Patrick L. Carr ALCTS CRS C&RL IG Midwinter Meeting San Diego. January 9, 2011

1. Assessing Return on Investment for E-Resources: A Cross-Institutional Analysis of Cost-Per-Use Data Patrick L. Carr ALCTS CRS C&RL IG Midwinter Meeting San Diego. January 9, 2011

2. “Print was simpler.”

3. Indeed:This has been replaced by… From Appendix B of the 2004 report of the Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative.

4. Indeed:This Has been replaced by… From Appendix B of the 2004 report of the Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative.

5. Indeed:This Has been replaced by… “Print was simpler.” From Appendix B of the 2004 report of the Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative.

6. Indeed:This Has been replaced by… “Print was simpler.” Not when it comes to use-based evaluations. From Appendix B of the 2004 report of the Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative.

7. Thomas E. Nisonger, Management of Serials in Libraries (Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, 1998): 160-65.

8. We have far superior tools to assess use of e-resources. Thomas E. Nisonger, Management of Serials in Libraries (Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, 1998): 160-65.

9. Cost-Per-Use:Annual Subscription Cost÷Annual Use

10. Cost-Per-Use:A powerful tool for assessing return on investment.

11. Cost-Per-Use:A powerful tool for assessing return on investment.But are we using CPU data to its fullest potential?

12. Chuck Hamaker’s idea: A cross-institutional analysis of CPU data &

16. Caveat: The coverage ranges for cost and use data didn’t always overlap completely.

17. Caveat: Institution-by-institution access sometimes differed for resources. Caveat: The coverage ranges for cost and use data didn’t always overlap completely.

18. Caveat: Not all sources of use data were COUNTER compliant. Caveat: Institution-by-institution access sometimes differed for resources. Caveat: The coverage ranges for cost and use data didn’t always overlap completely.

19. Caveat: Not all sources of use data were COUNTER compliant. We can’t really use this study’s results to make sweeping conclusions. Caveat: Institution-by-institution access sometimes differed for resources. Caveat: The coverage range for cost and use data didn’t always overlap completely.

20. Publisher Journal Packages

21. Full-Text Aggregators

22. Journal Site Licenses

23. Indexing & Abstracting Databases

24. Three Questions

25. What does a cross-institutional CPU analysis actually tell us? Three Questions

26. What does a cross-institutional CPU analysis actually tell us? • How can we use what it tells us? Three Questions

27. What does a cross-institutional CPU analysis actually tell us? • How can we use what it tells us? • Where do we go from here? Three Questions

28. Questions/Comments Patrick L. Carr Head of Electronic & Continuing Resource Acquisitions Joyner Library East Carolina University Greenville, North Carolina 27858 email: carrp@ecu.edu phone: 252-328-2266