Niso dda uksg 2014

Best Practices for Demand-Driven Acquisition of Monographs:

Recommendations of the NISO DDA Working Group

UKSGHarrogate

April 14-16, 2014

Barbara KaweckiYBP Library Services

Michael Levine-ClarkUniversity of Denver

Goals

• Develop a flexible model for DDA that works for publishers, vendors, aggregators, and libraries.

• Model should allow for DDA programs that– Meet local budget and collection needs – Allow for consortial participation– Support cross-aggregator implementation– Account for how DDA impacts all functional areas of

the library

Timeline• Appointment of working group• Information gathering– Main survey completed– Interviews– Additional surveys

• Public libraries• consortia

– Information gathering completed

• Completion of initial draft• Gathering of public comments• Completion of final report

Aug 2012

Aug 2013

Nov 2013

Mar 201424 Mar - 24 Apr 2014May-June 2014

Committee members• Lenny Allen

Oxford University Press

• Stephen Bosch University of Arizona

• Scott Bourns JSTOR

• Karin Byström Uppsala University

• Terry Ehling Project Muse

• Barbara Kawecki YBP Library Services

• Lorraine Keelan Palgrave Macmillan

• Michael Levine-Clark University of Denver

• Rochelle Logan Douglas County Libraries

• Lisa Mackinder University of California, Irvine

• Norm Medeiros Haverford College

• Lisa Nachtigall Wiley

• Kari Paulson ProQuest

• Cory Polonetsky Elsevier

• Jason Price SCELC

• Dana Sharvit Ex Libris

• David Whitehair OCLC

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establishing Goals

• Four Broad Goals for DDA– Saving Money– Spending The Same Amount of Money More

Wisely– Providing Broader Access– Building a Permanent Collection via Patron Input

Saving Money

• Providing access to fewer books• Emphasizing temporary access (STLs) over

perpetual access (purchasing)• In evidence-based programs, having a higher

usage threshold prior to purchase

Spending Same Amount More Wisely

• Larger pool of titles, emphasis on temporary access

• Smaller pool of titles, emphasis on perpetual access

Providing Broader Access

• Most expansive pool possible• Emphasizing STLs over perpetual access• In evidence-based programs, having a higher

usage threshold prior to purchase

Building a Permanent Collection via Patron Input

• Having a tightly-focused profile/smaller consideration pool

• Emphasizing perpetual access over STLs• In evidence-based programs, having a lower

usage threshold prior to purchase

2. Choosing Content to Make Available• Important Issues – Not all p-books available as e-books– No single supplier provides all e-books– Not all e-books available via DDA or under same models

• Therefore– More comprehensive coverage requires more suppliers

and more models– Broadest coverage possible = include print– Approval vendors can help manage DDA across multiple

suppliers• Publishers should recognize that libraries may wish

to limit number of suppliers, and plan accordingly

3. Choosing DDA ModelsMix of auto-purchase and STL based on goals of program

• Auto-Purchase– Purchase triggered on the first use longer than free browse– Purchase triggered after set number of uses– Purchase triggered after set number of STLs

• STL – A set number of STLs prior to auto-purchase– Only STLs, with no auto-purchase

3. Choosing DDA Models

• Evidence-based acquisition– Sometimes only option based on platform

capabilities– Library and publisher should develop expectations

based on analysis of past usage

• Publishers may wish to participate in some or all models.

• Some concern by publishers about sustainability of STL

4. Profiling• DDA profiles should be based on the broadest

definitions possible within these areas, and relative to goals of the program– Subject coverage should provide access to a wide range

of content, even in subjects that may not be core– Retrospective coverage for critical mass• Especially in programs that otherwise limit coverage• May or may not overlap with print holdings, depending on

library preference

5. Loading Records

• Libraries should– Load records regularly and as soon after receipt as

possible– Load records into as many discovery tools as

possible– Code records for easy suppression or removal– Enrich metadata to increase discoverability– Load point-of-purchase records after purchase to

ease acquisitions workflow/payment

6. Removing Content

• Libraries should:– Remove records from all discovery tools as soon as

feasible, often using supplier’s delete file– Establish regular cycle for removal– Maintain a record of titles removed for

assessment

7. Assessment• There are multiple reasons for assessment, so

this should be planned from the start– Measuring overall effectiveness of the program– Measuring success at cost reduction– Measuring usage– Predicting future spending– Managing the consideration pool

• Data sources might include– COUNTER reports– Vendor/publisher supplied reports– ILS or other local data

8. Preservation

Libraries and publishers should work together to ensure that un-owned content remains available, perhaps in partnership with third-party solutions such as LOCKSS and Portico.

9. Consortial DDA• Three basic models– Multiplier (a multiple of list price allows shared

ownership)– Limited Use (shared ownership, but with a cap on

use before a second copy purchased)– Buying Club (shared access to consideration pool,

but individual ownership)

10. Public Library DDA

• Mediated• Wish lists• Often not through the catalog

Recommended Practice

Presentation will be on Slideshare:http://www.slideshare.net/MichaelLevineClark

Document available for public comment until 24 April, 2014:

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/dda/

Survey results:http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12541/

DDA_Survey_Results.pdf

Questions, Comments, Suggestions

Barbara Kaweckibkawecki@ybp.com

Michael Levine-Clarkmichael.levine-clark@du.edu

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/dda/