Left Menu Right Menu

Ebook Working Group

Collection Development and Management Committee:
Ebook Working Group Minutes
November 14, 2013 Conference Call

1. Spending update (Kathi)

FY14: Spending is lower than this time last year. So far only 17% spent. Budget is also higher this year.   Latest figures show $9,000 on 414 STLs and an average of 5.5 books purchased each week.

2. Resetting STLs for titles exclusively assigned Computer/IT and Business/Management subjects. Findings and next action.

[Since the program began, we have paid $35,259.28 for STLs and purchases in these subject areas. If we had only done STLs, we would have paid $27,122.85. In other words, we would have saved $8,136.43 or 23.1% in these two subject areas.   Of the 123 titles we”ve purchased in these areas (90 for Business, 33 for Computer science), only 7 haven't had any post-purchase usage beyond the loan that triggered the purchase and those 7 titles are all in Business.]

Kathi would like to continue with current model to see more consistency – if we reset STL”s we may lose valuable data. Not worth altering for such small savings.
Group agrees.

We will not re-set the STL trigger at this time

3. Which program option (1-5) should we choose?
Option 1: Keep current program and STL trigger, adding a publisher or two
Option 2: Keep current program, lower STL trigger, no new publishers
Option 3:  Move toward limited use model
Option 4: Keep current program, but pilot shared STL pool option
Option 5:  Keep current program at current STL trigger (with or without expanding publishers), but with money saved at end of year, purchase heavily used titles (a variation on Option 1)

Tom - believes option 3 has possibility of losing publishers and content.
Nancy - agreed with Tom.
Jim – thinks we should not exclude option 3 without talking to publishers first.
Serin - agrees with Tom and Nancy and mentioned the ILS migration. Thinks it would be better to keep things stable as we move to the new Primo/Alma ILS.
Bob – likes the option 3 model – thinks it will bring in a lot of new publishers and suggests that EBL talk to the publishers. Believes if publishers like the idea we could substantially increase our pool of resources.
Linda – does not want to jeopardize our existing publishers. Has some hesitation about publisher participation especially since Charleston. Lots of concern expressed by publishers at that conference (mostly university presses) using the DDA program.
Sara – from the community college perspective, believes that opening up conversation with publishers might bring in new publishers with additional high-use content.  
Kathi – mentioned that lots of schools are not seeing high use and we need to address that issue. Community colleges do not see high university press circulation so we should keep option 3 on the table.
Joanne – agrees with Bob – thinks we should still talk to publishers about option 3.

All agreed that we should stick with option 1 (with option 5 in reserve) but should pursue talks with publishers regarding option 3. EBL should begin talks and need responses back by January 2014.

4. Funding formula. 

Make recommendation for possible changes to formula with the idea of normalizing (to some degree) cost per use.  Volunteers?

Serin, Sara, Kathi & Joanne volunteered to work on the funding formula – will meet separately to discuss. Group will present recommendations to the group on Dec. 20th.

Next Steps:
The eBook group will meet again most likely late January. Possible in-person meeting in WA.