Methodology for measuring work across functional areas
Models:
Cost recovery bound by detailed MOU
The current 2CUL TSI practice is to measure work only on very special occasions, on a cost recovery basis. Cornell's "Korean cataloger" is an example of cost recovery within this model. Columbia reimburses Cornell for the cost of employing a cataloger to do its Korean cataloging within terms articulated in an MOU that is similar to one we might use when outsourcing work to a vendor. The MOU contains a summary of the work to be performed, timetable, and unit cost plus total.
Pros:
- Non-cost recovery work requires no administrative accounting overhead.
- An MOU provides both sides with clear boundaries for the work being performed.
Cons:
- The threshold for a cost-recovery arrangement is high. The incentive, therefore, to take on the work for the other institution that falls below this threshold is minimized.
- The 2CUL partner might not be the lowest cost option for the service.
- Writing and approving separate MOUs for work is another 2CUL administrative expense.
- Accurately defining the scope of future work in a very dynamic environment is challenging.
Cost recovery without MOU
The model for shared bibliographers does not require an MOU. Instead an annual estimate is made of the time that the bibliographer will devote to supporting the other institution. In return, the other institution pays that portion of the salary.
Pros:
- Administrative accounting is reduced, but there is still money being transferred, which is a cost.
Cons:
- The administrative threshold for setting up a cost-recovery arrangement is still high.
- Accountability to "management" is ambiguous.
ReCAP-like aggregate annual accounting
Bob Wolven: "For any unit that's doing a substantive amount of 2CUL work, we would estimate the % of effort that supports Cornell and the % that supports Columbia. Personnel costs would then be attributed according to those proportions. We'd reconsider and readjust the formula annually. We'd add all this up across all the units involved, and use that in preparing the budget for the following year. We'd need to mutually agree on the estimates, and would use objective measures wherever possible (at least to check the estimates.) For instance, we might use number of orders placed for each library, number of original catalog records created, cost of the e-resources managed by a unit, etc. In some cases, these estimates might not be based on an administrative unit, but on the individuals performing a function. For instance, we might have all original catalogers doing cataloging for both libraries, while other people in the same units aren't heavily involved in 2CUL (selective integration). In that case, we might apply the model above only to the personnel costs for individuals, but the estimates would be made for all original cataloging, not for any individual's time."
Pros:
- This is holistic approach is consistent with widespread integration. It reduces administration and budgeting to a coherent, once/year activity.
Cons:
- This model fits better after a full, mature integration. How would we operate during the transition to full integration? How long would that take? While this model works well for ReCAP, a constrained domain with relatively little change, is it flexible enough to accommodate the wide variety of activities and staff levels?
- How can we predict what staff will be doing for the next 12 months?
Note: Bob says the ReCAP budget is created using the following formula: "Most costs other than personnel are allocated on the basis of space. E.g., Columbia is assigned 42% of the space, so we pay that portion of air conditioning, physical maintenance, systems, etc. Personnel costs are allocated on the basis of "activity units." The basic unit is the average time to accession a book. A retrieval is estimated to take 1.5 times as long, so counts as 1.5 activity units. At the end of the year, the total amount of activity is added up, and each partner pays a share of personnel costs based in its share of activity units.
Local time-based 2CUL currency
Another option is a time-based currency. In a time-based currency U.S. dollars are not exchanged. Instead locally denominated "person-hours" are recorded and exchanged. There are two different types of time-based currencies. In one type, all participant time is valued the same. The other type, and Ithaca Hours is an example, allows participants to charge more for for their time. Is it possible to employ a time-based currency within the 2CUL context? Rather than exchanging U.S. dollars back and forth between institutions, as we do now for the Korean cataloger and bibliographers, 2CUL credits would be allocated and recorded. At any one moment in time, Cornell and Columbia would each have either a net balance or net deficit. A variable rate for staff time is preferable over using a flat hourly rate because it allows us to more accurately account for costs. Perhaps we could use three different levels, low, medium, and high, as a compromise. For example, the cost of a tech services line staff member's time in currency units would be low (.5 units), a librarian medium (1 unit), and an AUL high (1.5 unit). Finding the right formula would require some thought and discussion. The scenario proposed here is to start the discussion.
Pros:
- Using a time-based currency would allow us to give credit to 2CUL activity that is too small to warrant a formal cost-recovery operating agreement.
- It might generate positive feedback for 2CUL integration, in the sense that individuals and functional units could start to see themselves as entrepreneurs generating 2CUL "revenue" for their institution.
Cons:
- Would institutional accounting rules and grant funding agencies allow it?
- Tracking variable time-based units might need to be managed confidentially, depending on how they are implemented. In any case, tracking time is a cost.