot are small


Collections and sizep- expenditure Students+budget

A 49.98% > 32.42%B 26.60% > 20.46%C 7.70% < 18.26%D 4.08% < 5.61%E 2.98% < 6.21%F 4.20% < 5.42%G 3.96% < 6.56%H 0.00% < 5.07%I 0.50% > 0.00%


Net or relative benefitsnon prev. Subs. Tit npst x students

A 993 27.31%B 1112 18.66%C 1343 19.52%D 1334 4.94%E 1366 7.27%F 1376 6.36%G 1370 8.00%H 1407 7.92%I 1402 0.00%


Why is size important? Because it has an effect on price

Important in the short term Because it has an effect on usage

Important in the long term


Failure games There are a lot of allocation costs

systems that are unacceptable by some of the “playing parts”


Sharing costs: 3 situations

Central funding (p+e or e+p) p+e (no central funding) e+p (with or without central funding)


A (general?) principle to share costs Two parameters to build the formula:

Parameter A: equal shares Parameter B: based on size

And a dynamic readjustment system if size changes


Central funding (p+e or e+p) Total or majority central funding means

that almost any allocation formula will be accepted

However We cannot rely on this kind of central

funding for a long time


p+e (no central funding) The relatively low amount (compared to

the print amount) of the premium-e allows agreements

But, p+e Doesn’t allow cancellations Doesn’t make evolution to e-only easy Is surely transitory


e+p (with or without central funding)

A: The immediate solution B: A future model


A: The immediate solution Cost based on former print expenditure,

for instance: Print expenditure + 5%, or Fixed cost, if print expenditure is lower

than the minimum required Immediate allocation model

Print expenditure + 5%, or Fixed cost


But... Historical print expenditure belongs to

the past, cooperative subscriptions set up a new framework

Will it make any sense to talk about “print expenditure” in 5-10 years time?

This model allows a “sub-consortium” of big and medium libraries


B: A future model (?) One part in equal shares

20% ?, 30% ?, 40%?, 50% ? ... One part based on size

What does “size” mean? Dynamic readjustment system if size

changes


What does “size” mean? Potential users? Budget? Collections? Print expenditure? Research activity? Benefits as non previus subscribed titles? Benefits as (Npst x potential users)? Usage?


CBUC formula for e-journals 50% based on historical print

expenditure 20% equal shares 30% based on size (students + budget)


CBUC: comparisonsp- expen CBUC sizeditures distribution students+butget

A 49.98% 36.94% 32.42%B 26.60% 21.66% 20.46%C 7.70% 11.55% 18.26%D 4.08% 5.94% 5.61%E 2.98% 5.57% 6.21%F 4.20% 5.95% 5.42%G 3.96% 6.17% 6.56%H 0.00% 3.74% 5.07%I 0.50% 2.47% 0.00%


Final considerations

“Big Deal” is a good deal if we can work at a medium-long term

A good agreement means to get all members reasonably dissatisfied

Central funding always helps

sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion lluís m. anglada consorci de biblioteques...

Documents