I’m currently adding ERM data to Intota for all of DMU Library’s online databases. The library uses Intota to store and manage ERM data for e-resource renewals (I have previously blogged about creating a renewal checklist and automated alerts in Intota) and has also started to use Intota’s Assessment module to capture COUNTER usage stats and create usage/cost analysis to assist with library e-resource evaluation.
Some of the library’s negotiated agreements contain multiple online resources, even though we pay one set annual cost for subscription. Recording this single cost for budgetary allocation/spend purposes is simple enough, but it can present some potential complexities when you are interested in extrapolating usage and cost analysis for individual databases within combined deals.
For example, I have recently been dealing with a renewal agreement which consists of two online databases for which the library pays one set annual cost. The price of the deal is weighted differently in terms of the two databases (database X costs one fee, database Y costs a different fee), so we cannot apply a simple 50/50 split on the deal. The invoice for the deal also contains a single line for total VAT and a single line for a transaction fee applied by the negotiating agent.
So, to get a true reflection of the exact cost for each of the individual databases within the combined agreement, I had to apply the following formula to give me one “exact” cost for database X and one “exact” cost for database Y:
Weighted cost of database X in combined deal + VAT applied to database X + half of transaction fee = exact cost of database X.
(I then ran the same formula for database Y).
Once I had calculated the single subscription cost for each of the databases, I added these monetary values into the “Costs” section of each database record on the Intota knowledgebase. Intota saves and stores these figures and plugs the costs into its Assessment module, from where library staff can download and export various COUNTER and library usage reports:
Where possible, the library has set up SUSHI connections with content providers in Intota to automatically capture usage data on a regular basis. If a SUSHI connection is not possible or desirable, Intota collates data manually on a twice yearly basis (this involves providing Intota with admin logins for the publishers we have selected for this manual upload of library usage stats). For databases X and Y in the combined deal I mention above, we set up a SUSHI connection between Intota and the relevant vendor.
So, the set up for the combined database package is good to go. The library has set up the correct SUSHI credentials between Intota and publisher, and it has calculated a breakdown of costs for the individual databases contained within the combined agreement for 2015/16. When the library is ready to run a usage report for the combined deal, Intota Assessment should be able to provide the necessary information and a cost per use figure for the subscription period selected.
DMU Library has a number of combined database agreements, so we will be monitoring how we and Intota handle the administration of these (potentially) complex and challenging resource deals.