|
Home >
About Us >
Activities >
Meetings >
National Licensing Forums
Responses to the issues paper
The distributed paper has some
underlying assumptions which require further discussion. These appear to
be:
- That the majority of Australians want access to electronic
publications
- Access should be free or at a minimal cost to the end user
- Access should be available remotely
- Libraries can solve the problem through the expansion or
extension of consortia
Prior to considering the issues associated with site licensing of
resources on a national basis it is necessary to consider the scope of what it
is we are trying to achieve, and whether the assumptions above are valid.
Who is our target audience? How do we define our intended user
population? Is it library users, and if so which libraries are included?
Is it broader so that access is available to anyone in Australia who has
Internet access? If we can establish who the user groups are we are
targetting and provide an analysis of the needs of the groups, then we may have
a closer idea of what it is we need to be providing and to whom.
Once we establish the needs of the potential market it would be
easier to determine where the gaps are, possible options for meeting these
needs and the potential cost. There are a large number of databases available
the majority of which would be of little or no interest to the general public.
How is the decision made regarding which products may be appropriate?
There are a variety of models available depending on how we answer
the above questions, which can be considered from the point of view of
appropriateness and sustainability. Three examples are:
Depending on the model selected there are issues of funding which
need to be addressed. This includes not only the funding for the purchasing but
also the management of the consortia.
Universities are under pressure to extend the availability of
access to the databases they subscribe to as a consequence of government
pressure to become more competitive and identify avenues for income generation.
Access to Alumni is already on the agenda and agreed with selected vendors, and
increasingly access for commercial arms of the university is being sought.
The role of universities in providing access to the general
community varies on an institutional basis, influenced in most cases by the
location. Walk-in access for the wider community has been negotiated in the
majority of cases as part of the
CEIRC deals. While this
clause enables universities to provide access to the broader community, it is
not part of their core business.
**********************************
Background The CASL Consortium was
established in February 2001 after considerable investigation by a CASL Working
Group. Its objective is to be:
- a consortium of Australian State, Territory and National
libraries formed for the purpose of acquiring access to commercial electronic
information resources. Its aim is to simplify licensing arrangements, improve
cost benefits for member libraries, and to explore opportunities for making
electronic product more widely available to Australians, regardless of where
they live.
We note that the
Senate
Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment recognised the
importance of library consortia and site licences.
Currently the Consortium has 19 subscribed products and annually
evaluated approximately 16 new products according to a workplan.
The members of the Consortium are:
- National Library of Australia
- State Library of New South Wales
- State Library of Victoria
- State Library of South Australia
- State Library of Queensland
- State Library of Western Australia
- State Library of Tasmania
- Northern Territory Library and Information Service
- ACT Territory Library and Information Service
- Queensland Public Library Association
- WA Public libraries (through the State Library of Western
Australia)
Model The Consortium operates on an opt in
opt out model where each members selected the products that they wish to
subscribe to. Members of the consortium pay a fixed price to cover the
administrative costs of membership of the consortium in accordance with the
CASL fee model. A three tier fee model is applied in the basis of the size of
the library.
The costs of managing the consortium include staff resources of a
senior manager to develop the workplan, organise trials, liaise with vendors,
arrange purchases, negotiate licences, coordinate teleconferences, report to
CASL and manage communication through the web site and listserv. In addition
there are telecommunications costs for the teleconferences and legal costs for
complex license negotiations.
The current 3 tier fee model is:
The National Library currently subsidises the administrative costs
of the consortium by approximately 66%.
The CASL Consortium used a well established set of licensing
principles which are accessibly on the consortium's web site.
Potential expansion of the Consortium The
CASL Consortium has been approached by the Visual Arts Librarians and
Australian Government Libraries Information Network about extending the service
to include these groups. A trial was arranged for the Visual Arts Librarians
for Grove Art
Online. AGLIN were advised that they could join in trials to test
products.
It would be possible to extend the administrative support
provided to the CASL Consortium to other groups to increase the buying and
negotiating power for products. The costs for the support would need to be
funded through levying the membership fee for new partners.
For a small library group, a membership fee of $1,103 would
enable the group to have a representative :
- Attend teleconferences
- Contribute to the development of the CASL Consortium licensing
principles
- Contribute to the workplan
- Join in product trials
- Participate in negotiations of licences for products for their
group as a whole
- Take part in communication and any relevant training
activities.
In order to participate in the CASL Consortium each library group
or consortium would need to:
- supply the details of one contact point for liaison
- provide one central point for billing
- coordinate feedback/input from their group
- provide a representative to attend one face to face meeting per
year and teleconferences as scheduled
- contribute to administrative costs through an annual membership
fee.
ICOLC The CASL
Consortium has operated in some ways as a mini-Australian ICOLC in enabling its
members to discuss licensing issues in general and communicate with CAUL and
Gulliver. There is clearly a need to continue to discuss these issues and an
Australian ICOLC would provide a forum for cross-consortial communication and
with vendors.
**********************************
I think that it is an excellent overview of the issues and
incorporates a number of issues which I would specifically like to comment on.
CAVAL ran a Future of Consortia Conference and follow-up Workshop in late 2003
and in August of this year. These events attracted international participation
and exchange which made the outcomes all the more remarkable. (see
attached outcomes summary)
There are two additional headings which I suggest could add
further perspectives for the delegates to the Roundtable:
- International performance.
There are two notable examples
which delegates could take as examples of what could be achieved.
- Firstly, the library system in Finland is much as we would
expect it to be here in Australia with a range of libraries in various sectors.
These libraries are however supported at a national level for those parts of
their service where it has been found desirable. These include
FinELib which has
been highlighted by your paper as providing national site licensing. The Finns
also have a national repository library which means they can maintain current
collections in their libraries while relegating lesser used materials to the
National Repository Library of Finland in Kuopio. All libraries supported by
the public purse contribute material. These include university, public, special
and the national library. This highlights that libraries need a dual support
approach for electronic but also print.
- Secondly, the large consortium organisation,
SOLINET, based in Atlanta, USA is able to
support a very wide range of libraries at an academic, school public and
special libraries with e-licensing and a range of other services. This model is
highly pertinent to that part of the world and is an excellent example of what
can be achieved
- Library issues
One of the strong outcomes from the Future
of Consortia conference was that libraries as individual institutions need to
move toward new models of organisation and inter-dependence. As the individual
library struggles, variously, to gain and then maintain support moral and
fiscal, so there is a new role of inter-dependence which will enable the
libraries to work together where appropriate but to brand services locally.
There is too much pressure on the part of librarians to demonstrate local
strength without resort to regional or national inter-dependence.
- Issues for the individual
It was clear to the Future of
Consortia delegates that new skills are required to assist the individual
librarians to establish new conceptual models for working together and for
selling these models to their supporters and funders. The future of work, as
seen by many in the wider community dictates new managerial styles from leaders
and new attitudes and behaviours from all in the library industry.
**********************************
The submission below summarises the key views of ALIA Health
Libraries Australia in the provision of site licensing for online information
resources. It is presented very much from the health sector/clinicians
perspective derived from our collective experiences with electronic information
services to health practitioners at state level.
Core Precepts for National Licensing Initiatives
Basic Principles:
- At all costs avoid a one size fits all approach to electronic
licensing selection and administration. Need a mix of truly national site
licenses and nationally brokered deals that may be taken up by participating
institutions on an as needs basis.
- In the health sector resources are needed to support
evidence-based practice. Some of these resources are amenable to national site
licensing arrangements because they are required by a broad range of users.
- Identify minimum range of information sources to which all
Australian clinicians should have access as core services.
- Identify key user groups and determine the nature of their most
important information needs.
- Consult widely with representative clinicians groups in major
professional disciplines to solicit their views on what are their information
priorities and how they may be best accessed.
- Explore suitable management and maintenance structures to
ensure sustainability of online services and accompanying site licences in the
long term. Health is a big enough area to warrant a central coordination unit.
- Emphasis must be placed on facilitating technical support /
information for web authentication and authorisation schemes.
- Determine how acquired electronic resources may be best
promoted to identified user groups.
- Training is important for both librarians and clinicians.
Investigate training needs and how such training might be offered on a
continuing basis to maintain searching skills and product knowledge amongst
clinicians and librarians.
- Essential that national licensing agreements support 24 / 7
access, independent of the searcher's location or time zone.
Brief comments on National Library of Australia's site licensing
issues paper:
- Site licensing at national level: Given supplier
attitudes and current business models it would be very difficult to negotiate
access to academic/research databases on behalf of unaffiliated researchers.
More realistic in first instance to gain most liberal conditions of access and
document delivery for users within recognised institutions.
- Lobbying: Problem facing any national level licensing
agreements is commonality of product needs amongst diverse user groups. Perhaps
several disciplines based consortia covering such areas as social sciences, law
and health would be more effective in securing favourable terms and promoting
product development rather than one overarching entity.
- Sustainability of infrastructure: Sources of funding and
jurisdictional responsibility are major impediments. Some means of cost sharing
on an opt in/opt out basis across sectors and organisations is more likely to
win and retain long term support than any centrally funded entity.
- National priorities in terms of resources: There is a
risk of attempting too much too soon. Initially concentrate on a few key
resources for licensing after consulting principal user groups.
- Opportunities for centrally organised training/user
education: This could be a relatively simple exercise to undertake and
could have an immediate impact on user literacy. Potential to provide training
programs already present in libraries and with co-ordination and some seed
funding a program could be initiated quite quickly.
- Voluntary or compulsory participation in negotiated site
licences: The approach followed here will be crucial to success of any
national site licensing effort. Based on experiences of health sector if
selected resources are perceived as too remote or esoteric from daily needs in
a diversity of organisations they will not be supported by users in the long
term. Voluntary opt in/opt out model is critical to success of any such
initiative. They are harder to administer but far more likely to win support of
users and their funding authorities.
- Communication: One of the lead objectives of any
national licensing proposal must be the creation of mechanisms for clear and
regular communication between all interested parties.
Australian health sector: specific needs
Any proposed national level consortia deals in health would have
to take into account the existing state based consortia which are highly
variable in their administration, funding and remit. A lack of national
collaboration is particularly evident in this sector. A central coordinating
advisory unit in an appropriate federal level agency to advance ways and means
of improved cooperation is highly desirable and would most likely prove very
cost effective by reducing duplication and securing better terms of supply.
Such a coordinating central unit for Health could be with NLA or the Australian
Department of Health. The Australian Health Information Council might be an
alternative home.
The Australian Health Information Council (AHIC) has been
established by Health Ministers to provide advice on long term directions and
national strategic reform issues for information management and technology in
health. AHIC defines its role as being one to provide independent advice to
help inform state, territory and federal governments about national priorities
and the requirements of end users of health information technology.
**********************************
What is the purpose of site licensing at a national
level? A primary purpose would be to achieve equitable information
access for the Australian community through support by government for libraries
to deliver services to meet user needs.
The concept of national site licences will need careful
definition. There is a risk that licences established outside of library
structures will not easily integrate with local library and information systems
and that, therefore, the full potential benefits may not be realised.
Lobbying
ALIA believes that the Senate Libraries in the online environment
report and recommendations provide an opportunity to lobby for improved access
to digital information and the development of national information networks.
ALIA's response to the Senate report recommendations is at
http://alia.org.au/advocacy/inquiries/roloe.report.recommendations.html
ALIA welcomes the overall findings and the Committee's 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 its response ALIA supports 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. We suggest that this
should be done in collaboration with the sector. It encourages the Government
to provide funding as determined and specified by the NLA. The Association
suggests that consideration of national site licences includes the generation
of and access to Australian online content which it believes is critical for
our information future.
In its role as an advocate for equitable access to information
ALIA works with key organisations within and beyond the library and information
sector. The 2004 Library and Information Week Forum (see
http://alia.org.au/advocacy/alw/2004/liw.forum.2004.html)
addressed the need for collaboration to advance electronic networking
initiatives, to increase access to information and to enhance library services.
As an outcome of the 2004 LIW Forum, the Association is developing a campaign
for the inclusion of the library and information services sector in the
National Broadband Strategy. This is based on the sector being a crucial
component of the information economy and society.
As well as issues of access to content, a poor and uneven
technical and communications infrastructure is limiting access to digital
information by the Australian community.
Issues for site licensing 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.
Resources - The number of resources for which there is broad
national demand may be quite small. In seeking commitment to development of
national access to selected content there may be value in considering
co-ordination at national level, rather than national licensing of a wide range
of resources. Consideration of national site licenses should include the
generation of Australian online content.
Communication ALIA can facilitate
communication across the LIS sector.
Vendor issues Based on its experience of
vendor involvement in ALIA's purchasing and consortia initiative, we would
encourage dialogue with the trade sector as the concept on national site
licensing is discussed and developed. We recognise the difficulty that there is
no industry body that represents the vendor sector as a whole. ALIA, through
its Purchasing and Consortia Reference Group, may be able to assist the
dialogue with the trade sector.
Link to information sheet on ALIA CIPS
program
**********************************
Introduction This document is AGLIN's
response to the discussion paper Site Licensing: A
national issue, prepared and circulated by the National Library of
Australia prior to the National Site Licensing Forum on 8 December 2004. It has
been developed in consultation with members of both the AGLIN Executive and the
AGLIN Consortium Taskforce (ACTF). Both papers were distributed for comment to
the broader AGLIN community via our Consortium list and will be tabled at the
AGLIN Annual General Meeting on 25 November 2004. AGLIN has provided a
response to the broad issues noted in the NLA's discussion paper, but has not
attempted to address all the questions raised therein.
Background The Australian Government
Libraries Information Network (AGLIN, formerly FLIN) represents the interests
of some 300 Australian government libraries and their parent departments and
agencies. For several years it has maintained a consortia sub-committee
(currently termed the AGLIN Consortium Taskforce - ACTF) which, in 2003, set up
a wider Consortium ('user') Group. At present, 52 AGLIN libraries have
nominated a representative to this Group. The ACTF is currently looking at
options for a sustainable AGLIN consortium. Consultations with the Consortium
Group have demonstrated that members see negotiating new products as a priority
activity and thus, in principle, AGLIN supports a consortium for the purposes
of negotiating a National Site Licence (NSL). At a Consortium Group
workshop in August 2003, representatives from a range of government
organisations focused on our common interests in a potential
whole-of-government initiative. The most important requirement was seen as
up-to-date Australian content and the following were identified as being of
interest to more than 50% of the participants (in order of levels of interest):
- the INFORMIT suite;
- Management information;
- News content (particularly Australian);
- Australian statistics (eg, AusStats);
- Business directories,
- Kinetica end-user access;
- General reference sources (eg, Crown Content, xreferplus); and
- Australian Standards.
1. Purpose AGLIN supports the broad principle
of 'access by as many Australians as possible to as wide a range of resources
as required.' The confluence of various technological advances, changes in
publishing and a restrictive fiscal environment in the public sector are all
opportunities for even greater collaboration. In addition, the convergence of
technologies makes the possibility of greater collaboration more attractive and
viable to our parent bodies and funding sources.
However, the specialised nature and diversity of Australian
Government sector indicates a correspondingly broad range of requirements for
electronic content, and this may well be true for other sectors as well. In a
national approach, therefore, a high level of consultation would be needed
between the project manager and the representatives of each sector to identify
the scope and strategic focus for the consortia - ie, in order to determine
when the approach should be centralised (across the whole library community)
and when to be 'localised' to a particular sector.
The NSL agenda is also affected by the fact that consortia in
Australia are at different stages of development. There has been limited
collaboration and engagement by the library community on consortia issues, we
have no sponsoring organization, and limited or slowly developing partnerships
are the norm - in comparison with libraries in other jurisdictions such as New
Zealand and Iceland. In developing previous consortia, the marketplace has been
dissected and fragmented along the lines of library type (university, public,
special), geography or subject interests (health). In addition, vendors
sometimes define their own categories, depending on how they divide their
market or perceive the sectors.
As each sector in isolation develops and establishes its chosen
electronic services at the workstations of, or for remote access by its
clients, there is less likelihood of investment by funding authorities, both
central and local, in a national site license.
The commitment of all types of libraries and their funding
sources' CEOs is critical to gaining the support necessary to provide potential
funding and support for a National Site License. Ultimately, the libraries in
each sector need to take ownership of the approach and each sector needs to be
convinced of the most appropriate common good/benefit of increased access to
relevant products for their clients for investment in the NSL to be
forthcoming. Therefore, the NSL project needs to stress the benefits of
investment in its marketing to libraries across all sectors.
2. Resource issues The larger a consortium
the higher the transaction costs. The benefits as listed in the NLA paper need
to be balanced against a more centralised model being potentially slower, more
cumbersome and complex. However, avenues of cooperation can lead to other areas
for collaboration.
3. Lobbying Australia represents a
relatively small proportion of the global market (except, presumably, for
Australian content), and therefore a national approach could maximise user
influence with vendors. Vendors have also indicated that they would rather work
with a large strong group for product development.
A broad national approach could see advocacy on a number of
issues incorporated into the development of a national site license.
Specifically, AGLIN is interested in developing and improving availability and
access to Australian content.
AGLIN supports the principles outlined in the
NLA Statement of
Principles Guiding Licence Negotiation. Of these principles, AGLIN has
identified areas of significant interest to our member libraries for
incorporation into a National Site License; these include identification of a
common set of electronic products to be retained and accessible for the
Australian community (5), licences to permit minimum use as allowed under
Australian copyright law (2.1-2.3), monitoring and usage statistics (8) and
document supply (2.4).
4. Issues for site licensing Kate Nevins
from SOLINET summarised the key success factors for consortia as shared values,
common good (or common benefit); clear expectations; active involvement;
resource commitment and sustainable funding.
4.1 Models for a National site License Before commencing
the NSL discussion it would be useful for the Forum to reach a common
definition of National Site Licensing in order to provide a framework for the
ensuing discussion. What are the models in other countries such as New Zealand
and Iceland? Why have these worked? Are these sustainable? What could be model
options for Australia?
4.2 Planning and infrastructure Leadership and a dedicated
resource is required - in the form of a project office to scope a plan based on
the Forum outcomes. A project of this size and scope without dedicated
resources to lead the process could potentially lose focus and momentum.
The initial steps could be to:
- 'consult with all sectors' to determine needs and
requirements;
- get agreement on national priorities and areas of common
interest; and, subsequently
- lobby further for funding for a NSL (this could be in
partnership, for example, with Australian content providers).
Planning could be handled by a National Executive Group which
represents all sectors. Ideally, a project office (constituted as agreed by the
Group) would develop a project plan in consultation with representatives of the
various sectors (AGLIN would be interested in representing the government
sector). The project office could also develop material for an awareness
campaign on the benefits of an NSL to be used in each sector, which could
include presentation material for library staff, lobbying of local members,
etc. Each sector representative(s) could be accountable for strategic
planning within their own sector, requiring sufficient lead time and a
project-planned consultation process. There would also need to be a
thorough investigation by all sectors of the potential sources for funding
(successful overseas NSLs receive funding from a centralized source and
sponsoring agencies). In lobbying for funding, a planned strategy to secure
support at all levels - libraries and their funding bodies - will be required.
4.3 Cost-sharing Cost-sharing raises the question of how
to divide the market. With the Australian market dissected and fragmented as
noted above, the membership of current consortia is categorised by a variety of
characteristics. There is often overlap (particularly in special and government
libraries with diverse portfolios or business interests) and vendors may
therefore be reaping the benefits of being paid more than once for the same
user to access the same resources. For example, the Lionel Murphy Library may
be a member of consortia both as a government and a law library; conversely, a
single user under the current 'model' of consortia in Australia, could
simultaneously be a part-time university student, an independent researcher, a
public library user and a full-time employee of a government department.
Therefore, consideration of cost-sharing might require a paradigm shift in how
we 'divide' the market. Initially, each sector could work out the basis for
cost-sharing by its own organizations such as population or usage. For the
Australian Government sector, AGLIN would favour cost-sharing based on usage in
the longer-term.
5. Existing consortia AGLIN and its Consortium Group are
formalising their own structures and procedures at a time of maturing consortia
internationally. Within Australia there is growing support for multi-consortia
collaboration. AGLIN has identified that the proliferation of overlapping
consortia is leading to increased administrative overheads for individual
consortia members. All libraries need to make a business case to their own
organisations for funding. Inevitably, in a loosely federated consortium such
as AGLIN, a product based NSL will be determined by the needs of individual
organisations for the products selected.
**********************************
This roundtable is timely from the point of view of Australian art
librarians, represented by the Arts Libraries Society, Australia and New
Zealand (ARLIS/ANZ). Access to electronic resources was raised as a problem
requiring a national solution at the Visual Arts Forum held at the NLA in May
2004.
The art library sector covers a wide variety of libraries of
varying size including gallery, museum, state and educational libraries. Access
to databases varies from full access, often through other consortia such as
CAUL and CASL, to no access. The art museum and gallery libraries are
particularly affected. Also, non-affiliated researchers are increasingly being
frustrated by authentication requirements imposed by libraries because of
licensing and/or resource considerations which may inhibit walk-in access.
A
survey
of Australian art libraries conducted by the NLA in 2003 before the Visual
Arts Forum indicated that cost was a major inhibitor for smaller libraries
wishing to access databases, particularly international databases.
The experience of the art libraries very much reflects the issues
raised in the Site licensing discussion paper. In a paper prepared for the
Visual Arts Forum held at the NLA in May, Margaret Shaw, Chief Librarian at the
National Gallery of Australia (since retired), investigated the possibility of
establishing consortial arrangements for ARLIS/ANZ members. She noted that "for
most art libraries, increased budgetary pressure is being exacerbated by the
availability and demand for expensive specialised commercial electronic
information resources. Given the international nature of art history research,
both local and overseas tools are required for study of Australian art or
Australian art collections".
As well as the problems associated with consortia identified in
the discussion paper, Margaret identified additional barriers to setting up a
licensing arrangement for the ARLIS group:
- the specialised subject field hinders bundling of groups of
suitable databases at discount rates;
- the small size and peripatetic nature of ARLIS/ANZ makes it an
unsuitable body to manage consortial arrangements;
- the art library market in Australia is extremely small, which
makes it difficult to interest suppliers in consortial arrangements.
Realistically, ARLIS/ANZ is not big enough and does not have the
expertise and resources to set up a consortium, and many art libraries are too
small to participate at any level due to lack of staff and resources.
To meet the needs of small, specialist libraries and independent
researchers, a national site licence should be the ultimate goal. This would
solve the problem of independent researchers and under-funded libraries.
As an interim measure, Margaret Shaw identified two possible
approaches for art libraries:
- To seek to join one of the larger consortia, although this
would require the ability to subscribe to selected resources from a larger
package
- To negotiate for a single multi-site licence covering a
specified group of art museum libraries but based on one library and a single
payment to be divided between the members - which would depend on:
- one library's being prepared to take this on
- an agreed method of allocation of costs e.g. based on usage
levels or on available funding.
The Research Library of the National Gallery of Australia may
consider taking on a national role on behalf of the art museum and gallery
libraries, which currently have no access to existing consortia. The Gallery
Library is currently investigating an ARLIS/ANZ multi-site licence with one
data-base vendor as a sample, but the take up among ARLIS libraries has not
reached the minimum number needed to meet the terms of the proposed agreement.
Other avenues need to be investigated.
Issues for site licensing -ARLIS/ANZ response
- A series of site licences would not solve the problem of
independent researchers and libraries which are not covered by a site licence
e.g. small galleries and museums
- Writers and researchers may be independent of formal
affiliation.
- n arrangement permitting pay per use could be an option for
these users if access could be arranged on a national level
- In the case of the art libraries, participation in site
licences negotiated on behalf of the sector would need to be voluntary due to
lack of funding for many libraries
- Although some generalist resources are useful for art libraries
(e.g. Informit, Factiva, Proquest, Gale), the important ones are subject
specific and would have a relatively small market in Australia. A new model
with wider site licences may not be able to accommodate these needs
The art librarians welcome this debate and look forward to some
positive results.
**********************************
TAFE Libraries are a unique group in Australia as they operate in
different ways, depending on the state or territory. Some states administer
their TAFEs centrally, eg TAFE NSW and TAFE WA, whilst others are independent,
eg Victoria, some are aligned with higher education institutions and others
like Tasmania and ACT have only one Institute.
In 2002 TAFE libraries Australia wide submitted for and received
funding from ANTA to formalise and provide an infrastructure for the TAFE
library sector to undertake consortia purchasing of electronic databases. The
funding of $250,000 was for one year and the project manager had the
responsibility among other things of:
- analysing the current available databases useful for the VET
sector
- consulting, surveying and evaluating expected usage with TAFE
libraries
- arranging licences and access
- evaluating project outcomes.
A survey of TAFE libraries ascertained the five electronic
resources state members would use most, current access to consortia, indicative
savings and the benefits a national agreement would leverage. The answer to the
consortia access ranged from none in some of the smaller states to state-wide
database discounts in NSW.
As a result of the survey and the funding a national licence for
Informit's product APAFT was negotiated. Individual Institute's could choose to
participate in a pool of 20 concurrent users, paid for by the initial grant or
opt for unlimited use for their Institute for an additional $3000. A one year
licence was also negotiated with Oxford Reference online.
At the end of the project there were a number of recommendations,
some which suggested TAFE libraries join already established consortia, eg
BRUCE or CAUL. Some Institutes have joined these, although the annual fee for
CAUL is very expensive for many of the smaller TAFE libraries, which are
generally not well funded.
Since the project ended Informit has worked actively to continue
the APAFT subscription but due to a fall off in interest the cost to those
still participating has increased.
National Site Licensing TAFE could obtain
cost benefits from a national approach.
TAFE has a small user base but often requires access to specific
subject resources, eg forensic, aquaculture. An alternative pricing may be to
pay to use / view, eg Newstext articles.
TAFE libraries want access to electronic resources for registered
clients only, not walk-in users.
Lobbying Staff and time to lobby is an issue.
TAFE Libraries Australia acts as a marketing and lobby group for TAFE.
Conformity in the types of statistics provided by vendors would
be helpful.
Issues for site licensing Libraries, which are
better funded or have more clients could pay more.
When paying for a client base a library could be paying multiple
times for the same user as client may be a member of multiple institutions,
including a local public library. Providing access via user authentication
through networking technology and a good ICT infrastructure, eg the Joint
Information Systems Committee (JISC) project in the United Kingdom.
Participation or membership cost - For many TAFE Libraries this is
an issue.
Existing Consortia There is a role for
existing consortia, especially in subject specific areas, but for broad based
products national site licensing would be an advantage.
Communication TAFE Libraries promote their
resources in a range of ways - database pages, subject guides, research skills
sessions, presentations, curriculum development.
Users are encouraged to provide feedback on issues to libraries
via email, phone or in person.
Most TAFE libraries have good relationships with vendors.
Vendor issues Archiving is not a major issue
for TAFE Libraries, who tend to have shorter retention policies for
journals.
Luanne Thornton Convenor, TAFE Libraries Australia
30th November 2004
|