 |
 |
I think that a kind of inverted freemium model would most closely align with the librarian ethos. Instead of having a small number of services available for free and a larger number once a customer pays, libraries would offer the majority of services for free (as we are already funded for this by the University), but special services and customization would be done for a fee. Using the example of Omeka; With a general installation it's fairly self-service and low maintenance for the library, so it is easy to offer. But if a department wanted a some serious customization to it, which would require development time, maintenance, etc, then you have to consider what the cost of that customization is going to be. That is time where library staff is not supporting the core services you provide to the majority of users. Really, it's just a way or prioritizing. We'd like to do everything for everyone, but we can't so, we need to draw a line somewhere. I'd rather have a way for those things beyond the line to get done instead of just saying "Sorry, we don't have the resources". Charging a fee, at that point, seems reasonable. And since the model already exists, and people understand it and use it (how many academics already pay for extra Dropbox space out of their own pocket?), I think it could easily integrate into library operations without much resistance. Chad Chad Nelson Web Services Programmer University Library Georgia State University e: [log in to unmask] t: 404 413 2771 My Calendar ________________________________________ From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Edward Iglesias [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:32 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Academic libraries - Will dev for pay models? Just personally speaking I think the idea of University Libraries charging for services to other units can be a good thing. We have a very good relationship with out IT department but they are now reaching a point where storage costs are such that they are having to charge departments that use more than a certain amount on network shares. About those archival TIFFs... Similarly libraries have an economic responsibility to try to be entrepreneurial centers of profit instead of loss. It may not be tasty but it is a pill we have to swallow. I think there are good opportunities for libraries to realize substantial revenue by charging for things like data storage and organization. That said, I do think that this will differ widely by University. When I was at Loyola New Orleans our library advertising campaign was taken on as a project by marketing students. No money changed hands. If we had asked the marketing department to put together a team to develop a campaign I imagine it would have been different. Edward Iglesias On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Having done my time working for in both the research > and administrative side university computing, I would also have to ask if > the development is within the library's competence, or if it is something > that would normally be handled by one of the other groups. > > If it's administrative computing, charging for special projects seems to be > quite common. It often ends up with departments going it alone, or > contracting with commercial firms to do the work. If it's something like > developing web applications, and the library IT group is staffed up to > handle the extra work well without impacting core library activities, then > it is worth making a bid for the work; I would advise using a cost-plus > model, and using a very agile process, with very short POD-cycles (short > PODs make cost-plus an easier sell). > > Watch out for central IT to make counter moves; for example, they may start > a whisper campaign that the library IT groups must be overstaffed if they > can have all these spare bodies lying around. Preemptive top-cover at the > level where the whispering would be targeted would be wise. This is easier > if central IT has a poor reputation, and if it is the would-be customer who > seeks leave to approach library IT. If using the library IT dept appears > clearly cheaper than the outside consultants would otherwise be, then the > top-cover should be easy. The university librarian should confirm the > top-cover, and should keep them informed to avoid surprises. Always leave > the top-cover with a covered line of retreat, but make sure that they have > a sufficient stake in the upside to keep them from pulling out early. > > Also, as Jonathan says, make sure that support arrangements are baked in to > the initial agreement. If you're set up for long term preservation > services, adding long term support for keeping a slice of server running > should be something you're set up for anyway. > > If any of this involves implementing a Data Management Plan, get involved > during the grant development, as funding for implementing the DMP can be > requested. > > If there are a number of people who at one point worked for central IT but > now work for library IT, ensure that they are present or geared up in ready > reserve for any meetings where ambush is a real possibility. Also ensure > that they use sources for proper IPB. > > // Reboot, Hell - we just got here. > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> It seems odd to me for the library to charge individual departments for >> special projects. Although I realize it can make sense and be reasonable in >> some cases, I think there are some dangers. >>