This Ain’t Your Papa’s Allocation Formula!: Team Based Approaches to Monograph Collections Budgets
1. This Ain‟t Your
Papa‟s
Allocation
Formula!
Team Based Approaches to
Monograph Collections
Budgets
Scott Gillies, Team Head, Information Resources
Helen Salmon , Information Resources Librarian
November 2013
University of Guelph Library ∙ www.lib.uoguelph.ca
2. Backstory – Who are We?
• Located in Guelph, Ontario
Canada (near Toronto) –
population 120,000
• Founding colleges date from
the late 1800s; became a fullspectrum university in 1964
• A medium-sized
comprehensive university with
traditional strengths in
agriculture, veterinary
medicine, life
sciences, applied social
sciences
3. Backstory – A Bit about Guelph
Then (1965)
•
•
•
•
•
•
FTE count: approx. 1,700 students
faculty 357
Three colleges
One main library (all subjects)
One departmental library
(veterinary medicine)
625,000 volumes
…. And Now
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FTE count: approx. 25,000
o 22,500 undergrads
o 2,400 grads
780 faculty
Seven colleges
90+ majors in 13 degree programs
Single library (main campus)
4 satellite campus libraries
1.2 million volumes
5. What we value….
student-focused
Experiential learning
residentially-intensive
E-learning and DE modalities
Strong focus on internationalism and open learning
Committed to the integration of learning and research
Highly collaborative and interdisciplinary (within and
beyond the university)
6. Before 2009 …..
Traditional Liaison Model
• One liaison librarian > many
departments
• Multiple job roles
• Librarians (most) are
„generalists‟
• Matrix management reporting
lines
• Liaison librarians report to the
Head of IR for part (25%) of their
duties, but their primary
supervisor is the Head of
Academic Liaison
7. Timeline – University of Guelph Organizational Renewal
Initiative
2006 – 2008
Academic
Liaison Services
Review is
carried out
May 2008
Launch of our
Organizational
Renewal
initiative
Summer
2008
Staff engaged in
defining
organizational
vision, values,
and core work
2008-2009
Ongoing
organizational
development
training to
support cultural
change
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Release of the
first draft of our
new
Organizational
the final
Organizational
Renewal report
is released and
new positions
are defined.
Model with 5
strategic teams
Winter 2009
Staff participate
in working
groups
established to
define new
strategic teams
and crossfunctional
teams
Fall 2009 Spring 2010
Staff are
assigned to
strategic teams,
and the new
organizational
structure is
implemented.
The IR team is
born!
8. After 2009 – principles arising
from the Academic Liaison
Review
•
Liaison is not exclusively about departmental alignment, and is not done
exclusively by librarians
•
The situation in which “everyone does everything” is not sustainable
•
The new model will support development of deeper skills and professional
learning networks
•
Avoid “silo-ization” of work; actively encourage enhanced collaboration
with each other and with many groups on campus
9. What were the expectations?
[The IR team] is responsible for the development and
curation of the Library’s collections and for ensuring
responsive and proactive support for the learning,
teaching and research enterprise….
providing a coordinated approach to collection
development and management
Ensuring that relevant, unique and useful resources are
available for users in ways that integrate seamlessly with
their learning and discovery activities
10. Focus of the New IR Team….
Collection
Development
Collection
Management
Evaluation
and
Assessment
11. Information Resources Team:
Head of Information
Resources
Manager of
Acquisitions
IR librarians (4)
Coordinator,
Acquisitions
Coordinator, Gov.
Pubs & Collection
Maintenance
6 library assistants
Media Resources
specialist
(professional staff)
12. Building a shared community of
practice….
By creating a team of librarians and professional staff who
would focus on Information Resources, we hoped to remove
the old silos and create new synergy:
a common
purpose
increased
innovation,
agility,
collaboration
a community
of practice
sharing of our
diverse
strengths
a renewed
focus on IR
work
a rich peerto- peer
learning
environment
13. Factors for Change – External
• Shifts in publishing trends
– Greater availability of e-formats
– Rise/growth of consortia ebook licenses (big costs, multidisciplinary content)
– Publishers are aggregating and integrating information
“packages” – this requires broader funding models
– Increase in multi-disciplinary and Open Access publishing
(who will pay for it?)
14. Factors for Change – External
• Societal trends
– Open access to information (the “Web” changed
everything!)
– Research and teaching increasingly cut across multiple
disciplines
– Faculty cross-appointments
– growth of multi-institutional research teams
– ability to form research networks through social media
channels
15. Factors for Change – Internal
• Changes in research and
teaching on campus create
larger, more interdisciplinary
departments
• Increased focus on
accountability at a broad
institutional level (parent
institution, provincial
government, federal funding
agencies) – replaces
departmental focus
• Departmental affiliation/identity
is diminished by other forms of
academic networking
16. Factors for Change – Internal
• Demise of formal university governance structures
• Monograph spending authority devolves to the library
• Transformative change in the role of academic
libraries
17. Monograph Budgeting: how do
we do it now?
IF you came expecting a large series of Excel
spreadsheets and formula minutiae…
PREPARE to be Annoyed
18. Monograph Budgeting: how we did
it “then”
• $$ divided into College-level
then department-level
allocations
• Some broader funds
(Reference, Interdisciplinary,
ebooks, Parents‟ Fund)
• Budget-setting done by the
Head of IR, based on
individual discussions with
each liaison librarian
• Department input
(sometimes) from faculty
library reps and College
library committees
Library
Monograph
Budget
College of Arts
Fund
History Dept.
English &
Theatre
allocation
allocation
Philosophy
allocation
19. Monograph Budgeting (Old)
• Allocations formulae …
“Once upon a time…”
− Primarily FTE driven
− Years of accretion and changes
− Often developed by political
rather than numeric criteria
• Many different fund
allocations within the
monograph budget (over
60!)
• 55%+ of mono budget was
allocated to firms
20. Monograph Budgeting (New)
NEW Tools and Structures:
Transition from department to
university perspective:
• Larger spending “pots”, with
department budgets now
aggregated into Collegelevel funds
Departmental
budgets
• Approval plan plays pivotal
role in guiding mono
acquisitions
• Allocations made in response
to formal program and
course assessments
College-level
and fully
centralized
budgets
21. The Macro Level – Team Head
Moving from an A Priori formula to Post-Hoc adjustments …
how?
Determinative factors:
– Overall budgetary balance (80/20 rule)
– ATB increases/decreases
– Course / program assessments
– Format migration (emerging trends)
– Non-punitive framework
22. Budget View - OLD
UG Monos 2005/06 >
UG Monos 2005/06 >
College Mono. Total >
Approval Plan Total>
COA (Arts) mono.total >
– Fine Arts (Firm)
– Fine Arts (STO)
– History (Firm)
– History (STO)
– Languages/Literatures– Classics (Firm)
– French (Firm)
– French (STO)
– etc.
– Classics- approval
– Languages- approval
– Scottish- approval
– etc.
23. Budget View - NEW
UG Monos 2012/13 >
UG Monos 2012/13 >
College Mono. Total >
Approval Plan Total
• COA (Arts)
– COA- Firm
– COA- ebook†
– COA (STO)
† Non-allocated tracking fund for reporting purposes
24. Strategies to Adapt – Team Head
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2008 > 8 Collections (Mono/College-Central Pooling)
College/Dept
% Proportion
CBS (Life Sci)
15%
OVC
20%
Humber (Soc. Sci.)
17%
Ebooks (Serials)
48%
25. Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (2)
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2009 > ALL (12) Collections (Mono/College-Central Pooling)
College /Dept
% Proportion
CBS (Life Sci)
Chem
Computer
Ebooks (Serials)
20%
3%
15%
32%
Engineering
13%
Math
4%
OVC
10%
Physics
2%
26. Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (3)
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2010 / 11 > ALL (12) Collections (Mono/College-Central Pooling)
College
CBS (Life Sci)
CME
CPES†
Ebooks (Serials)
OVC
% Proportion
12%
5%
26%
51%
5%
†Includes all physical/eng. Sciences – chem, eng, math, physics
27. Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (4)
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2012 > ALL (12) Collections (100% Central funding)
College
Ebooks (Serials)*
% Proportion
100%
*Includes some transfer funds from College monos as part of centralization
28. The selector viewpoint
Cultural Changes:
•
Development of a new team-based culture/approach for Collections
•
Joint Work + greater trust + greater knowledge = Larger Shared Funds
•
New workflows and practices support knowledge exchange and
broader context
–
Holistic approach
–
Consensus decision-making
–
Shared professional development
–
Balancing of workload
–
Use of Logic Models
29. Strategies to Adapt – P2P learning
• Maximize peer-to-peer
learning environment
• Shared professional
development and
knowledge-sharing
strengthens trust and creates
new opportunities
(collaboration on epackages, better knowledge
of new curricular initiatives)
• join forces to increase visibility
and outreach effectiveness
30. Strategies to Adapt – Selector
Tools
Removing silos and barriers:
– One approval plan
– Common templates for assessments
– New Products database
– Shared decision-making and visioning
– Evidenced-based librarianship
(assessment)
– Mentoring and training the next
generation of Collections specialists
– Curriculum-based collections work
31. Managing the budget – Selector
Tools
• New tools (or old tools used in
new ways)
– Statistical/usage tools
– COGNOS (MIS software)
reports
– GOBI
– New products database and
IR Newsfeed database
– Excel for budget tracking
– Vendor platforms
– Curriculum mapping
– LC schedules
33. Strategies to Adapt – The Team
Q: Group work and sharing are great….but how do we ensure
equity across the disciplines?
A: New Products Process
– Ebook packages evaluated using standardized criteria and from a
holistic/campus-wide perspective
– Nominal “shares” of available new product funds
– Informal brokering and negotiating is grounded in formal assessment
outcomes and faculty prioritization (resource is required for a new
program)
34. Strategies to Adapt – The Team
• Evaluation and Assessment – how best to employ use
data?
• The broader view – UG mono collections in light of
regional (TUG) consortium
• Formal allocations formula
– To Re-fresh or Abandon?
35. Challenges - Communications
• How to communicate new
modes of work to our users
and our internal
partners/clients?
– Loss of Dept. Faculty Library
Reps
– Intra-library communications
– New modes of communication:
social media, point-of-need
ordering, PDA
• What do our friends (OCUL,
ARL/CARL) and funders (University,
Province – HEQCO) want to know?
How can we measure this?
Library Open House
36. Challenges –
Ebooks
• Q: How do you track Ebooks?
• A: Here, there…everywhere
– Allocated serials fund
– Tracking funds in College Mono
– Tracking funds in College Approval
– Tracking funds in Reference
37. Challenges – Ebooks
• Tracking cost/benefit (or even
cost-per-use) is not an exact
science
• Lack of standardization – hard
to know what we are buying
and what we can do with it
• Consortial models for shared
purchasing and resource
sharing are just beginning to
emerge
• PDA/DDA projects?
HS - Emphasis on the integrated nature of the UG system – main campus = single library; satellite campuses (Guelph-Humber and 3 regional colleges have smaller resource centres) > near 100% of e-formats acquired centrallyEnormous growth in numbers (students and faculty) and programs (many more disciplines and sub-disciplines) means that the original model of close faculty involvement in selection is no longer sustainable
HS:Even balance of disciplines (despite our known areas of strength)Many multi-disciplinary programs
HS:Non-standard curriculumLearning beyond the classroomCoop and semester-abroad programs very popularOMAFRA partnershipOpen Learning leadership (Open Learning and DE initiatives grow out of Guelph’s rural extension traditions)
HS:Strengthsof Liaison model in relation to Collections: - Librarians could develop strong relations and awareness of emerging areas of research because they worked with departments through a range of contacts (reference, IL, research consultations, leadership for special projects)Easier for faculty to remember “one” librarian contact than to interface with different librarians for different servicesWeaknesses of Liaison model in relation to Collections: - collections work was only part of Liaison Librarians’ responsibilities, and needed to be balanced along with information literacy, reference desk, and faculty/graduate student research consultations, as well as fulfilling academic status responsibilities for research & publication, service and professional development(30% workload allocation). Collections work competed with other time-sensitive tasks like instruction and graduate student research consults, and there were variable levels of engagement with and prioritization of collections work- focus on departmental needs discouraged collaboration and limited the ability to “pool” resources for larger package deals or strategic shifts in IR spending, or to address interdisciplinary needs- inability to focus on large-scale projects- Each liaison librarian had the autonomy to develop relations with departments and to define the best approach to meet departmental needs; there was programmatic approach and nostandardization of service provision across the campus- Collections focus for liaison librarians was on spending down individual departmental budget allocations. The focus was on decision-making and advocacy from the pov of individual departments/disciplines rather than on university-level strategic directions, or wider trends in scholarly communications and higher education- Librarians do not have the opportunity to develop deep skills in IR, or a wider context for how collections work must support, integrate, and respond to university-wide goals and trends in higher education and scholarly publishing- Challenges of matrix management approach (disconnect between Collections and Academic Liaison goals; lack of librarian time and skills devoted to IR; “volunteerism” for important IR projects)- Without librarian resources, cannot focus on collection management or digitization, can’t develop a collection philosophy or shared vision for the future direction of collections
HS: These are the outcomes that we hoped for, not necessarily what we have achieved. This is the vision…-What was the Academic Liaison Review: Consultations with staff and with our communityEnvironmental scan (literature, interviews with other libraries)Why did we do it? reasons for initiating the review: library/librarian roles are changing and we need to be able to focus on new kinds of work and servicesOur university is becoming much more interdisciplinary, and teaching and research is not aligned along departmental lines.Collections and access to resources (Collections work is increasingly complex)Academic support and teaching (the need for a strong information literacy program delivered by a range of specialistsThe integration of information creates the opportunity for the Library to become more directly engaged in the University’s teaching, learning andresearch environments, working in partnership with facultyNew technologies create the need to improve our integration of e-resources, to maximize access and “findability” for users, but also create opportunities to implement new technologies for information seeking, sharing, organization, and management Fewer librarians to do an increasingly wide variety of work means we need to re-focus our priorities and our ways of working together. Having “everyone do everything” has contributed to difficulties with workload, prioritization, distribution of duties, and time management.The new model should allow staff to focus on and develop their develop their individual skills, develop new skills and specializations, and apply them to their work in a more specialized range of practice .The need to explore new kinds of teaching, learning and research partnerships. Liaison is about the library liaising with the community, which could include any number of units, departments, or functions, and could be contributed to by anyone.
SG – What does the NEW IR Team Look like? MANDATECore responsibilities defined for the IR team include both TRADITIONALand EVOLVING elements of collections work: budget management developing collection policies information resources selectionLicensing negotiation and complianceAcquisitions (purchasing and records maintenance)collection assessment and resource evaluation and use analysis,long-term stewardship of the Library’s collections.Collections management and maintenance policies and activities (de-selection, management of legacy print collections, collection space planning, transitioning to alternate modes of access, format migrationDigitization of local collectionsParticularly want to address previously neglected aspects of Collection Management and Collection Evaluation – WE WANT EXPERTS!Note: closer integration with the “learning and discovery” activities of the university
SG: Three (3) core foci for our work:Collection DevelopmentCollection ManagementEvaluation & Assessment focused on curriculum and research needsMake note that library reduced something like 12-14 liaison doing approx. 25% work in collections to 4 librarians doing 100% collections work
SG: This is how Collections is currently being supported in the Team-based model. Most of these positions were already filled with long service staff who were already working in those positions. The 4 Librarian positions were the new full-time slots to be filled by Liaison LibrariansHead, Mang. Acq., Media Resources Specialist and 4 IR Librarians = IR Steering Committee (decision-making group for Collections)All acquisitions and Tech Services functions tasked to cross-trained staff that support professional staff workERM function and staff migrated to the Discover & Access team
SG: Cultural benefits of moving to a team-based organization:The creation of the IR strategic team has enabled the formation of a new peer community of 4 selectors, the team manager, and two professional staff who together form the IR Steering team. over the past three years, this peer group has gradually evolved, with the support of our manager, to become a “community of practice” around Collections work. Our community of practices strives to: Pursue a clear and common purpose with shared accountability, in alignment with the Library’s vision and goalsCreate a Community of Practice for collections work which enhances personal growth and the Team’s success. Note: the Iimportance of a “community of practice” approach to professional work Bring renewed focus to IR work with more professional development opportunities, collaborative approaches to strategic planningCreate a rich peer to peer learning environment with high levels of trustEngage in more focused and deeper skills development, building on our shared and diverse strengthsTap into the benefits of team-based work to encourage innovation, agility, collaborationMONOGRAPHS– high degree of autonomy for managing what have become large budgets!
HS: Transition slide – pivots to demonstrate why the OLD budget structure no longer workedThe publishing world is rapidly changing, and we needed to respond to that: Have to be able to leverage larger pools of money for consortial packagesSupport cross-disciplinary and Open Acces publishing (no clear departmental affiliation)
HS: Trends in larger society also need to be responded to with shifts in collections budgeting practices – the world is much more interdisciplinary/global, and research is not confined to traditional departmental affiliations
HS: More faculty cross-appointmentsStrategic hiring of Canada Research Chairs to encourage interdisciplinary think tanks e.g. TransCanada Institute, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, School for Civil Societyre-structuring of several colleges/departments to start “clustering” disciplines which were once independent e.g. Environmental Design, Rural Planning, Rural Extension, Landscape Architecture are clustered; CBS and CME develop common first year programs; College of Arts develops virtual faculties for “Humanities” and “Performance Studies” to bring together faculty with common interests cutting across traditional disciplinary silos)Students (in their role as consumers) want the ability to customize their course of study, to be more self-directed in their research and learning activities
HS: Demise of formal bodies (Senate Library Sub-committee)Streamlining of University Senate committee structure Senate governance becomes less focused on departmental representation/advocacy and more focused on university-level issues and accountabilityLoss of (formal?) Faculty Departmental RepsSigning authority for monographs devolves from faculty to the LibraryLibraries re-invent themselves (active user spaces replace print collections). Increased focus on rapid acquisition of books that patrons will use, vs. old concept of budgets controlled by faculty experts.Academic town square concept means that collections promote interdisciplinarity and are a catalyst for innovation and the generation of new knowledge across the disciplines
HS:Call this the “FAIR WARNING” slide
SG: MOVING TO BUDGETS – THIS is How WE USED TO DO IT!Faculty and librarian input is sometimes acrimonious (they lack the university-level context)Budget anomalies and imbalances develop because of historical instances of excessive advocacy by librarians and faculty or (the opposite problem) lack of engagement and advocacy where it was neededSigning authority was originally vested in faculty, but devolved to librarians in 1995, as faculty interest declined and multi-disciplinary research and teaching strengthened. Moved to approval plans in 2000
SG: Once upon a time reference – discuss how allocation formulae was one used (long, long ago) > Different allocated funds for firms, STOs, approvals, Ebooks (over 60 different line allocations within the monograph budget)>Previous FORMULA based mostly on Student FTEs and faculty Counts>Like an archeological dig, it would take eons to trace back all the changes to individual budgets that would have included
SG: LARGE pots - $$ are aggregated into College-level fundsBase Allocation Unit for firms and STDEBATE: It should be noted that the IR Team did debate moving to a few as one (Books only) or three funds based on broad discipline clusters (humanities, social sciences, sciences)Enough control to ensure that disciplines NOT “eating into” each other AND this is how the UNIVERSITY FUNDSApproval plan plays pivotal role in guiding mono acquisitions (SELF-CONTAINED and SELF-REGULATING)Expected % of Allocations = Approx. 60%SINGLE PLAN built using Group profilingFormal program and course assessments also guide mono acquisitions (retrospective buying and future spending)
SG:Determining adjustments/allocations without a SET – YEAR over YEAR formula appliedHEAD’s Role = enable team strategic priorities to met curricular and user needs, ensure financial management goals metOverall budgetary balance (80/20 rule)ATB increases/decreasesCourse / program assessments: very strong link with curricular needs to guide decision making and prioritizationMostly increases – could be linked to de-investmentsUnder “Format Migration” point, should make the case that when budgets are moved out of College Monos the reallocation goes towards high priority New Product E-ResourcesNon-punitive framework = Decisions on budgets not clawed back automatically – discussions triggered ONLY
-SG: Emphasize the annoying and cumbersome nature of managing, tracking, revising 70+ allocated mono funds-Detailed nature of structure caries over to the Approval plan as well-ALSO: some college funds had already started at this stage to move to single college level funds (notably science colleges of OVC and CBS)
-SG: College level is now base fund-Total college level fund is summed total of pre-existing Departmental budgets-Full disclosure - Movement to larger pots has been made easier through two additional factors: 1) Acquisitions budget protection from central inflationary cuts & 2) did receive 3 budget increases between 05/06 and 12/13 Fiscal Yrs and 3) Assured Faculty we would fund their direct order requests
SG : Describe Springer ebook deal through OCUL: initially purchased collections of highest interest (8/12) -Proportions were subject to negotiations: OVC portion covered some environmental sciences (little vet material)-Evolution of this license demonstrates (I HOPE!) both the cooperative approach to pooling and the collapsing/consolidation of funds-Books blocked on Approval in vendor site
-SG: Expansion of deal to “ALL IN”: note dept. budgets from physical/eng sciences added in-Proportion of central funding shrinks-Some dept. funds are NOT proportionate to # of books in subject collection
SG – NOTE: Change to Mono structure – college level only: CPES roles up physical/eng sciences-First inclusion of business funds (further expansion of the content) – funding Soc. Sci purchases-Central fund increases in proportion – partly new money, partly to cover new collections not logically aligned elsewhere or funded
SG – Note CURRENT move from many to one fund; some funds taken from colleges (proportionate, ex.?), some central funding to bolster the overall costs-Note that if this deal unpacked, money could be re-allocated to the constituent College monos to facilitate purchase of subject collections
HS-Approval plan jointly developed and monitoredIncreased emphasis on knowledge-sharing, funds-balancing, shared/group accountability, and seeing the wider contextShared professional development to build skills and a wider viewpointWorkload balancing for assessments encourages wider context for buyingLogic models to create shared understanding of team responsibilities and desired outcomes and measures
HS:increased knowledge of other areas helps with interdisciplinary purchasingAs a new selector, I (and my departments) have benefitted greatly from the deeper knowledge of those who had done selection for many years as liaison librariansSharing of assessments, new product decision-making, vendor visits, webinarsShared professional development strengthens trust and creates new opportunities (collaboration on e-packages, better knowledge of new curricular initiatives)Visibility and effective communication have to be worked at more proactively than in the liaison model, but efficiencies are being gained by all selectors as we develop common modes of outreach, or outreach done at the team rather than the individual level. E.g. having an ebook day, Library Open House, use of the IR Newsfeed tool)Relying on other library staff/teams to understand user needsImportance of a shared community of practiceThe bad news is that you don’t have a library rep anymore…. The good news is that I can help you right here and now.
HS:Things that we are doing, or would like to doE.g. Building closer ties with departments, learning more about how our user communities make use of our collections, or could use them to enhance their academic goals. We need to increase our ability to analyze and understand how our collections are used by deepening our skill sets in assessment e.g. Cognos training, training from the Approvals vendor. Benefits of working closely with other strategic teams to exchange different viewpoints/perspectives on user behaviours and needs.Promoting the value and purpose of Collections work. Stress the importance of mentoring and succession-planning in regards to Collections work, which isn’t seen as “sexy” and isn’t taught to any great depth in LIS schools. Perhaps establish a librarian student coop position to encourage new professionals to enter Collections work. Benefits of this kind of legacy work is to ensure the stability of collections skills over time, and to pass on the skills now on the team (we are all mid or late-career librarians). Be creative and proactive in seeking direct and interactive ties with faculty and students e.g. employing students to help digitize collections for local teaching and research needs.
HS: Evidenced-based approach (productivity and assessment tools) used by librarians replaces data-driven allocation forumulasAs part of a team of librarians dedicated to IR work, I can acquire (on my own or through learning from others on the team) much deeper knowledge of some of the basic tools which experienced Collections librarians use: - Statistical/usage tools (ILS, consortial, vendor)- GOBI (tracking approval and firm orders to ensure “equity” of spending, to set expenditure goals, and to re-balance or expand disciplinary spending as the curriculum evolves)- New products database (tracking vendor pricing and resource coverage)- Excel spreadsheet (setting and tracking “nominal” departmental allocations/mono spending targets based on historical spending patterns). Historical spending patterns provide a rough and informal rubric for tracking departmental spending within a college-level fund. BUT don’t constrain the ability to deepen spending in one area to correct a collections gap or respond to a program assessment.- Use of the calendar and new course/program proposals for curriculum mapping- Use of LC schedules to match mono budgets to subjects rather than departments
HS: Excel spreadsheet for tracking monthly “allocations” …. Based on historical allocation of budgets across departmentsEnsures rough equity of spending across departments within one aggregated college-level fundBUT allows flexibility that wasn’t possible in the older, more rigid model of departmental allocations e.g. can respond to identified gaps (program assessments) or start-up investment in new programs e.g. can focus firm spending on disciplines where approval plan does not perform as well as desired
HS:- One example of consensus decision-making
-SG: TOO MUCH IS NOT ENOUGH – very true of eresources data – and Books! How to use – Always need MORE-Under TUG point – have to make the case for just how successful UG has been in supplementing its local collections -SG: Under Allocations formula point > was at one point agnostic, however, central PPP process (which may result in program reductions and possible closures) has me re-think the factors about institutional alignment using FTE and/or faculty counts> far simpler process with larger budgets AND one likely outcome will be larger Depts. And possible college mergers
SG: Single biggest systemic problem with move away from liaison – how to reach out to faculty-Note creativity in SLIDE (Library Open House) + New Faculty liaison + future space planning -But will the Faculty come back and/or establish direct relations as under Liaison???-Communicating value of our work (becoming invisible through online resources and less contact) – need to take credit
SG: Touched on the Ebooks issue with Action Example earlierAllocated serials fund was created to enablelarge, multidisciplinary typically consortia purchases of ebook packagesNote that the tracking of ebooks really stretches our current paradigm – particularly tracking by LC – individual titles are fine (have classification) large ebook packages – can be challenging given that one purchase order could conceivably have thousands of bib records, making cost per use very challenging
SG: Note that the tracking of ebooks really stretches our current paradigm – particularly tracking by LC – individual titles are fine (have classification) large ebook packages – can be challenging given that one purchase order could conceivably have thousands of bib records, making cost per use very challengingCost per use – robust data on print item use (circ) – not yet settled out in the ebook world“Genie is out of the bottle” – like departmental print serials budgets, will monograph budgets eventually become a relic of the pastNo “standard business model” for purchasing, DRM, assessment, renewals, record management, content stability, etc. What about DDA/PDA projects – how would/could these impact on monograph allocations