Demand-Driven Acquisition in the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries

download Demand-Driven Acquisition  in the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries

of 28

  • date post

    22-Feb-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    52
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Demand-Driven Acquisition in the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries. Michael Levine-Clark University of Denver Libraries Perspectives on DDA in a Consortial Environment Chicago June 30, 2013. The Goals. Demand-driven acquisition at the consortial level Shared access - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Demand-Driven Acquisition in the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries

PowerPoint Presentation

Demand-Driven Acquisition in the Colorado Alliance of Research LibrariesMichael Levine-ClarkUniversity of Denver LibrariesPerspectives on DDA in a Consortial EnvironmentChicagoJune 30, 2013

The GoalsDemand-driven acquisition at the consortial levelShared accessShared triggersShared ownershipLearn about cross-institutional demandFor some institutionsLearn about DDALearn about e-booksDoes DDA Make Sense in a Consortial Environment?In the local environment, most titlesUsed once or twiceDoes it make sense to aggregate low usage across multiple institutions and then pay for ownership?Used by one person, one class = one institutionDoes it make sense to share ownership for titles used at one institution?

PlanningSummer 2011 Alliance meeting with YBPFall 2011 - Data gathering, preliminary identification of publishers Midwinter 2012 Alliance meetings

ParticipantsAuraria LibraryColorado CollegeColorado Mesa UniversityColorado State UniversityRegis UniversityUniversity of Colorado Colorado SpringsUniversity of DenverUniversity of Northern ColoradoUniversity of WyomingNon-ParticipantsUniversity of Colorado Health SciencesColorado School of MinesDenver Public LibraryUniversity of Colorado - Boulder

The Pilot . . . As ConceivedManaged by YBPControl overlap with local plans (p/e)Single source for invoicing, record loadsTwo aggregatorsEBLEbraryDivide publishers evenly between the aggregatorsProfiling based on publisher rather than subject2012 imprints forwardThe Pilot . . . As ExecutedManaged by YBPControl overlap with local plans (p/e)Single source for invoicing, record loadsTwo aggregatorsEBLEbraryImperfect mix of publishers between aggregators

PublishersEBLContinuumDeGruyterEdinburgh UPFacts on File/InfobaseOxford UPPrinceton UPRodopiSage, CQ PressUniv of California PressWiley, multiple imprintsebraryABC-CLIOAshgate & GowerHarvard UPJessica KingsleyJohn BenjaminsMcFarlandStanford UPThe multiplierWith YBP, looked at acquisition patterns across the AllianceTypically bought fewer than 2 copies/titleDecided to negotiate for 2.5Applied to purchase priceAlliance pays 2.5 x list priceOwnership shared across all 9 librariesNot applied to STL costComponents of DDAFree discovery BrowseEBL: 5 minutesEbrary: 10 minutesShort-Term Loan (STL)6 for each aggregatorPurchase after 6th STL

BudgetingPlatform fees for aggregators waivedEach library contributed $12,500 = $112,500Enough for at least one yearThe Pilot So FarMay 2012

Sept/Nov 2012

May 2013First books available/records loaded (EBL)First ebrary books/records availableEbrary started at a disadvantageFar fewer titlesSome internal issues led to delays

1,720 titles available (ebrary)3,644 titles available (EBL)

UsageUsage DefinitionsUnowned BrowseFree period in the book before an autopurchase occurs. Doesnt count as an STLShort Term Loan (STL)A brief (1 or 7-day) loan for 10-20% of list priceAutoPurchasePurchase of the book for list price, with the multiplier (2.5) applied. After 6 STLsOwned Browse, Owned Loan Uses after the autopurchase occurs

Spending Through April 2013AggregatorPurchase TypeAmount SpentEBLSTL$24,248.82Purchase$9,186.31EBL Total$33,435.13EbrarySTL$741.21Purchase$840.32Ebrary Total$1,581,53Cataloging$310.00Pilot Total$35,326.66EBL Usage Data (May 2012-April 2013)Number of TitlesNumber of transactionsTitles purchased5050Tiles with at least one STL1,0462,103Titles with at least one unowned browse1,6774,774EBL Usage Data (May 2012-April 2013)PAID USEANY USETitles Used1,0461,677Titles with one STL580Titles with multiple STLs466Titles with multiple STLs used at one institution218Titles used at one institution79876.3%1,05162.7%Titles used at two institutions18217.4%38222.8%Titles used at three institutions555.3%1488.8%Titles used at four institutions70.7%603.6%Titles used at five institutions40.4%211.3%Titles used at six institutions00.0%110.7%Titles used at seven institutions00.0%10.1%Titles used at eight institutions--10.1%Titles used at nine institutions--10.1%EBL AutoPurchase Use (May 2012-April 2013)Titles with an AutoPurchase (n=50)PAID USEANY USETitles used at one institution1428.0%24.0%Titles used at two institutions1632.0%48.0%Titles used at three institutions1632.0%1224.0%Titles used at four institutions36.0%1326.0%Titles used at five institutions12.0%816.0%Titles used at six institutions00.0%714.0%Titles used at seven institutions00.0%24.0%Titles used at eight institutions--12.0%Titles used at nine institutions--12.0%Average number of institutions2.24.2Paid Use by Institution (ebrary & EBL)InstitutionUses/FTERank actual useCSU0.03431CC0.03188 (tie)DU0.02394Regis0.02293UW0.01525Mesa0.01307UNC0.01176UCCS0.00858 (tie)Aur0.00642Usage ObservationsA big disparity in usageThree schools with tiny usage (and low FTE)One school with 40% of usageLarge usage of e-books in generalHigh FTEShibbolethNo secondary EBL loginRethinking FundingShould need about $40,000 more to get through year twoThree low-use schools wont be asked to contributeCSU will contribute 50%Remaining 50% distributed across other four libraries

What if?Each school went alone with EBLSame titlesSame number of STLsNo multiplier for autopurchaseSame usageSTLsAutopurchases (counted as a use)Owned loans

What if? Calculations# of STLs by one library+# of autopurchases by that library +# of owned loans by that library

If the total is 6 or less then multiply X avg STL cost for that titleIf the total is 7 or more then multiply 6 X avg STL + 1 x autopurchase

What ifLibraryPaid TransactionsTitlesTotal CostTitles that would have had an AutopurchaseAuraria292193$3,601.232Colorado College7050$807.771Colorado Mesa10769$1,363.921Colorado State University904484$12,544.6915Regis University223164$2,254.680University of CO, CO Springs7460$796.460University of Denver240159$3,218,712University of Northern CO13897$1,273.800University of Wyoming205134$2,455.170Totals$28,316.4321What ifConsortiumOwn 50 titles shared perpetual accessSpent $33,435.13AloneWould own 21 titles, with access limited to a single institutionWould have spent $28,316.43

A Basic QuestionDoes DDA make sense for consortia?Most titles used by just 1-2 institutionsPaid use76.3% by one institution17.4% by two institutionsAverage number of institutions with paid usage of an autopurchased title is 2.2 less than the multiplierAny use62.7% by one institution22.8% by two institutionsAverage number of institutions with any usage of an autopurchased title is 4.2 more than the multiplierCheaper to go it aloneWill these patterns improve over time?

The FutureAssess overall value of the pilot after two full yearsValue of consortial vs. local programLong-term vs short-termExpand or contract?PublishersYearsInstitutionsAggregatorsRedistribute funding

Questions?Michael Levine-Clarkmichael.levine-clark@du.edu