Guerrilla Assessment: A practical approach to Library Impact and Value

Zsuzsa KoltayCornell University Library

Director of Assessment and Communication

low cost

unconventional

big impact

low cost: senior survey“To what extent have Cornell library resources and services contributed to…

…your ability to evaluate the quality of the information you find? …your ability to conduct research? …your efficiency? …your academic success?

Rating scale: not at all; very little; some; quite a bit; very much

Evaluate quality of information

Ability to conduct research

Efficiency

Academic success

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

9

5.7

7.3

4.9

14.9

9.3

12.3

13.1

35.5

27.6

30.7

33.3

27.1

30.8

29.1

29.4

13.5

26.5

20.6

19.3

not at all

very little

some

quite a bit

very much

2010

Male

Female

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ability to conduct research

not at allvery littlesomequite a bitvery much

White

Asian

URM

Multi

Intl

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ability to conduct research

not at allvery littlesomequite a bitvery much

ALS

AAP

Arts

Engineering

Hotel

Hum Ec

ILR

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ability to conduct research

not at allvery littlesomequite a bitvery much

unconventional: value calculations

Transaction count X value expressed in $$$

08/09 Cornell example

• for the use of physical volumes: $15,135,782• for articles accessed online and through

interlibrary services: $61,265,783• for answering questions to build research skills and

contribute to Cornell research results: $1,176,615• for in-depth consultations that contribute to Cornell

research results: $126,900• for Cornell’s use of preprints from arXiv.org:

$740,250

• for distributing Cornell-created content to the world through eCommons: $12,001,290

• for laptops borrowed: $202,165• for library instruction: $xxx___________________________Roughly 1:2 cost to value

so what?

• Great context or bogus numbers? • How do our cost and value to users relate to

each other?• Very varied reactions – not used, not updated

big impact: benchmarking

The big irony: resources and rankings rule!

avg annual change cum change

1.090 1.525

1.049 1.268

1.065 1.360

1.030 1.135

1.063 1.333

1.064 1.361

1.004 1.017

1.075 1.418

1.045 1.227

1.031 1.150

1.034 1.157

1.013 1.030

1.048 1.263

1.035 1.181

1.050 1.203

1.029 1.151

1.061 1.336

1.070 1.397

1.057 1.315

1.044 1.235

1.033 1.178

1.002 1.011

1.034 1.174

1.099 1.595

1.133 1.606

1.060 1.312

1.049 1.265

1.066 1.352

1.043 1.179

1.007 0.997

median 1.049 1.249

avg 1.049 1.258

+1.7% in 5 years

+25.8% in 5 years

1

1.3331.361

1.017

1.418

1.2271.1501.157

1.030

1.263

1.1811.2031.151

1.3361.397

1.315

1.2351.178

1.011

1.174

1.5951.606

1.3121.265

1.352

1.179

0.997

5 yr cumulcative change in materials expendituresCHICAGO COLUMBIA CORNELL DUKEEMORY HARVARD ILLINOIS, URBANA INDIANAIOWA JOHNS HOPKINS MCGILL MICHIGANMINNESOTA NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA OKLAHOMAPENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA STATE PITTSBURGH PRINCETONSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TEXAS TEXAS A&M TORONTOWASHINGTON YALE

The Petition

We, the (undersigned) faculty of Cornell University, affirm the critical importance of the library system to all aspects of Cornell’s mission. […]We call on the central administration […] to meet the first objective of the Cornell University Library Strategic Plan (2011-2015), to "Return the Library to its position among the top ten academic institutions in the Association of Research Libraries in terms of collection support".

The two most important ingredients of a great university are an excellent faculty and an excellent library. If need be, cut back on other things (athletic programs, faculty salary pool, ...) to rebuild the funding strength for Cornell's library system

Professor X, Neurobiology And Behavior

Signature #554

Discussion

• Is there merit in lightweight approaches?• Are they reliable?• Do you have examples?• What evidence resonates on your campus?