Gulliver and Bruce Ten Years On:
Report on the Gulliver Consortium to Public Libraries Victoria Network Inc. March 2010
Endorsed by the PLVN General Meeting 16th March 2010
Contents
Forward and recommendations ………………………………..2
Background ………………………………………………………….3
Gulliver Review 2009……………………………………………….6
Electronic Resources Australia…………………………………..9
BRUCE …………………………………………………………….. 10
Gulliver Report 2010 Page 2 3/22/2010
Forward and Recommendations
This report was compiled by Karyn Siegmann, at the request of the PLVN Executive. Input was also provided by Anne Holmes, Trish Smyth and the Executive Officer, Elisabeth Jackson. It was discussed and endorsed by the Executive at its meeting on 2 March 2010. The recommendations were developed as a result of the report and the discussion.
A large amount of information has been gathered from PLVN members and other sources over the last year and this has been brought together in the report. Sources of information include:
· A survey of members undertaken in March 2009 asking for their views on the databases and how they were used in the libraries
· A report by Milbur Consultants in May 2009 which analysed usage patterns around the state
· A survey of members conducted in November 2009 seeking comments about the markets for Gulliver and Bruce and canvassing their views on possible scenarios.
· A brief survey of members in December 2009 asking what databases were regarded as essential.
Members of the Gulliver Special Interest Group and especially the convenor, Paul Burden have also provided information and comments at various stages of this process.
Resolutions passed at PLVN General Meeting on 16 March 2010
1. PLVN cease to provide the Gulliver suite of databases from July 1 2010
2. PLVN members be advised of availability of selected databases through Electronic Resources Australia (National Library)
3. PLVN to provide separate collaborative prices on behalf of Victorian public libraries for Ancestry, Global Books in Print and Choice magazine ( either directly or as part of Gale OneFile)
4. PLVN to investigate a procurement process for the above databases in view of legal advice provided and either negotiate a procurement process through the MAV or seek an alternative procurer for collaborative purchase.
5. PLVN to advise ERA of its intentions and request a quote for provision of additional databases – Ancestry, GBIP and Choice
6. PLVN to advise the State Library of Victoria of the decision for PLVN to cease providing database subscriptions through the Gulliver consortium.
7. The Gulliver Special Interest Group be thanked for its work and the Community Access Subcommittee be asked to suggest public domain alternatives and ideas for marketing of online resources.
- That the BRUCE scheme continue unchanged where vendors are prepared to continue to offer this service
Background
Gulliver was established in 1998 as a consortium of Victorian public libraries to purchase online databases collaboratively. The consortium was officially launched in 2001 and in 2002 it was given a boost in the form of a grant of $200,000 from the State Government which subsidised subscriptions for the first year of operations
At this stage the Internet was still relatively new in public libraries and online databases were seen as the way of the future. Julie Rae (at that time CEO of the Central Highlands Regional Library Service) was the driving force behind the project.
Viclink ( the predecessor organisation to Public Libraries Victoria Network) agreed to auspice the scheme and act as the point of contact for vendors and the clearing house for funds. As Viclink had no paid staff at the time, this effectively meant that Julie Rae and other library managers organised the consortium in a voluntary capacity. Gulliver is the main reason for the re-constitution of Viclink and the employment of a paid Executive Officer which occurred in 2008.
At present PLVN is acting in contravention of the Associations Incorporation Act that prohibits trading by Incorporated Associations. If Gulliver continues in any form, new auspicing arrangements need to be made.
In 2002 all public libraries in Victoria signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Viclink under which they agreed to purchase online subscriptions through the consortium.
At a later stage the BRUCE (Bibliographic Resources Under a Consortium Environment ) consortium was added. This provides a range of over 60 databases from which libraries can choose with discounts offered according to the number of libraries selecting each database.
Selection of the core Gulliver databases, to which all members subscribe, was carried out by an evaluation panel in consultation with members. Core databases are revised every three years and we are now reaching the end of the second three year period. Workshops attended by members decide the categories to be covered in the core and these are currently:
· A multilevel encyclopaedia (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
· A consumer-oriented health database (Gale Health and Wellness and EBSCO Consumer Health Complete)
· A “popular science” database (Gale Science Resource Centre)
· A generalist journal database (Gale Onefile)
· A newspaper database with Australian content (ANZ Reference Centre)
The core also includes Global Books in Print as a bibliographic tool for library staff.
Members agreed to retain their membership and subscribe to all core databases for each three-year period. PLVN pays for the databases ($760,000 for the current year) and recoups the money from members according to a formula. The original formula was complex and was based on a combination of usage and population. This year we have commenced moving to a straight per capita allocation of subscription costs.
Advantages
· Libraries encouraged to subscribe to new databases through lower costs and an industry commitment to online resources. Libraries (especially smaller country libraries) subscribed to databases they would not have had otherwise. The actual amount of money saved is difficult to determine given the “flexible” nature of vendors’ pricing.
· Reliable, authoritative databases available from home to the Victorian public
· Libraries pay one subscription to Gulliver instead of a number of overseas transfers
Usage of Databases
It is fair to say that the usage of the databases has been disappointing. Use of the databases doubled from 2004-5 to 2007-8 but dropped slightly in 2008-9. Figures for the last half of 2009 are showing an increase but, to put this in perspective, there were 244,000 database hits in 2008-9 compared with loans of over 48 million.
Public libraries are asking legitimate questions about return on investment for this service.
Database use varies widely across the state from 1% of the population in some public libraries to 14%. The differences are directly in proportion to the effort put into staff training and improving the accessibility of the databases within the context of the library user information requirements.
Various factors have contributed to low usage – some of which can be addressed and some not. These include:
· Difficulties in accessing the databases on some library websites. Sometimes this is due to restrictions imposed by Council IT departments
· The names of the databases often don’t give an indication of what they are – Gulliver? Onefile? Some libraries have overcome this by re-naming or describing the databases on their websites
· The lack of a federated search engine to enable searching of all databases simultaneously. LibraryLink Victoria provides this but is clunky to use.
· Staff not trained to the extent that they feel confident about directing patrons to the databases. In addition, the number of information requests requiring use of online resources is not large in public libraries so staff don’t get a lot of opportunities to use their skills in this area.
· Some libraries not taking on board that the databases are an adjunct to and partial replacement of their printed reference collections and should be treated the same way in terms of cataloguing and promotion.
· Poor marketing. Some libraries promote the databases as a group. It would be more effective to market particular databases to suitable groups – eg advertise near hard copies of Choice magazine that this is available online from home through Onefile. Patrons don’t want to know about online databases per se – they want particular resources or information.
· Google. People, including library staff, are attuned now to going here first and usually they find the information they want. Library staff can direct users to more authoritative sources found on Google and thereby enhance the users’ information literacy
Discussion
Searching for information in the new age
The information world is very different to what it was ten years ago. We need to understand how our customers search and make it as easy as possible for them. Rather than trying to make people search for information in the way we might think they should it’s time for library professionals to be radical and provide with what they want and how they want to search for it. Google and Wikipedia are where they go so let’s understand that and use it to their and our advantage
Google is the first place most for of our customers and staff go to search. Anything else is too many steps. Our databases require at least 3 steps and then authentication so why would you bother when Google is much easier. Wikipedia gives our customers just about everything they need and is said to be as authoritative as Encyclopedia Britannica.[1] There are also many other free options available to replace what we are currently paying for. Given the current state of many library service budgets and the competing demands , library managers are concerned to be able to demonstrate value for money to senior management or library boards.
Gulliver Review 2009
PLVN Executive decided in 2009 to commence a review of Gulliver. The impetus for the review came from:
· Large increases in subscriptions in 2008-9. This was due largely to the low AUD exchange rate at the time we were paying the vendors
· The volatile exchange rate in 2009 made us realise that PLVN is exposing itself to considerable risk in this regard
· Disquiet over the formula which resulted in higher subscriptions for libraries which had increased usage
· Low level of usage overall
· The availability of free online databases replicating the expensive ones we had – eg Google and Google scholar, Wikipedia, Leader newspapers online, Better Health. These had not existed or had been much less reliable at the time Gulliver was set up.
· The realisation that all the databases and more are available at the State Library of Victoria which any Victorian can join online. Are we duplicating resources?
· The advent of downloadables and other online resources which libraries may want as well as or instead of the Gulliver core.
The Review identified the following possible outcomes and these were all assessed:
· Continuing with current core with minor variations – three yearly re-evaluation is due now
· A reduced core – eg Global books in Print, Ancestry and Choice magazine purchased directly from Choice. Other databases available on a Bruce opt in or out basis
· No core with libraries able to choose their own databases.
· A “Queensland” arrangement with the State Library of Victoria whereby all public library cards could be authenticated at the State Library and therefore patrons could access State Library databases without the need for a separate membership. It is unlikely that this would save any money as the vendors have made it clear they will increase costs to the State Library in this event and these would be passed on to public libraries.
· Purchases of databases by individual libraries through ERA. ERA at present has only a limited range of databases with only three of the current Gulliver core represented.
Milbur Consulting Review
As part of the Gulliver Review in 2009 PLVN commissioned Milbur consulting to conduct a review of Gulliver .
The recommendations were:
- Continue to assess possible savings through the use of competitive databases, and/or access through ERA
- Conclude that its databases provide a niche service, and concentrate on supplying access to those databases that supply gaps in general on-line coverage, and that are most in demand by users. Within the current budget, this implies accessing the Ancestry data base, ANZ Reference and Onefile in the core offerings for libraries
- Encourage individual libraries to review separate databasessubscriptions , to ensure user needs are being met at reasonable cost; and
- Review the pricing structure of the core offerings for libraries to provide greater transparency and equity
After discussion of the Milbur report and the results of the survey, it was decided to continue with the existing databases with the addition of Ancestry as part of the core for the 2009-10 year and to further review Gulliver in terms of usage and value for money. The formula for allocating costs to libraries was reviewed and a transition to per-capita funding commenced.
Ancestry had been part of the BRUCE range for some years but had not been selected for the Core initially due to a requirement , endorsed by the original Gulliver Consortium, that the databases had to be accessible remotely. Members who had subscribed through BRUCE, however reported very high levels of use and almost all respondents to the survey requested that it be added to the core.
Member Surveys – later in 2009
A survey conducted in October asked for a subjective response the following questions:
· What/who is the market for Gulliver?
· What/who is the market for Bruce?
· Imagine it is 1 July 2010 and Gulliver is no longer, but there are a suite of databases available through Bruce that libraries can pick and choose from, what are the ramifications?
· Imagine it is 1 July 2010 and the core of Gulliver is things like Choice magazine (straight from Choice),
· Imagine it is 1 July 2010 and Gulliver no longer exists, what are the ramifications?
The findings indicate:
· Majority would be happy with a reduced core
· There is a lack of understanding about market segmentation and marketing of databases
· There is a great variety of needs across the state
A further survey conducted shortly afterwards asked libraries to indicate the databases they couldn’t live without. The most popular are: