2021-02-02 eUsage Reports Meeting Notes

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FfVzo7_lKJrIkzZJgd8coODKI5Ut10VUYEDQlIpTqzs/edit#gid=630816920

The first tab of the report gives an agreement overview, displaying the usage according to agreement lines.
Is this useful? Yes.
Journal, books and DB  tabs then list titles independently from Agreement lines/packages context.

Which dates should be used for the reporting period?
We have the fiscal year dates (required) and subscription dates on both order lines and invoice lines (both not required and still in discussion in the acq small group)
Decision: Use subscription dates from invoices. If not available, use ifiscal year dates

Jens: How will we deal with payment in advance?
Currently it is not possible to encumber for the next fiscal year: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-2713 We will have to wait for this feature.

Is there a problem, if only some ALs have linked subscription dates while others don’t and will use fiscal year dates as reporting period?
Annika: Not for most cases in German libraries, at least, as mostly fiscal year = subscription year

Column Fully paid: Some institutions do not encumber (like UNAM), so there is no way to get the data for “fully paid”.
Instead, there will be a “amount encumbered” row, that can be interpreted (if 0$ for every line, the library doesn’t encumber).

Jessica: Would it be possible to get data from inventory for book call numbers/subjects?
Not at the moment, there is no linking at the moment. Maybe Knowledgebases could provide the necessary data in the future

--

Continue discussion with the databases tab at the end of the meeting:

Database of citations vs. full text databases will be calculated separately, as the metrics are very different

Should be use Regular searches, federated searches or automated searches?
Decision: use regular searches and federated searches separately in two columns

There are very few zero title databases in the Gokb. Should we still go on with this part of the report?
Annika: I think that if the reports are available, we will upload the missing data directly to the local KB, so yes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Hh2bkMH8DCVcqOwFqK6oi2OsVzw81PM4G5DOuthzJA/edit#gid=269183404

→ next meeting

Last week, we had an idea to enhance the cost per request report. Would this be possible with the current report design?

Draft idea:

Some institutions define a treshold value for the cost per individual use, e.g. 5$. They are then interested in the percentage of titles per agreement that exceed this treshold value, to be able to decide if  individual licensing of single titles  might be a better option than the package agreement.

So, based on the cost per request report, they would like to...

• • calculate a percentage of titles above the treshold value and display it on agreement level
  • be able to filter/sort the report for the cost value, to identify individual titles above the treshold

The total percentage per agreement might also be something to display in a future ERM dashboard: Show me all agreements with >25% titles above treshold (= too expensive, need review).

The group likes the idea.
Kristin: It could be one of the visualizations that are to be done.

We will decide on this, when we get to discussing visualizations.

Jens: Let us postpone question, we already discussed dates and it will only get more complicated.
The diagram is useful for later discussions/plannings