Cost-Effectiveness Analysis - Automation of a Circulation System - A Study

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by William

A general methodology for cost-effectiveness analysis was developed and applied to the Colorado State University loan desk. The study compared an existing semi-automated circulation system with a fully manual one using the existing manual subsystem. Costs changed by automation across the whole university were measured, including faculty users’ time and computer operating costs. Labour costs were broken down by circulation activity via time-study, while effectiveness changes were assessed against circulation-department objectives and modeled with a unit-cost framework.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages147

Reading Time6 h 10 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Cost studies of library automation - a literature review

General methodology of cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness of C.S.U. loan desk: methodology

Data collection

ED 097009 AUTHOR TITLE 'PUB DATE NOT.E EDRS PRICE DESC RIPTORS IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT DOCUMBNT RESUME Mosley,Isobel Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Automation of acirculation System。Aug 74 146p.;Master's thesis,University of Sheffield,England MF-$0.75 HC-$6.60 PLUS POSTAGE *Cost Effectiveness;Data Collection;Librarians;*Library Automation;*Library Circulation;*LibraryExpenditures;Library Programs;Library Research;Library Science;Library Teclnical Processes;Models;Program Fffectiveness;University Lib raries;*UseStudies*Colorado State University A general methodology for cog:effect iveness analysiswas developed and applied to the Colorado Statt University libraryloan desk.The cost effectiveness of the existing sei-automatedcirculation system was compared with that of a fully manual·one,based on the eristing manual subsysten.Faculty users'time andcoxputer operating costs were weasured.Labor costs vere broken downfor each circulation activity and vere established by seans of a timestudy analysis.The study also considered all,and measured some,changes in effectiveness in neeting the objectives of the circulationdepartment.The results indicate that the existing systea is moreexpensive'than the manual one,that the semi-automated systen is moreeffective in saving user's time,and that the_record-keeping for theautomated systeiu is less accurate than that of the manual system.(Author/WH) EL097009 O7一0O2 ERI \ # COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISOF THE AUTOMATION OFA CIRCULATION SYSTEM A Study submitted in partial fulfilment ofthe requirements for the degree ofMaster of Science in Information Studies at THE UNIVERSI'TY OF SHEFFIELD byISOBEL MOSLEY Us DEPA典TMNT OF MEALTM. EDUCATIONWELFA警E NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUC/TION THI5 DOCUMENT AS BEEN F PRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR RGANIZATION OWiCINATING IT PQINTSuE YIEwou 0RIMiO5TATED 00 NOT NFCESSARILY REPRSENT OFFICIAL N△TIONAL INSTITUTF()FDJCATION POstTION(R POL¹CY ABSTRACT # A general methodology for cost-effectiveness analysis was developed and applied to the C.s.U.loan desk.The cost-effectiveness of the existing semi-automated circulation system was compared with that of afully manual one,based on the existing manual subsystem.Any cost to the whole University,which had changed as aresult of aut:omation was measured, including those of faculty_users-time and computer operating costs.Overheadswere excluded.Labour costs were broken down for eachcirculation activity,and were established by means of.timestudy. The study also considered all,and measured some,changes in effectiveness in meetirg the objectives of theCirculation Department.These objectives were:to circulatematerials;to minimise user effort during borrowing;togive maximum demand satisfaction;and to maintain thecollection intact. The results were built into a unit cost model,which showed the existing system to be more expensive thanthe manual one(47.45 against.36.5C per unit circulated).The semi-automated system was nore effective in savingusers'time,but at a cost of $8.25 per hour of student ornon-C.S.U.users'tine.The reccrds for the automated systemwere less accurate than those of the manual system. ERiC Please correct: p.ii lines 3&5: change Dr.Burns to Mr.Burns change input to output p.24 line 9: change "Landon(50)"to "Landau(53)" p.26 line 15: p.J.04 line 8(charging): change .206 to .026 p.121 line 14: change 766.38 to 796.38 line 18: change 9233.06 to 9263.06 and 5.65 to·5.67- line 19: ERRATA 1 p.1 bottom line: for"an abbreviated"read "a truncated"p.55 line 24:shou ld read "The unit costs of directlabour for hypothetical fully manual andfully automated systems and the existingsemi-automated system are given in Table 1...”p.58 line 1l:should read "22.95%of all charges..."p.69 line 24:should read"...reduced by a combination of rising salaries and an increasedvolume of circulation..."P.129 line 4:for"/1000 mán.

FAQs

What was the main purpose of the study on the loan desk circulation system?

To develop and apply a cost-effectiveness methodology by comparing the existing semi-automated circulation system with a fully manual system at Colorado State University.

Which systems were compared and on what basis?

The semi-automated circulation system was compared with a fully manual system using the relevant existing manual subsystem as the basis for comparison.

What were the key findings about cost and user time?

The existing semi-automated system was found to be more expensive than the manual one, and it saved users’ time, though at a measured hourly cost for student or non-C.S.U. users.

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by William