National Licensing Forum

Comments on 2005 issues paper

Many of the comments below have been amended slightly to protect privacy.

ALIA comments
Government library sector comments
Public library sector comments
School library sector comments
State/national library sector comments
TAFE library sector comments
University library sector comments

ALIA response

(Endorsed by the ALIA Board of Directors, 19 September 2005)

The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposal for a national cross-sectoral libraries consortium for the purchase of national licences for selected online resources.

1. Whether the majority of Australian libraries are interested in and would support a national licence

ALIA supports the concept of national licences for selected online resources and the objectives for a national licensing initiative as set out in the issues paper (Section 1, p.3).

The Association believes that co-ordinated and cost-effective purchasing of online resources at a national level has the potential to assist libraries from all sectors to provide quality online information for their users.

As stated in ALIA’s comments on the issues paper for the December 2004 roundtable on national site licensing, the Association believes that the Senate Libraries in the online environment report and recommendations have provided an opportunity to lobby for improved access to digital information and the development of national information networks. ALIA has welcomed the Senate report’s findings, its endorsement of the fundamental role of libraries in the Australian community and its recognition of the need for greater support for connectivity, access to online content and for national leadership in information provision.

In ALIA’s response to the Senate report the Association supported Recommendation 9, that the National Library of Australia identify a number of key databases for which national site licensing might be desirable; and that additional Australian government funding be extended to the National Library for this purpose. ALIA suggested that this should be done in collaboration with the sector and we encouraged the Government to provide funding as determined and specified by the NLA. The Association suggested that consideration of national site licences should include the generation of and access to Australian online content.

ALIA therefore welcomes the development of this proposal by the National Licensing Reference Group (NLRG) and has been pleased to contribute through its representation on the reference group and through assisting to publicise the issues paper in the sector.

2. Views on the proposed model, including governance and funding

Objectives

In addition to cost-effective purchasing as outlined in the fourth dot point under Objectives, the project should aim to maximise the return on investment by participating libraries and/or government. For example, minimum levels of post-sales support services such as marketing and training should be specified.

Benefits 

The issues paper raises as a benefit the potential of the project to overcome the isolation experienced by those living in rural and remote regions of Australia, by facilitating their access to information resources. However, other factors outside the scope of the project, such as ICT infrastructure and bandwidth capacity, will have an impact on the accessibility of resources.

Economies of scale are raised as a vendor benefit. The extent of economies of scale will depend on the levels of customisation and personalisation available to consortium members.

The issues paper suggests the service would promote a ‘greater consistency in the development and application of technical and contractual criteria, and hence improved access and authentication to electronic information’ (p.4).  This would require clearly defined requirements with which suppliers can reasonably comply.

Structure

ALIA would welcome representation on the Steering Committee or other governing body. It is also suggested that the governing body include at least one member with business/commercial expertise and background, but who is independent of vendor interests.

It is suggested that the Steering Committee’s terms of reference should include vendor/ community liaison to ensure that the business requirements of vendors are considered in designing purchase requirements, and that these requirements feed into the buying process guidelines. This liaison should occur prior to documentation being released to vendors to ensure necessary questions are asked and that appropriate information is solicited for the decision process.

The formation of a consortium Standing Advisory Committee with representatives from all major library sectors, vendors and funding authorities is also supported to improve mutual understanding of each group’s needs and concerns. Because of ALIA’s position as a representative of individual and institutional members across all sectors and its experience in this area through the work of the ALIA Purchasing and Consortia Reference Group, the Association would wish to be represented on this Committee.

Charging/funding models

To ensure sustainable self-funding of services in the longer term membership fees should build in costs of marketing the selected services to the potential user community as well as administrative costs. Vendors must price content in a fair and sustainable way to ensure long-term success. Any opt-in model needs to include the ability for late entry participation through the subscription period.

Content/product range

ALIA’s supports the intention of the service to focus in the first instance on Australian content and on a small number of full-text resources for which there is expected to be broad national demand.

Some concerns have been expressed about the inclusion of APAFT as a named product, rather than an Australian content product created for the national cross-sectoral consortium. Naming a particular product may preclude the evaluation and/or development of other services that would serve the identified need.

The assumption is that the consortium is to licence web-based services, but this is not specified.

Ability to cross-search between products selected, multiple access points (eg Marc records, direct linking) and simplicity of use are key benefits. Consideration should be given to implementation and access tools to support this and to aid the roll out and training of products from multiple vendors.

Administration, communication and marketing

ALIA has been pleased to support the development of the proposal through its representation on the NLRG by Richard Sayers, convenor of the ALIA Purchasing and Consortia Reference Group and through assisting with communication to the sector about the site license proposal. We would wish to continue with a similar level of support.

3. Issues relating either to the proposed model or to alternative approaches

Further development of the proposal

The issues paper puts forward the objectives and benefits of a national cross-sectoral consortium and a content, governance and funding model to gauge the level of support for such a consortium among Australian libraries. Assuming that the concept is well-supported, the proposal will require further development to include success criteria and evaluation.

Administrative support should include product and service evaluation (post and pre-sale) and development of marketing strategies. Responsibilities for assisting libraries to integrate the chosen services, vendor liaison and product support would need to be specified.

Training and skills development

Training and skills development relating to licensing of and access to online resources has been highlighted as a need across library sectors in the Forums on purchasing agreements and licensing organised by ALIA in 2004. Training needs include understanding and analysing licences; skills in negotiation both with suppliers and with consortium partners; and user education and support. Through its continuing professional development program ALIA may be able to develop and provide some training in these areas.

Comments from the government library sector

Sounds a very good proposition provided the costs are within small library budgets.

I give my full support to the establishment of a National Site License for online content.  I wrote a submission to the Govt enquiry & made comments in support of this idea at that time.  I was pleased that most of my comments to the original enquiry were aligned with the response from the NLA.

The objectives for a national license are reasonable & should be able to be realised.  The benefits stand on their own &, in my opinion cannot be disputed. The Governance model proposed seems reasonable.  The structure proposed would seem to cover all Library sectors with ample opportunity for interested staff to be involved - I would encourage you however to cast the net a little wider - I note that State based Govt Libraries are not represented very well at the Govt Committee level, I also urge the committee to encourage & support involvement from up & coming leaders within the Library community - not leave it to the same "old" players - limiting to 10 may be too limiting - there needs to be a MOU that all players adhere to when joining the committee, that is to pursue the Nat Site License through all adversity - keep focused.  Communication via electronic means is to be encouraged for those far flung from Capital cities etc..

I question the point in section 4 re: organisations already involved with existing consortia...etc.  It may be the case that in order to get such a model off the ground, some who currently benefit from consortia models may have to pay more - certainly the reverse is true now for many Libraries who do not or cannot belong to consortia - we pay more whilst others benefit.  Tying this in now is too restrictive & could unintentionally be a show stopper - altruistic notions & ethics needs to be embraced.

I applaud the early attention to Copyright & Privacy.  If we want funding (& we do!) from a National Level, the Aust Coat of Arms would be appropriate branding - boundaryless in some respects, inclusive of all in others.

It is too early to say what would not work for the sector I am in, only to repeat my earlier comment, I support this move whole heartedly & will do what I can to see it succeed.

The 3 core products mentioned to date are fair & reasonable.

Fully support the idea of national licensing arrangements.

Agree that databases must be full text.

Thought that the products suggested for the establishment phase provided good coverage.

In regard to cost savings, is the aim to achieve these also based on the cost of any current licences held or on "additional costs" only? If it is the latter, where is the advantage in participation?

Is the intention for access to be made available across organisations or in information centres only?

If you are in the very small category of a special library, is it the intention for the same funding level to apply to a "small" library in the university sector?  If so, the fairness and equity of such a model is not clear to me as a librarian of a library with <$49,999 annual operating budget.

A wonderful and badly needed initiative... IF it can be funded!

The big picture ideas of a National Licensing proposal is a great idea. Starting with a few items, the  big picture is great. You can always add to the items licensed. Country and particularly remote communities are very resource poor. Should the items chosen to license be bias be in their favour ?

I believe the National Licensing Proposal is critical to ensuring access to information for all Australian citizens.

This approach would help ensure availability of full-text information, and provide access regardless of status and affiliation (employment, educational or otherwise).

I think that most libraries would support a national licensing approach, as it would help secure an ongoing role within the community, bring people into the library.  The role as information provider would also demonstrate to Governments and members of the public that libraries have a continuing role to  play in an information society (i.e. that not everything is available through searching Google).

The EPIC model of New Zealand is good to  look at as an example.  In addition to the widely known benefits of EPIC, libraries such as the Auckland University of Technology also use a common ILMS through a consortium arrangement - the needs of government libraries in Australia are fairly similar, so there are evident potential economies of scale to be gained here (additional benefits could include increased vendor technical and in-person support).

The proposed funding model does well to cater for libraries of different nature - while potential client numbers are apt for educational and public libraries, acquisitions budgets are more suitable for special libraries.

It should be hoped that the Government will see the inherent benefits and provide long-term support for the initiative; however participating libraries will also need to contribute to ongoing administration costs (such as the staffing which will be required to do the job properly). 

In addition to the basic products, further databases should be available on an `opt-in' basis; there will be commonalities (i.e. social science databases being attractive to both academic and special libraries).  Costs of these should be spread over the participants.

This Library presently subscribes to ANZ Newsstand (via an AGLIN consortium) and would be interested in Australian news databases etc that could be in a national licensing agreement.
Staff have access to MacquarieNet.
We don't subscribe presently to anything else.

Thank you for the issues paper.  This Library has considered and discussed it at length.

In response to your specific questions:

1. This Library is interested and would support a national licence.
2. This Library is in agreement with the proposed model, including governance and funding.
3. We are concerned that the product range outlined for the establishment phase is minimal and limited.  We would want a bigger and more suitable list to meet our needs, even at the establishment phase.

Agree that APAFT would be a good resource to start with as most libraries would be interested in obtaining access to it.

Agree with a fee structure for Special Libraries based on budget.

Let's do it!

I like the idea in theory, and the initiative is something that our library would be keen to support. However, I have serious reservations about your proposed funding model. For all other institutions, you have based your funding model on FTE/population or similar, but for special libraries your model is based on acquisition budget.

This is fine as far as it goes, but we have a large acquisitions budget, which would put us into the large special library category. However, we have an organisational staff of around 750 FTE, and I can tell you for a fact that there is unlikely to be much (if any) additional money for us to subscribe. Putting this library into the second-top cost bandwidth will in all likelihood price us out of the market.

We are not a law firm or a BHP, so you need to either separate the special libraries into profit and non-profit, or set up a separate government category. Otherwise, I have considerable reservations about take-up in the government sector, especially in small organisations with limited budgets.

Re the Steering Committee, you have representatives from the Health Libraries Association, and all of the other library associations, you also need to include a representative from the Australian Law Librarians' Group (ALLG), rather than lumping this library association in with the "Other" category.

I think this system would be a great advantage to small generalist libraries which have limited funding.  I support the proposal.

I also think fees based on usage is a good idea.  In Local Government about half the workforce are outdoor and do not regularly use information - which becomes a problem with many forms of licensing based on simple FTE staffing figures.

We are a Commonwealth Research organisation, the content/product range will have some benefit to us but not a great deal, perhaps a license for some scientific data would benefit schools, universities, health and special libraries.  Could I suggest that Web of Science which is way out of our reach (price wise)and probably most special/health and school libraries should be considered.  Granted it is not exclusive to Australian material but Aust content is there.

I do have a concern regarding the diversity of sectors that are proposed for aggregation. The models for service provision as well as the models for costing are fairly diverse and I am not sure that opportunities to expand the project beyond the most basic of commonly required resources are available or likely.

I recognise that the model proposes that there will be no adverse impact on existing consortia but I wonder what would happen if the national consortia undersold the state or sector-based arrangements.

I am all in favour of aggregation and collaboration but I'm not certain such a broad approach, whilst wonderful in theory, is achievable in practice.

Charging/funding model

The financial model proposed includes population size for all except state/national libraries and special libraries. Size of population should be used for special libraries, rather than non-salary budget. Non-salary budget is not used for any other sector and it is inconsistent to use it for special libraries.

1. Great idea!!!!
2. Please identify criteria for resource selection.
3. Please include extra bands for fees for schools ie. <25 FTE and <150 FTE.

This Library is very supportive of this initiative. It is timely and exhibits laudable objectives from both a social and economic point of view. 

It is our view that libraries will sign on to national site licences if there is something in it for them.  The two key issues that will determine their buy-in will be cost and content.  We therefore make the following comments:

1.  Economies of scale indicate that the cost per service via a national site licence should be cheaper than libraries buying services individually and also cheaper than purchases via smaller consortia.  This will be immediately appealing to libraries.  But libraries with existing subscription contracts to the proposed 'starter' services have less of an incentive to sign on in the short term. The lack of additional content is a more serious disincentive for these libraries.  In a nutshell, APAFT and Australian press services may not be enough of an inducement in the short term unless there is a significant  price advantage.   Having said that, all new initiatives must start somewhere and it is worthwhile to start with broad interest Australian services.  Therefore it would be good to have some idea about other additional services that the Group is considering for national site licences. 

2. A focus on Australian content is an obvious first choice and clearly full text services are highly desirable.  But beyond APAFT there is not a lot of Australian full text content currently available.  Publishers may consider that developing more full text Australian services to be economically viable if national site licensing means a new source of revenue, but developing these services would take years. We assume that material other than full text articles would also be considered.  Quite a lot of Australian business information is available electronically, as well as reference providers such as Crown Content, and of course newspapers.

3. Given the widely differing range of needs in a diverse library sector, there are only a few services that will meet the needs of the majority of libraries.  There is a risk that, by seeking broad or generalist services, there may be few services that can be viably offered.  Or, is there an intention to look at national licensing in the broadest sense and have the price of some minority interest services subsidised via the price of the most popular services? 

4. APAFT is currently available via a range of other consortia. Publishers and the other consortia may not be keen on this competition - though for publishers there is the advantage of less administration on their part and the potential for opening up their services to a larger customer group.  Clearly, given the membership of the Reference Group, these issues will have been explored.  It would be good to have the Group's thoughts on this. 

5. Would this initiative extend to negotiating national licences with providers of web-based services such as E-books (e.g. Safari, 24/7, etc.)?  Would the Group be looking beyond databases generally to other resources that would be more affordable under a national site licence?

6. The classification of libraries by sector and acquisitions budget is a good approach. Information about how many libraries fall into each category is required, as this will have a direct effect on the economic viability of the scheme.  We know that the reference group is working on this. 

7. Governance arrangements look appropriate. Administration via the NLA is appropriate and will appeal to libraries.  Some idea of the projected cost per annum of this admin would be useful.  If this included an idea of admin cost per library, it would make it very clear to libraries what savings they can make on their current arrangements.  I would expect admin savings to be considerable.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond and we look forward to future developments.

  • Would a national licence be value for money? Who gains from the new arrangement, eg is this mainly an issue for public and school libraries?
  • Benefits for CAUL members may be marginal.
  • Demonstrate how this offers anything different from what existing consortia already provide. Need to demonstrate where the added value will be found for concept to work. 
  • A national consortium should consider lobbying for free access to some products.
  • Rational for the financial models are not clear. When using FTE for universities, smaller but wealthier institutions may benefit more from the proposal.
  • The governance model and administration may result in slow decision-making. Can we afford to delay through long consultative process?
  • Support for Australian full-text publishing is good but must also allow/encourage growth.
  • Other alternatives should be considered as more benefit may be achieved by focusing efforts on encouraging full-text for CSIRO publications and other digitisation projects.

Comments from the public library sector

This group of libraries voted to support the document and the concept. We look forward to further work being carried out especially in relation to the pricing.

Great concept!

Definitely worth pursuing even though it will cost large proportions of time, effort and money to establish. 

I am very excited about the benefits to rural and remote Australia and about the raised profile for Libraries by all levels of government. 

The proposal models the Australian way of life - Working together to achieve big things!  Thanks team!!

Can I suggest a general reference tool be included in the establishment phase?  Perhaps an encyclopaedia or something at that level of general knowledge?

Looking forward to hearing about the progress.  I’ll certainly be involved where I can from my library!

I am broadly supportive of the National Licensing Proposal as outlined in the issues paper. National Licensing for a range of key online services will assist in closing the gaps between the information haves and have nots particularly for smaller communities. It will assist in trying to provide equity of access to information which is becoming difficult as more information shifts to the online domain. National Licensing also reduces the time and energy spent by various individual libraries and consortium in negotiating individual license agreements.

Comments: Public libraries in [state] support the principle of national licencing for online databases and commend the National Library and the members of the Reference  Group for the work done so far. We also wish to offer our support for further development of the concept in a bid to try and make this happen.

The development of the detail will determine the level of participation by public libraries in this state and questions of access, product relevance and affordability being the most critical factors.

From our perspective two kinds of consortia arrangements are currently in place with the State Library being the single billing agent for both arrangements. (1) opt-in opt-out  and (2) statewide licence where the State Library manages the licences. We would be keen to ensure that this arrangement can still exist. Would it be feasible for SL to be a member on behalf of public libraries in [state]?

On the issue of structure and representation it would be important to ensure that there is input from each sector within each state. The current model considers sector only at peak body level. Representation and voting rights could be based on size of constituency served.  

On the issue of cost and equity if possible we would like to add more bands into the formula because we believe that the small to medium size libraries may be disadvantaged in the larger band option. These could be:

< 1,999
2,000 – 9,999
10,000 – 29,999
30,000 – 49,999
50,000 – 99,999
100,000 – 299,999
300,000 – 499,999
500,000+

Product choice is also a critical factor and this could be the most difficult area to achieve consensus between the sectors. [This state's] public libraries would favour full text resources that are broad base as suggested in the proposal and while Australian content is important we would not wish to limit the choice purely on this basis. Remote access is also an essential criteria.

Great idea.  Please increase the range of journals indexed.  Australian Public Affairs Full Text users probably have funds available at present.  I can't see too many schools leaping at this.  Even Choice could be more useful. The market really is not tertiary is it?  I imagined the market being those with limited access, and that would certainly include the small schools sector and those who rely on telephone connections because of distance.  I have just returned from Booleroo Centre (famous for its links with McLeod's daughters) with shocking internet down load time because of landline connections. The nearest public library is...... probably Pirie, 100 plus km.  Imagine accessing information at home through a reliable library connection.  That just might bring us up to some third world standards.

I think this is an excellent idea, providing there is no financial disadvantage to libraries already participating in a consortium scheme, and that the membership fee is affordable.

Public libraries in NSW are already provided with a number of free full-text databases through NSW.net, so I would like to see the consortium provide additional databases to this rather than duplicate since there will be a fee to belong. (Unless this model changes in the future.)

Medium public libraries should be up to 60,000 population, rather than 50,000.

1. Appears to be another cost shifting exercise. It is a big leap from free database subscriptions to not only paying for them but a National Library position as well.
2. Would need to know how it would affect our existing consortium through NSW.net.
3. Basing costs just on population does not address a library's potential access to funding.
4. Compares to Kinetica which I strongly believe should be free & doubt it ever will be while we meet solutions for payment.

Background

The proposal to negotiate a national site licence for nominated databases supports the following  key strategic goals identified by [this library]  in 2000:

  • To improve and expand core services by making more effective use of relevant technology in all libraries for remote and on-site customers
  • To develop collections and services which cost effectively integrate both print and electronic formats

In the last five years, the Library has enhanced and increased access to electronic databases through membership of the NSW.net consortium and by purchasing individual databases directly from the providers.  The response from library customers has been very positive, with remote usage of the databases increasing by 65% in the last year.

The following comments are based on the experience and feedback from staff and customers at [this library].

Existing Consortia Arrangements

It is important that any agreement to establish a national site licence should not adversely affect participating libraries’ existing arrangements with other consortia.

[this library].is a member of the NSW.net consortium, managed by the State Library of NSW.  This gives the library subsidised access to a number of databases of particular interest and relevance to public libraries.  These include Thomson Gale’s Health and Wellness Resource Center, and Science Resource Center, Ebsco’s Australia/NZ Reference Center and MasterFile Premier, and Standards Australia Online.

The current arrangement works well, given that the State Library of NSW has considerable experience and expertise in supporting public libraries and addressing their particular needs.  A national consortium would have to meet the needs of a wider range of libraries – from school and public libraries to university and special libraries.  By its very nature, a national consortium would not target specific groups as effectively as the State Library of NSW does by focusing on the specific needs of public libraries.

With consortia such as the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) performing a similar role for university libraries, a partnership between the national consortium and other consortia serving university and public libraries would seem to be the best way to meet the needs of all participants.

Participation

Voluntary participation on an opt in, opt out basis – along the lines of the model currently offered to public libraries by NSW.net – is our preferred model, as it gives maximum flexibility, and allows individual differences to be accommodated.   

Establishing Mutual Responsibilities

An agreement outlining the responsibilities of the consortium and libraries would encourage participants to take an active role in the partnership.  This has been done successfully with the establishment of the Legal Information Access Centre (LIAC) in NSW public libraries, where the agreement includes a requirement to provide regular training sessions for staff.

Fee Structure

A fee structure based on the number of sites accessing electronic information does not take into account the size of individual sites.  Public library branches can be small medium or large.  These differences should be taken into account when establishing a model.

A fee based on usage would be likely to discourage some libraries from promoting and making full use of the resources provided.

From the public library perspective, a fee based entirely on population served, as outlined in Appendix 1 of the Issues Paper does not take into account library membership, which could be markedly different from the population served.  Public libraries are seen as needing to serve all members of their community.  However, their registered membership will be only a percentage of the population.  The libraries in [this] Shire serve a membership of about half the total population of the shire. Although a university library may serve a similar size population, it is likely that a high proportion of this population will be members of the library and that the usage per member is likely to be higher than might be expected from the customers of a public library.

These  issues will need to be addressed  when formulating an equitable fee structure which supports the provision of access to quality online information resources for all Australians.

Access

Public libraries are best placed to achieve the stated goal of the national consortium – ‘to enable all Australians, regardless of geographic location, to access quality online information resources in a manner that is both socially equitable and economically sustainable.’  The public library is a high profile, accessible community facility which is open to all, irrespective of age or ability.  In contrast, school and university libraries serve a well defined community.

Issues surrounding free access for walk in customers need to be resolved, and guidance given to consortium participants.  Protocols vary in different libraries.  Many university libraries do not allow public access to their databases, while some public libraries restrict access to electronic resources to library members, who are required to sign a form agreeing to abide by the library’s policies on Internet use, before being given access to databases.

The level and quality of access available is also affected by the size and location of individual libraries.  Some public libraries – especially smaller libraries, and those in remote areas – do not have the infrastructure in place to facilitate easy access to electronic resources.  Through the Rural Link component of NSW.net, the State Library of NSW, in partnership with the Australian government, provides high speed Internet access to many country libraries.  Support for these libraries should be an integral part of the role of any national consortium.

Given the aims of the national site licence, remote access to all should be easy and affordable.  Guidelines on how to set up and maintain remote access through the use of referring urls and authentication software such as EZProxy would be useful.  Advice could also be given through the consortium to participants on how to set up links to databases from the library website.

Choice and Content of Databases

With such a wide range of customers with differing needs and expectations, the choice of a core set of databases would be difficult.  Nobody wants a product which does not suit their particular needs – no matter how low the cost, or how high the quality of the database.

For example, the inclusion of resources suitable for children and young people would enable public libraries to give equitable service to all age groups.  However, these types of databases do not generally interest special or university libraries, with the possible exception of those which offer a teacher training course.  This is the dilemma faced by a single consortium, trying to address the needs of libraries from all sectors.

An emphasis on the provision of Australian content and support for the development of additional affordable high quality Australian resources would seem to be of interest to most potential participants in a national site licence scheme.  Currently there are a limited number of databases offering Australian content, and a consequent lack of competition amongst providers.  A national consortium would be in a position to put pressure on vendors to improve the quality of material provided.  For example, the publications included in the Australian Public Affairs Full Text (APAFT) database are not comprehensively indexed, while journal content cannot be browsed, and the scanned documents are often not of a high quality.

Competition

If a single nation-wide consortium were to replace the existing multiple consortia, there is a danger that competition amongst vendors could be stifled, with smaller operators perhaps being driven out of the market after failing to be selected by the national consortium.  This would result in a reduction of choice for all Australian libraries.  The establishment of a nation-wide consortium working in tandem with existing consortia would still allow vendors to approach other buyers and stay in the market, even if they were unsuccessful on a national scale.

Promotion

Promotional material such as posters and templates for flyers could be supplied through the national consortium.  The national consortium could also coordinate publicity campaigns in the Australian media, encouraging people to visit the library to make use of particular databases.

Training and Support

Access to free training for staff results in increased uptake of databases, and more enthusiastic support and promotion of the resources by library staff.  Such training is already carried out for members of the NSW.net consortium.  We would like to see training programs continued and expanded.  This could be done by a national consortium.

Conclusion

The establishment of a nation-wide licence backed by a consortium has advantages.  Such a group could assist in making electronic resources more affordable and accessible.  The influence of a national consortium could also be used to encourage vendors to improve the quality of their products and to provide more Australian content.  Promotion and training are other areas where a national consortium would have a valuable role to play.

However, it would be difficult for a national body to meet the needs of such a wide range of customers.  Also, there is a possibility that the establishment of one large consortium could diminish the power of existing consortia such as CAUL, NSW.net and Gulliver, who currently understand and support the electronic information needs of libraries in widely differing sectors.  It could also adversely affect competition and reduce the choices currently available to Australian libraries.

These issues need to be addressed before the establishment of a national site licence and purchasing consortium would be widely supported by Australian libraries.

We welcome the opportunity to investigate licensing opportunities that enable access to electronic information on a national scale. Purchasing at this level would ensure free, equitable access to all Australians in their local community

 

Comments from school library sector

I think that this is an excellent idea, which could address the inequalities of resources between some school libraries and their curriculum delivery. As a secondary teacher-librarian I use online databases with/for my students a great deal but the cost factor is a real concern. A national licence fee would hopefully decrease these costs, or enable us to offer more databases, which can only be beneficial for student learning.

We are already in a consortium, but would be very interested in your proposal

We have a limited budget and can see the benefits of a national site-license approach.
(I have been suggesting this to our state Educ Dept to no avail)

We are using Macquarienet, but would like to (at least)add EBSCO and a good school encyclopedia to our list of resources for the school library if within budget constraints

About time that there were more national support networks.  Have you seen the number of US schools linked to United Streaming?  Or the Web connections available to all Hong Kong schools.

Do we value access to information, or is it only for the rich schools?

Shame Australia, shame

Such a proposal would be of great value to School Libraries whose budgets are so miniscule in comparison to Public Libraries.  Most databases have fees that can run into several thousand dollars which eat large chunks of what seem to be ever diminishing  budget outcomes. Any way that could be found to reduce the cost burden would be welcomed by school communities.

Information in the 21st century is found in many places, including online. in a small primary school of 390 students in a non affluent area nor in a disadvantaged area but an area where most families have high level of debt there just isn't the money available to purchase expensive e-learning materials, therefore my students are disadvantaged and we see a national license as paramount to satisfy learning outcomes and address the inequities that exist between schools.

Online database subscriptions are an ever increasing part of our collection. The cost is a real concern for schools. I strongly support the concept of a consortium to enable the delivery of good quality information to the nation's future - our students

this is a fantastic idea! The cost to any school of subscriptions is high therefore this would have a great impact. Schools with smaller budgets will no longer be disadvantaged and all students will receive equal access to relevant up-to-date resources. I see this service as essential and equitable for all schools.

Much, much cheaper online databases are essential for school libraries. All too many school libraries simply cannot afford the subscriptions. As a result many of our children - especially in rural areas - are being denied access to valuable information and learning experiences. While city children have numerous information sources in their vicinity, the same cannot be said for those children who suffer under the tyranny of distance and outback poverty and scarcity of resources.

I am Teacher Librarian in Brisbane.  We have been subscribing to databases through the University of Queensland Cybrary (Library)Cyberschool that was set up to support Queensland secondary schools for a number of years. Their service has been outstanding.

Please include this in your surveying.

The model followed seems workable and appropriate.

I am concerned that, as the suite of available resources grows, there may not be an option to select some of the resources on offer.

This is an excellent idea. I operate a small Secondary College library regional Victoria and my budget does not stretch to subscribing to expensive online databases. My students are therefore greatly disadvantaged as a result of this. Students and teachers in regional Victoria have a right to access information and they should not be disadvantaged as a result of geographic location.

It would be wonderful to get access to a greater range of databases. At present we only subscribe to one of the full text databases in the list (ANZRC).

However, the main consideration would have to be cost. If (ANZRC) were not included in the core package that would make it less attractive.

I firmly believe that their needs to be an approach that allows for equity of access via the major access points such as public libraries, school libraries etc. I would definitely be interested in supporting any move to develop a consortia to purchase subscriptions to major databases. Currently we subscribe to three major databases but would like to have access to more. thankyou

The following comments/issues refer specifically to Northern Territory schools

1. Current limited consortia do already exist that are negotiated in collaboration with the Northern Territory Library.
2. The range of online resources made available through consortia is very limited as they are mostly more appropriate for Secondary Schools.
3.Relative to other states there are a small number of Secondary Schools in the Northern Territory.
4. Many of the Community Education Centres, which also offer levels of secondary education have quite low literacy levels, therefore the online resources that would be recommended at a national level would not be appropriate. Thus discounting the equity of access to ALL Australians irrespective of geographic location, social status, occupation or age.
5. Only one of our Distance Education institutions is able to offer remote access to online resources, which has a limited budget.
6. Connectivity is a major issue with many of the remote community schools across the Northern Territory. This issue is being addressed but it also brings with it the lack of technical support and back-up even if connectivity is improved.
7. Fortunately because of our small population and close liaison with the Northern Territory Library we have been able to negotiate consortia jointly that have gone towards improving access to online information resources across the Territory. But the responsibility for managing/administering these is time consuming. (Unfortunately communication processes with each of the targeted schools frequently has to remain at personal telephone contact) For NT schools the responsibility lays with 1 person amongst other regular duties. A national consortium would have significant benefits in this respect.
8. Training and promotion in the use of electronic online databases is also an issue in the NT, as there is a high turnover of staff in remote schools.
9. Many NT schools have very limited funding. Any reduced costing that makes online resources more accessible would be a bonus.

The Northern Territory already has a consortium arrangement for the purchase of databases. This is used by both school and public libraries. I am interested in supporting the National Consortium - however if there is a duplication of databases offered - I would want to support the NT consortium first. The Northern Territory has many small schools - smaller schools and also schools without a trained teacher librarian are hesitant to purchase databases when "it is all on Google anyway".

I believe a national consortium would be of great benefit to students across the nation as it would provide equitable access to information from the latest electronic databases, which is often denied to students in remote or socio-economically deprived areas. It would also ensure that Australian students are well-informed and able to make informed decisions about issues that are of national and international importance.

Background information

Recently a group representing the [state] public library network, School Library Association , Department of Education, Independent Schools association and Catholic Education Office (CEO) have been meeting with the view to investigating the possibility of working together to form a consortium so that all schools and the public library network have access to online databases or electronic resources at a cost effective price.

In this state, public libraries have led the way. The public library network has an established consortium that subscribes to several online. We are already seeking to work collaboratively with other sectors to deliver electronic resources to the South Australian community.  Current access to the databases is via both in-house access and remote access and is funded by an annual database levy of xx% paid by each public library service. This ensures equity and access by the community to electronic resources. Public libraries also have the opportunity to purchase additional electronic resources as part of a statewide consortium on an annual basis.

The public library network is looking to expand what it already offers and the committee is looking at the possibilities of the three school sectors being included to reduce costs even more and to benefit the community. At present only the 40 school-community libraries across the state benefit from this consortium

However, since receiving information about what is happening in this area nationally our plans to move forward are on hold. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.  That the National Licensing Reference Group moving forward with their plans as quickly as possible.
2.   That there be greater representation for school libraries on the reference group. This should include both the government and non-government sectors. The only voice representing schools at the moment is from a voluntary professional association, ASLA.
As indicated in our submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment  http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ecita_ctte/online
_libraries/submissions/sub70.rtf
school libraries play a key role in providing access to and educating children on how to effectively and ethically operate in the online environment. We were disappointed that the Inquiry report made no mention of school libraries, even though for many children the school library is their only access to the Internet or other forms of digital information. Excluding school libraries from any national consortia arrangements must widen the digital divide for children.
Many school libraries around Australia, particularly those in country and in small schools, cannot afford subscriptions to online services such as Electric Library or Macquarienet or ANZ Reference Centre. While there might be other sources of current information freely available on the internet, students need access to validated sources that these subscription services offer. It seems inequitable that access is determined so much by what individual schools can afford.
3. We are interested in the formation of sector based advisory groups which are discussed under ‘structure” and can see many benefits to such an arrangement. The following categories of libraries could be included:

  • National & State Libraries
  • Public Libraries
  • University Libraries
  • TAFE Libraries
  • Special Libraries – Health, Law, Govt. departments etc
  • School Libraries
    • School-Community Libraries
    • Government school libraries (Primary & Secondary)
    • Non-Government School Libraries – Catholic, Independent etc

4.   Representatives of the school library sector would be proactive in recommending educational databases to the Reference Group.

We are keen to be kept informed of further developments and will look forward to hearing more information as it becomes available.

Part of my role in my current position is to negotiate and administer the consortia this state's schools currently subscribe to. This is done in collaboration with the [State Library] in order to gain the best possible deals for the state.  If we can get this to happen at the national level it will be even better hopefully.

…have read the proposed national licensing proposal. As a school library we are definitely interested in this proposal and its proposed benefits. The detail of what and how much will be the key factors.

I think this plan is excellent.

I do think the principle of usage is a good one for the financial structure.

District high schools would have a percentage of staff/students who would not use these databases much (I am thinking early grades) so it would not be fair for them to subscribe at the same level as high schools.

Having an educational subscription system like this they could tap into would be of great benefit for district highs as often they have the same budget per head of student as ordinary schools but have to provide information resources to a wider spectrum of age and ability than more mainstream and specialised schools.

Response to forum discussion from ACT

I think would welcome a national site license. I think categorizing libraries as different types of institution is a workable system as it takes into account the many smaller schools with very limited budgets.

An annual subscription fee based on the population of the school is the most effective as library managers can factor these into projected budgets.

Many of the databases on the list would be a great resource for secondary students such as ABS Data, APAFT, AustL11, Australian New Zealand Reference Centre, Lexis-Nexis, Meditext and Who’s Who In Australia.

Macquarienet  would be used by primary schools as the secondary schools find it a bit too basic. Looking at the prescribed list of  electronic databases illustrate that the target audience would be high school students through to tertiary students or adults doing research.

The cost of such a consortium and the margin of saving will of course be a key factor. As an Information Service Co-ordinator I would whole heartedly support this initiative.

I would love to see the NLA  support and assist in this area.  I am in a Catholic Secondary College.  Our fees are relatively low and we get no additional funding (or support to negotiate with suppliers) from the Catholic Education Office.  We are naturally excluded from Department of Education deals.  In most cases the cost is prohibitive because costs are based on the number of students rather than computer access (1400 students & approx 200 computers).  Large schools are not always wealthy ones - maybe the library acquisitions budget figure needs to be considered for schools as well.

We encourage students to join the local library to get online access via that membership.  We have invested in a couple of subscriptions but the decision is always difficult because there are more that we need.

The spin-off from this sort of action could be that more Australian content might be developed.  All of the organisations I've approached have told me that the Australian market is too small - with numbers like this they may be persuaded to reconsider.

This is a quick reply to beat the deadline, I'm assuming there would be other opportunity for input, possibly even a questionnaire.

School Libraries need greater representation and funding - it is my belief they play a more important role in educating 'the masses' in the use of online databases (directly and indirectly) than other general-use libraries due to contact hours, e-learning programs and staff/student ratio. 

Concern with National Library as proposed lead agency in governance, when it fails to compete in school library market (in Victoria) when obviously their scale of economies and product far outstrips competition.  Better appreciation of school library market required.

Always a concern with Steering Group Representation using 'm'ship elected' process from groups - usual suspects with usual agenda.  Would like to see other data gathering techniques across sectors even down to state or region level ie focus groups, census, surveys, anonymous feedback.

Funding models are always a contentious issue and I would personally like to compare or customise rather than lumping schools into the typical corporate funding model proposed (FTEs) used by large US-based suppliers use to dealing in a large populous markets.

Content/product range - I like the CAUL model where 'you' choose however the greatest problem here is finding a product that meets NEEDS and not wants  Once again greater knowledge of the school library market is required - and greater role of educating this sector of 'whats available'

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback

Increasingly we find it hard to "make ends meet" with our budget, so any savings would be welcome. We already subscribe to Ebsco and Echo online and know their value, but each year I have to make sure that we can continue, based on our annual budget.

Also I feel it is important that students are introduced to more "reliable" sources of information on the web, than trolling through all the "stuff" that is out there. I would have liked to subscribe to online encyclopaedias as well as the newspaper databases.

We are all in the business of providing information to our customers, and in this electronic age it makes sense to share, a a consortium would certainly help to defray the costs.

I hope and trust that the National Licensing Reference Group keep in mind that nature of the school library sector, particularly when it comes to costing and the types of databases useful for schools from a k-12 perspective. It often seems to me that in the big picture, we are often left out. During my years as a school librarian, I have been involved in a few school library consortia where the emphasis has been on our needs as a school. This has worked very well. Many school libraries would find paying for access to databases prohibitive and perhaps not relevant to their needs. Perhaps we all ned much more connection between council and local school libraries in this discussion.

[local consortium]
Aiming to further access to and informed use of online databases in this state's independent schools, the Consortium –

  • identifies quality online products relevant to schools.
  • negotiates  consortia pricing with vendors.
  • runs 4+ information sessions each year
    • exploring the potential of online databases in schools,
    • considering features to be considered in their evaluation and
    • facilitating vendor and school user demonstrations.

The need for such consortia has been strongly demonstrated by our growth [details omitted here. 140 subscriptions to licensed products among members in Dec 2004].  State school libraries have also been invited to join the consortium in 2005.

Initial products included general encyclopaedias and magazine and newspaper databases. Some specific subject databases and a digital video database have now been added.

Administration of this group has deliberately been kept minimal and is coordinated by a sub-committee.

  • prices are re-negotiated annually
  • Invitations to Participate are made through listserv
  • numbers of participating schools and prices are distributed to members and on request
  • new products are considered carefully but do not undergo a formal evaluation process
  • schools make their own selection
  • schools deal directly with vendors for trials and implementation 
  • schools are individually invoiced by vendors

Recent discussions with the Association of Independent Schools of [state] will mean:

  • wider publicity for the group, information being distributed to ICT specialists and school administration people as well as library personnel, and
  • links with a developing virtual private network, enabling independent school teachers, students and their parents access to their school’s on-line learning environment from anywhere and at any time.

Since June 1982, [this group of libraries] has supported those employed in independent school libraries in [this state], seeking to promote their interests through consultation and collaboration. The group aims to be proactive and forward thinking in keeping abreast of change in school libraries and in providing quality professional learning for members. Professional development sessions, a regular newsletter and the annual School Library Conference run jointly with the [state] Australian School Library Association and attracting over 300 delegates, support members in being dynamic and innovative within their school communities.

 

Feedback  to The National Licensing Reference Group
Interest in and support of a national licence

[this group of libraries] welcomes a national initiative facilitating delivery of a core of authoritative online information meeting the needs of ALL Australians.

Further to the benefits outlined in the Issues Paper, our members see national provision of quality online resources as a valuable opportunity to foster information literacy in the wider community.

  • Views on the proposed model, including governance and funding

[this group of libraries] supports the proposed group consensus model, based on input and participation from interested organisations. We are however concerned that the needs of school children and their families do not become overwhelmed by other sectors.

We support the need for a manager and a steering committee with representation from all library sectors, but believe that their roles need to be very clearly defined. Practical services should outweigh purely administrative tasks. 

  • making available quality evaluations of online products;
  • supporting the development and publication of a major Australian encyclopaedia;
  • training programmes to increase the awareness of all Australians as to the potential offered by online resources

An opt in/opt out model is considered essential to schools. School needs, even for core products, will vary widely and money is not available for “luxury” products. Both participation by individual libraries in the consortia and subscription to a particular product must be voluntary.

Although funding levels are not specifically defined, it appears that they will be proportional to the size and nature of the library. Such equity is vital.

  • Issues Arising for School Libraries

Home access to online resources is essential. Suitable authentication needs to be negotiated to ensure remote access for all.

Core resources should be general references and relevant to school children and their families rather than specialist in nature. This may mean moving away from the specifically Australian content criteria; at least until quality Australian products are published.

School library needs initially would be:

  • a general encyclopaedia (offering versions for at least 3 age groups).
  • a general periodical database that includes widely used journals (such as Bulletin, New Scientist) and both Australian and major overseas newspapers.
  • a science database of general interest

The specific types of products suggested for the establishment phase of the consortium are more relevant to sectors other than school and the general public. We believe that libraries catering for business and government sectors are better able than small schools to provide these products for their clients. The focus should truly be on “core” resources for “all” Australians. Libraries in all sectors would continue to provide specialist resources specific to their sector.

Sector specific consortia would continue to meet these less basic needs – at least in the establishment phase. A national consortium may well be able to support the efforts of such sector consortia by evaluating products.

It was reassuring to note the reference groups assertion that “organisations already involved with existing consortia should not be financially disadvantaged by the national licensing initiative.

We would welcome any opportunity to contribute further to this initiative

Extract from [school consortium] submission

Collection development

1. Provision of selected, quality online resources is extremely important for schools.
2. Access to full-text is necessary as school students, particularly those in isolated and regional areas, would have difficulty in accessing the full document in any other way, especially within the time frame of assignment requirements.
3. Provision of a core set of online databases may be problematical as the requirements of school clientele can vary widely.  The [consortium] has found that some schools have a distinct preference for one product over another, depending on the search interface and the reading levels and sophistication of materials provided in the database.  Schools in the consortium have access to free trials of  different online databases and at present have taken out subscriptions to over 30 different databases.
4. Extensive Australian newspaper coverage is desirable as this is a feature highly sought after by schools.
5. Access for school clientele, both students and teachers, would need to be unrestricted, so that the database/s could be used as a teaching resource.  Access would need to be available at home or at school.
6. Provision for evaluation of the effectiveness of the program is necessary.
7. Provision needs to be made to enable schools to switch from one product to another, depending on the changing needs of their clientele and the curriculum.

Funding
8. Provision of funding for joining the consortia may well prove difficult.  Most school libraries have access to very limited funding for resources, with some secondary school libraries having budgets as low as $1,000 per annum.
9. Note that funding for school library budgets has devolved to be the responsibility of individual schools, at the discretion of the School Principal.

Training
10. In the experience of the [school consortium], unless school communities are given extensive and ongoing training in the value and use of these resources, they can be left unused and the financial outlay wasted.  Provision for training in the use of online databases should be included in the program.

Connectivity and Technical Support
10. Consideration should also be given to Internet connectivity issues for schools.  While Internet access has improved markedly over the last five years for most, some schools still have very slow connections to the Internet via dial access only and find download costs extremely expensive.
12. Technical support for schools accessing online products has also proved to be vital in the set up phase and for ongoing access.

Comments from special library sector

What fields do you envisage the e-resources to be in?
What else would you like us to do to support this initiative?
Can this consortia in the future work on the whole digital licensing problem that most institutions are facing?
Will cost be per student population or some other ratio worked on?

The ability to access online resources is important to small special libraries, but may be beyond their financial resources.  I welcome the National Licensing Proposal and believe that it may provide a way forward provided that in its lower range it allows for libraries with less than $5,000 p.a. funding to participate.

I would welcome being able to access various online resources under a national system. The model you are considering looks, at a brief read, to be practical & workable. We are an NGO and also provide health information. We would not have any large use of such a system but it is the convenience of access, so would hope that that the fees would be usage based. eg we have recently not renewed our sub to Kinetica due to the cost and only occasional use.

A national licensing arrangement for a product such APAFT and one with extensive Australian newspaper coverage would be of considerable to benefit to a wide range of law libraries.

I would like to suggest that access to a legal database such as AGIS would not only be of benefit and interest to Law Libraries but also to a wide range of general library users.

Comments from the State/National library sector

Firstly, librarians often think that a consortium should be attractive to a vendor.  The vendor's interest is in the total dollar amount they reap.  They won't necessarily be interested in dropping the price just because you are a consortium.  If they say they are it's just because they've scaled their costs to make sure they don't miss out on $$$s anyway.

Secondly, with a product like APAFT, an Australian consortium of this scale is likely to compromise a substantial proportion of its current and potential customers.  The first point again applies.  If the Australian library community positions itself in this way, APAFT  would have to recover a substantial proportion of its income from this Consortium, because the members are already its main customers.  There may be some savings on both sides that are administrative only, eg one invoice for 300 libraries instead of a larger number of invoices.  The Consortium then also needs to consider whether the accounting costs are then just being transferred from APAFT to the Consortium.  Yes, you get the product at a cheaper price, but you pay for it in a roundabout way through your Consortium membership fee.

These are not reasons not to do it.  It's a wonderful initiative if we can pull it off.  But these are financial complexities.  And financial reasons are not the only reasons for doing it.  The paper of course refers to equity and other reasons.

This Library supports the principal of national licensing, but will only be able to contribute significantly to funding this if we are able to get additional funds from our State Government.  Our materials budget has remained unchanged since the early 1990s.

A couple of questions:
Is Public Libraries Australia in a position to represent state or regional level public library networks in the way that Gulliver does for its members?
How will the charging model take into account the many libraries which fall into more than one sector?

Excellent work, a national licensing will be of great benefit to Australians and Australian businesses. This will encourage growth and investment in the Library Services Industry in Australia and will result in both Australian and international Library Services Vendors to providing more services to more Australians.

The State Library supports the national site licence initiative in principle and we are willing to participate in the planning process through the CASL consortium to further discuss the proposal.

However we have identified some issues and risks for the State Library in joining a national site licence consortium which are outlined below.

Financial

The financial model proposed places the State Library in the State and National library band with [several other CASL libraries].  However, we are at a disadvantage because our collection budget is not at the same level as [any of these] libraries. 

Another approach is that the sector specific indicator be replaced by one indicator for all libraries – size of library budget or annual non-salary budget (which is used as an indicator for the Specials band). This is an indicator of the capacity to pay and is a transparently fair indicator for a funding model covering all libraries.

The purchase of a high cost database eg. APAFT (Australian Public Affairs Full Text) would be a significant purchase for any library. Even with a consortium discount it is difficult to see that there would be many subscribers outside the large or well-funded library group.

However, if databases selected were available at low cost there would be a wider and higher take-up of the national site licence idea.  Once initial user support has been obtained and if access to the products is seen as useful then this is likely to contribute to the future continuing support of the program by libraries.

Resources

The initial selection of databases should not be confined to databases which are only Australian in content.  The assumption that these databases are likely to command a high level of interest across library sectors and amongst their user communities needs to be investigated further.  It is recommended that the initial selection of databases should include a database with a wide coverage of subject areas and sources from Australia and overseas ie. a multi-subject database from one of the large database vendors.

Functional

Remote access to databases and access by IP address only are areas of critical concern to the State Library as accessibility by those living in regional areas to the State Library's resources is a key priority for the Library.

Administrative

More details are required on the progress of initiatives being pursued in conjunction with the paper ie. financial information to underpin the proposal; and discussions with selected vendors to determine the commercial feasibility of national licensing agreements.

We do not wish to be placed in a situation where member libraries may be pressured into joining a consortial purchase which they cannot afford or where the purchase price is diverted from other subscriptions.

There is a risk for participants of spending or wasting too much staff time on the liaison required and negotiation of subscription deals.

[This Library]

Agrees with the concept of a core set of full-text products and the specific products identified for the establishment phase.
Agrees with the proposal that further products beyond the core set be offered on an opt-in opt-out model.
Supports the administration, communication and marketing strategies as outlined but the CASL Consortia experience shows that clear goals and terms of reference are required for the steering committee and the administrative appointment.
We would support a national licence.
The model seems satisfactory. Our placement in the funding hierarchy as a small State Library is acceptable provided that the same conditions/definition applies in the national approach as when licences/prices are negotiated in the CASL group If it doesn’t, then we will possibly face a financial disadvantage in moving to this model.

Some concerns are:
What happens to the CASL consortia should the national site licence become reality?
The negotiator needs to be highly skilled in this area of negotiation.
In order to have a support base big enough as many as possible public libraries need to be involved.

We would be concerned if in the end we are required to contribute more to an administrative function, achieve the same level of discounts, and have greater administrative red tape and time lags in the introduction of electronic resources

Comments from the TAFE library sector

I wholeheartedly endorse the concept of a national licence. There is an underlying assumption that the majority of Australians regardless of geographic location (rural and remote) have access to a computer and the Internet. Is there provision to provide the equipment to those living in rural and remote regions so they can access the databases?

I am interested in the "fully funded" by member libraries because there are a number of small non profit libraries that basically operate with volunteers, donations etc and have no budget - will there be a cost exemption for these libraries ie provide free access. Can the definition of "libraries" be extended to include small community houses and groups so that people using these facilities can access - this group would probably need to have a cost exemption. To reach all Australians I believe that we need to provide access beyond the library

Comments from the university library sector

The types of resources that would be the object of the scheme should be more clearly defined. The document seems to suggest that only Australian publications would be considered. This may be unnecessarily restrictive. It could also be made clearer whether the material would be of the type which has a fundamental general relevance to all Australians or whether there is an intention to extend to sector specific products. This may reflect a fundamental dichotomy over whether the proposal is geared towards gaining governmental support (which would stress the regional and social equity and cohesion arguments based on information for all Australians) and the library-focused arguments (which stresses the benefits of the efficiency in purchasing and access management.)
The paper puts forward a public good argument without providing evidence that the public do not have sufficient access to online information -- with open access initiatives, governments publishing information on the web, etc there is a large amount of information  available and some of it is free
  • appears as though the issue is more for public and school libraries and it may be better for each sector to address these issues through a series of sector licences
  • no disadvantage rule for existing consortia must be maintained
  • limit spending on marketing and address need for training
  • proposal is dependent on the public having access to an adequate information infrastructure to access online resources -- add references to other federally funded initiatives in this area to substantiate this proposal
  • governance structure appears to be heavy and expensive -- may need to be means tested
  • can we really call it a national licensing proposal if we adopt an opt in/opt out model?

Extract from [university] response

It is important that the University Library indicate in the opening, it does not consider a primary goal of a national site licensing initiative to be to further the mediator/gatekeeper role of libraries between Australians and the information resources they wish to access.

Such an initiative is crucial to the future development of Australia as an information-rich global environment.  We also note that the Senate Inquiry recommended the identification of online information resources. The discussion paper does not address how this identification would be conducted.

The key requirement of this initiative should be that the information resources be made available to all Australians however they might choose to access them. There should be no requirement that electronic resources be accessible only via libraries or library websites.  This would create a gatekeeper role for libraries which could put at risk the goal of making the resources available as widely and accessibly as possible.

This Library agrees that social and economic benefits of a national site licence will, if resources are properly selected, be considerable.  It is somewhat concerned that so early in the issues paper, libraries appear to be making a role for themselves to "strengthen the social and financial standing of libraries as integral to Australia's information economy and social infrastructure". Although the initiative has originated from the 2003 Senate report this initiative should be the product of library collaboration, not its focus.

Comments on specific sections of issues paper:

Background

This section states that 'a national consortium would have significant benefits in minimising duplication of effort in acquiring resources' and uses the example of current multiple consortia and current exclusion from consortia of smaller players.

However, recommendation 9, cited from the 2003 report, suggests that when key databases are identified, that the National Library receive funding to acquire them.

We take issue on two fronts with this section

1. It will be much more efficient for the government to fund the purchase of truly national site licences for databases that will be available to all Australians than it will be for a national consortium to negotiate deals for a number of libraries (even all libraries).  The goal should be universal access, not access via consortium members or via libraries which choose to participate in a particular deal.

2. Not all databases are going to be of universal interest to all libraries or sectors.  For the most part, different sectors will still continue to negotiate consortial deals with publishers and vendors for information that is not universally required.  The important thing will be to identify information resources that should be the subject of truly national site licences, and ensure that vendors and publishers don't 'pick off' different consortia, preventing the nation from doing a deal on behalf of its citizens and residents.

Introduction

This Library applauds the establishment of the National Licensing Reference Group in 2005 and its broad composition.  It also supports the provision of a 'set of core, authoritative online information resources for the Australian community'.

However, it is not encouraged by the statement that the resources would be 'available to users of all library sectors'. Australian citizens and residents should not have their access to national resources limited to access via libraries.  The resources should be available universally through a variety of information providers/mechanisms and directly via the publisher/vendor interface.  It may be that libraries can add value to a product, but they should not be essential conduits to access.

Objectives for a national licence.

In keeping with earlier comments, this Library does not support any but the first of the dot-points articulated in this section.

There should be no need, under the model of a national site licence, for an 'economically self sufficient and fully funded consortium' to exist. While a Reference Group will be essential for identifying, prioritising and advising on the selection of potential target products, the creation of another layer of costly administration really should not be necessary.  The Reference Group can advise and the Australian Government can either purchase, or fund the National Library of Australia to purchase the resources.

The dot-point 'coordinate the cost effective purchasing…for all library sectors' would more appropriately read 'coordinate the cost effective purchasing…for all Australians'.

The final dot point in this section provides no reason for, or outcome of, the 'exchange of ideas…between consumers, libraries, funding providers, publishers and vendors'. The question to be answered here is for what purpose?

Benefits of national licensing

The opening sentence in this section clearly indicates the goal of the reference group that the national site licensing initiative should benefit Australians and their libraries. We restate our concern that the focus should be on Australians and that those Australians should not be required to access national resources through libraries if they do not wish to do so.

Governance model

The issues paper, in line with its preference for a consortial model of purchasing/acquisition, proposes a formal administrative structure including a fulltime manager funded from library subscriptions and with libraries providing initial funding.

It is the view of this Library that a National Site Licensing initiative could achieve its goals with much less overhead, through a National Licensing Reference Group. The NLRG would identify, prioritise and advise on the selection of appropriate information resources.  The National Library of Australia would negotiate the best deal, probably with input from members of the NLRG, and the National Library would use earmarked government funds to acquire the products and make them available, without limit, to all Australians.

There would be no need for a fulltime manager, contributory funds or consortium administration.

Structure

This Library suggests that the composition of the NLRG is really all that needs to be finalised here.  It will be important to have members from government, welfare, professional and business bodies to ensure a truly national approach to a National Licensing initiative.

Charging/Funding model

This Library believes this would be unnecessary if the National Library was the purchaser of information resources and the Australian Government the funder.

Content/Product Range

This Library agrees with the recommendation that in the first instance, Australia should concentrate on obtaining a core set of full text databases with Australian content.  However, it will be necessary to expand to international resources fairly quickly to meet the wide range of information needs of Australians.

Administration/Communication/Marketing

We agree that usage information will be crucial to the ongoing success of a national initiative.

It should not be necessary to obtain trial access to key resources when a Reference Group covering all sectors will already have knowledge and experience of the products.

Again, in this section, there seem to be a very strong emphasis on the self-interest of libraries, possibly at the expense of their national user group.

(Added Note from NLA:
Senate report, Recommendation 9 reads "The Committee recommends: (a) that the National Library of Australia identify a number of key databases for which national site licensing might be desirable; and (b) that additional Australian Government funding be extended to the National Library of Australia for this purpose.
The Government's response to recommendation 9(b), in July 2004, was "Additional funds for this purpose can not be met by the Australian Government at this time.")

 

We understand and appreciate that many libraries will support in principle national licensing as a cost-effective means to acquire online content through a consortium. We are in a fortunate position of having an existing consortium that provides a cost-effective and cost-efficient means to acquire online content, which is specific to university research and teaching needs.  University libraries will continue to support its consortium, CEIRC, leaving individual institutions to decide whether or not to participate in a national consortium should this be the outcome decided at the second forum.

We agreed to support the national site licence initiative in principle and to continue our participation in the planning process through CEIRC at the second forum on national licences on 12 October 2005. 

As requested, we provide the following comments regarding the Issues Paper.

Executive Summary

  • Puts forward a public good argument without providing evidence that the public do not have sufficient access to online information.

Background

  • Perhaps the reference group should only address recommendation 9.  The identification of content is the first step together with evidence of the need for it.  This is all that the Senate report recommends, the identification.
  • If the purpose is extended beyond the scope recommended as highlighted in the background, the  “no disadvantage” rule must be recognised and adhered to.
  • Although the background suggests that funding be provided, what evidence is there that central funding is, or will be, available for content and administration?

Objectives

  • Credible online information is already available to the public, including government and other health information.
  • Need to recognise that collaboration of libraries must also respect the autonomy and differing requirements of various sectors.
  • Can it be considered a national licence if an opt in/opt out funding model is used?
  • Is the real objective to improve the basic level of service through public and school libraries?  If so, can the goal be achieved through a series of state and sector licences rather than a national one?  It was noted that the National Library of New Zealand has a special role in the provision of services to schools and that this may have contributed to the New Zealand approach to a national licence.
  • A national licence is not the only way to address any communication weakness among libraries, vendors and funding authorities.

Benefits

  • Assumes that the information architecture is available to deliver content and enable access across all rural, regional and urban areas and to all social groups.
  • Access to information to support business activities raises commercialisation issues with vendors.
  • Does not acknowledge that many high quality resources are already available via the Internet.
  • Does not acknowledge that Federal and State Government departments provide a range of information services to professionals in their areas.
  • May be difficult to strengthen and may actually weaken the bargaining power of libraries when negotiating for multiple sites and using an opt in/opt out framework. 
  • Will vendors make a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit libraries?  Why should vendors be expected to provide non-commercial rates for private organisations?
  • Does not acknowledge the existing mechanisms which are the subject of significant investment that provide information access to Australians including:  NBD, national resource-sharing system (ILL & DD), ADT, Picture Australia, open access initiatives, CAUL licenses that provide for public walk-in access, etc. 

Governance Model & Structure

  • Appears to be relatively expensive..
  • Is the Kinetica model of nominees from sector-based groups the best model for representation?

Charging/Funding Models

  • 2nd dot point on fees seems to contradict 4th dot point regarding existing consortia.
  • Existing consortia must not be financially disadvantaged.
  • Proposed funding models by sector do not compare apples with apples and may not reflect ability to pay and be equitable, eg there are some universities with less EFTSU but larger acquisitions budgets.
  • The self-funding model won’t be sustainable if current subscribers are asked to pay more under the national licence. 

Content/Product Range

  • All newspapers are selling their content online now so what incentives are there for vendors to make their content available to everyone for a single price?

Administration, Communication and Marketing

  • There is no limit on marketing and communication costs.  The cost of general overheads is questioned.  If there is a real need, then it shouldn’t need to be aggressively and/or expensively marketed.
  • Need for training and costs to support such activities have not been identified.  Training was a key issue within the EPIC project.  

 


About This Site | Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility | Site Map | Site Search | Content A-Z | Contact Us