Collaborative Librarianship

Volume 8 Issue 2 Article 7

2016

Towards the : Lessons Learned from PALCI’s DDA Pilot Projects and Next Steps

Jeremy Garskof Gettysburg College, [email protected]

Jill Morris PALCI, [email protected]

Tracie Ballock Duquesne University, [email protected]

Scott Anderson Millersville University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship

Part of the and Information Science Commons

Recommended Citation Garskof, Jeremy; Morris, Jill; Ballock, Tracie; and Anderson, Scott (2016) "Towards the Collective Collection: Lessons Learned from PALCI’s DDA Pilot Projects and Next Steps," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol8/iss2/7

This Peer Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

Towards the Collective Collection: Lessons Learned from PALCI’s DDA Pilot Projects and Next Steps

Jeremy Garskof ([email protected]) Acquisitions , Gettysburg College

Jill Morris ([email protected]) Senior Program Officer, PALCI

Tracie Ballock ([email protected]) Head of Collection Management, Duquesne University

Scott Anderson ([email protected]) Information Systems Librarian, Millersville University

Abstract The Pennsylvania Consortium, Inc. (PALCI) developed demand-driven acquisition (DDA) programs to facilitate resource sharing of e-monographs and to build collective ebook collections thereby complementing E-ZBorrow, the consortium’s print-based ILL service. Committed to perpetual ownership, PALCI’s programs deliberately eschewed aggregator models with STL (short term lease/ loan) thresholds in favor of purchasing upon the first substantial use at a negotiated multiplier. This unique approach to consortial DDA resulted in hundreds of titles triggered for purchase, many of which experienced post-purchase usage across the membership. It also resulted in irregular starts and stops and workflow frustrations illustrating challenges related to funding and communication. This article is in- tended to add an important case study to the literature on consortial DDA through a critical evaluation of PALCI’s programs with ebrary, EBSCO, and JSTOR. Perhaps more importantly, it is intended to inform consortial stakeholders about decisions to replicate (or not) PALCI’s programs in an effort to repeat suc- cesses and avoid past failures.

Keywords: Demand-driven acquisition, consortial DDA, PALCI, contribution models

Introduction PALCI’s DDA journey began with two opt-in pi- lot programs with ebrary and EBSCO in Febru- The Pennsylvania Academic Library Consor- ary 2014. In both, DDA discovery pools were tium, Inc. (PALCI) developed its demand-driven populated by publication and imprint year; YBP acquisition (DDA) programs to build shared col- performed light, non-subject parameter profiling lections of ebooks facilitating resource sharing of and administrative duties. Committed to perpet- e-monographs, and thereby complementing E- ual ownership, PALCI’s programs deliberately ZBorrow, the consortium’s long-running print- eschewed aggregator models with short term based interlibrary loan (ILL) service. In October loan (STL) thresholds in favor of purchasing 2012, PALCI convened a five-member Ebooks upon the first substantial use at a negotiated Task Force (EBTF) to explore the feasibility of multiplier. This unique approach to consortial developing a consortial DDA program with 69 DDA resulted in hundreds of titles triggered for member institutions, including small private lib- purchase, many of which experienced post-pur- eral arts schools, medium-size state universities, chase usage across the membership. It also re- and large research focused institutions, with FTEs ranging from 300-85,000.

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 84 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

sulted in irregular starts and stops and work- monographs on consortial DDA presents re- flow frustrations illustrating challenges related search obstacles to the traditional literature re- to funding and communication. The develop- view. The endeavor requires a bit more sleuth- ment of equitable and sustainable contribution ing—for example, sifting through Charleston formulas posed additional challenges, as did the Conference proceedings and mining consortia often insufficient and/or irregular usage statis- websites for meeting minutes and annual re- tics and purchase data reporting available. ports—only to find the historical record trail off in previous academic or fiscal years without fur- In an effort to expand its collection building ef- ther comment. Moreover, much of the DDA forts and experiment with a more access-focused chatter happens on blogs, public and private approach, PALCI implemented a third all-in, email lists, or in comment sections of popular centrally funded DDA pilot with Books at websites like Babel Fish and the Scholarly Kitchen. JSTOR in February 2015. The JSTOR program Due to the topic’s elusiveness and fragmented provided PALCI members with full access to the record, a brief and selective literature review approximately 30,000 (now closer to 40,000) ti- and environmental scan seem most useful for tles included in the Books at JSTOR corpus, with the purpose of framing and distinguishing the unlimited simultaneous user access. As titles unique characteristics of the PALCI DDA ebook were triggered, PALCI purchased an unlimited program. use copy on behalf of each participating library at a significantly discounted rate, i.e., 69 unlim- Recent scholarly treatments of consortial DDA ited use copies were purchased for 69 participat- fall into two general, though not mutually exclu- ing pilot . JSTOR was attractive to the sive categories; DDA as a resource sharing membership for its extremely liberal digital mechanism, and case studies; the latter being rights management (DRM), high usage thresh- more common and keenly focused on logistics olds prior to purchase, and reputation, as well as and lessons learned. Christine N. Turner pro- its resource integration among the membership. vides a broad historical perspective of coopera- The JSTOR program resulted in significantly tive among large and fewer title purchases relative to other PALCI small consortia focusing primarily on e-resource DDA programs, but offered access to a much acquisitions including DDA activities. She does larger corpus of ebooks over a longer period of well to chart the evolution of consortial resource time. sharing and to highlight the causal and evolving relationship between scholarly publishing and The following article is intended to add an im- consortia cooperation.1 George Machovec aptly portant case study to the literature on consortial describes ebooks’ existential threat to traditional DDA through a critical evaluation of PALCI’s resource sharing and posits consortial DDA as programs with ebrary, EBSCO, and JSTOR. Per- one possible solution. He cogently articulates haps more importantly, it is intended to inform and critically evaluates consortia ebook licens- consortium stakeholders about decisions to rep- ing options and DDA and evidence-based acqui- licate (or not) PALCI’s programs in an effort to sition (EBA) models.2 The National Information repeat successes and avoid past failures. Standards Organization’s (NISO) “Demand Driven Acquisition of Monographs” includes a Consortial DDA Landscape useful section on consortial DDA models and in- Though a fair amount has been written on lo- tegration with local plans and collection devel- cal/individual DDA programs, the limited opment activities, as well as emphasizing the scope of published articles, book chapters, and

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 85 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

importance of establishing goals to help inform ebooks. The authors lament mid-pilot STL in- assessment and to facilitate communication.3 creases and front-list embargoes, as well as con- tent exclusion measured by publisher output.8 Broadly speaking, published case studies outline programmatic planning and objectives, imple- The literature illustrates the inchoate state of mentation processes and challenges, and assess- consortial DDA, which explains broad experi- ment/measures of success. Speaking on behalf mentation and a large number of pilots, as well of the Orbis Cascade Alliance (Orbis), Greg as the formative development of best practices. Doyle addressed the political and practical as- It further reveals largely uniform experiences. pects of central funding, vendor selection, local Generally speaking, there is stark parity among integration, and profiling-parameter details.4 Jill recent past and current consortial DDA pro- Emery’s interview with the Orbis implementa- grams including aggregators, publishers (or lack tion team provides valuable insights and per- thereof), YBP licensing and models, and STLs to spectives from the membership, as well as com- name a few. For example, Orbis, The Virtual Li- mercial partners, EBL and YBP.5 Michael Levine- brary of Virginia (VIVA), NY3Rs, USMAI, and Clark et al. thoroughly document the history of the Colorado Alliance all contracted with EBL the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries who negotiated with roughly the same corpus of (Colorado Alliance) program, including funding publishers.9 While there is some variation in the formulas and associated contributions, publisher number of STLs pre-purchase, as well as the representation, usage analyses, purchasing purchase multiplier, their presence is ubiquitous trends, and ROI calculations. The authors posit across DDA programs.10 Consortia have taken that the evolving ebook landscape will necessi- different approaches to profiling, for example tate programmatic flexibility and further experi- VIVA focused on STEM-H (Science, Technology, mentation with new models to the mutual bene- Engineering, Medicine, and Health) in curating fit of libraries and publishers alike.6 the discovery pool, but most profiled titles by publisher and copyright date. Perhaps the most Recent developments and significant pricing persistent characteristic of all the programs is changes in the ebook marketplace make it no the non-linear lending model (NLL),11 which surprise that challenges related to STLs are one permits a set number of loans per annum, gener- of the most pervasive issues noted in recent arti- ally for one day or one week. The parity among cles. Randall A. Lowe and Lynda Aldana reflect consortial DDA programs reflects, to a large ex- on the University of Maryland and Affiliated In- tent, the limited number of aggregators that stitutions (USMAI) pilot, critically noting that have the experience and infrastructure to coordi- STLs and modeling influence publisher partici- nate consortial DDA programs and the limited pation. The authors reinforce the importance of number of publishers willing to participate in program flexibility when STL costs rise and/or the new DDA marketplace, which they fear may front-list content is embargoed, and emphasize pillage more established revenue streams such the importance of transparent communication as approval plans and firm orders.12 among consortia, aggregators/vendors, and publishers, resulting in a lease to own pilot As one would expect, the programs’ parity gen- whereby STL expenditures would be credited erated similar results. For consortia that shared against the purchase price.7 In “Changing Li- their DDA expenditures, the lion’s share was ex- brary Operations,” Allen McKiel and Jim Dooley pended on STLs, not purchases. Between May discuss the success of the University of Califor- 2012 and April 2013, the Colorado Alliance nia DDA program in assessing the system-wide spent $24,990.03 on STLs and $10,026.63 on pur- demand for humanities and social science chases with EBL and ebrary.13 Between August

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 86 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

2012 and May 2013, NY3Rs spent $65,984.51 on Consortial resource sharing has been disrupted STLs and $18,873.55 on purchases.14 According by ebooks, and DRM more directly. The Oberlin to their 2015 fiscal year DDA expenditure report, Group, A Consortium of Liberal Arts College Li- Orbis, the consortium with the largest annual braries, published a statement in 2014 critical of budget, spent $645,053.70 on STLs and publisher-imposed barriers that “artificially cir- $253,239.85 on purchases.15 Logically, the num- cumscribe the larger scholarly ecosystem.”18 bers of STLs and purchased ebooks are propor- Signed by the Oberlin Group’s deans and direc- tional to the expenditures. For example, in 2012- tors, the statement advocates in favor of twelve 2013, NY3Rs triggered 4,068 STLs and pur- principles including interlibrary loan rights, chased 52 ebooks; in FY15, Orbis triggered standardized pricing, and preservation among 24,306 STLs and purchased 400 ebooks. The pro- others.19 The Charlotte Initiative: Principles for grams’ expenditure reports consistently demon- Permanent Acquisitions of Ebooks for Academic strate higher STLs costs and only modest invest- Libraries builds on the Oberlin Statement by dis- ments in collective collections with perpetual tilling the key principles from twelve to three: ownership rights. “irrevocable perpetual access and archival rights, allowance for unlimited simultaneous us- From a practical perspective, the disproportion- ers, and freedom from any digital rights man- ate investment in STLs is intended to stretch dol- agement (DRM)…”20 With the support of a lars and therefore prolong exposure and access Mellon grant, the working group plans to inves- to the discovery pool. For consortia with tradi- tigate whether such terms are palatable to and tional interlibrary loan agreements, STLs repli- sustainable for publishers. Although their focus cate, and may in some cases replace that service is not on building collective collections per se, for ebooks. From a collection development phi- their recommendations will likely influence the losophy, the assumption is that ebooks that ex- ebook marketplace, at least for academic ceed the STL threshold are, in fact, core to the presses, and help facilitate resource sharing of common collection; however, based upon the ebooks in the spirit of traditional print ILL. available data, it is not clear whether post-pur- chase use justifies the purchase-price multi- Greater shareability and the user experience are plier.16 DDA programs that employ STLs are also being investigated through creative projects also increasingly vulnerable to STL price fluctu- such as Minitex’s SimplyE for Consortia: Three ations. Both ebrary and EBL announced one-day Clicks to All Your Ebooks. In an effort to bolster and seven-day STL increases by publisher, per- the “National Digital Platform,” Minitex en- centage, and effective date as well as STL and deavors to create a single portal to access ebooks DDA embargoes. One-day loans have increased across collections and institutions thereby miti- across commercial and university presses from gating cumbersome authentication protocols. 2% (Elsevier), to 5% (Princeton and UNC press) Additional goals of the initiative are to facilitate to 30% (Duke) to as much as 40% (McFarland & and streamline interlibrary loan, as well as pro- Co).17 It is difficult to know if and/or when STL vide a mechanism for consortia to deliver e-con- costs will plateau, or if increases will become tent.21 It is difficult to predict when ebook share- more predictable and/or standardized. While ability will be fully realized, whether a result of STLs support resource sharing initiatives that publisher capitulation, aggressive license negoti- complement ILL and collection development ations, inter-consortia cooperation or open-ac- strategies, building DDA programs around cess initiatives such as Knowledge Unlatched them results in modest small-scale collection (http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/), Lu- building, at least in the short term. minos (http://www.luminosoa.org/), or the

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 87 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

Open Library of Humanities structure provides PALCI’s diverse membership (https://www.openlibhums.org/) or some com- with the flexibility to participate, or not, as de- bination. sired. Member dues are reserved solely for oper- ating expenses; however, there are a few recent It was within this context that PALCI, a consor- exceptions when PALCI used membership tium of nearly 70 libraries, began its efforts to funds to cover costs associated with experi- build a collective ebook collection in 2012, begin- mental or pilot activities on behalf of the mem- ning with a focus on demand-driven acquisition bership. and ownership. The following report aims not to evaluate vendor DDA programs against each PALCI is perhaps best known for E-ZBorrow, an other, but rather to describe PALCI’s endeavors, expedited ILL service in which more than 80 challenges faced, and future directions for con- percent of the PALCI membership participates. sortial ebook programming. E-ZBorrow has been in operation for 20 years, and allows students, faculty, and staff at partici- About PALCI pating institutions to discover and borrow books and other physical library materials from more PALCI, originally known as the Pennsylvania than 50 libraries. E-ZBorrow automates material Academic Library Consortium, Inc., first formed requests, greatly streamlining transportation in 1996 as a grassroots federation of 35 academic and delivery workflows as books and other libraries in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. items are shipped to other institutions through- Today, PALCI is a self-funded, 501c3 nonprofit out the region. This service is often what drives whose membership consists of nearly 70 aca- new libraries to join the consortium as it greatly demic and research libraries, private and public, expands PALCI members’ access to print books, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and especially in a time of declining collections New York. Member institutions range from budgets. small liberal arts colleges to large research insti- tutions, and also include the State Library of More recently, PALCI has begun to focus on Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Museum of programs and services related to building collec- Art Library. Libraries in PALCI have holdings in tive collections, both electronic and print. After excess of 36 million volumes and a combined surveying the membership in 2011, it identified FTE of more than 500,000 students. consortial ebook collections as the top priority. Shortly thereafter, PALCI established several pi- PALCI’s mission is to spur the development of lot DDA ebook programs focusing on title own- library collaboration in the Commonwealth of ership. In the two years since establishing its Pennsylvania and the neighboring region. To DDA pilot programs, PALCI’s ebook expendi- achieve its mission, PALCI works in several key tures have increased from zero to more than areas; facilitating sharing of both print and elec- $500,000 collectively and have become the con- tronic resources, identifying cooperative pur- sortium’s most popular programs in terms of chasing opportunities, collaborating on collec- member library participation. tion development initiatives, and promoting net- working opportunities for library colleagues at PALCI Ebook Programs member institutions. Since its inception in 1996, PALCI’s consortial Historically, PALCI’s programs and services ILL borrowing service, E-ZBorrow, has been es- have been “opt-in,” designed to benefit the ma- sential in supporting PALCI’s mission. How- jority of the PALCI membership, but not re- quired for member participation. This opt-in

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 88 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

ever, this core service has seen some recent dis- ing whether to use an aggregator or work di- ruptions as members’ greater investment in rectly with specific publishers, the role of STLs, ebooks with DRM restrictions limits libraries’ access versus ownership, funding models, and ability to share content. Even for publishers that content profiling. Finally, in February 2014 the permit some form of e-content sharing, it is of- initial PALCI DDA pilot project began with 32 ten not an easy or unmediated process22. At the member institutions participating. After survey- same time, PALCI has seen hints of a possible ing the membership, it was decided that partici- decline in members’ need for physically shipped pants would be able to choose between EBSCO’s items as E-ZBorrow transactions decreased for eBooks on EBSCO and ProQuest’s ebrary plat- the first time in 2014-15. In response to these is- forms, since many were already heavily in- sues, PALCI convened an Ebooks Task Force vested in one or the other’s content and work- (EBTF) in 2012. The initial charge was to recom- flows. The decision was based largely on practi- mend a plan of action for the membership’s cal considerations that aligned with discovery ebook strategy, with a focus on resource sharing environments, user familiarity, and local work- of e-monographs and building a collective col- flows. lection in a fiscally-responsible manner. For the initial pilot approximately half of the Following an environmental scan and discus- membership opted in; 16 libraries participated sions with aggregators and YBP, the EBTF rec- in each aggregator program, with nearly equal ommended two aggregator-mediated DDA pro- funds and similar publisher profiles. Publishers grams with ebrary and EBSCO. The EBTF be- were identified using a list of approximately lieved that a consortial DDA approach would 1,000 titles with a borrowing threshold of four or streamline the administration of ebook program greater via E-ZBorrow. These publishers in- negotiations, content profiling, and discovery cluded a mix of commercial and university system configuration. PALCI hoped to shift in- presses, including McGraw-Hill, NYU Press, dividual library spending to leverage ebooks’ Oxford University Press, SAGE, and Wiley. Be- technological advantages in a consortial setting. cause most member institutions utilize YBP’s Additionally, it was hoped that consortial DDA GOBI, the EBTF agreed to work with YBP to would allow members to avoid paying for the help manage light profiling and acquisition pro- same content multiple times, as happens regu- cesses. For both aggregators, purchase parame- larly in the print world, in favor of purchasing a ters were nearly identical: purchases were gen- wider breadth of content as need dictated. The erated after ten minutes of continued usage, ten EBTF believed a centrally managed and shared unique page views, or after any printing, copy- collection that could take most, if not all, of the ing, or downloading activity. The main differ- onus off of individual libraries would be a major ence between the two aggregators was the mul- advantage. Finally, PALCI aimed to evaluate the tiplier applied to each purchase. This multiplier, cost per use over time for sharing ebooks versus referred to by the EBTF as the “copy-plier,” re- print books through E-ZBorrow and other forms quired the purchase of a certain number of cop- of interlibrary loan, with the hope that libraries ies when a title was triggered. Depending on the would realize a cost savings and positive return aggregator and with consideration of the FTE by on investment. each publisher, the range was between one and four copies, with one simultaneous user per Over the next year, the EBTF had conversations copy. Perhaps the single most defining charac- with representatives of EBL, EBSCO and ebrary. teristic of the PALCI DDA program was the de- The group debated a number of issues, includ-

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 89 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

cision that there would be no STLs prior to pur- data, differences in participating publishers and chase. The EBTF believed that STLs were not the copy-pliers, and the number of titles available most effective use of limited funds due to a fo- on each platform. Even with challenges though, cus on ownership and anticipated circulation PALCI decided to move forward with a very and ‘value’ post purchase, especially given the similar DDA program for Fall 2014-Spring 2015. size and makeup of the PALCI user population. PALCI made two changes during the program’s first full year, including the move to a contribu- After the initial pilot project ended, the EBTF tion/funding model using a formula based on performed a substantial analysis of the program FTE, and a decision to de-duplicate titles in the and deemed it to be a success based on its initial ebrary DDA program against the ebrary Aca- goals. Approximately half of PALCI’s member demic Complete subscription package held by 23 libraries opted in. The return on investment nearly all participants in the program. was between three and six times the average in- dividual library contribution. Several participat- With two consecutive and seemingly successful ing institutions reported that the unit costs (cost DDA projects completed, PALCI began investi- per title) were lower than the average cost of gating other possible vendors and models for running a local DDA program. For those partici- additional DDA projects. This was in an effort to pating in the EBSCO program, 7,010 titles were entice additional member institutions to partici- made available and a total of 310 unique titles pate in the creation of a PALCI shared collec- and 857 copies were purchased. In the ebrary tion. In December 2014, the EBTF began discus- group, 2,099 titles were made available and a to- sions with JSTOR about its new ebook model for tal of 154 unique titles and 616 copies were pur- consortial DDA. The attraction of JSTOR chased over three months. Some ebrary funds stemmed largely from the fact that the Books at went unspent and carried over into the follow- JSTOR collection was an extension of JSTOR’s ing semester. All of these titles are now owned journal collections, which were already held by in perpetuity and available to the 16 libraries nearly all of the member libraries, and which in- that participated in each group respectively, cluded high-quality scholarly content from a such that cost per use will decrease over time as wide array of university press publishers. The patrons of multiple institutions find and use content was DRM-free and multi-user accessible, these titles. Collective ownership of these titles and at the time, there was very little overlap and the collective savings experienced were, with PALCI’s EBSCO and ebrary DDA pro- perhaps, the greatest successes of the project. grams already in place.

Despite the pilots’ successes, there were chal- In the Spring 2015 semester, the PALCI Board of lenges that arose, primarily related to integra- Directors agreed to contribute funds to cover a tion of the DDA programs with vendor and li- JSTOR DDA pilot project that would include all brary workflows. Some libraries experienced PALCI institutions. For this project, all member technical and implementation difficulties with libraries had access to approximately 30,000 ti- discovery services. Others, especially those tles on the Books at JSTOR platform. This DDA without aggregator discovery services, were model was based on use of book chapters, in forced to rely on MARC records for discovery, which a title would only be triggered for pur- which added complexity to local workflows chase after a negotiated significant-use thresh- each time a program started and stopped. Each old was reached. When the use threshold was aggregator presented its own unique challenges exceeded, a copy was purchased for each PALCI and characteristics, such as the availability, tim- library. However, if the agreed upon chapter- ing and quality of usage reports and purchase use threshold was never met for a specific title,

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 90 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

the use of that title remained, for all intents and bership’s interest in the program, maximize par- purposes, ‘free’ but would continue to accumu- ticipation among the membership, and provide late and compound annually. Throughout a baseline for future contribution amounts. As PALCI’s two-month JSTOR pilot, PALCI librar- expected, contributions ranged widely in abso- ies had access to JSTOR’s complete discovery lute dollars but there was a loose correlation be- pool, and at the end, only 12 titles were pur- tween institutional size and contributions, most chased, with more than 18,500 titles used at least of which were derived from one-time monies, once.24 e.g., end of fiscal year or experimental or pilot funds. The voluntary funding approach also Building on its past successes, PALCI was able highlighted the importance of PALCI’s timing of to offer member libraries three DDA options for the request for funding, both in terms of end of Fall 2015-Spring 2016: EBSCO, ebrary, and fiscal year budgets and budget cycles, as well as JSTOR. While approximately the same number the time required to coordinate efforts between of institutions continue to participate with EB- YBP and chosen aggregation services. SCO and ebrary DDA programs today, 50 insti- tutions opted-in to the JSTOR program, making The second iteration of PALCI’s EBSCO and it the most popular program among members. ebrary DDA programs required a more nuanced With each program iteration, PALCI is actively and strategic approach to funding in order to exploring the possibility of new models for con- help incentivize publisher participation and to sortial demand-driven ebook collection build- extend the length of the program by increasing ing, seeking greater library and publisher partic- available funds. This more sophisticated for- ipation, and analyzing cost per use and overall mula was distilled into two determining factors: use over time to demonstrate positive return on a flat participation fee, and a fee tied to FTE. The investment. annual participation fee was flat, assessed irre- spective of size, and constituted approximately Contribution Models 30% of total contributions. The FTE fee made up the other 70% of funds collected and was gradu- One of the more time consuming and challeng- ated to more equitably reflect the membership ing aspects of managing PALCI’s DDA pro- with the following classifications: very small, grams has been developing equitable and sus- small, medium, and large. tainable contribution formulas. Cost modeling of more established DDA programs in other Although the EBTF considered a fee based on consortia did not readily translate due to budgets, it was determined that FTE was more PALCI’s opt-in philosophy, decentralized fund- predictive of usage as supported by preliminary ing, and emphasis on ownership over access. purchase data from the first iteration of the pro- Furthermore, PALCI’s size and institutional gram. Also, from a practical standpoint, FTE composition made it difficult to anticipate use was readily available and normalized across in- and project spend, and therefore arrive at a rea- stitutions. The EBTF discussed a usage fee com- sonable figure to sustain the programs and at- ponent based on absolute, relative, and/or per tract publisher interest. FTE types of calculations, but decided to forgo it due to limited statistics and inconsistent report- The first iteration of the PALCI DDA programs ing, a problem that continues to persist. There with EBSCO and ebrary was funded through a was also concern that such a fee would be inter- “pass the hat” approach. It was assumed that preted as punitive and counter to the objectives voluntary contributions would gauge the mem- of the program. Theoretical discussions about

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 91 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

what constituted usage highlighted these chal- regular feedback to shape the program, repre- lenges, e.g., defining incidental vs. significant senting the interests of staff at more than 50 li- use, how to quantify use, and whether to assess braries. Since the inception of the EBSCO and by ranges or thresholds. ebrary DDA programs, PALCI libraries have collectively purchased more than 3,000 titles at a The third iteration of PALCI’s EBSCO and relatively low cost per title.25 Purchased titles are ebrary DDA programs replicated the second available in perpetuity to participating libraries. with only modest percentage increases assigned Since the cost of ownership is virtually zero, the to the participation and FTE fees with the intent cost per use decreases over time with each sub- of prolonging the programs’ duration. The EBTF sequent use. Additionally, the titles purchased continued to discuss and review usage statistics represent ebooks that were used at least once, in an attempt to determine whether and how and usually more than once, presumably mean- best to integrate a usage component into the ing patrons also found value in the program. contribution formula. Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate the use that oc- curred during and after the PALCI pilot DDA PALCI added Books at JSTOR to its ebook offer- programs with ebrary and EBSCO (Spring 2014) ings in 2014. For the duration of the pilot phase, and program year 1 (Fall 2014 - Spring 2015).26 PALCI used central funds to access JSTOR’s As titles are increasingly shared across the 30,000 DRM-free ebooks. The pilot was well re- group, they represent books that do not need to ceived by the membership, and PALCI quickly be physically shared and shipped using ILL ser- developed a contribution model based largely vices, such as E-ZBorrow, representing addi- on JSTOR’s target investment to sustain the pro- tional future cost savings and enhanced access. gram for the entire subsequent academic year. (See Tables 1 & 2.) Unlike the EBSCO and ebrary models, the JSTOR contribution model included a flat partic- Despite these consortium-level successes, the ipation fee representing 10% of total contribu- value of PALCI’s DDA programs is limited to tions, an FTE-based fee representing 40% of total the subgroups of participating libraries. Value is contributions, and a usage-based fee represent- also subjective, as it depends heavily on the par- ing the remaining 50% of the total contributions. ticipating libraries’ institutional priorities. The Because usage for the purposes of trigger thresh- value calculated from the consortium perspec- olds is measured both collectively and cumula- tive does not necessarily translate to an individ- tively in the JSTOR program, the target invest- ual library’s perception of value. Individual li- ment is likely to increase each year to sustain the braries voluntarily contribute to the program in same program duration. amounts that vary based on the contribution for- mulas described above. Therefore a ROI calcula- Sustainability and Value tion done at the individual library level may The EBTF’s evaluations of the PALCI DDA pro- vary greatly from the consortially calculated grams show they provide a great deal of value ROI, and from institution to institution. at the consortium level based on the programs’ As PALCI completes its second full academic initial goals. The programs are run efficiently year of DDA ebook program offerings following with one consortium staff member managing the initial pilots, the consortium is working to the services and spending approximately 50% of ensure sustainability and the satisfaction of its their time on behalf of all libraries. Five EBTF members by balancing the cost of participation members discuss logistical issues and provide with individual libraries’ perceptions of value received. To achieve a balance between program

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 92 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

costs and value, PALCI staff are continuing to how funds are spent, PALCI developed web work closely with the Ebooks Task Force, as well pages, created an email discussion list, and held as ebook vendors, to gather usage, cost and periodic webinar meetings and feedback ses- other program data to develop library contribu- sions to explain the programs and their results. tion models that fairly allocate costs and encour- PALCI has addressed some of these issues, but age continued participation. communication remains an on-going challenge, in part due to the size of the group, and also the As previously described, current funding mod- complexities of running multiple programs sim- els depend on a small, flat participation fee and ultaneously. a fee based on an institution’s FTE size. In fu- ture iterations, the consortium is considering Providing libraries with predictability in terms whether and how to incorporate a usage-based of program duration is more challenging, in fee in an attempt to define, assess, and fairly large part due to the risk inherent in the DDA charge libraries for the value received. For insti- model. In a recent survey of the membership, tutions that have participated in previous years, 90% of participating members ranked program usage data reports could potentially be used to duration as either very important or somewhat attribute each institution’s percentage of the important. Despite this finding, a disproportion- costs. To do this, the EBTF is exploring a fee ate number indicated an unwillingness or inabil- based on the number of discrete titles used at ity to contribute more money in order to miti- each institution. This method of attributing gate the quick depletion of DDA funds. This value focuses on the percentage of purchased ti- feedback has caused PALCI to attempt to ad- tles used, rather than total aggregate use, since dress the issue of program duration in other the amount of usage of any given title does not ways.27 impact the consortium’s total cost once it has been purchased. Feedback gathered from member libraries makes it clear that expect the program Additionally, PALCI may use a metric, such as to last for at least one full academic year per the average cost to borrow a physical item via contribution period. This expectation is a chal- the E-ZBorrow service, in order to calculate a ti- lenge that may be met through some combina- tle use fee. To date, no use-based fee has been tion of aggressive content profiling and/or in- assessed in the ebrary and EBSCO programs; creased funding. Although PALCI’s 2016 ebooks there is concern that such a fee would serve as a survey results indicate most libraries believed disincentive for participation in the program. the program provided at least fair or better Additionally, a use-based fee could not be easily value, survey data did not provide a strong case applied to libraries that have not previously par- for drastically increasing individual library con- ticipated. Though still under discussion, it is tributions. Budget restrictions continue to weigh likely that PALCI will continue to look for ways on libraries, and the programs are not yet to fairly attribute costs across the group based viewed as “core,” but rather as supplemental on a shared definition of the programs’ value. additions to library collection development strategies. Perhaps the biggest threat to participation in PALCI’s DDA programs though, is the lack of Going forward, PALCI will work to maximize predictability in terms of program duration, economies of scale and reduce duplications of combined with communication challenges and cost and effort. In addition, PALCI must estab- expectation setting. In an effort to build greater lish and nurture trust, a collaborative spirit, understanding of program complexities and

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 93 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

transparency, and communication with mem- programs’ budget, timing (starts and stops), du- bers, all of which are paramount to continued ration (length), and integration with local collec- participation in and viability of these programs, tion development and workflows. Thus, per- as they become a regular component of libraries’ ceived value was lower than expected, not be- collection development activities. Though future cause of scant use, poor content selection, or un- models are still evolving, PALCI is committed to reasonable costs, but due mostly to logistical continuing to build ebook collections collec- considerations, many of which were initially be- tively based on shared needs, with transparent yond the PALCI’s direct control and/or the pre- pricing that supports an open dialogue around dictive powers of the EBTF and/or vendors. value. Future steps for PALCI will involve a However, after three largely successful DDA it- greater focus on defining the shared content pri- erations and with the support of the member- orities for a collective collection, e.g., publisher, ship, PALCI is in a position to remove “pilot” subject areas, etc., with hopefully less attention from its DDA programming, thereby establish- devoted to the workings of the acquisition pro- ing its demand-driven ebook programs as a core cess and development of contribution formulas. collective collection service.

Conclusions and Moving Forward PALCI has identified several key challenges and related action items that the consortium must Consortial DDA programs provide distinct exis- address to ensure the programs’ future viability tential value within the context of declining and end goal of a collective collection. First, budgets, organizational restructuring, and staff- these programs are by and large not considered ing attrition. Value propositions are supported core by individual institutions due to the inabil- by quantitative assessments, return on invest- ity to predict starts and stops and program du- ment (ROI), and usage data most commonly, as ration; by default they are supplementary and well as workflow analyses, which are often per- assigned tertiary importance for budgeting pur- formed qualitatively at the local level. Such as- poses and collection development strategies. sessments provide unique opportunities to en- This issue also relates to insufficient funding as gage consortium membership in discussions on libraries prioritize other local activities more programmatic expectations and measures of heavily. A culture shift and move toward “con- success; however, because success is defined sortium-first” thinking is required to make col- and interpreted widely among the membership, lective collection building successful. developing “a one size fits all” narrative is no easy task, made even more difficult by vendors’ Secondly, PALCI needs a better understanding inconsistent and irregular reporting. Moreover, of how DDA is employed at the local level so as local measures of success do not readily trans- to complement and/or replace local initiatives late to the consortium level. For example, ROI at where appropriate and to do so effi- the local level is a straightforward calculation; ciently. Lastly, PALCI must articulate a clear vi- however, ROI at the consortium level must be sion for a consortium collection whereby a DDA qualified with local triggers and/or usage. program addresses shared institutional priori- Measures such as consortial ROI and usage are ties in a more inclusive and thoughtful way. not enough to sustain a consortium DDA pro- DDA is one means toward achieving a collective gram, at least for one funded voluntarily. collection; however, the focus has largely been on the models used and the aggregators chosen In a January 2016 PALCI survey, some within to obtain that ownership, rather than the collec- the membership expressed concern about the tion itself. A vision that describes what the body

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 94 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

of owned titles should look like will work to so- are only one piece of the “collective pie” and lidify the consortium’s ability to successfully PALCI must continue to assess its programs’ work on behalf of its members. ability to fulfill member needs, in addition to considering alternate or complementary ap- Without full consortium participation though, proaches. Of all the lessons learned and chal- the value of a shared collection will continue to lenges encountered, PALCI has recognized the be limited in scope. It is incumbent on consortial need to remain flexible in order to build oppor- leaders to forge paths forward by innovating, tunities for participation, and the need to con- trying new models, and encouraging discussion tinue working with aggregators, publishers, among all stakeholders so limited resources may platform providers and other partners to find be maximized, and so library vendors and part- mutually beneficial solutions addressing shared ners no longer fear library cooperation, but find needs. mutual benefit. It is clear that DDA programs

Table 1. Cumulative Use of Titles Triggered in PALCI EBSCO Pilot Program (Spring 2014) & Program Year 1 (Fall 2014 - Spring 2015)

EBSCO Pilot Program: 2014 EBSCO Program Year 1: 2014-15

Feb. 2014- Feb. 2014- Oct. 2014- Oct. 2014- Dec. 2014 Sep. 2015 Apr. 2015 Sep. 2015

Total Use 5,769 10,365 5,022 7,632

Total Titles 310 310 501 501

Uses Per Title

10 or more times 52% 69% 1% 50%

6-9 times 17% 16% 9% 20%

3-5 times 25% 12% 43% 19%

2 times 6% 3% 24% 7%

1 time 1% 0% 24% 4%

Note. – Use was measured across all participating libraries in each program.

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 95 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

Table 2. Cumulative Use of Titles Triggered in PALCI ebrary Pilot Program (Spring 2014) & Program Year 1 (Fall 2014 - Spring 2015

ebrary Pilot Program: 2014 ebrary Program Year 1: 2014-15

Feb. 2014- Feb. 2014- Oct. 2014- Oct. 2014-

Dec. 2014 Sep. 2015 Apr. 2015 Sep. 2015

Total Use 2,042 3,818 3,878 5,548

Total Titles 188 188 441 441

Uses Per Title

10 or more times 35% 68% 0% 34%

6-9 times 28% 32% 2% 17%

3-5 times 26% 18% 25% 27%

2 times 6% 1% 33% 12%

1 time 5% 3% 39% 9%

Note. – Use was measured across all participating libraries in each program.

Endnotes

1 Turner, C. N. "E-Resource Acquisitions in Aca- http://www.niso.org/apps/group_pub- demic Library Consortia." Library Resources & lic/download.php/13373/rp-20-2014_DDA.pdf. Technical Services 58, no. 1: 33-48. 4 Doyle, G., & Tucker, C. (2011). "Patron-Driven 2 Machovec, G. (2013). "Consortial ebook Licens- Acquisition - Working Collaboratively in a Con- ing for Academic Libraries." Journal of Library Administration 53(5-6): 390-399. sortial Environment: An Interview with Greg Doyle." Collaborative Librarianship 3(4): 212-216. 3 NISO DDA Working Group, “Demand-Driven Acquisitions for Monographs: A Recommended 5 Emery, J., & Parks, B. (2012). “The Demand Practice of the National Information Standards Driven Acquisitions Pilot Project by the Orbis Organization.” Approved June 24, 2014. (Balti- Cascade Alliance: An Interview with Members more: National Information Standards Organi- of the Demand Driven Acquisitions Implemen- zation, 2014), tation Team.” Serials Review, 38(2), 132-136.

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 96 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

16 The University of California DDA project 6 Levine-Clark, M., Level, A., Lamborn, J., & tracks post-purchase usage. See McKiel, A., & Machovec, G., “Mile High Cooperation: De- Dooley, J., 2014, Against the Grain 26(3): 59-61. mand-Driven Acquisition in The Colorado Alli- 17 ance of Research Libraries,” in Dawn Hale (Ed.) “Publisher-driven ebook changes: pricing and Shared Collections: Collaborative Stewardship. (Chi- access,” http://www.ebrary.com/land- cago: ALA Editions, 2016): 125-153. ing/site/news/Publishers%20- %20ebrary%20STL%20changes.pdf. Accessed 7 Lowe, R. A., & Aldana, L. (2015). “Implementa- April 1, 2016. Also see Wolfman-Arent, A., 2014, tion & Management of a Consortial Demand- “College Libraries Push Back as Publishers Raise Driven E-Books Pilot: The USAMAI Experi- Some E-Book Prices.” Chronicle of Higher Educa- ence.” Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship tion 60(39): 22, for publishers’ defense of the 27(3): 185-193. price increase.

8 Kennedy, C. (2016). “Changing Library Opera- 18 The Oberlin Group, “On ebooks & libraries: a tions -- Conclusions from Consortial Demand- statement by the Oberlin Group of liberal arts Driven eBook Pilot at the University of Califor- college libraries,” http://www.ober- nia.” Against the Grain 28(2): 70-71. lingroup.org/node/14801. Accessed April 6, 2016. 9 The Colorado Alliance worked with ebrary and EBL. 19 Ibid.

10 At the time of this writing, Orbis Cascade had 20 “Charlotte Initiative: Principles for Permanent 15 STLs, VIVA 25, NY3Rs seven, and USMAI Acquisition of eBooks for Academic Libraries,” six. http://guides.library.uncc.edu/charlotteinitia- tive. Accessed April 6, 2016. 11 Also known as the limited access model or Novanet Model (See Endnote 2: Machovec, 21 See “SimplyE for Consortia: three clicks to all 2013). your ebooks,” https://www.imls.gov/sites/de- fault/files/lg-70-16-0010_proposal_narra- 12 Seger, R., & Allen, L. (2011). “A Publisher's tive.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2016. Minitex is com- Perspective on PDA.” Against the Grain 23(3): 32- posted of the Massachusetts Library System, the 34. Boston , Reaching Across Illinois 13 Levine-Clark, M., Level, A., & Machovec, G, Libraries System, and the New York Public Li- “Mile High Cooperation: Demand-Driven Ac- brary. For similar initiatives see Pronevitz, G., quisition in The Colorado Alliance of Research “Consortial Ebook Platforms: An Update and Libraries,” in Dawn Hale (Ed.) Shared Collections: Good News.” Collaborative Librarianship, 7(1), 38- Collaborative Stewardship. (Chicago: ALA Edi- 41. tions, 2016): 125-153. 22 Wicht, H. (2011). “The Evolution of E-books 14 NY 3Rs E-book Pilot Phase 1, Pilot White Pa- and Interlibrary Loan in Academic Libraries.” per, NY3Rs ebook pilot. Collaborative Librarianship 3(4), 205-211.

23 15 Demand-driven Acquisitions, Statistics box. ROI was calculated by multiplying the num- https://www.orbiscascade.org/ebook-statistics. ber of titles purchased by list price of the con- Accessed April 1, 2016. tent, then dividing by individual library contri- butions.

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 97 Garskof, et al.: Towards the Collective Collection

pilot, 100% had been used more than once. In 24 As of June 8, 2015, 18,512 titles had been either both cases, nearly 70% of titles purchased were viewed or downloaded at least once, and greater used ten or more times. The presentation with than 15,000 titles had been viewed or down- corresponding charts is available from: loaded at least twice. http://schd.ws/hosted_files/2015charleston- conference/18/Charles- 25 In the ebrary and EBSCO programs, the aver- ton%202015%20PALCI%20eBooks%20Presenta- age cost to the consortium per title was less than tion.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016. $200, and often included three simultaneous user copies, available to and shared by all partic- 27 PALCI’s 2016 ebook survey gathered re- ipating libraries. Program costs were divided sponses from 94% of PALCI member libraries. among participating libraries using PALCI’s Of 62 responses, 37% indicated that program contribution formulas, making the average cost duration was somewhat important, and 53% in- per title to an individual library significantly dicated that program duration was very im- less, around $13 per title. portant. Only 10% indicated it was not im- portant that a DDA program last for an entire 26 The PALCI DDA programs were described in academic semester. In both the ebrary and EB- a presentation at the Charleston Conference in SCO programs, fewer than 10% of respondents November 2015. An analysis showed that as of indicated their library would be willing to pay September 2015, 97% of the 188 titles purchased more in order to extend the duration of these in the Spring 2014 ebrary pilot program had programs. been used two or more times. Similarly, of the 310 titles purchased in the Spring 2014 EBSCO

Collaborative Librarianship 8(2):84-98 (2016) 98