Museum Educational Site Licensing Project:
Studying the Economics of
Network Access to Visual Information
Proposal to Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
104 East 62nd Street
New York, NY 10021
submitted by the Regents of the University of California
Howard Besser, Principal Investigator
School of Information Management & Systems
UC Berkeley, CA 94720
This proposal outlines a twelve-month study of the costs and benefits of the networked distribution of digital museum information for educational use, to take place between June 1996 and June 1997. The study will take advantage of the existing collaboration between the 7 cultural repositories and 7 universities that make up the Museum Education Site License Project (MESL), and will utilize professionals from the participating MESL institutions as well as the communications and collaborative structures that MESL has already established.
I. Educational Access to Museum Information 1
II. The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project 2
III. Study Methodology 4
IV. Project Team 9
V. Other Project Cost Centers 12
VI. Project Schedule 14
VII. Project Budget 16
Appendix A Framework of Measurement 18
Appendix B Data Elements to Measure 20
Changing technologies and shifting demographics in higher education are challenging universities to explore new methods for access to and delivery of knowledge. A generation raised on visual communication, and lifelong learners located in remote learning environments, are shifting the focus of teaching from the campus and its libraries to the campus network and its multimedia materials. Distance education and self-directed learning are employed more routinely to meet defined curricular goals. Rich resources in digital form could become a critical piece of the changing educational infrastructure.
Museums also want to rely on the electronic distribution of information to reach their publics. The adoption of advanced communications technologies could enable museums to enhance their educational mission and reach new audiences. To realize the potential of electronic access to cultural heritage information, however, museums need to exploit the full digital potential of their information resources.
Access to the knowledge embodied in the collections of museums has long been a problem for students and researchers. Potential resources for any given field of study are located in museums around the world. Collections in storage remain unconsulted because of a lack of museum staff to meet reference requests. The time and expense of travel is prohibitive for many. The limited number of comprehensive published catalogues makes identification of relevant resources a difficult and time-consuming activity, and no single source provides access to a large body of knowledge about cultural heritage collections. Even when it is possible to locate relevant artifacts, acquiring reproductions for study and teaching purposes is difficult, time consuming and expensive. The specialized nature of these information resources limits the use of museum collections to a narrowly defined community of scholars and researchers.
Over time, both universities and individual researchers have assembled collections of reproductions and original images as essential teaching resources. However, access to these slide and picture libraries is severely restricted. Staffing and collections management considerations often dictate that these collections are closed to undergraduates. At best, sets of images may be made available at particular times. The physical nature of these collections often means that portions are unavailable, such as when they are in use in a lecture hall, or awaiting re-filing. Reflecting their institutional history, access to slide and picture libraries is often limited to members of particular departments or faculties. In addition, local cataloguing of image collections lacks curatorial authenticity.
The conversion of existing collections to electronic form has been considered in order to provide broader access. Some institutions have begun local projects to convert traditional slide collections into digital form; however, most university counsels have advised against this, as it may violate intellectual property rights. As a strategy, conversion of collections by universities may incur greater costs than digitization at the museums and other repositories, and result in highly redundant efforts. The 35mm slide sources for these digital images are often copy photographs (taken from books). In addition to the intellectual property considerations the reproduction quality from these sources is inferior to other options.
Developing an effective and efficient system for educational licensing of museum digital materials requires a clear understanding of the various economic issues involved in creating, distributing and using networked information in the educational community. This proposal outlines a study of this economic system within the context of the Museum Educational Site Licensing Project.
The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project (MESL) was established to enable the direct licensing of high quality museum digital images and authoritative documentation, for delivery over university campus networks. Already within this pilot project, the availability of a test digital data set has enabled access by a broader spectrum of the academic community and let to unforeseen educational uses.
The MESL project is testing a model for the educational use of museums' digital content. Since February 1995, seven collecting institutions and seven universities have collaborated to define the terms and conditions governing the educational use of digitized museum images and related information. By the fall of 1995, MESL participants had signed a Cooperative Agreement that defines the terms of the experiment. In addition, they have delivered over 4,000 images with accompanying documentation to seven campuses, and developed local search and delivery tools. (The number of images will double in the spring of 1996, to at least 8,000.) Images and accompanying documentation are now being used in teaching and research on all participating campuses.
The project has a history of successful collaboration through electronic media. Aided by email discussion lists, an ftp site (ftp.ahip.getty.edu/pub/mesl) and a project WWW site (http://www.ahip.getty.edu/mesl) eight working groups are addressing issues ranging from Faculty use of digital material, to the development of a model site license. The project is managed by a Project Director, Jennifer Trant, and advised by a Management Committee comprised of Howard Besser, University of Michigan, David Bearman, Archives and Museums Informatics, Maxwell Anderson, Art Gallery of Ontario and the Association of Art Museum Directors Information Technology Committee, and Clifford Lynch of the University of California .
Participating institutions, which were selected through a competitive Call for Participation, are:
Fowler Museum of Cultural History at the University of California, Los Angeles
The George Eastman House, Rochester, New York
The Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts
The Library of Congress, Washington, DC
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas;
The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC
The National Museum of American Art, Washington, DC.
American University, Washington, DC
Columbia University, New York, New York
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint, Michigan University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
Each institution has fielded an interdisciplinary project team. At participating universities, staff from departments including computer services, art history, instructional technology and the library are collaborating on the creation of local delivery systems. On the museum side, the preparation and delivery of images and data involves teams from information technology, registration, photo services, education, and curatorial departments. Over 150 individuals from 14 institutions are committing time and expertise to the project.
Both university and museum participants are surveying the impact of MESL on the existing system of visual information acquisition, provision and use. Staff roles are changing, technology is being integrated into traditional functions, and new capabilities are being developed. As a result the project is surfacing new and changing cost centers as well as new benefits.
From its conception, MESL participants have reexamined all of the elements of the existing system by which educational institutions gain access to information about cultural heritage collections. Content providers and users are collaborating to design a new system, which works to their mutual benefit, and delivers quality visual and textual information to the educational community. Such a re-engineering of the information delivery process is essential to break the current log-jam which has resulted in a dearth of information available on educational networks.
The present MESL project has influenced the working processes of both museums and universities.
Museums are reassessing their systems for:
* creating museum documentation in both text and image form
* storing and providing museum information
* administering intellectual property rights
* interchanging data with universities
Universities are reexamining their systems for:
* addressing intellectual property concerns
* acquiring of visual materials
* creating and storing collections of visual materials
* providing access to images
* using images in classrooms
* providing images for student and faculty research
In addition, the relationships between universities and museums are changing. Digital communications have enabled the development of relationships between university researchers and museum curators, and between museum educators and educators in other circumstances. The availability of museum data in digital form has the potential to change both who uses cultural heritage information and why they use it.
While the seven museums participating in the project have extensive collections, they are by no means comprehensive. In order to achieve the full potential of the digital delivery of museum information to the educational community, additional museums will have to be added. For a system of site licensing to support the provision of quality content at a reasonable cost, more than the seven current participants must subscribe. Alternative strategies for the expansion and extension of the current project, beyond June of 1997, are being investigated. Any such extension would have to be grounded in a deeper understanding of both the costs and the benefits of the system in both the US and abroad.
The MESL project provides an ideal test-bed for the study of the economics of networked information distribution. Analyzing the costs and benefits of the distribution of museum information within the MESL context will also add to our appreciation of the economics of digital libraries. Few studies have been conducted which identify and analyze costs and benefits across an entire information distribution system; with the collaboration of information suppliers (museums) and information users (universities) we are able to look at various points along the value chain, and assess the costs and benefits of the introduction of a new technology - digital imaging. MESL also provides the opportunity to gather statistics from a group of institutions, and to assess the structural impact of the re-engineering of information delivery.
This proposal outlines a twelve-month study of the costs and benefits of the networked distribution of digital museum information for educational use, to take place between June 1996 and June 1997. Design of data-gathering and analysis of data will take place in UC Berkeley's School of Information Management & Systems and the Berkeley Multimedia Research Center. The study will take advantage of the existing MESL collaboration, and will utilize professionals from the 14 participating MESL institutions as well as the communications and collaborative structures that MESL has already established.
The study will proceed in a phased manner by:
1) establishing the baseline costs and perceived value of the existing mechanisms for distribution of museum images and data for educational use (primarily slide libraries)
2) identifying the present user population and defining use patterns for existing user groups (in the slide libraries)
3) determining the costs of collection, storage, cataloging and distribution for digital images
4) identifying the user population and use patterns for existing and new users of the networked information source
5) analyzing the benefits of the transition to digital delivery, in terms of cost effectiveness, costs avoided, and increased usage.
The impact of the use of images in classrooms -- and across campus networks for research and individual study -- will be evaluated and measured using a combination of quantitative methods, including system transaction monitoring and survey questionnaires (on-line or pencil and paper). These studies will be supported by qualitative information gathered from observation, interviews, and other interactions with users and potential users of the systems, to gain a fuller picture of how system use, instruction, and learning are affected, if at all, by the introduction of digital image libraries.
The appended documents entitled Framework of Measurement and Data Elements to Measure represent a full suite of possible criteria to measure and evaluate. MESL Project Coordinators have reviewed these documents and are providing feedback on which statistics can be gathered and what units of measurement must be used. These will be reviewed by the study's management team who will decide which will actually be measured as part of the study, and how to ensure that these are measured consistently across all participating institutions.
Existing Analog Systems, Users and Uses
The examination of analog photographic image distribution will focus primarily on University slide libraries, their cost centers, and use patterns. Survey data will be gathered to document the costs in the analog photographic distribution chain (such as the photography, reproduction, distribution, and rights management costs incurred by museums, or the image creation costs incurred by slide libraries). This will provide necessary baseline data to examine the impact of the digital distribution of images. (Appendix A outlines the cost centers for Slide Libraries.)
Survey research and interviews will be employed to identify how the various user groups use the images as well as to identify certain uses that are prohibitively expensive under this distribution scheme (because of spatial and temporal limits on access to the collection, the cost to the user of having to go to the library, the difficulty of reproducing the image, etc.). The user population will be primarily students, faculty, and researchers in the areas of art history and cultural studies. (However, we expect the user domain for digital images to be much larger than that for slides, and intend to measure that as well.)
A number of the slide libraries should also be able to provide time-series data, from existing records. These statistics covering many years of use may prove valuable in trying to determine whether the on-line delivery systems are having an impact on slide collection use.
Digital Delivery Systems, Users and Uses
The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project provides us with a unique opportunity to examine costs and uses of digital images delivered over campus networks. Costs associated with various steps along the distribution chain (for the museums' creation of the images and accompanying text, for the images and text to be distributed to the Universities, and for the Universities to make these available to their users). The fact that the digital delivery environment at each institution is different offers us a great opportunity to find commonalties that exist independent of the delivery design. But this heterogeneity makes the method for data-gathering less straightforward, and will force us to rely upon a variety of data-gathering methods.
New uses enabled by this environment, due to the decrease in the costs associated with these uses, will be identified. (For example, students who can now afford to work on images at night, instructors who can afford to overlay images to illustrate important themes, researchers from other disciplines who can now access art images from their office, students who can afford to access images not in their books, etc.) Use will vary tremendously between different user groups and purposes (a graduate student required to use images in a homework assignment, a faculty member doing research, an undergraduate from the sciences just browsing); any study of use must be able to isolate user groupings and purposes of use.
The measurement of amount of use and of user satisfaction are also key to understanding the increased opportunities offered by the use of a digital delivery methodology. In addition, as several educational institutions are located close to participating museums, we will have the opportunity to compare use of the original works of art within the museum with the use of digital images of these works (to begin to address questions like "when can surrogate digital images substitute for a trip to the museum?" and "will viewing surrogate digital images inspire people to go and see the original in the museum?").
Data Collection Methodology
Cost Measurement will consist of a quantitative study which will both compile pre-existing data (such as slide library statistics) and gather new data. The various stages in the creation and distribution process will be analyzed, identifying cost centers, and creation of consistent units of measurement.
Usage Measurement will involve a mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Qualitative dialogue with instructors, students, and support staff in museums and on campuses about the role of images in instruction (in Art History departments, Art & Design, as well as other humanities and social science disciplines) will supplement the collection of server statistics and the analysis of system transaction log information.
A critical issue for such a large multi-institutional project is which items should be measured and how they can and should be measured. Because thus far each site has taken its own approach in defining of units of measurement, this study cannot simply compile and analyze existing data from the participants. What we measure must be based upon what the institutions are capable of measuring. Decisions of what to measure and how to measure it must be made with careful consideration of what is desirable and what is possible. These decisions will be made by the study management team after close consultation with the MESL participants who have both put in place the existing data-gathering mechanisms and who will be responsible for carrying out data-gathering as part of the study.
The MESL Evaluation Committee and the Measurement Committee have identified a large number of data elements that might be measured (see Appendices A and B). Participating institutions have responded to a preliminary survey indicating what units of measurement they use and how easy it will be to retool current automated data-gathering instruments. After first deciding what major questions need to be addressed, one of the first tasks of the study management team will be to compile these responses and to decide how to rectify the fact that many of the institutions already gather much of this data using different units of measurement. Data collection funds will be used to change some automated data-gathering instruments to reflect consistent units of measurement between sites.
Standards for measurement and measuring instruments such as questionnaires will be developed centrally (by the Methodology Expert and the PostDoc researcher in consultation with the rest of the study management team). Data-gathering at each site will be administered by members of the MESL Evaluation and Measurement Committees at that site, with overall coordination and supervision by the PI and the Methodology PostDoc.
A combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches are needed to understand the cost and use of this visual information. The relative balance between the approaches will be decided after a careful study and comparison of which data-gathering methods are possible within each institution.
Wherever possible, automated data-gathering techniques will be used. Frequency and patterns of use, system load, etc. can be measured using this technique. This capability allows some determination of what people are searching for, when they
perform accesses, and (very generally) where they access from. Depending upon local system capabilities, we may also be able to use these methods to obtain some data by user groups, but most systems thus far implemented cannot definitively determine user discipline, status, or specifically what users do with the image. Password access would allow for more detailed studies of individual use. It would allow for the usage patterns to be tracked against demographic profiles. Several universities are willing to develop password-based access for a limited time period. This will allow us to determine user discipline and status.
Questionnaires will be used extensively as survey research instruments. Similar questionnaires will be administered to users of slide libraries and to users of the on-line delivery systems in order to compare use of online resources to conventional use. In addition, questionnaires can help us examine purposes of use, types of use, user characteristics, and user preferences.
Brief on-line questionnaires will also allow the determination of user discipline, status, and purpose (e.g. faculty, student doing a class assignment, etc.). Most of the universities are willing (for a limited time) to request that users fill out a more extensive on-line questionnaire, related to their use of the system. Together this survey data will provide a rich profile of the users of information.
Interviews and local focus groups are the only way we can explore complexities such as user purposes; differences in use patterns due to decreased costs; reasons for user behavior changes; reactions to increased capabilities; and perceptions and evaluations of the system's content, interface, and functions, etc. Data from users of both systems will be particularly valuable when comparing slide library cost and use to digital delivery cost and use. Though these qualitative methods are less systematic than quantitative methods, they can be very useful in uncovering user reactions. And they are the only way we can begin to explore user perceptions of how automated delivery of visual information may contribute to the transformation of scholarship and work.
Other methods will also be used to help identify areas that might be overlooked by quantitative measurements. We will take advantage of the fact that each of the implementations present the users with easy ways to make comments or ask questions about the system. These comments and questions will be analyzed to identify certain types of uses that may have been missed in the initial survey design.
The information collected will be analyzed in order to identify costs associated with particular points in the process of both conventional and digital distribution of visual information. In particular, the cost accounting necessary to identify the fixed costs and variable costs associated with digital distribution will be collected. The fixed costs are the costs involved in creating, archiving, and maintaining the digital materials and are independent of the magnitude of usage; the variable costs depend on how many users there are and the ways in which they use the materials.
Such cost accounting is necessary to evaluate potential new uses of the materials, since incremental uses will incur only variable costs. A conservative cost-benefit calculation would focus on whether digitized materials are more effective for current uses; a less conservative analysis would examine the costs and benefits attached to new uses. We intend to provide the cost figures necessary to conduct both sorts of studies. In particular, such cost figures can be used to determine break-even operating levels; e.g., the minimum number users there must be under various pricing assumptions to cover the cost of providing the image database.
In addition to this standard breakdown of fixed and variable costs, we can also attempt to calculate costs of providing materials in different qualities (e.g. resolutions), on different media, and in different formats. Providing a ``product line'' of different qualities may be a useful way to support differential pricing for revenue enhancement.
The study will be conducted by an inter-disciplinary team of academic researchers drawn from the fields of economics, information science, and image database construction and use. Administration and analysis for the study will be centered in the University of California at Berkeley's School of Information Management & Systems, and the Berkeley Multimedia Research Center. MESL project participants from the campuses and repositories will be involved with data collection at each of their own institutions, and the MESL Project Director and MESL Management Committee will assist in both data collection and identification of relevant research questions.
The Core Project Team will consist of:
Principal Investigator: Howard Besser (35%)
Visiting Associate Professor
University of Michigan, School of Information and Library Studies.
(Beginning 7/1/96 will be Visiting Associate Professor at UC Berkeley's School of Information Management & Systems and the Berkeley Multimedia Research Center.)
Dr. Besser is the world's leading authority on Image Databases, has authored more than a dozen works on the subject, and has taught scores of workshops on this topic. In the past he has also been in charge of automation at two museums. Dr. Besser is also a member of the Museum Educational Site Licensing Project Management Committee, and has been a leading member of the Project's Evaluation Committee. He has taught simultaneously at Berkeley and Michigan.
As Principal Investigator, Besser will direct the research project. His expertise in the development of image databases will ensure that the study considers the full range of costs and benefits associated with the introduction of this new technology. Besser will also be responsible for liaison with the MESL Evaluation Committee and will supervise the work of the Methodology Post Doctoral Researcher/Project Coordinator.
Economist: Hal Varian (10%)
UC Berkeley, School of Information Management and Systems.
and Professor in the Haas School of Business and the Department of Economics.
Dr. Varian's recent work has been concerned with the economics of information technology and the information economy. He is fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, the Econometric Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has served as Co-Editor of the American Economic Review and is currently on the editorial boards of several journals. Dr. Varian has published numerous papers in economic theory, industrial organization, financial economics, econometrics and information economics. He is the author of two major economics textbooks which have been translated into 9 languages.
As Project Economist, Varian will identify the elements which should be monitored, and will contribute to the development of comprehensive systems to record information. His participation in the study will be focused in short intensive bursts at the beginning, middle, and end of the project: as part of the team defining what needs to be analyzed and monitored, reviewing the project in midstream, and in analysis of data gathered and the interpretation of results.
Evaluation Methodology Expert: Nancy Van House (15%)
UC Berkeley's School of Information Management and Systems.
Dr. Van House has a long history of research in evaluation of both digital and conventional libraries. Currently, she is leading the user needs assessment and evaluation component of the UC Berkeley Digital Libraries project, one of six projects funded under the NSF/NASA/ARPA Digital Libraries Initiative. This is a multi-disciplinary project to build a Digital Library of the California Environment. She has published extensively on measurement and evaluation. In addition to her many journal articles, she was the co-principal investigator on a Department of Education-funded project that resulted in two books co-authored with Thomas Childers: The Public Library Effectiveness Study and What's Good? Describing Your Public Library's Effectiveness (both American Library Association, 1993). She is the primary author of the two measurement manuals widely used by libraries: Output Measures for Public Libraries (American Library Association, 1987) and Measuring Academic Library Performance: a Practical Approach (American Library Association, 1990).
As Evaluation Methodology Expert, Van House will design and supervise data instrumentation, collection and analysis for the study. She will direct the work of the Methodology Post Doctoral Research in collecting and analyzing the raw data.
Methodology Post Doctoral Researcher (80%)
[to be identified]
Under the direction of the Principal Investigator, coordinates data gathering on participating campuses, and prepares results for analysis. Following the direction of the Evaluation Methodology Expert implements data instrumentation, collection and analysis. Supervises the administration of the study, including the monitoring of budgets and the drafting of reports.
These core project team members will be supported by:
Administrative Assistant (20%)
[to be identified]
Under the supervision of the Methodology Post Doctoral Researcher and the Principal Investigator an administrative assistant will coordinate the administration of the project, including the maintenance of project budgets, and the provision of assistance in drafting reports.
Graduate Student Researcher (20%)
[to be identified]
Under the supervision of the Principal Investigator and the Methodology Post Doctoral Researcher, the Graduate Student Researcher will assist with project research. She will be involved with information gathering and assemblage, development of survey research instruments, and compilation of data for analysis.
Consultant/MESL Evaluation Committee Chair, Beth Sandore (12 days)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MESL's Evaluation Committee represents the different institutions as well as different centers within those institutions (traditional libraries, slide libraries, computer centers, educational technology centers, faculty). Beth Sandore, Chair of MESL's Evaluation Committee will spend approximately one day per month reviewing the project's progress from the standpoint of MESL member institutions. She will try to catch difficult situations before they arise, and will both deal directly with the study's management team and will forward questions to the appropriate Evaluation Committee members. In addition, the Evaluation Committee as a whole will meet with the Project Management Team to discuss the project plan at an early stage in the project.
MESL Project Director, Jennifer Trant (5%)
Getty Art History Information Program
The MESL Project Director will monitor the economic study with an eye to identifying synergies with other on-going and planned MESL activities, ensuring the broadest possible utility of the results, and avoiding duplication of effort.
An Advisory Committee will be constituted to provide overall guidance on the framing of the study (Summer 1996), a critical assessment of the information collection instruments (Fall 1996), and a peer review of the analysis (Spring 1997). Advisory Committee Members will be invited to participate soon as funding has been secured. Individuals recommended (to date) for consideration include: Anne Branscomb, Harvard University; George Chressanthis, Mississippi State; Malcolm Getz, Vanderbilt University; Bruce Kingma, SUNY Albany; Jeff Mason, University of Michigan; Paul Evan Peters, Coalition for Networked Information; Pam Samuelson, University of Pittsburgh; and Marvin Sirbu, Carnegie Mellon University.
The Advisory Committee will meet with the key project participants: Principal Investigator, Economist, Evaluation Methodology Expert, Post Doctoral Researcher, Evaluation Committee Chair, and MESL Project Director.
Data Analysis Service
Under the direction of the Methodology Expert and the Methodology Post Doctoral Researcher, basic data input and analysis (frequency distribution, chi-squared, correlations, etc. ) will be handled by a data analysis center (such as the University of Illinois' Library Research Center).
The study's management team will be responsible for designing the study and data collection instruments, while MESL project participants will actually carry out the data collection. The project participants are deeply committed to this project, and we are proposing that significant study funds be allocated to supplement data collection at each participant institution (primarily devoted to re-engineering planned data collection to make measuring units consistent between the institutions). Participants will be actively involved in the collection of baseline data, and in the focus groups brought together to identify cost factors and evaluate benefits.
We plan to support three meetings of the Project Advisory Committee (one at the beginning, middle, and end of the project). To minimize expenses, we will try to hold these in conjunction with other professional meetings where several committee members will be present. We are budgeting approximately $7,000 for each of these meetings.
Because this project involves 14 participating institutions and data will be gathered at each of them, proper coordination requires site visits by members of the study management team involved in data collection and coordination. MESL project participants have developed very good distant working relationships using a combination of telephone, Fedex, and fax communications to supplement face-to-face meetings. But to ensure consistent data collection and proper methodology, we will require approximately $20,000 in travel funds for site visits by the PI, the PostDoc and the Methodology Expert.
Supplies & Expenses
Most supplies and expenses will be used for communications between the study management team and the MESL participants. Wherever possible electronic communication will be used. But it will be necessary to supplement this with telephone, fax, and Fedex communications. Other purchased budgeted for include several cheap cassette tape recorders and a tape transcriber to be used for interview data.
Printing and Publication
It is important to disseminate study results as widely as possible. Dissemination venues will include electronic means (such as the WorldWide Web) and a print publication.
Four phases of activity have been identified.
Project Team (PI, Economist, Methodology Expert) develops details of project plan
Define data collection instruments for recording of baseline data
- survey existing documentation of costs for slide libraries
- identify consistent set of cost element
- create instrument to gather cost data
-draft questionnaires and interview and focus group protocols
Define metering methodologies for recording of usage data
- identification of common elements possible to meter
- analysis of institutional responses to MESL Measurement
document (appendix B)
- development of core set of metering elements
- definition of data dictionary of metering elements
First Advisory Committee Meeting
- review project plan and data collection instruments
MESL Project Meeting reviews goals of study
-automated data collection instruments (appendix A)
-metering implemented and tested at one institution
-questionnaires and interview schedules
Identify sites for statistical data collection
Decide duration and timing for online questionnaires
Identify interview targets
Train interviewers, baseline data collectors, and focus group leaders
Implement statistical data collection instruments
Collect baseline data for slide library costs
Administer questionnaires and interviews
Collect statistical data
Conduct focus groups on each campus
Document data collection methodology
MESL Project Meeting to review preliminary results from data collection and focus groups
Analysis of baseline costs
Data collation and analysis, and development of report
Advisory Committee Meeting to review conclusions
MESL Meeting to review Conclusions
Report on study issued
Salaries Principal Investigator - H. Besser 25% time, 18 months Economist - H. R. Varian 7% time, 18 months. Methodology Expert - N. Van House 10% time, 12 months. Post Doctoral Researcher/Coordinator 50% time, 18 months Graduate Student Researcher 25% time, 18 months Administrative Assistant 13% time, 18 months Consulting Evaluation Committee Chair - Sandore Services Data Collection $53,615 Data Analysis $20,000 Printing and publication $15,000 Total Services $85,000 Travel Project Advisory Committee Travel (3 meetings @$7,000 each) $21,000 Project Management Travel (site visits and meetings for PI, PostDoc, Methodology Expert) $20,000 Total Travel $41,000 Supplies & Expense Telephone, fax, mailing, etc. $6,520 TOTAL DIRECT COST $243,842
Complied by MESL Evaluation Committee and MESL Measurement Committee 11/95
1. Record baseline data
Document teaching processes before the introduction of digital imaging
Examine how faculty taught same course before digitized images
Record expectations/output/behavior of students before digitized images
Document visual collection development strategies
Assess costs involved with traditional slide collections, in order to compare them with digital collection costs (Number 6 below).
Gather statistics on usage patterns, circulation, and collection development for traditional slide collections.
2. Document MESL data collection and distribution
Record number and type of participating MESL institutions
Record number and type of images and text files distributed
Record where images distributed
Record distribution schedule
Record works documented
Record size of database
3. Document MESL implementations on each campus
Record hardware, software and network used to deliver images and text
Record image and data manipulation activities at a local level
Record technological infrastructure on each campus
4. Track Use
Gather statistics on distribution of MESL images and data
Identify where and how are MESL images used
(in classroom, outside, proportion?)
Record number of images accessed (hits per image)
Identify public relations/faculty development efforts to encourage image use
Identify innovative/non-traditional uses of the MESL images
Document possible user community on each campus
5. Track and Assess Standards
Describe data distribution format
Describe image formats used by museums
Assess comprehensiveness and interpretation of Data Dictionary
Evaluate data provided
(accuracy, utility, comprehensiveness)
Assess image quality requirements for various uses
(instructional use in the classroom, individual study related to course work, focused research projects)
Recommend needed standards
Recommend required guidelines for the interpretation of standards
6. Record costs
Record baseline costs for image collection creation and maintenance
Record costs for `conventional' image creation and distribution
Identify costs for digital image creation
Identify costs for image and text distribution
Track variances with introduction of digital images
Record costs of MESL data distribution
Identify costs are associated with particular enhancements to activities or data
7. Assess impact
Identify changes in faculty/student communication
Track changes in grades/student evaluation of courses
Identify needed tools and software/hardware/network environments
Compare courses taught in "conventional" ways with those using MESL images
Format and teaching methods
Use of visual information
8. Identify future requirements
Assess the market (K-12, universities., commercial) and its impact on activities
Review process and procedures considering implications of scale
Complied by MESL Evaluation Committee and MESL Measurement Committee 11/95
An outline of categories of measurement related to museum and institutional activities within MESL is presented below, organized around a framework which identifies management activities separately from measurement activities, and groups questions by respondent. Each category includes both Baseline Measurements, which document how things are done prior to MESL, and incremental measurements, which document the impact of MESL.
A uniform framework will enable the identification of all criteria to be measured or evaluated in the project. Some or all of these criteria may be of use in more than one type of activity. For example, usage statistics may support both an economic analysis and a study of the impact of the availability of digital images on the use of visual resources. The categories represented below reflect the broadest possible range of measurement or analysis MESL could undertake. It is unrealistic to think all this information will be provided or analyzed. Requirements must be prioritized to focus our efforts.
The Metrics break down into the following areas:
1. Collection Measures
2. Delivery Systems Measures
3. Instructional measures
4. Project Measures
5. Intellectual Property Measures
1. Collection Measures
1a. Collection metrics:
Museum Collections Documentation:
Number of objects in collection
Number of objects with documentation
extensiveness of documentation
Number of objects with photography
type of photographs available
Number of objects with digital images
characteristics of digital images available
planned pace of digitization
Number of works in collection with unclear intellectual property rights
MESL Museum Distribution:
Number of images contributed by each museum, per distribution
Number of images actually mounted by each institution, per distribution
Number of (repository-supplied) text records mounted each institution
extensiveness of University use of database-fielded text
extensiveness of University use of full-text
Number and extensiveness of enhancements to text records by Universities
Visual Resources Collections:
number and type of images in visual resource collection
estimated cost per image, of acquisition, processing, documentation, indexing
average annual growth
annual slide/image acquisition budget for past three years
Number of Staff needed
director/curator: budget, hiring/firing staff, attending professional meetings
administrative - annual salary (payroll, invoices)
catalogers - annual salary
data Entry - (optional) - hourly
filers - hourly
binders - hourly
photographic services - annual salary (in house photography)
bar-coding - hourly
Description of Facilities
furniture -- inc. Slide and Card Catalog file cabinets
number of Square Feet
storage for Slides/photographs/AV equipment/unprocessed slides
number of outlets needed
dark Room and Copy Photography space
technical services area
computing equipment and software
Visual Resources Collections (cont.):
who has access to collection/number of users by class
Faculty, Curators, Outsiders, Students, Other dept. members
registration/identification of borrowers
payment for services/invoices
new User orientation
hours of operation
key access by some staff
circulation/filing/processing statistics compilation
inventory and shelf reading needed
number of circulation desk staff needed
reserves and recalls
ways users search for slides
way usage is tracked
Additional services provided
AV equipment and set up/reservations
study stations for students/researchers
reference Assistance (and books needed)
Supplies costs/needs (as general or specific as feasible to measure)
slide mounts - Gepe or other anti-Newton
compressed Air or canned
scissors, brushes, exacto knives
boxes for holding slides
film for processing and chemicals
guide card materials and circ drop cards
standard office supplies
Overlap of slide collection and MESL images:
Changes in slide usage as a result of MESL image availability?
Integration of remotely available images into teaching collections
1b. Collection management:
Estimated cost, per object, of documentation
Estimated cost, per "sitting" of photography
Estimated creation cost, per image of digital images
Estimated equipment costs for equipment to digitize
(Color printers, zip drives, slide scanners, flat bed scanners, copy photography equipment, writable CD ROM drives, Photo CD facilities, disk space, etc.)
Estimated annual maintenance cost, per image of digital images
Estimated cost of generating MESL data set
Estimated staff training costs
Annual cost of collections management systems (hardware, software, personnel)
Annual cost of network access (hardware, software, personnel)
Cost of digitization in each fiscal year
Storage and maintenance costs per digital image per year
Museum Image Use:
# of museum staff accesses to MESL data (other than for MESL administration)
# of museum staff accesses to all data
# of museum staff accesses to all data in their collection
# feedback on MESL objects from educational institutions
# objects in MESL distribution published electronically by museum
# objects in MESL distribution for which electronic rights were granted in latest year
Annual cost of image management systems
Annual cost of network access (hardware, software, personnel)
Cost of digitization in latest fiscal year
Storage and maintenance costs per digital image per year (backlog?)
Incremental costs associated with adding images
Startup cost of mounting MESL data set (hardware, software, personnel)
Incremental costs of supplemental MESL data distributions
Costs of training
Storage and maintenance costs per digital image per year
2. Delivery Systems Measures
2a. Systems metrics:
Number of accesses of image files:
Periodic totals (suggested. monthly) sorted by museum
by specific user
by demographic characteristics of user
by purpose of use
by class of image
number downloaded and/or printed
Image quality profile:
Images made available
Methodology for processing
2a. Systems metrics: (cont.):
Date/time of access
Number of bytes transferred per access
Duration of transfer per access
Access restricted by
user's workstation capabilities? (explain and describe)
classes of images?
quality of images
simultaneous requests for an image?
downloading and/or printing?
In what combination?
2b. Systems management:
Number, type and location of electronic classrooms
Number, type and location of study labs
Number and type of library workstations
Number and type of student-owned computers
Institutional network profile
Average network bandwidth
Ave. WWW access bandwidth
Ave. bandwidth of off-campus accesses to campus network
Institutional networked storage capacity
MESL storage requirements
Cost (include. staff) of storage for MESL images
Cost (include staff) and time spent on serving MESL images
Cost (include staff) and time spent on systems integration (data loading, cleanup, interface development, database structure, software integration, etc.)
3. Instructional measures
3a. Instructional metrics:
Number of courses offered using images
Using digital images
Digital images required?
Number of Students
Using digital images
Digital images required?
Number of slides used for each course currently (by faculty/grad students)
Using digital images
Digital images required?
Courses using MESL images
3b. Instructional Management:
Scope of Use
year of students
type of use - projection, analysis, report/essay writing
location of use - classroom, lab, home
number of images
presentations, hypermedia, local web sites, outreach programs, publications
Staff available for faculty support
Training materials developed
documentation used in training faculty, staff, and students in the logistics of locating and using the images for classroom and individual study (e.g., cheat sheets, point-of-use materials, lecture notes/presentations) both brief descriptions, and if possible, attach copies
Curriculum development costs - time and $
Class-time spent on training students in how to use the technology
impact on teaching of content
Summaries of course evaluations administered locally or globally that included questions pertinent to use of digital images in the classroom and the impact on instruction and learning.
courses not using digital images vs.
courses using digital images
4. Project Measures
4a. Project metrics:
Number of museums providing content
Number and type institutions providing access to images on networks
Number and sponsoring institutions
roles and extent of sponsorship
Number and type of activities involved in centralized communication-
listserv & archive
specific group meetings
conference presentations, etc.
4b. Project management:
% of time
cost of local/national project coordination activities
% of time local/national project activities
Project Team members
% of time
Working Group Members
% of time
What is the coordinator's perception of project priority?
Relation to other similar projects?
Perceived benefits of project participation?
5. Intellectual Property Measures
5a. Intellectual property metrics:
Requests for rights to reproduce images
% educational use
Software site licenses
Cost of obtaining copyright permissions from a book to a slide
Cost of obtaining copyright permission to make a slide from a book
Need to obtain copyright permissions to make a slide from a book? (within past five years)
Description of the way(s) in which you keep track of the permissions which you request/receive.
Content/Information site licenses
specific titles if available
5b. Intellectual property management:
Fee scale for types of uses
Cost of processing request for permission (total cost/total number of requests)
Annual fees paid for rights
Copyright Clearance Center fees paid (annual sum)
Other site license or rights fees
type (ASCAP, theater royalties, software licensing, etc.)
Rights based earnings
type (copyright, patent, software licensing, etc.)
Ave. cost of processing licenses, fee payments, royalties, etc.
Annual fees paid for rights
The following annotated bibliography presents an overview of the literature, and provides background for the study of the economics of information distribution within the MESL Project.
Recent General Texts
Ravi Kalakota and Andrew B. Whinston, Frontiers of Electronic Commerce
B.Kingma, Information Economics, forthcoming (Littleton CO, Libraries Unlimited, 1995?)
Steven A. Lippman and David Levine eds., The Economics of Information (Brookfield VT, E.Elgar, 1995) 2 vols.
Jana Varlejas ed. The Economics of Information in the 1990's (New Brunswick NJ, Rutgers, 1995)
Art Libraries And Librarians
Art Libraries Society of North America. Standards for Art Libraries and Fine Arts Slide Collections: Occasional Papers No. 2. Tuscon, Arizona: Art Libraries Society of North America, 1983.
Philip Pacey, ed. A Reader in Art Librarianship. New York: IFLA Publications, 1985.
Philip Pacey, "How Art Students Use Libraries," in A Reader in Art Librarianship. ed. by Philip Pacey. New York: IFLA Publications, 1985. p. 51-55. Reprinted from Art Libraries Journal, Spring 1982.
Joanne Waxman, "Building an Art Library from Scratch," Current Issues in Fine Arts Collection Development; Occasional Papers No. 3. Tucson, Arizona: Art Libraries Society of North America, 1994. p. 35-6 discusses the development of the Portland School of Art Library and the issues of time, money, space and staff which needed to be addressed.
ACRL, Audiovisual Committee, "Guidelines for Audiovisual Services in Academic Libraries: A draft." College and Research Library News. no. 5, May 1986. p. 333-335.
Norine Cashman, Slide Buyers' Guide : an International Directory of Slide
Sources for Art and Architecture : 5th ed. Littleton, Co. : Libraries Unlimited, 1985.
Shannon Crary et. al., "The Advances of Technology: A Case Study of Two Midwest Academic Slide Libraries", The Katharine Sharp Review no. 1, Summer 1995 (http://edfu.lis.uiuc.edu/review/summer1995/crary.html)
Betty Jo Irvine, Slide Libraries: a Guide for Academic Institutions, Museums, and Special Collections, 2nd ed. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1979.
"Profiles," Visual Resources Association Bulletin. v, 21. no. 3, Fall 1994.
"Profiles," Visual Resources Association Bulletin. v, 21. no. 4, Winter 1994.
Helene Roberts, "The Image Library," in A Reader in Art Librarianship. ed. by Philip Pacey. New York: IFLA Publications, 1985. p. 155-161.
Nancy Shelby Schuller, Management for Visual Resources Collections, 2nd ed. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1989.
Brenda White. Slide Collections: a Survey of their Organization in Libraries in the Fields of Architecture, Building, and Planning. Edinburgh : Brenda White, 21 Morningside Gardens, 1967.
Image Databases and Image based Services
Marrying images and database services involves more than search and retrieval functionality and could be a key factor in the success or failure of a future digital image distribution mechanism.
Elizabeth Antrim, "Working Together to Create an Image Database on the Internet or You Can Teach an Old Slide Curator New Tricks." Visual Resources Association Bulletin. v. 22, no. 2. Summer 1995. p. 36.
Howard Besser, "Adding an Image Database to an Existing Library and Computer Environment: Design and Technical Considerations, in Susan Stone and Michael Buckland (eds.), Studies in Multimedia (Proceedings of the 1991 Mid- Year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science), Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc, 1992. p. 31-45.
--. "Advanced Applications of Imaging: Fine Arts," Journal of the American Society of Information Science. September 1991, p. 589-596.
--. "The Changing Role of Photographic Collections With the Advent of Digitization," Discussion Paper for Working Group for Digital Image in Curatorial Practice, George Eastman House, June 4, 1994. Also appearing in Katherine Jones-Garmil (ed.), Museums and Emerging Technologies, Washington: American Association of Museums, 1996.
--. "Image Databases," Database. v. 8, no. 2, April 1995, p. 12-19.
--. "Image Databases Update: Issues Facing the Field, Resources, and Projects," in Mimi King (ed.). Going Digital: Electronic Images in the Library Catalog and Beyond, Chicago: Library Information Technology Association, 1995.
-- "Visual Access to Visual Images: The UC Berkeley Image Database Project," Library Trends. v. 38, no. 4, Spring 1990. p. 787-98.
Howard Besser and Jennifer Trant, An Introduction to Imaging: Issues in Constructing an Image Database. Santa Monica: Getty Art History Information Program, 1995.
"The Computerized Art Image Study Resource at Duke University," Visual Art Resources Bulletin. v. 21, no. 1, Spring 1994. p. 27-29 describes the image databases available for art history students and the equipment and time spent in developing this resource.
Jennifer Durran, "Developments in Electronic Image Databases for Art History," Visual Resources Association Bulletin. v, 21. no. 4, Winter 1994.
p. 15-24 discusses developments in digital image databases in libraries, museums and unversities.
Melia M. Hoffman et. al, "The RightPages(TM) Service," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v.44#8, Sept. 1993, p. 446-452 discusses image-based information services at AT&T Bell Laboratories, including functionality and the rights negotiation issues involved.
"A Jewel of a System," Chain Store Age Executive vol. 71 #1, Jan 1995, p. 69-74 describes the way in which Fortunoff's uses an image-based retail sales system to sell jewelry and its essential functionality for consumers.
Seth Shulman, "Digital Museums," Technology Review v.97 #8, 1994 p. 20-22 identifies museums using digital imaging systems and their purposes.
Christine Sundt, Visual Resources Special Issue: Issues in Electronic Imaging. v. X, no. 1, 1994. This issue includes articles on the literature of Image Databases and useful project summaries.
Jennifer Trant, "The Museum Educational Site Licensing (MESL) Project: An Update," Spectra, Winter 1995-96.
--. "Framing the Picture: Standards for Imaging Systems". International Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums, San Diego, California, October, 1995.
--. "The Getty AHIP Imaging Initiative: A Status Report," Electronic Imaging and the Visual Arts (EVA), The National Gallery, London, July, 1995. Also appearing in Archives and Museums Informatics, Cultural Heritage Information Quarterly, Vol. 9, no. 3, 1995, p. 262-278.
--. "The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project," Spectra, Winter 1994-95, p. 19-21.
"Why Duke University Medical Center uses ATM to transport medical images," I/S Analyzer Case Studies, v.34#7, Jul. 1995, p. 7-11 discusses the problems of integrating a campus network of images in a mission critical application.
Valuing Multimedia and Digital Libraries in Education
While it is relatively early to be able to say much about the added value of multimedia in education, one of the important underlying questions about the project is obviously just how beneficial multimedia and digital technology will be in education and, not incidentally, whether providing this facility will turn out to be an attraction in recruiting students.
Howard Besser, "Multimedia and Networks Teach about Museums: Issues in Maintaining a WWW Site to Facilitate Distance Learning," in David Bearman (ed.), Multimedia Computing andMuseums (Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums), Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics, 1995, p. 124-140.
-- and Maria Bonn, "Issues and Challenges for the Distance-Independent Environment," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, (accepted for pubication, September 1996).
-- and Maria Bonn, "The Impact of Distance-Independent Education," Journal of the American Society forInformation Science, (accepted for publication, September 1996).
Joe K. Campbell et. al, "Constructing educational courseware using NCSA Mosaic and the World Wide Web," Computer Networks & ISDN Systems, v.27 #6, April 1995, p. 887-896 examines the value of modularized courseware.
Charles R. McClure and and Cynthia L. Lopata, Assessing the Academic Networked Environment: Strategies and Options, Coalition for Networked Information, 1996. (http://istweb.syr.edu/Project/Faculty/McClureAbstract2.html)
Gary Marchionini and Hermann Maurer, "The roles of digital libraries in teaching and learning," Communications of the ACM, v.38 #4, April 1995,
p. 67-75 discusses the kinds of added value in digital library networks.
Michael J. Martin and Timothy G. Taylor, "Evaluation of a multimedia extension program in Honduras," Economic Development & Cultural Change, v.43 #4, July 1995 p. 821-834 explores how multimedia information added value to educational programs and taught farmers concrete, income producing skills.
Jonathan Purday, "The British Library's Initiatives for Access project," Communications of the ACM, v.38 #4, April 1995, p. 65-66 describes multimedia educational material available from the British Library.
Beth Sandore, Sharon Clark, and William Mischo, "The University of Illinois," in Campus Strategies for Libraries and Electronic Information,
ed. by Caroline Arms, Digital Press, 1990, p. 117-141.
Valuing Intellectual Property
Methods for determining the value of intellectual property are specialized and often discipline specific.
Peter A. Alces and Harold F. See, The Commercial Law of Intellectual Property, reviewed by Robert P. Merges, Michigan Law Review, v.93, May 1995, p. 1570-1615 provides examples of pricing approaches.
Anne Wells Branscomb, "Public and Private domains of information," American Society for Information Science Bulletin, vol. 21 #2, Dec/Jan 1994/95, p. 14-18 examines the economic costs associated with discovering, collating, processing and presenting information for use and how these are protected in intellectual property law.
Liz Cratchley, "Managing a large trade mark portfolio," Managing Intellectual Property Trade Mark Yearbook, 1995, p. 12-14 discusses costs of protection, negotiation, monitoring.
Allan Feldman, "The Ultimate Strategy," Managing Intellectual Property, v.7#42, Sept. 1994 p. 39-42 discusses licensing cost/benefits/income.
Jon D. Gold, "An electronic publishing model for academic publishers," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 45 #10, Dec. 1994, p. 760-764 explores cost issues in small run publications and the potential of electronic formats to deliver individuated forms with higher educational value. Includes a discussion of the economics of providing uncopyright protected copies.
Lambeth Hochwald, "Swapping fonts," Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, v.23#19, 1995 p. 203-204 reports disputes between magazine production professions and font manufacturers over the value of fonts as intellectual property because of their availability in non-licensed forms, a dispute not dissimilar to that which universities with slides in the slide libraries would have about digital images of the same items
offered for on-off licensing.
Marcus Jackson, "The Value and Relevance of Information," Canadian Appraiser, v.39 #1 Spring 1995, p. 20-23 discusses methods of valuing information in appraisals.
"Model Agreements Facilitate Music Copyright Compliance," Association Management Nov. 1990, Supplement p. 1,4-5,8 spells out terms of ASCAP and BMI licenses for different settings.
Terje Norderhaug and Juliet M. Oberlind, "Designing a web of intellectual property," Computer Networks & ISDN Systems, v.27 #6, April 1995, p. 1037-1046 explores intellectual property law and its implications for WWW designers, in this case in how they should/could be valuing the intellectual property they create.
Pamela Samuelson, "Copyright and digital libraries," Communications of the ACM v.38 #4, April 1995, p. 15-21 discusses how authors and publishers spread costs over time and the implications of this framework of cost recovery for the planning of digital libraries.
Needs/Usage Assessment for Digital and Non-Digital Environments
Howard Besser, "Adding Analysis Tools to Image Databases: Facilitating Research in Geography & Art History," Proceedings of RIAO 88, March 1988, volume 2, p. 972-990.
--. "Computers for Art Analysis," in R. A. Braden, et al. (ed), Visible & Viable: The Role of Images in Instruction & Communication . (Readings from the 18th Annual Conference of the International Vi sual Literacy Association), Blacksburg, VA: IVLA, 1987.
--. "New Computer Technologies and Social Science Research Methods', in
Lawrence J. McCrank (ed), Databases in the Humanities and Social Sciences
4: (Proceedings of the International Conference on Databases in the
Humanities and Social Sciences), Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc,
1989, p. 62-69.
Richard Ekman, et. al., "University Libraries and Scholarly Communication: A Study Prepared for The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation." Washington, DC: The Association of Research Libraries, November 1992.
Constance Gould. Information Needs in the Humanities: An Assessment.
Stanford, CA: Research Libraries Group, Inc., 1988.
Nancy A. Van House, "A Time Allocation Theory of Public Library Use." Library and Information Science Research , v. 5:, no. 2, Summer 1983. p. 365-84.
--. "User Needs Assessment and Evaluation for the UC Berkeley Electronic Environmental Library Project." Digital Libraries '95: The Second International Conference on the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, June 11-13, 1995, Austin, TX.
-- and Mark Butler, and Lisa Schiff, "Needs Assessment and Evaluation of a Digital Environmental Library: the Berkeley Experience," The First ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, Bethesda, MD, March 20-23, 1996.
-- and Mark Butler, and Lisa Schiff, "The UC Berkeley Electronic Environmental Library Project: Needs Assessment and Evaluation," ISIC '96: Information Seeking in Context. Tampere, Finland, Aug. 14-16, 1996.
-- and Thomas A. Childers. The Public Library Effectiveness Study, Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1993.
-- and Thomas A. Childers, "The Use of Public Library Roles for Effectiveness Evaluation." Library and Information Science Research v. 16, no. 1, Winter 1994. p. 41-58.
-- and Thomas A. Childers. What's Good? Describing the Public Library's Effectiveness. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1993.
-- and Mary Jo Lynch, Charles R. McClure, Amy Owen, Douglas L. Zweizig, Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1987.
-- and Mary Jo Lynch, Charles R. McClure, Eleanor Jo Rodger, and Douglas L. Zweizig, Output Measures for Public Libraries, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1987.
-- and Charles R. McClure, Beth T. Weil. Measuring Academic Library Performance: a Practical Approach, Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1990.
Copyright Cleared Information Products
The enthusiasm with which trade journals representing parts of the multimedia producer community greet new methods of copyright clearance and the costs of the current system of negotiations for large rights are background to the study. They point to services we need to find out more about, but are not themselves serious sources for data.
Jesse Birnbaum, "Gates Snaps Top Pix." Time. October 23, 1995. p. 107.
Paul Blake, "Copyright-cleared data on Dialog," Information World Review Apr. 1994 #91, p. 10-11 describes the Electronic Redistribution & Archiving (ERA) service which allows immediate negotiation of network licenses to content on Dialog.
Dale Burger, "Copyright Protection System IVY set to roll," Computing Canada, v.21#7, 1995, p. 16 introduces a system sponsored by Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada for royalty collection and protection of copyright.
Drabelle, Dennis Drabelle, "Copyright and Its Constituencies: Reconciling the
Interests of Scholars, Publishers and Librarians." Scholarly
Communication: Notes on Publishing, Library Trends, and Research in the
Humanities, Winter 1986, no. 3.
Frederick Cooper III, "One-stop license shop," Computer Reseller News, Dec. 5 1994 #608, p. 95,102 argues why a copyright clearance facility for multimedia producers is necessary.
"Folio aims to tackle access and copyright," Information World Review, April 1995, n.102, p. 3 announces Folio Corp's joint venture with the Copyright Clearance Center for electronic rights clearance and information metering.
"Getting all your rights in one basket," CIO, Sept/Oct 1995 WebMaster Supplement p. 10 introduces Total Clearance Inc. a company that obtains rights, especially for people putting up Web sites.
Daniel E. Kinnaman, Jones offers free copyright clearance to educators," Technology & Learning, v.15#7 April 1995 p. 53 announces Jones Education Network pre-cleared materials for classroom use.
David Kirkpatrick, "Bill Gates, Part II: The CD-ROM Arrives." Fortune. no. 131, v. 18. February 20, 1995.
Lois Lunin, "IBM announces electronic copyright solutions, Information Today, v.12#5, May 1995 p. 1,3+ announces the IBM Digital Library technology intended to serve as a means for end to end licensing and income recovery for digital images, text and sound.
Jodi Mardesich, "The Digital Foundry finds niche as a solution provider for cyberspace," Computer Reseller, n. 645 Aug. 24 1995, p. 10 describes an interactive catalog prototype and the market study that launched it.
Debby Patz, "Stock Photos go online," Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, v.22#22 December 1, 1993, p. 34 announces Kodak Picture Exchange and discusses Seymour from Picture Network International and Knight-Ridder's PressLink.
Faye Rice, "Mona Lisa for mouse potatoes," Fortune v.129 #12, June 13, 1994 p. 16 reports on Continuum Productions acquisition of museum rights and plans for end to end licensing.
Deborah Russell, "Firm brings video Kiosks to campus," Billboard, v.106 #34, Aug. 20 1994, p. 36 introduces the Interactive Kiosk On-Campus Network (IKON) music library from the interactive media firm Sybarite Media Inc.
Jenna Schnuer, "New service aims to simplify e-rights process," Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management v.24#12, July 1, 1995 p. 24 announces the Authors Registry a database of rights holders and compensation redistribution service to solve transactional bookkeeping problems in rights clearance.
Ronnie Susshan, "Digital Stock Photos," Macworld, vol.10 #2, February 1993, p. 136-143 explores the uses of PressLink which provides a digital image/graphics base for licensing.
"UMI's ProQuest PowerPages," Information Today, v.11#5, May 1994, 25-26 greets a service for getting copyright cleared page images of current literature.
Non-Use Measured Fee structures
The calculations behind site licensing and subscription as mechanisms for pricing are fundamental to the success of future collective administration initiatives. These articles identify others involved in such analysis more than they actually provide the analysis themselves.
Rachel Duffield, "Proposals for a Slide Library Licensing Scheme." Audiovisual Librarian. v. 19, November 1993. p. 285-6 discusses the Design and Artists Copyright Society's efforts to make their slide collection available to educators, historians, and academics.
Rachel Duffield, "Slide Library Licensing Scheme: Progressing to the Next Stage." Audiovisual Librarian. v. 20, February 1994. p. 45 continues the discussion of the DACS licensing scheme. They propose a blanket license agreement based on the size of the institution.
Barbara Ettorre, "Music industry helps businesses lessen paperwork blues," Management Review, v.82#11, November 1993, p. 7 reports on the Broadcast Music Inc.(BMI) "unified music performing agreement"
Alex Kask, "Another look at Site Licensing and a New Method of Software Distribution," InfoWorld 2 p. 46 reports on the Microcomputer Managers Association (MMA) negotiations with the Copyright Clearance Center for redistribution of licenses.
Barbara Quint, "Reality check time for 'Terms and Conditions," Information Today v.10 #9 October 1993 p. 7-9 argues that current restrictive T&C's for electronic information limit uses that might prove valuable to licensees, and therefore ultimately be new sources of income for the information providers.
Pricing Information Delivery
How to establish prices, once costs of creating information products has been determined, is an area in which market analysis and customer corporate cultural preferences are important variables.
Amy Beth, "When Cost is No Factor: The Impact on Faculty of Unlimited
Access to DIALOG," Information Searcher 4 , 1991.
William G. Bowen, "JSTOR and the Economics of Scholarly Communication," October 4, 1995. This paper is based on a talk given at the Council on Library Resources Conference,Washington, DC, on September 18, 1995 by the President of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. (http://www.mellon.org/jsesc.html)
Jack Edmonston, "Will interactive ads bring rate changes?," Advertising Age's Business Marketing, v.80#2, February 1995 p. 25 speculates on how interactive advertising might effect other advertising pricing.
Charles R. McClure, John Carlo Bertot, and John C. Beachboard, "Internet Costs and Cost Models for Public Libraries: Final Report," a report commissioned by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. This report addresses the public library community's need for practical cost information related to Internet connectivity and services. (http://istweb.syr.edu/Project/Faculty/McClure.NCLIS.Report.html)
John T. Phillips Jr., "Internet Publishing - A Tangled Web?" Records Management Quarterly, v.29#3, July 1995, p. 38-42 identifies costs and ways of defining markets for different forms of on-line publication.
J. William Semich, "Here's how to quantify IT investment benefits," Datamation, v.40#1, 1994 p. 45-48 examines how an Oracle Corp information economics model (CB-90) allows assessment of information costs and pricing
Hal Varian, "The Information Economy," Scientific American, September, 1995, p. 200-201 discusses problems facing the development of the information economy.
--. "Buying, Renting and Sharing Information Goods." (ftp://alfred.sims.berkeley.edu/pub/Papers/sharing.ps.Z) The conditions under which the possibility of sharing information goods such as books, journals, computer software, videos, are outlined and how this sharing may increase or decrease producer profits.
--. "Pricing Information Goods," presented at the Research Libraries Group
Symposium on "Scholarship in the New Information Environment" held at Harvard Law School, May 2-3, 1995. Describes some of the issues involved in pricing information goods such as computer software, databases, electronic journals. In particular, incentives to engage in differential pricing and examine some of the forms such differential pricing may take are discussed.
-- and Jeff MacKie-Mason, "Pricing the Internet"
info-nets/Pricing_Internet/Pricing_the_Internet.ps.Z) describes the technology and costs of the Internet, and how to design efficient pricing in order to allocate scarce Internet resources.
-- and Jeff MacKie-Mason, "Economic FAQs About the Internet," Updated, Summer 1995 . (http://www.ipps.lsa.umich.edu/ipps/papers/
-- and Jeff MacKie-Mason, "Usage Pricing FAQs." (http://www.ipps.lsa.umich.edu/ipps/papers/
info-nets/useFAQs/useFAQs.ps.Z) written for WWW '94 (Chicago), which answers some frequently asked questions about usage-sensitive pricing for Internet resources.
John David Wiedemer and David B. Boelio, "CD-ROM pricing," CD-ROM Professional, v.7#5, Sept/Oct 1994, p. 45-52 discusses how CD-ROM's might be priced (sold or licensed) and how price models can be calculated.
Network distribution costs
Among the issues we need to examine is how different assumptions about the distribution system, within the campus and between licensing sites and any central databases would effect costs. Serious questions about scale are implied.
Erin Callaway, "Student Drivers," Computerworld v.28 #24, June 13, 1994
p. 113-118 explores the costs, fee structures, etc. involved in managing campus information distribution networks, and especially the rising costs of software site licensing and digital library content.
Arun Sen, Terry Rakes and Lori Franz, "Network Cost Analysis for Planning Configuration Change in Distributed Systems," Journal of Information Science Principles & Practice, 1987 v.13 p. 235-246 examines the unique costs associated with different topologies and networking management schemes.
Reima Suomi, "Cooperation in the field of information systems," Human Systems Management v.13#1, 1994 p. 57-64 addresses problems in aligning theoretical characteristics of cooperative undertakings within a framework of transaction costs.
Hal Varian and Jeff MacKie-Mason, "Pricing Congestible Resources," describes the basic economic theory of pricing a congestible resource such as an ftp server, a router, a Web site, etc.
Lawrence A. West Jr., "Researching the costs of information systems," Journal of Information Systems , v.11#2, 1994, p. 75-107 discusses issues of scale economics and the transaction attributes that contribute to scale economies.