Tip 1– Begin by understanding when cost sharing makes sense

Cost sharing arrangements between libraries and academic departments may seem like an obvious win-win solution, but successful partnerships require careful consideration and clear communication from the start. Cost sharing typically emerges when faculty request access to resources that fall outside a library’s standard collection scope or philosophy. As Kalinowski and Hines noted (2020), with the “rise of quantitative business research in the 1990’s…researchers have sought increasingly rare and unique datasets to answer questions in new ways and explore things previously not possible” (p.107). These might be highly specialized databases with niche audiences, resources with prohibitively high costs, or platforms with non-traditional access models that don’t align with typical library subscriptions. Faculty requesting data often lack insight into the complexities of electronic resource management and library budget constraints, leading to frustration when requests are denied. In these situations, a cost sharing arrangement can provide temporary access while both parties evaluate whether the resource or dataset merits a long-term budget commitment.

Tip 2– Carefully assess potential hurdles or drawbacks

Before proposing to share costs, liaison librarians should carefully weigh potential drawbacks. Formal agreements may require libraries to contribute funds toward resources with access models that violate institutional norms, such as named user accounts or department-restricted access. Budget cycles between libraries and academic departments often don’t align, creating challenges for coordinating payments and fund transfers. Complexity in coordinating access to data often multiplies when vendors offer confusing pricing structures. As LaVoice and Wachowicz (2022) noted: “A data provider may offer multiple products that provide the same content but cater to different research needs…[they] may charge separately to access their data from different delivery platforms” (para. 6), making it difficult to determine which option best serves the institution. Perhaps more significant, establishing and maintaining cost sharing arrangements requires substantial administrative overhead, where licensing communications may divert staff attention away from core responsibilities. Unless a shared resource brings significant value, the “overhead tax” as described by Newport (2024, p.44) may not be easily justified.

Tip 3– Educate faculty partners about library realities

Faculty partners need education about library collection policies and the factors that influence funding decisions. Many faculty view comprehensive research support as the library’s core mission and do not understand why certain resources or services aren’t fully funded or supported by the library. They often underestimate how compliance requirements like accessibility standards (VPATs) and user restrictions often complicate business data licensing within academia. As Silver (2020) warned, some data licensing requirements “create a heavy administrative burden and may not even be possible” (p.177). Termination clauses requiring institutions to verify data deletion, audit rights granting vendors access to institutional systems, user tracking provisions, restrictive user registration processes, mandated citation formats, and pre-publication review requirements can all introduce significant legal, logistical, and ethical complications (2020). Despite these challenges, some librarians report that cost sharing arrangements help some faculty to have more skin in the game, which leads to stronger advocacy for valuable resources and more willingness to cancel underperforming ones.

Tip 4– Build trust through transparent communication about library operations

To build faculty support for cost sharing, librarians should prepare clear, jargon-free explanations of the hidden work involved in implementing non-standard access models and how usage metrics drive collection priorities. These conversations must acknowledge the specialized expertise required for contract negotiation, resource management, and access setup—work that business faculty and administrators may not fully appreciate. Rather than assuming mutual understanding of cost sharing benefits, librarians should articulate how cost sharing addresses access and financial challenges for both parties and creates genuine value for the institution. Many libraries also benefit from framing these arrangements as opportunities to expand research capabilities together, rather than solutions born from financial constraints.

Tip 5– Evaluate which arrangement best fits your institutional constraints

There is no single “right” way to structure a formal cost sharing arrangement because local context, institutional and state policies, and specific resource needs must be factored into each arrangement. Still, libraries have successfully implemented several common arrangements (Table 1) for managing business information resources.

Many arrangements involve the library paying the entire invoice amount and requesting reimbursement for joint purchases via internal funds transfer, while others have the partner paying the full amount with the library transferring its share internally. Split payment models allow each party to handle separate invoices. In this case, the library might pay its portion directly to the vendor while the partner receives a separate invoice for the remainder. Some libraries have even formalized MOUs to fund library staff positions in exchange for ongoing resource subscription management.

Tip 6– Consider modular pricing opportunities

Through API solutions and platforms like Wharton Research Data Services (WRDS) and Dewey Data, additional cost structuring opportunities have emerged to accommodate modular pricing. Libraries and partners can divide fiscal responsibilities by assigning specific resource pricing components. For example, the library may cover the WRDS base platform fee while partners fund add-on datasets like those from S&P Global’s Compustat or from the Center for Research in Security Prices, LLC (CRSP). These arrangements commonly utilize either direct partner-vendor payments or internal fund code transfers depending on institutional preferences and accounting requirements. In practice (for example), add-ons and high-turnover datasets are often documented in an addendum to the master MOU, with the base agreement negotiated separately. This structure allows partners to adjust their dataset commitments without full renegotiation of the underlying arrangement.

Tip 7– Don’t forget to account for “soft costs”

Librarians developing their first cost sharing arrangement often focus too narrowly on subscription costs, overlooking the substantial “soft costs” that libraries provide. Several non-monetary contributions include vendor research and pricing negotiations, license review and legal compliance, user account management and technical support, sole source purchasing justifications, and ongoing vendor relationship management. Some libraries successfully address these hidden costs through service fees or “chargebacks” in their MOUs, where partners provide additional compensation beyond their subscription share to offset the personnel costs of managing resources or data. Establishing clear expectations about these responsibilities upfront prevents misunderstandings and ensures that all parties understand the full scope of work involved in maintaining shared resources.

Tip 8– Leverage MOUs, a proven best practice in libraries

MOUs aren’t new to libraries—they’ve been part of library operations since at least 1934 and have proven their value across many collaborative services (Scarborough Public Library, n.d.). Although MOUs are not necessarily legally binding, they allow partners to explain in clear terms “what they expect from one another” (Kenton, 2024). After reviewing over 30 shared print MOUs, Demas (2014) wrote, “The success of shared curation of the North American print collection will depend on the efficacy of these cooperative agreements in creating a workable set of supra-institutional policy and organizational arrangements” (p.72). Since then, the use of MOUs in libraries seems to have accelerated in parallel with the remarkable pace of shared print repositories (Lugg, 2018). For additional examples and further reading on the use of MOUs in academic library settings, please see Appendix 1. Understanding proven track records will strengthen your case for implementing MOUs at your institution.

Tip 9– Start with a comprehensive yet flexible MOU

Effective MOUs balance specificity with flexibility, creating durable agreements that can adapt to changing conditions while maintaining clear expectations for all partners. Based on our analysis of successful agreements shared by libraries, we’ve identified essential components that strengthen these partnerships and help them endure staff turnover, budget fluctuations, and evolving strategic priorities. Table 2 summarizes key clauses libraries have successfully implemented, providing adaptable language drawn from real-world examples.

In addition to the identified components of MOUs, some libraries describe target resources comprehensively rather than simply naming them. This strategy extends the agreement’s durability when resources undergo rebranding, or vendor mergers, which is increasingly common in the business data environment. Include both the purpose of the agreement and a clear rationale explaining why the resources warrant cost sharing among the specified parties. With context provided via recitals, libraries have found success using the MOU as an educational artifact that incorporates explanations of the resource acquisition lifecycle to help partners understand the complex processes involved in electronic resource management.

Tip 10– Assign clear roles and responsibilities, especially with respect to primary decision makers

Clear delineation of roles and responsibilities forms the backbone of any successful agreement. Specify which positions at each institution serve as primary decision-makers and points of contact for licensing, product administration, usage tracking, user instruction, and technical support. This clarity becomes especially critical when staff turnover occurs, ensuring continuity of the partnership regardless of personnel changes. Additionally, establish processes for informing individual researchers about any negotiated license terms that differ from standard agreements, requiring their review and acknowledgment before accessing resources with non-standard restrictions.

Tip 11– Use percentage-based financial commitments

Financial arrangements require particular attention to ensure long-term sustainability. Rather than specifying dollar amounts that quickly become outdated, allocate contributions as percentages (e.g., “each party contributes 50%” rather than “each party pays $10,000”). This approach ensures both parties share proportionally in annual price increases and contract renewals, preventing one partner from absorbing inflation costs over time. MOUs should specify payment logistics upfront: who receives the invoice, when reimbursement occurs, and how fiscal year constraints affect fund transfers. These details prevent access disruptions caused by delayed payments or misaligned budget cycles.

Tip 12– Build in mechanisms for adaptation and renewal

Establish clear renewal periods—whether annual conversations or three-year cycles—so all parties know when to reassess their commitment. Set deadlines for renewal decisions at least three months before the vendor’s required notification date, providing a cushion for non-responses and allowing time to explore alternative funding options if needed. Crucially, state explicitly that any non-response constitutes intent to cancel, preventing resources from auto-renewing without active partner commitment. Include provisions for organizational changes, addressing what happens if a participating department restructures or dissolves, ensuring the agreement can adapt to institutional evolution while protecting ongoing access to critical resources.

Tip 13– Sustain your partnership through active stewardship

Once formalized, cost-sharing agreements require active stewardship to weather the inevitable changes in personnel, budgets, and institutional priorities. Libraries that approach these partnerships with a set-it-and-forget-it mindset often find their agreements unraveling within a few renewal cycles. Successful long-term partnerships depend on intentional communication strategies and administrative practices that transcend individual relationships.

Tip 14– Establish centralized documentation systems

Effective documentation forms the foundation of sustainable agreements. Rather than allowing critical information to reside in individual email accounts or relying on institutional memory, libraries should establish centralized repositories for all agreement documentation, correspondence, and renewal histories. This practice proves invaluable during staff transitions and helps new personnel quickly understand existing commitments. Similarly, onboarding procedures for both library staff and partner stakeholders should explicitly include reviews of active cost sharing agreements. While liaison librarians will probably lack signing authority, their awareness of these partnerships proves essential for day-to-day resource support and communications with faculty.

Tip 15– Initiate proactive annual communication

One library reported remarkable success by initiating each fiscal year with a comprehensive memo to all cost sharing stakeholders. This communication clarifies current contacts, reimbursement procedures, payment deadlines, and specific dollar amounts for the year ahead. By taking the initiative, the library positions itself as a strategic partner rather than merely a service provider, reinforcing the value of collaborative resource management.

Tip 16– Regularly assess the partnership’s value

Libraries should track the true costs of maintaining agreements, including staff time for coordination, invoice processing, and troubleshooting access issues. Establishing clear thresholds for when an agreement no longer justifies its administrative burden helps partners sustain the arrangement. This evaluation should consider not just financial costs but also opportunity costs—the initiatives and services that staff cannot pursue while managing complex cost sharing arrangements. Regular assessment ensures that partnerships continue to serve institutional goals rather than persisting through mere inertia.

Conclusion

Cost sharing arrangements for business data represent more than just a funding strategy. They offer libraries a framework to expand access while building stronger partnerships. These collaborations are not simply a recent innovation born from budget pressures, but an established practice with deep roots in academic librarianship.

Although Gary W. White wrote in 2004 that libraries lacked published guidance for developing partnerships and funding structures for business information sources, such collaborations were already well-established. The University of Florida formalized its arrangement through a 1989 MOU committing the Business School to funding financial research databases (McKay, 2021), while Pennsylvania State University implemented a 50-50 cost-sharing agreement around 2000 through an MOU for jointly acquiring business research resources (White, 2004). In our 2025 “State of cost sharing...” study, we discovered 69 AACSB-accredited schools with current or former cost sharing arrangements and 16 schools with formal agreements in place. Given the politics involved, it is likely that many more of the 1,037 AACSB-accredited institutions also cost share (AACSB, 2025).

As business data continues to grow more specialized and expensive, the collaborative frameworks presented here will likely become essential rather than optional. Libraries that develop these collaborative partnerships now position themselves as strategic allies in their institutions’ research future.