PROJECT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Plan
1.4 Problems with the Implementation of Pricing Mechanisms
1. Project Plan
For a number of years, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Publishers Association (PA) have co-operated by means of Working Groups to address a number issues of mutual concern, published in a number of joint reports. Partly in response to the publication of these reports, the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) has launched its HE digitisation licence, known as eCLA, and adopted models similar to those recommended by JISC/PA. In addition, HERON (Higher Education Resources ON-demand) has been established to continue the momentum of the on-demand/electronic reserve (OD/ER) strand of the eLib programme, providing a copyright clearance and digitisation service together with the development of a resource bank of digitised materials for Higher Education (HE) use.
The success of HERON, and indeed any other system for Copyright Clearance in HE and Further Education (FE) depends ultimately on the implementation of an effective pricing mechanism for digitised texts that satisfies all players in the HE/FE community. For publishers, the impact of digitisation could threaten sales of textbooks to students and journals to libraries. Academic staff want easier access to copyright materials in digitised form for teaching and research, and would like to see a clear pricing model for their secondary use of publications. Libraries, already working under financial constraints, prefer to work with a fixed cost model, as only this would allow for long-term planning. Since the introduction of tuition fees for undergraduates, and increasing prices for postgraduate programmes, students are more likely to reject additional payment for library resources and want easy access to suggested readings in digitised form. Consequently, the development of a suitable pricing mechanism, satisfying all stakeholders in the HE/FE community, is a pressing and immediate task, and will provide the foundation for a holistic distribution model of academic literature in digitised form.
In recognition of the complexity of the research field, the Pelican project aims to address strategic, methodological and practical issues. The Pelican project aims to assess current practices in electronic delivery of text to students and establish existing usage patterns. It will identify models most likely to be acceptable to students, HEIs, publishers, authors and the CLA. It will act as a facilitator to provide a communication network for the development of a suitable pricing mechanism and recognise the diverse interest of all stakeholders involved in the HE/FE community. On project completion, Pelican will recommend areas for further work. The project is under the direction of Loughborough University who will work closely with its partners, Stirling University and an Independent Consultant. Pelican was developed in response to JISC Circular 5/99. It covers elements of §46 (extending the range and effectiveness of JISC projects, which are developing into services), §47 (more general proposals for extending the usefulness of JISC services in ways not specifically covered) and §71 (digital library service development).
Pelican will assist the learning activities of HEIs in a number of ways:
The combination of these factors will lead to an environment whereby electronic texts may be delivered to students in HEIs in an efficient and acceptable manner, whilst at the same time ensuring an adequate return to the rights’ owners.
For a number of years, the JISC and the Publishers Association have co-operated by means of Working Groups to address issues of mutual concern. The work of these groups has helped cement good relations between the academic and publishing communities. One of the most important outcomes of this cooperation has been the publication of a number of joint reports. Since the publication of these JISC/PA reports on clearing digitisation rights, a number of key events have occurred:
HERON (Higher Education Resources ON demand) was established to build on the experience gained in the OD/ER eLib projects, in particular SCOPE and Phoenix. It is a consortium of Napier, South Bank and Stirling Universities, and Blackwell Retail Ltd. Work began in August 1998, with a plan based on reducing JISC funding until 2001. Income from institutional subscriptions and usage fees is planned to make up for the reducing JISC funding, with self-sufficiency from 2001 onwards.
Progress has been good, and is documented in its Annual Report. HERON delivered materials to five pilot institutions since October 1999, with a further 17 that were added in year two of the project. Many others have expressed interest, suggesting that there would be widespread take-up of a full service, provided the pricing model is acceptable. The success of HERON, and indeed any other form of electronic access to learning materials, is dependent on an economic model, which makes the availability to students no more expensive than current methods. The level of fee passed to the CLA and to rights holders is a crucial factor in determining the price set.
The most convenient way of obtaining clearance is through the CLA, which holds mandates for the clearance of most UK works. For the time being, permissions for many foreign works must be sought direct from the rights holders.
The CLA has recently announced its HEI digitisation licence, which was sent to HEIs in August 1999. This provides for both digitisation of printed textual material and its subsequent use. In principle, the licence provides for royalty-free digitisation combined with two types of usage fee, one broadly corresponding to the "bookshop substitution" model and the other to the "library substitution" model, first developed by Bide et al..
1.4 Problems with the Implementation of Pricing Mechanisms
It is clear that there are three problems associated with the eCLA licence. The first is that it is for text only (as is the earlier photocopying licence). The second is the assessment of the student body for which fees are payable. This takes no account of the diversity of practice in UK HEIs (since it assumes that all students will register for individual course segments); it can only be activated at the end of the course segment, making it difficult to forecast costs reliably; and it places time limits on the duration of a course element which may be unacceptable. These first two issues can probably be handled in negotiation with the CLA, leading to "good practice" interpretative guidance.
The third issue, the suggested royalty level, however, is more serious. The Publishers Licensing Society recommended to its members the "bookshop substitution" model as the default, although it stated that the "library substitution" model is appropriate for scholarly monographs and journal articles. Out of about 800 journal publishers, which have mandated the CLA to date, only one journal publisher has opted for "library substitution". Most have chosen the "bookshop substitution" model, at a default rate of 5p per page per enrolled student. The fee has to be paid each time the course module is repeated, because the licence only lasts the duration of the course module. The rationale for this charging level is that, in the paper order, the material would either be provided as part of a course pack or the student would make a copy library short loan hard copy. Under the photocopying licence, the royalty fee is also 5p per page.
Although a book may be 'background reading' at one HEI (or on one course), it may be 'essential reading' and a bestseller at another. Furthermore, the "bookshop substitution" model requires payments for all students on a course, whereas there is much data (for example, the eLib OD/ER evaluations) to show that actual use varies greatly but is typically around 50% of a class. Up-take depends on a variety of factors, such as subject matter. For example, in engineering, there may be one key text while in many arts/social science subjects, students are often required to choose from a large variety of texts, so that they may view a topic from a range of different perspectives. Most HE libraries would prefer a "library substitution" model, as it better reflects methods of text provision and usage. However, rightsholders are reluctant to adopt this model since they wish to ensure that sales of textbooks are not jeopardised and because there is no precedent for establishing a "library substitution" fee.
Although various technical developments are underway, at present there are no systems appropriate for HEIs which can satisfactorily monitor usage (e.g. print-outs, loading onto disk), including at remote sites, and most payment systems within HEIs are not sufficiently sophisticated to handle differential charging and payment. The result is that it is unlikely that a significant proportion of learning material will be delivered electronically in HEIs using the present eCLA model. This is of considerable concern, because it prevents HEIs exploiting the advantages of the electronic medium. Publishers and authors are also keen to encourage electronic delivery. However, publishers’ priority seems to be not damaging present income streams.
There are a number of areas where there is a lack of awareness or understanding among rightsholders, academics and librarians:
Pelican will address all these issues and develop a model, which takes account of all interest groups in the publishing network for the HE/FE community.
The Pelican project is intended to develop an understanding of charging mechanisms for distributing commercially published electronic texts to students. This, in turn, will help the relevant stakeholders to develop appropriate business plans so as to ensure medium to long-term viability of any systems developed for this purpose. Although funded under 5/99 for HEIs, we will try to include the interests and needs of FEIs wherever possible when resources permit.
Pelican has the aims of:
Pelican has the objective to develop a pricing mechanism for the delivery of electronic text to students, which satisfies all stakeholders in the HE/FE community.
In order to achieve this aim Pelican has the following objectives:
In meeting its objectives, Pelican intends to make use of work and evaluate the suitability of pricing mechanism that have already been developed elsewhere, nationally and internationally, to build upon existing expertise in the publishing industry for the HE/FE community.
Pelican will be carrying out a major piece of desk-based research, with the following activities:
Key deliverables from the project include:
The process by which this will be achieved will include:
Searching HEI library webpages, publisher webpages, the CLA webpage, and by e-mailing requests to relevant organisations. Follow-up telephone calls and visits to HEIs will be undertaken to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches adopted. A database of materials collected will be created and will be made available through the project’s website. Project staff will report the results of the survey, and will recommend particular models if the research findings so dictate. Assessment of the current policies and practice will be carried out in conjunction with the Advisory Board.
Project staff will collect information and opinion through:
Views will be sought from sample groups of:
Pelican is led by the Department of Information Science, Loughborough University but works in close relationship with its major project partner, the University of Stirling, and an Independent Consultant. Loughborough is responsible for the project management, management of the Advisory Board, recruitment of staff, and preparation of reports and other forms of dissemination. The University of Stirling will facilitate in the interaction with HERON and has an active role in dissemination. The Independent Consultant will act as an advisor to the Pelican project. The following display represents the management structure of Pelican.
Project Director, Professor Charles Oppenheim (CO)
The project director oversees the work of the project team and acts as the representative for the Pelican project. The project director will advise the project team on a day-to-day basis, and as necessary on the overall management of the project at a strategic level.
Independent Consultant, Anthony Watkinson (AW)
The consultant will observe Pelican’s activities and will try to ensure that the views of all stakeholders with an interest in the project will be taken into account. He will advise the project team on current practices for digistised material in the HE/FE community. The consultant will also comment on the implementation of the dissemination plan.
Project Team
The project team is the main locus for practical work, with the bulk of the day-to-day work carried out in Loughborough. The project team in Stirling will provide liaison with HERON, and will take a considerable role in the dissemination of project information. The Research Associates, Rachel Hardy (RH) and Iris Rubbert (IR) report to the Project Director and will take advise from the consultant.
Advisory Board
The role of the Advisory Board is to take a strategic view of the project and to provide general guidance and advice. It will receive reports and papers from the project team, and will provide input on the research in general, and specific issues such as those outline at the beginning of the project plan. The Advisory Board is drawn from the HE/FE community, the CLA, authors, publishers, and from the JISC/PA Committee, and includes one representative nominated by JISC and one appointed by the HERON Advisory Board. The chair of the Advisory Board is Toby Bainton, who is independent from Pelican and HERON. RH is appointed as secretary to the Advisory Board. A member of the ALCS will represent authors, and Cliff Morgan from John Wiley will represent the publishers. The Advisory Board will meet on three occasions (January, June and October 2001) to discuss the Pelican project.
The Advisory Board includes the following members:
CLA: Ed Barrow
JISC: Caroline Ingram
JISC/PA: Sally Morris
ALCS: to be nominated
HE/FE library representatives: Toby Bainton (SCONUL)
Publishers: Cliff Morgan (John Wiley Publishers)
HERON: Peter Kemp (PK) and Carolyn Rowlinson (CR) (Stirling University)
The Advisory Board will meet on a regular basis and receive regular briefings from the project team. A formal report will be presented to the Advisory by the end of the project.
The Pelican project will operate as a single distributed project across its both sites, Loughborough and Stirling. The original project proposal set out five different work packages (project management, review, preparation of technical specification, conference and dissemination), which will be broken down in the following; main elements, outputs and (where appropriate) dependencies, and for each the appropriate resources will be identified. Naturally these will need to be refined throughout the duration of the project in the light of experience and amended as appropriate. A detailed timetable/schedule of these activities is provided below.
It is important to recognise that the development of technical specifications and possible testing of a pricing mechanism will ultimately depend on the initial responsiveness and cooperation between all stakeholders involved. It should not be assumed that Pelican will automatically lead to the implementation of a pricing mechanism that can be adopted without further refinement. As a result, the development of technical specifications and their testing might need to be amended during the lifetime of the project.
The official start date for the Pelican project is 1st November, 2000. The work plan has been developed based on a timetable from 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001.
All work packages will be reviewed on a monthly basis, and if necessary, amendments will be implemented with immediate effect. Each work package will be discussed at every Advisory Board meeting to keep all interested parties continuously informed on the process of the Pelican project. Work packages are subject to comments and approvel by the Advisory Board, who may recommend further ones.
Link to PELICAN's Evaluation Plan and Communication & Dissemination Plan