KB+Towards a Shared Knowledge Base

for UK Academic Institutions

Introduction

• Background • Issues with ERM• Recommendations to HEFCE• JISC Collections role• Approach• Priorities• Business Models• Timetables• Governance

WE’VE BEEN INTERESTED IN ERM FOR A WHILE…

Issues with ERM

• Data– Accuracy– Availability

• Interoperability– Data silos and flows– Implementation of standards

• Duplication of effort – Population of knowledge bases– Maintenance of link resolvers

Recommendation to HEFCE

• Hosted and Mediated Knowledge Base Plus– Community centric ‘above campus’ knowledge base– Mediation and validation by a trusted third party– Integrated management tools– Linked to UK licensing initiatives– Works in conjunction with existing market offerings

Knowledge Base Plus – a shared service for subscription resources.David Kay and Owen Stephens 2011

JISC Collections

• Appointed by HEFCE and JISC as managing agent for the shared services project

• Commence implementation of KB• Investigate and implement sustainability planBUT...• Very tight budget• Very tight timetable• Very high community expectations

APPROACH

Leverage investment • Improve quality of data for all

Openness• Technology• Data• Relationships

Prioritise existing issues• Save time and money from the outset

Cohesive portfolio of tools and services• JISC services• Commercial and non-commercial suppliers• Academic institutions

Data

Accurate Authoritative Structured Validated

Publication Information

Link Resolvers

Knowledge Bases

Usage Statistics

JUSP Analysis Tools

Entitlements

Entitlement Registry

Licences

Licence Comparison

Tool

Standards

Usage

SUSHI COUNTER

Publication Information

ONIX for Serials KBART

Licence Management

ONIX-PL

InteroperabilityData

ExchangeData

Maintenance

JISC Services

Supplier Systems

Local Systems

Open Source

Investing in the enhancement and improvement of existing services whilst supporting

the needs and viability of local systems and new services

Shared Community Activity

Prioritisation Data Maintenance

Data Verification

Workflows and

Allocation

How do we ensure that benefits outweigh the investment of staff time?

Two things you won’t see...

• Not about inventing a new ERM product– We don’t have the money– We don’t have the time– We don’t have the manpower

• More articles restating the challenges of ERM– This is a practical project focussed on building a

service

Deliverables• Accurate Publication Information

– NESLi2 A-Z title lists– Core Databases

• Holdings and Entitlements– Entitlement Registry

• Subscription Data and Management– Alerting services etc

• Organisations– Identifiers

• Licensing Management and Information– Licence comparison tool, ONIX-PL

• Usage Data and Analysis– JUSP

Business Models Issues • Funding availability• Existing expenditure on

ERM & LMS• Size of potential market• Structure of JISC• Sustainability of other

services– JUSP, El-cat etc

• Timetable to achieve sustainability

Potential models

• Central funding– Loss of policy control– Harmonisation of current

funding

• Subscriptions from sector– Part of a wider offering from

JISC Collections/JISC?

• Licence fees from suppliers– We populate their KBs

• ‘KB+ Foundation’– Funding members set

priorities etc

Time Scale

• Phase One– August 2011 to August 2012– Outputs throughout the year– Business plan by April 2012– Decision on phase two and transition to service by

July 2012• Phase Two– From August 2012 KB+ Service?

Steering Group(Overall strategic oversight of the project and sign off of key work

packages and deliverables) Representation from JISC, JISC Collections, HEFCE, SCONUL, EDINA & MIMAS

Community Group(Sense checking work on behalf of community; input and feedback)

Technical Group(Advising the project on all matters technical

and a forum to discuss solutions)

Independent Adviser

Independent Adviser

Project Lead

THANK YOU

Liam EarneyL.Earney@jisc-collections.ac.uk

OPEN DISCUSSION

How can institutions contribute?

• Subject Specialists• Prioritisation of activity– Licensing– Publication activity

• Data Cleaning and Verification • Information sharing– Entitlement Registry

• Advocacy– Encourage suppliers to engage constructively with the

project

• What would you like to see as part of future developments for the service?– What are priorities for the service in phase 2 from

August 2012 onwards?

What happens next?

• We would like institutions or groups of institutions to indicate their willingness to participate in the project, and the work areas that they are most interested in.

• We will communicate the outcomes of this meeting to all of you and those who couldn’t attend.

• We will start contacting institutions to seek their input on specific issues.