The Project Environment

1. Collection and Use of Library In-House Usage Data with Voyager Reports in the I-Share/CARLI Environment Xiaotian Chen (chen@bradley.edu) Denise Johnson (johnson@bradley.edu) Bradley University Library, Peoria, IL

2. The Project Environment • Bradley University Library’s environment: a member of 65 I-Share Libraries in CARLI, using Endeavor’s Voyager integrated library system since Aug. 2002. • Bradley University is a medium-sized, comprehensive university in Peoria, IL. • The Cullom-Davis Library has holdings of over a million items, with approximately half that number comprised of books, periodicals, and government documents. The remaining items are microforms.

3. Defining Terms • By in-house usage, we mean the usage of library materials within the library building and without checking out. Usage includes not only circulating materials, but also non-circulating materials such as reference books. • In the Voyager system, in-house usage is called “Historical Browses,” while circulating data is called “Historical Charges.” We will use these two terms in the rest of this presentation. • When a charged item is scanned/discharged, a count of Historical Charge is added to the item. When a non-charged item (an item not checked out) is scanned, a count of Historical Browses is added to the item.

4. Preparing to Collect In-House Usage Data • Preparation began in 2003. • A Project Team was formed. • Procedures were planned. • A survey was conducted. • Bradley started to collect statistics on Historical Browses in January of 2004.

5. The Need for Collaboration in an In-House Usage Project • The Project Team benefits from the collaboration of staff members from several Library functional areas. • Collaboration helps us to avoid problems (for example the conflict between dual discharge and use of the browse function) and tap into the collective knowledge of staff using the integrated system in a variety of ways. • Functional areas represented are Access Services (including circulation and shelving), Electronic Services, Reference, Collection Development, & Technical Services (including cataloging and serials.)

6. Contributions to the project from each functional area: • Access Services—The Access Services staff members know how materials are handled and can help sort out the logistics of collecting statistics. • Electronic Services—The Electronic Services Librarian provides expertise with reports and maintenance of statistics. • Reference—The Reference Librarian is familiar with usage and shelving patterns in the Reference Collection. • Collection Development—The Collection Development Librarianhelps in determining what information is useful to collect and how it will be used. • Technical Services—Cataloging and Serials staff can provide expertise on item records, barcodes, and processing procedures.

7. Data Collection Procedures • Signs were designed, printed, and mounted on shelving end panels. • Carts were labeled for materials “to be scanned” and “to be shelved”. • Procedures for handling materials with barcode problems were developed. • Shelving manager and student shelvers began scanning materials used in-house.

8. Surveying “ILCSO” Libraries • A brief survey was developed and sent out to appropriate ILCSO e-mail listservs. • Survey Questions included: 1) Do you collect in-house usage data? 2) If yes, do you collect in-house usage data by scanning books that were used within the library before they are re-shelved? 3) If yes, what type of scanners do you use? 4) If you use scanners, do you use portable scanners? 5) If you use portable scanners, what type do you use? 6) Have you experienced any problems with the system, methodology, or equipment in collecting in-house usage statistics? If yes, please describe. 7) Comments? • Survey responses were used to fine tune our procedures and brainstorm for areas of possible trouble.

9. Voyager Specifics The what and how of using Voyager for collecting In-House Usage data

10. Historical Browses of an individual record:

11. To view the above screen is easy. Here are the steps: • Log into Voyager Circulation client. • Search the record by title, bar code, or other ways. • Click on the Item History tab. • You will see the circ data (Historical Charges) and in-house usage (Historical Browses) data.

12. Historical Browses of an entire collection break-down by subjects:

13. Generating Historical Browses data (as shown above) is more complicated than viewing individual data. The following software and configuration is needed: • Voyager Reporter client. • MS Office (MS Access and Excel) • Oracle ODBC driver. Downloading, installation and configuration of the ODBC driver is a fairly complicated process and could take a couple of hours. Users typically need to follow the instruction provided by Endeavor or by their consortium central office. I-Share’s downloading and instruction site is at http://www.ilcso.uiuc.edu/limited/ .

14. After all required software has been installed and configured, here are the procedures of creating Historical Browses query:1. Click on the “Reports” (or a customized name) file in the folder of C:\voyager\Access Reports.

15. 2. Select “Queries” under the “Objects”.

16. 3. Click on “New”. You will see a “New Query” pop-up. Click on “OK” with “Design View” highlighted by default.

17. 4. You will see “Show Table”. Click on “Close”.

18. 5. At this point, if you choose to copy an existing SQL code, click on “SQL” at the top left corner.

19. 6. You will see this:

20. 7. Delete the highlighted word SELECT, and paste in the SQL code. This is the SQL View of the query, provided by Cathy Salika of the CARLI office.

21. 8. The other option is to create your own query by joining the related tables in the Design View. It may look like this after the tables are joined:

22. 9. Save the Query with a name you can recognize like this. You are ready to run the query. Click on the query; you will be asked to enter the ODBC user name and password.

23. 10. The report will first be in an MS Access table. It can be converted and saved as an Excel file by going to Tools---Office Links---Analyze it with MS Excel. Below is part of a report converted into the Excel file shown earlier.

24. Data Issues Now that we’ve collected in-house usage data, what do we have and how can we use it?

25. Compared with circulating data (Historical Charges), Historical Browse data has some margin of error, because: • Some patrons will re-shelve items after use, even when we put up signs asking them not to re-shelve. • The Interlibrary Loan office charges items for Universal Borrowing before they are shipped out as a standard procedure. • If someone at the circulation desk accidentally discharges a charged item twice, the 2nd discharge adds an extra count in Historical Browses.So, we lose some counts in #1, and gain some in #2, and #3. Still, we believe that having less-than-perfect counts is better than having no data.

26. Alternate and/or Additional Methods for Collecting In-House Usage Data • Direct & Indirect methods • Direct=observation • Several Indirect Methods, include: • Calculation (combined with patron survey) • Tally sheets attached to materials • Attaching/placing “telltales” • Scanning/counting (after requesting patrons not to reshelve) • Sampling and/or consistent monitoring

27. Usability of Historical Browse data: • Voyager does not have dates associated with Historical Browses. As a result, while it is possible to general reports of Historical Charges by dates, it is NOT possible to generate reports of Historical Browses by dates. • In order to evaluate the library collection’s Historical Browses by date, Bradley Library generates the reports twice a year, at the end of calendar and academic years respectively, and keeps them on file.

28. This is how Bradley keeps the historical data.

29. If we need to find the number of Historical Browses in the BF (Psychology) section in 2005, we use the data for December 2005 to subtract the data for January 2005.The BF total for December 2005 is 2620.The BF total for January 2005 is 1714.2620-1714=906.So we had 906 in-house uses of Psychology books in the calendar year of 2005.

30. Examples of decision-makingbased on Historical Browses • Overall data breakdown by subjects: Used together with Historical Charges and other info to re-allocate subject book funds in 2005. • Individual item data: • A. Used to cancel standing orders (e.g. Corpus Juris Secundum, which costs $4,097/year last year, was cancelled in 2006, based on the usage data.) • B. Used to make decisions on new editions. e.g., World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties will have a 4th edition July 2006. Our 3rd edition published in 1999 had zero Historical Charge and zero Historical Browse, so we decided not to buy the 4th edition (list price $270).

31. Project Enhancements • In Fall of 2005, we started bar-coding a subset of journals to be scanned after use, to help us make decisions: 1. In case we have to make cancellations, we want solid data on which serial titles are being used. 2. For high cost, low usage, but important serial titles we may want to initiate deposit accounts with vendors for access.

32. Options/Plans for the Future • Barcode the entire print serials collection to broaden the scope of the project and enhance the usability of our data. • Run short-term surveys using alternate data collection methods to enhance data quality. • Do a feasibility study for microform usage data collection.

33. Baker, S. & F.W. Lancaster “Evaluation of In-House Use” in The Measurement and Evaluation of Library Services, 2d. Ed. (1991) Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, pp. 123-142. Bradford, J.T. “What’s Coming Off the Shelves? A Reference Use Study Analyzing Print Reference Sources in a University Library.” (2005) Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (6) pp.546-558. Cheng, R. & M. Meernik. “ATG Special Report—Collection Assessment at Eastern Michigan University.” (2005) Against the Grain, 17(4) pp.88-92. Crotts, Joe “Subject Usage and Funding of Library Monographs.” (May 1999) College & Research Libraries, 60 (3) pp.261-273. Eldredge, J. “The Vital Few Meet the Trivial Many: Unexpected Use Patterns in a Monographs Collection.” (1998) Bulletin of the Medical Library Assn., 86 (4) pp.496-503. Ferguson, A. “Back Talk—Use Statistics: Are They Worth It?” (2003) Against the Grain, 14 (6) pp.93-94. Kraemer, A. “Evaluating Usage of Monographs: Is It Feasible and Worthwhile? (2001) Collection Management, 26 (1) pp.35-46. Lane, L. “The Relationship Between Loans and In-House Use of Books in Determining a Use-Factor for Budget Allocations.” (1987) Library Acquisitions, 11 (2) pp.95-102. Puvogel, Cole “Stack Attack! In-House Book Usage in a Small College Environment.” (1998) College & Undergraduate Libraries, 5 (2) pp.11-22. Ridley, D. & J. Weber “Toward Assessing In-House Use of Print Resources in the Undergraduate Academic Library: an Inter-Institutional Study.” (2000) Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 24 (1) pp.89-103. Sendi, K. “Assessing the Functionality of the Reference Collection.” (1996) Collection Building, 15 (3) pp.17-21. Wynne, P. & Z. Clarke “Towards an Inclusive Methodology for the Measurement of Inhouse Use.” (2000) Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 32 (2) pp.82-90. Sources Consulted

34. Questions and comments? Thank You.