Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Costs to Cornell: Cornell

  • $33$26,749143 year one license fees, $XXXX $7,651 implementation fees, $XXXX $7,300 implementation staff time (250 125 hours)
  • $26,143 year two+ license fees

...

  • $4,000 year one license fees, $7,300 implementation staff time (125 hours)
  • $10,000 year two+ license fees

...

  • $10,000 annually for Innovative contract and server maintenance fees (beginning immediately)
  • $19,800 $XXXX opportunity cost savings by freeing staff time with RM efficiencies (beginning soon after implementation)
  • $4,800 usage stats and management efficiencies , and 2CUL collaborative efforts

Savings to Columbia:

  • (beginning soon after implementation)
  • $13,000 $XXXX opportunity cost savings by freeing staff time with 2CUL collaborative efforts (125 hours per year, beginning year 2)

Savings to Columbia:

  • $13,000 opportunity cost savings by freeing staff time with 2CUL collaborative efforts (125 hours per year, beginning year 2)

TimelineTimeline: Ideally, we require a decision to move forward with this by mid-March in order to be able to migrate to the new systems by the summer 2014. 

...

Benefits and potential savings:  We estimate that starting with year 2, 2CUL will begin to see opportunity savings in the form of staff time freed to perform other activities.  There are many opportunities to put this time to better use on other e-resource activities that have been unachievable previously.  The initial areas listed below will be the first priorities to tackle as 2CUL work, and we estimate approximately 250 hours per year (5 hours per week)of savings from these efforts for each CUL.

  • Platform changes and other resource maintenance can often be time intensive projects. We can handle these tasks collaboratively and can make the changes for both institutions when both CULs have content in the same collections. 
  • Collaborative monitoring of Knowledge base Notifications will be possible, thereby reducing duplicate effort.
  • Comparison of e-collections will be considerably easier.  This will set us up to engage in cooperative collection development decisions and shared workflow.

...