|
Home >
About Us >
Activities >
Resource Sharing >
National Licensing Proposal
Pricing
The Pricing Sub Committee of the NLP Reference Group proposed and circulated a pricing model for the NLP in April 2006, comments due 12 May 2006.
Four alternative models were subsequently proposed:
NB* A tabulated version of this information is available at Appendix A of the updated 2006 issues paper tabled at the 3rd National Licensing Forum.
Model 1: EPIC like
High financial risk
NLP Governence Framework with:
- Executive Committee
- Members
- Executive Officer (NLA)
Legalities/Procurement:
- NLA Executive Officer procures on behalf of libraries
- Ministerial approval & Probity advice required as likely cost of contract > $AUD1 million
- Delegate (NLA) signs contract with vendor on behalf of libraries
- NLA has agreements with individual libraries, signed prior to procurement (with some financial commitment up-front)
- Agreement of trust not always legally binding due to lack of legal status for some libraries
Payments:
- NLA pays vendor up-front and recovers costs from participating libraries
Pros:
- Individual libraries can buy in without belonging to a sector or peak body
- Standard license agreement & terms apply to all
- Financial commitment on signing agreement
- Economies of scale – better deals from vendors
- High profile for NLA as lead agency for establishment of NLP
- Increased rate of success or buy in of NLP
Cons:
- No NLA budget allocation 2006-07
- Administratively unwieldy for NLA: contract administration, invoicing, management of relationships and expectations
- Unfinancial libraries may not be able to buy in due to costs and lack of access to legal advice, etc.
- Not all signatories to the Deed are legal entities – no legal bond , but have access to a parent body who may have.
- Risk of dealyed or failed payment back to NLA
Model 2: Deed Agreement
High financial risk
NLP Governence Framework with:
- Executive Committee
- Members
- Executive Officer (NLA)
Legalities/Procurement:
- NLA Executive Officer procures on behalf of libraries
- Ministerial approval & Probity advice required as likely cost of contract > $AUD1 million
- Delegate (NLA) signs contract with vendor on behalf of peak bodies/consortia
- Executive Officer (NLA) has deed of agreement or MOU with peak bodies/consortia empowering NLA to act on their behalf.
- Agreement of trust not always legally binding due to lack of legal status for
some peak bodies/consortia
Payments:
- NLA pays vendor up-front and recovers costs from peak bodies/consortia
- Peak bodies/consortia recover costs from membership/constituency
Pros:
- Ownership of and active participation in NLP by peak bodies/consortia
- NLA one amongst equals
- Small libraries increased chance of “getting in” ( as per “greater good” above)
- Administratively easier for NLA with fewer parties involved
- Economies of scale and transfer of risk to NLA likely to yield better offers from vendors
- High profile for NLA as lead agency for establishment of NLP
- Strong liklihood of success
- Deed of agreement gives in principle support to NLA to proceed with procurement
- Absorb CASL Consortium – efficiency gains
- In the spirit of original proposal
Cons:
- No NLA budget allocation 2006-07
- Not all libraries affiliated with a peak body or Consortia and so not all have access to deals
- Special libraries may feel they do not have equal representation
- Some peak bodies/consortia cannot or will not sign for their sector (eg ASLA, TAFE)
- No legal bond to deed if signatories are not are legal entities
- Existing consortia (eg CAUL) work in environment of high-level trust rather than legal contract à suspicion?
- Risk of delayed or failed cost recovery for NLA
Model 3: Vendor/Library Agreement
No financial risk
NLP Governence Framework - revised due to fact NLA would not be signing individual contracts
Legalities/Procurement:
- NLA Executive Officer facilitates procurement on behalf of libraries
- Ministerial approval not formally required
- Legal and probity advice prudent
- Libraries/Consortia sign contract/s directly with vendor/s
Payments:
- Direct payments between libraries and vendors
- No payment for NLA up-front (other than for Library’s own use of product)
Pros:
- NLA leading as per recommendation of the Senate
- No NLA payments up front
- Financial risk transferred to vendors
- Administration overheads minimised for the NLA
- Minimal administrative change for vendors
- Vendors stand to gain customer introductions
- Likelihood of success amongst library community
- Autonomy and flexibility for participating libraries
Cons:
- Potentially fewer economies of scale to be realised
- Possibly less market interest due to increased risk to vendors
- Less control/motivation by libraries
- May be issues regarding the Library lessening competition under Trade Practices Act
Model 4: Libraries Australia
Medium-High financial risk
Libraries Australia Advisory Committee with user agreements
Legalities/Procurement:
- NLA Executive Officer procures on behalf of libraries
- Ministerial approval & probity advice required as likely cost of contract > $AUD1 million
- Delegate (NLA) signs contract with vendor on behalf of membership
- Electronic product/databases as an optional extra to Libraries Australia service
Payments:
- NLA pays vendor up-front and recovers costs from member libraries
Pros:
- Potential to attract new customers to Libraries Australia
- Billing system and infrastructure exists
- Known libraries and relationships
- Enables individual libraries to buy in directly
Cons:
- No NLA budget allocation 2006-07
- Bad PR for NLA - perception of wielding “NLA knows best” stick
- Excludes non-member libraries
- Technical issues – if part of LA service would need to be z39:50 enabled
- Risk of delayed or failed cost recovery for NLA
|