From Elect. Resources Conference: Sharing the Cost of E-resources
Greetings from the Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference in sunny Los Angeles. As I mentioned to folks at AkLA-J’s recent meeting, I’m planning to post brief summaries of several of the sessions that I found to be most interesting or helpful. I’ll do this over the next week or so.
Annis Lee Adams and Lori Ann Saeki of the University of Hawaii at Manoa presented a session that might be particularly relevant to AK libraries, titled “Sharing the Buck: How Diverse Libraries Came Together to Share Costs and Gain E-resources. “ I apologize to them if I mischaracterize any of what they said.
Annis and Lori described two consortiums. The larger of the two, the Hawaii Library Consortium, http://www.hlc.hawaii.edu/, is composed of the state-run public library system, 14 academic libraries, many public school libraries, and a number of private school and special libraries. Its sole purpose is to purchase a general suite of EBSCO databases (like those in the Digital Pipeline). A Board of Directors governs the group. Members share costs and vote on matters based on their FTEs (my notes are sketchy here – there may have been other factors too). The public library system serves as billing agent. Aside from the general suite of EBSCO databases, the differences between the member libraries make it difficult for them to participate in other purchases.
The smaller Medical Libraries Consortium of Hawaii is a less formal group that formed to purchase medical e-resources. As the largest member, the University of Hawaii Health Sciences Library negotiates and signs license agreements, but does circulate them for comment and approval first. Not all members participate in all purchases, but the consortium won’t pursue a joint purchase unless the amount the participants will need to pay will be less than the cost to purchase the resource independently. Subscription prices are allocated based on factors such as FTE and bed count. I was surprised to learn that all but one vendor has agreed to invoice each institution separately. Each participant deals with its own access issues and in most cases captures its own statistics. The a la carte approach to specific purchase decisions has been critical to the consortium’s success.
I’ve been wondering how the Medical Libraries’ Consortium’s approach might translate to Alaska (for any subject area, not just health sciences) or whether some AK libraries might already be doing something similar now.
Annis Lee Adams and Lori Ann Saeki of the University of Hawaii at Manoa presented a session that might be particularly relevant to AK libraries, titled “Sharing the Buck: How Diverse Libraries Came Together to Share Costs and Gain E-resources. “ I apologize to them if I mischaracterize any of what they said.
Annis and Lori described two consortiums. The larger of the two, the Hawaii Library Consortium, http://www.hlc.hawaii.edu/, is composed of the state-run public library system, 14 academic libraries, many public school libraries, and a number of private school and special libraries. Its sole purpose is to purchase a general suite of EBSCO databases (like those in the Digital Pipeline). A Board of Directors governs the group. Members share costs and vote on matters based on their FTEs (my notes are sketchy here – there may have been other factors too). The public library system serves as billing agent. Aside from the general suite of EBSCO databases, the differences between the member libraries make it difficult for them to participate in other purchases.
The smaller Medical Libraries Consortium of Hawaii is a less formal group that formed to purchase medical e-resources. As the largest member, the University of Hawaii Health Sciences Library negotiates and signs license agreements, but does circulate them for comment and approval first. Not all members participate in all purchases, but the consortium won’t pursue a joint purchase unless the amount the participants will need to pay will be less than the cost to purchase the resource independently. Subscription prices are allocated based on factors such as FTE and bed count. I was surprised to learn that all but one vendor has agreed to invoice each institution separately. Each participant deals with its own access issues and in most cases captures its own statistics. The a la carte approach to specific purchase decisions has been critical to the consortium’s success.
I’ve been wondering how the Medical Libraries’ Consortium’s approach might translate to Alaska (for any subject area, not just health sciences) or whether some AK libraries might already be doing something similar now.
posted by kfearer at 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home