Sharing benefits sharing costs a discussion
Download
1 / 28

Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 135 Views
  • Uploaded on

Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion. Lluís M. Anglada Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya e-ICOLC Thessaloniki , 5th October 2002. Plan. Approach Some (general) observations Sharing costs: 3 situations. Important issues in “cooperative games”.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Sharing benefits, sharing costs: a discussion ' - mateo


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Sharing benefits sharing costs a discussion

Sharing benefits,sharing costs:a discussion

Lluís M. Anglada

Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya

e-ICOLC

Thessaloniki, 5th October 2002


Plan

  • Approach

  • Some (general) observations

  • Sharing costs: 3 situations


Important issues in cooperative games
Important issues in “cooperative games”

  • Focusing on benefits

  • Always remember that you’ll win more that in an “individual game”


Sharing benefits sharing costs
Sharing benefits,sharing costs

  • Background

    • Budget allocation formulae

    • Shared maintenance of computers and union catalogues

  • Now, licensing

    • Databases

    • E-journals

    • E-books


Present situation
Present situation

  • Pricing models

    • Are they stable?

  • Benefits

    • Are they stable?


Stable pricing models
Stable pricing models (?)

  • Web databases

    • Consortium size

  • e-Journals

    • Expenditures in print + ‘premium’ + minimum

  • e-Books

    • Simultaneous users


Stable benefits
Stable benefits (?)

  • Economic benefits (short term)

    • Savings (sometimes) and costs contention

  • More information (medium term)

    • Cross access and bundled e-journals

  • Intangibles (long term)

    • New money and lobbying


Plan

  • Approach

  • Some (general) observations

  • Sharing costs: 3 situations


Some general observations
Some (general) observations

  • Pricing model matters

  • Big/medium/small

  • Collections and size

  • Net or relative benefits

  • “Failure games”


Pricing model matters
Pricing model matters

  • A global price for a new product

    • Allows ‘ex-novo’ allocation formulae

  • A global price determined by historical expenditure

    • Suggests formulae based on historical spending


Libraries in a consortium
Libraries in a consortium

  • Few are big

  • Some are medium

  • A lot are small


Collections and size
Collections and size

p- expenditure Students+budget

A 49.98% > 32.42%

B 26.60% > 20.46%

C 7.70% < 18.26%

D 4.08% < 5.61%

E 2.98% < 6.21%

F 4.20% < 5.42%

G 3.96% < 6.56%

H 0.00% < 5.07%

I 0.50% > 0.00%


Net or relative benefits
Net or relative benefits

non prev. Subs. Tit npst x students

A 993 27.31%

B 1112 18.66%

C 1343 19.52%

D 1334 4.94%

E 1366 7.27%

F 1376 6.36%

G 1370 8.00%

H 1407 7.92%

I 1402 0.00%


Why is size important
Why is size important?

  • Because it has an effect on price

    • Important in the short term

  • Because it has an effect on usage

    • Important in the long term


Failure games
Failure games

  • There are a lot of allocation costs systems that are unacceptable by some of the “playing parts”


Plan

  • Approach

  • Some (general) observations

  • Sharing costs: 3 situations


Sharing costs 3 situations
Sharing costs: 3 situations

  • Central funding (p+e or e+p)

  • p+e (no central funding)

  • e+p (with or without central funding)


A general principle to share costs
A (general?) principle to share costs

  • Two parameters to build the formula:

    • Parameter A: equal shares

    • Parameter B: based on size

  • And a dynamic readjustment system if size changes


Central funding p e or e p
Central funding (p+e or e+p)

  • Total or majority central funding means that almost any allocation formula will be accepted

  • However

    • We cannot rely on this kind of central funding for a long time


P e no central funding
p+e (no central funding)

  • The relatively low amount (compared to the print amount) of the premium-e allows agreements

  • But, p+e

    • Doesn’t allow cancellations

    • Doesn’t make evolution to e-only easy

    • Is surely transitory


E p with or without central funding
e+p (with or without central funding)

  • A: The immediate solution

  • B: A future model


A the immediate solution
A: The immediate solution

  • Cost based on former print expenditure, for instance:

    • Print expenditure + 5%, or

    • Fixed cost, if print expenditure is lower than the minimum required

  • Immediate allocation model

    • Print expenditure + 5%, or

    • Fixed cost


But...

  • Historical print expenditure belongs to the past, cooperative subscriptions set up a new framework

  • Will it make any sense to talk about “print expenditure” in 5-10 years time?

  • This model allows a “sub-consortium” of big and medium libraries


B a future model
B: A future model (?)

  • One part in equal shares

    • 20% ?, 30% ?, 40%?, 50% ? ...

  • One part based on size

    • What does “size” mean?

  • Dynamic readjustment system if size changes


What does size mean
What does “size” mean?

  • Potential users?

  • Budget?

  • Collections?

  • Print expenditure?

  • Research activity?

  • Benefits as non previus subscribed titles?

  • Benefits as (Npst x potential users)?

  • Usage?


Cbuc formula for e journals
CBUC formula for e-journals

  • 50% based on historical print expenditure

  • 20% equal shares

  • 30% based on size (students + budget)


Cbuc comparisons
CBUC: comparisons

p- expen CBUC size

ditures distribution students+butget

A 49.98% 36.94% 32.42%

B 26.60% 21.66% 20.46%

C 7.70% 11.55% 18.26%

D 4.08% 5.94% 5.61%

E 2.98% 5.57% 6.21%

F 4.20% 5.95% 5.42%

G 3.96% 6.17% 6.56%

H 0.00% 3.74% 5.07%

I 0.50% 2.47% 0.00%


Final considerations
Final considerations

  • “Big Deal” is a good deal if we can work at a medium-long term

  • A good agreement means to get all members reasonably dissatisfied

  • Central funding always helps


ad