Sunyla2007 6 11 07
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Sunyla2007 6 11 07

on

  • 1,278 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,278
Views on SlideShare
1,277
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
26
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Welcome to Session T of the 2007 SUNYLA annual conference – Funding for the Future: Binghamton University’s Collections Resource Allocation Process. First, I would like first to introduce the panelists who will be making today’s presentation: Elizabeth Brown is Science Library Coordinator and Science Reference Librarian/Bibliographer for chemistry, Physics & Astronomy, Math, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. Erin Rushton is Science Reference Librarian/Bibliographer for Biology, Nursing, Bioengineering and Women’s Studies. My name is Ed Shephard and I am Head of Collection Development and Bibliographer for History, Classical & Near Eastern Studies, Art & Art History, Music, Judaic Studies and Medieval/Renaissance Studies. Today we would like to present the Collection Resource Allocation Process that Binghamton University Libraries undertook during the 2006-2007 academic year. This process was the culmination of a two-year, multi-stage project to undertake a full-scale review of the collections budget at our library, something that had not been undertaken in the 25 years I have been at the university. This project involved the entire collection development staff in an analysis of the library’s collection goals, resource allocation and budgeting process. It also brought in faculty involvement into the process to an extent that has not traditionally been the case at Binghamton. Our presentation will be organized into four parts: Goals and background steps Methodology and data collection process Analysis of outcomes Recommendations arising from the analysis

Sunyla2007 6 11 07 Sunyla2007 6 11 07 Presentation Transcript

  • Funding for the Future : Binghamton University’s Collections Resource Allocation Process Ed Shephard , [email_address] Elizabeth Brown , [email_address] Erin Rushton , [email_address] June 14, 2007 - 3 p.m.
  • Purpose
    • Identify and develop common goals for collection resource development
    • Develop budgetary methods to reach those goals
    • Create an open and evolving dialogue on campus among library, faculty and administrators
  • Project Background
    • Fall 2005 – Collections Department Retreat
      • GOALS/PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY OF THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS
    • March 2006 – Symposium
      • FUNDING OUR DIGITAL FUTURE: BUDGETING FOR LIBRARIES & SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
    • September 2006 – Consultation
      • LYNN COPELAND, DEAN OF LIBRARIES, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
  • Consultation Outcomes
    • Finalize charge
    • Agreed goals: Collection development staff, Library Administration, Faculty Senate Library Committee
    • Plan/timetable
      • Communication plan
      • Timeline
      • Resource allocation report plan
    • Begin discussion of options/issues
  • Project Timeline
    • Oct 1: Final charge, committee appointment
    • [data gathering]
    • Nov 1: Committee familiarized with issues
    • [data gathering]
    • Nov 21: General agreement on approach
    • [data gathering]
    • Dec 15: First outcomes for committee review
    • Feb 15: Draft report
    • Mar 15: Consultation complete
    • April 1: Final Report
  • Charge
    • Review alternative methods of assessing the Libraries’ subject collection allocations budget and recommend a preferred method.
    • Identify a collections allocation budget process that
      • assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes
      • addresses anomalies and inequities without reducing current support levels
      • ensures support for new research and teaching interests
      • recommends base budget funding for newly created schools or departments
      • provides the flexibility to respond to changing opportunities and needs
      • includes alternative methods for provision of resources not in the Libraries' collections
      • includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations.
    • Consult widely with the BU community.
  • Committee Membership Faculty Senate Library Committee Peter Gerhardstein, Chair (Psychology) Carrol Coates (Romance Languages) Gerald Kadish (History) Jennifer Gordon (Education) Michael Lewis (Computer Science) Corinne Bertram (Human Development) Sarah Maximiek (Libraries) Library Ed Shephard, Chair Kate Bouman Beth Brown Erin Rushton Randall Miles
  • Methodology Review
    • Most collection studies were dated and focused on a formula models
    • An allocation method that allowed for consideration of subjective criteria
    • The methodology used by the Simon Fraser University Library (SFUL) in its 2000 Collection Allocation Review and 5-Year Update was chosen for its
      • blend of measurable criteria
      • subjective evaluation and analysis
  • Our Methodology
    • Adopted the SFUL model
      • Identify measurement factors
      • Rank measurement factors
      • Count number of outliers in rankings
    • BU modifications
      • Identified additional measurement factors
      • Recommendations for underfunded outliers
      • Create subgroups of factors for analysis
      • Prioritize for future funding opportunities
  • Process – SFUL Factors
    • Student, Graduate and Faculty FTE
    • Collection size measures
      • Total dollar allocation
      • Number of Serials subscriptions
      • Serials Units Acquired
    • Ratio of collection increase to faculty, graduate and undergraduate increase
    • Ratio of collection factors to faculty, graduate and undergraduate FTE's
  • Process – BU Factors
    • Monographic units acquired
    • Interlibrary loan requests by department and by user status
    • Non-departmentally based serials (e.g. ScienceDirect, Open Access, aggregator titles)
    • Consumer Price Index (CPI) of serials
  • Process – Data Collection
    • Library budget documents
    • Library management system (ALEPH)
    • Binghamton University Office of Institutional Research (OIR) website
    • Library inter-library loan system (ILLIAD)
    • Serials Solutions
    • Otto Harrassowitz subscription agency
  • Process – Challenges/Factors
    • Collection usage data
    • Attributing e-journals to departments
    • Transfer of Serial funds from Serials to Electronic Access Budgets e.g. ScienceDirect
    • Embargoed journal titles - Aggregators
    • Industrywide Average Serial Prices
  • Process – Challenges/Programs
    • New Departments
    • Interdisciplinary Programs
  • Analysis of Factors – Historical
    • 2001/02-2005/06 vs. 2003/04-2005/06
    • Total Expenditure Increase/Faculty FTE Increase
    • Total Expenditure Increase/Grad FTE Increase
    • Total Expenditure Increase/Undergrad Degrees Granted Increase
    • Average Serial Price Increase (Binghamton)
    • # Faculty ILL Requests Increase/Faculty FTE Increase
    • # Grad ILL Requests Increase/Grad FTE Increase
  • Analysis of Factors - Current
    • 2005/2006
    • Total Expenditure/Faculty FTE (Normalized)
    • Total Expenditure/Grad FTE (Normalized)
    • Total Expenditure/Undergrad Degrees Granted (Normalized)
    • # Serials Acquired/Faculty FTE
    • # Serials Acquired/Grad FTE
    • # Serials Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted
    • # Faculty ILL Requests /Faculty FTE
    • # Grad ILL Requests /Grad FTE
    • # Units Acquired/Faculty FTE
    • # Units Acquired/Grad FTE
    • # Units Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted
    • Average Serial Price (Binghamton)/Average Serial Price (Industry Wide)
  • Factor Analysis – Normalization
    • 1. Calculating the average “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) and setting this to baseline 1.0.
    • 2. Calculating the index of each departmental “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) in relation to baseline 1.0.
    • 3. Dividing each departmental “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) by the departmental index to create a ‘normalized’ “Total Expenditure”.
    • 4. Summing and ranking the ‘normalized’ Monograph and Serial “Total Expenditure
  • Analysis of Factor Outliers
    • Review of bottom quartile for factors.
    • Total Number of “Underfunded” Ranking Outliers
    • Subgroups of Total Outlier Factors
      • Faculty Grouping
      • Graduate Grouping
      • Undergraduate Grouping
      • Total Expenditure Grouping
      • ILL Grouping
      • Serials Grouping
  • Observations – Factor Analysis
    • Faculty, graduate, undergraduate program growth
    • Non-traditional and unmet library needs
    • Growth of interdisciplinary programs
    • Open access and new publishing models
    • Degree of collections overlap within subdisciplines
    • Foreign language needs
    • Size of department and faculty needs
  • Recommendations from Charge
    • Review alternative methods of assessing the subject allocations of the Library's collection budget and recommend a preferred method
      • Employed modified SFUL outlier analysis model
      • Investigate methods of obtaining usage information on serials and electronic resources at the level of departmental affiliation as soon as possible
  • Recommendations from Charge
    • Identify a process for allocating the collection budget that:
      • assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes
        • Maintain current funding structure
        • Match the evolution of the University as it moves towards a more inter-disciplinary organizational model of curriculum and research
      • addresses anomalies and inequities without jeopardizing necessary support levels
        • Any new funds should be used to augment department allocations that lie in bottom quartile
        • No existing levels of budgetary support should be lowered
  • Recommendations from Charge
      • provides a means for ensuring support for new research and teaching interests, with particular attention to interdisciplinary activities
        • As new research and curricular programs form on campus, work with faculty to assess the need for separate funding lines, either temporary or permanent, that are not met by the existing budget structure
      • includes recommendations for ensuring that additional base budget funding will be allocated to the Libraries for all newly created schools or departments within the University
        • Additions to the Libraries’ budget should accompany the proposed establishment of all new schools, departments and degree-granting programs
        • The level of support should be determined by academic faculty and the Libraries working in consultation
  • Recommendations from Charge
      • provides the flexibility to allow the Libraries to respond to changing opportunities and needs as they arise
        • Establish budget mechanisms that will provide funding sources for extraordinary and unanticipated needs
      • includes alternative methods for provision of important resources which do not form part of the Libraries' collection (e.g., university IT infrastructure, open access, consortia, government supported resources)
        • Establish a task force of library and academic faculty to inventory and evaluate the information resources provided on campus outside the Libraries
  • Recommendations from Charge
      • includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations
        • Review collection budget allocation in five years
        • Establish an ongoing method and process for budget allocation review
  • Recommendations from Charge
    • Consult widely with the BU community
      • The committee included the representatives of the University faculty to the Library via inclusion of the entire Faculty Senate Library Committee as members
      • After acceptance of final report consider additional steps for dissemination to campus community
  • Acknowledgements
    • John M. Meador, Jr., Director of Libraries, Binghamton University
    • BU Collections Staff
    • BU Faculty Senate Library Committee
    • Lynn Copeland, Dean of Libraries, Simon Fraser University
    • http://www.slideshare.net/ebrown/sunyla2007-6-11-07/