This Ain‟t Your
Papa‟s
Allocation
Formula!
Team Based Approaches to
Monograph Collections
Budgets
Scott Gillies, Team Head...
Backstory – Who are We?
• Located in Guelph, Ontario
Canada (near Toronto) –
population 120,000
• Founding colleges date f...
Backstory – A Bit about Guelph
Then (1965)
•
•
•
•
•
•

FTE count: approx. 1,700 students
faculty 357
Three colleges
One m...
Enrolment Profile for the University of Guelph
What we value….
 student-focused
 Experiential learning
 residentially-intensive

 E-learning and DE modalities
 Stro...
Before 2009 …..
Traditional Liaison Model
• One liaison librarian > many
departments
• Multiple job roles
• Librarians (mo...
Timeline – University of Guelph Organizational Renewal
Initiative
2006 – 2008
Academic
Liaison Services
Review is
carried ...
After 2009 – principles arising
from the Academic Liaison
Review
•

Liaison is not exclusively about departmental alignmen...
What were the expectations?

[The IR team] is responsible for the development and
curation of the Library’s collections an...
Focus of the New IR Team….
Collection
Development

Collection
Management

Evaluation
and
Assessment
Information Resources Team:
Head of Information
Resources

Manager of
Acquisitions

IR librarians (4)

Coordinator,
Acquis...
Building a shared community of
practice….
By creating a team of librarians and professional staff who
would focus on Infor...
Factors for Change – External
• Shifts in publishing trends
– Greater availability of e-formats
– Rise/growth of consortia...
Factors for Change – External

• Societal trends
– Open access to information (the “Web” changed
everything!)

– Research ...
Factors for Change – Internal
• Changes in research and
teaching on campus create
larger, more interdisciplinary
departmen...
Factors for Change – Internal
• Demise of formal university governance structures
• Monograph spending authority devolves ...
Monograph Budgeting: how do
we do it now?
IF you came expecting a large series of Excel
spreadsheets and formula minutiae…...
Monograph Budgeting: how we did
it “then”
• $$ divided into College-level
then department-level
allocations
• Some broader...
Monograph Budgeting (Old)
• Allocations formulae …
“Once upon a time…”
− Primarily FTE driven
− Years of accretion and cha...
Monograph Budgeting (New)
NEW Tools and Structures:

Transition from department to
university perspective:

• Larger spend...
The Macro Level – Team Head
Moving from an A Priori formula to Post-Hoc adjustments …
how?
Determinative factors:
– Overal...
Budget View - OLD
UG Monos 2005/06 >

UG Monos 2005/06 >

College Mono. Total >

Approval Plan Total>

COA (Arts) mono.tot...
Budget View - NEW
UG Monos 2012/13 >

UG Monos 2012/13 >

College Mono. Total >

Approval Plan Total

• COA (Arts)
– COA- ...
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2008 > 8 Collections (Mono/College-Central Poolin...
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (2)
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2009 > ALL (12) Collections (Mono/College-Cen...
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (3)
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2010 / 11 > ALL (12) Collections (Mono/Colleg...
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (4)
Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2012 > ALL (12) Collections (100% Central fun...
The selector viewpoint
Cultural Changes:
•

Development of a new team-based culture/approach for Collections

•

Joint Wor...
Strategies to Adapt – P2P learning
• Maximize peer-to-peer
learning environment
• Shared professional
development and
know...
Strategies to Adapt – Selector
Tools
Removing silos and barriers:
– One approval plan
– Common templates for assessments
–...
Managing the budget – Selector
Tools
• New tools (or old tools used in
new ways)
– Statistical/usage tools
– COGNOS (MIS s...
Tracking expenditures at the
micro (departmental) level
Strategies to Adapt – The Team
Q: Group work and sharing are great….but how do we ensure
equity across the disciplines?

A...
Strategies to Adapt – The Team
• Evaluation and Assessment – how best to employ use
data?

• The broader view – UG mono co...
Challenges - Communications
• How to communicate new
modes of work to our users
and our internal
partners/clients?
– Loss ...
Challenges –
Ebooks
• Q: How do you track Ebooks?
• A: Here, there…everywhere
– Allocated serials fund
– Tracking funds in...
Challenges – Ebooks
• Tracking cost/benefit (or even
cost-per-use) is not an exact
science
• Lack of standardization – har...
Question Time
• Comments?

• Feedback?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

This Ain’t Your Papa’s Allocation Formula!: Team Based Approaches to Monograph Collections Budgets

497 views

Published on

Helen Salmon (speaker), Scott Gillies (speaker)

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
497
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
42
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • HS
  • HS
  • 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
  • This Ain’t Your Papa’s Allocation Formula!: Team Based Approaches to Monograph Collections Budgets

    1. 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. 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. 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
    4. 4. Enrolment Profile for the University of Guelph
    5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10. Focus of the New IR Team…. Collection Development Collection Management Evaluation and Assessment
    11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
    32. 32. Tracking expenditures at the micro (departmental) level
    33. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?
    38. 38. Question Time • Comments? • Feedback?

    ×