1.
Best Practices for Demand-Driven
Acquisition of Monographs:
Recommendations of the NISO DDA
Working Group
UKSG
Harrogate
April 14-16, 2014
Barbara Kawecki
YBP Library Services
Michael Levine-Clark
University of Denver

2.
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

3.
Timeline
• Appointment of working group
• Information gathering
– Main survey completed
– Interviews
– Additional surveys
• Public libraries
• consortia
– Information gathering completed
• Completion of initial draft
• Gathering of public comments
• Completion of final report
Aug 2012
Aug 2013
Nov 2013
Mar 2014
24 Mar - 24 Apr 2014
May-June 2014

4.
Committee members
• Lenny Allen
Oxford University Press
• Stephen Bosch
University of Arizona
• Scott Bourns
JSTOR
• Karin Byström
Uppsala University
• Terry Ehling
Project Muse
• Barbara Kawecki
YBP Library Services
• Lorraine Keelan
Palgrave Macmillan
• Michael Levine-Clark
University of Denver
• Rochelle Logan
Douglas County Libraries
• Lisa Mackinder
University of California, Irvine
• Norm Medeiros
Haverford College
• Lisa Nachtigall
Wiley
• Kari Paulson
ProQuest
• Cory Polonetsky
Elsevier
• Jason Price
SCELC
• Dana Sharvit
Ex Libris
• David Whitehair
OCLC

5.
RECOMMENDATIONS

6.
1. Establishing Goals
• Four Broad Goals for DDA
– Saving Money
– Spending The Same Amount of Money More
Wisely
– Providing Broader Access
– Building a Permanent Collection via Patron Input

7.
Saving Money
• Providing access to fewer books
• Emphasizing temporary access (STLs) over
perpetual access (purchasing)
• In evidence-based programs, having a higher
usage threshold prior to purchase

8.
Spending Same Amount More Wisely
• Larger pool of titles, emphasis on temporary
access
• Smaller pool of titles, emphasis on perpetual
access

9.
Providing Broader Access
• Most expansive pool possible
• Emphasizing STLs over perpetual access
• In evidence-based programs, having a higher
usage threshold prior to purchase

10.
Building a Permanent Collection
via Patron Input
• Having a tightly-focused profile/smaller
consideration pool
• Emphasizing perpetual access over STLs
• In evidence-based programs, having a lower
usage threshold prior to purchase

11.
2. Choosing Content to Make Available
• Important Issues
– Not all p-books available as e-books
– No single supplier provides all e-books
– Not all e-books available via DDA or under same models
• Therefore
– More comprehensive coverage requires more suppliers
and more models
– Broadest coverage possible = include print
– Approval vendors can help manage DDA across multiple
suppliers
• Publishers should recognize that libraries may wish
to limit number of suppliers, and plan accordingly

12.
3. Choosing DDA Models
Mix of auto-purchase and STL based on goals of program
• Auto-Purchase
– Purchase triggered on the first use longer than free browse
– Purchase triggered after set number of uses
– Purchase triggered after set number of STLs
• STL
– A set number of STLs prior to auto-purchase
– Only STLs, with no auto-purchase

13.
3. Choosing DDA Models
• Evidence-based acquisition
– Sometimes only option based on platform
capabilities
– Library and publisher should develop expectations
based on analysis of past usage
• Publishers may wish to participate in some or
all models.
• Some concern by publishers about
sustainability of STL

14.
4. Profiling
• DDA profiles should be based on the broadest
definitions possible within these areas, and relative
to goals of the program
– Subject coverage should provide access to a wide range
of content, even in subjects that may not be core
– Retrospective coverage for critical mass
• Especially in programs that otherwise limit coverage
• May or may not overlap with print holdings, depending on
library preference

15.
5. Loading Records
• Libraries should
– Load records regularly and as soon after receipt as
possible
– Load records into as many discovery tools as
possible
– Code records for easy suppression or removal
– Enrich metadata to increase discoverability
– Load point-of-purchase records after purchase to
ease acquisitions workflow/payment

16.
6. Removing Content
• Libraries should:
– Remove records from all discovery tools as soon
as feasible, often using supplier’s delete file
– Establish regular cycle for removal
– Maintain a record of titles removed for
assessment

17.
7. Assessment
• There are multiple reasons for assessment, so
this should be planned from the start
– Measuring overall effectiveness of the program
– Measuring success at cost reduction
– Measuring usage
– Predicting future spending
– Managing the consideration pool
• Data sources might include
– COUNTER reports
– Vendor/publisher supplied reports
– ILS or other local data

18.
8. Preservation
Libraries and publishers should work together to
ensure that un-owned content remains
available, perhaps in partnership with third-
party solutions such as LOCKSS and Portico.

19.
9. Consortial DDA
• Three basic models
– Multiplier (a multiple of list price allows shared
ownership)
– Limited Use (shared ownership, but with a cap on
use before a second copy purchased)
– Buying Club (shared access to consideration pool,
but individual ownership)

20.
10. Public Library DDA
• Mediated
• Wish lists
• Often not through the catalog

21.
Recommended Practice
Presentation will be on Slideshare:
http://www.slideshare.net/MichaelLevineClark
Document available for
public comment until 24 April, 2014:
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/dda/
Survey results:
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.ph
p/12541/DDA_Survey_Results.pdf

22.
Questions, Comments,
Suggestions
Barbara Kawecki
bkawecki@ybp.com
Michael Levine-Clark
michael.levine-clark@du.edu
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/dda/