際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services

?Download as PPTX, PDF?
?
Beth Picknally Camden
Beth Picknally Camden

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.

1 of 28
Download to read offline
Beth Picknally Camden University of Pennsylvania Libraries bethpc@upenn.edu June 2014
? Business definition ? Library approach ? My approach ? Cost ? Value
? Fast-track replacements ? Serials check-in ? Returns
? 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
? Costs ? Sample of 75 replacements over 3 FYs ? Circulation data ? Discussions with bibliographers
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
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
? Couldn¨t get report with all the factors that I wanted to consider ? So used sample for a deep dive ? Voyager searching ? BD/EZB reports
? 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
? Continue Fast-track ? Change in timing (now biweekly) ? Considering another review
? Is periodical check-in worth the cost (staff time, etc.)?
? Cost ? Staff interviews ? Patron point-of-use survey ? Tracking patron questions
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%
? 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
? 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%)
? Value of check-in ? Collection integrity ? Fiscal responsibility ? Competence and service quality ? Vendor reliability and accountability ? Also gathered info about current WF problems
? 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
? Report recommended continuing check-in ? Deciding factor: fiscal responsibility ? Appendix documented a variety of workflow and timeliness problems. Many have been addressed.
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.
? Departmental annual reports ? Voyager reports ? YBP GOBI reports
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
? 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%
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
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%
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%
? 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
? 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
Driving With Data: A Roadmap for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Academic Libraries C Marcum & Schonfeld

More Related Content

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. ? Couldn¨t 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 C 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?"return"?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 impact！direct/indirect Value is the hardest to measure
  • #5: 2011
  • #7: Key: the collection cost was small as % of budget
  • #9: Time consuming C 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 first！USER 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 integrity！we won¨t know what we own; we won¨t be able to claim Fiscal responsibility！audit trail; we prepay; if no check in no records of univ assets Service Cspeaking 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 C small group of 2 2012/13
  • #21: Tons of data available！Lots of funs to dig into it!
  • #22: FY12 costs
  • #23: One vendor with a 16% return rate C 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 don¨t 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 C 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