Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes281 views
This document summarizes several studies conducted by Beth Picknally Camden at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries. The first study examined the fast-track replacement process for missing books and found that about half of sampled replacements were no longer missing. Replacement copies circulated less than original copies. A second study looked at the cost and value of periodical check-in and found through surveys that patrons rarely had questions about current issues. A third study analyzed the costs and activity of returning books to vendors for approval plans and found declining return rates over three years.
More Related Content
Similar to Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services (20)
Recently uploaded (20)
Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services
- 1. Beth Picknally Camden University of Pennsylvania Libraries bethpc@upenn.edu June 2014
- 2. Business definition Library approach My approach Cost Value
- 3. Fast-track replacements Serials check-in Returns
- 4. Fast-track replacement is a process where we purchase replacements for missing books before they are fully searched & declared lost. Reason for study: time pressure; niche workflow Staff reporting that many books were found by the time replacement arrived Growth of BD/EZB seen as replacing the need
- 5. Costs Sample of 75 replacements over 3 FYs Circulation data Discussions with bibliographers
- 6. Total spent Number purchased Average cost FY08 $19,394.33 427 $45.42 FY09 $23,953.85 478 $50.11 FY10 $27,074.64 507 $53.40 Total 08-10 $70,422.82 1,412 $49.87
- 7. Sample size Still lost? % Aver circ orig copy Aver circ repl copy Aver circ BD/EZB FY08 25 14 56.0% 5.12 2.64 0.68 FY09 25 12 48.0% 3.64 0.96 2.4 FY10 25 13 52.0% 3.04 1.44 0.16 Overall 75 40 53.3% 3.93 1.68 1.08
- 8. Couldnt get report with all the factors that I wanted to consider So used sample for a deep dive Voyager searching BD/EZB reports
- 9. Nearly half of the sampled titles (46.7%) were no longer missing Replacement copies circulated fewer times than originals 11 of the 75 titles (14.6%) had no charges for either the original or replacement copies 58 of the 75 titles were never borrowed BD/EZB Bibliographers valued fast-track
- 10. Continue Fast-track Change in timing (now biweekly) Considering another review
- 11. Is periodical check-in worth the cost (staff time, etc.)?
- 12. Cost Staff interviews Patron point-of-use survey Tracking patron questions
- 13. Total salaries $ 77,216.00 current periodicals (est.) 5500 Annual cost per title $ 14.04 FY11 collection spending Monograph: $ 3,686,338.19 24.82% Serial: $ 1,507,453.46 10.15% Electronic: $ 9,031,362.90 60.80% General funds: $ 629,180.47 4.24%
- 14. 2 minute paper survey The survey results indicated: Users found issues they needed on the shelves (71%) Users consulted catalog first (64%) If not found: they equally either ask for help, request an ILL, or use the online version
- 15. Two week period tracked patron questions relating to current periodicals at various locations Total (in-person; phone; IM/Chat): 1,011 Questions relating to current periodicals: 38 (3.75%)
- 16. Value of check-in Collection integrity Fiscal responsibility Competence and service quality Vendor reliability and accountability Also gathered info about current WF problems
- 17. Voyager does not provide any data to track staff productivity; time spent on check-in; who did the check-in; etc. Web analytics could not be gathered to track patron use of current issue information
- 18. Report recommended continuing check-in Deciding factor: fiscal responsibility Appendix documented a variety of workflow and timeliness problems. Many have been addressed.
- 19. This study looked at activity of returning books to vendors, for both approval plans and firm orders, and included a review of related activities including bibliographer review of approval books.
- 20. Departmental annual reports Voyager reports YBP GOBI reports
- 21. Cost of returns annual cost cost per item Staff time to process returns $ 14,528.80 $ 23.97 Return Postage $ 2,500.00 $ 4.13 Total $ 17,028.80 $ 28.10
- 22. 30+ approval plans 3 years of data: Number received (up slightly over 3 years) Number returned (declining over 3 years) Calculated % returned for each vendor Overall return rate declining 4%2%
- 23. 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 All Approval Returns 1956 1877 1312 993 693 606 YBP Returns n/a n/a n/a 576 461 388
- 24. Approval Return Reasons damaged/defective 40 2% duplicate 564 29% no to series 13 1% poor quality 21 1% reprint 12 1% scope 656 34% textbook 3 0% too expensive 56 3% vendor error 1 0% wrong format 2 0% no reason 563 29%
- 25. LC Class Shipped Returned % Ret'd A 12 0 0% B 1828 21 1% C 84 0 0% D 1299 6 0% E 637 1 0% F 374 1 0% G 449 28 6% H 2937 36 1% J 970 5 1% K 460 54 12% L 551 5 1% LC Class Shipped Returned % Ret'd M 335 0 0% N 664 11 2% P 3839 12 0% Q 460 76 17% R 184 14 8% S 55 2 4% T 357 55 15% U 183 27 15% V 35 5 14% Z 47 1 2% Total 15760 360 2%
- 26. Eliminated plan with high rate of return Shared data with Coll Dev for updating profiles Not returning books costing $25 or less Used data (reduction in returns) to justify changing staff duties to union
- 27. Time consuming Not all data available Unexpected findings about related WF Assumptions may/may not be proven Other factors beyond data can influence decisions Determining the VALUE of a service is more difficult than determining the COST
- 28. Driving With Data: A Roadmap for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Academic Libraries Marcum & Schonfeld
Editor's Notes
- #3: Business definition (real money): Some people think ROI is only calculated in financial terms, but it more broadly refers to any positive or negative business outcomes that are the result of making a particular investment. The油"return"油might be measured by progress toward goals, positive impact on intangible assets, increased competence, improved morale, employee or partner satisfaction, and other non-financial benefits. Costs can be calculated in both financial terms and in non-financial terms such as risk or impact on intangible assets and resources. http://www.valuenetworksandcollaboration.com/advanced/tipsforcostbenefit.html Library ROI: -Public libraries: economic impact in a given community of library budget In the study of Florida public libraries, a total of 17 public libraries were analyzed to assess the benefits to adult users who were 18 years of age or older; this study also considered the economic impact on these users....The analysis showed that approximately $6.40 of the total value per $1 of the budget was created. http://www.ala.org/research/librariesmatter/taxonomy/term/129 -Academic libraries: focusing on student/researcher impact Value of Academic Libraries Toolkit http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/value/valueofacademiclibrariestoolkit#Academic%20Library%20ROI My approach -Investment=Cost (Salaries; Collection $; Shipping; supplies; other) -Return=Value -Internal: impact on other WF; impact on other depts -External: User impactdirect/indirect Value is the hardest to measure
- #5: 2011
- #7: Key: the collection cost was small as % of budget
- #9: Time consuming especially for BD/EZB
- #10: So, BD.EZB assumption was not true Bibliographers valued fast-track (low cost; no decision needed; not subject funds)
- #11: Single person study Took a lot of time Decision to use group for next study
- #12: Late 2011 Pet project of the library director
- #14: Note: Voyager can give us a count of subscriptions, but not a count of just periodical subscriptions which are currently received. Serials budget includes all print serials (not just periodicals) and print+online NOT MUCH DATA
- #15: distributed near the current periodicals area in 20 locations; 2 week period; 39 returned; chiefly from 3 locations ADD QUESTIONS -results were small and somewhat skewed by a larger number of returns from one small library -one key point: 64% claimed to check catalog firstUSER VALUE of check-in information in the catalog
- #16: Very small % but PS staff give a strong emphasis on using check-in records to answer questions: answer with authority
- #17: Collection integritywe wont know what we own; we wont be able to claim Fiscal responsibilityaudit trail; we prepay; if no check in no records of univ assets Service speaking with authority about whether we have an issue
- #18: Classic vs New Franklin
- #19: Group process for this study did not work well -less open to change than we would like Director not happy with result -we will revisit at some point
- #20: Approach small group of 2 2012/13
- #21: Tons of data availableLots of funs to dig into it!
- #22: FY12 costs
- #23: One vendor with a 16% return rate plan was cancelled even before we finished the study Huge table with each vendor over 3 years
- #24: From dept annual reports
- #25: Voyager report (3 FYs)note does not include all returns (we dont add records for all approvals at the point of receipt); so not included in this table No reason: YBP has discontinued slips with reason for return; so more recent returns do not have a reason Dupl: w/ diff. plan; w/ e-resource; w/ firm order; w/ gift; w/ standing order Scope: language; narrow geog.; out of scope; peripheral interest; too specialized; sufficient coverage; too narrow; too popular; wrong level Both Dupl & Scope point to the need for better awareness of app profiles
- #26: From YBP report FY12 Although the overall return rate is low at 2%, several of the LC classes show a high rate of return, including several in the double-digits (K, Q, T, U, and V). To clarify the picture further, we looked at returns rates by subclass. 22 subclasses had a return rate of 25% or higher; several subclasses had a 100% return rate (chiefly in K). An additional 18 subclasses had return rates of 10-14%. These subclasses should be reviewed by bibliographers to consider moving to the YBP slip plan. This would further reduce the number of returns. In general, small numbers in a subject area lend to a higher return rate. Also note that the classes with 0-1% are clear candidates for shelf ready (currently only Literature is shelf ready)
- #27: -considering moving to $50 cost as the cut off for returns -path for position elimination not clear