Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Sarah Weston - JUSP workshop April 2012


Published on

Sarah Weston’s presentation on University of Portmouth’s use of JUSP.

Sarah Weston’s presentation on University of Portmouth’s use of JUSP.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Detailed benchmarking was a new activity. Part of the process involved reporting to Library Committee. Looked at the value of deals in comparison to other options.
  • Adopted a teamwork approach divided into two activity strands, this was beneficial as a means of sharing ideas given the fact that there was no precedent in terms of this activity.
  • Identifying precise deal content and changes over time was time consuming. This involved removing titles within reports that did not form part of the deal, but were showing usage for a variety of reasons e.g. Individual subscriptions, freely accessible titles etc.
  • In our case calendar year data was required for the process, however, recognised that there might be a preference for other timescales.
  • Significant use is being made of the ‘experimental’ reports. This report provides at a glance information of titles included in the deal and those that can be removed. Addition of details relating to the deal is an important addition to the portal. This is a quick exercise in terms of updating each year.
  • If ‘core’ titles have been added to the portal these become flagged as ‘core’ within reports which allows filtering.
  • This simplifies the colour coding process which was done prior to JUSP. Such detail is important in terms of accurate calculations.
  • Favourite report and a base report for our benchmarking, providing a detailed time series of usage data. Pre existing subscription titles are easily identified for further analysis. We also intend to add individual subscription details to the portal so that these will be clearly identifiable when running other reports.
  • Useful for summary reporting of the deal in comparison with the whole usage report.
  • Use of the portal is helping to open up the debate/discussion about the value of resources and how we measure them.
  • The portal simplifies the process, reducing the steps that are required for detailed analysis and provides an easy to use interface which responds to the changing needs of the community.
  • Transcript

    • 1. JUSP: The University ofPortsmouth ExperienceSarah WestonData ManagerUniversity Library
    • 2. BackgroundAt Portsmouth we do not currently have an ERM system orusage statistics packagesUsage data is stored locally and retrieved from multipleadministration accounts. Currently collecting data from 60+different sources in relationship to electronic journals alonePrimary objective of our internal benchmarking was toevaluate our ‘Big Deals’, determine value for money andprovide a sound evidence base to assist decision making
    • 3. Benchmarking activitiesInitial venture into ‘Big Deal’ benchmarking was around 18-24 months ago – adopted a teamwork approachKeen to explore the extent to which we felt our deals wereproviding us with value for money and to look at theimplications if we were to consider cancellationsAt that time we did not have the benefit of JUSP and so ourearly activity was a little ad hoc and not necessarily themost time efficient in terms of process
    • 4. Initial processDecided to focus on three medium sized deals and adopteda two strand approach Activity A Activity B Obtain full title lists across multiple Access usage from publisher platforms years and track changes Amalgamate any usage from Obtain lists of PRE X subs aggregator/host platforms Obtain title counts for deals Remove any archive data Obtain costs data Match usage with deal titlesHaving determined the number of titles in the deal on a year by year basis, howmuch they cost and how much they were used ((JR1-JR1a) + Aggregator +Host) it was possible to do some cost per use calculations
    • 5. Key issues• For a three year period this was time consuming and involved lots of steps• Obtaining accurate title lists (current and old) was not always easy• Records of PRE X subs did not always match• No one place to access information and data formats often differed• Needed to remove all of the ‘weird and wonderful’
    • 6. Internal Coding • Colour coding was adopted to distinguish PRE X subs from titles within the deal • Titles were also tracked to show at what points they entered the deal as this was important in terms of calculations
    • 7. What could JUSP do for us?We like JUSP and it is doing more for us on a month bymonth basis!Our needs:• On-going time series of data• Usage amalgamated from all sources• Ability to easily identify PRE X subs and titles within the deal over time• Ability to extract title usage relating to open access, trials etc.• Need to include some elements of print (on our own here!)
    • 8. A few of our favourite things!Having already started to add our subscribed titles the ‘titles versus deals’ reportenables us to identify titles within our deal which is our baseline for analysis andseparate the PRE X titles to accurately benchmark our costs
    • 9. A few of our favourite things!Downloading a copy of the CSV file for this report you can see that someadditional information has been added in terms of aggregator usage
    • 10. Titles included in deals across multiple yearsThe titles within deals over time report gives at a glance information ofhow deal content has changed to facilitate accurate reporting
    • 11. Publisher usage by title and yearThe most valuable report for our benchmarking, eliminating a significant numberof steps and providing an accurate time series upon which to import our own data
    • 12. Titles and usage rangeThis report is likely to be important, one of our internal benchmarks has been threefigure usage. The ability to see at a glance the breakdown of package usage will behelpful
    • 13. ImpactThe portal manipulates our usage data and significantlyreduces the number of steps prior to our own analysisOur benchmarking had focused on smaller deals, however,this will make our larger reports much easier to manageand time efficient to produceWe have not always known exactly what we have wantedand some of the more experimental reports have beenparticularly welcomed
    • 14. Where do we go from here?The portal provides us with an accurate record of titles andusage in a deal over timeAllows us to produce accurate reports into which we cannow import cost data and subsequently calculate costs perdownload either within deal or at title levelFrom this we are able to apply some our own internalcriteria for benchmarking and look at titles within a certaincost per download banding, three figure usage, Pre X subsor status of the title as determined by faculty/departments
    • 15. Summary • The portal provides us with a valuable ‘one stop shop’ • It has assisted us with our internal processes • Continues to evolve and responds to user needs