Minutes of the Advisory Board Meeting - PELICAN Project
Monday 22 January 2000, 10.30am – 12.30pm, HEFCE, 28th Floor, Centre Point, London
Present:
Toby Bainton - SCONUL (Chair)
Ed Barrow – CLA
Rachel Hardy – Research Associate (secretary)
Caroline Ingram - JISC/DNER
Peter Kemp - HERON, Stirling University
Charles Oppenheim – Project Director
Dafydd Wyn Phillips – ALCS
Iris Rubbert – Research Associate
Peter Sowden - ALPSP (as stand in for Sally Morris)
Anthony Watkinson - Publishers Association
1. Welcome from the Chairman:
Toby Bainton welcomed all attendees to this first meeting. Apologies for absence were received by Sally Morris.
2. Terms of reference:
2.1 The draft terms were approved subject to the following change: the fourth point included in the Terms of Reference should include reference to joint working with other JISC projects as appropriate.
2.2 CI pointed out that reports written for the Advisory Board could double up as reports for DNER. Articles written could be published on the web for easy dissemination and access. These could also be provided via the DNER webpage.
3. Report from Project Team on progress so far:
RH reported that the project team is ahead of schedule. So far, the project plan (incl. evaluation, communication and dissemination strategy) has been written, a timetable has been produced for the lifetime of the project, and the literature review has been completed. The literature search focused on past UK projects, but also incorporated key research in other countries (those arising from the TECUP and TULIP evaluations).
Further, a database of contacts has been established, a web page designed and the project’s methodology confirmed. A conference that provides the opportunity to report on the project and present models is arranged for September 18th 2001 to be held at London Zoo.
Press release in 16 journal and papers.
Article – Published in Library Association Record, SCONUL and Learned Publishing.
Leaflet – Printed January 2001.
4. Discussion of PELICAN Project:
4.1 PS suggested that alongside academic stakeholders from all disciplines, specifically economists should be targeted as they are most likely to comment on specific pricing models. The British Library should be contacted for details – see Graham Cornish.
4.2 AW pointed out that in p.6 of the project plan, the publisher’s role is undermined. The work with publishers and all stakeholders should not impose on, but complement existing work. The project plan will be amended accordingly.
4.3 The scoring model presented by IR was discussed. The AB decided that the idea of a scoring or multiplier model would be worthwhile pursuing. However, PS opposed the idea of the centralised system and suggested that this kind of administration structure should be removed. It was suggested that PELICAN should present three models by the end of the project rather than just one for discussion amongst all stakeholders.
4.4 EB made the AB aware that IFRRO are showing interest in the project and a communication channel would be established through the CLA.
4.5 AW raised awareness that a wide gap exists between policy making and implementation. He suggested that the project team should differentiate between the two and make contact with each stakeholder to assess the importance of this distinction for the project goal.
4.6 A brief discussion regarding the use of students followed. CO pointed out that PELICAN will use LISU (Library Information Statistics Unit – based at Loughborough University) to guarantee a satisfactory sampling method. AW mentioned a report using an excellent sampling technique ‘Student Market Today’. CI advised that Charles Crook’s psychological study might be of relevance to the project. RH to contact him.
A report written by PS ‘University Library Spending’ was mentioned by AW. A copy will be send to the project team. AW also suggested that booksellers should be added as a separate stakeholder group and be incorporated into the model. He agreed to make informal contacts. Some AB members did not agree.
4.7 PS discussed the need for a hybrid model, taking into account book sales as well as digitisation. This would cater for all HE spending (e.g. one invoice). CO raised the point that no minimum level of HEI spending is imposed.
4.8 Various commercial initiatives were discussed, e.g. ‘Oxford English Dictionary Online’ and Ebrary etc RH to look into pricing models adopted.
4.9 The issue of background reading has been raised by the AB – reading not required for a course, full understanding needed amongst all stakeholders of use and provision.
4.10 PS confirmed that in the electronic world publishers need a secondary revenue while still guaranteeing a primary income. AW informed that each stakeholder will want to forecast spending and revenue in advance. PS also pointed out that ‘risk minimisation rather than profit maximisation’ might be a more prevailing issue. CO raised the point that it would be useful to work with an economist involved in risk minimisation. EB pointed out that all stakeholders will primarily be concerned to see a profitable and viable pricing model.
4.11 Summary:
TB – The model presented by IR should be pursued considering the implementation of different administration structures. In addition, other economic multiplier models should be considered.
The AB recommends that PELICAN explores and presents three models. A suggestion is that the models should cater for texts as well as journals. Each model should be kept simple due to the wide range of issues and disciplines involved.
5. Any Other Business:
5.1 The topic of Further Education was discussed. When the proposal for PELICAN was accepted by JISC, FE was not included in the plan but in line with JISC’s policy change, FE will be considered by PELICAN as far as time and funding allows. CI encourages the inclusion of FE in the project but pointed out that it was not essential to achieve the project’s objectives. AW will provide contacts, PS suggests including FE publishers (ARNOLD) and stated that 28% of FE is carried out on HE campus’. As a result it was agreed that PELCAN should be able to include FE to some extent.
5.2 Date of Next Meeting – Wednesday June 13th 10.30am DNER Offices, The Strand (CI to confirm)
ACTIONS:
AW:
Investigate policy makers.
Provide information into student sampling report.
Copy of PS report ‘University Library Spending’ for project team.
Informally make contact with booksellers as appropriate – see John Davies.
Make FE contacts as appropriate – John Davies
Contact Caroline Elmslie to check feasibility of creating a database of tights persons at UK publishing houses.
EB:
DP:
PS:
RH:
Review pricing models of other industries.
Amend project plan in light of comments.
CO:
IR:
CI: