1. I.R.N. Goudar Head, ICAST National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore – 560 017 ( E-mail: goudar@css.nal.res.in) Prof. M.R. Kumbhar Memorial Lecture 16 April 2003

2. Definitions A Strategic alliance with institutions that have common interests Consortia are all about sharing resources and improving access to information These resources are shared among libraries that have common missions, goals, and clients (users) and act on those commonalties

3. Library Cooperatives  Inter library lending  Cooperative acquisition  Cooperative cataloguing  Shared library system  Physical storage facilities  Seminars/Training Programmes

4. E-Journals Major Players  Primary publishers  Aggregators  Vendors  Document delivery agencies  E-print systems

5. Consortia Goals  Increase the access base – More e-Journals  Rational utilization of funds - A little more pays a lot  Ensure the continuous subscription  Qualitative resource sharing - Effective document delivery service  Avoid price plus models - Pay for up-front products not for R&D  Improved infrastructure  Enhanced image of the library - Visibility for smaller libraries  Improve existing library services - Boosting professional image  Harness developments in IT - Facilitate building digital libraries  Cost sharing for technical and training support  Increase user base – Access from desktops of users

6. Consortia Services  Union catalogues: Books, Journals, Technical Reports, and Conference Procs.  Shared library systems – Hardware, Software and other infrastructure  Shared professional expertise – Develop and realize consortia goals  Human resource development – Training staff and users  Electronic contents licensing for providing access to - Bibliographic databases, e-Journals, Full test reports, Conference Proceedings etc.  Inter Library Lending and Document Delivery  Electronic content loading – Contents generated by members and acquired on common server.  Physical storage for archiving – Old back volumes and less used documents.  Seminar/training programmes – Professional development to serve user community  Devept. of enabling technologies – IR systems, Portals and other web interfaces  Evolve standards for techniques, hardware, software and services for the benefit of consortia members.

7. Consortia Models Participants Oriented Models  Geographical location linked: Ex: - Bangalore Special Libraries Group  Libraries in the same discipline: Ex: - Aerospace Libraries Group  Libraries belonging to the same parent organization: Ex: - CSIR LICs  Libraries of academic organizations: Ex: - INFLIBNET  Types of Libraries: Single type / Multi type / Specialized

8.  Consortia for avoiding duplicate collection  Consortia for accessing electronic journals  Consortia for training and library workshops Consortia Models Purpose Oriented Models

9. Consortia Models Client Oriented Models  Clients according to their educational background: Ex: - Technical, Professional  Clients according to their age: Ex: - Children, Senior Citizen  Clients according to their interest: Ex: - sports, game

10. Consortia Values Libraries Vs Publishers LibrariesPublishers  Usefulness  Members driven  Full text access  Expert vs. Student  Lower price  Accessing Internet resources  Combined purchasing power  Simplify purchase procedure  Distribute financial and other risk  Increase participation of members  No storage & documentation problem  Instant Access  Quality of services  Free flow of information  Sharing – ideas, information  Contribution – time, resources  Pricing/Education  Usage Reporting  Linking/Delivery  Interface options  Indexing/Filtering  Gain credibility with libraries  Increased marketing  Reduced cost of production  Reduced surcharges like mailing  Less extra efforts and expenditure for giving access to new customers  Get consortium tool o Gather library information o Invoice libraries o Products support

11. Pricing Models Influencing FactorsPublishers Issues  Quantum of business  Number of consortia members  Types of institutions  Contract period  Number of IP enabled nodes  Number of campuses  Value added services  Rights to archive  Perpetual access  Training facilities  Multi year agreement  Free titles on Internet  Free access against print subscription  All titles of a publisher for fixed fee  Surcharge on print subscription  Discounts for electronic journals  Capped annual inflation  Discounts on non-subscribed titles  Access to subject clusters of the journals  Protection of current revenue  Uncertainty of new subscription  Single point payment

12. Pricing Models No Universally Acceptable E-journals Pricing and Licensing Models Ongoing experimentation Negotiation possible Charge for content Delivery format optional Increasingly will be based on usage

13. Pricing Models in Operation Bundled – Free with print AIP, APS, AMS, Elsevier, Wiley Print as base + surcharge on electronic Premium payments range from10-25% ACS (20%), OSA (25%) Electronic only Small increase (ACS 105%) Same price (OSA) Discount from print (AIP 80%, AMS 90%) Totally unbundled – No discount for both JBC (P- $ 1600, E- $1200, P+E- $ 2800) Free e-version only Charge for print if required British Medical Journal Continue…

14. Pricing Models in Operation …Continued Membership Fee Usage based pricing Concurrent users Site population All titles of publishers with print optional Subject clusters Pay – per – view Free completely – Differently funded Extra fee for software Continue…

15. Extra for value added services Consortium discount Number of sites Consortium surcharge Access to all consortia titles All titles of publisher Subscription to core titles – Rest pay-per-view Pricing based on FTE, Concurrent users Pricing Models in Operation …Continued

16. Consortia Issues StrategicTacticalPractical MissionProgramsGovernance  Lobbying  Fund raising  Education  Purchasing  e-Journal subscription  Database access  Union catalogue  Digital libraries  Archiving  Resource sharing  Access rights  Outsourcing  Governing board  Council  Task Forces  Interest groups  Implementing coordinating agency Contd…

17. Consortia Issues StrategicTacticalPractical FundingServicesStaffing  Parent organization  Funding agency  Government  Membership  Service fees  Cataloguing  Training  Consultation  Preservation  Document Delivery  Copyright  Program staff  Support staff  Volunteers  Student trainees Contd…

18. Consortia Issues StrategicTacticalPractical Geographical CoverageTechnologyPayment  National  Regional  State  Local  Website development  Shared infrastructure  Shared systems  Digital Library  Negotiation  Bill to library  Central funding  Vendor billing  Aggregator billing  Deposit account  Doc Delivery bill Library Types National Public Academic Special Subject based

20. Archiving: Key Issues –Perpetual access to bibliographic databases –Perpetual access to e-journals –Who does the archiving? Consortia, third party –How do we preserve publishers’ interests? –Incorporate archiving terms in agreements –How the data is acquired? –How do we create the access architecture from this data? –Are there software solutions?

21. Licensing Issues National Site Licensing Open Consortia Walk-in-User’s Rights Who will sigh MOU

22. Indian Consortia Initiatives  Consortia of IIMs  CSIR Consortia  FORSA  Consortia through MHRD (INDEST)  ICICI- Knowledge Park  ISRO Initiative  INFLIBNET Initiative

23. CSIR Initiative Access to >1700 E-Journals Elsevier’s ScienceDirect 40 CSIR Laboratories IP Enabled Seamless Access Central Funding Price based on Print Subscription Certain % of US $1.3 M

24. The UGC Model Universities have a poor subscription base. Traditional consortium models therefore do not apply. Electronic access only models are being considered. These should prove to be attractive to users as well as suppliers. This stream will allow suppliers to tap revenue which exists but is presently inaccessible, through a couple of hundred universities and thousands of colleges.

25. FORSA Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR, SO and CASA-OU..Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR, SO and CASA-OU..  Facilitate e-access to journals  Actively participate in resource sharing  Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post)  Database merging of all libraries holdings  We have gone into two consortia formation, viz.  Indian Astrophysics Consortium- with (KLUWER);  FORSA Consortium for Nature On - Line – with (Nature Publishing).

26. DEMO

27. Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Consortium Leader – NAL Open Consortium Consortium For Material Science And Aerospace Collection 25 - 40% Discount COMSAC

28.  Lack of awareness about consortia benefits  Slow acceptance of e-information by the users.  Difficulties in changing the mind setup of librarians  Maintenance and balancing both physical and digital library  Inadequate funds  Single point payment  Rigid administrative, financial and auditing rules  Problems of defining asset against payment Consortia Constraints Specific to Indian Libraries

29.  Pay-Per-View not yet acceptable  Uncertainty about the persistence of digital resources.  Lack of infrastructure for accessing electronic sources  Unreliable telecommunication links and insufficient bandwidth  Lack of appropriate bibliographic tools  Lack of trained personnel for handling new technologies  Absence of strong professional association  Big brother attitude Consortia Constraints Specific to Indian Libraries … Contd

30.  Consortial leaders with a set of common interests (directors, coordinators of consortia) Founded spontaneously in early 1997 following discussions by a few people at other national meetings First meeting 2/1997, Missouri, 30 consortia Meets twice a year, 12 meetings to date No dues, no staff -- purely a volunteer effort ICOLC: International Coalition of Library Consortia

31.  Public Web site: Documents are developed by volunteer committees and working groups Documents are widely distributed –Statement of Preferred Practices & Update –Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage –Privacy Guidelines ICOLC Documents

32. Tail Piece “ Man can live individually, but can survive only collectively. Hence, our challenge is to form a progressive community by balancing the interests of the individual and that of the society. To meet this we need to develop a value system where people accept modest sacrifices for the common good” From Vedas – As quoted by Mr. Narayanamurthy (IFOSYS)