Building a foundation for collection management decisions: two approaches
23
Building a Foundation for Collection Management Decisions: Two Approaches Leigh Ann DePope Salisbury University Mark Hemhauser University of Maryland, College Park Rebecca Kemp University of Maryland, College Park
description
Salisbury University and the University of Maryland both undertook projects to evaluate the effectiveness of EBSCO Information Service's Usage Consolidation product and the usefulness of the data extracted for collection development decisions. The goals of implementation were to centralize the collection and analysis of e-resource usage data and to allow collection management librarians easy access to usage and cost per use data to aid in their decision-making. The presenters will discuss how staff at each institution populated Usage Consolidation and presented usage reports to collection managers; how collection managers responded to the data; and how they used the data to inform collection management decisions. Leigh Ann DePope Serials/Electronic Services Librarian, Salisbury University Leigh Ann DePope is the Serials/Electronic Services Librarian at Salisbury University. She is responsible for all aspects of serials and electronic resource management. She has serials experience in both public and academic libraries. Leigh Ann has earned her MLS from Clarion University of Pennsylvania and a BA from the Pennsylvania State University. Mark Hemhauser Systems Librarian, University of Maryland Mark Hemhauser has 18 years of experience managing serials acquisitions and is currently the Systems Librarian for the Aleph Acquisitions and Serials module at the University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions. He also serves on the e-Acquisitions Team of the Kuali OLE (Open Library Environment) project--an open-source, library-driven project to build a truly integrated library system Rebecca Kemp University of Maryland Rebecca Kemp is Continuing Resources Librarian at University of Maryland, College Park. She has served as a continuing resources librarian since 2004, has served on national library association committees, and has participated in a variety of state and national conferences.
Transcript of Building a foundation for collection management decisions: two approaches
Building a Foundation for
Collection Management Decisions:
Two Approaches
Leigh Ann DePope Salisbury University
Mark Hemhauser University of Maryland, College Park
Rebecca Kemp University of Maryland, College Park
Presentation Objectives
Understand why and how each institution populated EBSCONET Usage Consolidation
Understand how Acquisitions staff presented the tool to Collection Management Librarians
Understand how Collection Management Librarians responded to the tool and used the tool/plan to use the tool to inform collection management decisions
Why test/implement Usage Consolidation?
Perennial problem: matching usage with cost data; cost of potential solutions
Displays usage and cost-per-use (CPU) information for EBSCO-subscribed titles in EBSCONET
College Park Leverage Public Service Librarian familiarity with
EBSCONET Subscription Management interface 93% of individually subscribed e-journals are paid
through EBSCO (a lot of cost data available) Salisbury
See usage across different platforms, see which packages contain specific titles
What Usage Consolidation does Matches e-journals profiled in A-to-Z with
EBSCO e-journal orders and with titles in COUNTER usage statistics files
Can profile SUSHI-compliant platforms so that COUNTER usage stats will automatically be harvested by Usage Consolidation
Shows usage and CPU for EBSCO-subscribed titles only; does not take into account costs of journal aggregator packages
Handles the following COUNTER reports: JR1, DB1, BR1 and 2
What Usage Consolidation does
SUSHI details: Desired data:
SUSHI version (Optional) SUSHI Server URL (Required) SUSHI Requestor ID (Required) SUSHI Customer ID (Required) SUSHI Authentication Method (Optional) Use OASIS 1.0 Authentication? (Required for
web-service level authentication)) SUSHI username (Required if OASIS is “Yes”) SUSHI password (Required if OASIS is “Yes”)
This slide contained a video demonstration of Usage Consolidation.
If you are interested is seeing how Usage Consolidation works, contact an Ebsco representative.
Acceptance Criteria for College Park Loaded file of ten titles with intentional issn and title
spelling errors to track how use was matched to titles on A-Z/order list Matched on e- or p-issn, match failed if both were wrong Title errors had no effect when ISSN was present
Loaded larger set of titles and examined EbscoNet subscription manager results for “comes with” titles Usage data for child titles correctly totaled on parent record
and cost per use calculated at parent level (originally this did not work correctly, EBSCO fixed it)
Membership packages don’t always sum use to parent (bug, needs working out)
Major packages, ie. Freedom Collection, not summed Challenging because these packages are different for each
customer
Acceptance Criteria for College Park Loaded data from multiple publisher provided sites,
eg. Highwire and Ingenta Connect to test if cost per use calculations were based on total use at all publisher platforms. It is.
Loaded data for one title from EbscoHost platform to see how aggregator use was handled in EbscoNet Subscription Manager. Not included in publisher cost per use calculation.
We advise testing any new usage tool that matches use to orders/costs to confirm the system behaves as advertised/expected.
Acceptance Criteria for College Park Data should be accessible to selectors within a tool they
can learn easily.
Data should be extractable for further manipulation.
Tool should not require dependence on a local Microsoft Access guru. Should be sustainable without local support.
Tool should save staff time in matching journal usage with subscription costs.
Support should be available for bugs detected and any user problems.
SUSHI—nice, but not required.
Profiling SUSHI at College Park Required a bit more back and forth with publishers
than we were willing to do Publishers’ servers sometimes timed out before
data was retrieved, had to re-schedule Latest release allows manual retrieval (useful option,
as needed) Matching “exceptions” to link use to cost would
need to be done monthly Not appealing as we prefer one-time gathering of full
calendar year statistics Latest release allows auto-completion of SUSHI loads
so all matched data goes into UC and Ebsconet immediately, can work unmatched titles later
Presenting UC to subject librarians @ CP
Loaded three years of data for: Elsevier Springer Wiley Taylor and Francis Oxford (Highwire and Ingenta Connect) Sage Cambridge Royal Society of Chemistry
Calculation of CPU is done against whichever order year you are viewing despite choosing a different use stats year.
Presenting UC to subject librarians @ CP
Ignore “All Platforms” cost per use calculation.
Subscription Usage Details report only gives last completed year’s use and current year’s cost.
CPU calculation for “child” / “comes with” package titles is problematic: sometimes child titles have been treated as parent records of a sub-package inappropriately, creating incorrect usage reporting. Overall cost per use is correct.
UMCP Reports for Selectors Usage and CPU for EBSCO-subscribed titles within
Subscription Management Searched by fund code within
current subscription year ‘i’ button opens mouse-over
with latest year use and A-Z holdings list
UMCP Reports for Selectors
Multiple publisher platform use summed (yellow highlighting)
Aggregator use separate from publisher platform use, but cost per use calculation for all platforms is meaningless
Usage and CPU for EBSCO-subscribed titles within Subscription Management
UMCP Reports for Selectors Usage and CPU within Subscription Management:
Subscription Usage Details report
Acquisitions will likely export this report and add additional years of cost data, using the PO number to match our ILS data.
Subject Librarian Feedback @ CP What do you like about EBSCONET Usage
Consolidation? Seeing cost and usage data in one place for a journal title.
What do you dislike about EBSCONET Usage Consolidation? Interface issues, content issues. Complexity involved with selecting order year that corresponds to use year.
Will it be useful in serials review? Yes, if CPU correct; concern over bundled titles.
Do you think that we should continue to load publisher platform usage for all EBSCO-subscribed publishers, not just the pilot publishers? Yes.
Do you think that we should continue to load EBSCOhost or other aggregator database usage into Usage Consolidation? Yes.
Presenting UC at Salisbury
Presenting UC at Salisbury
Presenting UC at Salisbury
Subject liaison feedback at Salisbury
Useful for database renewals Too cumbersome at the title level Reactive versus proactive
Library administration feedback at Salisbury
Useful for generating hard data More efficient for collection development
Conclusion Selectors want CPU data that is easily
understandable Reasonably successful in reporting usage and
cost per use College Park found their acceptance criteria
were largely met, confident that remaining issues will be resolved.
College Park will add all the data they can to it. Then Systems will load data into a locally tweaked version of North Carolina State’s Collection Management Review tool
Implementation continues at Salisbury
Questions?
Contact Leigh Ann DePope ([email protected]) Mark Hemhauser ([email protected]) Rebecca Kemp ([email protected])
