Applying Quality Standards to Assess Information Resources

Mary Feeney, Jim Martin, Ping SituThe University of Arizona Libraries

• WHY – background on spending reductions project

• WHAT’S DIFFERENT? – organizational structure, project management, approach to assessment

• HOW –quality standards, data collection and analysis, issues and recommendations

• WHAT NEXT? –results/outcomes

Solely in response to

best estimates of inflation and a flat budget. $976,000

• Organizational structure

• Project management

• Approach to assessment

Process: ▪ Spreadsheets with resources by type▪ Divided up work ▪ Potential cancellations posted for feedback

Applied systematically across all disciplines and types of resources: Monographs Journals (print and e-journal) E-Journal packages Indexing & Abstracting

Services Aggregators Original photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiegall

“60% of monographs acquired during the previous 4 years will

indicate at least one use.”

Original photo by austinevan@flickr.com

Monographs Cut flat amount Cuts applied to book budget based on QS Impact:▪ Decreases flexibility in having funds for one-time purchases.▪ Increases amount of budget expended for ongoing costs.

“95% of individual journal titles will show evidence of use based on articles published in those journal titles within

the last 3 years.”

Data gathered for previous three years (2005-2007): Total checkouts Total internal use Full-text downloads (electronic) LJUR data Document delivery requests Aggregator use

Print journals

Print + online journals (dual format)

E-journals

Issue: Lack of data for journals

Recommendations for changes in QS for journals Expand definition of evidence of use: LJUR Local delivery of articles from print journalsCost per use for electronic journalsUse of a title in an aggregator database

“Cost per use of electronic journal publisher packages will not exceed

twice the cost needed to provide ILL at the level of use.”

E-journal Packages

Recommendations for changes in QS for electronic journal packages: Cost per use may be a more useful data point Future evaluation may include looking at use of

individual titles in packages

“For online indexes and abstracting services, not more than 40% of content needed by customers is duplicated in other packages or

individual subscriptions”

Indexing & Abstracting (I&A) Databases 53 I&A databases 26 analyzed (about ½) 65% of those analyzed met or exceeded the QS of 60% unique Overlap analysis with ISSN lists in Ulrich’s Serials Analysis

Issues: ISSN lists Excludes other resources indexed in a database Limitation of tools How many comparisons to make?

  Recommendations for changes in QS for I&A databases:

Useful as base comparison but in consideration with other factors Cost per use (searches/sessions)

Duplication: less than 40% duplication in other owned or subscribed resources.

Embargoing: less than 10% of materials are embargoed.

Completeness of coverage: 90% of articles are included.

Customer need for non-duplicated articles: less than 30% of non-duplicated items represent low-value or

unneeded resources.

Aggregator Databases 21 aggregators 7 partially analyzed (the indexing and full-text component)

Issues: Inconsistent information Time-consuming What to compare? Moving target

  Recommendations for changes in QS for Aggregators:

Implementation of this multi-part quality standard is impractical. Cost per use (full-text downloads)

No data?

No quality standard?

Project management approach with small group worked well

Communication within the library at all levels and with stakeholders is important

First time the IRM quality standards were put into practice across all disciplines and types of resources

The University of Arizona Libraries