1. Zack Lane ReCAP Coordinator July 31, 2012 ReCAP Columbia University

2. ReCAP Columbia University  Three main categories: request, accession and circulation  Request and accession sets developed and refined 2008-2010  MS Office 2010 allows better “automation”  Data flows into Excel, pivot table, pivot charts and PowerPoint.  Beginning to “standardize” system-wide and department reports  Plan to push data and analysis out

3. ReCAP Columbia University

4. ReCAP Columbia University  ReCAP Data Center is clearinghouse for system-wide data and analysis ◦ Request rate ◦ Timing of requests ◦ High use titles ◦ High volume requests ◦ EDD ◦ Publication Date (Monographs)  Department websites have both explicit data and presentations

5. ReCAP Columbia University

6. ReCAP Columbia University  Mining ReCAP data but also looking at system-wide and department trends  Internship project found evidence in data of: ◦ Policy changes: REG loan period 4-weeks to 1 term ◦ System/Procedure: BDirect loans charge to BDX ◦ User behavior patterns: charge/renewal patterns  Dept. analysis limits by happening location  Crafting analysis will be iterative process  Note: Circ data includes on campus collections  Can interesting visuals be useful?

7. ReCAP Columbia University

8. ReCAP Columbia University

9. ReCAP Columbia University

10. ReCAP Columbia University

11. ReCAP Columbia University

12. ReCAP Columbia University

13. ReCAP Columbia University

14. ReCAP Columbia University

15. ReCAP Columbia University

16.  Tailored to both department data and need  Available on ReCAP website  Metrics by ◦ Activity types ◦ Total charges ◦ Patron Group ◦ Sub-collections ReCAP Columbia University

17. ReCAP Columbia University

18. ReCAP Columbia University

19. ReCAP Columbia University

20. ReCAP Columbia University

21.  516,165 total requests since ReCAP opened ◦ FY09 : 69,060 ◦ FY10 : 71,119 ◦ FY11 : 71,582 ◦ FY12 : 72,786  Includes both patron and staff requests  Excludes many staff requests  Represents only CUL activity at the ReCAP facility  Patron access to offsite collections is excellent: dynamic with few failures ReCAP Columbia University

22. ReCAP Columbia University

23. ReCAP Columbia University

24. ReCAP Columbia University

25. ReCAP Columbia University

26. ReCAP Columbia University  3,726,036 accessions since ReCAP opened in January 2002 ◦ FY10 : 209,630 ◦ FY11 : 183,324 ◦ FY12 : 173,299  Does not includes Columbia Law Library ◦ 283,626 accessions  9,659,753 total accessions at ReCAP

27. ReCAP Columbia University

28. ReCAP Columbia University

29.  There are two types of delivery from ReCAP: physical delivery and EDD  EDD is a value added service provided to Columbia University Libraries patrons .pdf scans are made of journal articles and book chapters  EDD is limited to only patrons with borrowing privileges (implemented 8/22/11)8/22/11  Detailed information for staff can be found on the ReCAP EDD websiteReCAP EDD website ReCAP Columbia University

30. ReCAP Columbia University

31. ReCAP Columbia University

32. ReCAP Columbia University

33.  Request rate is a measure of collection usage  It is the percentage of ReCAP collections requested during a twelve-month period  Provides staff one way to gauge overall use of offsite collections  Request rate is one factor used to structure ReCAP facility staffing model  Patron access to offsite collections is excellent: dynamic with few failures ReCAP Columbia University

34. ReCAP Columbia University

35. ReCAP Columbia University

36. ReCAP Columbia University

37. ReCAP Columbia University

38. ReCAP Columbia University

39. ReCAP Columbia University  High Volume (>20) requests had become a problem for both CUL and ReCAP staff ◦ Burdensome pick-lists for ReCAP staff ◦ ReCAP Staff retrieves and packs at an average rate of 65 per 2 hours ◦ Processing deliveries is time-consuming ◦ Circulation staff have difficulty finding adequate space to hold ◦ CUL staff viewed requests as “impulsive” since they often did not use all material (sometimes none of the material)

40. ReCAP Columbia University  Request limit set Nov. 5, 2009  Documentation herehere  20 volume limit was precedent from Prentis  Did it work? (Short answer: yes)

41. ReCAP Columbia University

42. ReCAP Columbia University

43. ReCAP Columbia University  If 20 is max, would patrons compensate with several smaller requests? And how do we know? ◦ LV (low volume) : 1-10 items ◦ MLV (mid-low volume) : 11-15 ◦ MHV (mid-high volume) : 16-20 ◦ HV (high volume) : 21+  Did patrons compensate to MHVs? (Short answer: yes, but that’s ok)

44. ReCAP Columbia University

45. ReCAP Columbia University

46. ReCAP Columbia University

47. ReCAP Columbia University

48. ReCAP Columbia University  It is not possible to measure the impact of the pop-up or notification messages:

49. ReCAP Columbia University  Data suggested a 2.04% overall reduction based on FY09 statistics  Impact not yet totally quantified, but apparent  Before : HV average size 38.4 items and 161.7 items requested per month  After : HV average size 31.3 items and 81.5 items requested per month  Anecdotal impact: no complaints

50.  More information about data sets can be found on the ReCAP Data Center websiteReCAP Data Center website  Primary data categories include: accession, retrieval, delivery and circulation  Tailored data sets and analysis will be provided to staff via the ReCAP Coordinator  Please see the main ReCAP website for general information about CUL procedures and systemsReCAP website ReCAP Columbia University