Activity-Based Costing (ABC) and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC): Applicable Methods for University Libraries?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This article provides an overview of how university libraries research and adapt new cost accounting models, such as “activity-based costing” (ABC) and “time-driven activity-based costing” (TDABC), focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of both methods to determine which of these two is suitable for application in university libraries. Methods – This paper reviews and summarizes the literature on cost accounting and costing practices of university libraries. A brief overview of the history of cost accounting, costing, and time and motion studies in libraries is also provided. The ABC and the TDABC method, designed as a revised and easier version of the ABC by Kaplan and Anderson (Kaplan & Anderson 2004) at the beginning of the 21st century, as well as the adoption and adaptation of these methods by university libraries are described, and their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their suitability for university libraries, are analyzed. Results – Cost accounting and costing studies in libraries have a long history, the first of these dating back to 1877. The development of cost accounting and time and motion studies can be seen as a natural evolution of techniques which were created to solve management problems. The ABC method is the best-known management accounting innovation of the last 20 years, and is already widely used in university libraries around the world. However, setting up an ABC system can be very costly, and the system needs to be regularly updated, which further increases its costs. The TDABC system can not only be implemented more quickly (and thus more cheaply), but also can be updated more easily than the traditional ABC, which makes the TDABC the more suitable method for university libraries. Conclusion – Both methods are suitable for university libraries. However, the ABC method can only be implemented in collaboration with an accounting department. The TDABC method can be tested and implemented by separate departments, and thus can contribute to the provision of better and more effective library services at lower costs. However, the involvement of experts in costing and accounting is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".