National Licensing Forum

Responses to the issues paper

CAUL

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.

**********************************

CASL Consortium

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:

  • $3622
  • $2173
  • $1103

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.

**********************************

CAVAL

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:

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

**********************************

Health Libraries Australia

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Identify minimum range of information sources to which all Australian clinicians should have access as core services.
  4. Identify key user groups and determine the nature of their most important information needs.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Emphasis must be placed on facilitating technical support / information for web authentication and authorisation schemes.
  8. Determine how acquired electronic resources may be best promoted to identified user groups.
  9. 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.
  10. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

**********************************

ALIA

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

**********************************

Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN)

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.

**********************************

Art Libraries Society of Australia and New Zealand (ARLIS/ANZ)

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:

  1. To seek to join one of the larger consortia, although this would require the ability to subscribe to selected resources from a larger package
  2. 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 Australia

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

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