Focus Group on Information Budgets – Getting into Action Faster Together

The focus group plans concrete measures and organises their implementation. Active participation by the individual group members is therefore very important. Aspects include the following:

• Agreeing on the elements of information budgets and the standardisation of their presentation
• Summarizing the necessary steps to introduce an information budget with the target group, library and institution management, and with funders
• Sharing best practices
• Exchange and cooperation with other projects that deal with the topic of information budgets

The kick-off meeting of the focus group “Information Budget” took place on 17 February 2023. It was attended by 84 participants from various types of scientific libraries. At that first meeting, five sub-working groups were formed, each of which specialises in a specific question. The members of the sub-working groups have engaged in regular digital exchange since then. A first look back took place after a year and a half: the sub-working groups summarised their findings to date and gathered feedback and ideas for further collaboration. On 21 June 2024 – at the seventh meeting of the group as a whole – the findings of the five sub-working groups were presented. These findings are presented briefly below. They have been published in full in the Zenodo community.

The materials aim to provide practical guidance. They can be useful when implementing an information budget at various levels at scientific libraries and can support the process in practice.

Sub-Working Group 1, “Definition of an Information Budget”, dealt with this question.

As the question is not easy to answer, the group members first tried to jointly formulate a definition based on approaches published to date and their own practical experiences. The “lowest common denominator” of the elements of an information budget was arrived at, and optional extensions were compiled. The core and extension elements can serve as a first suggestion for interested institutions, who can choose individual aspects that are locally relevant and supplement them with further elements if appropriate. In this way, an information budget can be developed that should be understood as a financial management instrument. This enables an overview to be gained of all expenditure and sources of funding for scientific information. Findings from the DFG funding programme Open Access Publication Funding and the DFG-funded projects Transform2Open and Open Access Datenpraxis can be discussed at future meetings of the sub-working group.

Sub-Working Group 2, “Drafting Aids for Communicating with Decision-Makers” addressed the question of what information is important for communication with institution managers.

The findings presented are a perfect bridge between theory and practice. The members of the group designed a PowerPoint template to support scientific institutions in introducing an information budget. This template can be used by all interested parties as an aid for communicating with decision-makers. The slides are available in open access as a PPTX file and can be adapted and modified for the user’s own purposes. It was especially important to the group members that the Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic Publishing: Towards Open Access issued by the German Science and Humanities Council in 2022 should be addressed in the presentation.

Sub-Working Group 3, “Collecting and Evaluating Technical Infrastructure”, addressed this question.

To date there are hardly any productive systems that are useful for recording cost and publication data with a view to establishing an information budget. The third sub-working group faced up to this challenging starting position, produced a system comparison, and placed the focus on the recording of publication costs. Various systems for different application scenarios were examined with regard to their suitability for this purpose, and evaluation criteria were drawn up:

• Library systems (ALMA/Aleph, FOLIO OA-App, Libero)
• Current research information systems (CRIS)/University bibliography (Pure, DSpace)
• Repository systems (eprints, LibreCat)
• Budgeting systems (SAP S/4 HANA, FSV).

The system comparison is not intended as an acquisition recommendation but rather as a memory aid and a suggestion.

Sub-Working Group 4, “Publication and Cost Monitoring” addressed this question as a community of practice.

Initially, the sub-working group primarily exchanged general practical experiences with monitoring processes. The bandwidth of the exchange ranged from tools used, through data for reporting purposes and metadata for publications and their costs, to DFG funding and personnel resources. The group wanted the focus to be placed on practice-based reports and workshop reports in order to enter into direct exchange with scientific institutions that have already taken the first steps in implementing an information budget. This continues to be the approach practised by the sub-working group. Information about future presentations will be provided via the mailing list.

Sub-Working Group 5, “Workflows/Processes” addressed this question as a community of practice.

First, the sub-group dealt with the workflows at the members’ institutions – if such workflows already existed. Based on this, they identified influencing factors that must be considered in connection with process design – namely, the institutional and local framework conditions and the stakeholders that must be taken into account.

As a first scenario, an ideal-typical workflow was developed for the settlement of a publication with an individual invoice. The individual process steps were elaborated; the core of the elaboration is a graphic with an explanation in tabular form. The workflow can be used as a guide when developing processes for publication cost monitoring. Elaborations for further scenarios, such as settlement via vouchers, memberships, diamond open access,  or (DEAL-) transformative agreements, may follow.

These puzzle pieces – a concept definition, a communication aid, a system comparison, workshop reports, and a visualized workflow – indicate synergies between the sub-working groups. Looking at all the findings together, interested parties can obtain a first snapshot produced from practice for practice.

The advantage of virtual focus groups is that many people from everywhere and anywhere can join forces easily and develop things together. However, occasional in-person meetings are really nice and very useful. Therefore, the focus group “Information Budget” is hosting a workshop in Cologne within the framework of the Open Access Tage 2024, namely: Workshop 11: Von Brocken und Sandkörnern – Hürden auf dem Weg zum Informationsbudget [Boulders and Grains of Sand – Barriers on the Road to an Information Budget]. Two questions will be addressed at the workshop: What concrete barriers are there at one’s own institution when it comes to thinking about or taking steps towards an information budget? With what ideas and creative approaches can these barriers be overcome? We look forward to interested participants!

Header picture: Designed by artmonkey / Freepik