Abstract
This session presented two librarians' experiences with patron-driven access models. With an emphasis on collaboration, the librarians explained how pay-per-view and just-in-time acquisitions models are changing how users access information in an era of constrained budgets. The presenters shared strategies and decision-making methods with the audience, as well as the benefits and challenges of these models.
Exploring Patron-Driven Access Models for E-journals and E-books
library budgets continue to decline, librarians are coming up with innovative ways to meet users' information needs while conserving resources. In this tactics session, Erin S. Fisher and Lisa Kurt showed the audience how patron-driven access models work, what their drawbacks and benefits are, and how they are changing access to information at their institution, the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). UNR has approximately 17,000 students and three libraries: the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center, the Delamare Library, and the Savitt Medical Library.
Like most public institutions, the libraries at UNR have faced significant budget shortages, with increasing demands from students and faculty. In the past, it was possible to invest in “Big Deals” from information providers in order to provide a large number of resources for library patrons. In the current climate, financial necessity requires librarians to seek alternative models for funding information resources.
User-driven models, including pay-per-view (PPV), allow library patrons to access the content they need, without placing an undue financial burden on the institution. With PPV, access is available if needed by patrons. For some, this model can reduce spending because the library is only paying for what users ask for and their demands may be modest. For other institutions, spending might remain stagnant or actually increase because of high demand by patrons for information in PPV resources. Either way, this makes for a more efficient model. PPV also offers users more choices, and shifts the acquisitions model to a user focus, while allowing the library to stay viable for the future and offering more potential.
Erin S. Fisher explained the variety of PPV models available from different providers, and the importance of choosing one based on the institution's needs. At UNR, library staff was forced to explore a PPV model for e-journals out of financial necessity. Wanting to provide access to cancelled titles, staff looked at specific packages and the different types of access provided by PPV models. Unmediated PPV access works like a buffet, allowing users to take what they want, without knowing they are using a PPV model. Mediated access provides more safeguards depending on needs, but requires more staff time to implement and manage. Mediation options can differ from service to service.
Fisher explained the benefits of the PPV model, starting with costs. She quoted Patrick L. Carr of East Carolina University, who wrote that “At [the University of North Carolina at Greensboro], which uses PPV for journals from small publishers that receive moderate or low use, PPV costs have typically amounted to just 10 percent of what it would have cost to maintain subscriptions to the journals from which articles were downloaded”Footnote 1 Fisher suspected that cost savings and time savings would have likely occurred in the interlibrary loan (ILL) department, particularly with the unmediated PPV access model.
There are several challenges associated with the PPV model, as Fisher pointed out. Among current displays of PPV services for patrons, there is little to no customization available to library staff, so the library must accept the provider's wording, which may be ambiguous or not communicated clearly to users. There is also a concern about stability and how long access to purchased articles will be available for users. Security is another big issue, and safeguards need to be put in place in order to deal with users who download large amounts of content. Fisher noted that scalability could be a concern, and that PPV models have had more documented success at smaller institutions.
Drawing from her experiences at UNR, Fisher presented a case study of Wiley's options for PPV, where users spend “tokens” purchased by the library to access content. The most unmediated (unrestricted) option was to restrict to IP addresses only, followed by a combination of IP and user registration, followed by the most mediated (restricted) option: a super user control system where, in their case, ILL loan staff would be established as super users and purchase articles using library tokens. UNR opted to assign more ILL staff to the task only if the demand grew.
Fisher encountered significant problems, however, when implementing the PPV system. Before choosing the super user option, the allotted tokens for the library were used up very quickly, so the need for more restriction was evident. Another major problem was the lack of a customizable user interface, which showed only a login prompt and contact information. Without library branding and customizable text, users would likely abandon their access sessions. In the end, UNR decided not to go with the PPV service this time around, but they are much better prepared for the next time the option inevitably comes up. Fisher answered some questions from that audience about information technology support and whether the tokens were refunded, which they were.
Next, Lisa Kurt delivered a presentation on user-driven e-book acquisitions. This new model allows patrons to share control of e-resource spending, and as such, it is becoming a more desirable option for libraries. Kurt explained that user-driven e-book models differ, so it is important to shop around and consider the needs of the institution and its users. Providers offer mediated and unmediated options, variance in the number of titles and subjects offered, and different payment and billing options.
Some of the benefits of this model include flexibility, less time spent on collection development, the library only paying for what is needed and used, and not taking up expensive shelf space for physical books. Kurt referred to this as “just-in-time instead of just-in-case” collection development. The user experience with this model is similar to other e-books, so patrons are already familiar with the interface and interaction of the library catalog. Some of the challenges include duplicate record issues, which require staff time to fix. There was also confusion for staff about purchasing outright by request versus triggering a short-term loan. A short-term loan means that users have twenty four hours to view an e-book. Another challenge was the need for software to download e-books for offline reading. Some students, such as those in computer labs, could not access the e-books offline because they could not access the software needed. Kurt used screenshots to demonstrate the ease of use of e-books. The screenshot showed how users could seamlessly access the full-text, without knowing they were triggering an acquisition. UNR is working on marketing and integrating these e-books into the catalog, since there is a growing expectation by users that they will find e-books there.
Next, Kurt presented a case study of UNR's experience with the E-Book Library's (EBL) e-book package. The EBL brand was already tested and established at other institutions, and its package contained more than 140,000 titles. The pilot began in January 2011 and offered 2010 imprints. Authentication was done through Shibboleth, which allowed for better management overall and enhanced functionality for users. The EBL package offered both short-term loans and PPV, and a threshold of a certain number of loans would trigger a purchase. The books were available to multiple concurrent users, as well as for the course reserves system. Adobe Digital Editions software was used to allow patrons to view e-books offline and on a variety of devices. UNR's users could view e-books for up to ten minutes before a twenty-four-hour short-term loan was triggered. After five short-term loans, a purchase was triggered and staff was alerted. Purchased e-books were available for thirty day loans and allowed for multiple concurrent users, so the e-book never appeared to be checked out to other users trying to access it. Brief records for these non-owned materials were loaded into the catalog with special coding to track them; once an e-book was purchased these records were overlaid with fully-cataloged MARC records for better discoverability. When access ran out for users, the system saved the history and item but displayed a message of expired, so the user could go back and trigger use again. The EBL system also offered usage statistics on the back end for staff to view. Expenditures and accounting information were included.
The first book purchased through EBL was the Cliffs Notes GRE General Test Cram Plan, a book they might not have thought to purchase through a traditional model.Footnote 2 There were a total of 985 short-term loans purchased, which worked out to be a cost of approximately $8.21 per short-term loan. Between January 1 and May 29, 2011, there were 1,606 browsing sessions triggered, at no cost to UNR. Thirty e-books were purchased during the pilot. Once items were purchased, the records were improved to make the e-books more discoverable in the catalog. Kurt credited their success to collaboration early on with a small team of diverse members which allowed the library to move quickly. They started small and used an in-house trial phase during the fall of 2010 so they could become familiar with the process without getting bogged down or overwhelmed. They used the confidence they gained and the information they learned to go public with the pilot in January 2011. Kurt advised asking lots of questions of the vendor representative and keeping track of ongoing questions and concerns.
UNR decided to move forward with the e-book package from EBL by continuing on to the 2011 imprints. They plan to track the usage of short-term loans and purchases, and possibly examine subject areas of the most heavily used materials. They are also considering broader questions about the future of collections and into what areas they can further expand. Kurt explained that it is important to keep an eye to the future but realize the future is always changing. For example, libraries used to have closed stacks, and then moved to open stacks and now online resources that can be accessed anywhere. The challenge is to rethink collections within librarianship as well as within the context of our own institutions.
Kurt next explored the differences between licensing and on-demand models versus the traditional way of purchasing materials. The speaker advised considering the institution's demands as well as issues such as perpetual access and long-term preservation. She also emphasized the importance of collaboration between many departments within the library, from Document Delivery to Cataloging, and having librarians, staff and student workers all pitching in to make the project work. The presenter described it as a “crumbling of walls” between respective silos in the library. She also mentioned not being afraid to fail and the importance of getting together and discussing the project early on, asking questions of each other and of vendors, being flexible and starting small. The ultimate prize or goal for librarians is to connect users with what they need and want.
At the end of the session, Fisher and Kurt answered additional questions from the audience. One person asked about purchasing e-books in perpetuity, and Kurt answered that the number of books purchased in perpetuity depends on how much an institution would be willing to track and manage. Kurt indicated that the way perpetuity is defined is still uncertain, and confirmed the importance of good documentation of processes and decisions. Another person asked if UNR was able to customize the interface of the e-book system. The answer is that they did not at this time, but hopefully they might in the future. An audience member asked about fees, and Kurt responded that there were initiation fees that UNR had to pay but fees and costs are determined by the license negotiations and setup at individual institutions.
Notes
1. P. Carr and S. Collins, “Acquiring Articles through Unmediated, User-Initiated Pay-Per-View Transactions: An Assessment of Current Practices,” Serials Review 35, no. 4 (December 2009): 275, doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2009.08.006
2. Carolyn C. Wheater and Catherine McMenamin, CliffsNotes GRE General Test Cram Plan (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=455917