Last year we blogged about an internal report we did on our assessment of JUSP, KB+ and Intota Assessment. At the time we shared the report with the 3 resources and have already seen a number of recommendations being adopted.
We thought that the report might be useful for other universities looking at how best to use the 3 resources in conjunction, our view is that with a little development all 3 are essential to our workflows
For more information, here is the Report
KB+, Workflows
KB+ and JUSP
Amy DevenneyLeave a comment
Following the embedding of KB+ into the workflows of the Journals and E-Resources team at the end of the HIKE project, we recently decided to start looking at how we can incorporate JUSP into this workflow to help inform purchasing decisions and to evaluate and demonstrate the value of our collection.
With the expiry date of the NESLi2 deals (e.g. T&F SSH collection, Wiley STM collection, Sage Premier Collection) approaching we thought we would use these as case studies to investigate the information available within JUSP and KB+, how we could use it and if there was any information that we needed that was missing.
The first statistics that would be needed for this were the usage statistics for the collection. Using the Taylor and Francis SSH collection as an example, which provides us with access to all the titles predominantly from 1997 onwards, we do not receive access to the archive issues as part of this deal, we would require a report which gives us the usage statistics JR1-JR1a. This is available as a report in JUSP which provides you with the total figure for the publisher and with the figures for the individual titles. Additionally it provides you with the number of articles accessed by the publisher which were available as Open Access (OA). This statistic is valuable to know as it allows us to dismiss OA use from the JR1-JR1a figures to give us a more accurate cost per use.
However, there is one major limitation of this report. It does not provide you with a breakdown of the figures through the period chosen either by month or by year, instead it gives the cumulative total of the entire date range. Nevertheless this total is useful to know as it can be used with other figures to provide other evaluation measures such as the cost per download for the life of the package.
To obtain a breakdown of usage statistics by month you have to use the ‘JR1, JR1a and JR1 GOA’ report which provides a breakdown of your usage statistics by month and by title. One of the problems with this report is that it does not exclude the JR1a statistics, so the statistics include the downloads from the backfiles which are not part of the NESLi2 deals and therefore should not be included in the statistical analysis as it could skew the figures. However, having checked the current vs. archival usage (which is available on JUSP) the archive usage is minimal, as we don’t own the archive, so in this instance it would be possible to use this report. This will be more of a problem as we start to purchase publisher backfiles.
The report gives a monthly breakdown of the usage statistics by title over the time period and for the publisher requested. This information is really useful for a yearly review as it allows you to identify patterns of use and evaluate the value of a single title. It allows us to identify any low use core subscriptions which could potentially be cancelled.
A useful report from JUSP is the ‘View usage of titles and deals’ which retrieves the statistics for the packages by a publisher. This data for the entire package is needed once a year, and then at the end of the package lifetime to evaluate the use of the package and to help use decide whether this is the correct package to renew.
Although this report is very useful as it provides us with the Current JR1 total for all the titles within the package, and so excludes the backfile downloads, it only provides the headline figures for the titles for each year. Therefore it is not particularly useful for analysing the monthly use of the package over it’s lifetime. Many of the higher education institutions take NESLi2 packages, therefore these are the statistics that many people require, therefore would it be possible to provide a monthly breakdown of this report including the JR1, JR1a, JR1 GOA and Current JR1 for all the titles of the package?
It is also useful for us to know which of these titles are core titles. Not only does it allow us to identify any core titles that do not have high usage and could perhaps be considered for cancellation but it also allows us to identify any high use titles that we do not have as an individual title which we should consider purchasing at the end of the package lifetime as an individual subscription so that we do not lose access to the title. Although it is possible to identify your core titles in JUSP, we have tended to identify them in KB+ as this system has been developed to help us manage our NESLi2 packages and core titles. Having already identified our core titles in KB+ it is not time efficient to re-add the same information to JUSP – would it be possible for there to be more data sharing between the two systems and have this information transferred over?
Or, even better, would it be possible for JUSP and KB+ to be integrated? At the moment it is only possible to view the usage statistics of an individual journal within a package through KB+. Would it be possible to add links at package level to the different reports available in JUSP e.g. title usage of the package, top 20 titles and expand the number of reports available, a report showing the least used titles would be useful? At the moment it is crucial for us to be able to demonstrate value for money and to be able to identify the titles that are not being used so that we can promote them to allow us to get the most out of a package. If JUSP were integrated within KB+, JUSP could have a section which included the other reports, not package specific, that are available through JUSP.
News
Reporting back!
Gallery
Amy Devenney
After a busy month of disseminating our findings from the project at conferences and taking note of the ideas and feedback delegates had to offer, we thought it would useful to report back via the blog to stimulate further thoughts from you!
Briony and I presented at the National Acquisitions Group annual conference which was held at York on 4th and 5th September and at the Northern Collaboration conference on 13th September at the University of Huddersfield. In both sessions we started by presenting an overview of the project – the presentation for both these conferences can be found here.
We then split the delegates into groups and encouraged discussions around identifying pressure points in current workflows and considering how interoperability with other systems and co-operation with suppliers could create efficiencies. At the NAG conference we also had time for the groups to have a discussion about cultural change, we asked the delegates to think about the sorts of concerns staff might have concerning the implementation of a new library services platform, and to come up with different ways to manage these concerns.
Here are their thoughts:
News
On the road
Graham Stone
The HIKE project is on the road in autumn 2013.
On the road by macfred64 CC BY-NC
Check out our final report and the latest conference papers and workshops here.
News
HIKE Project report
Graham Stone
Earlier in the summer we launched the final project report
Devenney, Amy and Stone, Graham (2013) HIKE Report: to evaluate the suitability of Intota and KB+ for the UK higher education marketplace. Project Report
If you don’t have time to read the full report, there is also a handy executive summary for you to look at
Both are available at: eprints.hud.ac.uk/17976/
We would love to hear your views, so please leave a comment for us!
News
Ideal Workflows
Amy Devenney
Following the end of the HIKE project Huddersfield committed to completely embedding KB+ in to the journals and e-resources processes, and to consider moving towards a library services platform as a replacement to the LMS. To achieve these aims it was recognised that a significant re-engineering of our workflows would need to take place. As a starting point we have attempted to produce a number of ideal workflows and identify the factors upon which these workflows would be dependent.
Selection of a new e-journal
The main alteration to current workflows would need to be around the journals and/or articles on reading lists. We would need academic staff to maintain accurate and up to date reading lists for their modules in order for Intota to run a report. Ideally this report would identify any journals which are on a reading list but are not currently held by the library. For this workflow to be successful it would also require the development of various API’s within Intota to allow interoperability with subscription agents, publishers and University financial systems.
Renewal of a journal
When analysing the current workflow for renewing a journal it became clear that the main area in which efficiencies could be made was at the data gathering stage and it was thought that the development of an API in Intota to pull this information from KB+ would be beneficial. This workflow would also benefit from development in the ordering and payment process through Intota and the University financial system.
Electronic PDA
This workflow almost completely automates the setting up of electronic PDA and requires very little input from the team. It also significantly reduces the amount of time required to set up electronic PDA as it removes the task of uploading and removing MARC records to the catalogue. If this workflow were to be realised the only input that would be needed from the institution would be a discussion and decision on which subject areas/class numbers to include in the PDA.
Reading Lists
Like the ideal workflow for the selection of a new e-journal this workflow is dependent on accurate reading lists being supplied in a timely manner and being maintained throughout the year by academics. We hope to be able to use a combination of in-house formulas and subject team expertise to govern the number of the books identified on reading lists that should be purchased. Student numbers on course modules would be provided by the student information system (SITS Vision) e.g.:
If an ebook is marked as essential reading buy 1 copy for every 25 students on the module but for a print copy buy 1 copy for every 10 students.
We believe that a significant proportion of the book budget will be spent through this acquisition method, therefore it is crucial that we get this right and consider all aspects of the workflow to identify and resolve any issues that may arise.
Selection by academics/librarians
After the reading list and PDA spend, the remaining book budget would come from selection. However this process could be significantly streamlined using Intota and web forms.
Having analysed the workflows of the main processes of the Acquisitions team we felt it would be beneficial to carry out the same exercise for the E-Resources and Journals team. We decided to look at the workflow of the main processes in lifecycle of a journal – the selection of a new e-journal and the renewal of an e-journal. It is possible to identify a number of issues within these processes where efficiencies could be made and as such need to be considered by the developers of KB+ and a next generation library and web-scale management system.
Workflow to show the selection of an ejournal
Workflow to show a renewal of a journal subscription
MyReading software
As demonstrated in the workflow above, at the moment, the initial identification of a new journal title to be taken is by the Librarian requesting a new journal title to be ordered. However, with the development and implementation of MyReading project it is important that we consider how we will identify journal titles which academics have indicated contain relevant material for the students, which we currently do not subscribe to. At the moment, during the first year of the implementation of MyReading colleagues are going through the lists and checking them against our holdings manually. Not only is this time consuming but it also has a high risk of error. It was suggested that it may be possible to create an automated alert so that when a journal appears on a reading list, which we do not have access to, the team are alerted to look in to purchasing access.
Evaluation
Before subscribing to a journal, the team carry out an evaluation process on the proposed title. This data is then passed back to the Librarian and allows them to make an informed decision. The information that is collected by the team is outlined in the workflow above and includes the fourteen deal breakers outlined and recommended by the TERMS project as elements of the journal to be considered in best practice for the selection of e-resources (please see the TERMS wiki for more information library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Main_Page).[1]
It is very time consuming collecting all this information from different places and it was suggested that the reporting feature on KB+ could be developed further to include more of the information that is used to evaluate the resource. Although the reporting feature currently looks at some of this information, such as licence criteria, it was wondered if this could be enlarged to include the criteria recommended as best practice by TERMS.
However, although these points are important for the institution to consider before entering into an agreement they are less of a concern if the resource has appeared on a reading list or the request is a result of specific research funding. In these case the new journal title request would by-passes much of the evaluation stage, although given the current monetary constraints on the journal budget it may mean that the ordering of a new title requires the cancellation of another – and for this to happen, some evaluation must take place.
Purchasing and Renewal
The team currently complete paper requisition forms which are passed to the Acquisitions Team to raise an order on Agresso. Once this order has been approved the order is placed with the subscription agent/publisher and they are given the purchase order number. Details of the order, such as the order number and price, are also entered onto a spreadsheet. The inputting of the information on paper requisitions, into Agresso and onto a spreadsheet ensures that work is duplicated and heightens the risk of error. Therefore we would ideally like a punch-out system from the Agresso eMarketplace to Swets, JISC Collections and other subscription agents and publishers. This would create efficiencies and reduce the risk of error. Any of the additional information that is recorded on the spreadsheet relating to the journal title could be recorded in the note field of the journal on KB+. This process could also be used to purchase the renewal subscriptions that occur every year.
Renewals
As laid out in the TERMS project best practice, the renewal process starts with an intelligence gathering stage.[2] Data, such as communications with vendors/publishers, periods of downtime and user feedback should be collected throughout the year and recorded in a consistent manner. KB+ and 360 Resource Manager offer the facility to be able to record this information in a consistent place and manner and it is encouraged that this is utilised. KB+ also offers the additional feature of a community forum which allows the librarians throughout the country to add and discuss issues with vendors, user feedback and downtime with other colleagues.
Other considerations are if the title is on a reading list and if the need for a specific journal title through specific research funding has ceased.
While a section of the renewals process has been greatly helped by the ‘renewals’ feature within KB+, which creates an easy to understand comparison spreadsheet, we feel that some information that is pertinent to the renewals process is missing from the comparison spreadsheet (see our previous blog post). In addition we need information on the % price increase, which won’t be available from KB+. We would like to investigate the possibility of creating these reports on Agresso, however, this would mean radically changing the workflow.
The final step in the renewals process, to check the access at the beginning of the subscription period, is currently done manually and is time intensive and open to error. An automated check of all the links alerting us to any links that are not working or current would be advantageous
Having studied the two main workflows for the E-Resources and Journals team it is clear that they are complex and time-consuming processes that require attention to detail. As such there is only so much automation can do to create efficiencies and therefore it is crucial that KB+ and a new next generation library and web-scale management systems such as Intota consider and develop the areas where efficiencies can be made.
Intota, KB+, News, Work package 2: Integration, Work package 3: Implementation, Work package 5: Workflows, Work package 7: Dissemination, Workpackage 4: APIs
JISC HIKE Project Workshop – 26th February
Amy Devenney
Dave Pattern opened the workshop with a welcome to all the participants over coffee before introducing Jane Burke from Serial Solutions. Jane presented an overview of Intota to the workshop, she began by discussing how recent changes in the format of the library’s collections, such as the move to a predominantly e-based collection, the subsequent revision of the acquisitions, the increased purchase of packages over individual titles, have meant that we are now using yesterday’s systems and tools to do today’s jobs. With the old LMS’s and their corresponding workflows designed around the acquisition, maintenance and discovery of print material the move towards e-resources means that they are increasingly not fit for purpose. Jane then moved on to give an update on the development of Intota announcing that they hope to have the Assessment module ready for customers in 2013 and the complete release of the full availability of Intota in 2014. She finished by giving a demonstration of the proposed workflow of acquiring a resource.
Damyanti Patel from JISC Collections then spoke to the workshop about KB+. She open with a discussion about the rationale behind KB+ and how it developed out of a recognition of the need for accurate data and subscription lists and a realisation that every Journals Librarian across the UK was duplicating work as they were all trying to maintain an accurate list. She then moved on to provide an update of the subscriptions that are currently on KB+, the team started by populating the site with Nesli2 collections but have quickly moved on to looking at non-Jisc and non-Nesli2 collections. Damyanti then finished by talking about the future of KB+, how they are hoping to add historical data to the site, work with international partners, improve integration with other systems such as ELCAT, JUSP and 360, and also expand KB+ to cover ebooks.
Damyanti has blogged about her day here: knowledgebaseplus.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/jisc-hike-project-workshop/
Dave Pattern and Graham Stone then presented an overview and update on the HIKE project – eprints.hud.ac.uk/16837/.
The afternoon session was focused around the discussion of three main areas: workflows, cultural change and API’s and interoperability. Having done a lot of work around these areas for Huddersfield we interested to see if other institutions were experiencing the same issues or if they were having different issues what these were so we could factor them into our evaluation.
Workflows
The intended outcome of this discussion was that the HIKE team would understand other institutions workflows, their pain areas where they felt efficiencies could be made and how the new systems of KB+ and Intota could help them.
Integration between the Library Management System, Reading List Software and Registry
This was raised by a number of different institutions as an area where they felt efficiencies could be made. At the moment many of the LMS’s have no integration with their reading list software,
