Knowledge Exchange Multinational Licensing Tender New alliances Wilma

Knowledge Exchange Multinational Licensing Tender: New alliances? Wilma Mossink SURFfoundation IFFRO Amsterdam

My story today in more detail • Introduction to the Knowledge Exchange • Tendering for content – background information to the multinational licensing tender – reasons for tendering • Innovative aspects – licensing aspects – business model • Some evaluative comments on proces & results • Conclusions 9 February 2010 2

Knowledge Exchange and tender • Umbrella organisation with 4 sponsoring partners – Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) – German Research Foundation (DFG) – Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) – SURFfoundation (SURF) • Intention to make a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available on the internet • European tender procedure for a multinational, multi-year deal for different sorts of content important element • Tender aimed at new, creative ideas and concepts from smaller publishers willing to develop and try out innovate business models 9 February 2010 3

Background information • Initial meeting in Bonn July 2006 created a framework (Bonn Accord) – publishers will continue to play an essential role in evaluating and distributing secondary literature – partner organisations currently use different models & strategies for the procurement of digital content on a national level – engagement for a joint pilot project to procure digital content • Working group meeting, September 2006 – question: how to frame joint activity? • legal issues (is Knowledge Exchange a cartel? ) • timeframe issues (running deals) • transparency issues (confidentiality clauses) – proposal: joint tender 9 February 2010 4

Reasons for tendering • Lack of innovation among publishers: – in creating new business models for electronic resources – in creating new access strategies for content • Tender creates a ‘virtual marketplace’ to engage the publishing community • Transparency for benchmarking national licences and framework agreements • Create a route to market for content often left out of national deals 9 February 2010 5

The destination: agreements with publishers • April 2008 agreements with 5 publishers: – The. Scientific. World. Journal: a hybrid open-access / fee-based online journal in the life sciences – Multi. Science Journal: an aggregator of 34 engineering journals – Bio. One: an aggregation of bioscience research journals run by a non-profit consortium – SWETS/ALPSP: a collection of 543 journals from 36 diverse publishers, in a single collection with a single umbrella licence, pricing model and delivery platform – Wiley Inter. Science Online. Books: a package of e-book offers from Wiley/Blackwell 9 February 2010 6

The outcome of the tender • Denmark: – some expressions of interest • Germany – national licence for The. Scientific. World. Journal & Bio. One • United Kindom – national licence for The. Scientific. World. Journal • Netherlands – national licence for The. Scientific. World. Journal, Multi. Science & Bio. One 9 February 2010 7

Innovative aspects: licensing structure • Overarching agreement between 4 partners of Knowledge Exchange & publisher – establishes rights & obligations between publisher & Knowledge Exchange partners • Agreement contains 4 annexes – Schedule A: Basic and extended list – Schedule B: Licensed material, types of licences & fees – Schedule C: Licence agreement – Schedule D: Support • Licence agreement – agreement regarding User Rights in respect of the Licensed Material between publisher and institution via Knowledge Exchange as intermediary 9 February 2010 8

Innovative aspects: business model • Basic list – list representing research universities and larger teaching universities • Extended list – list defining affiliated higher education and publicly funded research institutions • National & multinational licence model • Opt in framework 9 February 2010 9

Business model: innovative elements • Publishers asked to state – Final prices (no negotiation on fees) – Single fee for all institutions on basic & extended list for each country and for countries together – Opt in framework should show an innovative character: • discount structure based on participation through subscriptions in basic list • requirement to offer discount level to subscribing institutions in both lists • tiered pricing differentiating institutions in basic & extended list 9 February 2010 10

Business models: suggestion • 4 different levels which refer to the discount offered to all institutions included in Basic and Extended Lists. • Discount structure is based on participation through subscription by institutions included in the Basic List – Level 0: No discount – Level 1: 45 % discount plus (for journals) 4% cancellation rate permitted for all subscribing institutions – Level 2: 60 % discount plus (for journals) 5% cancellation rate permitted for all subscribing institutions – Level 3: 80 % discount plus (for journals) 6% cancellation rate permitted for all subscribing institutions • Specification of number of subscribing institutions from the Basic List required to reach level of discount. • Tiered pricing based on standardised model that applies to all institutions in the 4 partner countries to be specified by the publisher 9 February 2010 11

Award criteria • 3 overarching criteria: – innovation and value for money offered by the proposal (40 %) – level of compliance with the access strategy (10 %) – fit of content to the academic strategy of the country (50 %) 9 February 2010 12

What does KE offer the publishers • No allocated money but: – provisions for a route to market to 190 research universities & large teaching universities – endorsement and promotion of the bids to the libraries – provisions for a single point for contact resulting in better efficiency – provision central evaluation of contracts by legal experts – reduction in administration costs for the publisher 9 February 2010 13

Disadvantages of the tender • Time consuming process – time frame of tender procedure itself – writing the several documents with severe deadlines – evaluating the bids by markers • Process rather inflexible: – careful structuring of bids needed – no further negotiations on prices/licences possible – bid is final bid but considerations could possibly influence bid • Takes up time & money of the organisations involved – strong commitment of the organisations needed • Still difficulties to estimate whether prices are fair • Libraries are offered content they have not asked for 9 February 2010 14

Advantages of the tender • Ability to benchmark the prices • Higher degree of transparency • Reaching a group of interesting/unknown publishers which normally are not on the short- or longlist of consortia • Some innovative business models & access strategies • Worthwhile discounts especially on multinational level • Concept of national licences comes into view because of economies of scale • Model licence with most favourable provisions of the 4 countries • Test system for multinational negotiation and national implementation 9 February 2010 15

The ride: the take up • Libraries have to be convinced of taking up the offers – price – content libraries have not asked for • ALPSP interesting example – not a very good offer for the institutions on basic list – too expensive for institutions on extended list • Wiley – take up slowly rises 9 February 2010 16

The destination and the ride: the conclusion • Raised attention to other and new products • Created new business model that rewards multi-country participation • Increased transparency • Current framework useful for future licences • Created possibility to take an active part in shaping the market • Working together in a multinational context leads to better position for libraries 9 February 2010 17

Thank you for your attention! KE Tender working group: • Anette Schneider (DEFF) (till October 2008) • Janne Vendt (DEFF) (from October 2008) • Max Vögler (DFG) (till October 2008) • Christoph Kuemmel (DFG) (from October 2008) • Hildegard Schäffler (Bavarian State Library) • Markus Brammer (German National Library on Science & Technology) • Lorraine Estelle (JISC Collections) • Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam/SURFdiensten) • Wilma Mossink (SURFfoundation/SURFdiensten) 9 February 2010 18