Dare I raise the spectre of the introduction of self-service and its
possible impact on figures? Are we all comfortable that we're collecting
those data accurately? Plus footfall measurement may have changed when
switching over from tattle-tape security (most of which had detectors
built-in) to RFID (not all of which did).
And I'm sure Graham and John are taking a very critical look at those
branches sited near their borough boundaries when considering re-siting...
Mick Fortune
m. +44 (0)7786 625544
Can you afford NOT to attend this year's RFID conference?
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Usher, John
Sent: 03 September 2010 08:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Statistics
And I agree with all.
Is this in part the problem of collating effectively data from different
sources (manual, LMS, PC Booking, People Counters, etc. etc), the
inconsistences in each of those sources, the accuracy of those sources -
and the sheer difficulty (and hence operational cost) of getting that data
out in the first place?
And then that gives us statistics - perhaps better to look at Metrics and
Workflow (what we used to call 'Time and Motion'). Steven's point about the
level of activity to achieve resutls when items are returned is very
pertinent.
But that leads to scrutiny - and the need to face possible change. Both
ourselves, and to pressure those in the various supply chains (inside and
outside our organisations) to change, and is it realistic that trese can be
changed, and if so , in what timescale?
If we map the Catchment area of users of a library (we did this in 2002
using GIS, but it had been done before by manual means) can we then get
libraries moved to balance out provision (if necessary)? Can we use
demoraphic data for the poplulation inside that catchment area to modify the
existing library operationn to attract non-users, and market to them?
Knowledge is fine - what can we change in reality?
But what is mutuallly exclusive about metrics for oursleves and statistics
for those who demand them of us? Can we not do both? Can we define the
former? Are there universal measures we could all agree and apply (and/or
adapt)? Do we have the will?
Regards
JU
John Usher
ICT Manager
Library and Heritage Services
Islington Council
Central Library
2 Fieldway Crescent
LONDON N5 1PF
Tel: 020 7527 6920
Mobile: 07825 098 223
Fax: 020 7527 6926
Alternative contact: Michelle Gannon - 020 7527 6907
www.islington.gov.uk
How to get to Central Library:
http://www.islington.gov.uk/Education/Libraries/Local/Central.asp
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dash Graham
Sent: 31 Aug 10 12:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Statistics
I agree with both correspondents - I've just completed the CIPFA stats and
their breakdowns share little in common with what we actually collect or
even want to collect.
Graham
Graham Dash, MCLIP, Library Services Manager (Systems & Development)
Environment & Leisure Group, Leisure & Libraries London Borough of Sutton,
Central Library, St Nicholas Way, SUTTON, Surrey SM1 1EA .
Tel.: 020 8770 4763, Mobile: 07515137830, Fax: 020 8770 4777
Borough web site: www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=907
Library Catalogue web site: www.sutton-libraries.gov.uk
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
________________________________
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Heywood A
Sent: 31 August 2010 11:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Statistics
Thanks for this, Nick. Interesting to see you're doing a Mosaic analysis;
we're doing similar, mapping membership, loans and use of The People's
Network. It's thrown up a few issues about the quality of some of our data,
which is disappointing but still very useful as now we know what we need to
put right for the future. Fingers crossed, we'll be able to do something
useful with the results.
One of the things that constantly baffles me is the tendency to exclusively
focus on statistics that outside bodies require, rather than data and
statistics that are actually useful management information.
Especially as so many of the external requirements are reflections of what
was measurable fifty years ago (echoes of the "we just computerised Browne
Issue" comment on this list a few days ago) and even they don't fully
reflect what was actually being delivered at that time. Nick, Alyson and
Matthew have pointed out some of the inadequacies of this approach from a
customer-facing perspective. From a resource manager's point of view this
approach is almost entirely lacking. For instance, if you were to ask
somebody how busy a lending library is they'll use issues and visitor
figures as the first port of call because that's what we're asked for
because that was what could be traditionally measured.
While that's a true-ish reflection of the majority of customer transactions,
it's not a remotely true reflection of how much staff time is required for
the business. How many of us know which is the busy day for returned books
in our libraries? Once an item's issued it's job done and nothing needs
doing further for a few weeks. Once an item's returned something needs to be
done with it. That's a too-often-unmeasured workload, one of many, and
significant when planning staffing provision in general and shared service
points in particular.
As usual, just my two penn'orth.
Steven
Steven Heywood
Systems Manager
Wheatsheaf Library
Baillie Street
Rochdale
OL16 1JZ
Tel: 01706 924967
http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/libraries
http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk <http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk/>
________________________________
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick London
Sent: 30 August 2010 23:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Statistics
When I posted a long time ago - last week - to the effect that we need to
learn a lot from the retail sector about using our data, this kind of thing
is very much what I had in mind.
I have not before heard of psychographic segmentation as advocated by
Matthew Mezey, but I agree with Alyson that we should use statistics in a
helpful way to us, rather than what Cipfa/DCMS/Audit Commission and other
such bodies dictate to us. However, I think this requires the library
profession to be more assertive and challenging of these kinds of bodies
than we are accustomed to...
The recent debate on the media-promoted 'downward trend' and the general
pointlessness of the NI9 indicator shows how shallow we are as
yet in understanding our customers. Matthew's suggestion is one of
many different ways to make more sense of customer information and behaviour
than we normally use. To quote a couple of examples (i hope there are many
more out there):
Leicestershire Libraries have done some very interesting and productive work
in analysing data from a simple base of frequency and currency of user
loans, as part of an academic research project.
In Nottinghamshire we are using similar loans data to match postcode of user
to the well-established Mosaic database of population types. This is
commonly used in commercial and some public sector applications, to predict
consumer behaviour patterns and preferences based on the kind of house you
live in. At the moment we are only scratching the surface of this approach
and inevitably it comes down to time and access to
expertise. But if we exploited this kind of analysis fully then we
would have a much better idea of what attracts some people to libraries and
why others don't even think about us as an option.
Nick
(Service Manager: Systems & Performance
Nottinghamshire Libraries
0115 982 9029)
----------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be legally
privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If you are
not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then immediately,
permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in
reliance on it. This e- mail may be monitored by Rochdale Council in
accordance with current regulations. This footnote also confirms that this
e-mail message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses currently
known to the Council. However, the recipient is responsible for
virus-checking before opening this message and any attachment. Unless
otherwise stated, any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Rochdale
Council.
As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email and/or
any response under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 unless the information in the email and/or any response is covered by
one of the exemptions in the Act.
______________________________________________________________________
This email and the information it contains are confidential and intended
solely for
the exclusive use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not
the intended
recipient, this email should not be copied, forwarded, or printed for any
purpose, or
the contents disclosed to any other person. If you have received this email
in error,
please notify the London Borough of Sutton immediately on +44 (020) 8770
5000 or
email [log in to unmask] and then delete the email.
Although the London Borough of Sutton operates anti-virus programmes, it
does not
accept any responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by
viruses being
passed.
This message has been scanned for malware.
<http://www.websense.com/>
****************************************************************************
************
This Email, and any attachments, may contain Protected, Restricted or
Legally Privileged information and is intended solely for the individual to
whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked
material and should be handled accordingly.
If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If
you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy,
print or rely on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all
copies must be deleted immediately.
Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any
attachments to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our
anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out
your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents.
Islington Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by
computer viruses emanating from any attachment or other document supplied
with this e-mail. All Email communications may be subject to recording and /
or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
Information contained in this Email may be subject to public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure,
the confidentiality of this Email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.
If you wish to re-use the information, perhaps for commercial purposes, in a
way which, without permission, might breach our copyright, please first read
our policy on Re-use of Public Sector Information which can be found on our
website http://www.islington.gov.uk/freedomofinformation or alternatively
e-mail [log in to unmask] Any part of this Email which is purely
personal in nature is not authorised by London Borough of Islington.
Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000 www.islington.gov.uk
****************************************************************************
************
|