Evaluating the Big Deal: Usage Statistics for Decision Making
1 like1,636 views
The document discusses evaluating academic journal 'big deals' at Cranfield University, outlining both quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess their usage and value. Key aspects include financial considerations, demonstrating cost-effectiveness, and analyzing data through various reporting methods. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making and resource justification based on structured evaluations.
Evaluating the Big Deal: Usage Statistics for Decision Making
- 1. Evaluating the Big Deal: What metrics matter? Usage Statistics for Decision Making London, 2 February 2012 Selena Killick Library Quality Officer
- 2. Introduction • Institutional, financial and strategic context • Evaluating the Big Deals • Quantitative Reporting • Qualitative Measures • Using the Results • Conclusions
- 3. Cranfield University • The UK's only wholly postgraduate university focused on science, technology, engineering and management • One of the UK's top five research intensive universities • Annual turnover £150m • 40% of our students study whilst in employment • We deliver the UK Ministry of Defence's largest educational contract
- 4. Key Drivers • Financial realities • Demonstrating value for money • Strategic alignment • Research Excellence Framework (REF) • Income Mission critical • Reputation
- 5. Expenditure on Journals Journal Spend 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
- 6. Information Expenditure by Format 2010-11 Books eBooks 4% 4% Databases 24% Journals 68%
- 7. Information Expenditure by Format 2010-11 Books eBooks 4% 4% Databases 24% Journals 31% Big Deals 37%
- 9. Previous Techniques Used: Annual journals review using the follow data • Circulation figures – issues and renewals • “Sweep survey” to capture in-house use • Journal contents page requests • Download figures • Journal prices v the cost of ILL requests More recent focus on “cost per download”
- 10. New Approach Quantitative: Qualitative: • Size • Academic Liaison • Usage • Reading Lists Review • Coverage • REF Preferred • Value for Money
- 11. Requirements • Systematic • Sustainable • Internal benchmarking • Elevator pitch • So what? • Enable informed decision making • Demonstrate smart procurement
- 13. Brought to you by the letters… &
- 14. Our Approach • What has everyone else done? • Analysing Publisher Deals Project • Storage centre • Excel training • Template design
- 15. Basic Metrics • Number of titles within a package • Total annual full-text downloads • Cost: • Core titles • e-Access Fee • Total costs
- 16. Value Metrics • Average number of requests per title • Average cost per title • Total cost as % of information provision expenditure • Cost per full-text download • Average download per FTE student/staff/total • Average cost per FTE student/staff/total
- 17. The Long Tail Downloads Titles Titles Titles Long Tail Short Tail No Tail
- 18. Subscribed Titles • Reviewing performance of core collection • REF Preferred? • Popular? • Three year trends in cost / downloads / CPD • Cost / Downloads / CPD categorised: • Zero • Low • Medium • High • Cancel?
- 19. Popular Titles • Which titles are the most popular? • Top 30 titles in the package • Three year trends in downloads • REF Preferred? • Subscribed title?
- 20. Considerations • When to measure from/to? • calendar, financial/academic, or contract year? • Which titles make up our core collection? • Do we have access to all of the „zero use‟ titles? • What constitutes Low/Medium/High? • What about the aggregator usage statistics? • Do we trust the usage statistics? • What is the size of the target population?
- 22. Downloading Statistics • Get organised • Gather your usernames and passwords • Create local files to save and store usage reports • Software now on the market to manage this for you • Joint Usage Statistics Portal
- 24. Introductory Workshop April 18 Birmingham
- 25. Reporting Period • Calendar, financial/academic, or contract year? • COUNTER Reports = Calendar year • Converted using Vlookup on ISSNs • Manual • Problematic • Automatically converted using the JUSP
- 26. Aggregator Usage Statistics • Combining usage from publishers and aggregators at a title level • Combined using Pivot Tables • Manual • Problematic • Where possible combined using JUSP
- 28. Excel Template • Two main data sources: • COUNTER JR1 • Subscription agent financial report • Automated as much as possible • Match formulas working with ISSNs to link title price to usage/holdings • All calculations are completed automatically when the data sources are added
- 29. Quantitative Reporting • Systematic • Sustainable • Internal benchmarking • Elevator pitch • So what? • Enable informed decision making • Demonstrate smart procurement
- 31. Academic Liaison • Who‟s using it? • Why? • How? • What will be the impact if we cancel? • Teaching? • Research? • How valuable is it?
- 32. Quantitative on the Qualitative: Analysis on the five REF Preferred Recommended Journals Lists: • Overlapping titles • Unsubscribed titles • Financial shortfall • Current recommended subscribed titles • Usage data
- 33. Reading List Review Qualitative analysis on course reading lists: • What are our academic recommending? • Where is it published? • How often is it recommended? • Are there alternatives?
- 34. Quantitative & Qualitative Reporting • Systematic • Sustainable • Internal benchmarking • Elevator pitch • So what? • Enable informed decision making • Demonstrate smart procurement
- 36. What they can do: • Both qualitative and quantitative measures tell the story of the resource • Aid decision making • Justify procurement • Safeguard budgets…?
- 37. What they can’t do:
- 38. Conclusions
- 39. Closing thoughts • Is it worth investing in this? • Qualitative & Quantitative • Danger of relying on cost-per-download
- 40. Looking Ahead • Review of all budgets • All Resources • Systems • Staff • Services • Demonstrating Value and Impact • Resources • Services
- 41. Thank You Selena Killick Cranfield University [email protected] Tel: 01793 785561