Developing and Managing Electronic Collections: The Essentials

Conducting Business with E-content and Service Suppliers

ALL LIBRARIES WORK with content suppliers—publishers, aggregators, vendors, subscription agents, or an entity that provides a combination of the products and services normally associated with one of these suppliers. Some libraries work with many types of content suppliers and with multiple companies in each of these categories. Other libraries work with a more limited number of suppliers. The librarian’s responsibility is to obtain the best deal possible—one that results in cost-effective services and e-content that meet users’ need and satisfy the library’s goals. An important element in obtaining this aim is building and maintaining effective relationships. This chapter explores aspects of library relations with e-content and service suppliers: researching suppliers and service providers, negotiating successfully, and communicating effectively throughout the course of their relationship.

Researching Suppliers and Service Providers

A relationship with a content or service supplier begins with researching possibilities and options. The first question to be answered is whether the supplier offers the e-content and services in which the library is interested. The next question is whether the supplier’s business model meets the library’s needs. To find answers, librarians collect information on products, prices, and services that have been determined of interest.

Informal Sources of Information

Librarians can obtain information about the products and services offered by publishers, vendors, agents, and aggregators in various ways. A good place to begin is at their websites, which also may give a hint to the functionality of their interfaces. Librarians can also gather information by visiting exhibitors’ booths and meeting with content and services suppliers at professional conferences and meetings. Most content suppliers have sales representatives who visit libraries and are happy to discuss their products and services. The challenge for the librarian is to ensure that the representative clearly understands when the conversation is intended to provide facts and when it shifts to a sales call.

Many librarians consult with colleagues to learn about their experiences, both positive and negative, with e-content providers. These informal conversations can be enlightening. Even if a nondisclosure license clause, which usually governs the sharing of pricing and business models, is in effect, librarians may be able to talk in hypothetical terms and discuss the variety and quality of products and services offered.

Professional journals such as Library Journal, American Libraries, and Against the Grain regularly compare suppliers and their offerings and provide industry news. Library Hi Tech News covers developments in library automation, vendor products, network news, and software and hardware. Library Technology Reports also covers library systems and services. The Digital Shift (www.thedigitalshift.com) is an online site that posts timely technology-related articles published by Library Journal and School Library Journal.1

An important topic to research is the supplier’s financial health. Libraries typically remit funds at the beginning of a subscription, lease, or fiscal or calendar year when contracting with vendors, subscription agents, and aggregators. In return, the library expects a year’s worth of content, database access, and service provision. Libraries should be confident that the supplier selected is financially viable. The last major collapse of a serials agent was the bankruptcy of Faxon, which left many libraries in trouble. They had paid for 2003 subscriptions, but Faxon had not paid publishers when bankruptcy was declared. Libraries had to spend months struggling to get the content for which they had paid. Mergers and acquisitions, which are more common corporate changes than bankruptcy, also can create problems for libraries as they and their suppliers learn to work with new representatives, internal systems, and workflows. Monitoring sources such as Publishers Weekly and Publishing Trends (www.publishingtrends.com), a free monthly online newsletter, can help track publishing news and trends.

Once pertinent information has been assembled, it requires analysis. A typical approach is to create a matrix listing possible suppliers (publishers, aggregators, vendors, agents, etc.) on one axis and key points of comparison on the other axis. Each critical factor (see chapter 3) that will inform the decision should be listed and, to the extent possible, these factors should be comparable across the suppliers. A vendor’s or agent’s suppliers also may be its competitors; therefore, a library should ensure that the matrix includes all value-added services that it deems of high priority.

Formal Sources of Information

More formal approaches to gathering research are the request for information (RFI), request for proposal (RFP), and request for quotation (RFQ). All require that the library, usually working with the purchasing unit in its parent organization, understand and clearly define its needs in as great detail as possible and assign priorities to these needs. The process of developing an effective RFI, RFP, or RFQ is extremely time-consuming for the library and companies, which usually invest significant funds in developing their responses and presentations. A representative of one major subscription agency noted that his company is becoming more selective in responding to RFPs because of the complexities inherent in the marketplace and a dual print and digital environment.2 The process of preparing and issuing an RFI, RFP, or RFQ should not be undertaken lightly.

The purpose of an RFI is to collect written information about the capabilities and strengths of various suppliers that will inform the library’s decision about which steps to take next. An RFI is not an invitation to bid, nor is it legally binding on either party; it is for informational purposes only. An RFI is designed to elicit information in a manner that facilitates comparison and can be used to populate an assessment matrix. The next step, on receiving the requested information, might be choosing a supplier or issuing an RFP.

An RFP is an official invitation to submit a written proposal to provide a specific product, service, or both. It typically involves and may be issued by the library’s purchasing department or that of its parent organization. Many libraries or the entities of which they are a part require RFPs for products and services more than a set dollar amount. RFPs may require competitive bidding, but the lowest price usually is not the single deciding factor. An RFP typically requests information about the supplier’s product, services, technical capabilities, and price. Other requested data may include corporate information and qualifications (history, expertise of employees, etc.), evidence of corporate financial stability, and customer references. The RFP is presented to multiple suppliers to review and respond with a proposal.

An RFP should present a formal statement of requirements against which performance can be measured and from which a contract can be written. Preparing an RFP should involve appropriate stakeholders, including but not limited to librarians responsible for selection and acquisitions or serials staff. Developing an RFP requires the library to identify, describe, and prioritize its needs. Having the staff members affected by the final choice participate in the process is essential. If the library has a current supplier to whom the RFP will be issued, staff should be invited to report what works well and what does not in doing business with that company. Requirements are defined as problems needing solutions and should be forward-looking and go beyond a description of the e-content and services provided by a current supplier. The RFP should specify the exact structure and format of the supplier’s response and the basis of evaluation criteria. The result of a well-crafted RFP should be a consistent set of vendor responses for easy comparison.

RFPs usually require the respondents to provide copies of their financial statements, report if they are currently for sale or involved in any transaction to be acquired by another business entity, give details of all past or pending litigation, and supply any additional information about their financial stability. RFPs may ask the respondents to describe their company’s quality assurance program and how performance is measured. The primary substance of an RFP details the proposal specifications and addresses processes such as ordering, claims, cancellations, renewals, prepayments, billing, invoices, credits, electronic data exchange, and reports. Additional sections ask how communication is handled and the respondent’s online database accessed. Respondents may be encouraged to propose solutions that provide process improvements.

RFP Process

The RFP process follows a standard sequence of tasks, usually including the following:

• Consult with the library’s purchasing office (or that of the library’s parent organization) to ensure compliance with policies and procedures.

• Appoint the task group of stakeholders that will develop the RFP and evaluate responses. Frequently, these stakeholders include representatives with collection development and management, acquisitions, cataloging, systems, and accounting responsibilities, and, perhaps, someone from the institutional purchasing unit.

• Hold an initial meeting of stakeholders to identify general issues and desired outcomes.

• Conduct a detailed needs analysis and identify features or elements that are required, preferred, and desired.

• Write the RFP based on the needs analysis and features expected in the proposal. Ideally, those writing the RFP can use other RFPs as guides. If the library is using an earlier RFP that it issued, care should be taken to update it.

• Determine how responses will be compared and evaluated. The RFP should be written in a manner that elicits responses that can be scored.

• Identify suppliers to whom to send the RFP.

• Set deadlines for presubmission questions and for proposal submission.

• Issue the RPF.

• Conduct a preliminary evaluation to identify the respondents who will be invited to give on-site presentations.

• Schedule presentations. These may be open to all interested staff or limited to the RFP task group.

• Evaluate and score proposals and presentations.

• Make initial selection(s) and negotiate with preferred supplier(s).

• Award contract.

Because of the complexity of issuing an RFP and evaluating proposals, libraries should allow sufficient time for each phase. This is not a process that can be rushed.

Proposal evaluation and the selection procedure should be objective and demonstrate impartiality. All aspects of the process and proposals should be confidential. Evaluation of proposals is based on a balance of appropriateness of solution, vendor qualifications, vendor financial stability, price, and any other essential criteria defined by the library.

A less common method for securing information about possible content and service providers is the RFQ. The RFQ process is appropriate for com mon equipment or standard services where the specifications can easily identify the product or service and are less frequently used with e-content services and suppliers. An RFQ may be used when discussions with bidders are not required and when price is the main or only factor in selecting the successful bidder. An RFQ also can be used to determine general price ranges prior to issuing an RFP.

RFIs, RFPs, and RFQs require significant effort by the library and the companies that respond. Most often this work is undertaken when a new company with attractive offerings enters the marketplace, the library is dissatisfied with a current content and service provider, or an existing contract is about to expire. RFPs are not appropriate when only one possible content supplier or service provider can provide the content or services needed. Public agencies may require the library to provide a sole-source justification if an RFP is not issued.

Focus Groups and Advisory Boards

Librarians have additional opportunities to foster communication with publishers, agents, vendors, aggregators, and other suppliers of content and services. Many of these entities create focus groups and have standing advisory boards. Focus groups are used for qualitative feedback on various areas such as general evaluation of exiting products and advice on future directions, new product development, and development of new sales models. These research groups are formed as needed and disbanded when the intended purpose is fulfilled.

Advisory boards function in an ongoing, long-term capacity and provide feedback to suppliers about their products, services, and business models. Librarians have an opportunity to learn about new products and services, provide feedback on existing products and services, and better understand the information marketplace. Advisory boards offer a way for suppliers to understand directly their customers’ needs, wants, and expectations, and this input can have a direct effect on product and service development. Fries and James’s survey of twelve information industry companies found that respondents considered advisory boards invaluable in their company’s work.3 Often advisory boards are composed of members from specific client groups such as community college librarians, public librarians, or K–12 school librarians and media specialists.

Service as part of a focus group or on an advisory board should be approached responsibly. Although one may be honored to be invited to serve and may receive free meals and sometimes travel and housing support, it is not a perk. Librarians should be careful not to hint that their participation will result in additional business. Most discussions and demonstrations are to be treated confidentially. Focus groups and advisory boards have a serious purpose and provide an excellent venue for librarians to share their concerns and priorities.

Beta Testing

Another option to influence product and service development is for a library to be a beta tester. Beta testing involves testing a new product, software, service, or interface before it is released to the market. The purpose is to identify weak points, flaws, and problems so these can be corrected before general release. Working as a beta tester in the development of an automated system is more familiar to many librarians, but e-content and service providers also use beta sites to test their offerings.

Being a beta tester may generate a discounted price for the library, but it is often hard work. The library is serving as a collaborative development partner, and those involved in the testing should take their responsibilities seriously. The contribution of each partner must be meaningful and important. When a library agrees to be a beta site, a binding agreement is signed that spells out clear and formal expectations describing what the vendor and the library will contribute to the effort. This agreement usually includes a confidentiality waiver to protect the company. Being a beta tester can be extremely time-consuming and involve several people in various library units. If a library is willing and able to be a beta test site, the opportunity to influence the development of a new product or service can be both interesting and beneficial.

Negotiation

Negotiating with publishers, vendors, subscription agents, and aggregators often seems like the most time-consuming aspect of relations with these e-content and service suppliers. Reaching agreement requires spending time in meetings, on the phone, and in e-mail exchanges. This can be stressful, especially when many contracts for e-content and with vendors and agents involve large amounts of money. Throughout this process, librarians should remember that both the supplier and the library are striving to represent their organizations effectively, that the supplier wants to sell products and services, and that the library wants to buy them. Negotiation is not necessarily adversarial, although it can become so. One should assume that both parties are bargaining in good faith until proven otherwise.

Librarians tend to think of negotiation primarily in relation to reaching agreement on the terms of a license for e-content (as introduced in chapter 4). Contracts for services with subscription agents and vendors are also negotiable and should be approached with the same attention to detail as when negotiating for content. Considerations that the library views as important should be clear from the onset and typically include specific performance expectations, such as the speed with which service questions are answered, quality of cataloging if provided, timeliness with which content is available, and frequency, format, and manner in which data are transferred between the content or service provider and the library. These data may be order confirmation records, cataloging records, or invoices. If the library is transferring business from one vendor or subscription agent to another, the contract usually specifies the assistance to be provided in the transition.

The library should ensure that the individuals with whom it is negotiating can speak for and negotiate on behalf of the company. Similarly, the library’s representative should have comparable authority. Initial conversations may start with an individual selector or someone in the acquisitions or serials unit, but final negotiations often are the responsibility of a senior administrator in the library. Particularly complicated or contentious negotiation may involve attorneys representing the library or its parent organization.

People negotiate with each other every day about what to prepare for dinner (or the restaurant in which to eat), which plants to buy for the garden, and what appropriate bedtimes are for children on school nights and weekends. Librarians talk about negotiating reference questions. The ability to negotiate effectively is an essential skill. In their widely used book on negotiation and conflict resolution, Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury stress what they call principled negotiation.4 Principled negotiation, or negotiation on the merits, has four basic elements: separating the people from the problem; focusing on interests, not positions; inventing multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do; and insisting that the result be based on some objective standard.

The first element, separating one’s emotional reaction to the participants from the negotiation underway, may be the most problematic. People have difficulty separating the problem to be resolved from the individuals sitting on the other side of the negotiation table, their feelings about those individuals, and perhaps the company they represent. They tend to hear what they think is being said, based on how they feel about the speaker. Actively and attentively listening and demonstrating that one understands are core skills in effective negotiation.

Focusing on interests, not positions, means avoiding going into the negotiations with a predetermined bottom line. Librarians should be able to separate position from interests. A librarian may state, “We refuse to renew our Big Deal agreement with publisher X and we need to terminate it.” At a more basic level, the problem is “Our budget allocation has been reduced and we cannot afford the current cost of content,” which is a need and thus, according to Fisher and Ury, the interest that should guide negotiation. Starting with interests instead of positions opens the door to effective negotiation by making clear the basic problem to be solved.

Once the library and the other party or parties at the negotiating table begin thinking in terms of problems, then they can begin thinking of alternative solutions. Librarians are often effective at brainstorming multiple creative options when solving problems or planning projects. They need to bring this open mindset to the negotiating table. Fisher and Ury observe that “skill at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have.”5 This is most effective when both parties agree to offer and consider various options and withhold judgment until all possible solutions have been considered.

The fourth basic element, insisting on using objective criteria, can be challenging when negotiating licenses and contracts. It is more feasible in some areas. When negotiating with an e-content provider for MARC records that will accompany the content, the library can reference accepted cataloging standards (e.g., catalog records that describe the e-content, not the print version) and proper placement of accurate linking data. This is more measurable than requiring “good” cataloging. Industry standards and government regulations (e.g., load-bearing standards for floors that will hold book stacks) and accepted valuation sources (e.g., Kelley Blue Book for vehicles) are not available for most of the e-content and services in which libraries are interested. Citing best practices for licenses, such as SERU (see chapter 4), may be helpful. One reason librarians are leery of nondisclosure clauses is that they prohibit sharing and comparing what libraries are paying for the same content. In the absence of fair and objective standards, one approach is to use fair and reasonable procedures for resolving the conflicting interest.

The library has leverage it can bring to negotiations. The most powerful is walking away from the negotiation. The library can decide not to purchase or license access from the supplier with which it is negotiating. In 2010 the University of California (UC) went further in its response to Nature Publishing Group’s (NPG) proposed price increase “of unprecedented magnitude” in a letter stating that faculty would be asked to cease submitting papers and undertaking peer review for NPG journals, resign from all NPG editorial and advisory boards, and not advertise jobs in NPG journals.6 This memo and subsequent public statements from UC and NPG attracted international attention as the library community watched to see how the dispute would be resolved. Two months later, a joint statement from NPG and UC announced:

Our two organizations have agreed to work together in the coming months to address our mutual short- and long-term challenges, including an exploration of potential new approaches and evolving publishing models. We look forward to a successful planning and experimentation process that results in mutual agreement that serves all stakeholder groups—NPG, the UC libraries, and the scholar community, thus avoiding the need for the boycott that had been discussed at an earlier stage.7

In February 2012, UC released an update covering several points, which concluded, “Although we have not yet reached agreement on a model that would allow us to add new NPG journal titles, UC and NPG have agreed to maintain their existing license while discussions continue.”8 Few libraries have the combined power of the UC system, but many librarians were heartened to see the results of the UC refusal to agree to yet another price increase.

Refusing to accept a price increase or a proposal is not the only option. Remember that content providers want to maintain their customers and hope to increase their volume of business. Libraries can offer incentives. For example, a library might offer to consolidate more of its ordering with a subscription agent in exchange for a lower service fee or with a vendor for a deeper discount. Libraries may consider making prepayments or setting up deposit accounts with a supplier if the supplier is financially sound. Research has shown that libraries with larger budgets are able to negotiate larger discounts. A report from Primary Research Group found that 25.6 percent of vendors that supply video and audio to libraries are open to price negotiation and that some libraries negotiated as much as 60 percent off the initial price.9 A librarian cannot determine if a content or service provider is willing to negotiate without asking.

If the relationship between the vendor and the librarian is fair-minded and they share an understanding that both are trying to do their best for their organizations, an amicable settlement often can be reached. The key is to engage in principled negotiation, remove personalities from the equation, and focus on a solution that addresses the interests of all parties.

Ongoing Communication

Effective communication is a central ingredient in the ongoing relationship between a library and a content or service provider. As Harrell notes, “Communication between libraries, publishers, and vendors has never been more critical to supplying resources to library customers in a transparent and seamless manner from the view of the customers.”10 Effective service depends on effective communication. Service has always been important in the relationship between libraries and their suppliers. This is even more important with the shift from hard copy to electronic content in which tangible products seldom changes hands and service defines the nature of access to e-content.

Appropriate individuals in the library (usually representing collection development and management and technical services) should meet with company representatives at least annually to discuss new offerings, changes in what the library needs, and persistent service concerns. Often these conversations are twice a year or quarterly. Company representatives may have different titles such as local field representative, regional sale representative, account executive, or head of institutional sales. Their goal is to develop and support their company’s relationship with the library and increase the amount of business the library does with their company. They should be knowledgeable about their company’s products and services, the library’s special needs, and any customization implemented by the library. These meetings may be used to renegotiate contracts, update approval plans, and order new products and services. Unresolved service issues also may be a topic for discussion, although these should be addressed as they occur with the company’s customer service representative and not accumulated and presented at an annual meeting with the sales representative.

Most libraries are in contact with their vendors and subscription agents many times during the year on various topics. Sales representatives communicate information on new products, services, and features and publishers and formats added to their offerings. They often provide forecasts of price changes in books and journals for the coming year. These data can help library develop their budget and plan allocations. Sales representatives may share information about in-person and online training tools for library staff and new features of their online system.

Resolving Problems

The most critical topic of communication between content and service providers and the library is problem resolution. Vendors, publishers, agents, and aggregators should have knowledgeable customer service representatives available during peak times in different time zones with toll-free telephone numbers. The speed and efficiency with which the service representatives handle issues are critical to their effectiveness. They should respond to problems reported via e-mail, phone, or an online problem-reporting system in a timely manner. If the service representative cannot immediately solve the problem, he or she should notify the library contact that the problem is receiving attention and when it will be resolved.

The library also has responsibilities in problem reporting and resolution. Library staff members should monitor data from automated systems and reports from the content or service provider. They should follow up on problem reports from others in the library. They should review invoices for accuracy and appropriate fees, service charges, and discounts and track timeliness in all areas important to the library. All problems should be documented in writing and conveyed to the appropriate company representative so they can be addressed. Some libraries keep a log of problems, the date they were reported and to whom, and the date of resolution. The library should give the representative detailed information about problems and the opportunity to correct them. Possible problems are

• errors

• unannounced or lengthy downtime

• tardiness in loading content to the supplier’s platform

• tardiness in filling orders

• overcharges

• cataloging records that do not meet specified criteria

• unexpected service charges

• unexpected or unexplained price increases

• inaccurate invoices

• order record files or invoices that cannot be loaded into the library’s system

• inadequate problem resolution

A documented history of problems is essential when reviewing a contract for renewal or considering alternative suppliers and service agencies.

Reviewing the Relationship

In addition to monitoring performance on an ongoing basis, libraries should conduct periodic, systematic reviews of their content suppliers and service pro viders to ensure that the relationship is meeting the library’s needs and expectations. Problems that are documented when they occur should be analyzed at least annually for types of problems, number and frequency of their occurrence, and speed with which they are resolved. If the library has specified performance criteria in the service agreement or license, library staff can compare actual performance to these specifications. Some categories of problems, such as slow responses to the library, slow payments to suppliers, increasing frequency of mistakes, downsizing, and high staff turnover, may indicate vendor or agent cash flow problems or company instability.

Responsibility for keeping track of a supplier’s performance and ensuring that it meets the terms of the contract or license is often shared between collection development and technical services librarians in larger libraries. Regardless of who is involved in its writing, an internal report should be prepared that includes data on problems, any variations from expected performance specified in the contract or license, and a recommendation about renewing the current agreement or, if problems are sufficiently egregious, terminating the agreement for cause. Fair and equitable dealing requires that libraries track their own obligations to vendors and document that these have been met (or not), as well.

Changing subscription agents and content suppliers, when the latter is possible, requires significant staff time and energy and is not a trivial undertaking, but if a relationship is unsatisfactory and the library’s investment is not justified, action should be taken. Giving the agent or supplier an opportunity to remedy the problems should be the first option explored. Failing to correct problems is justification for seeking an alternative. Good stewardship of a library’s resources demands it.

Conducting Business

Effective ongoing relationships depend on appropriate behavior on the part of both librarians and corporate representatives. Both parties have obligations to ensure that the relationship runs smoothly and successfully. Sales representatives should schedule their visits. Librarians have no obligation to meet with representatives who do not make appointments. Sales representatives should provide full disclosure about products, services, and prices. They should supply written proposals and offers. Without complete and accurate information, librarians cannot make informed decisions. Sale representatives should understand libraries and the technical language of librarianship. More important, they should know and understand the library they are visiting. They should listen carefully to the librarians’ needs and expectations. They should provide early and clear notification of planned price increases and of services outages. They should realize that not all visits result in sales and avoid pressuring librarians with offers that have time-limited availability. Sales representatives should try, to the extent they can, to be the ongoing sales contact for their company. Librarians prefer not to have to explain their situation to a new representative every few months.

Customer service representatives fill a different role—focusing on the day-to-day work of the company, meeting library needs, and solving problems. Library staff members seldom meet customer services representatives in person, relying instead on e-mail and phone to communicate. Ideally, the company provides a single point of contact (sometimes called an account service manager) for service issues, plus either the name of a substitute or a clear hand-off system. Libraries should expect prompt and courteous service. Information should be clear and helpful. Excellent companies have excellent service representatives because they know how important responsive service is to libraries.

Librarians also have obligations in ensuring a satisfactory relationship with sales and service representatives. Many of these behaviors parallel those expected from company agents. Courtesy and respect are the currency of business dealings.

Advice for Effective Meetings with Sales Representatives

Librarians should be

• Ready when sales representatives arrive for appointments. This means being available at the schedule time and prepared.

• Courteous. Librarians should be polite and respectful. This includes such basic behaviors as focusing one’s total attention on the meeting and having calls held.

• Honest and straightforward. Being truthful goes a long way in building trust, which, in turn, facilitates effective negotiation.

• Principled and ethical. Operating from principles and in accordance with professional and institutional ethics puts a librarian in a position of strength.

• Objective and unbiased. Librarians should not bring preconceptions and biases to the meeting. This may be difficult—librarians share a great deal via e-mail, blogs, and in person. Reports of positive and negative encounters and outcomes should not set expectations for any other individual’s meetings.

• Unemotional. Once emotions enter into the conversation, objectivity is lost.

• Attentive. Listening carefully to what is being said and considering before responding open the door to exploring options.

• Cautious about making immediate commitments. A consideration period is a normal part of conducting business. Offers should not always be accepted the day they are presented. Reflecting and discussing with others in the library are responsible ways to steward library resources.

• Attentive to the possibility of conflict of interest and careful about accepting gifts and hospitality that might influence responsible decisions.

Summary

Librarians and content and service providers have different goals. Librarians want to purchase or lease content and contract for services. Publishers, aggregators, vendors, and agents want customers for their products and services. To achieve these ends, the parties need to agree to work together to advance their mutual interests. Building and maintaining effective relationships are central to conducting business.

The first step for librarians is learning about the marketplace and options that can meet the library’s needs. Information sources can be informal or formal. Formal sources of information include RFIs, RFPs, and RFQs. One value in creating these formal documents is the development of a clear set of specifications detailing the library’s needs and performance expectations. Focus groups and advisory boards offer an opportunity to learn more about a company and its products and services and to influence their development. Serving as a beta tester for a new product or service also provides this opportunity.

The ability to negotiate effectively is important for librarians. Effective negotiation is principled and separates the people from the problem to be resolved; focuses on interests, not positions; explores multiple options before making the final decision; and, to the extent possible, measures results against an objective standard or best practice. Librarians should assume that all parties in the negotiation are acting in good faith until proven otherwise.

Successful ongoing communication is essential to sustain working relation ships. Regular and frequent meetings with sales representatives and attention to problem reporting and resolution are recommended. Librarians have a responsibility to track and report problems as soon as they are identified. The ongoing relationship should be reviewed systematically at least annually. This involves comparing performance expectations and other obligations set out in the license or contract against actual performance during a determined time period. When performance is well documented, it can serve as the basis for contract renegotiation, renewal, or termination. Sustaining a successful business relationship requires that both librarians and corporation representatives act courteously and respectfully while being attentive to their obligations and responsibilities.