RE: Simultaneous users models

["Abbott, Bruce" <babbot@lsuhsc.edu>]

I have always found discussions with regard to simultaneous use to divide
(in the academic medical environment) with regards to basic science
(academic) use and clinical (patient care) use.  Medical librarians (in my
experience) confronted with this issue seem to agree that the possibility
of being locked out temporarily for an academic pursuit is something that
has to be balanced with costs and budget, while resources that are used
primarily for patient care should have unlimited use models.

Discussions over MicroMedex (a drug and toxicology service), MEDLINE, online
medical books (from MD Consult, Stat-Ref, and now Stanford's Skolar) have a
real edge--how do we ensure adequate access for patient care.  Discussions
having to do with databases such as Dissertation Abstracts, ERIC, etc.,
don't have the same edge--yes we can accept a limited number of user
licenses.

Journal access is the real sticking point.  Having single user access to a
clinical journal seems unlikely to provide patient care issues, but where
are the studies or statistics that bear this out.

The one exception I will take with Mark's points (with which I agree) is
that for print items, we do have reference (or library use only) policies.
That does not address after hours access, but does provide that items are
available when needed.

Bruce Abbott
Assistant Director for Library Systems and Electronic Resources
LSUHSC Library 
433 Bolivar St.
New Orleans, LA 70112

babbot@lsuhsc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Funk [mailto:mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:45 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Simultaneous users models

In arguing against the simultaneous users model, David Goodman applies a
different set of principles for access to electronic resources from
traditional print. He states we must buy the maximum likely number of
simultaneous users in order to prevent lock-out. We have not done this for
print materials, why should we do it for electronic? Every library has a
hold system worked out for books and journals. There are never enough
reserve copies for a class. Why should we spend scarce money for potential
electronic use, when we can fairly easily, after a few months of use,
gauge the number of simultaneous users needed for an electronic resource?
There will *always* be dissatisfied users. Deal with it. The simultaneous
users model allows us to maximize access while minimizing costs. This is
not thowing out the interests of our users, this is management.

Charging by actual use, with the fear that libraries will charge back to
the users, is a straw man. Publishers will probably never charge by actual
use. That model, used by the early online databases, was thrown out years
ago. It does not guarantee income for the producer.  Likewise, it is
probably impossible for libraries to charge users when electronic access
is campus-wide. The record keeping would be a nightmare, and talk about
privacy issues... Further, charging by actual use is a little scary
because we have to trust the supplier to furnish us with honest numbers.
It is also difficult to budget when we don't know what the usage will be.

Lastly, the FTE model was probably dreamed up by an accountant, who saw
large universities as a potential goldmine. These publishers fantasize
that all faculty, students, and support staff will use their
database/online journal, so they feel the size of this group should
determine price. I would love to see the actual usage data through the FTE
model. My suspicions are that simultaneous usage is quite low. These
publishers are probably losing more sales in pushing the expensive FTE
model than by going with simultaneous users.

Mark Funk
mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu