Earney jisc collections&non standard licensing_130715.pptx

13/7/2015 Jisc’s approach to non-standard licensing

Agenda

»Context

»Standard licensing approaches

»Bespoke licensing approaches› Francis Crick Institute

»Mixed approach› HE in FE

»Jisc Transnational Education Support Programme

13/07/2015

Jisc & non-standard licensing 2

Context

13/07/2015


2014 satisfaction surveyInstitution's level of involvement with partner organisations abroad

Question

2015 Response count

% of those who answered

2014 Response count


2013 Response count


We do not work with partner organisations abroad20 44.44% 19 47.50% 16 29.09%

We work with some partner organisations abroad (<= 5) 17 44.74% 15 37.50% 22 40%We work with many partner organisations abroad (> 5) 6 15.79% 4 10% 8 14.55%

I would rather not say2 5.26% 2 5% 9 16.36%

answered question 45 54.22% 40 62.50% 55 50.93%

skipped question 38 24 53

Total who responded to satisfaction survey 83 64 108 13/07/2015


Standard approaches

The model licence and partner institutions

13/07/2015


13/07/2015


Are they part of my institution?

» Step 1 can they be considered your own students and included in your Licence?

» If you can answer "Yes" to all questions in Step 1 of the Decision Tool, then it is fair to consider them as your students

» Step 2 and Step 3 understand › the scale of this student body?› where it is located? › funding coming into your institution already

supports these students?» Once you have collected this additional information

you will be able to discuss with the various publishers the possible need to pay an "Additional Authorised User" fee to include these users.

13/07/2015


Section A: The three steps

Step 1: Is your partner institution generally regarded as part of your main institution?

This question is about whether it is reasonable for the students concerned to be automatically treated as Current Students (i.e. Authorised Users) of the main institution because, for the delivery of these programes, these institutions are acting as one and the same.

If you answer “Yes” to all these questions, it is reasonable to treat your partner as part of the main institution, included in the main licence agreement, and there is no limit to the numbers of students involved.

1. Does your main institution have at least an equal or majority share in the ownership of the partner institution?

2. Are the additional student numbers (FTEs) included in the main institution’s HESA return?

3. Is at least 50% of the revenue from the programmes concerned also declared in the main institution’s financial return? If 50% or more, this strengthens the argument that the two institutions are acting as one and the same for these programmes.

If you answered “No” to any of the above questions, it may still be legitimate to add the partner students as Current students of the main institution for licensing purposes but they should be declared as Additional Authorised Users. Suggested criteria for this are shown in Step 2.

13/07/2015


Step 2: Legitimate Partner check:

This question is about whether it is reasonable for the students concerned to be treated as Additional Authorised Users, and therefore counted as Current Students of the main institution, because, for the delivery of these programmes, they are part of a Legitimate Partner arrangement. Extra fees for these Additional Authorised Users may or may not be necessary - that is checked in Step 3 below.

Although not technically part of the main institution, could this partner be regarded as a Legitimate Partner, for whom an ‘add-on’ licence or schedule to the main institution would be appropriate. The 'add on' licence or schedule is to formalise the arrangement; a fee may not always be necessary (that is explored in Step 3)

If you answer “Yes” to all the following questions, it is reasonable to treat your partner as a legitimate partner of the main institution.

If you answer “No” to any of these questions, it will probably be more reasonable to treat your partner as a separate institution for licensing purposes using a separate licence/agreement.

1. Is your partner institution separate from your main institution but the students concerned are also treated by the main institution as students of the main institution, i.e. rights to other resources/services?

2. Are the additional student numbers on these programmes below 2,000 FTE? If No, you will EITHER have to negotiate separately if you still feel it is appropriate for this partner to be regarded as an ‘add on’ OR simply agree to them being treated as part of a separate institution.

3. Can you confirm that your partner does NOT also purchase any of the publishers' e-resources specifically for these programmes as a separate licenced entity in its own right? If No, you will EITHER have to negotiate separately if you still feel it is appropriate for this partner to be regarded as an ‘add on’ OR simply agree to them being treated as part of a separate institution.

If you’ve answered “Yes” to all the above, go to Step 3 to consider whether additional fees are likely for this Legitimate Partner.

Important note: Whether or not the partner provider is predominantly a public sector provider or a private sector provider is NOT relevant in determining this legitimate partner status, but it may be a factor in any charging.

13/07/2015


Step 3: Should additional fees be payable for this Legitimate Partner?

This question is about whether it is likely for additional fees to be payable for the Additional Authorised Users if they are to be added to the main institution's license.

If you answer “Yes” to ANY of these questions, additional fees may not be necessary (so long as FTEs and additional sites have been declared).

1. Are the additional student numbers already included in the main institution’s, not partner institution’s, HESA return? If “Yes”, no fee should be necessary as they should already be taken into account in the main institution’s FTEs.

2. Is at least 50% of the revenue from these Legitimate Partner programmes declared as part of the main institution’s statutory HESA return? If “Yes”, no fee should be necessary as this should already be taken into account in the JISC banding.

3. Is this essentially a validation arrangement covering relatively small numbers of the Legitimate Partner's students in comparison to the size of the partner institution itself? In such cases the additional numbers may be too small to warrant additional fees and could more simply be absorbed under the main institution's FTE without additional fees.

If you answered “No” to ALL of the above questions, an additional fee using the JISC ‘add on’ schedule will probably be appropriate. The additional fees may be on the JISC Collections recommended model or on the publisher's own model for additional users.

Where an additional authorised user fee structure has been negotiated with a publisher this will show on the relevant page in the JISC Collections catalogue and will be included in the licence.

13/07/2015


The model licence

» "Additional Authorised Users“› individuals who qualify as authorised users and can perform the same

activities › for monetary purposes are not included in the Licence Fee› Additional Authorised Users are users at a Partner Organisation for which

the Institution has agreed with the Publisher to pay the Partner Fee.

» "Partner Fee" › fee payable by the Institution for access and use of the Licensed Material

by Additional Authorised Users › The Partner Fee may be paid by the Institution to the Publisher at any

time during the term of this Licence upon receipt of the Partner Fee Quotation.

» "Partner Fee Quotation" › quotation provided by the Publisher directly to the Institution at the

request of the Institution

» "Partner Organisation" means the organisation(s) for which the Institution has agreed with the Publisher to pay the Partner Fee(s).

13/07/2015


» Jisc Collections aims to negotiate a Partner Fees Schedule based on additional FTE ranges with each publisher when we renew the current agreement.

»Please note this is a point of negotiation with publishers and you may prefer to negotiate your own price for additional authorised users based on outcomes found from completing the Decision Tool.

»More information is here:»

https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Librarian-Tools/Decision-Tool/

13/07/2015


Partner Fees Schedule



Limits of the standard approach?Institution's awareness and use of the Decision Tool 2013-2015 2015 2014 2013

Questions True False Undecided %

Response True

True False Undecide

d

% Respons

e TrueTrue False

Undecided

% Respons

e True

I am aware of the Decision Tool but have not used it

31 68.89% 29 72.50% 37 14 2 67.27%

I have completed the Decision Tool spreadsheet

9 20% 8 20% 9 37 4 16.36%

I have used the Decision Tool spreadsheet with one or more publishers

6 13.33% 7 17.50% 8 38 4 14.55%

I think the Decision Tool is the right approach

13 2 24 28.89% 17 2 17 42.50% 27 6 20 49.09%

I was not aware of the Decision Tool until now

0 3 0% 3 7.50% 8 41 2 14.55%

answered question 45 40 55

skipped question 38 24 53Total who responded to satisfaction survey 83 64 10813/07/2015


Francis Crick Institute

Taking a bespoke approach to licensing across institutions

13/07/2015


Francis Crick Institute

» Biomedical discovery institute dedicated to understanding the scientific mechanisms of living things

» Consortium of six scientific and academic organisations: the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the Wellcome Trust, UCL, Imperial College London and King's College London

» New building next to St Pancras scheduled for completion by November 2015

» All initial research groups and support staff to be in the new building by July 2016

» Expected to have 1,268 scientific staff and c250 support staff when fully operational in early 2018. This includes 120 group leaders and 240 PhD students, and 240 secondments from the University partners

13/07/2015


Crick Institute – support from Jisc

»Jisc Collections has been asked to negotiate agreements with Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, NPG, OUP, Annual Reviews, ACS, RSC and potentially with Karger and SAGE as well

»Crick’s OA policy not yet finalised but will be factored into negotiations

»The budget available is the combined expenditure of NIMR and CRUK LRI

»Agreements to be in place by 1.1.2016

13/07/2015


HE in FE

Mixing standard and bespoke approaches

13/07/2015


13/07/2015 Jisc & non-standard licensing 18

KAFEC – A HE in FE case study

» Approached by KAFEC - Consortium of 6 Kent Colleges

» 5 of the 6 colleges have directly funded HE students

» These HE students no longer have access to eResources via their (validating) partner university

» Students now belong to the college

» Colleges had a small window of time (2013) to provide expensive eResources to support their HE users

» Journal content not relevant to their FE students level of study


KAFEC – A HE in FE case study (cont.)

» Jisc Collections will work with KAFEC for HE in FE only agreements

» Case study: HE in FE issues & publisher response

» 6 key shared interest publishers identified

» Majority of the publishers are Journal Publishers

» Free trials requested, 5 Publishers agreed to free trials (to Dec)

» 1 main contact for KAFEC consortium (gather data, reporting)


The publishers and outcomes

» Publishers: SAGE, Wiley, T&F, Elsevier, Springer and Emerald

» Trials – Identify level of use / collections of interest

» Trials also offer access to students, while offers negotiated

» Outc0mes: Wiley discounted FE price (restricted access), Springer opens trials to all FE 6 months, Emerald (Bespoke, Sponsored Trial), SAGE (FE Pricing for all FE)


What did we learn?

» Publishers are willing to discuss, not all are willing to discount

» Not all publishers want to restrict access, not all colleges can

» More opt in, more discount offered

» Outcome: SAGE agreement and Springer trials open to all

» Future: More needs to be done for HE in FE in general


Extending HE in FE work to all members

» Started by creating HE in FE email list

» The HE in FE survey – Find out more

» Journals agreements (HE focus, FE pricing) – Good place to start

» Add FE pricing for HE content where possible for journals

» More feedback required on current offering from FE

» Further promote any journal offers where there is FE pricing

» What content should be prioritised for an HE in FE agreement?

Jisc and Transnational Education

13/07/2015


Strategic importance of TNE


‘Transnational Education. International learning is moving into a new and more mature phase of flexible provision, combinations of student mobility, branch campuses, smaller hubs and wide-ranging

forms of face-to-face teaching and on-line collaboration.

Many of these initiatives will be based on collaborations and consortia; all will require sophisticated, reliable and secure digital

solutions. In addition, the combination of ubiquitous bandwidth and location-intelligent mobile devices will require solutions that keep

pace with commercially-driven digital innovation. For most universities and colleges, these solutions will be unaffordable

without shared innovation and implementation. Jisc provides these services in response to the needs of its members and users.’

Professor Martin Hall, 12 February 2015

TNE support programme

TNE support strategy

13/07/2015


Jisc will help to enable its community to deliver its TNE activities within the global markets of interest.

We will achieve this by extending the Janet network to overseas locations through the development of new

delivery partnerships and infrastructure, and by providing advice and promoting opportunities for

collaboration.

Where possible we will leverage existing assets as far as possible, and particularly those operated by other international research & education networks, but we

will always select the most cost-effective and appropriate mechanism to meet our customers’

needs.

Market intelligence

» Planned expansion in next five years (>80%)

» Models

» Locations

» Network use

» Network issues

» Key issue: communication and coordination between International and IT Offices in TNE planning and delivery

» Key issue: Network arrangement and management: ‘don’t know’


Key findings

Market intelligence

13/07/2015


% IT staff don’t know45% how TNE is delivered at their institution

38% their own network arrangements for partnerships abroad

44% if network requirements and responsibilities are included in partnership agreements

24% which aspects of TNE their network is used for

19% if their institution manages its own IT operations abroad

31% if their institution has procured connectivity from an ISP provider other than Janet

52% which data-related problems have been encountered

57% if their institutional risk assessments include IT infrastructure

Jisc’s TNE vision

» Supporting the next generation of TNE (e.g. new delivery models and services)› Special Interest Group› Jisc TNE Toolkit› Community Workshop

» Licensing (software, digital resources) › working across the Jisc group

» Further Education› Initiated work with Association of Colleges› Focus groups, scoping of research

» Support for evaluation and assessment, student experience

Future challenges

Jisc & non-standard licensing13/07/2015

28

Conclusions

»What is likely to become the norm?› Impact of government policy› Collaboration/Consortia

»What is administratively efficient?› Standard permissions clearance?

»Issues on IT side reflecting issues on resources side

13/07/2015


Thank you

13/07/2015


Liam EarneyDirectorJisc Collections

[email protected]

Date post:	11-Aug-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	jibs-user-group
View:	111 times
Download:	0 times