Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Measuring & evaluating return on investment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Measuring & evaluating return on investment

821
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
821
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Measuring & evaluating return oninvestmentRoxanne MissinghamUniversity Librarian
  • 2. • Libraries support research and education which in themselves are difficult to assign precise economic value.• (Broadbent and Lofgren 1991 p 96) 2
  • 3. Value• “The contingent valuation technique has been used for twenty years or so to estimate passive use values.”• (NOAA Panel 1993) 3
  • 4. Return on investment and contingentvaluation• Willingness-to-pay (WTP) in order to secure the provision of a public good• Willing to accept for loss of quality of life - willingness-to-accept (WTA) 4
  • 5. • Many studies including…• British Library: The total value each year of the British Library is £363m - £59m comes directly from users of the services and £304m comes from wider society• Public libraries in South Carolina – Direct economic impact of all public library expenditures = $80 million – Public libraries bring almost $5 million (from federal and private sources) that the state would not otherwise have 5
  • 6. • Florida Public Libraries – The total direct economic impact of Florida’s public libraries on the state economy is $6 billion a year• St. Louis Public Library study – Baltimore County Public Library returned $3-$6 in benefit per tax dollar. Birmingham Public Library returned $1.30-$2.70, King County Library System returned $5-$10 and Phoenix Public Library returned over $10. St. Louis Public Library returned $2.50-$5 in benefits per tax dollar.• Public library studies – NSW and Victoria 6
  • 7. Our major investments: collections• Focused study on value of collections to researchers at Group of 8 Universities• Costs of collection building – purchase, processing, storage and retrieval• $4.26 per volume per year CLIR report 1• 80% of the circulation is driven by just 6% of the collection 2 7
  • 8. Web survey•administered at The Australian National University The University of Adelaide The University of QueenslandValidation•outcomes confirmed through focus groups at Monash University The University of Melbourne The University of New South Wales The University of Sydney 8
  • 9. Jo u rn al a rt i cle s( ac ad e m ic, sc ho lar Ab ly, st te ra ch cts n ica , in l, . 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 de .. xe s an d What is used? bib Bo Co lio ok nf gr s er ap en hi Ph Go ce es ys ve pr ic a rn oc la m ee ud en di io tp ng -v ub s isu lic al Te at m ch io ns ed ni ia ca St (C lp an Ds ap da ,D er rd VD s sa s, nd et sp c.) ec ific at ion s Ot he r Pa te n ts B1: Use of print or physical information resources Never Frequently Sometimes9
  • 10. Jo urn Da al a t a rt ic ba l se es ( s ( ac e. a g. de ab mi str c, s ac ch Da ts ta , in olar se de ly, ts xe t. .. (e 1,000 1,200 0 200 400 600 800 .g Co sa . n nf nd um er b. er enc .. ic e Go dat pro Boo ve a, ce k rn su ed s m rve ing en t p ys, e s St Te ubli t c. ) an ch ca da Aud nica tion rd io l s s a -vi pa nd su pe sp al m rs ec e ific dia at ion s Pa te nt s Ot he r B2: Use of electronic information resources Never Frequently Sometimes10
  • 11. C1: Time devoted to use of information resources 500 450 400 350 300 a.PrintAxisTitle 250 200 b.Electronic 150 100 50 0 Less 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-40 Over 40 than1 hours hours hours hours hours hours hour 11
  • 12. Personal collections 12
  • 13. 13
  • 14. Relevance: quality not quantity 14
  • 15. Jo u rn al a rt icl es Ab (a ca st de ra ct mic s, in , sch O de o ve xe lar ra s, ly ll an , te ra d ng e bi chn bl ic of io a . in 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 gr . Da fo ap ta rm hi se Co a es ts nf t io (e G er n r B .g ov en e oo . n e c so k um rn e p ur s er me roc ces ic nt ee da pu d t a bl ing , s ic s u a St Te rve tion an c y s da Au hni s, et rd dio ca l c. ) s a -v pa nd isu pe sp al m rs ec Ease of access ifi edi ca a t io ns Pa te nt s O th er my needs adequately meet my needs Not applicable Meets my needs Sometimes fails to Often fails to meet Meets my needs well15
  • 16. Different funding scenarios forinformation resources 16
  • 17. 17
  • 18. 18
  • 19. 19
  • 20. 20
  • 21. Disciplines 21
  • 22. Findings 22
  • 23. 23
  • 24. Where to next? 24
  • 25. 25
  • 26. UK Scholarly Reading and the Value ofLibrary Resources 2011 (Tenopir)• The library is more often the provider of scholarly articles as the number of personal journal subscriptions declines. More than half the respondents do not have a personal subscription.• Over half of article readings are from articles that are at least 18 months old, and 17% of readings are from articles that are ten years old or older.• The library’s subscriptions are the primary source of article readings, 94% of which are obtained from the library’s e-journal collections.• If the library were unavailable, value to academic work would be lost as 17% of the information obtained from the library would not be obtained from another source. 26
  • 27. • The library is not the main source of book readings; instead, academics are more likely to purchase books or receive them from a publisher.• Of the 448 hours per year spent on scholarly reading, the average academic staff member spends 187 hours reading library-provided material, confirming the value of the library’s collections. 27
  • 28. Responding to these changing needs• Value for money for resources• Engagement with users• Realignment 28