Granularity? see http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+granularity&btnG=Google+Search&meta= (shake the jar and hear the granules?...)
Basically, how far down into the detail d'you want to go?
Catchment area? http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+catchment+area&btnG=Search&meta= (ignore the water - it's a geography thang!...)
But the one I like best on Catchment Areas for libraries I shamelessy 'borrow; from Peter Marshall of Bexley Libraries.
a) The catchment area of library A is that area from which users habitually travel to visit library A
OR:
b) The catchment area of library A is that area from which more users travel to visit library A than library B, Library C, etc.
Says it all - and they work!
Regards
JU - BSc (Geography), Dip Lib - Foot in both camps!
John Usher
ICT Development Manager
Islington Library & Cultural Services
Customer Focus
Islington Council
Central Library
2 Fieldway Crescent
LONDON N5 1PF
tel: 020 7527 6920
mobile: 07929 009686
fax: 020 7527 6926
email: mailto:[log in to unmask]
website: www.islington.gov.uk/libraries
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Forrest
Sent: 12 May 2006 00:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Potenial Issues for a library
Granularity? Anything to do with coffee...please define for us
catchment-area (ahem) neophytes...
Thanks
Paul Forrest
----Original Message Follows----
From: Michael Clarke <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Potenial Issues for a library
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:26:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from ictmailer1.itd.rl.ac.uk ([130.246.192.56]) by
bay0-mc3-f15.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9
May 2006 20:27:35 -0700
Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
ictmailer1.itd.rl.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
<[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 10 May 2006 4:27:33 +0100
Received: by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id
73004241 for [log in to unmask]; Wed, 10 May 2006 04:27:33
+0100
Received: from 130.246.192.53 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0m) with
TCP; Wed, 10 May 2006 04:27:32 +0100
Received: from netpop01.eng.net (netpop01.eng.net [213.130.146.171]) by
fili.jiscmail.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k4A3RSKD027975 for
<[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 10 May 2006 04:27:28 +0100
Received: from dsl82-163-59-8.as15444.net ([82.163.59.8] helo=m17011) by
netpop01.eng.net with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from
<[log in to unmask]>) id 1FdOUk-0004w5-88; Tue, 09 May 2006
10:27:08 +0100
X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3BbpI/YE07UTLxxiTikUm1RUHuz0X8ik8=
X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
X-RAL-Connect: <netpop01.eng.net [213.130.146.171]>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
<[log in to unmask]>
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.74 : BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38
Comments: To: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: "Chung, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>,
"Doyle, Rosemary" <[log in to unmask]>
Precedence: list
Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2006 03:27:35.0272 (UTC)
FILETIME=[AE1EAE80:01C673E1]
John
thanks for your comments - this certainly illustrates the complexity. The
LLDA/ALM project does not go this far - too much for a small scale, discrete
piece of work, but we will raise the issue with MLA nationally to see if
they will consider something more indepth. At best we can hope to identify
the factors, issues and considerations at this stage. Potentially data could
come from some, all or more than just those sources you mention.
As to granularity (lovely word), I think it's got to be service point level.
If you take business as a model, when people invest money in a shop or
service in a local area, they often work up a clear model and business plan,
including such issues as demographics, local transport nodes, parking,
environmental issues etc. We should aspire to something similar - but a
model that's tailored to the very specific nature of library business.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Usher, John [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 May 2006 16:07
To: Michael Clarke; [log in to unmask]
Cc: Chung, Steve; Doyle, Rosemary
Subject: RE: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Potenial Issues for a library
Michael,
But first define the catchment area, especially in an area like London, with
significant cross-border activity. Local authority and school boundaries are
pre-defined - library catchment areas are self-defined by users, will be
affected by things such as transport routes and availability), and may vary
for each of the 'Client Groups' (if such things actually exist - they are an
artificial construct) across space - and time!
*And* then apply the data for the users, actual or potential, in the
catchment area - and the data is from where? From LMS systems? from
'Community Profiling', carried out by Library staff? from surveys? from
Census data? from (expensive) commercial data like Acorn or Mosaic?
And at what level of granularity? London? sub-regional? Borough? individual
library?
Can we hope that the LLDA/ALM research will begin to address this, before we
begin to apply appropriate formulae to the data?
Regards
JU
John Usher
ICT Development Manager
Islington Library & Cultural Services
020 7527 6920
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries on behalf of Michael Clarke
Sent: Thu 20/04/2006 16:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Potenial Issues for a library
Gary
certainly this is an issue that we at London Libraries Development
Agency
are interested in. As well as examining potential based on catchment
and
population (your formulae look very useful and well thought out) I
would be
interested in 'added value' as well. This would mean factoring in:
- comparative stock spend and stock turnover (ie quality of stock
available)
- local demographics such as ethnicity, population density and
churn,
educational attainment and poverty
- library profile within local authority
all of which may affect usage. We could start to get to a fair
assessment of
an individual library, or library authority's performance against
what can
realistically be expected - the kind of added value approach that
has been
recognised in measuring school performance for some years now. We'd
then be
able to compare like with like, so that for example it might be
fairer to
compare London Borough X with one of the metropolitan boroughs in
terms of
communities served and positioning/budgets, rather than always
assuming that
other London boroughs are the automatic comparitors.
This will be a complex project. MLA London and LLDA are just in the
process
of completing what could be phase 1 - its working title is Library
Facts -
which attempts to get some consistency and read across in current
available
datasets from both within and outside the sector, but it's a long
way short
of added value indicators. We hope to interest MLA nationally in
taking this
further forward.
regards
Michael Clarke
Director
London Libraries Development Agency
35 St Martin's Street
London WC2H 7HP
T: 020 7641 5244
M: 07879 424828
F: 020 7641 5266
E: [log in to unmask]
W: www.llda.org.uk
Find out what's going on in London's libraries -
www.londonlibraries.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of gary nugent
Sent: 20 April 2006 11:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Potenial Issues for a library
Dear list,
I heard someone mention a while a go (but did not write it down) the
idea of
using a statistical formula for working out a library's your
potential
number of issues per year based on your borrowers. Does anybody use
this or
know the formulae and how valid it's use is?
The context I was looking to use it in is compare our potential
performance
with actual, and looking in more depth when we are told we are
underpeforming and we should increase issues by so many % What
this means
for stock use or how many new borrowers, increase use from existing
borrowers the target demands.
I can think of a number of variations on formula that would give you
some
interesting figures (but wonder how valid they were as a statistical
measurement and tool) e.g.
Active borrowers x loan limit x (weeks in year/loan period) =
potential
issues for year
Active borrowers x average loans per user x (weeks in year/loan
period) =
potential issues for year
Catchment area pop x average loans per user x (weeks in year/loan
period) =
potential issues for year
Other factors to consider would be is it realistic figure given your
lending
stock?
Adult/junior split
% of stock out on loan at any one time to achieve this potential
issues
figure.
Hope you can help
Gary Nugent
Senior Community Librarian
Lincoln Central Library
Free School Lane
Lincoln
LN2 1EZ
Tel: 01522 510800
Fax: 01522 575011
Email:[log in to unmask]
****************************************************************************
************
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain information
which is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in
error please note any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your
system.
Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information can be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message
which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is
required please request a hard copy version.
Thank you for your co-operation.
****************************************************************************
************
****************************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain information
which is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in
error please note any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your
system.
Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information can be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message
which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is
required please request a hard copy version.
Thank you for your co-operation.
****************************************************************************************
