Opening up a can of worms
to grow a garden!
• Project Context, Task and Goals
• Methodology, Data Collection, Data Cleaning
• Analytical Plan
• Initial Findings
• Cha...
• Big Data
• Assessment and Evaluation Environment
• Prove (or Disprove?) Value
• Stakeholders
• User Needs
Research Question 1:
What are the best measurements for evaluating
the current scope of the collection?
Research Question ...
went smaller
started big . . .
• Realistic timeline
• Reached out to collaborators
• Befriend any and all programmers and/or data
sources!
• Update stake...
• Highly influenced by the CUL Print Collection
usage report
• No language analysis
• No patron analysis
• Initially was going to include all formats, all
resource types
–Excluded eBooks: Mostly no call numbers
–Excluded databa...
• Reached out to our ILL Team
• Missing Call numbers!
• 2 primary areas where data was deleted
–Location: 143 823 records deleted
–Call number: 14 894 records deleted
• Also, I...
• Distribution of our monograph collection by LC Class
• Distribution of subsets of our monograph collection
• Usage of ou...
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
B BC BD BF BH BJ BL BM BP BQ BR BS BT BV BX
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
Number of Titles...
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
Number of Titles...
• 889,825 total monograph items
• 425,865 titles have not circulated (48%)
• 787,590 titles circulated 5 or less times (88...
1976
1973
1965
1967
1970
1966
1980 1980
1979
1978
1980 1980
1981
1969
1982
1985
1972
1983
1981
19731973
1955
1960
1965
197...
Total Circulations Total YTD Circulations
<= 0 1 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 50
51 -
100 101+ <= 0 1 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 50
51 -
100 101+
Publ...
𝑃𝐸𝑈 =
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝑃𝐸𝑈 𝐵 =
1.43%
1.32%
= 1.08
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝐵 =1.32%
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐵 =1.43%
If ...
LC
Subclass
Percent of
Holdings
Percent
Usage PEU
Holdings
Usage
Percent of ILL
Borrowing RBH ILL Usage
B 1.32% 1.43% 1.08...
LC Subclass Holdings Usage ILL Usage Action
B Overused Underused No Changes
BC Underused Underused Ease Off
BD Underused U...
1. Availability of expertise
– Pulling data from Sierra
– Getting interlibrary loan data
2. Availability of data
– Lack of...
• Limit to what data are available and whether it can
be analyzed by subject
– Data excluded:
• E-books
• Government docum...
• Circulation counts by subjects
• Interlibrary loan requests distribution by
subjects
Identified the gap at the macro-lev...
Serials collection
Monographs
Serials
Warning: Proportion in the image
doesn’t reflect UH holdings
• Looking into collection at a more granular level
Photo credit: Rick Diffley Photography
http://www.rickdiffleyphotograph...
B: Philosophy Underused
BC: Logic Underused
BD: Speculative philosophy Underused
BF: Psychology Overused
BH: Aesthetics
Un...
Aguilar, W. (1986). The application of relative use and interlibrary demand in collection
development. Collection Manageme...
Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection
Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection
Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection
Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection
Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection
Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection

1,134 views

Published on

The University of Houston Main Library collection is a large, multi-format, and ever evolving research collection supporting a large student, faculty and research population. The library is tasked with directly supporting the overall mission of the university which states "The mission of the University of Houston is to offer nationally competitive and internationally recognized opportunities for learning, discovery and engagement to a diverse population of students in a real-world setting. The collection strives to support over 12 academic colleges and an interdisciplinary Honors college as well as a diverse offering of over 120 undergraduate majors. In order to achieve this level of support for the university community, a large collection assessment including data collection from multiple sources is necessary to capture current coverage per subject. A project team was formed and tasked with designing and developing a high-level collection assessment project to assess the breadth and coverage of both print and electronic resources at the University of Houston MD Anderson Library. The collection assessment focuses on developing methodology to best capture current holdings per call number ranges as well as analysis of the holdings. The subject analysis includes gathering data from circulation, usage reports, interlibrary loan database, and the OPAC in order to understand the current strengths and weaknesses of both the print and electronic content per subject area. This data collection constitutes the first phase of the research project and the research team proposes to present some initial findings along with a brief overview of the methodology. Future directions will be presented including our need to validate this data against acquisitions data and interlibrary load data for the past several years to identify potential subject areas that need further collection development.

Presenters:

Jackie Bronicki
Collections and Online Resources Coordinator, University of Houston

Irene Ke
Psychology and Social Work Librarian, University of Houston

Cherie Turner
Chemistry Librarian, University of Houston

Shawn Vaillancourt
Education Librarian, University of Houston

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,134
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gap analysis by subject area of the university of houston main campus library collection

  1. 1. Opening up a can of worms to grow a garden!
  2. 2. • Project Context, Task and Goals • Methodology, Data Collection, Data Cleaning • Analytical Plan • Initial Findings • Challenges and Future Directions
  3. 3. • Big Data • Assessment and Evaluation Environment • Prove (or Disprove?) Value • Stakeholders • User Needs
  4. 4. Research Question 1: What are the best measurements for evaluating the current scope of the collection? Research Question 2: What subject areas are not adequately covered in the current collection?
  5. 5. went smaller started big . . .
  6. 6. • Realistic timeline • Reached out to collaborators • Befriend any and all programmers and/or data sources! • Update stakeholders continuously for validation
  7. 7. • Highly influenced by the CUL Print Collection usage report • No language analysis • No patron analysis
  8. 8. • Initially was going to include all formats, all resource types –Excluded eBooks: Mostly no call numbers –Excluded databases: Many too broad • Study eventually focused on print monographs and serials
  9. 9. • Reached out to our ILL Team • Missing Call numbers!
  10. 10. • 2 primary areas where data was deleted –Location: 143 823 records deleted –Call number: 14 894 records deleted • Also, ISBN deleted • Other data points did not require any deletion but data was corrected
  11. 11. • Distribution of our monograph collection by LC Class • Distribution of subsets of our monograph collection • Usage of our collection by LC Class – Overall usage vs. YTD usage • Age of our monograph collection by LC Class • Usage of our collection by age • Comparison of usage and ILL borrowing by LC Subclass
  12. 12. 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
  13. 13. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 B BC BD BF BH BJ BL BM BP BQ BR BS BT BV BX
  14. 14. 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z Number of Titles Aggregated Total Usage
  15. 15. 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z Number of Titles Aggregated Total Usage Aggregated Year To Date Usage 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
  16. 16. • 889,825 total monograph items • 425,865 titles have not circulated (48%) • 787,590 titles circulated 5 or less times (88%) • 861,910 titles in last year have not circulated (97%)
  17. 17. 1976 1973 1965 1967 1970 1966 1980 1980 1979 1978 1980 1980 1981 1969 1982 1985 1972 1983 1981 19731973 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z Average Publication Year
  18. 18. Total Circulations Total YTD Circulations <= 0 1 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 50 51 - 100 101+ <= 0 1 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 50 51 - 100 101+ PublicationYear <= 1950 19% 10% 6% 3% 1% 0% 13% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1951 - 1970 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 20% 8% 4% 4% 0% 0% 1971 - 1990 32% 34% 35% 35% 29% 13% 34% 20% 13% 10% 0% 0% 1991 - 2000 9% 16% 25% 39% 52% 42% 17% 24% 21% 14% 0% 33% 2001 - 2005 6% 10% 12% 11% 7% 13% 8% 17% 19% 17% 0% 0% 2006+ 10% 11% 8% 3% 6% 28% 8% 28% 41% 54% 100% 67% Total Items 422,843 156,129 204,948 101,355 622 160 858,178 24,503 3,211 158 4 3
  19. 19. 𝑃𝐸𝑈 = 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑃𝐸𝑈 𝐵 = 1.43% 1.32% = 1.08 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝐵 =1.32% 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐵 =1.43% If PEU>1 Overused If PEU<1 Underused 𝑅𝐵𝐻 = 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐵 = 0.79% 𝑅𝐵𝐻 𝐵 = 0.79% 1.43% = 0.6 Mean RBH=1.54±5.18 If RBH>Mean RBH Overused If RBH<Mean RBH Underused
  20. 20. LC Subclass Percent of Holdings Percent Usage PEU Holdings Usage Percent of ILL Borrowing RBH ILL Usage B 1.32% 1.43% 1.08 Overused 0.79% 0.60 Underused BC 0.09% 0.08% 0.82 Underused 0.05% 0.51 Underused BD 0.24% 0.20% 0.84 Underused 0.24% 1.01 Underused BF 1.22% 1.78% 1.46 Overused 2.00% 1.64 Overused BH 0.07% 0.09% 1.29 Overused 0.05% 0.68 Underused BJ 0.22% 0.27% 1.21 Overused 0.18% 0.79 Underused BL 0.42% 0.65% 1.56 Overused 0.69% 1.65 Overused BM 0.10% 0.07% 0.67 Underused 0.09% 0.95 Underused BP 0.13% 0.26% 1.95 Overused 0.34% 2.57 Overused BQ 0.04% 0.10% 2.63 Overused 0.32% 8.05 Overused BR 0.36% 0.33% 0.91 Underused 0.70% 1.96 Overused BS 0.22% 0.16% 0.73 Underused 0.36% 1.62 Overused BT 0.16% 0.13% 0.85 Underused 0.40% 2.53 Overused BV 0.18% 0.15% 0.86 Underused 0.44% 2.49 Overused BX 0.52% 0.29% 0.56 Underused 1.69% 3.23 Overused If PEU>1 Overused If PEU<1 Underused If RBH>Mean RBH Overused If RBH<Mean RBH Underused Mean RBH=1.54±5.18
  21. 21. LC Subclass Holdings Usage ILL Usage Action B Overused Underused No Changes BC Underused Underused Ease Off BD Underused Underused Ease Off BF Overused Overused Growth Opportunity BH Overused Underused No Changes BJ Overused Underused No Changes BL Overused Overused Growth Opportunity BM Underused Underused Ease Off BP Overused Overused Growth Opportunity BQ Overused Overused Growth Opportunity BR Underused Overused Change Purchasing BS Underused Overused Change Purchasing BT Underused Overused Change Purchasing BV Underused Overused Change Purchasing BX Underused Overused Change Purchasing
  22. 22. 1. Availability of expertise – Pulling data from Sierra – Getting interlibrary loan data 2. Availability of data – Lack of data from cataloging records of ebooks – Databases 3. Data accuracy – Data cleaning!
  23. 23. • Limit to what data are available and whether it can be analyzed by subject – Data excluded: • E-books • Government documents • Theses/dissertations • Microform/microfiche • Other UH systems campuses holdings – Factors not put into consideration • Reserved books • Reference books
  24. 24. • Circulation counts by subjects • Interlibrary loan requests distribution by subjects Identified the gap at the macro-level • Item counts of the print monographs 1. Collection count 2. Subject distribution 3. Age of collection by Subject
  25. 25. Serials collection Monographs Serials Warning: Proportion in the image doesn’t reflect UH holdings
  26. 26. • Looking into collection at a more granular level Photo credit: Rick Diffley Photography http://www.rickdiffleyphotography.com/2012/05/06/word-press-weekly-photo-challenge-unfocused-2/
  27. 27. B: Philosophy Underused BC: Logic Underused BD: Speculative philosophy Underused BF: Psychology Overused BH: Aesthetics Underused BJ: Ethics Underused BL: Religion. Mythology. Rationalism Overused BM: Judaism Underused BP: Islam. Bahai Faith. Theosophy etc. Overused BQ: Buddhism Overused BR: Christianity Overused BS: The Bible Overused BT: Doctrinal Theology Overused BV: Practical Theology Overused BX: Christian Denominations Overused Collection proportionally overused and demands a lot of ILL Support Collection proportionally Underused with little outside demand Existing collection underused but has overuse of ILL ILL underused, but what we have is used heavily
  28. 28. Aguilar, W. (1986). The application of relative use and interlibrary demand in collection development. Collection Management, 8(1), 15-24. Knievel, J. E., Wicht, H., & Connaway, L. S. (2006). Use of circulation statistics and interlibrary loan data in collection management. College & Research Libraries, 67(1), 35-49.. John N. Ochola PhD (2003) Use of circulation statistics and Interlibrary loan data in collection management, Collection Management, 27:1, 1- 13,DOI:10.1300/J105v27n01_01 Mills, Terry R. (1982). The University of Illinois Film Center Collection Use Study. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED227821.pdf "Report of the Collection Development Executive Committee Task Force on Print Collection Usage." (2012).Cornell University Library, http://staffweb.edu/system/files/CollectionUsageTF_ReportFinal11-22-10.pdf

×