AARL

New Zealand University Library acquisitions consortium for the supply of print monograph resources

Marilyn Fordyce

Abstract The Committee of New Zealand University Librarians Acquisitions Consortium (CONZULAC) was developed to gain maximum value from expenditure on print monograph resources, to achieve operating efficiencies and to improve levels of service. This paper looks at the issues that arose during its development.

An increasing proportion of academic library budgets for resources and access are being committed to subscription-based electronic resources. Add to this the expenditure on print subscriptions, and the result is an increasing proportion of budgets committed to serials. The funds that remain for the purchase of books are under enormous pressure from the needs of expanding academic programs which are being developed in an attempt by institutions to maximise student numbers. Such conflicts place serious demands on the book budget at a time when libraries are also struggling to cope with burgeoning scholarly publishing.

Such pressures, and changing demands with static budgets and increasing costs, mean that libraries find it difficult to maintain relevant, up-to-date book collections which support teaching and research programs. Libraries must maximise the purchasing power of the book funds available to them. One strategy is for libraries to cooperate and pool their resources to increase their strength in the acquisition process.

Following a study tour in April 2000, organised by CURL (UK Consortium of University Research Libraries), CONZUL (Council of New Zealand University Librarians) participants discovered that a consortium of academic libraries in Scotland and another in Victoria, Australia, had recently called for tenders for the supply of print resources with results which were judged in both instances to be extremely worthwhile.

CONZUL's mission is to act collectively to improve access for students and staff of New Zealand universities to the information resources required to advance teaching, learning and research. To achieve this a key aim is to collaborate for the common benefit of library users. CONZUL believed that a purchasing consortium would support its mission and recommended that the concept be explored for its member libraries. The University of Otago Library took responsibility for this initiative.

The initial step was to examine the models in which CONZUL had expressed interest. The University of Edinburgh, on behalf of a group of Scottish libraries, had prepared two tenders. The first was for the supply of periodicals, and the second for English language books. Both tenders sought advantageous pricing and quality service through competitive tendering. The agreements were for 75 per cent of monograph purchases to be made through the successful tenderers.

Of more interest was the Victorian Academic and Research Libraries Acquisitions Consortium (VARLAC) which was likely to face similar issues as a New Zealand consortium would. The VARLAC proposal for the acquisition of monographs and associated products and services aims to gain maximum value from the expenditure on information resources, to achieve operating efficiencies by streamlining the acquisition of machine-readable cataloguing records, and to improve the levels of service offered by suppliers.

The VARLAC deal is based on an agreed volume of business. To determine the percentage of the budget that individual libraries committed to the proposal they each examined their past expenditure patterns and nominated a figure.

Savings have varied, depending on the terms each library was receiving under previous supply arrangements, with smaller libraries particularly happy with the terms.

In addition to contracts with vendors, there is a VARLAC Consortium Agreement between member libraries which governs how they work together. VARLAC has since extended membership to include both Victorian and South Australian academic and research libraries. Recently it was renamed ARLAC (Academic and Research Libraries Acquisitions Consortium).

Another Australian consortium examined was the Western Australian Group of University Libraries (WAGUL). WAGUL began to investigate operating efficiencies by acquiring MARC records as part of the acquisition process. The proposal was not driven solely by costs, but there was a desire to gain maximum value from expenditure and gain better discounts by combining the spending power of participants. Negotiations on the quality and range of services offered by vendors developed into an agreement relating to the whole book-buying process. As a result, the consortium gained a clear definition of service standards and the agreed means of monitoring them. The agreements to purchase monographs include the supply of catalogue records.

Some of the large US consortia were examined, but the small size of the NZ university library group, by comparison, made the approaches taken by mega-consortia less desirable. It was important to develop a New Zealand model.

Early concerns

Representatives of CONZUL members who were interested in the potential benefits of a consortium for the supply of print resources met during the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aoteraroa (LIANZA) 2000 conference and discussed current vendors and discounts, and the issues surrounding a New Zealand consortium. CONZUL representatives commented on the level of interest from their library in the general concept, and identified those elements that their library would want to pursue. While participants had varied levels of enthusiasm for the consortium and expressed a cautious approach, all libraries indicated that they were keen to assess the advantages and investigate the options. Several issues were identified at that meeting and during later discussions that would impact on the likely success of a consortium involving the New Zealand university libraries.

It was suggested that the CONZUL group confine its investigations to books. Books provide a more straightforward opportunity without ongoing commitments to any title. Conversely, serial subscriptions are volatile with many changes resulting from the impact of the electronic environment. Representatives at the meeting expressed concern about locking into long-term arrangements. There was a concern about the cost in staff time when moving serial subscriptions (and monograph standing orders) from one vendor to another. The group felt there would need to be strong evidence of advantages before undertaking a print serials consortium approach. CONZUL members already have the advantage of participating in the CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee) program for consortial purchase of electronic datasets.

When considering how a library would commit to a level of purchasing the meeting considered commitment based on a percentage of expenditure, a nominated dollar amount or an undertaking to order all material in particular categories through a single vendor. A percentage-based commitment was preferred as being easier to achieve. Some representatives felt that the group of CONZUL libraries would not be able to offer sufficient volume of expenditure to gain better discounts or service than the larger libraries in the group were already achieving, although, potentially, the smaller libraries should gain better discounts.

The current plethora of mergers within the book and serial industry reminds us that many companies are facing financial pressure. Mergers limit choices for libraries in general, and representatives at the meeting were concerned not to set up arrangements that might further reduce supply options. In New Zealand, the choice of vendors is more limited than in Australia and in other countries exploring tender options. It was felt that it would be counter-productive to push the margins to a level that would become uneconomic for the vendors working in New Zealand. Each of the main areas of supply, the US and the UK, had a number of potential vendors. Having several vendors for each country is good for competition; further, the individual suppliers have different strengths and specialties. The group considered that losing access to any of them would risk losing access to some specialist services.

Many doubts were expressed about the likely success. For example a vendor might quote a very low bid to outdistance the opposition, but to achieve this they would need to compromise the quality of their service. In a worst case scenario, mergers might push suppliers out of New Zealand.

The advantage for vendors tendering for the business of the New Zealand university libraries would be increased market share. It was felt that by gaining this advantage it is likely that the consortium would push other vendors out of the region thereby limiting our choices for future tendering.

As in Australia, CONZUL libraries are notably distant from the source of supply. Further, New Zealand libraries are remote from each other. In the original VARLAC model, all libraries were located close together (in Melbourne), with books sent in consolidated shipments to CAVAL. Then the books were distributed to the various libraries around Melbourne. CONZUL libraries are widely separated, limiting the ability to consolidate shipments. There is no similar organization to CAVAL in New Zealand to offer a distribution service.

It was felt that the opportunity for economies of scale would be limited in New Zealand, since every library still wants its individual tailored service with goods delivered to its particular address or addresses. If participating libraries were able to standardise some of their requirements, the group felt that greater savings might be possible.

The meeting considered many categories of material to include in a tender process. Possibilities were all US-published books, all English language overseas-published books, all Asian-published books or all Australian or Australasian-published books.

The representatives had varied levels of enthusiasm, including some members who did not wish to commit to any agreement. They felt there might be value in a pilot approach to the supply of Australian material. This modest proposal had the benefit of acceptance by all members. As a small pilot, it would not have a large financial commitment, and it would allow us to explore the benefits of working together. And, there was interest from some members in using a consortium to trial vendor-supplied pre-processing of books in a small manageable pilot program. It would also provide an opportunity to test whether or not the consortium was big enough to attract worthwhile discounts.

However, when this proposal was considered by CONZUL they regarded the approach as too tentative, and approved a pilot study on the basis of supply of 50 per cent of North American monographs.

Developing a NZ model

Irrespective of all the issues and other consortia models it was clear that a distinctively New Zealand solution was needed. While not providing a total solution, the VARLAC model provided a useful basis for developing a New Zealand-wide university library consortium. CONZULAC, the Committee of New Zealand University Librarians Acquisitions Consortium, was formed.

Not all CONZUL members were keen and the largest library, the University of Auckland, chose not to join the consortium. Their non-participation highlights the inherent conflict between libraries' desire to gain efficiencies by working together and the competition that exists between our parent institutions which are competing for student numbers, government funding, research grants and other resources. It also highlights the 'big library' approach to consortia. These libraries are often big enough to gain maximum discounts on their own; yet big libraries are needed in consortia to maximise the purchasing clout of the group.

In this instance, the exclusion of the largest library had the potential for keeping some business available for alternative suppliers and therefore ensuring other suppliers still had an interest in the New Zealand academic market.

The participating members of CONZULAC are seven of the eight New Zealand university libraries: Auckland University of Technology, Lincoln University, Massey University, University of Canterbury, University of Otago, University of Waikato and Victoria University of Wellington. The agreed aim of the consortium is to gain maximum value from expenditure, to achieve operating efficiencies, and to improve levels of service.

Request for proposal

In developing the RFP (request for proposal), we were grateful that both the Scottish university libraries group and VARLAC generously shared information and documents. Copies of the tender documents for each consortium were obtained, and they described very similar proposals.

The CONZULAC RFP, which is based on these documents, sought proposals for the supply of current English-language printed monographs published in North America. It outlined the tender process and provided detailed specifications on the libraries' minimum requirements for performance and quality of service, such as: order confirmations, cancellations, returns, reporting systems, delivery times, invoices and financial statements.

Price is only part of the package purchased. Libraries also demand faster and faster supply times, sophisticated selection tools and ordering options, and a range of technical services as optional add-ons. Many libraries have discovered that cheap deals may cost a great deal in the sorting-out of supply problems which often follow. Bulk purchasing and the associated discounts are not necessarily a cheap option for university libraries with specialist collections. It is more important to get specific items in time, rather than having deep discounts and not getting what is wanted or getting it too late. The selection criteria recognise this with pricing receiving a weighting of just 25 per cent of the final score.

The RFP listed the factors that vendors would be evaluated on before awarding the tender, such as: supply and service quality, price, demonstrated ability to supply the quality and range of ancillary services, level of potential integration between member library systems and supplier systems, vendor experience and financial stability. Vendors were asked to comment on the requirements and to provide information about their company.

Not all consortium member libraries required the provision of ancillary services and these were to be negotiable with the successful vendor.

The aim of the process was to identify those suppliers offering the best value for money to the consortium member libraries, and to conclude an agreement with one supplier for the books from North America. Value was to be judged on a combination of price, quality of service, and the scope for efficiency gains.

The length of commitment to any agreement is a concern when budgets vary annually. Fixed-term contracts remove the flexibility to 'shop around'. Three years, or even two, may be too long for a deal that might not deliver, particularly when electronic delivery of some monographs is of developing interest. However, to maximise discounts, it was decided to opt for a three-year commitment to allow vendors time to spread the costs of setting up new arrangements. The duration of the agreement was to be extendible by agreement between the consortium and the vendor with the extension dependent on the vendor's performance and charges.

Member libraries committed at least 50 per cent of their expenditure in US dollars on monographs to the purchase of books, from the successful vendor, over the life of the contract.

Selection process

The RFP was sent to vendors known to be active in the New Zealand academic supply market in October 2001. Following the receipt of responses to the RFP three vendors were shortlisted. Referees' reports were sought and obtained. Representatives of the vendors were invited to an interview to follow up on their proposals.

All CONZULAC libraries were represented at the interviews. These took the form of a brief presentation by the vendors preceding a series of predetermined questions which were asked of all vendors.

The selection criteria and weightings for these criteria had been agreed to by CONZULAC members during the development of the RFP. Quality supply and service was the most important and rated 50 per cent of the final score. Price was the second most important factor, with a weighting of 25 per cent (it would not matter what the price was if the wrong book was supplied or if the right book was supplied too late). Vendor experience and stability rated 10 per cent. Demonstrated ability to supply rated 10 per cent, and the potential for integration of systems rated 5 per cent.

Following the interviews, each participant library rated the vendors in each of the selection criteria using all the information it now had at hand (responses to the RFP, the referees' reports, the further information gained at the interview and each libraries' knowledge and experience of the market). The responses were entered into a spreadsheet that gave each vendor an overall score. In most of the selection criteria, the top-performing vendors achieved similar scores. In these cases, the level of discount was the factor that separated them.

The outcome of this process was agreed to by CONZULAC participants. The agreement was signed with the successful vendor, YBP Library Services, and the new arrangements were underway at the start of 2002.

Evaluation/benefits of the consortium

The first detailed evaluation took place late in 2002, when performance was measured against the predetermined criteria. These included standards for speed of delivery, fill rate, accuracy of delivery, acknowledgement of queries, accuracy of invoices and company representative visits. Each library reported that the performance criteria had been complied with and in most cases exceeded. Supply and service quality has been maintained, and new bibliographic and reporting services are evolving. The agreement is considered to be largely successful.

We can confirm that New Zealand university libraries can exercise strength collectively and can achieve results that are not possible individually. The result has been a more efficient use of the book budget, with all libraries in the consortium benefiting from significantly improved discounts. As a result of the agreement we have more books in our collection than we would have had otherwise.

Following the positive outcome of the US tender, CONZULAC was confident in taking the next step - to tender for supply of UK materials during the latter half of 2003. The selection process involved a similar process to that used for the US tender: preparing an RFP for supply of UK material, agreeing on the selection criteria for the preferred vendor, receiving responses to the RFP from a number of vendors, analysing those responses, interviewing vendor representatives, following up with vendors after the interviews for any clarification, seeking referees comments, grading vendors according to the agreed criteria and further discussion with other consortia members.

Lindsay and Howes, in collaboration with their partners YBP, were the successful UK tenderer. The outcome for CONZULAC members is a greatly increased discount for UK material. Further, a considerable increase in the discount for US material was also achieved.

Politically, the libraries gained as they worked together. For example, since the agreement has been in place, South Island participants have visited each other more, and share best practices for collection management activities. In this new more collaborative environment, we discover that, while we each have different pressures, we have much in common.

Collaborative collection development has not yet featured in the consortium, even though the vendors' databases would support this approach. It is difficult to find examples of real resource-sharing between libraries where some degree of autonomy of collection development is surrendered. There are plenty of examples of inter-library loans, sharing bibliographic records, and reciprocal borrowing, but true collaborative collection development is rare. Further, many courses are duplicated between New Zealand universities, with little prospect of rationalising; for now, libraries must support such courses despite inevitable duplication.

The CONZULAC model benefited from a clear focus on the identified goals, minimal ongoing administrative needs and a coherent membership well used to working together on a variety of projects. There has been minimal tension, and libraries have been able to cooperate for mutual benefit without losing their individuality. While some independence has been sacrificed, the benefits gained are thoroughly worthwhile.