Levine-Clark, Michael, and Barbara Kawecki, "Best Practices for Demand-Driven Acquisition of Monographs: Preliminary Recommendations of the NISO DDA Working Group," Charleston Conference, November 8, 2013. Since Summer 2012, a National Information Standards Organization (NISO) working group has been developing a recommended practice regarding Demand-Driven Acquisition. This group, consisting of librarians, publishers, e-book aggregators, and approval and ILS vendors, has gathered feedback through surveys, interviews, and focus groups, and will present draft recommendations and ask for audience reactions. The working group plans to release a final report in Spring 2014. This session will provide a crucial opportunity for stakeholders to respond to preliminary findings of the group, including detailed results of its recent international survey of stakeholders about DDA practices and opinions. The report will include recommendations on: Best practices for populating and managing the pool of titles under consideration for potential purchase, including methods for automated updating and removal of discovery records; Development of consistent models for the three basic aspects of e-book DDA – free discovery to prevent inadvertent transactions, temporary lease, and purchase – that work for publishers and libraries; Methods for managing DDA of multiple formats; and Models and strategies for measuring and predicting use.

1. Best Practices for Demand-Driven
Acquisition of Monographs:
Preliminary Recommendations of
the NISO DDA Working Group
Charleston Conference
November 8, 2013
Barbara Kawecki, YBP Library Services
Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Libraries

2. Best Practices for Demand-Driven
Acquisition of Monographs:
SURVEY RESULTS AND VERY
Preliminary Recommendations of
the NISO DDA Working Group
Charleston Conference
November 8, 2013
Barbara Kawecki, YBP Library Services
Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Libraries

3. Goals
• Develop a flexible model for DDA that works
for publishers, vendors, aggregators, and
libraries.
• Model should allow for DDA programs that
–
–
–
–
Meet local budget and collection needs
Allow for consortial participation
Support cross-aggregator implementation
Account for how DDA impacts all functional areas of
the library
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katiedee/3644929496/

4. Deliverables
• Recommendations for
– Managing and populating the consideration pool
– Developing consistent models for
• Free discovery
• Temporary lease
• Purchase
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dee_/3239025112/

5. Deliverables
• Recommendations for
– Methods for managing multiple formats (p&e)
– Ways to incorporate print-on-demand (POD)
– Development of tools and strategies to measure
use
– Implementation at the local and consortial levels
– Providing long-term access to unowned e-book
content

6. Three Subcommittees
• Access Models
– Chair, Lisa Mackinder, UC Irvine
• Technical Issues
– Chair, Lisa Nachtigall, Wiley
• Metrics
– Chair, Lorraine Keelan, Palgrave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/korephotos/6349696845/

7. SURVEY RESULTS

8. Main survey conducted August 2013
• 104 questions
• 181 responses
• 99 complete responses
http://www.flickr.com/photos/info_grrl/5547707940/

13. • Majority say programs effective, goals met
• Primary benefits:
– Immediate access for patrons
– Frees up selectors to focus on
advanced/specialized collection development
– Much larger ebook collections, relatively low cost
– Increased ebook usage overall
• Challenges:
– DRM
– Limited content available
– Poor tools to manage programs

14. •
•
•
•
17 responses
Limited budget
Limited staff
Size of institution

19. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Imbalanced collection
Not collection development
Unsuitable content
Will purchase titles that won’t get used again
Little or no ownership
Not all books/publishers are available
Malicious purchasing
Purchasing by unaffiliated users
Duplication (e/p or e/e)
112 responses

20. • Evidence based
– Commit more $ than ultimately used
– Time consuming
• Budget overrun (though many indicate hasn’t
been an issue)
• Pay more with STL
• DRM, long-term access concerns
• General ebook concerns
• Workflow concerns
• Lack of user awareness
• Risks for publishers

21. • DDA from multiple aggregators, with different triggers –
potentially confusing
• Triggers for download, printing, but may not be “real”
use
• Time limit could be hit when user leaves ebook open
• Five minutes not long enough
• TOC, front matter generally aren’t enough to determine
value

22. •
•
•
•
Expand collection
Complements traditional coll dev and ILL
Ability to experiment with new subject areas
Studies show higher subsequent use than
traditional materials
• Collection development based on actual data
• “A nice resolution to the just-in-case vs. just-intime paradigms”
• Can be used to analyze gaps/needs/trends
112 responses

23. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Guaranteed use
Meets patron needs
No delays in access, unmediated
Some like mediated aspect of evidence-based
models
Very cost effective, helps budget
Way to justify budgets
STL – cost savings, “may be all that is needed”
Frees up staff time

24. • Free browse is essential
• Free browse can be used to determine if print
copy is desired
• STL and free browse are cost effective
• TOC and index can be used effectively to
determine what is not wanted

25. • Better tracking/reporting
– Owned vs unowned
– To allow us to build models based on patterns
• Larger pool of content (more books, more
publishers)
• DRM, simultaneous user models, device
compatibility
• Better workflow options (record loads, etc.)
91 responses

26. • Pricing
– Tiered by institution size
– Standard STL cost
– STLs count toward purchase cost
•
•
•
•
Remove login requirements
Longer browse
Better profiling (more granular)
Simplify – too many options is confusing

27. • Additional content types
– Streaming video
– Articles, chapters, pages
– Reference works
– Textbooks
• Pricing
– STL cost applied to purchase cost
– Free STLs
61 responses

28. • Make it easier to remove titles
• Make it easier for Acquisitions to bypass system to
order titles that are needed
• Better MARC records
• Easier and continuous deduplication process
• Better usage data
– Make it possible for all aspects of DDA to be data-driven
• ILL rights
• Use aggregator for process, but allow content to live on
publisher platform
• More nuanced notification options (e.g. librarian
notified of first STL on very expensive books)

29. • Longer free browse
• Copying/pasting shouldn’t be a trigger
• Need more flexibility
– Different libraries have different goals
• Customizable triggers by subject
• STLS set too high/STLS set too low
• Need better reporting on what triggers caused a
financial transaction for a title
51 responses

30. • DDA profiles often broader
• Fewer qualifiers in DDA than approval profile
• Price, publisher, subject

31. • Most with multiple profiles have them with
one vendor

32. • Majority: As needed
– Only because content no longer available from
aggregator
•
•
•
•
•
•
Monthly (9)
Weekly (4)
Quarterly (3)
Biweekly (2)
Annually (2)
Every three years (1)

33. •
•
•
•
No longer available from aggregator
Not in desired publication date range
If print purchased
In pool for a year or more with no trigger

43. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

44. FLEXIBILITY

45. Access Models
• Controls for intentional use
– Free browse
– Front/back matter
– Time in the book
• Respond to levels of comfort with access vs.
ownership
– Adjustable STL levels
– Purchase or not
• Models that allow for implementation when
infrastructure unavailable (eg. Evidence Based)

46. Technical Issues
• Implementation of a profile that can be
managed relative to budget
• Record management
– Deletions
– Deduplication
• May be more important to have high-quality
discovery records than high-quality ownership
records

47. Metrics
• Ability to measure all types of use
– Pre and post-purchase
– Non-use
– STL, browse, purchase
• Ability to use data to
– Predict spending patterns
– Adjust profile
– Adjust triggers

48. Timeline
• Appointment of working group
• Information gathering
– Main survey completed
– Interviews
– Additional surveys
Aug 2012
Aug 2013
• Public libraries
• consortia
– Information gathering completed
• Completion of initial draft
• Gathering of public comments
• Completion of final report
Nov 2013
Feb 2014
Mar 2014
May 2014

49. Thank You
Barbara Kawecki
bkawecki@ybp.com
Michael Levine-Clark
michael.levine-clark@du.edu