Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator July 31, 2012 ReCAP Columbia University.

ASCC:ReCAP Data Summary

Zack LaneReCAP Coordinator

July 31, 2012

ReCAPColumbia University


ReCAP Data “Automated” Three main categories: request, accession

and circulation Request and accession sets developed and

refined 2008-2010 MS Office 2010 allows better “automation” Data flows into Excel, pivot table, pivot

charts and PowerPoint. Beginning to “standardize” system-wide

and department reports Plan to push data and analysis out


“Automation”


Where is the data? ReCAP Data Center is clearinghouse for

system-wide data and analysis◦ Request rate◦ Timing of requests◦ High use titles◦ High volume requests◦ EDD◦ Publication Date (Monographs)

Department websites have both explicit data and presentations


ReCAP/Department Websites


Circulation Mining ReCAP data but also looking at

system-wide and department trends Internship project found evidence in data of:

◦ Policy changes: REG loan period 4-weeks to 1 term◦ System/Procedure: BDirect loans charge to BDX◦ User behavior patterns: charge/renewal patterns

Dept. analysis limits by happening location Crafting analysis will be iterative process Note: Circ data includes on campus

collections Can interesting visuals be useful?


13,326 14,951 17,615 21,383 25,083 28,029 27,524 28,735 29,497

557,501 552,788

509,556

483,905

449,135 441,188 437,064415,987

404,690

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12

CHARGES: Offsite vs. On Campus by Fiscal Year

Offsite On Campus


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Total Activity by Calendar Month

CHARGES DISCHARGES RENEWALS RECALLS HOLDS


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

CHARGES to Patron Group by Month

GRD OFF REG VIS


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000


Circulation of ON CAMPUS Collections: Charges vs Renewals

On Campus CHARGES On Campus RENEWALS


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000


Circulation of OFFSITE Collections: Charges vs Renewals

Offsite CHARGES Offsite RENEWALS


0.67

1.40

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60


CHARGE to RENEWAL Ratio

Offsite On Campus


6,593

6,0436,262

10,191

11,065 11,105

11,788 11,842

9,681

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000


Total RECALLS by Fiscal Year


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000


RECALLS: OPAC vs Everywhere Else

OPAC Everywhere Else


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000


HOLDS: OPAC vs Everywhere Else

OPAC Everywhere Else

Tailored to both department data and need

Available on ReCAP website Metrics by

◦ Activity types◦ Total charges◦ Patron Group◦ Sub-collections

Department Circ Analysis



35,671

33,959

30,848

28,256

25,174 25,06324,085 23,737

20,705

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000


Total CHARGE Activity by Fiscal Year at Business Library


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11

Proportional CHARGE Activity by Patron Group at East Asian Library

GRD OFF REG VIS


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000


Comparison of Primary Types of Circulation Activity at Burke Library

Sum of ALL CHARGES Sum of DISCHARGES Sum of ALL RENEWALS Sum of ALL RECALLS Sum of ALL HOLDS


HSL Reserves44.5%

HSL Stacks14.0%

HSL Other13.8%

Everything Else11.3%

2HSL Locations9.2%

Offsite7.2%

FY12 Circulation Activity by CLIO Location in HSL Happening Location

516,165 total requests since ReCAP opened◦ FY09 : 69,060◦ FY10 : 71,119◦ FY11 : 71,582◦ FY12 : 72,786

Includes both patron and staff requests Excludes many staff requests Represents only CUL activity at the ReCAP

facility Patron access to offsite collections is

excellent: dynamic with few failures

Request Data



0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,0003/

1/20

02

6/1/

2002

9/1/

2002

12/1

/200

2

3/1/

2003

6/1/

2003

9/1/

2003

12/1

/200

3

3/1/

2004

6/1/

2004

9/1/

2004

12/1

/200

4

3/1/

2005

6/1/

2005

9/1/

2005

12/1

/200

5

3/1/

2006

6/1/

2006

9/1/

2006

12/1

/200

6

3/1/

2007

6/1/

2007

9/1/

2007

12/1

/200

7

3/1/

2008

6/1/

2008

9/1/

2008

12/1

/200

8

3/1/

2009

6/1/

2009

9/1/

2009

12/1

/200

9

3/1/

2010

6/1/

2010

9/1/

2010

12/1

/201

0

3/1/

2011

6/1/

2011

9/1/

2011

12/1

/201

1

3/1/

2012

6/1/

2012

Monthly System-wide Requests

Continuous Increase Level


Japanese37.3%

Chinese35.8%

English14.4%

Korean9.1%

Everything Else2.0% Tibetan

1.4%

Breakdown of East Asian Requests by Language


Avery0.12%

Burke (UTS)1.42%

Business3.96%

Butler14.95%

East Asian6.60%

Engineering5.00%

HSL30.28%

Journalism0.12%

Lehman3.94%

Music0.31%

Social Work6.19%

Sciences14.30%

[UNKNOWN]12.83%

Physical Deliveries to HSL by Collection


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

5003/

1/20

02

6/1/

2002

9/1/

2002

12/1

/200

2

3/1/

2003

6/1/

2003

9/1/

2003

12/1

/200

3

3/1/

2004

6/1/

2004

9/1/

2004

12/1

/200

4

3/1/

2005

6/1/

2005

9/1/

2005

12/1

/200

5

3/1/

2006

6/1/

2006

9/1/

2006

12/1

/200

6

3/1/

2007

6/1/

2007

9/1/

2007

12/1

/200

7

3/1/

2008

6/1/

2008

9/1/

2008

12/1

/200

8

3/1/

2009

6/1/

2009

9/1/

2009

12/1

/200

9

3/1/

2010

6/1/

2010

9/1/

2010

12/1

/201

0

3/1/

2011

6/1/

2011

Monthly EDD Requests: HSL vs. All Other Departments

All Other Departments HSL


Accession Statistics 3,726,036 accessions since ReCAP

opened in January 2002◦ FY10 : 209,630◦ FY11 : 183,324 ◦ FY12 : 173,299

Does not includes Columbia Law Library◦ 283,626 accessions

9,659,753 total accessions at ReCAP


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

FY01/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12

455,734

712,183

542,056

302,364

267,327

315,345

256,629

308,145

209,630183,324 173,299

System-wide Accessions by Fiscal Year

Load In Middle Phase Restrained


Avery6.7% Burke

4.5%Business

6.1%

Butler Library35.9%

East Asian13.6%

Engineering4.6%

Geology/Geoscience1.4%

Health Science4.7%

Journalism0.0%

Lehman7.1%

Mathematics0.0%

Music2.5%

RBML4.5% Sciences

6.3%

Social Work1.1% ORPHANS

0.9%

System-wide Accession by Department

There are two types of delivery from ReCAP: physical delivery and EDD

EDD is a value added service provided to Columbia University Libraries patrons

.pdf scans are made of journal articles and book chapters

EDD is limited to only patrons with borrowing privileges (implemented 8/22/11)

Detailed information for staff can be found on the ReCAP EDD website

EDD (Electronic Document Delivery)


https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/alerts.html#edd

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/edd.html

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/edd.html


Physical Delivery93.65%

EDD6.35%

Breakdown of EDD to Physical Delivery Requests


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000


169391

1,7451,965

2,7752,523

2,335

4,462

6,588

5,337

4,467

EDD Requests: Fiscal Year


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

3/1/

2002

6/1/

2002

9/1/

2002

12/1

/200

2

3/1/

2003

6/1/

2003

9/1/

2003

12/1

/200

3

3/1/

2004

6/1/

2004

9/1/

2004

12/1

/200

4

3/1/

2005

6/1/

2005

9/1/

2005

12/1

/200

5

3/1/

2006

6/1/

2006

9/1/

2006

12/1

/200

6

3/1/

2007

6/1/

2007

9/1/

2007

12/1

/200

7

3/1/

2008

6/1/

2008

9/1/

2008

12/1

/200

8

3/1/

2009

6/1/

2009

9/1/

2009

12/1

/200

9

3/1/

2010

6/1/

2010

9/1/

2010

12/1

/201

0

3/1/

2011

6/1/

2011

9/1/

2011

12/1

/201

1

3/1/

2012

6/1/

2012

Monthly EDD Requests:Health Sciences vs All Other Departments

All Other Departments HSL

Request rate is a measure of collection usage It is the percentage of ReCAP collections

requested during a twelve-month period Provides staff one way to gauge overall use of

offsite collections Request rate is one factor used to structure

ReCAP facility staffing model Patron access to offsite collections is

excellent: dynamic with few failures

Request Rate



0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%


Request Rate Calculations

Lifespan Rate Annual Rate


1.66%1.71%

1.84%1.92%

1.99%2.04%

2.20%

2.30%

2.17%

2.07%2.00%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%


Annual Request Rate


Retrieval Rate by Department


0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

1850

1854

1858

1862

1866

1870

1874

1878

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1930

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

Request Rate of Monographs by Publication Date:1850-2013


0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

20.00%


Request Rates of 1991-2013 Imprints by Fiscal Year


High Volume Requests High Volume (>20) requests had become a

problem for both CUL and ReCAP staff◦ Burdensome pick-lists for ReCAP staff◦ ReCAP Staff retrieves and packs at an average

rate of 65 per 2 hours◦ Processing deliveries is time-consuming◦ Circulation staff have difficulty finding adequate

space to hold◦ CUL staff viewed requests as “impulsive” since

they often did not use all material (sometimes none of the material)


High Volume Requests Request limit set Nov. 5, 2009 Documentation here 20 volume limit was precedent from Prentis

Did it work?

(Short answer: yes)

https://library.columbia.edu/content/librarywebsecure/bts/recap/alerts.html#20limit


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

4/1/

2002

7/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

1/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

7/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

1/1/

2005

4/1/

2005

7/1/

2005

10/1

/200

5

1/1/

2006

4/1/

2006

7/1/

2006

10/1

/200

6

1/1/

2007

4/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

10/1

/200

7

1/1/

2008

4/1/

2008

7/1/

2008

10/1

/200

8

1/1/

2009

4/1/

2009

7/1/

2009

10/1

/200

9

1/1/

2010

4/1/

2010

7/1/

2010

10/1

/201

0

1/1/

2011

4/1/

2011

7/1/

2011

10/1

/201

1

1/1/

2012

4/1/

2012

High Volume Request Count


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

4/1/

2002

7/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

1/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

7/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

1/1/

2005

4/1/

2005

7/1/

2005

10/1

/200

5

1/1/

2006

4/1/

2006

7/1/

2006

10/1

/200

6

1/1/

2007

4/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

10/1

/200

7

1/1/

2008

4/1/

2008

7/1/

2008

10/1

/200

8

1/1/

2009

4/1/

2009

7/1/

2009

10/1

/200

9

1/1/

2010

4/1/

2010

7/1/

2010

10/1

/201

0

1/1/

2011

4/1/

2011

7/1/

2011

10/1

/201

1

1/1/

2012

4/1/

2012

High Volume (HV) Request Count: Patrons vs Staff

Patron Staff


Definitions If 20 is max, would patrons compensate with

several smaller requests? And how do we know?◦ LV (low volume) : 1-10 items◦ MLV (mid-low volume) : 11-15 ◦ MHV (mid-high volume) : 16-20◦ HV (high volume) : 21+

Did patrons compensate to MHVs?

(Short answer: yes, but that’s ok)


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000


Low Volume (LV) Request Volumes


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Higher Volume (MLV, MHV and HV) Request Count

MLV_COUNT MHV_COUNT HV_COUNT


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Higher Volume (MLV, MHV and HV) Request Volume

MLV MHV HV


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000


MLV, MHV and HV Request Volume

MLV MHV HV


High Volume Requests It is not possible to measure the impact of

the pop-up or notification messages:


Data suggested a 2.04% overall reduction based on FY09 statistics

Impact not yet totally quantified, but apparent

Before : HV average size 38.4 items and 161.7 items requested per month

After : HV average size 31.3 items and 81.5 items requested per month

Anecdotal impact: no complaints

High Volume Requests

More information about data sets can be found on the ReCAP Data Center website

Primary data categories include: accession, retrieval, delivery and circulation

Tailored data sets and analysis will be provided to staff via the ReCAP Coordinator

Please see the main ReCAP website for general information about CUL procedures and systems

More Data Available


https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/data.html

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/data.html

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/index.html

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/bts/recap/index.html

Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator July 31, 2012 ReCAP Columbia University.

Documents

Transcript of Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator July 31, 2012 ReCAP Columbia University.