Upload
charleston-conference
View
443
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Helen Salmon (speaker), Scott Gillies (speaker)
Citation preview
This Ain’t Your Papa’s Allocation Formula!Team Based Approaches to Monograph Collections Budgets
Scott Gillies, Team Head, Information ResourcesHelen Salmon , Information Resources Librarian
November 2013
University of Guelph Library ∙ www.lib.uoguelph.ca
Backstory – Who are We?
• Located in Guelph, Ontario Canada (near Toronto) – population 120,000
• Founding colleges date from the late 1800s; became a full-spectrum university in 1964
• A medium-sized comprehensive university with traditional strengths in agriculture, veterinary medicine, life sciences, applied social sciences
Backstory – A Bit about GuelphThen (1965) …. And Now
• FTE count: approx. 1,700 students• faculty 357• Three colleges• One main library (all subjects)• One departmental library
(veterinary medicine)• 625,000 volumes
• FTE count: approx. 25,000o 22,500 undergradso 2,400 grads
• 780 faculty• Seven colleges• 90+ majors in 13 degree
programs• Single library (main campus)• 4 satellite campus libraries• 1.2 million volumes
Enrolment Profile for the University of Guelph
What we value….student-focused
Experiential learning
residentially-intensive
E-learning and DE modalities
Strong focus on internationalism and open learning
Committed to the integration of learning and research
Highly collaborative and interdisciplinary (within and beyond the university)
Before 2009 …..Traditional Liaison Model
• One liaison librarian > many departments
• Multiple job roles
• Librarians (most) are ‘generalists’
• Matrix management reporting lines
• Liaison librarians report to the Head of IR for part (25%) of their duties, but their primary supervisor is the Head of Academic Liaison
Timeline – University of Guelph Organizational Renewal Initiative
2006 – 2008Academic Liaison Services Review is carried out
May 2008Launch of our Organizational Renewal initiative
Summer 2008 Staff engaged in defining organizational vision, values, and core work
2008-2009Ongoing organizational development training to support cultural change
Fall 2008Release of the first draft of our new Organizational Model with 5 strategic teams
Winter 2009Staff participate in working groups established to define new strategic teams and cross-functional teams
Spring 2009the final Organizational Renewal report is released and new positions are defined.
Fall 2009 -Spring 2010Staff are assigned to strategic teams, and the new organizational structure is implemented. The IR team is born!
After 2009 – principles arising from the Academic Liaison Review
• Liaison is not exclusively about departmental alignment, and is not done exclusively by librarians
• The situation in which “everyone does everything” is not sustainable
• The new model will support development of deeper skills and professional learning networks
• Avoid “silo-ization” of work; actively encourage
enhanced collaboration with each other and with many groups on campus
What were the expectations? for the new IR Strategic Team:
[The IR team] is responsible for the development and curation of the Library’s collections and for ensuring responsive and proactive support for the learning, teaching and research enterprise….
providing a coordinated approach to collection development and management
Ensuring that relevant, unique and useful resources are available for users in ways that integrate seamlessly with their learning and discovery activities
Focus of the New IR Team….
Collection
Development
Collection
ManagementEvaluation and Assessment
Information Resources
Team
Information Resources Team:
Head of Information Resources
Manager of Acquisitions
Coordinator, Acquisitions
Coordinator, Gov. Pubs & Collection
Maintenance
6 library assistants
IR librarians (4)
Media Resources specialist
(professional staff)
Building a shared community of practice….
By creating a team of librarians and professional staff who would focus on Information Resources, we hoped to remove the old silos and create new synergy:
a common purpose
a community of practice
a renewed focus on IR work
a rich peer-to- peer learning environment
sharing of our diverse
strengths
increased innovation,
agility, collaboration
Factors for Change – External
• Shifts in publishing trends – Greater availability of e-formats
– Rise/growth of consortia ebook licenses (big costs, multi-disciplinary content)
– Publishers are aggregating and integrating information “packages” – this requires broader funding models
– Increase in multi-disciplinary and Open Access publishing (who will pay for it?)
changes everything
Factors for Change – External
• Societal trends– Open access to information (the “Web” changed
everything!)
– Research and teaching increasingly cut across multiple disciplines
– Faculty cross-appointments
– growth of multi-institutional research teams
– ability to form research networks through social media channels
Factors for Change – Internal • Changes in research and teaching
on campus create larger, more interdisciplinary departments
• Increased focus on accountability at a broad institutional level (parent institution, provincial government, federal funding agencies) – replaces departmental focus
• Departmental affiliation/identity is diminished by other forms of academic networking
NetworkingCollaboration
Innovation
Factors for Change – Internal
• Demise of formal university governance structures• Monograph spending authority devolves to the
library• Transformative change in the role of academic
libraries
Monograph Budgeting: how do we do it now?
IF you came expecting a large series of Excel spreadsheets and formula minutiae…
PREPARE to be Annoyed
Monograph Budgeting: how we did it “then”
• $$ divided into College-level then department-level allocations
• Some broader funds (Reference, Interdisciplinary, ebooks, Parents’ Fund)
• Budget-setting done by the Head of IR, based on individual discussions with each liaison librarian
• Department input (sometimes) from faculty library reps and College library committees
Library Monograph Budget
College of ArtsFund
History Dept.allocation
English & Theatre
allocation
Philosophyallocation
Monograph Budgeting (Old)• Allocations formulae …
“Once upon a time…”− Primarily FTE driven
− Years of accretion and changes
− Often developed by political rather than numeric criteria
• Many different fund allocations within the monograph budget (over 60!)
• 55%+ of mono budget was allocated to firms
Monograph Budgeting (New)NEW Tools and Structures:
• Larger spending “pots”, with department budgets now aggregated into College-level funds
• Approval plan plays pivotal role in guiding mono acquisitions
• Allocations made in response to formal program and course assessments
Transition from department to university perspective:
Departmental
budgets
College-level and
fully centralized
budgets
Moving from an A Priori formula to Post-Hoc adjustments … how?
Determinative factors:
– Overall budgetary balance (80/20 rule)
– ATB increases/decreases
– Course / program assessments
– Format migration (emerging trends)
– Non-punitive framework
The Macro Level – Team Head
Budget View - OLDUG Monos 2005/06 >
College Mono. Total >
COA (Arts) mono.total >
– Fine Arts (Firm)
– Fine Arts (STO)
– History (Firm)
– History (STO)
– Languages/Literatures-
– Classics (Firm)
– French (Firm)
– French (STO)
– etc.
UG Monos 2005/06 >
Approval Plan Total>– Classics- approval
– Languages- approval
– Scottish- approval
– etc.
Budget View - NEW
UG Monos 2012/13 >
College Mono. Total >
• COA (Arts)
– COA- Firm
– COA- ebook†
– COA (STO)
UG Monos 2012/13 >
Approval Plan Total
† Non-allocated tracking fund for reporting purposes
Strategies to Adapt – Team HeadAction Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2008 > 8 Collections (Mono/College-Central Pooling)
College/Dept % Proportion
CBS (Life Sci) 15%
OVC 20%
Humber (Soc. Sci.) 17%
Ebooks (Serials) 48%
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (2)Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2009 > ALL (12) Collections (Mono/College-Central Pooling)
College /Dept % Proportion
CBS (Life Sci) 20%Chem 3%Computer 15%Ebooks (Serials) 32%
Engineering 13%
Math 4%
OVC 10%
Physics 2%
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (3)Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2010 / 11 > ALL (12) Collections (Mono/College-Central Pooling)
College % ProportionCBS (Life Sci) 12%CME 5%CPES† 26%Ebooks (Serials) 51%OVC 5%
†Includes all physical/eng. Sciences – chem, eng, math, physics
Strategies to Adapt – Team Head (4)Action Example - Springer Ebooks Package
2012 > ALL (12) Collections (100% Central funding)
College % ProportionEbooks (Serials)* 100%
*Includes some transfer funds from College monos as part of centralization
The selector viewpointCultural Changes:
• Development of a new team-based culture/approach for Collections
• Joint Work + greater trust + greater knowledge = Larger Shared Funds
• New workflows and practices support knowledge exchange and broader context
– Holistic approach
– Consensus decision-making
– Shared professional development
– Balancing of workload
– Use of Logic Models
Strategies to Adapt – P2P learning
• Maximize peer-to-peer learning environment
• Shared professional development and knowledge-sharing strengthens trust and creates new opportunities (collaboration on e-packages, better knowledge of new curricular initiatives)
• join forces to increase visibility and outreach effectiveness
Strategies to Adapt – Selector Tools
Removing silos and barriers:
– One approval plan– Common templates for assessments– New Products database– Shared decision-making and visioning– Evidenced-based librarianship
(assessment)– Mentoring and training the next
generation of Collections specialists– Curriculum-based collections work
Managing the budget – Selector Tools• New tools (or old tools used in
new ways)
– Statistical/usage tools
– COGNOS (MIS software) reports
– GOBI
– New products database and IR Newsfeed database
– Excel for budget tracking
– Vendor platforms
– Curriculum mapping
– LC schedules
Tracking expenditures at the micro (departmental) level
Strategies to Adapt – The TeamQ: Group work and sharing are great….but how do we ensure equity across the disciplines?
A: New Products Process– Ebook packages evaluated using standardized criteria and from a
holistic/campus-wide perspective
– Nominal “shares” of available new product funds
– Informal brokering and negotiating is grounded in formal assessment outcomes and faculty prioritization (resource is required for a new program)
Strategies to Adapt – The Team
• Evaluation and Assessment – how best to employ
use data?
• The broader view – UG mono collections in light of
regional (TUG) consortium
• Formal allocations formula
– To Re-fresh or Abandon?
Collaboration and Evaluation
Challenges - Communications• How to communicate new
modes of work to our users and our internal partners/clients?– Loss of Dept. Faculty Library
Reps
– Intra-library communications
– New modes of communication: social media, point-of-need ordering, PDA
• What do our friends (OCUL, ARL/CARL) and funders (University, Province – HEQCO) want to know? How can we measure this?
Library Open House
Challenges – Ebooks• Q: How do you track Ebooks?
• A: Here, there…everywhere
– Allocated serials fund
– Tracking funds in College Mono
– Tracking funds in College Approval
– Tracking funds in Reference
Challenges – Ebooks• Tracking cost/benefit (or even
cost-per-use) is not an exact science
• Lack of standardization – hard to know what we are buying and what we can do with it
• Consortial models for shared purchasing and resource sharing are just beginning to emerge
• PDA/DDA projects? transition…
Question Time• Comments?
• Feedback?