1. SHEDL : the long and winding road FinELib,University of Helsinki, 1 st June 2010

3. SHEDL: FinELib Oldest University in Scotland, 3 rd in UK 7400 students Over 1/3 rd from overseas Research intensive: top ranked for Philosophy, Physics, Modern Languages

4. SHEDL: FinELib “This is good for Scotland, good for research and teaching, for our academics and students. It will contribute huge to the capacity of our world- leading researchers to maintain their international standing” Anton Muscatelli, V-C University of Glasgow

5. Summary Background history of the Consortium Scottish Dimension UK Dimension From theory to reality First deals: deliverables New structures

6. Summary 2010: process and observations 2011 Ongoing challenges Review: funding models Review: delivering value Future observations

7. Background History Joint funding bid Universities Glasgow and Edinburgh Bid turned down but picked up by Principals Commission consultants report

8. Background History “Investigative Study towards establishing a Scottish Higher Education Digital Library for Scottish Universities” – John Cox http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/reports.html

9. Background History: the report Experience of publishing and negotiation combined with legal background Extensive consultation with stakeholders

10. Background History: the report Reasons to believe would be successful Worked elsewhere in Europe: IReL. FinELib: Consortia deliver value Strong culture of joint procurement in Scotland Research Pooling, cross institutional research projects Cost savings: time and money

11. Background History: the report Good spread of subscriptions across institutions: allow incremental growth Strong representation of digital content, lower cost delivery Scheme which could work within existing NESLi structure Benefits for publishers –Reduced costs with single payment –Wider distribution –Guaranteed income

13. Scottish Dimension Strong tradition of collaboration and joint procurement in Scotland Scottish Government interest –APUC –Shared services agenda

14. Scottish Dimension Number of institutions in consortium: a workable unit Understanding of benefits of national interest in supporting small institutions, deeply embedded –Little extra pain for political gain –Extension of responsibility to the community

15. Scottish Dimension Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA) ScotChem WestChem EastChem Edinburgh Research Partnership in Engineering and Mathematics Glasgow Research Partnership in Engineering (GRPE) Marine Alliance for Science & Technology for Scotland (MASTS) Northern Research Partnership in Engineering Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment and Society (SAGES) Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE) Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance (SULSA) Scottish Imaging Network: A Platform for Scientific Excellence Scottish Informatics and Computer Science

16. UK Dimension Existing NESLi Deals, opt in not all in “sub optimal” English interest in national consortia for content JISC looking for ways to move forward debate

17. From Theory to Reality Steering group formed to take things forward: very limited admin support Acceptance of report by SCURL & SCURL Directors (Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries) Identification of first 3 publishers Achieving full set of signatures for Letter of Commitment

18. SHEDL Membership Aberdeen Abertay Dundee Edinburgh Edinburgh College of Art Glasgow Glasgow Caledonian Glasgow School of Art Heriot-Watt Edinburgh Napier Queen Margaret Robert Gordon Royal Scottish Academy Music & Drama St Andrews Strathclyde Univ Highlands & Islands West of Scotland Students 775 – 23735 SHEDL (2009) £0 - £31,500

19. From Theory to reality Letter of Commitment Commit to maintain spend with 3 publishers at 2007 rate plus 10% –ACS, Springer, CUP Online only: DDP extra 3 year deal Agreement to consider revised funding model in year 3 No separate negotiations

20. From theory to reality Negotiations conducted by NESLi Team –Negotiation skills –Legal input –Financial management, single payment Regular input from SHEDL Steering Group Deals concluded late 2008 New license agreed based on NESLi license

21. First Deals: deliverables Uniform access to content across all partner institutions: access to more than 1500 titles Every institution gained more content Achieved pricing goal: some cases lower annual increases compared to standard deals

22. First Deals: deliverables Simplified license and access arrangements, same content for all switched on at same time Guaranteed archival access Proof of efficiency and procurement good practice at institutional level Delivery of content to key research pool subject areas

23. New structures Creation of Working Group: representation from all members Remit –Inform decisions about new deals –Report on operation of existing deals –Support promotion of deals within institutions and to researchers at large –Share experience Well attended sessions, much interest

24. 2010 process Voting for new deals: 2 stages Attempt to ensure even distribution of subject areas Final veto with Steering Group Filter of what in real world can be achieved,desirable but not practical –Discussions with NESLi negotiators –Co-ordinate with NESLi deals

25. 2010 Process Considered trying to include re-negotiation of one existing deal to achieve better value Scottish content Same financial targets for Negotiations Again publishers viewed desirable but not practical to achieve successful negotiations Look at aggregated content

26. 2010 Process Result 3 deals –Oxford University Press –Berg –Edinburgh University Press Portico deal: logical extension –New money –Help collection development –Future publishers expectation to sign up

27. 2010: Observations Harder to achieve deals within target price Some failed negotiations –Issue with Society Publishers

28. 2011: Process Same voting procedure Currently considering 6-7 deals Expansion of Consortium to include Scottish Colleges Possible NHS deals, into England? E-book packages Backfiles? Re-organization of governance

30. 2011 Process Likely to see increased strain on funding model: 15- 20% cuts next 3 years High percentage funds tied into big deals VAT? Increased demand for and increased expectation of better value

31. 2011 Process More interest from publishers, approaches being made to SHEDL Smarter use of consortial data: usage, drive down cost for existing and new deals –£0.66 to £1.86 cost per download for existing deals –Over £2.00 for deals being considered in 2011 –Identify concept of “at risk”

32. Ongoing challenges New title acquisitions by publishers Support for SHEDL packages by knowledge base providers: information flow Establishing accurate base pricing information for each member: currency Society Publishers Pace of negotiation

33. Problem areas Subscription agents Existing contract: managing loss of business, impact on terms Concerns about fair competition Big questions about future role: should agents be involved in managing these deals

34. Review of funding models Promise in early Letter of Commitment would look at funding arrangement Bloc Payment Mechanisms for Online Journals: review and modelling of cost redistribution criteria for UK HEIs’ – JISC project, national interest Use of SHEDL as opportunity to look at various models

35. Review of funding models Options being reviewed: Academic staff nos. JISC Banding Library Budget RAE Research income Total income Total staff numbers and students Usage Attempt to look at mixture of all above

36. Review of funding models All models are problematic Enormous swings from existing payments to new model –JISC Banding approach: swings over £100k –Research Active staff: over £60k –Staff & students: over £100k

37. Review of funding models Concerns about usage: across all deals CPD from £0.41 - £3.01 Interesting questions about how institutions assess value Top slice only solution: must be able to justify value and assess impact

38. Review: impact of SHEDL Looking for data to support argument: Data so far: –Usage up 41.3%, 2009 over 2008 –Usage in institutions previously without access –Increase also in institutions which already had bundles

39. Review: impact of SHEDL RIN funded report: Evaluation of the Impact of Scottish Higher Education Digital Library Concentrate of first 3 deals Based on data (Counter stats pre- and post-SHEDL Interviews with academics and subject librarians

40. Review: impact of SHEDL What has been the impact on research pools Has the quality of teaching and research overall improved What has been the impact in small institutions with previously limited coverage

41. Review: impact of SHEDL Understand impact on different disciplines Understand value to different disciplines Potential develop best practice for promotion Real issues delivering review in timescale

42. Review: impact of SHEDL Are you aware that you have increased online access to journals from CUP, ACS and Springer – about 1,500 titles? How did your library announce this initiative to you? Usage appears to have increased. What are the reasons for that? Have you noticed that more articles are available to you right away? Have you even noticed? What did you do before: inter-library loan, phone a colleague in another institution, use the library at another institution? Has it changed your work patterns in any way (particularly at smaller institutions)? Does it reduce the need to obtain articles in some illicit or under-the-counter way? Is there now material available for you to use in your teaching that was not there before? Does it encourage you to use more digital content in teaching? Are you using journal literature for teaching or research purposes that was simply not available before (particularly in smaller/specialist institutions such as RSAMD, Glasgow School of Art, Edinburgh College of Art)? Has the availability of more journals promoted inter-disciplinary\study? Do you have as many difficulties in accessing journal articles that you want as you did two or three years ago?

43. Review: impact of SHEDL What proportion of your materials acquisition budget was spent on SHEDL licences in 2009? Is SHEDL participation restricting the choice you exercise over acquisitions? Has ILL traffic reduced in volume? Are reader support/help desk queries down? Can you use cost-per-use as an argument for increased budgets for the library? If more content is offered via SHEDL, does that increase the influence SHEDL has brought to bear on budgetary issues? Is your institution in favour of an effective top-slicing arrangement for Scotland-wide purchasing of key resources? Does the SHEDL Scotland-wide model protect the institution against malpractice by researchers – illicit downloading or copying etc?

44. Observations for the future Continue to work in an imperfect world where we have to muddle through to find solutions Economically tough times shared procurement is a strength, showing delivering value Aim to introduce a top slice

45. Observations for the future Closure collaboration between research assessment and content procurement Continue to highlight opportunities for suite of national services, the University Library of Scotland to match “Science for Scotland? Optimum size? Continue with the campaign

46. Observations for the future Many times I’ve been alone And many times I’ve cried Anyway you’ll never know The many ways I’ve tried But they still lead me back To the long and winding road

47. Jeremy Upton Acting Director, University of St Andrews jeremy.upton@st-andrews.ac.uk jeremy.upton@st-andrews.ac.uk http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/index.html Kidd, Tony: “Collaboration in Electronic Resource Provision in University Libraries: SHEDL, a Scottish Case Study” – New review of academic librarianship 15 (2009), 97-119