Re: Simultaneous users models

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

At least some libraries, at this includes pretty small ones, public as
well as academic, do have some approach to a access-driven model for print
resources.  For one thing, as Gordon Fletcher just pointed out, there are
reference rooms and other noncirculating collections. More generally,
reserve librarians do buy according to class size. Most libraries buy
extra copies of books with multiple holds. Many libraries will place an
interlibrary loan for a book with multiple holds. Even so, Mark is
perfectly correct that the difficulty in getting print resources when
wanted has been one of the perennial library problems. It certainly leads
to dissatisfied patrons.

One of the great advantages of electronic resources was that it made it
much easier to free ourselves from this. One of the things that went along
with electronic resources is the increased patron expectation for
immediate access.  It may be inconvenient for us, but the patrons have the
right of it.

To say: "there will always be dissatisfied patrons. Deal with it."
troubles me. Of course I as a librarian can deal with it; I will hide in
my office--if anyone really pushes me for an answer, I will blame the
university administration. The patrons can deal with it too: they won't
use or support the library, with the side effect that we certainly won't
get additional resources. I hope and believe that Mark was being
rhetorical, as I doubt that anyone would say this to an angry medical
student--let along faculty member. I'm sure his library with its tradition
of excellent service provides enough resources, both for class use and
research.

Charging by actual use, as I said, needs more thinking and a more careful
reply.  I agree that the problems that Mark raises in this respect are
real problems.

I have also come to the general conclusion that in a more general sense
there is no acceptable pricing model for academic material. Let us wish
Varmus and/or Harnad success, and then we can return to our true role of
helping the patrons identify and locate what they need, instead of our
currently necessary but most unpleasant role of rationing resources that
would serve their purpose better if they were freely available.

All personal views only, as obvious. David Goodman

__
  
Mark Funk wrote:

> 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