This document summarizes several studies conducted by Beth Picknally Camden at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries. The first study examined the fast-track replacement process for missing books and found that about half of sampled replacements were no longer missing. Replacement copies circulated less than original copies. A second study looked at the cost and value of periodical check-in and found through surveys that patrons rarely had questions about current issues. A third study analyzed the costs and activity of returning books to vendors for approval plans and found declining return rates over three years.

1. Beth Picknally Camden
University of Pennsylvania Libraries
bethpc@upenn.edu
June 2014

2.  Business definition
 Library approach
 My approach
◦ Cost
◦ Value

3.  Fast-track replacements
 Serials check-in
 Returns

4.  Fast-track replacement is a process where we
purchase replacements for missing books
before they are fully searched & declared lost.
 Reason for study:
◦ time pressure; “niche” workflow
◦ Staff reporting that many books were “found” by the
time replacement arrived
◦ Growth of BD/EZB seen as replacing the need

5.  Costs
 Sample of 75 replacements over 3 FYs
 Circulation data
 Discussions with bibliographers

6. Total spent
Number
purchased
Average
cost
FY08 $19,394.33 427 $45.42
FY09 $23,953.85 478 $50.11
FY10 $27,074.64 507 $53.40
Total 08-10 $70,422.82 1,412 $49.87

7. Sample
size
Still
lost? %
Aver circ
orig copy
Aver circ
repl copy
Aver circ
BD/EZB
FY08 25 14 56.0% 5.12 2.64 0.68
FY09 25 12 48.0% 3.64 0.96 2.4
FY10 25 13 52.0% 3.04 1.44 0.16
Overall 75 40 53.3% 3.93 1.68 1.08

8.  Couldn’t get report with all the factors that I
wanted to consider
 So used sample for a deep dive
◦ Voyager searching
◦ BD/EZB reports

9.  Nearly half of the sampled titles (46.7%) were
no longer missing
 Replacement copies circulated fewer times
than originals
 11 of the 75 titles (14.6%) had no charges for
either the original or replacement copies
 58 of the 75 titles were never borrowed
BD/EZB
 Bibliographers valued fast-track

10.  Continue Fast-track
 Change in timing (now biweekly)
 Considering another review

11.  Is periodical check-in worth the cost (staff
time, etc.)?

12.  Cost
 Staff interviews
 Patron point-of-use survey
 Tracking patron questions

13. Total salaries $ 77,216.00
current periodicals (est.) 5500
Annual cost per title $ 14.04
FY11 collection spending
Monograph: $ 3,686,338.19 24.82%
Serial: $ 1,507,453.46 10.15%
Electronic: $ 9,031,362.90 60.80%
General funds: $ 629,180.47 4.24%

14.  2 minute paper survey
 The survey results indicated:
◦ Users found issues they needed on the shelves
(71%)
◦ Users consulted catalog first (64%)
◦ If not found: they equally either ask for help,
request an ILL, or use the online version

15.  Two week period tracked patron questions
relating to current periodicals at various
locations
 Total (in-person; phone; IM/Chat): 1,011
 Questions relating to current periodicals: 38
(3.75%)

16.  Value of check-in
◦ Collection integrity
◦ Fiscal responsibility
◦ Competence and service quality
◦ Vendor reliability and accountability
 Also gathered info about current WF
problems

17.  Voyager does not provide any data to track
staff productivity; time spent on check-in;
who did the check-in; etc.
 Web analytics could not be gathered to track
patron use of current issue information

18.  Report recommended continuing check-in
◦ Deciding factor: fiscal responsibility
 Appendix documented a variety of workflow
and timeliness problems. Many have been
addressed.

19. This study looked at activity of returning books
to vendors, for both approval plans and firm
orders, and included a review of related
activities including bibliographer review of
approval books.

20.  Departmental annual reports
 Voyager reports
 YBP GOBI reports

21. Cost of returns
annual cost cost per item
Staff time to process
returns $ 14,528.80 $ 23.97
Return Postage $ 2,500.00 $ 4.13
Total $ 17,028.80 $ 28.10

22.  30+ approval plans
 3 years of data:
◦ Number received (up slightly over 3 years)
◦ Number returned (declining over 3 years)
◦ Calculated % returned for each vendor
 Overall return rate declining 4%2%

23. 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12
All Approval
Returns
1956 1877 1312 993 693 606
YBP Returns n/a n/a n/a 576 461 388

24. Approval Return Reasons
damaged/defective 40 2%
duplicate 564 29%
no to series 13 1%
poor quality 21 1%
reprint 12 1%
scope 656 34%
textbook 3 0%
too expensive 56 3%
vendor error 1 0%
wrong format 2 0%
no reason 563 29%

25. LC Class Shipped Returned % Ret'd
A 12 0 0%
B 1828 21 1%
C 84 0 0%
D 1299 6 0%
E 637 1 0%
F 374 1 0%
G 449 28 6%
H 2937 36 1%
J 970 5 1%
K 460 54 12%
L 551 5 1%
LC Class Shipped Returned % Ret'd
M 335 0 0%
N 664 11 2%
P 3839 12 0%
Q 460 76 17%
R 184 14 8%
S 55 2 4%
T 357 55 15%
U 183 27 15%
V 35 5 14%
Z 47 1 2%
Total 15760 360 2%

26.  Eliminated plan with high rate of return
 Shared data with Coll Dev for updating
profiles
 Not returning books costing $25 or less
 Used data (reduction in returns) to justify
changing staff duties to union

27.  Time consuming
 Not all data available
 Unexpected findings about related WF
 Assumptions may/may not be proven
 Other factors beyond data can influence
decisions
 Determining the VALUE of a service is more
difficult than determining the COST

28. Driving With Data: A Roadmap for
Evidence-Based Decision Making in
Academic Libraries – Marcum & Schonfeld