Ivy Plus at MIT: Ivy Plus at MIT Blog

*Optional Reading + Data* IPLC > Resource Sharing >Question about consortial resource sharing ROI (Heidi Nance 3/28/2019)

Hello!

In case of interest, I’m sharing below my comments sent to the CARS group this morning. Context – one of the group members said they’d been asked to demonstrate the Return on Investment (ROI) of Resource Sharing. They were asking whether anyone in our group had done such an analysis, and whether we had advice for them in how to proceed.

I’ve removed the group’s original comments as I don’t yet have permission to share them outside the group.

Happy to discuss further!

Best,

Heidi

From: Heidi Nance <hnance@upenn.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Question about consortial resource sharing ROI

Hi everyone,

Ok, I have thoughts about the ROI question, which I will try to summarize below. Apologies in advance for the length:

1. Resource Sharing vs. Local Collection. While I understand the political and business need to demonstrate value (especially to upper administration) I’m always concerned when the ROI of RS comes into question without the context of the local collection (not necessarily saying that’s happening here). If we’re thinking of RS as an extension of the local collection vs. an additional, special service, why aren’t we *also* assessing the ROI of the items purchased primarily for local storage/use? One of the more obvious answers is that it is automatically assumed that the local collection is needed, useful, and worth the investment. How often do we ask “what is the ROI on the local collection?” If not often, why are we directing this question at RS, alone?
2. Resource Sharing is Nearly Always Cheaper Than Local Purchases. All of the above notwithstanding, I took a look at this article by Courant (2015), which gives costs for *storage only* for print items. I then looked at the average cost of a BorrowDirect transaction. I found that in all cases except items going directly to high-density shelving, the costs of a single RS transaction is always less than *storage only* for print items. I recognize that there are additional costs in both categories that aren’t represented here, but I suspect that further research would support this pattern. (Anyone want to research and co-author an article on this topic?). Here is a link to my preliminary analysis.
3. Usage. We can safely assume that RS transactions have at least one use (1.0). However, with local items, some research shows that only 20-30% of “just in case” items purchased for local use circulate in the first two years (usage at 0.7 – 0.8) - (need to find my sources for this one). Therefore, the ROI on RS transactions is substantially higher than for local collections in terms of use. Some argue that not all RS items are picked by the patron, and this is certainly true, but for at least one IPLC library, data shows that RS transactions are not picked up at the exact same rate of locally paged items, invalidating this argument.

As I said, I have some thoughts! I’m happy to discuss further, and even more happy to do additional research and co-write an article on this topic.

See many of you soon at today’s meeting! (Agenda forthcoming).

Best,

Heidi

Heidi Nance
Director of Resource Sharing Initiatives 
Ivy Plus Libraries Confederation