Canadian National Site Licensing ProjectProjet canadien de .ppt

1、April 4, 2001,Canadian National Site Licensing Project Projet canadien de licences de site nationales (CNSLP / PCLSN) Debriefing Session for Ontario Libraries,Toronto, April 4, 2001,April 4, 2001,Goals,Increase quantity, breadth & depth of research literature build capacity, within and across multip

2、le disciplines share costs and reduce economic barriers to participation Maximize use and utility of content for researchers speed transition from print to electronic resources encourage large-scale adoption of digital formats Influence the marketplace reduce volatility and unpredictability achieve

3、advantageous terms and conditions for usage develop new models,April 4, 2001,Review of licensing process,Formal procurement process: Best value for each dollar spent Fair opportunity for vendors Pre-qualification bid Open call to vendor community 42 responses 23 fulltext/sole source vendors selected

4、 for RFP, Phase I Request for Proposal, Phase I (RFP #200085) 23 vendors invited to bid; 21 bids received Evaluation produced prioritized list of 20 Preferred Bidders Negotiations In order of prioritized list of Preferred Bidders 11 negotiations; 7 vendors retained; 3-year contracts totalling $46M,A

5、pril 4, 2001,Timeline,March April 2000: licensing principles established May June 2000: pre-qualification bid June August 2000: RFP and model license developed August 2000: RFP release Sept Oct 2000: RFP response evaluation Oct 2000: ranked list of preferred bidders and budget allocation approved No

6、v Dec 2000: negotiations commence; 3 vendors retained January 2001: negotiations continue; 4 vendors retained February 2001: access activated under trial provisions,April 4, 2001,Request for Proposal Phase I,Professional assistance from University of Ottawa and Partnering & Procurement Inc. Key comp

7、onents: maximum competition among vendors maximum negotiations advantage for CNSLP Formal scoring and evaluation methodology, and attention to due diligence Draft model license agreement included as part of evaluation criteria,April 4, 2001,Negotiations Process,CNSLP negotiators: Grald Boudreau, Deb

8、 deBruijn, Yves Jobin, Brian Owen, Faye Abrams Preparation: Installed base of product, and current institutional spend Vendors existing pricing model Market intelligence: publication plans, competitors, reasonable expectation of market growth over next 3 years Issues: functionality, license, pricing

9、 Drop-dead issues, and fall-back positions,April 4, 2001,Negotiations Objectives,Aggressive counter-proposal to vendors quoted price Reasonable base for Year 1 Containment of annual cost increases (3-5%) All available backfiles at low or no cost New titles added at no charge Refunds to libraries for

10、 2001 subscriptions already paid Flip model from print-based with electronic add-on, to electronic-based with print add-on Broad interpretation of authorized users Sustainability in Year 4,April 4, 2001,Summary Results,All vendors agreed to: Sign CNSLP model license Offer three-year agreement, with

11、fixed pricing in Cdn $ Hold annual price increases significantly lower than prevailing rates Commit to a price increase cap in Year 4, at license renewal Change pricing model so as to unbundle print and electronic; several vendors will for the first time implement an electronic-based model, with pri

12、nt treated as an incremental and optional add-on,April 4, 2001,Model License Agreement,Significant achievement Based on & aligned with international developments Developed by NRT and endorsed by SC Benefit of expert legal counsel Vendor feedback incorporated following RFP evaluation,April 4, 2001,Mo

13、del License Agreement (cont.),Significant features: Canadian jurisdiction Limited content repurposing rights Balanced obligations between vendors and institutions Provision for access rights that survive termination of the agreement Limits on liability for third-party breaches or claims Model licens

14、e may be applied regionally and locally,April 4, 2001,Product Mix,Approx. 700 fulltext titles Chemistry, physics, math, science/tech, engineering, health, environment, economics, law, social sciences 2 fulltext reviewing journals Mathematics Links to full text articles from Springer and Academic Pre

15、ss journals 3 major citation indexing tools, covering over 8500 journal titles Links to Springer, Academic Press, ACS,April 4, 2001,Publisher Mix,Commercial publishers Academic Press, Springer, ISISociety/Non-profit AMS, RSC, IOP, ACSSPARC publications represented: ACS, RSC titles,April 4, 2001,Acad

16、emic Press IDEAL,176 current fulltext titles; 205 titles total (some discontinued titles still online) New titles that come available added at no charge (collections excluded) All available backfiles, 1993- Agreement to honour same model if CNSLP wishes to add new institutions (teaching hospitals, e

17、tc.),April 4, 2001,ACS Web Editions,First time to sign a multi-year agreement; CNSLP is ACSs largest deal 30 full-text titles All available backfiles (1996-2000) Forthcoming titles (2 per year projected) to be added at no charge,April 4, 2001,AMS MathSciNet,Database containing full-text reviews from

18、 Mathematical Reviews, 1940-, and Current Mathematical Publications 22 institutions will have access to this database for the first time,April 4, 2001,IOP Journals,34 fulltext titles All available backfiles included 10-year fulltext archive 31 year abstract archive Forthcoming titles (3-4 titles pro

19、jected) to be added at no charge,April 4, 2001,ISI Web of Science,Web versions of SCI, SSCI, and A server will support up to 600 s.u. with average response time less than 10 seconds,April 4, 2001,RSC Electronic Journals,23 fulltext journals All available backfiles (1997-2000), one-time charge Forthc

20、oming titles not included,April 4, 2001,Springer-Verlag LINK,410 fulltext titles, 480 titles total (moving indexing & abstracting titles to fulltext over term of the license) New titles that become available included at no charge (e-books and book series excluded) All available backfiles,April 4, 20

21、01,What Have We Learned?,Competition for CNSLP dollars, unified national market, confidentiality, multi-year stability/predictability, and CNSLP ability to “walk” were powerful motivators for vendors Vendors unaccustomed to formal process not “business as usual” Process worked best with highly-price

22、d products; low margin of savings on some products may argue against national process Strategic pricing rewarded Preliminary estimates suggest that value that institutions receive is at least double that spent (for every $1 CNSLP spends, institutions receive $2 in value.) More detailed cost-benefit

23、analysis required,April 4, 2001,Where To From Here?,What elements from this process can we apply to expansion? What are the gaps we would like to fill in content? What are our priorities within those content groups? Are our institutional/regional priorities shared by other CNSLP institutions/regions? Where does it make strategic sense to apply the CNSLP model? What resources do we need to finance this content? Self-funded Proposals to funders How can the organization and model be expanded to include other players?,