Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•281 views
Presented at “Statistics and Reports: Data-Driven Decision-Making”, ALCTS Preconference, June 2014
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services
Similar to Return-on-Investment Studies: Using Production Data in Technical Services (20)
Recently uploaded
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. 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 – Marcum & Schonfeld
Editor's Notes
- 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
- 2011
- Key: the collection cost was small as % of budget
- Time consuming – especially for BD/EZB
- So, BD.EZB assumption was not true Bibliographers valued fast-track (low cost; no decision needed; not subject funds)
- Single person study Took a lot of time Decision to use group for next study
- Late 2011 “Pet” project of the library director
- 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
- 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
- Very small % but PS staff give a strong emphasis on using check-in records to answer questions: “answer with authority”
- 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 –speaking with authority about whether we have an issue
- Classic vs New Franklin
- 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
- Approach – small group of 2 2012/13
- Tons of data available—Lots of funs to dig into it!
- FY12 costs
- One vendor with a 16% return rate – plan was cancelled even before we finished the study Huge table with each vendor over 3 years
- From dept annual reports
- 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
- 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)
- -considering moving to $50 cost as the cut off for returns -path for position elimination not clear