On the 24th January 2011 a use case meeting was held at the University of Edinburgh. The documentation is available as a pdf, and the team at Edinburgh wrote a short summary of the meeting from their point of view.
There was a good meeting at Edinburgh, on 24th January, with Owen Stephens and Angela Walker representing the project, and Simon Bains, Anne Bell, Charles Gray, Elize Rowan and Liz Stevenson representing Edinburgh.
We have licensed an ERM package but have not yet implemented the service – we’ve considered partial implementation, to create a repository of licence information, but the resourcing of that work remains an issue. We recognise that the need for an ERM or equivalent is critical – to manage the life-cycle of any e-resource; to provide accurate data and information to colleagues, and to track subscriptions, packages and licence agreements effectively and ultimately to improve efficiency.
Prior to the meeting we identified 4 topics for discussion – the selection of platform for e-book purchases; the tracking of expenditure of e-journals and packages; archival rights; and the migration to consortium purchasing of packages.
It was helpful to reflect on all of these, and in the end we focussed on the tracking of e-journals expenditure, including Big Deals and associated licence fees, for our case study, and will be interested to know if our issues and challenges mirror those of other institutions. We looked at the full cycle, from the point of recommendation for purchase, through to payment, renewal, and cancellation. The workflows and processes were discussed in detail, and we identified a number of limitations of the LMS in handling the data needed to effectively manage e-resources. One example of this – while expenditure on subscriptions is recorded at title level, there is also a requirement to have full details of all titles associated with a collection or Big Deal.
We also spent some time discussing the challenges of identifying and recording information about archival rights, both at package and title level, and this also included discussion around the recording of details of licences. The information is needed both to manage collections effectively, and to inform decisions about the retention [or not] of print. A national repository of machine readable licence agreements would help with this, especially if the documents could be amended at institutional level to include details of institutional subscriptions and any commercially confidential information such as pricing. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, and sharing these core documents makes good sense. Being able to share or publicise details of key clauses is also important, particularly where there are regular queries to identify, for example, whether material can be used for interlibrary loan, or whether articles/chapters can be used in course packs.