Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 20:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Serials Librarian: From thePrinted Page to the Digital AgePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wser20
The Journal Supply ChainEfficiency Improvement Pilot:What's Good, What's Bad,What's Missing?Donald Chvatal aa Ringgold, Inc.Published online: 11 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Donald Chvatal (2008) The Journal Supply Chain EfficiencyImprovement Pilot: What's Good, What's Bad, What's Missing?, The SerialsLibrarian: From the Printed Page to the Digital Age, 54:1-2, 105-119, DOI:10.1080/03615260801973901
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03615260801973901
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
The Serials Librarian, Vol. 54(1/2) 2008Available online at http://ser.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1080/03615260801973901 105
WSER0361-526X1541-1095The Serials Librarian, Vol. 54, No. 1-2, Mar 2008: pp. 0–0The Serials Librarian
The Journal Supply Chain Efficiency Improvement Pilot: What’s Good,
What’s Bad, What’s Missing?Strategy SessionsPlace Your Bet In Kentucky: Nasig 2007 Donald Chvatal
Presenter
ABSTRACT. Early in 2006, parties involved in the service and supply ofelectronic journal content established the Journal Supply Chain EfficiencyImprovement Pilot (JSCEIP), a pilot project to examine possible efficiencyimprovements in the supply of journals to libraries and other institutionalsubscribers. A primary consideration is the possible use of a standard institu-tional identifier by all parties in the journal supply chain in order to uniquelyidentify subscribers by their associated metadata. The forces of the Internethave changed the serials market. Contributing factors are the dynamics ofsubscribers switching from print to electronic, all the related new servicesrequired in terms of licensing, access and authentication, and involvement ofnew players such as aggregators and hosting platforms. Publishers are repre-sented by Oxford University Press and Rockefeller, both hosted by High-Wire Press (also a participant). Swets represents the subscription agentcommunity; Ringgold contributes its institutional identification services. Thepilot project focus initially was limited to UK subscribers, represented by theBritish Library. The pilot is now expanding to other countries and partici-pants. The paper defines the supply chain and summarizes progress to date.
KEYWORDS. Institutional identification, serials standards, journalentitlements, journal access, authentication, Ringgold’s Identify, ICEDIS
Donald Chvatal is President of Ringgold, Inc.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
106 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The title of my presentation was developed some months ago frommy expectation that by the time I came to Louisville, the Journal SupplyChain Efficiency Improvement Pilot (JSCEIP) project would be nearlyover. The results would show much “good” to have been accomplished,no real “bad” results, and there would be nothing “missing.”
One thing is sure, the Pilot is alive and well and will be extendedthrough 2007 and probably well into 2008. The most important conclusionto date: there remains much that is “missing” primarily in the lack of directparticipation by libraries and vendors of ERM (electronic resource man-agement) systems and ILS (integrated library system) software. There’slittle to say about what is “bad” simply because the connotation of whatmight be “bad” as the opposite of “good” is the same as what is missing:we need more participation by all parties in the journal supply chain togain improved efficiency, particularly in the delivery of e-content.
One “excellent” result from the Pilot is that there is a growing appreci-ation for the need for improved institutional identification, particularlywithin the context of electronic delivery of information from publisher toend user. As electronic content availability during the past ten yearsbecame more pervasive for commercial STM publishers, there has beenan emerging revenue shift from print to digital within libraries; likewise,publisher delivery mechanisms changed everything, the effects of whichhave given us challenges not experienced previously.
DEFINING THE JOURNAL SUPPLY CHAIN
Let’s look at some of the dynamics now at work between parties in thesupply chain, starting with a working definition of the goal of the supplychain: to effectively deliver information (content) from producer to end user.Defining the supply chain participants and characterizing their activity inbroad terms, the components of the journal supply chain are the following:
• Publishers—creating content in multiple formats;• Publishers’ distributors—redistributing the print and electronic
content for publishers;• Hosting platform services—organizations providing digital server
platforms for content delivery to users, both institutional subscribersand individuals;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 107
• Subscription agents—processing orders and servicing delivery con-tracts for content;
• Subscription fulfilment software vendors—providing subscriptionmanagement services to publishers;
• ILS and ERM software vendors—installing and maintaining sub-scriber purchasing systems;
• Institutional subscribers—purchasing and/or using content createdby publishers; and
• Individuals—purchasing and/or using content created by publishers.
Perspectives from within the Current Supply Chain
The present supply chain picture is messy, particularly for those of us(librarians and others) who represent the end users and who are chargedwith supplying patrons, students, and faculty with the resources theyexpect to need. As end user representatives, librarians represent theirinstitutions by purchasing information directly from publishers or throughvarious agents. For such purchasing, the subscriber sometimes mustdecide to do a solo purchase or use the financial advantage of a consor-tium. The purchase will balance questions of format, such as whether topurchase the print and/or electronic. If electronic, will purchase guarantee“access forever”? What about sustaining guarantees for uptime mainte-nance of entitlements over time? Temporary or permanent loss of serviceis deadly to service-minded institutions. What are your access issues? Soyou purchase something, now how are you going to access and display itin your catalog? Will you deploy link resolvers and consolidate searchformats? Does your OPAC properly display holdings in a context wherethe users understand what they are looking at?
It’s messy for publishers too. One of their biggest problems is how toprice electronic journal content so that it is at least “revenue neutral.” Thepresumption is always that when electronic content is sold, the print sub-scription will be canceled. So if x number of copies are delivered to aninstitution at y dollars each, then the total delivery of electronic contentshould be made for no less than the sum of x times y equals z. The prob-lem can be even more complicated. Your institution shares its resourcesdirectly with a neighbor or through a consortium, and this relationship isunknown, and therefore unaccounted for by the publisher. A furtherunknown is the potential number of personal or individual subscriptionsthat might be cancelled when electronic access is currently available“free” through a local library source.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
108 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
It’s also messy for agents and other supply chain participants. But, dowe much care about them? Their job is to help us solve our problem,that’s why they are paid. But, they are required to deal with our libraryand other institutional information, translating it into useful transactionsfor publishers to supply what is purchased.
IDENTIFY: RINGGOLD PROVIDES IMPROVED INSTITUTIONAL IDENTIFICATION
The idea of uniform identification for institutions is not new, butRinggold became involved when the journals division of Oxford Univer-sity Press (OUP) decided some five years ago (2002) to establish uniqueidentifiers for the “licensing units” represented by their institutional sub-scribers. A company called Information Power in the UK worked out aprogram with Oxford to create a hierarchic database of institutions, prop-erly named and identified and carrying associated metadata about theirsize, type, and nature of their ownership (e.g., private, public, governmen-tal). Information Power audited Oxford’s subscriber files, the BritishMedical Journal followed, and today approximately 35 publishers are insome processing stage with Ringgold. Along the way Information Powermerged with Ringgold, which itself was working a different angle of thesupply chain in the form of developing OpenRFP, a web service devotedto online procurement of ERM, RFID (radio frequency identification),and other solutions appropriate to ILS software.
There are five active partners in the ownership of Ringgold. Four arelibrarians, all five have been active in automated systems development,and all five have been consultants to various organizations within infor-mation technology. Two of the partners, Helen Henderson and ChrisLeamy, were founders of Information Power, the company that originallycontracted with OUP. Some twenty-five contracted researchers work forRinggold in the process of establishing and maintaining a registry of insti-tutional identifiers, called Identify.
Identify represents Ringgold’s branding of its database, now listingnearly 75,000 institutions worldwide. Publishers drive the major deci-sions about database content. Their concern is for the “licensing units.”For example, the identity of a university is its formal institutional name,not necessarily the library or various departments. However, within theinstitutional identification, and linked to it, are “children” each uniquelyidentified where such have independent purchasing control as with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 109
schools or faculties of law, medicine, or business. Narrowly defined butassociated and jointly funded institutes that might purchase electroniccontent are included. Hospital groups and independent hospitals, governmentagencies that do purchasing, and other corporate bodies are includedas well.
Identify is available as an online web service and there are consid-erations for access to the metadata. Some of the data is regarded as“public” and standards-based while data is “conditional” and basedupon the publisher’s requirements for an audit of their subscribers.Not all fields are available for every institution, but the basic informationincludes:
1. institution formal name;2. alternative names for the identified institution;3. Institutional Identifier Number (unique: Ringgold);4. physical location (city, state, province, country);5. postal code;6. web site URL;7. type of institution (defined by Ringgold and publishers);8. size of institution, based on type (staff, faculty, hospital beds);9. rank or tier of institution, as defined by external agencies (e.g.,
Carnegie for US and JISC-Joint Information Systems Committeein UK);
10. institutional hierarchies with links;11. consortia memberships;12. other identifiers: IPED (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
– System numbers under the auspices of the US Dept. of Educa-tion); and
13. other fields in preparation, planning, etc.
THE JOURNAL SUPPLY CHAIN EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PILOT (JSCEIP)
As delivery of electronic content became more pervasive for STM pub-lishers, Ringgold looked at the supply chain and realized that many tradi-tional relationships had become broken as new hosting services andaggregators demanded establishment of new relationships. Older deliverymethods and agency relationships were becoming dysfunctional and therewas a lack of trust among competing parties.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
110 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
How could Ringgold make it better for all parties in the chain? Comingfrom outside the traditional supply chain, Ringgold could more easilybecome a catalyst for change. Existing parties reasonably could be suspi-cious of each other working in the same competitive context. Boundariesare clearly present when parties provide existing and competing services.But institutional identification represented only a contextual boundary,one that required bridging by all parties, similar to what ISSN is for itemidentification in a supply chain, or what the International Standard Identi-fier for Libraries (ISIL) and Standard Address Number (SAN) representto physical locations.
The willing partners to a yearlong Pilot Project were:
• Swets as agent representative;• HighWire as hosting representative;• Select HighWire publishers (Oxford University Press, Rockefeller
University Press);• Independent publishers, BMJ (British Medical Association) and
AMA (American Medical Association); and• British Library, representing UK libraries and possible ISIL national
registry implementer.
The partners created a narrow definition of investigation: could the cre-ation of a standard, commonly used identifier for institutions worldwidebe of benefit to all parties in the journal supply chain, specifically to gainefficiencies? We decided to apply specific focus only to UK institutionsfor all aspects of supply. It is important to note here that “institution” doesnot equate always with “library.” There are approximately 8,000 UKinstitutions in the Identify database; by comparison, OCLC may identifyonly approximately 1/3 of these as their member libraries. This point ofdisparity is to show that from the supply chain perspective, many journalsubscribers are simply organizations that do not consider or identifythemselves as libraries.
With specific focus on the UK and all aspects of supply, we looked atvarious roles to be played by pilot participants in working groups and withproject packages. We created two committees, one for strategy, and anotherfor communications, both internal and external. A web site is maintained,with documentation of all sorts relating to Pilot Project activity.1
We set out to “audit” the UK institutions as represented in thedatabases of Swets, Oxford, Rockefeller, and BMJ (British MedicalJournal), insuring that a common number existed in all databases for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 111
testing any scripts that might be devised for researching and sharinginformation.
Some of the immediate issues and questions that captured the attentionof supply chain pilot participants:
Mapping the Supply Chain
In devising a graph showing the key components and informationexchanges within the supply chain, and working with Swets data, weimmediately ascertained that the Ringgold identifier, in its current form,would not serve the delivery address needs of agents such as Swets. Intraditional print delivery, the material goes to a physical address; elec-tronic delivery is made to a server that is recognized as more “virtual”than physical. Publishers paying Ringgold to organize their subscriberinformation have not been inclined to worry about print deliveryaddresses other than to associate them as part of their (logical parent)institutional identifications to cover this contingency. To satisfy specificaddressing delivery points requires more granularities in the identificationmetadata schema.
IP Address Questions
What are the correlations between publisher and agents in terms of theidentities of institutions; for example, the correlation between IP addressranges as held by each? The single error in an IP address range can wreckhavoc by opening doors to unlicensed groups or deny service with little tono knowledge that service has been denied. Preliminary matching of IPaddresses between participants shows discrepancies enough to point to aneed for more control to be executed across the chain in copying and shar-ing this information.
Electronic Data Exchange
Participants were keen to explore how to do “early access authoriza-tion” as new orders to publishers or agents might easily trigger an imme-diate release of content from hosting services. Why not allow agents uponreceipt of new orders to immediately authorize access to content wherethe institution is “known” and “trusted” to make payment, thus avoidingdelays associated with transfer of the related ordering information up tothe publisher and subsequent payment confirmation and advise to a hostthat service can then, subsequently, be turned on? Weeks and months indelivery time might be saved.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
112 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
WHAT’S IN IT FOR PUBLISHERS?
To understand better the context for this Pilot Project, we need to con-sider what’s in it for the participants. A database audit of the subscribersto a publisher’s journals provides links for each subscriber to an authorita-tive master record for that institution and provides additional metadata forthe institution and its related organizations. Publishers then can applymetrics for market penetration study while being able to automaticallyproduce institutional holdings reports—clearly necessary for producingfast pricing quotes. This also gives the publisher a handle on knowing allsubscriptions going to a particular institution, regardless of what appearson the order forms. In other words, it is the sales and marketingdepartments in publishing houses where the initial appeal for institutionalidentification lies.
There are operational impacts as well, notably the elimination of falselapses for renewals where renewals are treated as new orders, subjectingthe former order to discontinued service. It becomes easier to merge/purge customer/subscriber lists when companies or journals change own-ership. In the long term, it may prove equally advantageous to publishinghouse operations to deploy institutional identification as part of order ful-filment.
In summary, the commercial value in Identify services includes:
1. customized lists (reports) to link institutions (publisher’s subscrip-tion data);
2. web services to show publisher journal titles arrayed with subscrib-ing institutions, including numbers of subscriptions;
3. market segmentation reports to analyze by title and by the institutesor subsidiaries within institutions; and
4. market reports to show “gaps” by region or type.
WHAT’S IN IT FOR AGENTS AND SUPPLIERS?
A summary of numerous potential values to agents (courtesy of Swetsand others) include:
1. easier ordering process: fewer problems with duplication, aided byproper identification of the institutional source for the order;
2. speedier e-content activation;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 113
3. renewals recognition: with title changes, subscription agencychanges, and even institutional reorganization, subscriptions lapsesare counted as new, unidentified subscriptions, causing an inter-ruption in the supply, even with gracing periods;
4. customer service gains: faster problem resolution, easier tolocate records for customers; ensuring accuracy and prompthandling of changes or updates as to IP ranges, contact names,etc.;
5. simplify obtaining price quote information from publishers for var-ious e-packages, “big deals,” or for title lists representing tier andband levels;
6. corporate transfers: publishers working with aggregators, oreven with other publishers, often need to assess current totallists and the degree of market overlap between potential busi-ness partners and knowing the definitive customer base of eachis essential;
7. usage analysis: now that industry standards are being followedfor usage reporting, it is possible to merge reports incorporat-ing institutional data from all channels. There is a need tobe able to authoritatively identify the institutions in differentreports, perhaps generating new licensing and pricingopportunities;
8. end-user identification: it will be easier to track end-users of con-solidated subscriptions supplied by third parties, like subscriptionagents, without additional work from all parties;
9. automatic institutional holdings reports: frequently, the library isnot aware of all the subscriptions a publisher maintains for itsinstitution and this now means that the publisher or agent viewof holdings for that institution is clear and time is not wasteddebating between publisher/supplier and customer what theholdings are;
10. coherent reporting is represented in the form of a centralizedreporting system, providing accurate and up-to-date listings ofall subscribed e-resources with additional, consolidated infor-mation. Some of the existing ERM systems have a central data-base of content control, and it may be possible to have adatabase of what publishers consider institutional entitlements;and
11. existing subscriber identification for users who register for documentdelivery, or for access to free content. It is possible that the institution
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
114 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
is already a subscriber and once identified as a member of thatinstitution, the user can be set up for full access to the content.
WHAT’S IN IT FOR LIBRARIES AND OTHER SUBSCRIBERS?
Here are some of Ringgold’s positions and reactions from librarians:
1. Many identical improvements as those for agents and publishers,but in different contexts.
2. Complete holdings lists in the form of internal views of institutionalrelationships and entitlements: who are you as an institution for all ofyour component parts, what are all of you buying, including individuals.Publishers have this information, so why not for subscribing institutions,then all parties are working from a common playing field.
3. Local campus agencies, departments, and personal subscriptionsbecome identified and classified.
4. Reduced delays in activation.5. Minimal loss of service.6. Simplified renewals.7. Easier usage statistics updating (COUNTER).8. Improved reports of title and subject coverage, with metrics to pro-
vide authoritative lists of subscriptions by publisher to negotiate a“big deal” or bundle.
WHAT’S IN IT FOR CONSORTIA OR LIBRARY SURROGATES?
Ringgold is in discussions with two consortia to define possibleservices that could be performed on behalf of membership:
1. Service improvements to membership in the form of support forcentral directory programs where information is lodged about eachinstitution for central administration, particularly where the consor-tium must supply data to all of its information providers (allowsexisting “many-to-many” relationships to become “one-to-one”relationships or “one-to-many” services); and
2. Supporting surrogate IP provision.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 115
WHAT’S MISSING?
First, a Broad Understanding for the Principles of Governance and Control over Information
Information of various types is necessary at all levels in the supplychain for its proper functioning. This “information” is owned by differententities in the chain. In effect, there are different kinds and levels of“information” held or owned by the supply chain parties. Let’s examinethis ownership proposition in more detail.
By examining the issue of ownership in more detail, it should be intu-itively obvious that the subscriber owns one’s institutional information,that the ownership and control over an institution’s identity is retained bythat institution. So to populate an external database with informationabout an institution, would it not be so that the best source for such infor-mation would come from a designated agent of that institution? There-fore, the responsibility for maintaining institutional identifications resideswith the local institution—or maybe an “authorized” surrogate.
Similarly, the publisher owns its journal title and its content information.The subscription information (e.g., what is being ordered, its price,
delivery address) is jointly owned, shared by the parties involved in thesubscription transaction; this would include, for example, transactionsinvolving the exchange of money.
Ringgold’s thinking about supply chain efficiency improvementsrecognizes the “principle of subsidiarity,” defined broadly by Wikipediaas “. . .the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by thesmallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. The Oxford English Dictio-nary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have asubsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot beperformed effectively at a more immediate or local level.”2
This concept is applicable in many fields of political science, govern-ment, and management. It applies equally under the 10th amendment tothe American constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to theUnited States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, arereserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”3 A classic examplefor the application of subsidiarity in government administration is that ofroad building. The city builds roads within its jurisdiction, the county andstate do likewise, and our federal system does what cities, counties, andstates cannot do: provides for an interstate highway system. According tothis principle and within its charter, the European Union may only act
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
116 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
(i.e. make laws) where member states agree that action of individualcountries is insufficient.
Applying “subsidiarity” to the supply chain, therefore, simply meansauthorizing and supporting each organization’s level of competence andability to contribute its “value” to the chain. A lower level can delegateresponsibility to another (intermediate) level, but properly understood,responsibility for ownership lies within the organization itself.
Libraries might delegate interlibrary lending responsibility to a consor-tium authority, but it is clear they own the rights to their property in theform of their print and electronic resources. Similarly, they own their IPaddresses while they transfer use of such numbers to agents vested withresponsibility to deliver services to users on their behalf.
In conclusion, the owner of the information (or the owner’s surrogates)control, supply, and maintain the information in the chain in the mostdesirable structure and with the most economic methods. A successfulmodel for improved supply chain efficiency should enable institutions toprovide for and control information about their identities and provide forthe communication of this information effectively.
Where there is exchange of information between supply chain partic-ipants there is the need to properly identify who is represented. Stan-dardization of the conventional identification of an institution wouldinsure accuracy, particularly in computer-to-computer exchange ofinformation.
Second, an International Standard for Institutional Identification
Are standards needed? Yes, but we can’t afford to wait for standards tobe developed. Commercial practices are likely to dictate results. We doneed standards if we expect that this work will move onward, faster andmore successfully. As soon as standards are adopted, everyone can placegreater reliance on the information content and make decisions morereliably.
Take, for example, the MARC format. It works because we all under-stand what it is and what to expect. We could not have had as much suc-cess with our integrated library systems without a cataloging standard toenable faster development of OPAC display options and to ease the costsof maintaining proprietary data. The transfer of information from one sys-tem to another is simple because the exchange is based upon a commonunderstanding of what to expect at either end.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 117
Ringgold is not exempt as an organization from the potential demandsthat standards impose. In fact, the larger an institutional initiative standardgrows, the more important it is to Ringgold and to other agencies. Havingstandard metadata definitions in any area of activity common to similarorganizations is important for all elements of information, whether theyare openly shared or available only on a restricted basis. A standard isdeveloped in open dialogue from which would evolve a separation ofinstitutional identification and the set of metadata that will support identi-fication. Even where associated with a public identification, one canimagine all sorts of information that will be private, shared only wherethere is a purpose on the part of the owner of the information.
Library representation through standards keeps the doors open to newor additional players at any level in the supply chain. The standardrestricts monopoly control using proprietary data. In fact, usually the“winners” deploy quickly around the standard while the market movesfaster as well. It may be difficult for us to understand, now, that MARC,having used it as an example above, is almost taken fully for granted. It’sonly upon reflection that we realize its impact. Bridging to another exam-ple where standards will play strongly, RFID (radio frequency identifier)deployment is likely to move more quickly when a standard data model isdeployed—this has already happened in Europe. Linking protocols needto be intelligent, with both sides knowing what to expect in terms of dataformats. Standards will help insure this.
Third, Good Examples to Prove the Validity of Concept
Missing from our real-life experience are explicit examples of dataexchange between supply chain participants based on XML “standards-driven” data definitions. One example of electronic messaging exchangeproposals being considered between EBSCO and THINK Subscription is adraft proposal and test under the International Committee on EDI (elec-tronic data interchange) for Serials (ICEDIS) message protocols and it doesinclude a proposed XML schema. In simple form, the new order or renewalfrom a customer to EBSCO will trigger near-simultaneous transmissions bythe agent of an order to the publisher and a request to the content host forimmediate, provisional activation of access. Details should better besecured from EBSCO or THINK. Meanwhile, within our Pilot Project, testmessaging for early activation of new subscription orders is being tested ina similar manner between Swets and Rockefeller University Press. A criti-cal element in the metadata exchanged will be an institutional identifier.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
118 PLACE YOUR BET IN KENTUCKY: NASIG 2007
Fourth, Lack of Participation by Librarians and Representative Suppliers, Particularly the ILS and ERM Vendors
ERM and ILS suppliers may perceive the value for supplying institu-tional identifications to libraries as part of their service, but they willlikely be driven by customer requirements and not by altruism. UsingEDIFACT deployment as an example, it was only in the context of sup-pliers like Harrassowitz, EBSCO, and Swets, teaming up with specificlibraries that moved the ILS vendors to implement the exchange of orderand financial information within parties of the supply chain. What’s miss-ing is a “tipping point” at which institutional identification becomes afunctional requirement, not an option.
WHAT’S GOOD?
The Pilot remains very much a work in progress. Institutional subscribersand libraries represent end users and ultimately qualify success. The goalof the Pilot is becoming one that transcends a fear of loss of service to onewhere information professionals are becoming committed to more effi-cient electronic content delivery: faster, cheaper, with more effectiveaccess for users across all available resources and copies. Informationprofessionals are being encouraged to participate in this program by:
1. Supporting NISO standards development, particularly the develop-ment of an institutional metadata standard.
2. Demanding the use of identifiers and participation by all agents, ILSand supply vendors.
3. Using Ringgold’s public version of Identify to incorporate localidentification numbers into communications with publishers andagents.
4. Joining the Pilot as a library (question: do you have leverage thatwould be a catalyst for change?) One option for subscribing institu-tions would be to use Ringgold’s Identify registry service to main-tain IP address ranges.
Successful business models, over time, ensure there is a recognizedvalue for service provided. For all parties revenues must be greater thancosts and services must be perceived as providing real and sufficientvalue. To date publishers are willing to pay for the organization of their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Strategy Sessions 119
subscriber data. Other intermediate players in the supply chain are begin-ning to perceive value to identifiers; these other parties must also pay, orcontribute, in order to control their expected outcomes.
NOTES
1. For more information, please see: http://www.journalsupplychain.com 2. Wikipedia contributors. (2007, Aug. 3). Subsidiarity. Wikipedia. Retrieved
August 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity3. Wikipedia contributors. (2007, Aug. 15). Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Wikipedia. Retrieved August 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thw
este
rn U
nive
rsity
] at
20:
13 1
8 D
ecem
ber
2014
