LibMeter Seminar Intro Current Practice


Published on

This session on electronic usage analysis was held as part of a seminar about library evaluation for 3rd year librarian students at the Cologne University of Applied Science (FH Köln), Germany on May 7th 2009

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • LibMeter Seminar Intro Current Practice

    1. 1. Striving for Excellence with Electronic Library Statistics Indicators for Performance Evaluation Introduction – Current Practice Institut für Informationswissenschaft, University of Applied Sciences, Cologne (FH-Köln IIW) Seminar on Library Evaluation (S. FÜHLES-UBACH) Peter Ahrens Guest Lecture V 1.00a – 2009-05-18 Cologne, 7th May 2009
    2. 2. LibMeter Seminar <ul><li>This LibMeter Introduction Seminar </li></ul><ul><li>is a continuation from the following </li></ul><ul><li>Slideshare Presentation: </li></ul><ul><li>Current Practice – Basics </li></ul><ul><li>It also relates to: </li></ul><ul><li>LibMeter Case Study #1 </li></ul><ul><li>(University of Düsseldorf) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Roadmap of this Presentation Introduction - Current Practice <ul><li>I. Introduction - Basics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A Quick Futuristic Web Tour </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usage Stats for the Rest of Us (No Maths please!) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Library Role, Services & Usage </li></ul></ul><ul><li>II. Introduction – Current Practise </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where to get Usage Figures from ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to interpret usage Figures ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LibMeter Case Studies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>III. Perspectives </li></ul>
    4. 4. Where to get Usage Figures for Electronic Services?
    5. 5. German Library Statistics DBS 2007+
    6. 6. Which Parties are involved in Generating Service and Stats ? <ul><li>Sorry, we need to become technical again – Stats Source </li></ul><ul><li>One Party-Scenario (Examples: OPAC hits, Homepage) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Service Provider = Library </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>+= Raw Statistics Provider = Webserver/ IT Department </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(+/- allied special statistics service provider) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Party-Scenario (Example: COUNTER stats) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lib. + Content Provider = Online Publisher / Service Host </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Three Party Scenario (Examples EZB; OpenURL) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lib. + Content + Web Service provider - Library Computing Service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>usually Server with powerful integrated specific statistic tools </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Multi Party-Scenario: (Example BIX Virtual Library Use) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lib. + Content + Web Service + Stats Provider </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. DBS Starts reporting on Electronic Usage in 2007 <ul><li>DBS Variable Analysis (VA) is available since 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>DBS-VA contains annual data back to 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>DBS reports on 6 electronic „OUTPUT“-parameters (=use or usage) since 2007 </li></ul>
    8. 8. Use of Electronic Resources & Online Services in DBS (2007) <ul><li>General Services (1 Party or 1 Party+) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visits of Library-Homepage (Zählpixel) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Visits of OPAC (Zählpixel) *1.) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content Delivery (2 Parties) *2.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Full Text Downloads of locally licensed articles (COUNTER) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Database Search Sessions (+/-COUNTER) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fulltext Views of locally managed Electronic Documents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Context –Pointing –Linking Services (3 Parties) *2.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Links to licensed eJournals (Homepages) (EZB=A-Z List) </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Availability of Electronic Usage Data is Still Limited (DBS 2007) Compiled from Data downloaded from: [2009-04-15]
    10. 10. Sample University Library Profile (DBS) Basics on Library-“Size“, -Input & Output <ul><li>Actions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Raw Numbers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Often very high values </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Go beyond imagination </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work Basis: User Numbers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Different Types </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can be combined to Primary User Number </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Key Step: Calculation of „ Value per User per Year “ = Normalization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Numbers become imaginable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Numbers can be memorized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Numbers become comparable </li></ul></ul>Data downloaded from into PC-Spreadsheet Program, [2009-05-03]
    11. 11. Looking at one Parameter (EZB) reported by 2 statistics hosts EZB Admin versus DBS 2007
    12. 12. Linking to „Electronic Journals“ What it means ? What is counted ? <ul><li>Different reporting definitions – CAVE, Don‘t compare apple and pears ! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standard EZB reports for a member institution (library) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A+B+C+D = EZB_Standard ( include all EZB-Requests issued from one Institution) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Special EZB reporting for DBS/Par. #181 (automatic upload 2007 onwards) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>B+C = EZB_for_DBS ( exclude A+D = Open Access, NatLis, free Grey Lit + PPV) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>What does this mean in actual numbers (e.g. for ULB Düsseldorf for 2007) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EZB_for_DBS = 124.421 ; Total Counts: EZB_Standard = 185.361 => +/- 60.940 </li></ul></ul>A = free access B = locally licensed C = As B but only certain years D = paid full text, not licensed Access Category of Publication
    13. 13. Pros and Cons of counting EZB „free“ eJournal-Linking activity ? <ul><li>NO (B&C only) - Controlling & accounting approach (DBS 2007) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>„ Free“ eSources do not comply with usage indicator DBS#181 definition - to have clearly locally attributable cost & effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Direct Cost is a pre-requisit for DBS#181 = No direct cost, no count ! </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>„ Maßgeblich ist immer die Prämisse, dass diese Angebote der Bibliothek Aufwand (Geld und Arbeit) verursachen und damit eine mit den vorhandenen Ressourcen erbrachte Leistung darstellen“ (*) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content 1-to-1 correlated with (paid!) COUNTER articles DBS#183 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>YES (+A&D): Service monitoring approach (EZB basic Report) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Library participates in community effort of coop. cataloguing to keep EZB alive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Service is clearly attributable to local users of a given institution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many additional Service events for similar service (+50%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reporting would allow analysis of trends in usage of electronic scholarly information and significant related library services (abd community efforts) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What is the bulk use of all NatLis, all Open Access journals ? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are there differences between Institution(s) (Types) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are there Proportion Shifts between A, B, C & D over time (Berlin-Declaration, DFG) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Looking annually at 1 Parameter (EZB) at 1 time (DBS 2007) for many libraries
    15. 15. Comparing EZB Use (B+C) among University Libraries in 2007 Compiled from DBS VA: [2009-04-15] EZB (B+C only) call as per DBS 2007 Standardized per Primary User per Year
    16. 16. Comparing Usage at different Types of Institutions
    17. 17. 2007 EZB Usage per Primary User at Universities versus Polytechs <ul><li>EZB Statistics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Universities (n=57) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Median = 6,2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mean / Average = 6.9 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Standard Deviation = 5.6 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Variation Coefficient = 0.8 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Polytechs (n=34) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Median = 0,42 (sic!) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mean / Average = 2.0 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Standard Deviation = 6.1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Variation Coefficient =3.0 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Düsseldorf: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mean / Average 7.0 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>= 0.13 Std. Dev. above Mean </li></ul></ul></ul>While you may calculate Mean and St. Dev. for a population, make sure it is normally distributed before drawing further conclusions (check Median) !
    18. 18. Looking at Distribution among University Libraries & Polytechs ? <ul><li>A: Number of EZB calls correlated with conventional Loans* ? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NO, there is no correlation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>B: Number of EZB calls correlated with the Staff/Student ratio* ? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>YES, there seems to be a weak positive correlation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. higher staff proportion goes along with higher the EZB usage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In other words (Hypothesis): Staff uses EZB eJournal-Catalogue more than Students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This is not astonishing, but for the first time it becomes quantifiable </li></ul></ul>A B
    19. 19. BIX-2008+ Performance Indicator „Virtual Use“
    20. 20. HDM Usage Counts for Electronic Library „Traffic“ Data: Courtesy of I. SIEBERT & J. KREISCHE, University Library Düsseldorf from private Website at HDM [2009-04-30]
    21. 21. BIX Performance-Indicator „Virtual Library Use“ <ul><li>New (per 2008*) in German Library Performance Index „BIX“ </li></ul><ul><li>Normalized Combined Parameter: „Virtual Annual Use“ </li></ul><ul><li>Definition: (OPAC & Homepage) / Number of Primary Users </li></ul><ul><li>Simple Interpretation </li></ul>
    22. 22. Electronic Usage enters the „Main Stage“ in 2008 (with BIX) <ul><li>„ Simple“ Standardized Parameters (meaningful !) </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Library „Use“ per Primary User: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Physical visits: 110,8 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Virtual Use: 204,7 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Simple Statements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average User comes every second workday </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average virtual user comes daily </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CAVE: Only „front door“ </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. From Electronic Library Output to „Virtual Use“ (DBS2007 > BIX2008) <ul><li>Principle </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Take reliable Usage figures from different relevant Services with high number of Events per User per Year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Combine to new parameter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comprehensive & Easy to understand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy to compare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E.g. with physical use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Limits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficult to standardize Homepage & OPAC counts across institutions (different software, no established counting standard) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HDM-Zählpixel-Provider limits </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. How SMART is „Virtual Use“ ? <ul><li>S pecific : </li></ul><ul><li>Quite general </li></ul><ul><li>M easurable : </li></ul><ul><li>YES Community Standard with help of HDM Zählpixel </li></ul><ul><li>A chievable and Attributable : </li></ul><ul><li>Library is actively producing Service </li></ul><ul><li>Today every library can produce # </li></ul><ul><li>R elevant and Realistic : </li></ul><ul><li>YES Users frequently go there </li></ul><ul><li>Closely tied to core services </li></ul><ul><li>How representative for total spectrum of electronic Library Services ? </li></ul><ul><li>T ime-bound, Timely, Trackable, and Targeted : </li></ul><ul><li>No log-files publicly available (yet?) </li></ul><ul><li>Not available for all periods </li></ul>
    25. 25. DBS & BIX Statistics Benefits & Limits <ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Broad Institutions Base </li></ul><ul><li>Fairly Comprehensive </li></ul><ul><li>Creates Awareness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Online Data Warehouse </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows Meta Studies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limits </li></ul><ul><li>Few Parameters </li></ul><ul><li>Limited Scope </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. more detailled services missing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Standardization Problems </li></ul><ul><li>Incomplete data </li></ul><ul><li>Only Annual Data </li></ul><ul><li>Time Lag </li></ul><ul><li>International Comparability ? </li></ul>
    26. 26. Journal & Database Vendors (COUNTER)
    27. 27. COUNTER provides „standardized“ Usage Stats
    28. 28. Example: Usage of Subscribed Journals Via COUNTER & SUSHI & ScholarlyStats
    29. 29. COUNTER Statistics Benefits & Limits <ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Working towards Standardization of Online Content Usage Counting </li></ul><ul><li>Accepted international (commercial Providers) Code of Conduct </li></ul><ul><li>Available for hundreds of publishers & Database providers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Available for most e-Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Basis for Commercial Discussions with Publishers and Hosts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>External: With providers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal: With faculty </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limits </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial Content only </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenAccess, PubMed, Google Scholar missing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expertise & work needed to handle the hundreds and thousands of spreadsheets </li></ul><ul><li>Needs Tools to handle Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>XML-Harvester (SUSHI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Warehouse: ScholarlyStats </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Standardization Problems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No ISO Standard ! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Focus on Publishers Content, not Library e-Services </li></ul><ul><li>Can you trust your Providers ? </li></ul>
    30. 30. Standardzed Library Services (e.g. OpenURL)
    31. 31. <ul><li>Generation: Static Links (1992+) </li></ul>INTERNET Sources Targets Statischer Link: URL
    32. 32. 2. Generation: Persist. Identifier Links INTERNET BIBLIOTHEK Sources Targets Datenbases of Links CrossRef DOI Too dynamic, Too much work For Library
    33. 33. 3. Generation: Context sensitive Links OpenURL Resolver INTERNET Virtual Library Sources Targets OpenURL-Resolver LinkServer Service Menu Link to fulltext Document Delivery Interlibrary Loan OPAC Entry Store in PBS Lookup in WoS … CATALOG INDEX BOOK JOURNAL
    34. 34. Linking with OpenURL Resolver Principle & URL-Syntax genre=article&issn=1234-5678 &volume=12&issue=3&spage=1&epage=8&date=1998 &aulast=Smith&aufirst=Paul
    35. 35. Commercial Introduction of LinkResolvers (2000-2004)
    36. 36. OpenURL Dynamically Links to the „Appropriate Copies“
    37. 37. OpenURL Statistics available ad hoc with Breakdowns - SFX Admin Center <ul><li>Ermittlung der Link-Nutzung in der Datenbank CAPlus für Feb.-Apr. 06 </li></ul><ul><li>zusammengefaßt monatlich </li></ul><ul><li>Eingeschränkt nur auf die Gruppe der (echten) universitären Nutzer </li></ul><ul><li>Ausgabe differenziert nach Dokumentenzahl zu denen elektronischer Volltext geboten werden konnte (incl. Nationallizenzen) versus kein elektronischer Volltext (nur andere SFX-Dienste der Bibliothek) </li></ul><ul><li>Anmerkung: Dieser Statistik-Typ erlaubt das einfache Abschätzen und Monitoring von Volltext-Abdeckungsgraden für verschiedene Datenbanken, Fachbereiche oder Anwenderungruppen. </li></ul>
    38. 38. OpenURL Statistics Benefits & Limits <ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Global ISO Standard </li></ul><ul><li>Counts fully comparable </li></ul><ul><li>Very wide scope of service </li></ul><ul><li>Built-In Report Generators </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy, fast, flexible, reliable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>distinguishes licensing types (local, consortial, national, free) </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple Facets breakdown possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sources, Targets, Services … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable Periods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sub-Groups of Users (IP-based or other) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Service and Context focussed (not just content) </li></ul><ul><li>Limits </li></ul><ul><li>Not all libraries have OpenURL resolver yet (about 95 % of University Libraries do) </li></ul><ul><li>Not official DBS-parameter (yet?) </li></ul><ul><li>Extra Cost of OpenRUL Resolver Service </li></ul><ul><li>Not all Links go through OpenURL (same applies for other link types) </li></ul><ul><li>Some sources do not send source-ID -> remain unidentified </li></ul>
    39. 39. Working more with Usage Figures Case Studies
    40. 40. LibMeter Case _ Study #1 <ul><li>Basics of Electronic Use </li></ul><ul><li>BIX „Virtual Use“ </li></ul><ul><li>@ ULBD Uni Düsseldorf </li></ul>Data: Personal Communication May 2009, Courtesy of Dr. Kreische, ULBD Düsseldorf See separate Slide show
    41. 41. Selected Readings to broaden and to deepen your Understanding <ul><ul><li>BIX - Der Bibliotheksindex 2008. Sonderheft. 2008 Juni ;1-56.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blecic DD, Fiscella JB, Wiberley Jr SE . Measurement of Use of Electronic Resources: Advances in Use Statistics and Innovations in Resource Functionality. College and Research Libraries. 2007 ;68(1):26-44.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ceynowa VK, Coners A . Balanced Scorecard für wissensch. Bibliotheken. Vittorio Klostermann; 2002.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gallagher J, Bauer K, Dollar DM . Evidence-based librarianship: Utilizing data from all available sources to make judicious print cancellation decisions. Lib. Collections, Acq. & Tech. Serv.. 2005 ;29(2):169-179.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>George Boston, Whang M . E-Resources Usage Data: Apples to Oranges and Fixing Holes   [Internet]. Atlanta: 2008. [zitiert 2009 Apr 22] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Available_from:  </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hutzler E . Bibliotheken gestalten Zukunft : Kooperative Wege zur digitalen Bibliothek. Dr. Friedrich Geißelmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Universitätsverlag Göttingen; 2008.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kreische J . Die Messung von Vernetzung. Nutzungsstatistiken mit SFX [Internet]. Münster: 2006. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Available from:  7. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kreische J . Zwischen Ranking und Qualitätsmanagement: BIX WB [Internet]. Mannheim: 2008. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Available from: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poll R, te Boekhorst P , Measuring quality, Saur, München, 2007.   </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lossau N . digital services in academic libraries. In: Digital Convergence - Libraries of the Future: Libraries of the Future‎. Springer; 2008.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shepherd P . The feasibility of developing and implementing journal usage factors: a research project sponsored by UKSG. Serials. 2007;20(2):117-123. </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Special Thanks for critical & constructive discussions to: <ul><ul><li>Joachim KREISCHE, ULB Düsseldorf </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simone FÜHLES-UBACH, FH Köln </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eric MULDER, Den Haag </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marion MÜLLER , ULB Düsseldorf </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jessica BUSCHMANN, Dortmund </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nol VERHAGEN, UvA, Amsterdam </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sylvia THIELE , UB Dortmund </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Britta RIEBSCHLÄGER , ULB Düsseldorf </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peter KOSTÄDT, UB Köln </li></ul></ul>
    43. 43. About me – Key Fields of Interests Libraries Early 1970s – Founding highschool library Early 1980s - Converting Card Catalog to electronic (Mainframe & punchcards) Late 1980s creating bibliographic database for 5.000+ article reprints (Mac) Since 1990 consulting scholarly libraries on retrieval systems, End user friendyness Hospital Libraries Life Sciences & Statistics Ph.D. thesis on pattern recognition in brain Several peer-reviewed publicatios Presentations <ul><li>Publishing & Software </li></ul><ul><li>Editing & Managing highschool journal for 5 years </li></ul><ul><li>Heading Cycling Campaign Newsletter for 3 years </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Finder – Biomedical Search Engine </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution & Localization for Europe </li></ul><ul><li>12 years e- Ressources </li></ul><ul><li>Elsevier / Kluver / Ex Libris </li></ul><ul><li>Science Direct,, Ovid, SFX, MetaLib </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Management </li></ul><ul><li>1990s Scientific Knowledge Management Software </li></ul><ul><li>Development & Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Late 1990s e-library transformation </li></ul><ul><li>consulting, Projects, trainings </li></ul><ul><li>Mid 2000s Library e-services </li></ul><ul><li>Development of Cooperative strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Market Analysis & Business Planning </li></ul>Information Technology in the Sciences Late 1970s first own programming on handheld computers, then Mainframes, then Apple II, then Mac Late 1980s German Academic Software Price for co-developping a relational bibliographicpProgram - PARiS 1990s Fuzzy logic, natural language & relevance ranked output retrieval Late 1990s – Online e-Journal and integrated search platforms Mid 2000s – OpenURL, Context sensitive linking, Metasearch, ERM, Recommenders, Library 2.0
    44. 44. LibMeter Seminar <ul><li>This LibMeter Introduction Seminar </li></ul><ul><li>is a continuation from the following </li></ul><ul><li>Slideshare Presentation: </li></ul><ul><li>Current Practice – Basics </li></ul><ul><li>It also relates to: </li></ul><ul><li>LibMeter Case Study #1 </li></ul><ul><li>(University of Düsseldorf) </li></ul>x
    45. 45. LibMeter Seminar <ul><li>Personal Announcement: </li></ul><ul><li>It is intended to continue this series slowly </li></ul><ul><li>with further modules amongst others on: </li></ul><ul><li>Detecting, following and predicting Usage-Trends </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring Impact of e-Service Marketing Events </li></ul><ul><li>International Library Comparisons </li></ul><ul><li>Comparing Academic & Library Excellence </li></ul>x
    46. 46. LibMeter Seminar <ul><li>The End ! </li></ul><ul><li>Thank You </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Ahrens </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>x