1. Our Rationale for Better Analytics: developing a common denominator approach for annual reports Julie Archer, Learning & Teaching Support Manager University of Sunderland Claire Williams, Head of Learning Resources Leeds Beckett University

2. Overview University facts and figures Project proposal Project timeline Rationale: Value and impact Approach Data suggestions made to PTFS

3. Our Universities SunderlandLeeds Beckett -12,500- 21,700 FTE -2 campuses- 2 campuses -Implemented Rebus: -Spring 2013 - March 2014 -1795 current lists - 1600+ current lists -Web access & VLE - VLE -Search (W)/authentication(VLE) - Authenticated at module level -Pearson (SunSpace) - BlackBoard (My Beckett) -Capita - Symphony

4. Rationale: Value and impact Need to demonstrate value & impact System – cost benefits List creation – aiding resource selection Resource investment, acquisition and usage Quality Assurance Student engagement Retention

5. The project proposal – University of Sunderland, Leeds Beckett University and PTFS Rebus:list analytics can be provided using Google Analytics or PTFS Europe's hosted service based on Piwik (www.piwik.org). Both can provide analytic dashboard and report facilities but only to a web page level (eg, which reading lists are being used) but not down to the item level (eg, which reading list items are being used). www.piwik.org Both Leeds Beckett University and University of Sunderland are interested in collaborating with PTFS Europe to develop a Rebus:list analytics module with item level tracking. Ideally, this module will be able to provide a suite of 'out of the box' Rebus:list analytics reports that can be used without any, or a minimal, understanding of Piwik. The proposed project will be based on PTFS Europe's Piwik hosted service. Sunderland and Leeds Beckett will be able to advise on the analytics information library management and academics need to make the best use of Rebus:list. PTFS Europe will be able to develop a technique suitable for item tracking. All parties will be able to provide reports. To contribute to the project Leeds Beckett will need to develop a working understanding of Piwik. Sunderland would be able to provide advice based on their own experience of using Piwik. Timescales: all of PTFS Europe's development resources are focussed on Rebus:list 2.0 (followed by Rebus:scan). The earliest PTFS Europe could start adding an item tracking facility to the Piwik service would be June 2015.

6. The project timeline – University of Sunderland, Leeds Beckett University and PTFS January 2015 – draft proposal agreed March 2015 – 1 st meeting (both universities and PTFS) to explore possibilities and needs May 2015 – 2 nd meeting (both universities) to identify and develop report requirements June 2015 – Proposed report templates identifying data required sent to PTFS January 2016 – beta version for testing with Rebus 2.0

7. The project approach – University of Sunderland, Leeds Beckett University and PTFS Initial meeting with PTFS Second meeting between Universities The historical background The common denominators The need for flexibility

8. Historic background – The First Reports University of Sunderland Why – Feedback to module leaders and University quality assurance committee (annual monitoring process) – Value and Impact information What – University/Faculty/Department overview (number of lists, currentness & list population status) – Individual module data and usage for Module Programme Leaders Experience – A lot of hard work to gather data from Rebus:Reporter, Google Analytics & Sunspace to create the reports! Excel templates were created and used for the reports. – Presentation at PTFS Customer Day December 2014 – generated interest in reports from other Universities

9. Historical background – Leeds Beckett Different approach, same needs No “one stop” shop What PIWIK currently provides What have we learnt so far? Will item level analytics influence academics?

10. The Common Denominators Different reports for different information needs – University Committee/Faculty/Department level – Module level Facts and Figures sought – Number of lists in existence and institutional coverage – Content profiles (books, articles, websites, etc.) – Usage profile over the academic year – Usage data (within lists and of the lists) – Modification/editing history – Module details (title, code, leader, liaison librarian, etc.)

11. Need for flexibility To accommodate differences between institutions: Universities’ structures and nomenclature Rebus:List implementation decisions Institutional priorities Need for cumulative / comparison reports over time Potential future reporting requirements

12. Recommendations to PTFS – Report 1 Institutional level No of lists (University, Faculty and Department levels) Item types (University, Faculty and Department levels) Usage pattern (University, Faculty and Department levels) Modification history (University, Faculty and Department levels) Percentage of lists not in active use (University, Faculty and Department levels)

13. Recommendations to PTFS – Report 2 Module Level Administrative data and details e.g. module code, tagged Item types List usage pattern Item usage (popularity ratings) Student access (% of student cohort using the list) Overview of modification history (By librarians & academics)

14. Now and the future? Now The present recommended reports The Future? Need for comparison reports across years? Verification of weblinks? Rebus integration with stock ordering - benefits and new reporting requirements?