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

Top

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