Conference papers

Digital issues III

Moving Towards Public Access to Online Information Resources in Australia

Ms Margaret Phillips

Project officer, National Library of Australia

Libraries World-Wide are finding advantages in forming consortia for the purpose of purchasing access to online information resources. There is growing evidence that they lead to a 'win-win' situation for libraries, publishers and library patrons alike. There are a growing number of successful examples of 'citizen access' consortia, including some Australian ones, which provide access to online information resources through public, state and national libraries. This paper examines the current situation in Australia and a proposal to work towards a consortium involving all public, State and National libraries and a national site license.

Background

This paper describes the work that is under way to establish a consortium of Australian State, Territory, National and public libraries for the purpose of providing access to a core set of online information resources to Australians regardless of where they live. To set the context, some points of interest relating to existing library consortia both in Australia and elsewhere in the world are given.

Over the past five years, the trend towards making information available online has accelerated. This is particularly the case with serial publications, although digitised books are also beginning to make an impact. In endeavouring to acquire access to the information that their patrons require, libraries must operate in an increasingly complex environment. They must weigh the merits of print versus electronic versions of publications, take into account the implications of moving from owning print publications to leasing access to electronic information, and negotiate the minefield of licence agreements. Needless to say, the costs continue to rise faster than budget allocations do!

There are, though, some major advantages for libraries in this new information environment and naturally they want to maximise them. While costs are often higher, the value of what can be obtained is sometimes much greater, and access arrangements can be more flexible than has been the case with print.

Libraries around the world have known the benefits of working cooperatively for a long time and have formed consortia for purposes such as sharing cataloguing data, collection development and the acquisition of materials, and sharing the high costs of storage and preservation. A prominent example in Australia is CAVAL. The need for cost effective access to online information resources has given new impetus to consortia formation, with some of the older consortia adding access to electronic publications to their previous functions, and with new consortia being established specifically to address this issue.

A survey of the literature indicates that consortial arrangements can be a 'win-win' situation for libraries, publishers and users alike. Libraries gain from greater bargaining power in contractual negotiations and, depending upon how the consortium is structured, may streamline processes in the selection, evaluation and acquisition of online resources. Cost savings at the individual institution level can be realised, providing additional purchasing power overall.

For publishers a consortium provides a single point of negotiation and the potential for greater take-up of their products when attractive packages are offered. Standard licences benefit publishers as well as libraries and, under some models, publishers gain from consolidated ordering, renewals and payment. Consortia agreements sometimes also bring publishers new customers, which may ultimately increase their revenue.

Users benefit from more convenient access to more titles. This is especially the case if improved bibliographic control can be achieved. The combined resources of consortium members are more likely to be able to achieve this than individual libraries working on their own to catalogue titles.

Academic libraries were quick to see the benefits of participation in consortia, and Australian university libraries formed the Council of Australian University Librarians Electronic Information Resources Committee (CEIRC) in 1998. Public libraries are also finding consortial membership advantageous and in Australia examples include Gulliver, NSW.net and Murraylink. Overseas, the People's Network Online in the United Kingdom and the Kentucky Virtual Library (KVL) in the United States are among the major innovators in this sector. An interesting aspect of the last example is the close relationship between State, public and university libraries.

Administration arrangements for consortia are of three main types:

• management outsourced to a third party;
• a full-time administrative office run by the consortium;
• and a negotiation team under the guidance of a steering committee.

The first type, management outsourced to a third party, is exemplified by the National Electronic Site Licence Initiative (NESLI) in the UK which appointed Swets and Zeitlinger and Manchester Computing as managing agent. This model requires a well-advanced understanding of the needs of the consortium and a large membership base to sustain the administrative costs of engaging a managing agent.

More commonly, consortia are administered through a not-for-profit office run by the consortium, with input from steering and other committees of members. The Kentucky Virtual Library referred to above operates in this way.

The California State University Electronic Access to Information Resources Committee (CSU EAR) is a successful example of the third type, that is, run by a part-time committee, team or individual. The Committee meets quarterly at various locations and carries out activities on behalf of the consortium. In Australia CEIRC works more or less on this model. The Executive Officer as part of her broader administrative tasks, coordinates the activities of selection, evaluation and negotiation for access to electronic resources. She communicates with a datasets co-ordinator in each university.

There is another very interesting arrangement that has emerged in Canada, a consortium of consortia. Consortia Canada is a coalition of consortia of all types of libraries that licenses electronic resources at a national level. In this case, a member consortium takes responsibility for negotiating access to a particular product on behalf of all other members. It manages all aspects of bringing the process to fruition, including acting as a point of contact with the vendor, arranging for trials, distributing information, negotiating terms and conditions and, where possible, signing the licence agreement on behalf of the participants.

Approach to content is another factor that determines the nature of a consortium. In some cases the consortium subscribes to a common portfolio of selected titles, each member institution having access to the same set of data. Gulliver and the Kentucky Virtual Library both operate on this basis. In other cases, member libraries have flexibility to choose from a range of titles available through the consortium. NESLI and CAUL are examples of consortia that enable access to a set of data tailored to each member library's needs.

There are also hybrid approaches. The California State University invites proposals from vendors on a defined set of titles to which at least 15 of 22 university campuses are willing to subscribe. Another hybrid model involves all member libraries subscribing to a core set of products supplemented by titles to which just some of the member libraries subscribe.

The size of the consortium is a key factor determining whether fixed or flexible content options are likely to be workable in a given situation. The second, flexible option is only really effective where there is a membership of a reasonable size. The greater the number of participants subscribing to a product, the better the negotiated price is likely to be for individual participants, so for a small consortium, less than full participation for a product may not realise worthwhile savings.

The CASL consortium

In the light of these developments in Australia and overseas, the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), which also includes the National Library, began to consider the potential advantages of a consortium for the joint purchase of online products and services. In October 1999, it formed the Consortia and Licensing Working Group (CLWG) to investigate the feasibility of establishing a consortium of State, Territory and National libraries. Recognising that online products are expanding in number and scope and are often expensive, with complex licensing arrangements, the aim was to simplify licensing arrangements, improve cost benefits, and to explore opportunities to make electronic products more widely available to Australians. The CLWG comprises one representative from each of the State, Territory and National libraries, with a full time convenor based at the National Library. (Appendix 1 contains a list of CLWG members.)

The principal terms of reference of the CLWG are:

1. To identify issues and options for implementing consortia arrangements between State and Territory libraries and the National Library;
2. To develop suggestions, strategies and action to support the implementation of consortia arrangements;
3. To recommend electronic products that may be of interest to the National, State and Territory libraries;
4. To identify issues in negotiating licenses for electronic products.

The National Library took on convenorship of the CLWG and, in order to speed up progress, in April 2000 appointed a member of staff to undertake this role full time.

With the impetus provided by a full time convenor, the CLWG got down to the business of investigating the issues involved in setting up a consortium. It examined the models already existing in Australia and overseas and proposed to CASL a framework for a model that would be appropriate to the Australian public library sector.

In a series of teleconferences it examined in depth a number of matters that would need to be resolved in order to establish a consortium. Which libraries would participate in the proposed consortium? How would it be constituted and administered? What online products should be subscribed to? How would they be funded? Who would sign the licence agreements and what terms would be acceptable to members of the consortium? How would access to products be made available? How would products and services be promoted to users of member libraries and what strategies for training in their use would be required?

CASL had already recognised that a consortium where member libraries had a shared vision and were committed to a partnership, where there is agreement on the type of product required, where the aims and objectives of the consortium are clearly defined and where there is an agreed management strategy was more likely to work well than a consortium lacking these characteristics.

The CLWG submitted to the October meeting of CASL a series of 14 recommendations, the implementation of which would establish a framework for a consortium suitable to the needs of the broad Australian public library sector. CASL endorsed the recommendations and gave approval to commencement of a trial from February 2001.

In formulating the recommendations, the CLWG had considered a number of issues in depth: governance (administration), content, licence agreements, funding, access and training and promotion.

Governance

The membership of the consortium and how relationships between members would be established have been fundamental factors running through the discussion on almost all other topics. Initial research into the models used by other consortia suggested that the more centralised and coordinated administrative arrangements could be, the more effective the consortium is likely to be in negotiating advantageous agreements with vendors. The CLWG therefore favoured appointing a lead negotiator, which would also sign licence agreements on behalf of other members. The National Library will be the lead negotiator for the time being.

The CLWG will undertake the work of the consortium, providing information, direction and advice to the convenor who will carry out the day to day administration. The CLWG, for instance, would make decisions about products that should be acquired through the consortium and would determine and approve the wording of licence agreements. CASL would monitor, evaluate and review the work of the consortium.

For the lead negotiator to be able to sign licence agreements on behalf of other members, the legal relationships between participating libraries must be defined. A Deed to be signed between each member library and the lead negotiator will authorise the National Library to sign licence agreements on behalf of other members, and will establish the consortium and the operating principles and procedures.

The ultimate vision of the CLWG is a consortium potentially comprising all public, State, Territory and National libraries that would enable all Australians to have equitable access to a core set of online information resources. Public libraries have an important role in making information readily available within the local community. Most public libraries want access to the same kinds of information resources and it makes sense to utilise this bulk buying power. Depending on where they live, some Australian residents are already well served through their public libraries for access to electronic resources. We want everyone to have this advantage, regardless of where they live.

Those libraries that already provide satisfactory access to electronic resources may not be motivated to join the consortium unless it can demonstrate significant savings and other benefits to members. This will be a measure of its success.

Implementing a large consortium of Australian libraries from three different levels of government, with different patterns for State/public library cooperation in each State, and different funding parameters, is a complex undertaking. The CLWG considered that, to maximise opportunity for success, a phased approach to implementation should be adopted. During the first stage (the trial) membership will be limited to the State, Territory and National libraries. This will enable many of the practical issues to be identified and addressed on the smaller scale, allowing time to resolve the organisational complexities of a larger consortium. It is intended to open the consortium to public libraries as soon as feasible, starting with a small number and gradually extending membership to encompass all those that may wish to be involved.

Many public libraries will obtain access to consortium products through their State and Territory libraries with which they already have arrangements for access to library resources, both print and electronic. Other public libraries may come in through existing consortia, and yet others, for instance, public library networks in the capital cities, may join as independent members.

Content

As discussed earlier in this paper, there are three broad approaches to content that a consortium may take:

• all members take a fixed set of products;
• members can select from a range of products offered by the consortium;
• a combination of the first two approaches.

The CLWG saw distinct advantages in the first approach where the consortium would establish a 'core set' of products to which all members would subscribe. (An optional set of products could also be offered later on.) For a small consortium (which this one will be in the initial stages) this approach seemed to optimise the potential for negotiating favourable prices with vendors. This approach is also appealing from the point of view of equity of access, with a common set of products and services being available to users of all participating libraries (perhaps one day all libraries in the public sector). It would also signal to policy makers and funding providers strength of cooperation and mutuality of purpose of Australian libraries in the public sector.

In practice, however, there may be some impediments to this ideal. As previously mentioned, some members already have good access arrangements for some products which it may not be advantageous to change. If the core set of products were mandatory, this would either exclude that library from the consortium, or those particular products from the core set. In addition, some potential members are better funded than others. Some may not have the funds available for all of the products in the core set. It seems undesirable to exclude them from the consortium as a whole on this basis.

For the time being, therefore, the CLWG continues to strive for a 'core set' as the ideal, but recognises that in practice the core set may be limited to just one or two products. The trial will help to determine the minimum viable number of participants for any one product.

Surveys of the State, Territory and National libraries established preferences for the core set and gathered information about the existing distribution and costs of these products.

Most of the products recommended for the core set during the first stage are not already widely held by member libraries. This could strengthen the consortium's bargaining position in some cases. It is interesting to note that the products favoured by most libraries are Australian. This led the CLWG to consider the advantages of focusing on an Australian package, not excluding overseas products, but emphasising the delivery of Australian information to Australians. For promotional reasons it is an appealing strategy and consistent with primary responsibilities of the State, Territory and National libraries.

A number of factors may determine whether a product is included in the core set:

• membership of the consortium (number of members and type of members)
• do member libraries want the product?
• is the price advantageous in comparison to any existing arrangements?
• can member libraries afford the product?
• is the vendor willing to do business with the consortium on terms acceptable to it?

Some of these questions will not be able to be answered until the trial tests a number of critical factors.

Funding

Any consortium needs to consider how it will fund two types of costs: the cost of the administration of the consortium and the cost of purchasing access to products. In the case of the CASL Consortium, the National Library has agreed to absorb the everyday administrative costs for three years, including help desk support through the Kinetica help desk and the production of promotional material. In countries such as the UK and Canada, governments have seen fit to provide seed funding for consortial projects, including the Canadian National Site Licensing Project and the Pilot Site Licence Initiative (PSLI) in the UK which was the precursor to National Electronic Site Licence Initiative (NESLI). This has also been the case for the Gulliver Consortium in Australia. While these projects must eventually find their own funding for ongoing access, the start up funding provides a boost in the initial stages when the costs of establishing infrastructure and access must be met and when libraries often maintain dual modes of access, print and electronic, during a transition period.

No such funding is available to the CASL Consortium and member libraries will need to commit funds from their existing acquisitions budgets.

The CLWG has established the principle of sharing costs of subscriptions proportionally based on likely usage, which is also tied to the population of a State or Territory. In practice, the consortium will need to be flexible enough to work with individual circumstances pertaining to each product and the pricing structures that vendors are willing to supply.

Licence Agreements

The administration of licence agreements for access to electronic sources of information has become a major burden to libraries and is one of the driving forces behind the formation of consortia. One of the bugbears with licence agreements is that they are all different and some contain very unreasonable clauses. This involves libraries in the time consuming and costly process of examining clauses, seeking legal advice and negotiating changes which are often protracted. A number of bodies, a prominent example of which is the International Coalition of Library Consortia, have sought to streamline this process by establishing standard licence agreements or principles. Some publishers, too, have seen advantages in standard agreements. In the UK, the Publishers Association and the Joint Information Systems Committee jointly developed a model licence and, based on that work, EBSCO, Harrassowitz, RoweCom and Swets Blackwell sponsored the development of a suite of licences for different types of libraries.

In the light of these other efforts, the CASL CLWG has devised a 'Statement of Principles Guiding Licence Negotiation' (see the Appendix) against which vendors' licence agreements will be checked before signing. It contains mandatory, highly desirable and desirable conditions that the consortium will want to achieve.

Access and delivery

How will the consortium deliver access to the products it subscribes to? The consortium plans to implement a combination of centralised and decentralised approaches. A CASL Consortium web page will provide access to the products themselves as well as to training packages. Individual member libraries, networks or consortia will also provide access to products from their local home pages to build on user familiarity with local interfaces and to associate their 'brand' with the products they have paid for.

There will be a two-tiered approach to solving problems related to access. These are expected to be of two broad types: local system problems and problems with the products themselves on the vendors' sites. A coordinated support plan will be devised to facilitate problems being handled locally first and then referred to the Kinetica help desk, where necessary. A centralised approach to any problems with the products will enable the consortium to assess their performance and to inform renegotiation for subsequent subscription years.

Ongoing training will be provided through web-based packages provided by the vendor or created in-house if necessary. Face-to-face training may be appropriate under certain circumstances, for example, if offered by a vendor as part of the cost of a product. However, the advantage of web-based training is that it is available on an ongoing basis, and is accessible to all, both library staff and users.

The vision of the CLWG is that, ultimately, all Australians will have access to a core set of electronic information resources through their public, State, Territory and National libraries, including remote access from Internet connections in their homes. This is an ambitious undertaking and will take time to achieve. There are organisational, technical and funding complexities that need to be addressed.

Conclusion

At time of writing this paper (October 2000), the CASL Consortium is in the process of preparing for the trial to commence in February 2001. The principal tasks before it are to frame the legal agreement between member libraries and the National Library as lead negotiator, set up the web page that will provide access to products, and to enter into negotiations with vendors for access to desired products. By January 2001, when this paper is to be delivered, although the trial will not yet have commenced, the CLWG will have learned a lot more about the practicalities of setting up a consortium and obtaining access to online products. I look forward to sharing this experience with you.

Appendix: Statement of principles guiding licence negotiation

The CASL Consortium will negotiate licence agreements with vendors of electronic products and services on the basis of the following principles.

M = mandatory HD = highly desirable D = desirable