Library materials fund allocation: A case study

Library materials fund allocation: A case study

Library Materials Fund Allocation: A Case Study by Max E. Graf Eckbrecht von Diirckheim-Montmartin, I. Hennie Viljoen, Lez~nne Human, and Gerhard Geld...

398KB Sizes 0 Downloads 84 Views

Library Materials Fund Allocation: A Case Study by Max E. Graf Eckbrecht von Diirckheim-Montmartin, I. Hennie Viljoen, Lez~nne Human, and Gerhard Geldenhuys

This article describes the events and steps which led to the creation of a library materials fund allocation formula for the Library Services of the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. It discusses the database, the modeling that led to the formula, and the implementation. A short evaluation of the fund allocation formula is provided.

Max E. Graf Eckbrecht von DOrckheimMontmartin is Assistant Director (Technical Services) and J. Hennie Viljoen is Senior Director, Library Services, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag )(5036, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa. Lez~nne Human is a graduate student and Gerhard Geldenhuys is a Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Stellenbosch.

he University of Stellenbosch is situated near Cape Town in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Its medium of instruction is Afrikaans, the predominant language in this province. The university is organized in twelve faculties, ranging from Arts and Science to Theology and Medicine. Its highest academic governing body is its Senate, consisting of senior teaching staff and heads of departments. It has approximately 14,000 students, and its budget for library materials in 1993 was approximately $2 million (U.S.). A new main underground library building was opened in 1984. The goal of the Library Services to use its facilities optimally led to a comprehensive investigation of its collection development policies and fund allocation formula. The results of these investigations were approved by the university in 1990 and implemented in 1991. This report of the investigation is presented in the hope that it will be helpful in other similar ventures. The formula presented was applied to 132 departments of the university. The previous method of fund allocation had been devised in 1976 and was applied rather rigidly. It became unsatisfactory in the 1980s, mainly because it could not cope with the rapid growth in some faculties and the decline in others. There was general dissatisfaction with the allocation of funds, but because of the size of the university and the large variations in the needs of the departments it was also very difficult for library staff to allocate funds in a more intuitive way.

T

Drafting the F u n d Allocation Formula The Nature of the Fund Allocation Formula. The literature on the history, principles, advantages, and disadvantages of fund allocation formulas is extensive. 1-7 The same can be said of reports on the implementation of a fund alloca-

tion formula in one form or another. 8-u At the very outset, the design of the fund allocation formula was seen as an effort to provide support for the library management in the complex decisions that they have to make annually in the allocation of funds. The figures generated by the formula were to be regarded as indications of the appropriate allocation of funds, rather than as exact figures to be imposed rigidly. The method was implemented on a personal computer using the LOTUS 1-2-3 spreadsheet. The program package includes the complete database, the fund allocation formula, and some convenient utility programs.

Data Variables Used in the Formula. The variables used in a fund allocation formula depend on the institution involved and the availability and cost of the data, and, therefore, vary among different institutions. In the case of the University of Stellenbosch, the following four variables, of which one is a composite, were used: • The full-time equivalent (FTE) students in a department. Presently

FrE numbers are determined independently by the university administration. They are subdivided into different undergraduate and graduate categories, which makes it possible to distinguish somewhat between the categories. Since the staff allocation formula of the University of Stellenbosch is based largely on student FFE numbers, it was not necessary to consider the number of faculty in a department as a data element in the library fund allocation formula. The Research Administration Division of the university calculates the research output of departments independently of the Library Services.

• Research output.

January 1995 39

• Average price of the material. The Library Services compute their own average price for library material for use in the fund allocation formula. • Scope of the collection. This is a composite variable which gives an indication of the relative extent of the library material from which a department has to select its collection. It takes into account the number and size of subject areas in which a department collects material, the desirable level of collecting in each subject area to meet program needs, and the use to which the collections in the different disciplines are put. One of the factors that made it difficult to quantify the scope of the collection at Stellenbosch was that it operates in a developing country environment which made it impracticable to use resources such as the Blackwell List, the Conspectus, or the National Shelf List Count. Information from these sources would have to be combined with other inputs to arrive at a satisfactory value. To assist the Library Services in their task, a five-point scale which extends from 0.5 to 2.0 was devised. These values are assigned by the subject librarians of the Library Services to each department by virtue of their knowledge of the elements of the scope of the collection and the departmental collection development profiles, and in consultation with the departments concerned. One way of doing this is to assign values to each of the separate factors involved in the scope of a department's collection and to take an average of these values as the scope. A nine-point scale may eventually be used for this purpose.

The Formula Principles Governing the Drafting of the Formula. The formula should not change drastically from one year to another, but should contain variables which take long-term changes into account while weakening the short-term effects of data elements. 12 In order to smooth out possible short-term fluctuations, three-year moving averages are used for the student FFE's and research output. The latest available figures are used for the average prices of library material and the scope of the collection. The allocation of funds to the teaching departments and academic units should be equitable. Equity of fund allocation has been interpreted by the University of Stellenbosch to mean that if two departments

40 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

are identical in all respects, they should receive funds in such a way that they will be able to buy equal portions of the respective scopes of library material from which they make their selection. The fund allocation formula should be used over a number of years if it brings about a major change from the previous form of fund allocation. 13 The present formula has been designed to be phased in gradually over a period of five years. The fund allocation formula should be flexible enough to cater to changing circumstances and needs. The data being used in the formula are updated annually. A discretionary fund has been included in the allocation process of the three types of material in use, namely books, periodicals, and continuations, to cater to situations when crises and urgent needs arise for which the formula does not make allowance. 14 The fund allocation formula should be objective and designed in such a way that it does not become the subject of political pressure on campus. All teaching departments and academic units which are beneficiaries of the fund allocation formula are allocated their funds in exactly the same way. By having the formula approved by the Senate, the formula was given the greatest possible exposure, thus minimizing later political pressure for changing the formula to benefit only certain sections of the campus. Construction of the Formula. The fund allocation formula is a proportional method to allocate library funds to the various teaching departments, and it is applied separately to books, periodicals, and continuations. The formula is constructed as follows: The undergraduate and graduate FTE student numbers are weighted separately and added. Different weights are used for different categories of undergraduate and graduate students to account for use of library material by students; the more advanced a category, the more that category is weighted. The weights are the same for all departments. The research credits are weighted per department and added to its weighted student FFE numbers. Again the weights are the same for all the departments. The cumulative sum for department i is denoted as s(i). In an obvious notation, this sum can be broken down as

s(i) = undergraduate(i) + graduate(i) + research(i). The formula then takes account of the average price p(i) and the scope of the col-

lection r(i) of library material. The final weight for department i is given as

w(i) = s(i) x p(i) x r(i). Finally, the sum of all the weights of the departments of the university, W, is determined. The allocation A(i) which department i receives from the total funds F per category of library material is proportional to its final weight, namely, A(i) = [w(i)/W] x E The allocation for each department is computed for each of the categories of books, periodicals, and continuations.

Determination of the Appropriate Weights. It is highly unlikely that a universally acceptable standard will be found by which weights can be applied to the variables in a fund allocation formula. In the case of the University of Stellenbosch, extensive discussions were held with a cross section of all the interested parties in the allocation process. After several rounds of discussion, various proposed weightings and corresponding computer results, consensus was reached on the final values for the weights. The model provides for emphasis on certain activities in a department. 15-16 A department's dependence on all or some of the categories of library material as previously mentioned (that is, books, periodicals, or continuations), was considered an activity which needed accentuation. For this purpose each department's dependence is compared to the average of the Faculty of which it is part. Small variations from the average cannot be regarded as significant. If a department is an outlier with regard to a certain category in the sense that it differs significantly from the average, this is reflected in the increased or decreased emphasis which is placed on the corresponding certain weight. As an example, consider the breakdown of the accumulated sum s(i) into undergraduate, graduate, and research components. If a department is, in comparison with its Faculty, an upper outlier with regard to its dependence on undergraduate library material (e.g., books), about average in its dependence on graduate library material (books), and a lower outlier with regard to its dependence on research library material (books), the expression for s(i) for books could be altered to:

s(i) = 1.2 × undergraduate(i) + 1.0 × graduate(i) + 0.8 x research(i), depending on the actual library profiles of the department and the Faculty. The data

for the determination of the outliers are collected from the departments' book recommendations and lists which are completed annually for the departments' periodicals and continuations. As a precaution against possible instabilities, an analysis was made of the effect which a small change in any particular weight would have on a department's allocation. It could fortunately be demonstrated that small changes in weights would have a minimal effect on the allocations, thus showing that the model is very stable in this respect.

Allocation Procedure It is essential for the successful implementation of the formula that there should be close cooperation with the academic departments. Negotiations during the allocation process may lead to manual changes in the allocations originally computed with the formula. In this way it may happen that the separate amounts allocated to the departments add up to a total T which differs from the available funds F, although the proportions between the different departments are those which the decision makers had in mind. This is called a "rough" allocation. The rough allocations must then be scaled down to the correct size of the budget by multiplying each rough allocation by the factor F/ T. This procedure is called "balancing." The allocation procedure which is followed by the Library Services, entails the following steps: 1. The departments and other academic units are given the opportunity to bring any special needs to the attention of the Library Services. The Library Services will then negotiate with the University Administration to have the needs met. 2. When the total allocation to the Library Services for library material for the financial year is known, the management decides on the funds which should be allocated to the categories of books, periodicals, and continuations. The rest of the funds will be allocated to the discretionary funds in the three categories mentioned. 3. Allocations in the three categories are made to the departments with the aid of the formula. 4. Library staff make adjustments to individual allocations on the basis of their expertise. The previous year's allocations are not taken into consid-

eration at this stage. If necessary, minimum allocations to departments may be considered. At the end of this step, balancing is applied. 5. The preliminary proportion for a department is the weighted average of its proportion in the previous budget and the proportion corresponding to step 4. The weights are determined by the management of the Library Services and are the same for all departments. The weighted average is taken to provide further continuity in the allocation process. This is especially advisable where new formulas are implemented, because experience has shown that the introduction of new formulas may lead to sharp discrepancies with previous allocations, thereby exposing departments to unrealistic expectations. Where necessary, the final allocation is obtained by balancing the allocation that results from the preliminary proportions.

Evaluation of the F u n d Allocation Formula Evaluation from an Operational Point of View. The formula has been in operation since 1991 and has been evaluated at least once annually for its suitability for the allocation of funds. Minor adjustments are continually being made in the data collection to improve the data being used in the application of the formula. Thus far the formula performs well and it seems to meet its purposes. The criteria which were used to identify suitable variables for the formula and those which were used in the design of the formula have, thus far, not been seriously challenged, although there was ample opportunity to do so. Since the introduction of the formula the Library Services and the teaching departments have had to contend with rather serious budget cuts without there being significant criticism about the way in which the allocations (and the cuts) were handled. With every budgeting cycle the previous years' allocations and expenditure are being compared with the current allocations. 17 Because of the gradual phasing in of the new formula and the use of the three-year running averages in some of the variables, there are no major deviations from one year to the next. Nevertheless, the formula already has an impact by way of allocation restrictions on some departments and expansions on others.

Evaluation from a Management Point of View. The Library Services and the university administrators are satisfied with the way in which the fund allocation formula works and fits into the broader framework of fund allocation. The allocation is on a more scientific and equitable footing than before and has proven to make decision making more effective. Through the process of fund allocation with the formula, control over the allocated funds has been vastly improved. Because the figures generated by the formula are not rigid but are regarded as indicators of the appropriate allocations, there is enough scope for professional library staff to see that the expressed needs of academic units have been met satisfactorily before approving the final figures. Compared with the situation that had developed by the end of the 1980s, the new formula has achieved legitimacy by its approval by the university Senate and has proven to reflect the changing needs of the various departments. Where specific departmental allocations have to be cut, the reasons are clear when the inputs to the formula are considered. Similarly, increased allocations can be justified in terms of real growth in needs. There seems to be general consensus among both the teaching faculty and staff of the Library Services that the allocations are now being arrived at in a satisfactory way.

Notes and References 1. American Library Association. Collection Development Committee (ALA), Guidelines for Collection Development (Chicago: American Library Association, 1979), p. 40. 2. John M. Budd, "Allocation Formulas in the Literature: A Review," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 15 (1991): 95-107. 3. John M. Budd and Kay Adams, "Allocation Formulas in Practice," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 ( 1989): 381-390. 4. Donna Packer, "Acquisitions Allocations: Equity, Politics, and Formulas," Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (November 1988): 276-286. 5. Jasper G. Schad, "Allocating Materials Budgets in Institutions of Higher Education," Journal of Academic Librarianship 3 (January 1978): 328-332. 6. Mary Sellen, "Book Budget Formula Allocations: A Review Essay," Collection Management 9 (Winter 1987): 13-24. 7. Richard Hume Werking, "Allocating the Academic Library's Budget: Historical Perspectives and Current Reflections," Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (July 1988): 140-144. 8. Donna M. Goehner, "Allocating by Formula: The Rationale from an Institutional

January1995 41

Perspective," Collection Management 5 (Fall/ Winter 1983): 161-173. 9. Jack Hibbs, "Materials Budgeting at the University of Akron," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 (1989): 57-64. 10. Charles B. Lowry, "Reconciling Pragmatism, Equity, and Need in the Formula Allocation of Book and Serial Funds," College & Research Libraries 53 (March 1992): 121138. 11. Kent Mulliner, "The Acquisitions Allocation Formula at Ohio University," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 10 (1986): 315-327.

42

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

12. David C. Genaway, "PBA: Percentage 15. William McPheron, "Quantifying the Based Allocation for Acquisitions: A Allocation of Monograph Funds: An Instance Simplified Method for the Allocation of the in Practice," College & Research Libraries 44 Library Materials Budget," Library (March 1983): 116-127. 16. Judith Niles, "The Politics of Budget Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 10 (1986): Allocation," Library Acquisitions: Practice & 287-292. 13. David C. Genaway, "The Q Formula: the Theory 13 (1989): 51-55. Flexible Formula for Library Acquisitions in 17. American Library Association. CollecRelation to the FrE Driven Formula," Library tion Management and Development ComAcquisitions: Practice & Theory 10 (1986): mittee. Subcommittee on Budget Allocation, Guide to Budget Allocation for Information 293-306. 14. Richard Ring, "Budgeting for Collection Resources (Chicago: American Library Development: a Suggestion," Collection Association, 1991), p. 11. Building 9 (1989), pp. 25-28.