You'll want to consider the IPEDS survey structure. Academic libraries
documents are at the bottom of this webpage
<https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/visresults.aspx> (
https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/visresults.aspx).
Lauren
--
Lauren Corbett
Director of Resource Services, Z. Smith Reynolds Library
Wake Forest University
336-758-6136 ISNI: 0000 0003 5170 369X
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:43 PM Mark Hemhauser <mhemhauser_at_berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Our fund structure is relatively simple. We have funds noted for books,
> serials, and standing orders. They are by subject. A simple example would
> be:
> Literature - books / one-time = litrm
> Literature - serials /continuing = litrs
> Literature - standing orders / continuing = litrc
> Literature - approvals/autoship = litry
>
> The reasoning:
> We transmit to campus a chart string for each fund; books are one
> chartstring, serials are another. Hence the split between firm and
> continuing. For budgeting purposes we budget serials based on prior year
> cost plus an inflation estimate. For standing order budgeting we use a
> three year average spend per title, so we need to distinguish between
> subscriptions and standing orders. The approval fund codes are new and are
> used because we choose to assign location by fund and the autoshipped
> materials arrive shelf ready.
>
> To capture the other elements that libraries want to capture, like online
> or print, DDA, etc. we use other elements of the order record. This gives
> us greater reporting flexibility and simpler fund structure. So online
> versus print is distinguished by the order location code. DDA by the
> acquisition type or method. Ditto for hosting fees. We use the order type
> to distinguish between continuing and one-time because it's an easier way
> to pull that concept together rather than a complicated query by fund. (We
> have 700 endowment and departmental fund codes which add complexity to
> reporting one-time vs. continuing spending if we used fund codes.)
>
> Here's are our acq types:
>
> *AcqType*
> AcqTypeName
> Prepaid
> Antiquarian
> Out of Print
> LC for Acq
> Barter
> Depository
> DDA
> Gift
> Hosting Fee
> Included
> E-Package
> List Purchase
> Membership
> Standing Order
> Firm
> Subscription
> Deposit Account
> Blanket
> Exchange
> Approval
>
> These aren't as mutually exclusive as I'd like, hosting fees are
> essentially like subscriptions, however, if I want to know our hosting fee
> spend, I can just sum expenses by acq type. If I want all continuing costs,
> I can sum by order type = continuing. So I've got a sort of faceted
> hierarchy within my order records: Order type, acq type, and format
> (meaning book, video, periodical)
>
> Formats:
> *FormatName*
> Form Format Type
> - Book Book
> x Multivolume Monograph Book
> n Newspaper Serial
> b Book Book
> v Video Video
> k Map Map
> m Monographic Serial Serial
> p Periodical Serial
> i Integrating Resource Database
> c Computer File Data Set
> a Audio Audio
> The above table allows me to aggregate to the type or by the more
> specific format. So I can calculate spending for online video hosting fees
> across all subjects. Or online DDA spending for videos. Without having to
> create DDA funds, hosting funds, online journal funds, print journal funds
> etc.
>
> The negative to my approach is that these other views into our
> spending are not visible in the fund structure. I have to run a report. A
> number of my staff are capable of running these reports, so we have
> redundancy. We export fiscal year payment data and order data in one file
> and then map everything in a MS Access database.
>
> I don't know yet, what a migration to Alma is going to do to my methods.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Hemhauser
> Head of Acquisitions, The Library
> 250 Moffitt Library, MC 6000
> University of California, Berkeley
> Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
>
> 510-664-4310
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:41 AM Rodriguez, Michael <
> michael.a.rodriguez_at_uconn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is anyone able to share, here or off-list, your collections budget
>> documents and structures? I am beginning work a project to revamp our
>> reporting codes (also known as object codes) and our fund codes - not the
>> allocations, but the actual coding, aiming to improve workflows and
>> analytics. I am curious how folks are coding costs - for example, how are
>> you capturing the purchase of a book that is print vs electronic and that
>> is DDA vs firm order. Are you using secondary reporting codes? Any
>> information you can share would be helpful.
>>
>> Thanks so much,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> *UConn Library facilities are currently closed but we are here to help
>> you with your library needs during the COVID-19 crisis. You can stay
>> updated through our website <https://lib.uconn.edu/about/covid-19/> and
>> continue to contact staff directly.*
>>
>> Michael Rodriguez
>> Collections Strategist
>> UConn Library
>>
>
Received on Wed Apr 08 2020 - 07:02:27 EDT