CAUL Meetings Agenda Template

CAUL Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC) Meeting 2014/1 Friday 21 March 2014 from 2pm-5pm QUT Gardens Point Campus (and via teleconference) Draft Minutes (updated 20/3/14) 1. Attendance & Apologies. Craig Anderson, chair; Alison Hunter, Ross Hallett, Teresa Chitty, Isabella Trahn, Diane Costello (CAUL) Leeanne Pitman and Cathie Jilovsky (CAVAL) (via teleconference). Introduction: How do we prove value? Are we collecting the right things for the CQAACers to construct a value argument? What should we be collecting in the e-environment? 2. Minutes of Last Meeting held Wednesday 11 September 2013. Not yet finished. 3. Business arising, not otherwise included on the agenda. a) Review of non-traditional areas for inclusion or not e.g. copyright. These are reported in the annual CAUL salary survey. At the last meeting, and during subsequent correspondence, a number of areas were still unclear. What is the library? What are we trying to count? Identified five areas, considered normal library functions, unless the funding is provided by an external source. Doesn’t apply to large converged models such as UWA and Griffith. Should ask them how they report staffing and budget data. UWA includes a note 100% of specific library items and 50% of combined library / IT services such as maintenance and equipment. Ask Griffith how they count this. (Action: DC) If paid by the library, then use that to count the number of staff. Include a note for 2015 collection. If in doubt about what to include, then the note should say ask about whether included in the library budget or not. (Action: CJ) b) CAUDIT Complexity Index. This has been referred to CQAAC who were asked to recommend which elements should be included. Diane Costello reported that we were waiting for feedback. 4. CAVAL contract proposal 2014-2018. CAVAL offered a revised 5-year contract to CAUL on 9 January 2014. Following feedback from the committee, a revised proposal was tendered on 13 February 2014. Following further feedback, on 14 March the following was proposed to the committee, who concurred: 1. We confirm with CAVAL that the current year’s collection go ahead under the proposed conditions and cost (of course, this has already started – thank-you to Cathie and CAVAL); 2. We ask CAVAL to include a definition of CPI (the source of the figure to be used) in the contract (Cathie has already agreed to do this);

CSAC Meeting 2014/1 – 21 March 2014 – Brisbane – Agenda 1 3. We ask CAVAL to adjust the current IT security provisions to allow for more frequent off-site backups during the peak period of data entry each year (e.g. weekly during the period from the beginning of data collection to the due date) (Cathie is already consulting on this); CAVAL also does a backup to the cloud; 4. If CAVAL retains the right to vary the increase from other than CPI, then CAUL needs other options e.g. a much longer notice period than the previous September in case CAUL cannot accept the proposed variation and needs to find another solution – recommend the previous January (of course, CAVAL could remove this right, we would not have to consider going back to the drawing Board mid-contract). The CAUL Executive approved this year’s collection and payment, and will expect a formal recommendation to approve the 5-year proposal by its next meeting in May. (Action: DC) CAVAL and CAUL will work together to document ownership of data, and a process by which the data might be extracted. The revised contract will be brought back to CSAC with a proposal to go to the Executive for the May meeting. (Action: DC, CJ) 5. CSAC Work plan 2014. In November each year, the chairs of all CAUL’s advisory committees meet with the CAUL Executive to review achievements for the year and to discuss priorities for the following year. This includes reviewing the CAUL strategic plan, the proposed workplans of each committee, and ensuring the two areas are in synch. a) Electronic Materials Usage. Diane Costello has drafted a specification for compiling centrally selected usage data for all relevant CAUL/CONZUL institutions. Members have provided comments on the databases or journal packages that are a high priority for monitoring. Given that CAUL has approved the collection of usage data directly from publishers, it was agreed: i) Diane Costello will write to specific COUNTER-compliant publishers to establish enable the receipt of consortial and institutional statistics. (Action: DC) Craig Anderson and JoAnne Sparks are happy to be used as the testbed. ii) Some options will be examined for producing JSTOR-like reports from this data. iii) Review JUSP to see if they are yet in a position to let others use this service. b) Trend Analysis. Diane Costello drafted a specification for comment first by Cathie Jilovsky and then by the committee. It was included in the agenda papers. It was agreed to ask for quote – CAVAL or university librarians; could they do it, and how much to set up and update; accessible to all members; it would be a sectoral analysis not an institutional analysis; look at trends and anomalies. (Action: DC, CJ) c) Survey on Current Uses & Usefulness of the CAUL Statistics. The CAUL Executive has asked that CSAC specify the survey as a project to be outsourced. Members discussed what should be covered in the review, which target groups would be surveyed, and what kind of consultant might be useful. It was agreed that Diane Costello would draft a specification for comment by the committee. (Action: DC) 6. CAUL Statistics Annual Collection. Follow up CAUL a couple of days before due date of March 28. Cathie will send information to Diane Costello. If problems with the last few institutions, Craig will send personal information to CAUL members. (Action: CJ, DC) Since updating the table we have had several queries asking for further clarification, indicating that the table still is not clear e.g. “For next time can you please consider having a separate table for the total loans attribute with the exclusions/inclusions clearly marked as it still isn’t clear to me”. CSAC was asked to advise, but was not clear on what the problem was. (Action: CJ) Should eBooks be removed from non-serial items? It was suggested counting separately the hard-copy and the electronic monographs, then adding them together. Agreed. Titles only can be counted for eBooks. Items is becoming an obsolete notion, including for print.

CSAC Meeting 2014/1 – 21 March 2014 – Brisbane – Agenda 2 The question of what does “total eBooks” mean might be left until next year. Does the number added or withdrawn have any meaning? Can this be deduced from the system end? What are the numbers being used for e.g. to measure the investment, to measure what users have access to? The latter do not care if the books are owned. PDA numbers are currently collected, though not owned. a) Definitions. i) Loans: ULANZ. Ray Choate queried some inconsistencies in the ULANZ data. Correspondence is appended. Members discussed what other borrowing schemes were being used e.g. Victorian libraries do not use ULANZ. It was suggested asking the list what others were being used. (Action: DC) It was suggested that it be called cross-library usage, with in-person borrowing different from online borrowing because the loans are not unmediated. It was agreed to continue to collect the data because there is evidence of demand. CSAC will devise a new definition of ULANZ borrowing and test if we need a new data collection. (Action: DC) It was noted that there were many inquiries to CAUL and CAVAL re ULANZ, with the enquirers being referred back to their home libraries. ii) Info Literacy: Groups and Info Literacy: Persons. How should online modules be included? This and the following item have been brought back to the committee for further analysis. Members discussed a range of programs which included information literacy elements, some of which were embedded in programs, some were compulsory, some which are generic. The place of learning management systems was raised. How can these elements be metricated? It was agreed to pass to CLTAC for advice first, to determine what was important to count, before determining how to count it. (Action: DC) iii) Info Literacy: Reference Transactions. To clarify what constitutes a reference enquiry, in particular as technology and integrated desks change the nature of enquires that front line staff are asked. It was suggested that the definitions are quite clear but there is still a lot of confusion. The range of activities now are very different. It was agreed that if it meets the definition of a reference transaction, it doesn’t matter what technology is used. What is the definition of reference? The old definition will be reviewed. (Action: CJ) It was noted that duration is not an issue. iv) Population. A question was asked about what should be included in “other” population. It was noted that offshore students are already part of enrolled students. b) Institutional Repository Statistics. The proposal to collect repository data in 2013 was approved by CAUL and the first data was collected in 2013. In a list discussion, members agreed that these would not be included in the information resources section, but kept separately. It was suggested that the former covers provision of resources to the institutional community whereby the latter covers access to the outside world. Email from Diane Costello (circulated): While musing on the annual survey of repository managers last year, Libby and I discussed where these data should properly fit – in their survey or ours. I’ve pulled down the data from the new questions about repository content and use, together with the definitions, for CSAC to review. See the attached file – I’ve included the definitions in a separate tab. In parallel, I will ask CRAC to review – with the aim of identifying which definitions might need to be clarified, whether this is the data we really need, whether there is other data currently collected in the repository managers’ survey that might be better included in the CAUL statistics survey, etc (What other questions should we be asking?)

CSAC Meeting 2014/1 – 21 March 2014 – Brisbane – Agenda 3 There have been quite a few comments on the CAIRSS list since the collection of 2013 statistics started. Also forwarded below is a message re “IRUS-UK is a Jisc-funded, national aggregation service which contains details of *all* content downloaded from participating UK IRs.” It was suggested that the statistics are very useful, and the definitions are clear. It was noted that some systems don’t allow this data to be collected e.g. DigiTool®. The following issues were raised:  access to metadata items vs open access version of a publication from Paula Callan; why count metadata-only accesses?  use of metadata item access vs use of f/t access – use is hard because there are so many ways into the content;  value in the trending, can only collect what you can collect It was suggested asking CRAC why metadata is measured? (Action: DC) 7. CAUL Statistics Website. Cathie Jilovsky – all other items have been completed. a) could incorporate a login function across the site e.g. CAUL members. CAVAL was asked to produce a formal quote; requested by CAUL Executive. (Action: CJ) b) Website usage statistics have been implemented to identify use made of site. This applies to people entering data. The data will be reviewed after it has been collected for a while. (Action: CJ) c) Website contract. It was noted that the software is CAVAL’s and the data is CAUL’s. It was suggested that CONZUL might be added to the contract? (Action: DC) 8. Next Meeting. It was agreed to try to avoid conference weeks for meetings to allow members to attend the conference properly. The next face-to-face meeting would normally be held alongside the first CAUL meeting of the year – 20 March 2015 in Canberra, to be confirmed. 9. Other Business. a) Other questions from Cathie’s report. The meeting concluded at 4.59pm

CSAC Meeting 2014/1 – 21 March 2014 – Brisbane – Agenda 4 Appendix. -----Original Message----- From: Cathie Jilovsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 6:21 PM To: Diane Costello; Ray Choate Cc: CAUL Administration; stats.caul Subject: RE: ULA Borrowing statistics

Hello Diane and Ray

Good to have some feedback on these stats, even if it's to say that the numbers are inconsistent! The collection of these over the past few years has, from my point of view, been marked by zero feedback ....

I second Diane's motion to encourage your colleagues to return better data. The CAVAL team collects and collates the data and produces the reports but quality control at the level that you have identified is beyond our brief.

However this is obviously now a year of change - as it so happens we've had a query as to whether renewals should be included or not. And, guess what, the instructions don't say (and never have done so)!

Regards

Cathie

Cathie Jilovsky Chief Information Officer 4 Park Drive Bundoora VIC 3083 Australia D +61 3 9450 5504 M +61 (0) 407 755 490 E [email protected] caval.edu.au

-----Original Message----- From: Diane Costello Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014 4:16 PM To: Ray Choate Cc: Cathie Jilovsky; CAUL Administration Subject: RE: ULA Borrowing statistics

Hello Ray, your understanding of the definitions is correct.

I also found anomalies, but I think they can be attributed to incomplete returns by individual members.

Any encouragement to your colleagues to return better data would be encouraged. cheers, Diane P.S. copying to Cathie because CAVAL does all the hard work on these too. ---- Diane Costello Executive Officer, CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians), PO Box 8169 Australian National University ACT 0200 Australia +61 2 6125 2990 | 0404 023 340 | [email protected] | +http://www.caul.edu.au/

CSAC Meeting 2014/1 – 21 March 2014 – Brisbane – Agenda 5 -----Original Message----- From: Ray Choate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014 2:57 PM To: Diane Costello Subject: FW: ULA Borrowing statistics

Hello Dianne,

I have been working with the 2012 ULA borrowing statistics for some local benchmarking purposes, and find the reported statistics very confusing. For example, I manipulated and downloaded the Go8 ULA statistics (see attached). I think the issues noted below may apply to the ULA statistics for other institutions, but I use the Go8 stats for demonstration purposes. I suspect the definitions for 'home' vs 'host' library may not be entirely clear.

My understanding is that 'home' in our case would be the University of Adelaide Library, and 'host' would be other libraries that our uses join and use.

If this is correct, then I would read the statistics as follows:- 34 users from other libraries registered to use the University of Adelaide Libraries, and they borrowed 234 items from us (6.88 items each borrower) 53 of our users registered at other libraries, and they borrowed 694 items from them. (13.1 items each borrower) [please note that we do not include statistics of use from Flinders University and the University of South Australia -- the three of us have an independent reciprocal borrowing programme.]

If I apply these definitions to Monash and Queensland, for example, I get some odd results: Monash:- 426 users from other libraries registered to use the Monash Libraries, and they borrowed 5,975 items from Monash (14 each borrower) 4,381 Monash users registered at other libraries, and borrowed 559 items. (0.12 items each borrower) Queensland:- 1,811 users from other libraries registered to use the QU libraries, and they borrowed 924 items from QU. (0.5 items each borrower) 154 QU users registered to borrow from other libraries, and they borrowed 6,437 items. (41.8 each borrower)

Perhaps it is a (yet another) senior moment? Does one of our colleagues organise these statistics?

Regards, Ray.

Ray Choate University Librarian Barr Smith Library University of Adelaide Adelaide, South Australia 5005 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 8 8313 4064 Fax: +61 8 8313 4369 Email: [email protected]

CSAC Meeting 2014/1 – 21 March 2014 – Brisbane – Agenda 6