|
SCOPE is administered by the Follett Implementation |
2.01 Project Set-up
2.02 Legal Issues
2.03 Staffing
2.04 Copyright
2.05 Production
2.06 Liaison
2.07 Evaluation
2.1 Changes made to plans in the light of our experience
2.2 Lessons
Go to the SCOPE Annual Report Table of Contents
2.01 Project Set-up
i) SCOPE was one of the earliest projects to be funded. This has been of benefit in attracting the attention of publishers and booksellers and allowing many useful contacts to be made. In other ways there have been some disadvantages to being 'ahead of the pack': we have found the support offered by eLib invaluable but would have wished to have taken earlier advantage of the project management and evaluation workshops. Also, we had prepared our own functional specification for a copyright management system and had invited tenders before the relevant supporting study was commissioned. As a result we decided to delay progress on this front.
With the agreement of JISC, the project start date has been set back by 6 weeks, to the date of the first staff appointment.
ii) Two letters of understanding based on the eLib model were drawn up. One, between the lead site and partner has presented no difficulties. The second however was between Stirling and all other members of the consortium, all of which had expressed interest in receiving SCOPE resources. Modifications to a draft were made following a meeting of the chief librarians involved.
Return to the top of this page
2.02 Legal Issues
As noted above, legal issues have arisen with regard to the letter of understanding and also copyright negotiations. SCOPE had been fortunate to have considerable help from the University of Stirling Deputy Secretary (a lawyer) and Charles Oppenheim, the eLib Copyright Adviser.
At an early stage, the Finance Officers of the lead and partner institutions received consultants' advice that Customs and Excise was likely to take the view that Napier (where the Production Manager was based) was providing a service to the University of Stirling and that payments should attract VAT. After initial surprise that the project was not deemed to be 'research' and therefore not liable for VAT, agreement was reached with JISC that a proportion of each year's grant would be paid separately to Napier, thus avoiding VAT complications.
Return to the top of this page
2.03 Staffing
The SCOPE Library Liaison Officer post was created to put in place procedures for library liaison activities so that consortium library representatives could undertake these activities when this period lapsed. We were able to extend her appointment for a month before the Liaison Officer left for another post. It is now clear that we would have benefited by employing a Liaison Officer for the duration of the project, particularly given the increased emphasis on evaluation and the wide interest which SCOPE has raised.
Production in year 1 has been carried out entirely by the Production Manager, with the need for only some casual assistance.
We intend to use some of the savings from the production budget in year 1 to employ a Liaison Officer in year 2.
Return to the top of this page
2.04 Copyright
i) Identification of the current rights holders of copyright materials is not straightforward as many lists have changed hands - sometimes more than once - in recent years and there is no comprehensive database of current rights holders to which we can refer. At stage 3 of the project the Copyright Officer faxed the publisher whose imprint was in each book and asked for verification that it was the current rightsholder.
ii) To date, academic staff have wished to include large amounts of texts to offer their students every opportunity to read widely. Typically they require over 300 pages of originals, while our initial planning was based on 200 pages. While digitisation allows condensed (though still attractive) format, and a reduction in pages and production costs, the total costs of copyright fees makes it difficult to sell at an unsubsidised price which is acceptable to students. We suspect that there is likely to be a variation in perceived affordable price according to subject area, and as we diversify, we intend to study this.
iii) The SCOPE model contract for licensing on-demand publishing in academic libraries requires copyright holders to issue warranties and indemnities relating to the content of the work. Several publishers have objected to these clauses on the basis that they do not have such warranties from their authors and are not required to make such warranties when supplying hard copy to libraries. These publishers must have indemnity insurance. SCOPE requires these warranties and indemnities in the contract as it has no control over the content of material licensed to it and cannot afford to risk having to defend a legal action arising from that material.
iv) Publishers wish SCOPE to take responsibility for clearing copyright in material included in works licensed that is copyright of third parties. Often, such copyright materials are photographs and clearing rights in these items would increase considerably the work of the copyright unit and ultimately, would increase the cost of SCOPE resources. Owing to the complexity of copyright in photographs, Charles Oppenheim has advised the project to omit photographs from SCOPE resources. However, some publishers (and one consortium member) have objected that this risks infringing the moral rights of the author of the work. A solution to this problem would be to write to authors asking them to waive moral rights in the work but Charles Oppenheim has advised SCOPE that to do so would require as much extra work as clearing rights in the photographs. Charles Oppenheim has suggested that SCOPE request that authors waive their rights only when they have asserted their moral rights in the original work.
v) We are aware of a potential problem in that publishers will expect to raise rates if SCOPE becomes a commercial concern. In Australia the issue has arisen where a commercial bookseller is involved in selling course packs. SCOPE aims only to cover direct costs and eventually overheads. The bookseller with whom we are working is currently taking a mark-up substantially below the usual rate for textbooks and its involvement, not least in making available sales data, is invaluable.
Return to the top of this page
2.05 Production
i) The accuracy of the character recognition system when dealing with poor quality originals, especially footnotes, left much work to be done through proof-reading and subsequent correction. An upgraded, more accurate version of software has been ordered and will be 'trained' in advance of any future scanning requirements.
Digitization reduces production costs for texts considerably but as yet, publishers are unwilling or unable to supply texts in digital form. As a result the overall cost of digitizing for print production is prohibitively expensive due to the requirement that all scanned material must be proofread.
ii) Initially, print work was given to a commercial company. The second batch of course packs was produced by a university printroom much more cheaply, but difficulties were encountered chiefly as priority was given to university work. Future print work will be contracted only to units making written commitments to adhere to project schedules.
iii) The use of students as freelance casual assistants failed due to a clash with their academic programme. Steps are now in hand to recruit a part-time assistant for the rest of the project.
Return to the top of this page
2.06 Liaison
The library representatives did not anticipate the amount of work required to supply the SCOPE copyright unit with a complete reading list for a targeted class. The Library Liaison Officer was occupied for a considerable proportion of her working week in chasing information from library representatives and attempting to involve them in the project. The Librarians were of course dependent on academic staff and were reluctant to harass them. Given the pressures on academics today we understand how difficult it is for them to make time to consider in great detail the reading list for courses more than a semester ahead.
ii) Meetings of library representatives held at Stirling University generally were well attended but the representatives themselves often changed and time was spent at each meeting updating new members. This body has now stabilized and is working well.
iii) There have been some difficulties in judging the appropriate level of promotion for SCOPE within member institutions in year 1. On the one hand we wished to raise interest and attract enquiries, whilst on the other we were aware that there would be severe limitations on what could be produced given the lengthy process of negotiation with publishers and the cost of copyright fees.
iv) We recognise the need for absolute clarity in dealing with academics and librarians at participating institutions and also to agree in advance on deadlines and evaluation responsibilities. We have prepared a service agreement to be used for each round of course pack production.
Return to the top of this page
2.07 Evaluation
i) There have been some problems in persuading students to take part in focus groups - even when modest bribes were offered. Some success was achieved by holding discussions in student residences. The timing of the circulation of questionnaires poses a problem too: the number of responses will be greatest if students tackle the SCOPE questionnaire along with course questionnaires handed out by academic staff at the end of semester. This, however, is rather late to inform decisions on the next production round, and we expect to have to settle for an earlier circulation and fewer responses. It has also been difficult to secure timely responses from academics, even although each lecturer involved has been keen to further the project.
ii) Given the scale of SCOPE services so far librarians have had difficulty in measuring impact. Ideally there would be detailed surveys of borrowing figures for a course both pre- and post-SCOPE but to date this has not been feasible. Further attention will be given to this, and some funds have been earmarked to subsidize evaluation activities in member institutions where necessary.
Our understanding of the nature of the SCOPE project has changed considerably. While originally we focused narrowly on products, we are now much more aware of the process of initiating change, particularly in HEIs. We are generating a considerable quantity of data on issues that will be increasingly important to the whole HE sector. If the project successfully operates as a catalyst, facilitating changes in HEIs then our analysis of these data will be useful to those working in the area of electronic delivery of copyright materials. We are more aware of the need for flexibility, and of the need to accommodate all stakeholders if the project is to be successful.
Return to the top of this page
We have had some success in negotiating model agreements. There are some agreements in place but we believe that the length and complexity of the model contract that we used as a starting point has delayed progress. Also, the rate at which we propose to pay for reproduction of copyright material is unacceptable to some publishers. We are now modelling different payment mechanisms with a view to reconciling our aims with the understandable desire of publishers to set payment at a rate that is likely to be commercially viable should SCOPE succeed as a model for delivering electronic materials to academic libraries. In addition, in order to progress towards on-line delivery in year 2 of the project, we propose to seek less formal agreements with a core of 'favoured publishers'. Negotiation on the terms of the model contract will continue but, for practical purposes and temporarily, we will accept agreements or licences supplied by publishers or will offer publishers agreements supplied by other eLib ODP projects that have successfully agreed terms with targeted publishers. If this approach is successful it will allow us to demonstrate that there is a market for these resources and that revenue generated for publishers will be sufficient to cover the cost of administering royalty payments. Having demonstrated the viability of licensing material to SCOPE, we would be in a better position to persuade a wider range of publishers to come on board.
SCOPE is also seeking to produce materials that will generate profit and thus subsidize more expensive copyright items, e.g. manuals for software packages that have been written by lecturers at consortium member institutions and may be supplied at a small profit in a number of institutions; these activities are peripheral and will be undertaken only if the technical unit can accommodate them comfortably alongside SCOPE central production requirements.
(The word 'profit' is used loosely here, as staff costs and other overheads have not been taken into account at this stage).
Return to the top of this page
We have learned that what is technically possible may be hindered by legal, political, and cultural difficulties. There were difficulties during Year 1 relating to negotiation on the terms of the model contract with publishers and on the terms of the Letter of Understanding with consortium member institutions. With regards to take-up of the resources that we produced, we have found that the beliefs and attitudes of students and lecturers regarding the value of course packs and copyright materials vary considerably and all must be taken into account.
Return to the top of this page