Measuring (and Increasing) the Value of Academic Libraries

Center for Information and Communication Studies

Measuring (and Increasing) the Value

of Academic Libraries

Carol TenopirUniversity of Tennessee

[email protected]

ALPSPFebruary 2011



1) Implicit value (i.e., usage, downloads)

2) Explicit value (i.e., interviews)

3) Derived values (i.e., ROI)

Value can be measured in many ways:


% change in ave # of Article Readings/Year & Ave Minutes/Reading by University Faculty in the US

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

1977 1993 2000-2003

2004-2006

Readings

Minutes perReading


• Purpose• Outcomes• Return on Investment (ROI)

Going beyond implied value to show…


Methods for measuring value

Usage Citations

Focus groups

Return on Investment

Perceptions

Experiments Critical incident Contingent

valuation

Observations

Conjoint measurement

Interviews


Series of studies Surveys by Tenopir & King, 1977-

Present using critical incident of last article reading

ROI in grants, Phase 1: case study at University of Illinois, completed 2008

ROI in grants, Phase 2: expanded to 8 countries, completed 2010

Value and ROI (2010-2012) (Lib-Value)


“The following questions in this section refer to the SCHOLARLY ARTICLE YOU READ MOST RECENTLY, even if you had read the article previously. Note that this last reading may not be typical, but will help us establish the range of patterns in reading.”

Critical incident of last reading


Principal purpose of reading (Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2006, n=1433)

51%

9%

11%

9%

20%

Research

Teaching

CurrentAwarenessProposals

Other


Source of reading by purpose of reading by faculty (Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1412)

ResearchTeaching

Current Awareness

5%

5% 5%

11%

37%

38%

3%3%

30%

47%

7%

10%

3%

50%

18%

14%

7%

9%Library provided

Personalsubscription

Open Web

Colleagues

SchooldepartmentsubscriptionOther


Readings for research or writing• More likely to be rated “absolutely

essential”

• More likely to be found by searching

• More likely to be from e-sources

• More likely to be after the first year of publication

• More likely to be from the library


Outcomes of reading in order of frequency of responses (n=880)

• Inspired new thinking (55%)• Improved results (40%)• Changed focus (27%)• Resolved technical problems (12%)• Saved time (12%)• Faster completion (7%) • Collaboration (6%)• Wasted my time (<1% of readings)


E-Collections improve efficiency, writing, and research

“E-access is essential for

scientific writing”

“I could not do the kind of research or

teaching I do without these resources.”

“[e-access] saves me a lot of time which can be used for more extensive

reading.”


Derived measuresReturn on Investment (ROI) is a quantitative

measure expressed as a ratio of the value returned to the institution for each monetary unit

invested in the library.

For every $/€/£ spent on the library,the university received ‘X’ $/€/£ in return.

Demonstrate that library collections contribute to income-generating activities


ROI Phases 1 and 2Faculty Grant Research Cycle

LIBRARY

ConductResearch

ObtainGrants

WriteArticles

WriteReports &Proposals


ROI for University of Illinois grants (Phase 1)

$4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested in library

(% of faculty who rated citations in proposals from library as important x

% of proposals funded/library budget)


Phase 2: grants only8 institutions in 8 countries


Phase 2: ROI findings


Administration values: Measuring up

1) Attract outstanding faculty• Faculty who publish more read more• Faculty who receive awards read more• Library is main source of article readings

2) Retain outstanding faculty• “I would leave this university in a microsecond if the library

deteriorated” - U.S. University


Administration values: measuring up

3) Foster innovative research• “I am now able to explore and trace back topics and check the

developments that arose along the topic history making connections that were only dreams a few years ago.” -Western European Research Institute

• For every article cited, 27-40 more are read

4) Build research reputation of institution• In 2 universities, over 10 years an increase in library budget

correlates with an increase in grant funding• Faculty with more publications and citations obtain more grants.*

– *Ali & Bhattacharyya, “Research Grant and Faculty Productivity Nexus: Heterogeneity among Dissimilar Institutions.” Academic Analytics


Administration values: Measuring up

5) Promote seamless integration of the library with institutional research activities • “With the current workload, I could not continue with research

without the convenience of access from my own computer” – South African University

• A doubling in article downloads, from 1 to 2 million, is statistically associated with dramatic increases in research productivity**

**Research Information Network. 2009. E-journals: their use, value and impact. Report prepared by Research Information Network.


Lib-Value: Multiple institutions using multiple methods to measure multiple values for multiple

stakeholders


Ebooks Special Collections

Information Commons

Journal Collections Value and ROI Teaching and

Learning

Reading and Scholarship Tools

Website and Value

Bibliography

Current Projects


Anticipate change..New Scholarly Endeavors

That Cut Across the Library’s Functional Areas

Research Social / Professional

Teaching / Learning

Sc

ho

larl

y E

nd

ea

vo

rs

Functional Areas

E-scienceE-science

CollaborativeScholarshipCollaborativeScholarship

InstitutionalRepositoriesInstitutionalRepositories


What we can show so far…• Academic library e-collections help faculty be

productive and successful• Libraries help generate grants income• E-collections (books, journals, etc.) are valued

by faculty and students• ROI varies by mission and location of institution• Learning/information commons are reflecting

changes in student work habits


Some final thoughts on measuring value


For further information: [email protected]

http://libvalue.cci.utk.edu


Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., Wu, L. (2009a). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61 (1), 5-32.

Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Spencer, J., Wu, L. (2009b). Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: What makes a difference?. Library & Information Science Research, 31(3), 139-148.

Tenopir, C. (2010). University Investment in the Library, Phase II: An International Study of the Library’s Value to the Grants Process. Report prepared for Elsevier LibraryConnect. http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/whitepapers/roi2/lcwp021001.html.

Documents

Measuring (and Increasing) the Value of Academic Libraries