Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Making the Data Work: Telling your story with Usage Statistics

225

Published on

ER&L

ER&L

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
225
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Example of a graphic that didn’t work. What we wanted to show to our administration was that over the course of the years our salaries were not keeping up with changes in libraries. This graphic plots the materials budget per student FTE paired with the salary budget per student FTE. It shows our materials budget has shrunk (or at least not kept up with the increasing size of our schools), while salaries have dipped, but only recently. This graphic didn’t tell the story I wanted to tell.
  • Whereas, on the other hand, I selected two years that showed radical change in our salary budget and plotted those against our peer institutions. Here is a scatterplot of our Salary & Benefits as a proportion of the total budget (less facilities assessments, hr assessments, and gifts for materials ; none of which are reported by the other schools). Our % in 2009 was about 57% (on just these measures). That seems a bit high compared to our competitors, although not the highest by any means. In addition, as total expenditures decrease, the costs allocated to staffing increase proportionally (usually).This showed we were probably too high, and should be corrected….but….
  • After our major changes and reorganization activities, our percentage dropped to about 42%, moving us from the top of the scale to one of the lowest in the Oberlin Group. (that’s bucknell way down there). We may have over-corrected quite a bit (and this includes the frozen VERP positions, so if we included just the expenses paid to staff, it’d be even lower).This graphic made sense to our administrators without being accusatory or inflammatory. It simply shows we overcorrected in one fell swoop and argues for more attention to be paid to it in the future.
  • Since the major changes have been 1) reduced personnel resources for library services and 2) even funding (or slightly negative) for materials when their inflation continues to rise, it would be worthwhile to explore if we are overfunded for personnel resources. Here is a scatterplot of our Salary & Benefits as a proportion of the total budget (less facilities assessments, hr assessments, and gifts for materials ; none of which are reported by the other schools). Our % in 2009 was about 57% (on just these measures). That seems a bit high compared to our competitors, although not the highest by any means. In addition, as total expenditures decrease, the costs allocated to staffing increase proportionally (usually).
  • Why are cancellations necessary?From 2002-2008, our purchasing power closely matched our available funds. In 2008, our library expenditures, including gifts and endowed funds, started to diverge from our purchase index – the amount need to maintain the current mix of library materials. As you will recall, part of the CUC Budget Reduction plan that was a reaction to the severe economic crisis at that time, included a 5% materials budget reduction – over $275,000 at the time. Now, after 4 years of flat or reduced budgets, plus the standard excessive inflation for library materials of 5-8% per year, and additional assessments for new storage, we are at a 23% gap in in our ability to spend and the amount the resources now cost.
  • Transcript

    • 1. CLAREMONT COLLEGES LIBRARY JOHN MCDONALDELECTRONIC RESOURCES & LIBRARIES AUSTIN, TEXAS F E B RUA RY 2 8 , 2 0 1 1
    • 2. Claremont Colleges LibraryMaking data work February 28, 2011
    • 3. Claremont Colleges LibraryDecide which story to tell February 28, 2011
    • 4. Claremont Colleges LibraryWrong Measures $900 $800 $700 $600 Materials $ per Student $831 Salaries per Student $747 $703 $685 $677 $500 $673 $668 $649 $625 $622 $613 $594 $567 $563 $549 $512 $400 $300 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 February 28, 2011
    • 5. Claremont Colleges LibraryBetter measures 75.0% Salary as % of Budget, 2009 Barnard 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% Middlebury Claremont Wellesley 55.0% Vassar Amherst 50.0% Williams Wesleyan Grinnell 45.0% Carleton 40.0% 35.0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 February 28, 2011
    • 6. Claremont Colleges LibraryStory told, audience receptive 75.0% 70.0% Salary as % of Budget, 2010 Barnard 65.0% 60.0% Middlebury 55.0% Wellesley 50.0% Vassar Williams Wesleyan Grinnell Amherst 45.0% Carleton Claremont 40.0% 35.0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 February 28, 2011
    • 7. Claremont Colleges LibraryEven better 75.0% 70.0% Salary as % of Budget, 2010 Barnard 65.0%Salary as % of Budget 60.0% Middlebury Claremont 2009 Wellesley 55.0% 50.0% Vassar Amherst Williams Wesleyan Grinnell 45.0% Carleton 40.0% Claremont 2010 35.0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 FTE RANK (Largest to smallest) February 23, 2011
    • 8. Claremont Colleges LibraryConsider the audience February 28, 2011
    • 9. Claremont Colleges LibraryWho would be concerned about this? $6,000,000 $5,500,000 -23% $5,000,000 over past 4 years $4,500,000 $4,000,000 Materials Funding $3,500,000 $3,000,000 February 28, 2011
    • 10. Claremont Colleges LibraryChoose your statistics wisely Number of obs = 44457 R-squared = 0.1032 Root MSE 0.3669 Adj R-squared = 0.1016 Source Partial SS df MS F Prob > F Model 687.704 80 8.5963 63.86 0 slip 0.834 1 0.8338 6.19 0.0128 ybp_select 1.032 5 0.2064 1.53 0.1756 content_level 0.825 5 0.1650 1.23 0.2939 country 2.622 4 0.6554 4.87 0.0006 slip*ybp_select 22.795 5 4.5591 33.87 0.0000 slip*discipline 47.601 8 5.9502 44.20 0.0000 slip*content_level 2.384 4 0.5960 4.43 0.0014 slip*country 0.359 4 0.0898 0.67 0.6146 ybp_select*content_l 4.651 11 0.4228 3.14 0.0003 ybp_select*country 12.982 20 0.6491 4.82 0.0000 content_l*country 23.481 13 1.8062 13.42 0.0000 Residual 5973.277 44376 0.1346 February 28, 2011
    • 11. Claremont Colleges LibraryChoose your images wisely Method Books Not Ordered, Slip 16,059 12% 16% Autoship 4,839 Ordered, No Slip 5,300 Ordered, Slip 3,665 18% 54% February 28, 2011
    • 12. Claremont Colleges LibraryChoose your images wisely 6% Method Books Not Ordered, Slip 3,755 Autoship 6,560 27% Ordered, No Slip 3,009 21% Ordered, Slip 800 46% February 28, 2011
    • 13. Claremont Colleges LibraryChoose your images wisely JSTOR Citations (2000 v. 2004) February 28, 2011
    • 14. Claremont Colleges LibraryPlay with a friend February 28, 2011
    • 15. Claremont Colleges Library Usage User- Pre- Usage byLibrary Model Read Selected Selected Download Online A MIX 1131 552 6773 9888 B MIX 5246 2612 42880 38329 C USER 2198 102 0 11801 D USER 3010 48 697 15126 E MIX 4159 909 17396 25604 F PRE 0 1451 4905 3082 G PRE 31 2154 7001 4459 H USER 801 0 556 415 I MIX 305 336 3334 2568 J USER 2799 53 5 13349 K MIX 147 276 2436 2283TOTAL 19,831 8,496 85,983 126,904 February 28, 2011
    • 16. Claremont Colleges Library February 28, 2011
    • 17. Claremont Colleges Library A B E I Klc USER PRE USER PRE USER PRE USER PRE USER PREH 20% 20% 20% 9% 28% 7% 13% 14% 7% 5%R 14% 4% 8% 4% 10% 2% 2% 7% 3% 5%Q 7% 2% 5% 4% 7% 3% 4% 5% 8% 28%T 5% 5% 4% 3% 7% 2% 6% 3% 2% 7%L 4% 1% 4% 2% 6% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%G 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 2% 5% 2% 3%B 2% 1% 5% 2% 4% 1% 3% 6% 4% 2% February 28, 2011
    • 18. Claremont Colleges Library 30.0% User-selected collections have similar LC profiles 25.0%Proportion of collection H 20.0% R Q T 15.0% L H R 10.0% Q T L 5.0% 0.0% A B E I K Library
    • 19. Claremont Colleges LibraryThink harder February 28, 2011

    ×