Business Model

Document Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide a framework to structure, support and record the evolving and iterative ALEG Business Model, which has three main streams:

Service Mode: What we will deliver, to whom, and how
Partner Mode: Who are the partners, what does partnership entail
Data Management Mode: How we will manage our resource, who, and how

The document outlines:

Decisions which have been made (November 2000)
Decisions which must be made between November 2000 and February 2001
Decisions which can be delayed until after February 2001

Successive versions of this document will be mounted on the ALEG Development site at: /BusinessModel/busModel.html between now and February 2001.

This document outlines the ALEG Business Model, not the ALEG Business Plan, and therefore excludes analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and specific financial analysis. Development of the ALEG Business Plan is dependent on the majority of the issues outlined in the business model having been agreed to and signed off. The Business Plan will be developed in late 2000/early 2001.

Business Rationale

The primary rationale for establishing the Australian Literature Electronic Gateway is:

To enhance research and learning in Australian literature

In addition, the project has a number of subsidiary rationales:

To integrate and maximise the utility of existing infrastructure and content
To provide a publishing vehicle for the results of long term research
To capitalise on the development of new technologies which support these aims
To fulfil and deliver on obligations to the ARC and partners
To deliver a public good in the public interest

The delivery of a public good in the public interest itself involves:

Developing long term sustainability of the public good
Commitment to a co-operative, collaborative, non-profit ethos
Ensuring that financial decisions, including achieving optimal cost recovery, support but do not drive the Gateway’s strategic goals and primary rationales

Service Mode: Summary

Service Mode decisions address the following general questions:

What services will the Gateway deliver?
To whom will those services be delivered?
How will the services be delivered?

Partner Mode: Summary

Partner Mode decisions address the following general questions:

Who are the current and likely future partners?
What are the relationships between the partners?
What resources will the partners contribute and what returns will the partners receive?

Data Management: Summary

Data Management decisions address the following general questions:

What Gateway data is being managed?
How will Gateway data be managed?
How will relationships with other information sources be managed?

Major Data Management decisions are recorded at /Datamodel/index.html and /design/index.html

The Partners signed off on major Data Management decisions at the end of Stage 2 of the system design.

Action Plan: Summary

The following decision requirements have been identified, and are listed by the date by whichdecision is required.

Decision Mode When Done See

Transfer CD subscribers Service Jul 2000 Yes See Subs

Search, retrieve, delivery: how? Service Jul 2000 Yes See Design

Specifications signoff Data Jul 2000 Yes See Design and Implementation Options

Branding/badging Partner Jul
Oct 2000
Yes See Recommendation 5

Hardware & Software Data Aug 2000 Yes See Implementation Options

Centralised data management & storage: how? Data Aug Yes See Design

Decentralised data input and maintenance: how? Data Aug Yes See Design

Quality control Data Aug Part See Quality Control

Revenue raising: customers Service Oct 2000 Yes See Recommendation 1

Revenue raising: tailored customer charging Service Oct 2000 Yes See Recommendation 1

Multi level access Service Nov 2000 Yes See Recommendation 1

Documenting: workflows, manual etc Data Oct Part See Quality Control

Admin & QC overheads Partner Oct Yes See Recommendation 6

Distribution of revenue Partner Oct Yes See Recommendation 6

Partner contributions: resources Partner Dec 2000 Yes See Legal Agreement

Intellectual Property Partner Dec 2000 Yes See Recommendation 3

Data exchange Data Dec 2001 Part In progress

Rights management Service Feb 2001 No Under discussion

Future project partners Partner Feb No

Future data suppliers Partner Feb No

Multi views Service 2001 No

Customised services Service 2001 No

Revenue raising: sponsorship & advertising Service 2001 No

Value added products & services Service 2001 No

Links to other resources Service 2001 No

Recommendations for issues requiring decision

Service Mode

Issues:

Search, retrieval and delivery mechanisms
Multi-level access
Revenue raising: customers

Revenue raising: tailored customer charging
Recommendation 1: Making ALEG information available to non affiliated users
1.1. ALEG will provide free access to dynamic HTML pages, incorporating:
- Basic author information (ideally name, dates and places of birth and death, gender, ethnicity, genres, brief biographical note, but may need to restrict significantly if there are legal implications)
- Basic list of monographs by that author (title, publisher, place of publication, year)
- Indicator of how many records the full subscription service holds on that author.
- These HTML pages will populate as many open directories and search engines as possible, with the aim of enticing non subscribers to subscribe to the full service. Within the Gateway environment itself, simple search options will retrieve these pages (author search retrieves page outlined above, title search retrieves basic monograph title with link to author page).
1.2 All other access to ALEG data, whether by searching or browsing, and including access to specialist data subsets, is to be controlled by annual subscription. In Stage 1, subscriptions will cover access to biographical and bibliographical data, and any 'free' electronic resources. In Stage 2, it is envisaged that access to licensed full content will require a second subscription level (ie citations only, or citations + full text).
1.3. Marketing and subscriptions will be handled by third party specialists on a fee for service or commission basis, not on a royalty basis. Subscriptions will not be handled as an internal function. Possible agents to carry service are being investigated. Note that commission will depend on level of marketing to be undertaken. Decide on carrier by end 2000.
1.4. Retain tiered approach to subscriptions:
- Tier 1 (tertiary, state libraries, corporate): $8000 (list price)
- Tier 2 (public libraries): $2500 (list price)
- Tier 3 (individuals and schools): $ 800 (list price)
Stage 2: Pricing will depend on quantity of full content.

NB. Subscription prices should not be on the 'home page' of the product. Accept that 'list price' may be different to what is actually paid and it is likely that actual prices will be considerably lower.
NB. As agreed, AUSTLIT subscribers were offered the option of taking out 12 month subs to AUSTLIT on the WEB until the end of September, and 6 month subs until the end of December. These subscriptions will transfer to licence Gateway useage from Gateway launch until the expiry of the subscription period. In November 2000, there are 40 subscribers to AUSTLIT on the Web, with 5-10 queries from former CD subscribers being received each week.
1.5. Encourage agent to pursue consortia arrangements, especially with State Libraries with state wide public library networks. Pursue CAUL support for a national university site licence.
Recommendation 2: Making ALEG information available to affiliated (partner) users
2.1. Affiliated partners will pay pro rata subscriptions according to contribution of permanent institutional resources devoted to record production (excluding Investigator expert advice, project and content management) in the previous calendar year. Partners contributing at least 1 fte per annum from permanent resources will pay no subscription. Partners contributing .5 fte will pay half the agreed subscription. Partners contributing .25 fte will pay three-quarters of the agreed subscription. Partners contributing no permanent resources will pay the full agreed subscription.
NB Providing free access to the institutional users of all partner institutions would result in a serious loss of income to support central functions (up to $64 000) and the value of free access will often exceed the value of permanent institutional support.

Partner Mode
Issues:
- Standardisation of Content
  Recommendation 3: Ownership of Intellectual property
  3.1. Intellectual property rights to records will be retained by the institution or non affiliated individual creating the record, but the record producers will provide the Gateway with a perpetual licence for those records. Where a record is created or amended by more than one institution, intellectual property will reside with both/all parties.
  3.2. Intellectual property rights to the Gateway interface (ie all systems development, code etc.) will remain with the University of New South Wales, but any income derived from commercialising this property will be assigned to the partners in proportion to their financial contribution to its development via the Stage 1 and Stage 2 grants.
  3.3. All Third Party Intellectual Property must be covered by appropriate licences. Any partner contributing records or resources containing or providing access to third party material must warrant that it has obtained a licence to do so.
  3.4. An intellectual property register will be established and will be made available to all partners.
  NB UNSW will also retain ownership rights to the hardware purchased for the Gateway, as this equipment must appear on an asset register.
  Recommendation 4: Use of partner intellectual property
  See Legal Agreement for full details
  4.1. Partners will grant each other the licence to use all Gateway records for data maintenance purposes (ie enquiry, addition, amendment, deletion)
  4.2. Partners will grant the Gateway a perpetual licence to use their records and make these available to the public by agreement. This means that Partners may leave the Agreement, or publish their information via other forums, but may not remove their records from the database.
  4.3. Partners may re-use their own data in alternative publishing ventures, but not data owned or partly owned by other partners unless by agreement.
  4.4. All proposals to undertake alternative publishing ventures must be brought to the Partner group for discussion.
  NB Partners must meet any special costs associated with re-use of their own data, including production of print bibliographies, from their own permanent funding, not from grant funds or central business funds.
  Recommendation 5: Product identification
  5.1. Badging will occur at top level only (ie Gateway, entire data repository and specialist subsets), not on every record. This will mean less clutter for users, and reduce the 'swamping' effect of UNSW records.
  5.2. Specialist subsets will draw on all relevant records from the central data repository, not from records contributed by particular institutions, ie. WA subset will draw on all records by WA authors or on WA subjects (or published in WA?), not just records contributed by UWA.
  5.3. However, specialist subsets, will be badged with the 'intellectual' contributor, ie the WA bibliography will be badged with the UWA logo, but information about the subset will inform users that records are drawn from the entire data repository.
  5.4. The central data repository will be badged with the main contributors (UNSW, Monash and UQ), but with a similar note to inform users that records are drawn from all partners.
  NB Non badging of records does not mean that the records cannot be identified, only that ownership will not be publicly displayed.
  Recommendation 6: Profits/Royalties
  6.1. Any income derived from selling subscriptions to users, or from commercialising the commonly owned IP will be used first to support the core business functions (to be specified in an annual budget submitted for approval and subject to annual reporting requirments).
  6.2. Any remaining income will be distributed as profit to record producing parties, with 75% of profits distributed according to the number and level of new records produced, and 25% distributed according to the number and level of substantial amendments or additions to records.
  6.3. In the first year of operation, we will trial a 'self assessment' system, where record producers rate their new and amended records as requiring significant, moderate or routine input. If this system proves ineffective, inequitable and/or expensive to administer, the distribution of profits will be renegotiated.
  NB. It is unlikely that any income will distributed to record producers in the first year of operation, and reasonably likely that the Gateway will only ever be able to recover costs sufficient to fund the central business activities required to publish the data and make it available to users.
  Recommendation: Standardisation of content
  Recommendations re standardisation of content will be made to the partner group before proposed the proposed training in February. Issues to be covered will include: duty statements and selection criteria for record creating staff; resources available to and expectations of staff; use of common selection and quality criteria; authorities for names, titles, sources and subjects; workflow and record creation efficiency; and criteria for 'certification' of staff whose work does not require review by the content managers.
  
  Issues requiring decision after November 2000
  Service Mode
  Multi-views of data
  Description:
  The Gateway system will allow us to offer different ‘views’ of information for different client groups. This will include the multi-access levels to data outlined above, but also encompasses how the information will look to customers.
  Options:
  
  Different colours, fonts, layouts (for clients and specialist subsets)
  Disability access (minimal graphics, buttons etc., transfer to sound)
  Scholarly access (fast, minimal graphics)
  School access (more graphics? Different colours)
  Dependent on:
  
  Analysis of client group needs, number in each group
  Ease and cost of creating different views (eg XML stylesheets)
  Resources required for particular groups (eg disability access)
  Timeframe for decision: 2001
  Decisions do not need to be made before launch – fine to launch with a single view (so long as it fulfills disability guidelines) and develop different views as demand and resources permit. May be able to get assistance with fulfilling disability access needs.
  
  Customised services
  Description:
  The Gateway system will allow the development of customised services.
  Options:
  
  Personalised alert services (SDI)
  Shopping cart and greeting card services
  Specialised discussion groups
  Dependent on:
  
  Most customised services will be dependent on success of 2001-2003 application – no resources to develop customised services in 2000.
  Timeframe for decision: 2001
  
  Decisions do not need to be made before launch – fine to launch with a standard product and develop different customised services as demand and resources permit.
  
  Revenue raising: sponsorship and advertising
  Description:
  Seeking sponsorship and advertising income may assist in achieving long term Gateway sustainability.
  
  Options/Issues:
  
  Not easy to do! Requires professional resources and lots of time/energy
  Competition with proliferation of ‘worthy causes’ seeking sponsorship
  Some carriers ‘hungry’ for content – is our content what they’re after?
  National/cultural issues – who cares?
  Is a site plastered with advertising in the users’ best interests? Implications for perceptions of quality
  Tension between ‘public good’ and ‘private good’ issues
  Dependent on:
  
  Resources available to investigate sponsorship/advertising viability
  Information about the resources required to achieve sponsorship/advertising
  Partner attitudes to sponsorship and associated advertising on webpages
  Benefits/risks of seeking sponsorship/advertising
  Timeframe for decision: 2001
  
  No resources with which to make the decision in 2000. Leave options open ahead of news of 2001-2003 application. All suggestions re sponsorship to be notified to Executive Manager.
  
  Value-added products and services
  Description:
  The Gateway will enable use and ‘exploitation’ of data in a variety of ways, some of which have the potential to generate awareness, publicity and even income through value-added services.
  Options/Issues:
  
  Curriculum packages
  Research services (especially based on statistical analysis, eg. proposed statistical analysis for RIEF1999 journals)
  Tourism/centenary of Federation/On this Day etc.
  Dependent on:
  
  Most customised services will be dependent on success of 2001-2003 application – no allocated resources to develop customised services in 2000.
  Timeframe for decision: 2001
  
  Partner Mode:
  Future project partners: criteria
  Description:
  The genesis of the Gateway as an ARC RIEF funded project provides a ready made framework of current partners. The partner group for the ARC 2001-2003 application is identical to that for the ARC 2000 project. However, a number of other tertiary institutions have expressed an interest in joining this project, and some state library based projects may dovetail with or be replaced by Gateway activities. The current partner group will need to decide whether it wants this group to be permanent or flexible, and what the criteria by which proposed new partnerships might be judged should be. The group will also need to decide about ‘levels’ of partnership and how these might be formally constituted.
  Options:
  
  Widen the circle of contributing institutions in the interest of expanding content
  Retain the existing partnership group in the interests of cohesiveness
  Exit of current partners
  Develop partnerships with state libraries
  When does an alliance become a partnership
  Develop criteria for entry to partner group
  Sponsors as partners
  Dependent on:
  
  Analysis of benefits and risks of changing partner group
  Consensus of views among current partners
  What proposed partners have to offer
  Resources required to manage larger partner group
  Timeframe for decision: 2001
  
  Broad agreement on decision making criteria by Gateway launch
  Agreements on alliances/other partnerships in first year of operation
  
  Future data suppliers: criteria
  Description:
  Data suppliers of information relevant to the Gateway who are not current partners (owners?) in ALEG.
  Options:
  
  Buying ‘one-off’ data sets (eg. Kerry White’s children’s literature data)
  Buying ‘continuous’ data sets (eg. Kinetica records and holdings information)
  Co-operative arrangements with data suppliers
  Donations of data sets
  Dependent on:
  
  Quality and Scope criteria of ALEG
  Financial viability
  Trade-offs that we are willing to make to have the resources to buy commercial data?
  Timeframe for decision: Feb 2001
  
  Data Management:
  
  Quality Control
  Description:
  Management of Quality Control issues.
  Options:
  
  Procedures
  Quality Control of process Note: Strong emphasis on quality control dependent on training and staff development. On formation, all records will be reviewed by the Content Managers before being authorised for publication through the Gateway.
  Certification. Note: Content Managers will develop training procedures and criteria for certification of record producers whose work no longer requires review.
  Dependent on:
  
  Centralised data management and decentalised data input and maintenance system outcomes (see above). Note: System will support automatic routing of records requiring review to Content Managers. No records will be visible to users unless they pass the review process. Record creators can save and return to their work before routing them for review. Content Managers can send records requiring amendment back to record creators with appropriate comments. Record creators can send records to each other for comments or additions.
  Timeframe for decision: Late 2000/early 2001 - before February training.
  
  Data exchange facilities
  Description:
  A guiding decision about the Gateway is to use established standards and protocols where these exist. Use of the Z39.50 protocol is mandatory, but decisions on some other standards are less clear.
  Options:
  
  FRBR/MARC Note: Mapping of FRBR to MARC and vice versa to commence late 2000.
  FRBR/DC (Bath Profile) Note: Mapping of FRBR to DC elements begun late October 2000. Should be complete by end 2000.
  XML Note: XML being used to render FRBR for Web presentation.
  Others?< Note: Early discussions on adoption of Digital Rights Management protocols early November 2000. For further investigation in 2001.
  Dependent on:
  
  Further analysis of the functionality of available and developing standards and protocols
  The standards and protocols the institutions we are interoperating with use
  Further funding
  Continued alliance with key institutions such as NLA.
  Timeframe for decision: 2000/2001
  
  Analysis of current and developing standards are crucial to our decisions about the data model and specifications list (July 2000)
  In terms of exchange with external information sources – eg. RAAM, NBD etc, the timeframe is more flexible. Some analysis can take place late in 2000 (if resources permit), however most development work in this area will take place from 2001. Note: Development of the exchange mechanism for NBD holdings information began late October 2000, and should be complete by project launch
  
  Procedures: data input, maintenance and control
  Description:
  The aim of prototype development will be to develop a system that requires minimal written instruction on the actual entry of data into the system. However, there will be a requirement for a manual (similar to the current AUSTLIT Indexers’ manual at ) outlining decision making rules regarding Gateway content.
  Options:
  
  Print
  Web based
  Context based help
  Combination of above
  Dependent on:
  
  System capabilities and decisions
  The extent of ‘trade-offs’ against specifications (eg. may need to establish some ‘work arounds’)
  Decisions of indexers, bibliographers and data workers about the level and accessibility of required information
  Timeframe for decision: July - November 2000
  
  During period of prototype development and refinement (July to November 2000)
  
  Linking to other Resources
  Description:
  This activity relates to linking to holdings information and to digital images, documents and sites - most of which will exist outside the ALEG environment.
  Options/Issues:
  
  holdings information only – no full text
  holdings information for monographs, full text non monos
  holdings information – links with Kinetica, RAAM
  full text newspaper reviews
  imaging of paper copies
  direct links to existing electronic copy
  licence arrangements with holders of electronic copies (eg newspaper sites, APAIS, Gale)
  negotiate with major Australian journals for direct electronic copy
  links with other Australian literature sites: to what level
  
  Dependent on:
  
  Available data exchange standards and protocols
  Development of ‘Criteria for inclusion’ – guidelines for resources
  Negotiations with commercial and non-commercial information providers (will involve management of copyright, IP, licencing issues)
  Timeframe for decision: 2001

Decision	Mode	When	Done	See
Transfer CD subscribers	Service	Jul 2000	Yes	See Subs
Search, retrieve, delivery: how?	Service	Jul 2000	Yes	See Design
Specifications signoff	Data	Jul 2000	Yes	See Design and Implementation Options
Branding/badging	Partner	Jul Oct 2000	Yes	See Recommendation 5
Hardware & Software	Data	Aug 2000	Yes	See Implementation Options
Centralised data management & storage: how?	Data	Aug	Yes	See Design
Decentralised data input and maintenance: how?	Data	Aug	Yes	See Design
Quality control	Data	Aug	Part	See Quality Control
Revenue raising: customers	Service	Oct 2000	Yes	See Recommendation 1
Revenue raising: tailored customer charging	Service	Oct 2000	Yes	See Recommendation 1
Multi level access	Service	Nov 2000	Yes	See Recommendation 1
Documenting: workflows, manual etc	Data	Oct	Part	See Quality Control
Admin & QC overheads	Partner	Oct	Yes	See Recommendation 6
Distribution of revenue	Partner	Oct	Yes	See Recommendation 6
Partner contributions: resources	Partner	Dec 2000	Yes	See Legal Agreement
Intellectual Property	Partner	Dec 2000	Yes	See Recommendation 3
Data exchange	Data	Dec 2001	Part	In progress
Rights management	Service	Feb 2001	No	Under discussion
Future project partners	Partner	Feb	No
Future data suppliers	Partner	Feb	No
Multi views	Service	2001	No
Customised services	Service	2001	No
Revenue raising: sponsorship & advertising	Service	2001	No
Value added products & services	Service	2001	No
Links to other resources	Service	2001	No