Process SimplificationOffice of the Vice President for Management and Budget

Review of the University Telephone Directory Final Report

July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

I. Introduction

In March 2009 a study of the printed University Telephone Directory began in order to examine current production practices and to investigate whether or not there are more efficient processes for the dissemination of University contact information. A heightened awareness of constricted resources, reports of production overruns and declines in usage, and a sensitivity to environmental sustainability provided the impetus for this investigation. The study set out to document the following issues related to the production and usage of the University Telephone Directory:

Collection of content for inclusion in the directory Solicitation of advertisers to sponsor the directory Procedure for estimating the number of directories to order each year Delivery of the directory across grounds Storage of unused directories Disposal of old and unused directories Usage of the directory Revenue generated by the directory Cost to produce the directory

II. Approach to Work

Several methods were used to collect data regarding production and usage of telephone directories both here at the University and within the sector of higher education-at-large, including: 1) Analysis of current University practices and expenditures relating to the production, delivery, and disposal of the University Telephone Directory; 2) External interviews with institutions of higher education that have recently ceased publication of a print telephone directory; and 3) A campus-wide survey of students, faculty, and staff to gauge current usage of the University Telephone Directory.

III. Research Findings

A. Overview of U.Va. Telephone Directory Production

The U.Va. Telephone Directory is produced annually for telephone customers at the University. While the local telephone company lists a few University offices in its phonebook, the U.Va. Telephone Directory serves as the only print phonebook for all telephone extensions at the University. The following narrative provides an overview of the production process that governs the creation of the U.Va. Telephone Directory.

Each March, Communications Services asks departments to update its contact information online in the Oracle system. Each department has a designated individual responsible for performing this task. Communications Services conducts a spot check of online information for accuracy before sending the information to the publisher at the end of August. Communications Services also asks each department how many telephone directories it wishes to order, with the understanding that no more than one directory should be requested per telephone.

Communications Services contracts with University Directories, a company dedicated to publication of college directories, to publish the U.Va. Telephone Directory. Communications Services places an order with University Directories based upon departmental requests plus the number of dorm rooms on Grounds with a telephone (see Figure 1 below). Because the telephone directory goes through only one printing a year, and because external organizations such as Martha Jefferson Hospital and Augusta Medical Center have a history of requesting directories periodically, additional directories are ordered

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 2July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

each year to ensure a sufficient year-round supply. For example, while it is estimated that 16,319 directories would have satisfied student, faculty, and staff demand (4,500 student rooms with telephones plus 11,819 directories ordered by the departments), Communication Services ordered a total of 22,000 directories from the publisher last year.

Figure 1

2006-07 2007-08 2008-090

5,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000

32,000 24,000

22,000

Directories Ordered

After securing advertisers for the directory, University Directories submits a set of electronic proofs to Communications Services for review. Communications Services spends a few days examining the proofs for various purposes: to ensure advertising is consistent with University policy, to spot check for clerical errors, and to confirm that the formatting is consistent with the placed order. If one assumes that two Communications Services staff members earning an annual salary of $45,000 each spend 20 hours total to conduct this review, the annual cost for time Communications Services staff dedicate to production of the University telephone directory is $920. Once the proofs are approved, University Directories prints the directories and sends a check to Communications Services. Over the past few years, the amount of this check has ranged from $45,000 to $50,000 (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2

2006-07 2007-08 2008-090

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000

$64,494 $49,870$46,533

Revenue Generated

After University Directories delivers the directories to U.Va., Communications Services hires workers from Facilities Management to distribute them across grounds.  Last year, this delivery service cost Communications Services $7,250.  Undistributed telephone directories are stored at the Fontana facility (see appendix A) at a cost of $.70 per square foot per month ($8.40 per year).  This year’s undistributed telephone directories are currently occupying 150 square feet of space for a cost of $105 per month ($1,260 per year). 

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 3July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

After departments have received their directories, they are encouraged to recycle any unused directories, which have resulted from ordering a number that exceeds actual need.  Communications Services keeps track of the number of unused, recycled directories from departments and adjusts its order the next year accordingly.  In addition to unused directories, a number of undistributed directories from storage are also recycled.  Last year, seventeen pallets of undistributed telephone directories containing approximately 540 telephone directories each (9,180 total) and weighing approximately 12.5 tons were shipped off for recycling.  This number was less than a high of twenty-two pallets of undistributed telephone directories recycled four years ago.  While on average the cost of recycling is $67 per ton, the cost associated with recycling of the telephone directories more closely resembles waste management costs of $115 per ton or even higher, because the waste management cost of $115 per ton does not include the cost of labor to collect the directories and the income received from recycling the directories is negligible (only 5 cents per directory).  Thus, the approximate total recycling cost for all telephone directories is $3,381which includes the 12.5 tons of stored, undistributed books (9,180) and 16.9 tons of books distributed to departments (12,820).

The chart below summarizes the costs incurred and the revenue generated as a result of producing the University telephone directory annually to yield the estimated net revenue.

Table 1

Item Description Revenue Generated

Payment from University Directories $46,533

Item Description Cost Incurred

Communications Services Staff Time to Check $920Facilities Management Delivery Fee $7,250Undistributed Directory Storage per year $1,260Directory Recycling $3,381

ESTIMATED NET REVENUE $33,722

B. External Benchmarking with Institutions That Have Elected to Cease Printing a Telephone Directory

Rutgers University

Rutgers University published a print telephone directory until the end of the 2006-07 academic year. The directory included contact information for faculty and staff at all three of the university’s campuses (Newark, Brunswick, and Camden) as well as a section with general departmental information, campus maps, and an academic calendar. The university contracted with a data management firm to create a list of individuals for publication using the university’s HR database. One additional staff member was hired solely to collect departmental listing information by consulting with staff and merging other internal databases. The telephone directory typically ran around 280 pages long. Approximately 13,500 directories were published and distributed annually to faculty and staff at a cost of $35,000. There were no advertisements, as the purpose of the directory was not to generate revenue for the university.

The print version of the university telephone directory was discontinued primarily because of budget cuts. However, additional contributing factors included a university-wide movement to go paperless, the

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 4July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

existence of an online directory system, and the directory’s relatively short shelf life. Some user complaints followed the initial decision to cease printing of the directory, but on the whole the transition was smooth as many members of the university community were already accustomed to using the online search tool.

University of Wisconsin

The University of Wisconsin published two print telephone directories (one for faculty & staff and the other for students) through the end of the 2005-06 academic year. Both directories shared an introductory section (80-90 pages) including a directory of academic departments, campus maps, a guide to campus facilities, emergency phone numbers, information about campus transportation, and other general public information. The remainder of each directory contained a white pages section (approximately 300 pages) which listed contact information for faculty or students, as well as a yellow pages section with paid advertising.

Both telephone directories were produced by University Directories, a company specializing in university telephone directory publication. Wisconsin provided the introductory section as well as a data file for the white pages to University Directories, who would then provide approximately 15,000 staff directories and 10,000-15,000 student directories (one directory was provided per dorm room). The university would also receive a check for $10,000-12,000 from University Directories, all of which (and sometimes more) would be used to pay for distribution of the directories across campus.

Publication of the print directory was discontinued after the 2005-06 academic year. It was determined that student transiency rendered information in the student directory unreliable, and thus, largely unused. Furthermore, advertising sales were slumping, leading to diminishing returns and a net loss after figuring in the cost of directory distribution. Finally, students no longer had land lines in their dorm rooms, making the need for a telephone directory negligible.

In place of the print directory, the university continued to offer a PDF version of the introductory section online (http://www.vc.wisc.edu/app/directory/deptdir.pdf) and referred students, faculty, and staff to an online person search already in existence for white page contact information. Good use of advance communication regarding this change as well as continued online publication of the introductory section alleviated the vast majority of potential negative impacts.

Fuller Theological Seminary

Fuller Theological Seminary published two telephone directories until the year 2005. The faculty and staff directory was approximately 20 pages long and included a departmental directory as well as a white pages section. The student directory consisted only of white pages entries and ran 30-50 pages long.

Both directories were printed locally using reports generated from the institution’s Banner software program. Students were allowed to opt out of having their contact information listed. The faculty/staff directory cost $2,000 to publish while the student directory cost $10,000. Directories were distributed through the institution’s campus mail system. Individuals could also pick up directories at the registrar’s office.

The telephone directories produced no revenue, and thus, a primary reason for their discontinuation was cost. In addition, people expressed a desire for an online directory, and students especially liked the idea of their personal information being confined to a secure portal. The SCT Banner Directory, an online search tool accessible only from the institution’s intranet, was offered as an alternative to the print directory. While the reaction has been generally positive, a PDF version of the staff directory has been placed online for persons wishing to print their own hard copy.

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 5July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

University of Kentucky

The University of Kentucky published a print telephone directory through the 2007-08 academic year. The directory ran approximately 575 pages long and included three sections: a general information section (campus maps, academic calendar, athletic schedules, student organizations, etc.); a white pages section (departmental listings, individual faculty/staff listings, individual student listings); a yellow pages section (advertising). The university contracted with an outside vendor, University Directories, to produce the telephone directory. One full-time employee at the university was dedicated solely to manually collecting and maintaining the information included in the telephone directory.

The university would receive a check for $30,000 from the publisher along with the number of directories ordered each year. This money was allocated entirely to the student government association. Students were thus hesitant to report any decline in use of the telephone directory because they did not want to lose this significant revenue stream. The administration believed that two main factors warranted discontinuation of the telephone directory. First, its information became obsolete the moment it went to print. Second, its significant production cost ($50,000 for 1 FTE dedicated to its production and $25,000 for delivery and pickup) could no longer be justified in a time of scarce resources.

A campus sustainability movement eventually transformed students into advocates for discontinuation of the telephone directory. Students argued that the electronic person search already in place was sufficient for their contact information needs. A departmental directory was also added to the university website to ensure that all of the information presented in the print directory was available in electronic format. The electronic directories are automatically updated daily from the university’s HR system and student management system. Thus, movement from a print to an electronic directory has enabled the university to provide far more accurate information, operate in a more environmentally-friendly manner, and save at least $75,000. Reception of this change has been overwhelmingly positive, with only a handful of faculty retirees expressing disappointment that they would no longer be able to secure a print copy of the telephone directory.

C. Telephone Directory Usage Surveys of U.Va. Students, Faculty and Staff

Two surveys were administered to the University community regarding personal usage of the telephone directory. First, a walk-up survey was administered to 280 random students walking near the South Lawn and on the walkway between the Rotunda and the U.Va. Chapel. Assuming a student population size of 21,057, this sample size yields a 90% confidence rate and a margin of error of +5%. The results of the walk-up survey are as follows:

Figure 3

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 6July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0 0 7

273

Question 1 to Students: How often do you use the print version of the University Telephone Directory?

Figure 4

Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never0

102030405060708090

66

49

77

59

29

Question 2 to Students: How often do you use the electronic directory search feature on the U.Va.

homepage?

A second survey was administered to a random sample of units across grounds that order telephone directories from Communications Services annually. The 318 total units across grounds can be classified in this manner: 103 academic units; 71 operational units; 144 medical units. To ensure appropriate proportionality within the survey sample, 26 academic units were randomly selected, as were 18 operational units and 36 medical units for a total sample size of 80 units. Each individual unit was contacted by phone and invited to participate in an online survey. A follow up email was then sent to the unit contact with a link to the online survey. A total of 1,817 individuals participated in the electronic survey. Assuming a population size of 13,922, this sample size yields a 99% confidence rate and a margin of error of +2.85%. Key results from the online survey are below (see Appendix B for complete results):

Figure 5

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 7July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never0

100

200

300

400

500

600

101

248

457

528 485

Question to Faculty and Staff: How often do you use the print version of the University Telephone Direc-

tory?

Figure 6

Campus M

aps

Emerg

ency

List.

BOV/Sr. A

dmin List.

Academ

ic Dep

t. List

.

Medica

l Ctr.

List.

Studen

t Org.

List.

Fac/St

aff W

hitepgs

Retired

Fac. L

ist.

Studen

t White

pgs

Yellowpgs/

Advert.

Other0

100200300400500600700800900

348

113 93

657 679

68

795

71171

105140

Question to Faculty and Staff: Why do you use the print version of the University Telephone Directory?

Figure 7

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 8July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never0

100

200

300

400

500

600515

392 383

248281

Question to Faculty and Staff: How often do you use the electronic directory search feature on the U.Va. home-

page?

From the survey results, it can be concluded that the students do not use the print directory and instead rely upon the electronic directory when needed. Ninety-eight percent of the students surveyed reported never using the print version.

The results for faculty and staff usage were less definitive, however, 56% of all respondents indicated that they never or rarely use the print version and only 19% report using the print version either very often or often. The top three reasons for using the printed version were to access listings for faculty/staff, medical center departments, and academic departments. In contrast, almost 50% of faculty and staff answered very often or often to describe their use of the electronic version.

IV. Recommendations

The data presented reveal three key findings regarding the production of the printed University Telephone Directory. First, while the production of the print directory does provide an additional annual revenue stream for Communication Services, when one considers all expenses incurred across the institution the revenue amount may not be as significant as perceived. Second, the print directory appears to be massively overproduced, resulting in waste of institutional resources for storage and recycling, not to mention the sustainability costs. Finally, the usage of the University Telephone Directory is virtually nonexistent among students (98% reported never using the print directory) and low among faculty and staff (27% reported never, 29% rarely and 25% sometimes). Given these research findings, the following three options for improvement are presented for consideration:

A. Eliminate Production Overruns

The least involved and most basic option for reducing needless waste is simply to order only as many print directories from the publisher as requested by units across grounds. This action alone would reduce $2,098 in costs associated with storage and recycling of undistributed directories. The accuracy of the order could be further improved if each person, rather than a department representative were contacted or able to indicate whether or not they want a printed directory. In some cases, the departmental contact is simply requesting a book for all employees. In addition, directories should not be ordered for dorms as students by and large do not use the print directory. Finally, the practice of ordering directories for external organizations should be reviewed and possibly eliminated. At a

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 9July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

minimum, directories should only be ordered for external organizations in the presence of an explicit request.

B. Print Department Listings Only

A second option is to print a much smaller directory. According to the faculty and staff usage survey, the print directory is used primarily for academic department listings, medical center listings, and faculty/staff whitepages. Campus maps are available in other print forms and online, and the online directory search serves the same function as the faculty/staff whitepages. A more streamlined print directory containing only medical and academic departmental listings would have a much smaller environmental impact while fulfilling the primary need presently met by the current directory. Alternatively, to further reduce environmental impacts, the current academic department and medical department sections of the print directory could be posted online in PDF format (see University of Wisconsin and Fuller Theological Seminary in the External Benchmarking section of this report) so that individuals could either access departmental information electronically or print a hard copy of frequently consulted departmental listings.

C. Cease Print Production and Enhance Electronic Directory Features

The final and most drastic option would be to eliminate the print directory entirely. Communication Services would forfeit a small annual revenue stream by choosing this option, resulting in an annual departmental telephone rate increase of approximately $2.73 per employee. However, this option would completely eliminate the environmental impact of producing the print directory. Furthermore, a comprehensive searchable departmental database is already available online and updated annually after the directory goes to press in the fall (http://jm.acs.virginia.edu/commserv/phonebook/). While print production of the directory would cease under this option, Communications Services could continue to request that departments update their contact information in the Oracle system each year. In order to facilitate ease of use, a “department” radio button could be added next to the “people,” “web,” and “library” radio buttons found above the search field on the U.Va. homepage.

APPENDIX A

Storage of Undistributed University Telephone Directories at the Fontana Facility

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 10July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

APPENDIX B

Results of Online Usage Survey of Faculty & Staff

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 11July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 12July 16, 2009

Review of the University Telephone Directory

Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget 13July 16, 2009