• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Deja Vu Ja Vu

Deja Vu Ja Vu






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.


11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • I'm glad to see your slide show posted here.<br /><br/>
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Deja Vu Ja Vu Deja Vu Ja Vu Presentation Transcript

    • Déjà vu, ja vu From Outputs to Outcomes & Outcomes to Outputs … and Back Again Alan W. Zimmerman Consultant, PL System Administration & Finance Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Keith Curry Lance Director Library Research Service Colorado State Library & University of Denver
    • What We’ll Talk About
      • Outputs vs. outcomes
      • Output measures
        • Traditional, newer, on the horizon
        • State detail, Bertot/McClure e-measures, state e-measures
      • Analytical perspectives
      • Contexts of use
      • Tools
      • From output to outcome measures
    • Outputs vs. Outcomes
      • Definitions
        • Amount of service provided vs. how it made a difference for the end-user
      • “ Ownership”
        • Library or project vs. user or indirect beneficiary
      • Perspectives
        • One person’s output is another’s outcome!
    • FSCS Output Measures
      • Traditional
      • Per capita: Library visits, reference transactions, circulation, interlibrary loan
      • Children’s as percent of total circulation, program attendance
    • More FSCS Measures
      • Newer
        • Users of e-resources per capita
        • Program attendance per capita
      • On the horizon
        • Registration as percent of population
        • Alternatives to users of e-resources:
          • Users of public Internet computers per capita
          • Visits to library’s home page
    • More Detailed State Measures
      • Circulation by format (e.g., books, videos, audio books)
      • Reference questions by source (e.g., in-person, phone, e-mail, chat)
      • Interlibrary loan (e.g., returnable vs. non-returnable, in-/out-of-state, by library type)
      • Programs/attendance by type (e.g., story hours, reading clubs, literacy training)
    • Outputs from Network Performance Measures (Bertot & McClure)
      • Public access workstation users
      • Formal user IT training
      • Point-of-use IT training
      • Virtual reference transactions
    • Electronic/Digital Output Measures from States
      • IT training attendance (IA, KY, MD, NM, TX)
      • Database searches (AZ, LA, PA, WA)
      • Virtual visits (LA, NC, VA, WA)
      • Virtual reference transactions (FL, LA, WA)
      • Users of public access computers (MD, VA)
      • OPAC sessions (NC, WA)
      • Items examined (PA, VA)
    • PLUS a few unique items …
      • Public access computer circulation (Nevada)
      • Number of electronic holds (Washington)
      • Number of electronic renewals (Washington)
      • Percent of time public Internet access terminals in use (Washington)
    • Analytical Perspectives
      • Simple Reporting
      • Lending Perspective
      • Trend Analysis
      • Peer Comparison
      • Comparative Trend Analysis
    • Simple Reporting
      • Totals
      • Per capita figures
    • Totals Example
    • Per Capita Example
    • Lending Perspective
      • Per capita figures
      • Day-in-the-life figures
        • Wichita PL annual report
        • In an average day, WPL …
        • Registered almost 50 new customers
        • Circulated over 5400 items
        • Answered over 900 questions
        • Provided 409 public computer sessions
        • Attracted 183 customers to library programs
      • Comparisons of library outputs with those of other public agencies, nonprofits, private sector
        • On daily basis, US public libraries circulate 4 times as many items as FedEx delivers.
        • Annual visits to CO libraries outnumber ski lift ticket sales 6-to-1.
    • Trend Analysis
      • Year-to-year change (up or down)
      • Change over time
    • Year to Year Change Example
    • Change Over Time Example
    • Peer Comparison
      • Rankings
        • Hennen ratings, FSCS state rankings
      • Percentiles, quartiles
      • Average
    • Ranking Example #1
    • Ranking Example #2
    • Percentiles Example
    • Comparative Trend Analysis
      • Differences in trends associated with some library characteristic (e.g., LSA population, legal basis type, metro status)
    • Comparative Trend Analysis Example
    • Contexts of Use
      • Accountability (Reporting)
      • Advocacy
      • Planning
      • Evaluation (including Standards)
    • Tools
      • Bibliostat CONNECT software
      • NCES Compare Libraries tool
      • LRS-i peer comparison & historical analysis tools
    • Bibliostat Connect Software
      • Functionality: user selects peers & data for comparison, software generates tables & charts
      • Datasets: FSCS, PLDS, state(s), Census data
      • Availability: http://connect.informata.com / (via statewide or local subscription)
    • NCES Compare Libraries Tool
      • Functionality: user selects peers & data for comparison, site generates tables & charts
      • Datasets: FSCS only
      • Availability: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/compare/Index.asp
    • LRS-i Tools
      • Functionality: peer comparison & historical analysis (one or more libraries), site generates tables & charts
      • Datasets: State only
      • Availability: http://www.lrs.org/interactive/index.asp
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • Is it possible to bridge the gap between outputs and outcomes?
      • To what extent is stating outcomes a matter of perspective (user’s vs. library’s)?
      • What’s the relationship between intended outcomes and outputs? In the absence of true outcome data, can a rhetorical connection be made?
      • When is one person’s output another’s outcome?
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • Attendance at Pleasantville Public Library’s 2005 series of summer-job-seeking workshops for teenagers was 2,500.
      • Outcome: By June 15, 2005, 2,250 of 2,500 teenagers (90%) who attended workshops at library found jobs.
      • Outcome-like: In 2005, 2,500 teenagers learned how to seek summer job successfully at workshops.
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • Enrollment in Pleasantville’s summer reading program (SRP) was 5,000. 4,500 completed it.
      • Outcome: Of 4,500 children who completed SRP, 95% maintained or gained reading skills, compared to 65% of all elementary students.
      • Outcome-like: Of 5,000 children enrolled in SRP, 90% completed it, improving odds they would maintain or improve reading skills over summer.
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • During FY 2004-05, the AskMarian virtual reference service answered 42,000+ questions statewide.
      • Outcome: As a result of using AM, 1/3 of users received help with homework or school project, 1/4 obtained info for work, and 1/10 learned more about issue.
      • Outcome-like: 42,000 AM users gained info they could use at school or work, to be better-informed community members, or to meet other info needs.
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • FY 2004-05, statewide ILL statistics: 250,000 provided, 300,000 received. FY 2002-03, 200,000 & 250,000, respectively.
      • Outcome: After implementation of the state’s new fast-track interlibrary loan system, interlibrary lending increased by 25% and borrowing by 20%.
      • Remember, output for one or more libraries may be the state’s outcome.
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • Remember 3 Keys to Creating Outcome-Like Output Statements
      • Express from user’s viewpoint, not library’s
      • Remember that intentions anticipate outcomes (at least theoretically), and connect output to those intentions rhetorically
      • Remember that one person’s (or agency’s) output may be another’s outcome
    • From Output to Outcome Measures
      • Exercise