Process Simplification
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
Review of the University Telephone Directory
Final Report
August 14, 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
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
2
Review of the University Telephone Directory
Medical Center have a history of requesting directories periodically, additional directories are ordered
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
Directories Ordered
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
32,000
24,000
22,000
2006‐07
2007‐08
2008‐09
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
Revenue Generated
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
$64,494
$49,870
$46,533
2006‐07
2007‐08
2008‐09
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
August 14, 2009
3
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
Facilities Management Delivery Fee
Undistributed Directory Storage per year
Directory Recycling
$920
$7,250
$1,260
$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
August 14, 2009
4
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
August 14, 2009
5
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
Question 1 to Students: How often do you use the print
version of the University Telephone Directory?
300
273
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
0
7
Very Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
0
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
Never
6
Review of the University Telephone Directory
Figure 4
Question 2 to Students: How often do you use the
electronic directory search feature on the U.Va. homepage?
100
80
77
66
60
59
49
40
29
20
0
Very Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
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
Question to Faculty and Staff: How often do you use the
print version of the University Telephone Directory?
600
528
500
485
457
400
300
200
248
101
100
0
Very Often
Often
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
7
Review of the University Telephone Directory
Figure 6
Question to Faculty and Staff: Why do you use the print version of
the University Telephone Directory?
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
795
657
679
348
113
171
93
68
140
71
105
Figure 7
Question to Faculty and Staff: How often do you use the
electronic directory search feature on the U.Va. homepage?
600
515
500
392
400
383
281
300
248
200
100
0
Very Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
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 (see Appendix C for a more
detailed profile of print directory users). In contrast, almost 50% of faculty and staff answered very
often or often to describe their use of the electronic version.
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
8
Review of the University Telephone Directory
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
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.
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
9
Review of the University Telephone Directory
APPENDIX A
Storage of Undistributed University Telephone Directories at the Fontana Facility
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
10
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
August 14, 2009
11
Review of the University Telephone Directory
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
12
Review of the University Telephone Directory
APPENDIX C
Profile of University Print Telephone Directory Users
Introduction
The Office of Process Simplification administered to faculty and staff within a random sample of
academic, medical, and administrative units across Grounds regarding their usage of the University
print telephone directory. A total of 1,819 respondents completed the survey. The following
analysis provides a profile of University employees who currently use the print telephone directory.
Print Directory Users vs. Non-Users
Participants were asked how often they used the print version of the telephone directory. If we were
to classify participants who answered “very often” or “often” as directory users and those who
responded “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” as non-users, the following breakdown would result:
Frequency of
Use
Very Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
All Respondents
1,819 (100%)
101 (5.6%)
248 (13.6%)
457 (25.1%)
528 (29.0%)
485 (26.7%)
Classification
User
User
Non-User
Non-User
Non-User
Percentage of Print Directory
Users/Non-Users
19.2%
80.8%
A comparison between the user and non-user subsamples reveals a similar distribution in terms of
unit and individual classifications:
Unit
Classification
Academic
Medical
Operational
Users
179
(51.3%)
129
(37.0%)
41 (11.7%)
Non-Users
Individual
Classification
718 Faculty
(48.8%)
515 Staff
(35.0%)
237
(16.1%)
Users
Non-Users
123
(35.2%)
226
(64.8%)
410 (27.9%)
1,060
(72.1%)
Perhaps not unexpectedly, when one compares the reasons the two subsamples report for using the
print directory, the user subsample selected every response in a higher frequency than the non-user
subsample with the exception of “yellowpages/advertisements:”
Reason for Using Print Directory*
1. Campus Maps
2. Emergency Listings
3. BOV Profiles/Senior Administration Listings
4. Academic Department Listings
5. Medical Center Listings
6. Student Organization Listings
7. Faculty/Staff Whitepages
8. Retired Faculty Listings
9. Student Whitepages
10. Yellowpages/Advertisements
*Listed in order of appearance on survey
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
Users
127 (36.7%)
34 (9.8%)
41 (11.8%)
242 (69.9%)
230 (66.5%)
36 (10.4%)
286 (82.7%)
34 (9.8%)
90 (26.0%)
25 (7.2%)
Non-Users
221 (23.1%)
79 (8.3%)
52 (5.4%)
415 (43.5%)
449 (47.0%)
32 (3.4%)
509 (53.3%)
37 (3.9%)
81 (8.5%)
80 (8.4%)
13
Review of the University Telephone Directory
However, the curves of subsample response distributions mirror each other, demonstrating that the
main reasons for using the print directory are similar for both subsamples. Thus, while the impact
of eliminating the print directory would vary in magnitude according to subsample, the nature of
that impact would be similar for both users and non-users:
90
80
70
60
50
Users
40
Non‐Users
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Electronic Directory Usage among Print Directory Users
Using the same methodology as before, the following chart classifies print directory users according
to their use of the electronic directory:
Frequency of
Use
Very Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Print Directory
Users 349 (100%)
45 (12.9%)
69 (19.8%)
88 (25.2%)
65 (18.6%)
82 (23.5%)
Electronic
Directory
Classification
User
User
Non-User
Non-User
Non-User
Percentage of Electronic
Directory Users/Non-Users
32.7%
(Dual-Users)
67.3%
(Sole-Users)
The chart reveals that about one-third of print directory users also use the electronic directory, a
subsample we will call “dual-users.” One can assume that dual-users would simply increase their
use of the electronic directory if the print directory were discontinued. This means that 87% of the
total sample (1,584/1,819) would be unaffected by an elimination of the print directory, because
they either do not currently use the print directory (1,470 non-users) or they already use the
electronic directory (114 dual-users).
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
14
Review of the University Telephone Directory
Individuals Relying Solely on the Print Directory
Two-thirds of print directory users, or 13% of the total sample (235/1,819), are print directory users
who do not use the electronic directory. We will call this subsample “sole-users.” It is reasonable
to expect that sole-users would find their contact information needs unmet if the print directory
were discontinued. The following chart divides this group of people by unit and individual
classifications:
Unit
Classification
Academic
Medical
Operational
Sole-Users
Sole-Users
Individual
Classification
105 Faculty
(44.7%)
108 Staff
(46.0%)
22 (9.4% )
81 (34.5%)
154
(65.5%)
The table reveals that, like the user and non-user subsamples, the majority of sole-users are staff
members who reside in mostly academic and medical units. Furthermore, the reasons why soleusers use the print directory are almost identical to those of non-users and mirror those of users, as
illustrated by the graph below:
90
80
70
60
50
Users
Non‐Users
40
Sole‐Users
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Conclusion
The above analysis has demonstrated that ceasing production of the print telephone directory would
negatively affect about 13% of University employees. These individuals are mostly staff members
housed in academic or medical units. Should the print directory be discontinued, a campaign to
raise awareness regarding alternative resources would need to be implemented to assist these
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
15
Review of the University Telephone Directory
individuals in the transition from a print to an electronic medium. In particular, educational efforts
would best be focused on highlighting alternatives to the most frequently consulted sections of the
print directory:
•
•
•
•
•
Faculty/Staff Whitepages
Medical Center Listings
Academic Department Listings
Campus Maps
Student Whitepages
Electronic counterparts for each of the above sections already exist in some form on the
University’s website. Moreover, because all of the subsamples examined in this report
demonstrated similar reasons for using the print directory, efforts to raise awareness regarding these
electronic resources would benefit the entire University community, not just individuals needing to
secure alternative resources in a post-print directory environment.
Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget
August 14, 2009
16