Access Problem Solving (digprob)
NERD: Ranked Criteria* For Purchase of Digital Resources
February 13, 2001
1a. Critical to an MIT Discipline/Constituency
We would rank potential products as either 'critical,' 'highly valuable,' or 'would be nice to have.' Our first priority in spending money would be to buy products critical to a given discipline or constituency at MIT; only after all critical needs were met would we begin to consider products at the next level, 'highly valuable,' and so on. We use the terms 'discipline or constituency' to reflect the fact that the targeted user population may or may not fall into one defined subject area or discipline.1b. Institutional Commitment
MIT or the MIT Libraries may have particular philosophical, political, or practical reasons to purchase a product. At the moment, we have institutional priorities for the purchase of any JSTOR collection that is relevant to MIT, and to all SPARC initiatives.2. Offers Fulltext
More and more, the expectation is that users will find the desired content itself, not just information about the content, on the web. As interlinkages between databases and ejournals increase, it is more and more important that we have a critical mass of content to maximize this kind of access. We want to purchase fulltext (whether that be of ejournal content or other fulltext, such as financial reports, etc.) whenever possible.3. Good Cost/Benefit Ratio
Underneath all other means of assessing a product's worth to us is the question of whether the product is a good 'value;' whether for the money it offers us solid benefits. We feel it is very important, apart from other considerations, to review the product's relative benefits relative to its costs. These benefits and costs should be broadly defined, to include not only the very tangible cost of the product in dollars, but other factors such as ease of use, significance to a discipline, size of constituency, cost to support, etc.4. Good Access Model
We prefer to buy products that offer easy, straightforward access that is simple to implement and understand. Examples of poor access models to avoid include restrictions to particular buildings, awkward password systems that defy easy scripting, unwieldy use restrictions that are not required by the technical environment, or requirements for particular client software. Any product that veers from the standard of simple campus-wide web access warrants extra review. Products should compy with MIT's guidelines for access for individuals with disabilities.
5a. Consortial Benefits/Obligations
If a consortial offer will reduce the price or increase the availability to certain information, it is more likely we will act on a purchase. Another aspect to consider is our consortial responsibility: our role as a member of a consortium may encourage us to participate in certain purchases at certain times to support the work of the consortium.5b. Offers Remote Access
Off-campus access is an important service for our users, and we prefer to buy products that offer this access.6. Good Business Model
We prefer not to sign licenses that run counter to our licensing principles. We prefer not to buy products that reflect draconian policies on the part of providers, or which reduce our flexibility. Examples of the kinds of business models we prefer not to support are restrictions on print cancellations related to the product being bought; requirements that we be responsible for user actions; elevated prices without guaranteed price caps for renewal; or pricing models that are difficult to understand and/or implement.7a. Good Archival Policy
We prefer to buy products that are supported by a guaranteed archive. This means two things: first, that the provider has made arrangements for a third party to offer the product in case they cease to do so; and second, that there is a provision for MIT to retain access to the portions of data subscribed to after cancellation (if this is applicable and desirable in the case of a given product.)7b. Serves Lincoln Labs' needs
Because Lincoln Laboratory is a significant contributor to indirect cost funding for the Institute, from which the MIT Libraries benefit, the information needs identified by the Lab's library receive special consideration.8. Need for Technical Support
In general, a product that demands unusual technical support must justify itself for purchase, and must be approved by C3 before a purchase decision is made.
*Those listed as a&b under the same number have equal rank.