Applying Quality Standards to Assess Information Resources Mary Feeney, Jim Martin, Ping Situ The University of Arizona Li...
<ul><li>WHY  – background on spending reductions project </li></ul><ul><li>WHAT’S DIFFERENT?  – organizational structure, ...
<ul><li>Solely in response to best estimates of inflation and a flat budget .  </li></ul>$976,000
<ul><ul><li>Organizational structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approach to...
 
<ul><ul><li>Process:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spreadsheets with resources by type </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><...
<ul><li>Applied systematically across all disciplines and types of resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monographs </li></ul><...
<ul><li>“ 60% of monographs acquired during the previous 4 years will indicate at least one use.”  </li></ul>Original phot...
<ul><li>Monographs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cut flat amount  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cuts applied to book budget based on ...
<ul><li>“ 95% of individual journal titles will show evidence of use based on articles published in those journal titles w...
<ul><li>Data gathered for previous three years (2005-2007):  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total checkouts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
Print journals
Print + online journals (dual format)
E-journals
<ul><li>Issue: Lack of data for journals </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations for changes in QS for journals </li></ul><ul><u...
<ul><li>“ Cost per use of electronic journal publisher packages will not exceed twice the cost needed to provide ILL at th...
<ul><li>E-journal Packages </li></ul>
<ul><li>Recommendations for changes in QS for  electronic journal packages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost per use may be a mo...
<ul><li>“ For online indexes and abstracting services, not more than 40% of content needed by customers is duplicated in o...
<ul><li>Indexing & Abstracting (I&A) Databases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>53 I&A databases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>26 analyz...
<ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ISSN lists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Excludes other resources indexed in a database...
<ul><li>Duplication : less than 40% duplication in other owned or subscribed resources.  </li></ul><ul><li>Embargoing:  le...
<ul><li>Aggregator Databases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>21 aggregators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 partially analyzed (the ind...
<ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inconsistent information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-consuming </li></ul></ul><u...
<ul><li>No data? </li></ul><ul><li>No quality standard? </li></ul>
 
<ul><li>Project management approach with small group worked well </li></ul><ul><li>Communication within the library at all...
 
The University of Arizona Libraries
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

We've Got the Data - Now What Do We Do About It? Applying Quality Standard to Assess Information Resources - Mary Feeney, Jim Martin, Ping Situ

891 views
801 views

Published on

Presented at the 2010 Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference. --

Mary Feeney, Jim Martin, Ping Situ, University of Arizona --

Abstract: Searches, sessions, article requests - have access to data, but what's the next step? Learn how the University of Arizona Libraries' Spending Reductions Project analyzed usage of different types of resources to assess them against quality standards and make cancellation decisions. Tools, challenges, and organizational approaches will also be discussed.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
891
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

We've Got the Data - Now What Do We Do About It? Applying Quality Standard to Assess Information Resources - Mary Feeney, Jim Martin, Ping Situ

  1. 1. Applying Quality Standards to Assess Information Resources Mary Feeney, Jim Martin, Ping Situ The University of Arizona Libraries
  2. 2. <ul><li>WHY – background on spending reductions project </li></ul><ul><li>WHAT’S DIFFERENT? – organizational structure, project management, approach to assessment </li></ul><ul><li>HOW –quality standards, data collection and analysis, issues and recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>WHAT NEXT? –results/outcomes </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>Solely in response to best estimates of inflation and a flat budget . </li></ul>$976,000
  4. 4. <ul><ul><li>Organizational structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approach to assessment </li></ul></ul>
  5. 6. <ul><ul><li>Process: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spreadsheets with resources by type </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Divided up work </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Potential cancellations posted for feedback </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 7. <ul><li>Applied systematically across all disciplines and types of resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monographs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Journals (print and e-journal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E-Journal packages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indexing & Abstracting Services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aggregators </li></ul></ul>Original photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiegall
  7. 8. <ul><li>“ 60% of monographs acquired during the previous 4 years will indicate at least one use.” </li></ul>Original photo by austinevan@flickr.com
  8. 9. <ul><li>Monographs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cut flat amount </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cuts applied to book budget based on QS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impact: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Decreases flexibility in having funds for one-time purchases. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increases amount of budget expended for ongoing costs. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 10. <ul><li>“ 95% of individual journal titles will show evidence of use based on articles published in those journal titles within the last 3 years.” </li></ul>
  10. 11. <ul><li>Data gathered for previous three years (2005-2007): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total checkouts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total internal use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full-text downloads (electronic) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LJUR data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document delivery requests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aggregator use </li></ul></ul>
  11. 12. Print journals
  12. 13. Print + online journals (dual format)
  13. 14. E-journals
  14. 15. <ul><li>Issue: Lack of data for journals </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations for changes in QS for journals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expand definition of evidence of use: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>LJUR </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Local delivery of articles from print journals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cost per use for electronic journals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use of a title in an aggregator database </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 16. <ul><li>“ Cost per use of electronic journal publisher packages will not exceed twice the cost needed to provide ILL at the level of use.” </li></ul>
  16. 17. <ul><li>E-journal Packages </li></ul>
  17. 18. <ul><li>Recommendations for changes in QS for electronic journal packages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost per use may be a more useful data point </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Future evaluation may include looking at use of individual titles in packages </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. <ul><li>“ For online indexes and abstracting services, not more than 40% of content needed by customers is duplicated in other packages or individual subscriptions” </li></ul>
  19. 20. <ul><li>Indexing & Abstracting (I&A) Databases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>53 I&A databases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>26 analyzed (about ½) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>65% of those analyzed met or exceeded the QS of 60% unique </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overlap analysis with ISSN lists in Ulrich’s Serials Analysis </li></ul></ul>
  20. 21. <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ISSN lists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Excludes other resources indexed in a database </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limitation of tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How many comparisons to make? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations for changes in QS for I&A databases: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Useful as base comparison but in consideration with other factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost per use (searches/sessions) </li></ul></ul>
  21. 22. <ul><li>Duplication : less than 40% duplication in other owned or subscribed resources. </li></ul><ul><li>Embargoing: less than 10% of materials are embargoed. </li></ul><ul><li>Completeness of coverage: 90% of articles are included. </li></ul><ul><li>Customer need for non-duplicated articles: less than 30% of non-duplicated items represent low-value or unneeded resources. </li></ul>
  22. 23. <ul><li>Aggregator Databases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>21 aggregators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 partially analyzed (the indexing and full-text component) </li></ul></ul>
  23. 24. <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inconsistent information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-consuming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What to compare? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moving target </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations for changes in QS for Aggregators: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of this multi-part quality standard is impractical. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost per use (full-text downloads) </li></ul></ul>
  24. 25. <ul><li>No data? </li></ul><ul><li>No quality standard? </li></ul>
  25. 27. <ul><li>Project management approach with small group worked well </li></ul><ul><li>Communication within the library at all levels and with stakeholders is important </li></ul>First time the IRM quality standards were put into practice across all disciplines and types of resources
  26. 29. The University of Arizona Libraries

×