Drop the pilot: why business librarians should not give in to Harvard Business School Publishing’s new scheme

As Chair of BBSLG (the British Business Schools’ Librarians’ Group) which comprises some 200 academic business librarians and over 100 libraries across the UK and Ireland, I have recently spent a considerable amount of my time complaining about an outrageous and precedent-setting pilot scheme dreamt up by Harvard Business School Publishing. For a few years now HBSP have been requesting payments of as much as £15k pa from several UK academic business libraries simply for the privilege of making persistent links to HBR articles on reading lists and VLEs.

The links in question are being made to EBSCO’s Business Source products (which provide HBR in full-text), however, it is Harvard rather than EBSCO who have approached librarians directly for additional payment.  Thus far these demands for extra monies, which are being requested on top of the EBSCO subscription, are, as mentioned above, merely part of a ‘pilot scheme’, however, HBSP plan to roll it out to all EBSCO subscribers in due course. 

Thus far, all UK librarians who have been offered the ‘opportunity’ to pay this additional sum have unsurprisingly turned it down, and as a result have recently had the ability to make persistent links to HBR turned off by EBSCO. This move has been greeted with a mixture of fury and disbelief  for a number of very good reasons:

1) The majority of UK business librarians make persistent links to HBR, and yet  only a handful of Universities have been selected to pay more now. Why should only a handful of libraries pay for a practice still in operation at other institutions?
2)  The ability to persistent-link has always been part and parcel of an EBSCO subscription. How can an additional fee be justifiably levied for what is considered to be a basic web experience rather than an added extra?
3) How can EBSCO justify turning off the ability to make persistent links to HBR at targeted institutions, when the links are still turned on and being used by EBSCO subscribers at other institutions that have not been targeted?
4) Why are EBSCO not protecting its customers from Harvard approaching them directly? As subscribers we have a relationship with EBSCO not Harvard. If Harvard are after after extra monies for access to their material then surely they should demand it of the aggregator not us? It seems a particularly odd strategy on EBSCO’s part when one considers that before now they have maintained uniformly excellent relations with their customers.
5) If HBSP get away with this practice, what’s to stop other journal publishers following suit? And what then is the purpose of paying a subscription to a journal aggregator if you’re having to pay additional fees to individual publishers on top?

However, in my opinion, the most important argument against HBSP’s scheme is that the primary reason which they cite for this cost recovery process is a clause in EBSCO subscribers contracts which states that access to articles within the product is for ‘individual, private study’ rather than for teaching purposes. Is accessing and reading an article cited on a course not individual study? Where does teaching begin and study end? Where do you draw the line? Harvard are of course drawing it at a point which conveniently supports their argument, but their definition is highly debatable.

Given the level of bad feeling around this issue, EBSCO’s Gareth Smith has agreed to speak on behalf of EBSCO in an open forum session at the 2009 BBLSG conference in Dublin in a few weeks time and subsequently feed back our views both to his company and to Harvard. The correspondence received thus far from HBSP suggests that they will stand firm and I consider it imperative that we do the same.

Andy

N.B. Visit Paul Stainthorp’s UoL blog to read a post on the same issue.

The average academic business librarian

I’ve recently updated and sent out a benchmarking survey to British Business Schools Librarians Group (BBSLG) member institutions with a view to gathering key information on their library services and the roles of the individual librarians that run them. The survey was first distributed in 2007 so it should prove very interesting to see how much has changed since then. The most easily digestible results of the survey will be a picture of the average BBSLG institution and the average BBSLG librarian.

Looking specifically at the latter, last time around the average BBSLG librarian:

• Was a chartered member of CILIP
• Had 23 years experience in libraries
• Has been in their current post for 7.6 years
• Spent most of their time answring ad hoc enquiries, developing and delivering training sessions and producing user support materials
• Spent almost as much time acquiring electronic resources as printed
• Managed and negotiated a budget
• Represented the library on a teaching committee
• Enjoyed a flexible policy when it came to accessing CPD
• Was involved in markting and PR activities
• And earned between 27,000 and 32,000 pa

Whereas the average BBSLG instiution:

• supported 278 MBAs, 1720 undergrads, 66 PhDs and 103 academic staff
• provided access to 32,000 business and management books
• provided access to 212 printed journals
• had 3.5 FTE full-time library staff
• had a ratio of 1 FTE library staff member to 29 academics/79 MBAs
• were either testing or using the following ‘new’ technology the most: blogs, openURLresolvers, fed search
• were giving more standalone lectures or tutorials than ones integrated into the curriculum
• spent most of their budget on databases
• formed the business section of an integrated University Library, rather than being a standalone library within a larger University libary service

The main additions to this year’s survey are some more social media options, as this has moved on a touch in the last 2 years (!), to find out how business librarians are using Facebook, Twitter and blogs and specifically the ratio of professional and social use. In addition there’s a new a section on how motivated individuals feel, the level of support they feel they receive from their institution and how challenging their post is.

The aim of the survey is to gauge the temperature of business librarianship as a whole as well as to assemble some hard data.

I’ll be posting top level (but non-confidential) results here in mid-July. The full report will be available to BBSLG members via the website.

Andy

Minutes taken – hours wasted?

‘A meeting is an event when minutes are taken and hours are wasted’

What words or phrases first spring to mind when you hear the word committee? Ineffective? Waste of time? Politics? Hidden agendas? And what are the chances of them ever being the reverse of this?: Effective? Productive,? Apolitical? With a shared agenda? Well in my experience, slim, however, I’m pleased to say that I do have experience of one committee that in the past 7 years has regularly succeeded to be all of the above: that of of the British Business Schools Librarians Group (BBSLG). Now as some of you may know I’m currently Chair of this Group (and have been for the past three years) but this blog post is not an attempt to blow smoke up my own ****, but rather an examination of why this might be.

BBSLG, as its website accurately declares, exists as a forum for the discussion and exchange of ideas and to facilitate networking opportunities, co-operation and participation in joint activities. Its members are business librarians at institutions across the UK and Ireland. Its committee  is tasked with promoting these objectives, ensuring that connections and communication continues to occur. It also meets in order to organise an annual conference (usually attended by 70 business librarians) and training events throughout the year, discuss the website and deals brokered with database vendors exclusively for the group,  to construct and review surveys, and enagage in a myriad of other Group-related activities.

So why is its committee so darned productive and why are the meetings (held quarterly and lasting around 4 hours) so friendly and, dare I say it, fun? My suspicion is that this is largely down to the fact that we have common goals and objectives – none of us are manoeuvring for position, we all want the conference and other events to be a success and for the worth of the Group to be recognised. Another element is probably just the simple fact that it gets us of out of the office 4 times a year and gives us a chance to share with like-minded individuals and get some perspective on the daily grind, as well as some much-needed breathing space. Indeed, this is perhaps the key function of the whole of BBSLG: the communication of that assurance that none of us are alone and that we are all experiencing the same challenges and problems and if we only share them, then we can often solve them together.

An obvious reason for our meeting success is that every member of the committee has a clearly defined role and area of expertise, be it liaison with database vendors, budgeting, website or marketing and communcation. Another element that is perhaps easy to overlook is the importance of the regular venue for the committee meetings – the cosy 2nd floor meeting room at Aston University Library with coffee and biscuits on tap. I’ve been regularly travelling to that room since the autumn of 2002 and without getting too misty-eyed about it, it feels to me like the home of BBSLG. It’s a place where genuine sharing has taken place, and excellent innovation has been dreamed up.  

Egos do not thrive there, so I have to keep mine in check. I may have a loud voice and hold forth too much sometimes, but as Chair I’m really there to: facilitate the sharing; ensure that the great ideas are seized upon and developed; and ultimately to make sure we’re on course with all our plans.

The one element that I’ve not mentioned yet is the undoubted contribution of the fact that the committee members are all incredibly friendly and open people and, unless the memory cheats, have always been so. Perhaps this is because we’re all enthusiastic about the profession, motivated and selfless enough to use the fringes of our time for this – largely selfless - activity. We all want to be there. We all freely volunteered for this and have not been instructed to attend. How many meetings do you go to simply because you have to? 

To recap, I think the committee works so well for the following reasons:

• Common goals
• Breathing space
• Defined roles
• Complementary expertise
• The right setting
• No egos/selflessness
• The room for sharing and innovation
• Motivation and enthusiasm of committee members

I’m not saying that the BBSLG committee meetings are perfect, but I do suspect that sometimes we drift dangerously near to becoming that ’virtuoso team’ (which sounds so unattainable and unlikely!), that I often hear about in management development training.

Yay us. (Being British that’s about as far as I can go with the trumpet blowing!)

Andy