(1)---------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:08:39 -0400
From: John Williams (Wichita State U.) <John.Williams_at_wichita.edu>
Subject: RE - Electronic vs. Print Format Accounting for Serials
We use suffixes P (print periodicals), PE (Electronic periodicals-no print),
PE+ (Print + Online) and X (databases and packages). All havesubject
specific prefixes (e.g. CHE7X for the ACS package plan). Since we
post packages, etc. to pseudo-bibs, we hedged your issue in that way. For
Wiley, for instance, we pay separately for the print and the electronic
access, so tracking is precise. For IEEE electronic only, we place
everything in one posting as suffix PE for the journals and X for the
proceedings (we split the invoice). Similarly, ACM. For Dictionary of
Organic Compounds on CD, it's suffixed SE (Electronic serial), thus CHE7SE.
I'm presenting on this topic at Charleston on November 11, by the way.
Let me know if you want anything further.
John
John H. Williams
Public Service Administrator
Acquisitions Manager/Technical Services
316-978-5134
(fax) 316-978-3048
Campus Box 68
Wichita State University Libraries
Wichita, KS 67260-0068
(2)-----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:17:40 -0400
From: Pat Hults (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) <hultsp_at_rpi.edu>
Subject: RE - Electronic vs. Print Format Accounting for Serials
RPI has a similar fund structure, but with the twist that electronic fund
codes are generally not broken down by department, while our print fund
codes are. It's starting to get problematic as more and more shifts to
electronic and bibliographers want to occasionally purchase e-products out
of print funds (due to a tight budget). I'd love to rethink the whole fund
code, but don't want to double every fund by having a print and electronic
version.
Patricia Hults
Coordinator of Technical Services
Folsom Libraries
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(518) 276-8358
hultsp_at_rpi.edu
(3)-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:27:14 -0400
From: Corey Seeman (Univ.of MI) <cseeman_at_bus.umich.edu>
Subject: RE - Electronic vs. Print Format Accounting for Serials
Sorry for the long and late response! Hopefully, it is still relevant.
This is a pretty big question in the way that we manage our finances in the
library. The traditional distinctions of serials, standing orders,
approval orders
and firm orders really do not always do a great job of matching with the
resources that we now purchase for the library. The issue that you
raised,
distinguishing different ways of receiving the resource (print with
electronic,
print only, electronic only, etc.) offer numerous variations and may not
provide
a useful way of distinguishing what we are buying with our collection
budgets.
Additionally, it is more and more difficult to place purchases (especially
for packages) into specific department by department categories
(Chemistry, Biology, etc.)
What should be driving this decision is what you want to do with the
information. The accounting structure (funds, groupings, etc.) that we
setup
in library systems really allow us to fine-tune how we allocate and
spend money
from our materials budget. As is typically the case, our governing bodies
(communities, universities, colleges, etc.) do not want to manage hundreds
of fund accounts for materials. For many instances, they really only care
about general breakdowns (such as serials, electronic resources,
monographs,
etc.) This will vary from site to site.
The system that you have outlined in your message would allow you (if
continued)
to provide a valuable link back to previous expenditures in the library.
And that might
be a good incentive to keep or modify the focus of the statistics and
the fund allocation.
If, however, it proves to be limiting and you cannot get good
information out of your stats,
then it might be worth changing. But ultimately, the information that
we get out of the
system (from reports, etc.), will depend in large part on the way that
we input the
data and how we tag it.
Much of the way that your library system manages funds is (I assume)
somewhat
dependent on the ILS that you are using. I am familiar with Innovative
and with that
ILS, each of the funds can be seen as building blocks that are combined
and merged
into categories or groupings to provide useful information to the
library. With the
reporting structure, you can organize them any way you want to ensure
that you get
the data that you want in reports. However, given that the sky is the
limit, we should
always be leery of organization systems that can be more complicated than
they are worth.
For one example, we can see this structure (which is somewhat typical)
where
each * represents a grouping and each - represents a fund:
*Arts and Sciences
*Biology
-Books (Biology)
-Serials (Biology)
-Electronic Resources (Biology)
-Standing Orders (Biology)
*Chemistry
-Books (Chemistry)
-Serials (Chemistry)
-Electronic Resources (Chemistry)
-Standing Orders (Chemistry)
*History
-Books (History)
-Serials (History)
-Electronic Resources (History)
-Standing Orders (History)
We can dig down deeper if we wanted:
Arts and Sciences
*Biology
*Books
-Firm Orders (Biology)
-Approval Orders (Biology)
*Serials
-Print Only Resources (Biology)
-Print with Electronic (majority of costs driven from print with
electronic free) (Biology)
-Electronic with Print (majority of costs driven by electronic with
print free) (Biology)
-Print added cost (with flip pricing, maybe coming from 10% extra for
print) (Biology)
-Electronic Only Resources (Biology)
*Electronic Resources
-Databases (Biology)
-Publishers Packages (Biology)
*Standing Orders
-Reference (Biology)
-University Presses (Biology)
This could actually be then applied to each of the subject areas. This
will get to be a large number of funds and it may not really get to you
detailed information you are seeking. It also might lead to other issues.
Right now (getting to the core of the issue), we need to revisit what we
are
doing here at the Kresge Library. We have Electronic Databases in a
single fund.
Since this represents a very large percentage of our budget, we are
getting to the
point where we need to sub-divide this category to provide better mean
to the stats.
While we want to have the connection to previous year's expenditures, I
do not want
the old fund structure to lock in what we can or should do.
So the long story short, this is what I would do to assess the value of
your statistics
and your decision to change them:
1. Figure out what you want to know at the end of the period or fiscal
year.
Are some of these questions and distinctions still relevan?
2. Consider if the questions have merit (i.e. do you really need to know
for
print/electronic packages what part is for each element).
3. Adopt a program that is flexible to address the changes that are not
yet anticipated.
I hope this helps. Sorry to go on and on.
Best -- Corey
Corey Seeman
Director
Kresge Business Administration Library
Ross School of Business
The University of Michigan
cseeman_at_umich.edu
(734) 764-9969
(734) 717-9734 (cell)
(734) 764-3839 (fax)
Kresge Library Home Page: http://www.bus.umich.edu/kresgelibrary/
My home page: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cseeman/index.html
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Ecseeman/index.html>
--------------------------------------------------------------
For information about ACQNET's editorial policies,
how to subscribe/unsubscribe, and access to Archives, see:
http://www.acqweb.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Oct 15 2006 - 16:51:48 EDT