Library Consortia Initiatives in India:
Best Practices and Issues
I.R.N. Goudar
Head, ICAST
National Aerospace Laboratories
Bangalore – 560 017
goudar@css.nal.res.in
NCSINET
National Centre for Science Information
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
4 March 2006
Consortia
• Continuing evolution of cooperation among libraries:“Consortia”.
• Consortia are all about sharing resources and improving access to
information
• Consortia are usually formed when two or more institutions realize
that working together is more effective than working separately.
• Formal association of a number of organizations, usually in a
specific geographical area, with agreed goals and objectives.
Consortium is a Strategic Alliance of Institutions that have
Common Interests
Consortia History
• 1960s: Creation of union catalogs
–Library Consortia flourish.
•1970s: Interlibrary loans, joint storage, etc.
•1980s: Automation
–Stagnation period.
•1990s: Re-flourishing of Consortia for electronic
resources.
•2000s: Consortium of Consortia.
Library Cooperatives

Inter library lending

Cooperative acquisition

Cooperative cataloguing

Shared library system

Physical storage facilities

Seminars/Training Programmes
E-Journals Major Players
 Primary publishers
 Aggregators
 Vendors
 Document delivery agencies
 E-print systems
Consortia Goals
 Increase the access base – More e-Journals
 Rational utilization of funds - A little more pays a lot
 Ensure the continuous subscription
 Qualitative resource sharing - Effective document delivery service
 Avoid price plus models - Pay for up-front products not for R&D
 Improved infrastructure
 Enhanced image of the library - Visibility for smaller libraries
 Improve existing library services - Boosting professional image
 Harness developments in IT - Facilitate building digital libraries
 Cost sharing for technical and training support
 Increase user base – Access from desktops of users
Consortia Services

Union catalogues: Books, Journals, Technical Reports, and Conference Procs.

Shared library systems – Hardware, Software and other infrastructure

Shared professional expertise – Develop and realize consortia goals

Human resource development – Training staff and users

Electronic contents licensing for providing access to
- Bibliographic databases, e-Journals, Full test reports, Conference Proceedings etc.


Inter Library Lending and Document Delivery
Electronic content loading – Contents generated by members and acquired on
common server.

Physical storage for archiving – Old back volumes and less used documents.

Seminar/training programmes – Professional development to serve user
community

Devpt. of enabling technologies – IR systems, Portals and other web interfaces

Evolve standards for techniques, hardware, software and services for the benefit of
consortia members
Consortia Models
Participants Oriented Models
 Geographical location linked: Ex: - Bangalore Special
Libraries Group

Libraries in the same discipline: Ex: - Aerospace Libraries
Group
 Libraries belonging to the same parent organization: Ex: CSIR LICs
 Libraries of academic organizations: Ex: - INFLIBNET
 Types of Libraries: Single type / Multi type / Specialized
Consortia Models
Purpose Oriented Models
 Consortia for avoiding duplicate collection
 Consortia for accessing electronic journals
 Consortia for training and library workshops
Consortia Models
Client Oriented Models
 Clients according to their educational background:
Ex: - Technical, Professional
 Clients according to their age:
Ex: - Children, Senior Citizen
 Clients according to their interest:
Ex: - sports, game
Consortia Values
Libraries Vs Publishers
Libraries
Publishers
Usefulness
Members driven
Full text access
Expert vs. Student
Lower price
Accessing Internet resources
Combined purchasing power
Simplify purchase procedure
Distribute financial and other risk
Increase participation of members
No storage & documentation problem
Instant Access
Quality of services
Free flow of information
Sharing – ideas, information
Pricing/Education
Usage Reporting
Linking/Delivery
Interface options
Indexing/Filtering
Gain credibility with libraries
Increased marketing
Reduced cost of production
Reduced surcharges like mailing
Less extra efforts and expenditure for giving
access to new customers
Get consortium tool
Contribution – time, resources
o Gather library information
o Invoice libraries
o Products support
Pricing Models
Influencing Factors
Publishers Issues
 Quantum of business
 Number of consortia members
 Types of institutions
 Contract period
 Number of IP enabled nodes
 Number of campuses
 Value added services
 Rights to archive
 Perpetual access
 Training facilities
 Multi year agreement
 Free titles on Internet
 Free access against print subscription
 All titles of a publisher for fixed fee
 Surcharge on print subscription
 Discounts for electronic journals
 Capped annual inflation
 Discounts on non-subscribed titles
 Access to subject clusters of the
journals
 Protection of current revenue
 Uncertainty of new subscription
 Single point payment
Pricing Models
• No Universally Acceptable E-journals
Pricing and Licensing Models
• Ongoing experimentation
• Negotiation possible
• Charge for content
• Delivery format optional
• Increasingly will be based on usage
Pricing Models in Operation
• Bundled – Free with print
AIP, APS, AMS, Elsevier, Wiley
• Print as base + surcharge on electronic
Premium payments range from10-25%
ACS (20%), OSA (25%)
• Electronic only
Small increase (ACS 105%)
Same price (OSA)
Discount from print (AIP 80%, AMS 90%)
• Totally unbundled – No discount for both
JBC (P- $ 1600, E- $1200, P+E- $ 2800)
• Free e-version only
Charge for print if required
British Medical Journal
Continue…
Pricing Models in Operation
…Continued
• Membership Fee
• Usage based pricing
Concurrent users
Site population
• All titles of publishers with print optional
• Subject clusters
• Pay – per – view
• Free completely – Differently funded
• Extra fee for software
Continue…
Pricing Models in Operation
…Continued
• Extra for value added services
• Consortium discount
Number of sites
• Consortium surcharge
Access to all consortia titles
All titles of publisher
• Subscription to core titles – Rest pay-per-view
• Pricing based on FTE, Concurrent users
Consortium Taxonomy
Practical
Governance
Staffing
Payment
Tactical
Programs
Services
Technology
Mission
&
Strategic
Vision
Sponsor Funding
Type of
Library
Type of
Geography
Practical Issues
Governance
Staffing
Payment
Governing board
Committees
Deposit accounts
Member council
Committees
Volunteer staff
Program Staff
Bill to library
Vendor billing
Task forces
Support Staff
No bills(Full
Central funding)
Interest groups
Technology Staff
Tactical Issues
Programs
Technology
Union catalogs
Resource sharing
Purchase e-resources
Core collections
Digital libraries
Preservation
Share infrastructure
Share systems
Outsourcing services
Digitization
Portal management
Intellectual property
Management
Contd …
Tactical Issues
Services
Cataloging
Workshops, seminars
Consulting
Outsourcing
Technical support
Preservation
Ground delivery
Shared storage
Strategic Issues
Mission
&
Vision
Purchasing
Education
Fundraising
Lobbying
Share technology
Sponsor
Government
Multi-government
Members only
Geography
National
Multi-state
Single state
Regional, local
Contd …
Strategic Issues
Funding
Type of
Library
Government
Grants, Foundations
Dues, Service fees
Membership tiers
No funding(Volunteer)
National
Multi-state
Single state
Regional, local
Strong Links make Strong Consortia
Geographical
Coverage
Funding
Mission
Strategic
Consortia
Issues
Programs
Tactical
Library
Types
Payment
Practical
Staffing
Service
Technology
Governance
Archiving: Key Issues
–Perpetual access to bibliographic databases
–Perpetual access to e-journals
–Who does the archiving?
•Consortia, third party
–How do we preserve publishers’ interests?
–Incorporate archiving terms in agreements
–How the data is acquired?
–How do we create the access architecture from
this data?
–Are there software solutions?
Licensing Issues
National Site Licensing
Open Consortia
Walk-in-User’s Rights
Who will sigh MOU
Indian Consortia Initiatives
“Coming together is a beginning, staying together leads
towards progress and working together results in success”.
Consortia of IIMs
 CSIR Consortia
 DAE Initiative
 FORSA
 INDEST (MHRD)
 HELINET of RGUHS
 ICICI- Knowledge Park
 ISRO Initiative
 INFLIBNET Initiative
GE Global Research
MCIT Initiative
COMSAC
• Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts
• Consortium Leader – NAL
• Open Consortium
• Consortium For Material Science And
Aerospace Collection
• 25 - 40% Discount
CSIR Initiative
• 38 Labs
• CoMSAC at NAL
• Leaders: NAL, NCL, CDRI, RRLT, NIO and IMTECH
• NISCAIR – Coordinator
• 11th Five year plan – About Rs. 12 Crores
• Elsevier – 2002
• Springer, AIP, ASME, ASCE, ACS, RSC, Blackwel,
CUP, OUP
• > 3200 Titles
• Print base subscription
CSIR Initiative
• Broad based model
- All the Journals to all the labs;
- All the Journals to select labs;
- Select journals to all the labs; and
- Select Journals to Select labs.
• Access
- IP Enabled / Login – Password
- Unlimited users, search, browse, download, print
• Usage Statistics
- Monthly, Journal-wise, IP address, Lab wise,
Session/downloads of abstracts/full texts, etc
CSIR Initiative
• Archival Policy
- For the period of agreement on the prevalent formats on
CD-ROM, DVD, etc
- Retrieval software by publisher for network access
- Higher versions of retrieval/technology at no extra cost
Training
- Trainers-Training Program for LIS Personnel
- Multiple locations, two days minimum
- Course ware 5 copies print + Soft copy
- No extra charge
- Unlimited users, search, browse, download, print
UGC -INFONET Consortia
• Nodal Agency: INFLIBNET Centre
• Funded by UGC
• 100 Universities
• Online only model
• Resources: 18 Publishers/Aggregatotrs – ACS, RSC,
Nature Publishing, AIP, IOP, CUP, APS, BIOSIS,
JSTOR, Springer, Elsevier, Emerald, Annual Reviews
INDEST (Indian Digital Library for
Engineering Science and Technology)
• Set up by MHRD
•Open ended Consortia
• Core members: IISc, IITs, NITs, IIMs
• AICTE Supported members
• Self supported members
• Total 130
• Sources: Science Direct, IEL Online, Springer Verlag’s
link, Applied Science & Technology Plus, ABI Inform
Complete, ACM Digital Library, ASCE Journals, ASME
Journals, COMPENDEX and INSPEC on Ei Village,
SciFinder Scholar, MathSciNet, Web of Science, J-Gate
and JCCC
INDEST ……
Services to Members
• Technology support to members
• Joint archives and storage facility
• Shared Digital Library Project Development
• Shared E-Reference Service
• Common Union Catalog for Books
• Developing shared technology resources
and infrastructure like meta search engines,
Link Servers, etc
HELINET Consortia
• RGUHS Initiative
• Medical, Dental, Nursing, Physiotherapy, Pharmacy Colleges, etc
• E-only model
• Publishers/ Aggregator Resources: Science Direct, Blackwel, Nature
Publishing, Springer, Taylor and Francis, Springer Books, Skolar – MD
Books, OVID, Annual Reviews, Benthem Science, CABI Publishing, JCCC
• Funding for sources: Students/College Managements
• University funds for Infrastructure
• Plans to extend the services to the country
Consortium of IIMs
• Initially lead by IIMK
• Their own + Members of INDEST + Individual
• Resources:
- E-journals: Elsevier (Business Mgnt and Accounting – 75, ….
Science – 39, Economics and Finance - 76), Blackwell (306),
Kluwer (now part of Springer, 37), Emerald (131), Wiley (31),
Taylor and Francis (35); IEL Online (219), ACM Digital Library
(32 titles and also reports); > 5000 titles from Aggregator EBSCO.
- Bibliographic Databases: About 33 bibliographic databases (in
case of IIMB – different numbers for others)) including ABIInform, JCCC, ECONLIT, Psycoinfo, Sociofile, INSIGHT
( Corporate Database), CRISINFAC, and GMID ( Global Market
Information Database).
- E-Books: Ebrary with access to 4000 titles in case of IIMB.
FORSA
(Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy)
• Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR,
JNCASR, NO, Bose Inst, ARIES and CASA-OU..
 Open Model Consortium
 Facilitates e-access to journals
 Nature-Online, Kluwer, Springer Publishers
 Actively participate in resource sharing
 Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post)
 Database merging of all libraries holdings
GE-Global ResearchConsortia
• Whitney Knowledge Centre (WKC)
• Sources:
Journals – 100 + Elsevier Journals, 40 + Wiley Journals, ASME
IOP, Other Popular Journals/Magazines: Science, Nature etc
Databases - MicroPatent: Full text database of patents,
Engineering Village 2: Compnendex, CRC ENGNetBASE, IEL
database
E-Books – Knovel, NetLibrary
• Selected sources for 40 GE Centres
• E-Only model after dicontinuation of print subscriptions
DEMO
Observations on Indian Consortia
 Their own genesis, geographical spread, reason for the creation,
audience to address and governance and administrative structure
 Models in Operation:
- Centrally Funded Model: INDEST, UGC – Infonet, and CSIR Consortia
- Open-ended Consortia: FORSA, INDEST and GE-Global Research
- Closed-ended Consortia: IIM and CSIR
- Shared-budget Model: IIM, HELINET and FORSA
 Need to sensitise about issues of licenses and agreements
 Serious bottleneck - Lack of IT infrastructure
 Communication gap between consortia host and participating libraries
and publishers
 Need to adopt open system, interoperability standards of library
systems and digital archives
 Usage monitoring based on publishers data
 Need for National Consortia
Consortia Constraints Specific to
Indian Libraries
 Lack
of awareness about consortia benefits
 Slow
acceptance of e-information by the users.
 Difficulties in changing the mind setup of librarians
 Maintenance and balancing both physical and digital library
 Inadequate funds
 Single point payment
 Rigid administrative, financial and auditing rules
 Problems of defining asset against payment
Consortia Constraints Specific to
Indian Libraries …Contd
 Pay-Per-View not yet acceptable
 Uncertainty about the persistence of digital resources.
 Lack of infrastructure for accessing electronic sources
 Unreliable telecommunication links and insufficient bandwidth
 Lack of appropriate bibliographic tools
 Lack of trained personnel for handling new technologies
 Absence of strong professional association
 Big brother attitude
ICOLC: International Coalition of
Library Consortia
 Consortial
leaders with a set of common interests
(directors, coordinators of consortia)
•Founded spontaneously in early 1997 following
discussions by a few people at other national
meetings
•First meeting 2/1997, Missouri, 30 consortia
•Meets twice a year
•No dues, no staff -- purely a volunteer effort
ICOLC Documents
 Public
Web site:
<http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia>
•Documents are developed by volunteer committees
and working groups
•Documents are widely distributed
–Statement of Preferred Practices & Update
–Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage
–Privacy Guidelines
National (Indian) Coordination
Committee for Consortia
Goal
To achieve in line with the principle that
intellect is an investment and
information is as asset, considering
both as national property.
NCCC: Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To evolve suitable guidelines and working documents to
initiate and develop consortia at various levels.
To work in liaison with Government of India and State
Governments as an influential group to initiate and
establish consortia at various levels.
To work as a focal point for expertise, experts and
resource
consolidation
(fund
and
information
resources).
To work in line with various other councils for resource
enrichment and quality control for e-resource
acquisition and capitalizing e-services.
To work in liaison with school of LIS to build high quality
HR and expertise.
To establish good collaboration with international
organizations
7. To undertake continuing education program for
in-service professionals.
8. To establish review committees at regional and
state level for evaluation and consolidation of
time to time developments in the field.
9. To conduct annual meet to motivate
professionals inline with ICOLC and set the
trend.
10. To develop experts groups in various
specialization fields and super specialization
in the field and recognise them at National
level.
NCCC to develop Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Guidelines
Governance Guidelines
Management Guidelines
Administrative Guidelines
Operational Guidelines
Access Guidelines
Purchase Guidelines
Pricing Guidelines
Licensing Guidelines
Archiving Guidelines
Evaluation Guidelines
Documentation Guidelines
Guidelines for Statistical Measures
Information Literacy Guidelines
Conclusion: Consortia can …
•
be very time consuming, frustrating, and difficult
to build and to sustain
but still …
•
•
•
•
be a potent social, economic and political force
improve resource sharing among members
help to reduce the unit cost of e-information
help libraries do more collectively than they
could accomplish on their own
Tail Piece
“ Man can live individually, but can
survive only collectively. Hence, our
challenge is to form a progressive
community by balancing the interests of
the individual and that of the society. To
meet this we need to develop a value
system where people accept modest
sacrifices for the common good”
From Vedas – As quoted by Mr. Narayanamurthy
(IFOSYS)