I had to consider IPEDS and our accreditation body reporting requirement, plus, annual institutional reporting by getting information from our CFO on what in the library is considered institutional assets. I discovered that money spent on purchasing books and collections to OWN capitalizes as institutional asset while money spent on rental fees of databases is NOT considered assets. I reset our base fund structure to accommodate institutional reporting, then create sub-funds to accommodate reporting out to IPEDS and our accrediting institution as well as for library records. But this is a very small non-profit organizational school, so your fund structure might be very different than ours.
Be safe everyone,
Dolores Yilibuw
Director of Library
Lexington Theological Seminary
Lexington, KY 40503
From: acqnet-request_at_lists.ala.org [mailto:acqnet-request_at_lists.ala.org] On Behalf Of Corbett, Lauren
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 4:07 PM
To: acqnet_at_lists.ala.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ALCTS-acqnet] Collections Fund and Reporting Codes
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<mailto: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<mailto: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 Thu Apr 09 2020 - 12:46:59 EDT