Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

1330 mon boisdale 2 look

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
UKSG: connecting the knowledge community
UKSG: connecting the knowledge community

JISC Collections is reviewing its banding scheme which determines subscription fees for online resources. The current scheme bases bands on public funding for higher education institutions, but this is changing. Options include doing nothing, updating data with the same scheme, or introducing a new scheme. A new scheme could better reflect the diversity of institutional incomes but would require a complex transition. JISC Collections aims to design a transparent, practical, and adaptable new banding scheme.

1 of 24
JISC Collections banding review Or: Zen and the art of banding maintenance Hugh Look (Banding Manager, JISC Collections) JISC Collections
Because that William Gibson quote is so, like, yesterday Miss Brunner: “You look ahead.” Jerry Cornelius: “I look around. Ahead is here already.” – Michael Moorcock: The Final Programme (Book 1 of the Cornelius Quartet) JISC Collections
What is the JISC Collections banding scheme?  Basis for all subscription fees for the online resources in JISC Collections Catalogue – For NESLi2 agreements, bands have been used as part of the basis for establishing fees for Big Deal  All JISC Collections institutional members in UK ranked into one of 10 bands – Further and Higher Education institutions – Specialist Colleges – Separate schemes for other groups such as schools or museums  BANDING IS NOT THE SAME AS PRICING JISC Collections
Why do we need to review the banding?  Banding is based on public sector finance for HEIs  The shape of funding is changing dramatically – The value of block grant funding is being reduced, especially in teaching – Student fees are becoming much more important – Research funding comes from more diverse sources  Institutions are becoming more complex – Multi-site joint ventures – Overseas campuses  The relative incomes of institutions will change  Different elements of their income will become more important  Would need to update data even if using same metrics JISC Collections
Our options  Do nothing  Update the data using the same basis for the bands  Introduce a new scheme JISC Collections
Our options  Do nothing – Bands will become increasingly detached from reality – Inequities will become more prevalent – We will have to kludge all the time  Update the data using the same basis for the bands – Bands will become increasingly detached from reality – Inequities will become more prevalent  Introduce a new scheme – Back in touch with reality – Complicated (and possibly painful) transition – We can create a scheme that is much more future-proof JISC Collections
Why now?  Impact of increased student fees and other changes will not be clear for some time  Reduce uncertainty  Avoid panic!  Manage the transition, which will be (reprise) – Complex – Possibly painful  Here comes the Zen bit… JISC Collections
JISC Collections
The main risk JISC Collections
The main risk  Designing a scheme to meet objections to other schemes  Or to avoid the pain of transition – A danger with any consultative process JISC Collections
How does the scheme work at the moment?  Predicated on just three elements – HEFCE/HEFCW/SFC/DELNI recurrent grant for teaching (―T funding‖) – HEFCE/HEFCW/SFC/DELNI recurrent grant for research (―QR research funding‖) – Research Council funding  Data is transparent – Available from HESA  We do not use now, nor have we ever used, FTE as a basis for banding! JISC Collections
What we will need to model  More complex situations  Different types of revenue – More diverse research revenues – Student fees  Avoiding excessive volatility JISC Collections
What we need to retain or add in a new scheme  Transparency  Practicality  Adaptability to changing circumstances – Changing sources of revenue – Changes to research funding as well as teaching – Mergers of large HEIs JISC Collections
Proposed solution  Include all relevant income – (UK average under old model) – Remaining block grant funding for teaching & research (34%) – All student fee income (31%) • Including from overseas campuses – Research council income (6%) – Industry funding—research and consultancy (2%) – Funding from charities (2%) – Other public sector income—NHS etc (3%) – EU funding (1%) – These percentages vary widely depending on type of HEI JISC Collections
Excluded income  Excludes a few categories that do not add to use of information resources – Endowment income – Income from activities such as letting rooms in halls of residence – Income from IP licensing – Deferred capital grants JISC Collections
I’m sure you didn’t, but just in case you drifted off for a moment earlier on…  BANDING IS NOT THE SAME AS PRICING  Publishers make their own commercial decisions as to how to price each band – They frequently combine bands – They set different ratios between bands • Highest:lowest ranges from 2:1 to 10:1  When we implement a major review of bands, we would expect to see publishers reconsider their pricing to ensure that their business remains sustainable  This is the major issue for the transition JISC Collections
The most conservative approach  Refresh current model with new data  Will drift further and further out of touch with both demand and ability to pay  Over 60 institutions would still change band  Some would change by 2 bands JISC Collections
The most radical  Take into account all relevant income  Reduce bands to 5 or 6 – Reduction in bands may not be that hard as is de facto position in many cases JISC Collections
Implications  Revisions to banding are a strategic issue, not commercial tactics  The least disruptive model is a refresh of the current model with new data  Broad acceptance of all relevant income model in consultation so far  Any change to metrics create major shifts in banding  Prices will need to be realigned – Not the purpose of the review to reduce or increase the total paid by the sector  Publishers will wish to carry out equally comprehensive review of their prices  This will form part of future negotiations with publishers JISC Collections
Implications  Whatever we do, we will need to bring in changes gradually – Commercial adjustments need to follow  Some HEIs will pay less  Some will pay more  Need time to plan for these changes  We will make data available JISC Collections
Planning the transition  Further discussions with publishers needed before a plan can be finalised – Publishers will need to model new pricing – We will need to model the impact of the new pricing  We will make modelling data available to HEIs and to publishers for their own estimating  Estimate 3 to 4 years before new scheme fully operational  Also under consideration: the “large HEI with very small demand for a specialist resource” problem – Some metrics for a possible solution being modelled – But not yet tested JISC Collections
I would like to hear your comments and suggestions. Send them to: Hugh Look Banding manager, JISC Collections hugh.look@jisc-collections.ac.uk JISC Collections
I would like to hear your comments and suggestions. Send them to: Hugh Look Banding manager, JISC Collections hugh.look@jisc-collections.ac.uk JISC Collections
Discussion JISC Collections

More Related Content

1330 mon boisdale 2 look

  • 1. JISC Collections banding review Or: Zen and the art of banding maintenance Hugh Look (Banding Manager, JISC Collections) JISC Collections
  • 2. Because that William Gibson quote is so, like, yesterday Miss Brunner: “You look ahead.” Jerry Cornelius: “I look around. Ahead is here already.” – Michael Moorcock: The Final Programme (Book 1 of the Cornelius Quartet) JISC Collections
  • 3. What is the JISC Collections banding scheme?  Basis for all subscription fees for the online resources in JISC Collections Catalogue – For NESLi2 agreements, bands have been used as part of the basis for establishing fees for Big Deal  All JISC Collections institutional members in UK ranked into one of 10 bands – Further and Higher Education institutions – Specialist Colleges – Separate schemes for other groups such as schools or museums  BANDING IS NOT THE SAME AS PRICING JISC Collections
  • 4. Why do we need to review the banding?  Banding is based on public sector finance for HEIs  The shape of funding is changing dramatically – The value of block grant funding is being reduced, especially in teaching – Student fees are becoming much more important – Research funding comes from more diverse sources  Institutions are becoming more complex – Multi-site joint ventures – Overseas campuses  The relative incomes of institutions will change  Different elements of their income will become more important  Would need to update data even if using same metrics JISC Collections
  • 5. Our options  Do nothing  Update the data using the same basis for the bands  Introduce a new scheme JISC Collections
  • 6. Our options  Do nothing – Bands will become increasingly detached from reality – Inequities will become more prevalent – We will have to kludge all the time  Update the data using the same basis for the bands – Bands will become increasingly detached from reality – Inequities will become more prevalent  Introduce a new scheme – Back in touch with reality – Complicated (and possibly painful) transition – We can create a scheme that is much more future-proof JISC Collections
  • 7. Why now?  Impact of increased student fees and other changes will not be clear for some time  Reduce uncertainty  Avoid panic!  Manage the transition, which will be (reprise) – Complex – Possibly painful  Here comes the Zen bit… JISC Collections
  • 9. The main risk JISC Collections
  • 10. The main risk  Designing a scheme to meet objections to other schemes  Or to avoid the pain of transition – A danger with any consultative process JISC Collections
  • 11. How does the scheme work at the moment?  Predicated on just three elements – HEFCE/HEFCW/SFC/DELNI recurrent grant for teaching (―T funding‖) – HEFCE/HEFCW/SFC/DELNI recurrent grant for research (―QR research funding‖) – Research Council funding  Data is transparent – Available from HESA  We do not use now, nor have we ever used, FTE as a basis for banding! JISC Collections
  • 12. What we will need to model  More complex situations  Different types of revenue – More diverse research revenues – Student fees  Avoiding excessive volatility JISC Collections
  • 13. What we need to retain or add in a new scheme  Transparency  Practicality  Adaptability to changing circumstances – Changing sources of revenue – Changes to research funding as well as teaching – Mergers of large HEIs JISC Collections
  • 14. Proposed solution  Include all relevant income – (UK average under old model) – Remaining block grant funding for teaching & research (34%) – All student fee income (31%) • Including from overseas campuses – Research council income (6%) – Industry funding—research and consultancy (2%) – Funding from charities (2%) – Other public sector income—NHS etc (3%) – EU funding (1%) – These percentages vary widely depending on type of HEI JISC Collections
  • 15. Excluded income  Excludes a few categories that do not add to use of information resources – Endowment income – Income from activities such as letting rooms in halls of residence – Income from IP licensing – Deferred capital grants JISC Collections
  • 16. I’m sure you didn’t, but just in case you drifted off for a moment earlier on…  BANDING IS NOT THE SAME AS PRICING  Publishers make their own commercial decisions as to how to price each band – They frequently combine bands – They set different ratios between bands • Highest:lowest ranges from 2:1 to 10:1  When we implement a major review of bands, we would expect to see publishers reconsider their pricing to ensure that their business remains sustainable  This is the major issue for the transition JISC Collections
  • 17. The most conservative approach  Refresh current model with new data  Will drift further and further out of touch with both demand and ability to pay  Over 60 institutions would still change band  Some would change by 2 bands JISC Collections
  • 18. The most radical  Take into account all relevant income  Reduce bands to 5 or 6 – Reduction in bands may not be that hard as is de facto position in many cases JISC Collections
  • 19. Implications  Revisions to banding are a strategic issue, not commercial tactics  The least disruptive model is a refresh of the current model with new data  Broad acceptance of all relevant income model in consultation so far  Any change to metrics create major shifts in banding  Prices will need to be realigned – Not the purpose of the review to reduce or increase the total paid by the sector  Publishers will wish to carry out equally comprehensive review of their prices  This will form part of future negotiations with publishers JISC Collections
  • 20. Implications  Whatever we do, we will need to bring in changes gradually – Commercial adjustments need to follow  Some HEIs will pay less  Some will pay more  Need time to plan for these changes  We will make data available JISC Collections
  • 21. Planning the transition  Further discussions with publishers needed before a plan can be finalised – Publishers will need to model new pricing – We will need to model the impact of the new pricing  We will make modelling data available to HEIs and to publishers for their own estimating  Estimate 3 to 4 years before new scheme fully operational  Also under consideration: the “large HEI with very small demand for a specialist resource” problem – Some metrics for a possible solution being modelled – But not yet tested JISC Collections
  • 22. I would like to hear your comments and suggestions. Send them to: Hugh Look Banding manager, JISC Collections hugh.look@jisc-collections.ac.uk JISC Collections
  • 23. I would like to hear your comments and suggestions. Send them to: Hugh Look Banding manager, JISC Collections hugh.look@jisc-collections.ac.uk JISC Collections