Communicating resource needs for successful library services

Abstract

Library professionals spend much of their budgeting time focused inward, allocating scarce resources among worthy competing priorities. Considerable time and skill is focused on the acquisition of the best print and electronic resources and in planning for computing infrastructure. And librarians are generous in sharing with others best practices for making budgetary decisions through articles in the library literature. However, less attention has been given in the literature on advice for those who wish to increase budgets for the services and programmatic offerings that are equally important for library clientele. This article attempts to address that gap. Summarizes the sage advice given in a presentation to a gathering of academic librarians during the June 1999 ALA to those who would better understand the budget process at research universities. Although the advice pertains primarily to budgeting practice in the USA, there are several nuggets of wisdom applicable in any situation.

Table of Contents

“…However, in an effort to "improve productivity and increase cooperation, collaboration, and open up new teaching and learning environments" (Pastine, 1996, p. 29) planning was initiated. And it has been suggested that the foundation for most of the suggested cost containment strategies in the use of technology in university libraries involve the formulation of a strategic plan that is linked to the university's mission, scholarship, and research needs (Hughes, Rockman, and Wilson, 2000;Martin, 1998;Pastine, 1996;Rankin, 2000). Some of the more specific strategies stipulate that • The pricing of specialized databases should be contingent upon an expected number of uses, not total campus FTE; • The unit cost for electronic material should be less than the print version and the library should not be forced to buy both versions; • Unit cost should decrease as volume of use increases; and • The cost of providing access services and the cost of material should be separate (Dwyer, 1999).…”

“…Some of the more specific strategies stipulate that • The pricing of specialized databases should be contingent upon an expected number of uses, not total campus FTE; • The unit cost for electronic material should be less than the print version and the library should not be forced to buy both versions; • Unit cost should decrease as volume of use increases; and • The cost of providing access services and the cost of material should be separate (Dwyer, 1999). To prepare practical budgets that meet the specific needs of their constituencies, there must be an ongoing dialogue between librarians and the faculty and students (Hughes, Rockman, and Wilson, 2000). There also should be a clear understanding about those concerns that affect costs and those that affect service (Kantor, 1985).…”