Library Analytics - Community Survey Results (Nov 2012)

2,717 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,717
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,670
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Library Analytics - Community Survey Results (Nov 2012)

  1. 1. Library Analytics Survey How important will analytics be to academic libraries now and in thefuture, and what is the potential for a service in this area?
  2. 2. Dear Colleagues,We are currently undertaking a preliminary survey tounderstand potential demand for data analytics serviceswhich can enhance business intelligence at the institutionallevel, and so support strategic decision-making.We envision a shared service that centrally ingests andprocesses raw usage data from different systems, andprovides analytics tools and data visualisations back to localinstitutions…
  3. 3. 66 institutions responded• University of Sussex • University of Bradford• University of York • Sheffield Hallam• London School of Economics • Bangor University• University of Oxford • Swansea University• Heriot Watt University • University of Leeds• University of Bradford • University of Buckingham• University of St Andrews Library • University of the West of Scotland• University of Hull • De Montfort University• University of Bedfordshire • Newcastle University Library• University of Warwick • Aston University• Queen Mary, University of London • University of Westminster• Cardiff Metropolitan University • Royal Holloway University of London• University of East London • Birmingham City University• Edge Hill university • University of West London• Glasgow Caledonian University • National Library of Scotland• University of Aberdeen • Leeds Metropolitan University• Aberystwyth University • Birmingham City University• London Metropolitan University • Cardiff University• University of Sussex • University of Birmingham• University of Central Lancashire • University of Kent• Glasgow School of Art • Brunel• CranfieldUniversity • University of Glasgow Library
  4. 4. Please indicate which of thefollowing services would be potentially useful:
  5. 5. 1. Automated provision of analytics demonstrating therelationship between student attainment and resource/libraryusage within your institution Yes (96%) No (4%)
  6. 6. Automated provision of analytics demonstrating the relationshipbetween student attainment and resource/library usage benchmarkedagainst other UK institutions . Yes (94.6%) No (3.6%) Other (1.8%)
  7. 7. Automated provision of analytics demonstrating e-resource andcollections (i.e. monograph) usage according to demographics (e.g.discipline, age, year, nationality, grade). Yes (87.7%) No (10.5%) Other (1.8%)
  8. 8. The ability to benchmark and compare against other institutions Yes (96.5%) No (3.5%)
  9. 9. Key strategic drivers• Supporting research excellence• Enhancing the student experience• Collection management• Creating business efficiencies• Demonstrating value for money• None of the above
  10. 10. Other drivers….“Building a business case for additional resources”“Support development of University corporate strategies”“Get student buy-in for using our resources”“Marketing”“Support bids for additional internal funding”“Support the case for better resourcing of the library”
  11. 11. In principle, would your institution be willing to contribute data that could be linked to anonymisedindividuals in the following areas?:
  12. 12. (or, how willing do you think your institution is to share its data?)
  13. 13. Circulation data Yes (96.4%) No (3.6%)
  14. 14. UCAS data Yes (80%) No (20%)
  15. 15. Library entrance data Yes (89%) No (11%)
  16. 16. Student Data Yes (79%) No (21%)
  17. 17. Other data Yes (79%) No (21%)
  18. 18. ‘Other’ responses• Can only respond on behalf of the library• I cannot make this decision on behalf of the institution• “not in my power” “not within my gift”• “There will be other streams of data collected but under-utilised”• Anonymised shibboleth data?• Would need considerable assurances about security of the data
  19. 19. In principle, would your institution be willing to allow its data to beused as a benchmark for other institutions if anonymised and madeavailable by a category such as JISC band? Yes (91%) No (0%) Other (9%)
  20. 20. ‘Other’ responses• “Cannot comment on other categories of data listed as a University level decision would be required”• “Library information, yes. UCAS & Student data, probably not”
  21. 21. In principle, would your institution be willing to allow its data to beused as a benchmark for other institutions with users being able tosee your institutions name? Yes (47%) No (20%) Other (32%)
  22. 22. ‘Other’ responses“I think that has to be a maybe”“Cannot comment without taking advice”“not sure”“this would have to be discussed in detail with other departments at the University”“We already contribute to SCONUL so may be prepared to do something similar”
  23. 23. What would prevent you from sharing this data?
  24. 24. Concerns over data privacy Yes (91%) No (7%) Other (2%)
  25. 25. Concerns over divulging business intelligence Yes (85%) No (15%)
  26. 26. Reservations over the quality of your data Yes 55%) No (41%) Other (4%)
  27. 27. Technical barriers (e.g. resource for extracting data, lack of theskills required to benefit from this activity) Yes (76%) No (24%)
  28. 28. Institutional focus is on other goals/projects Yes (41%) No (57%) Other
  29. 29. Who at your institution would be the key decision-maker in thisarea? Results504540353025201510 5 0 Library Director IT Director eLearning Director of a Other Director converged service
  30. 30. Significant number of ‘other’ responses• “Academic • Head of Collections registrar, Director of Finance • Head of strategic and Planning” planning, D of Finance• Deputy Director who lead • Head of Student admin team Administration• Deputy Librarian • IT Directors• Deputy VC • Library Exec team• Director of Curriculum • PCV for learning and design and teaching teaching enhancement • PVC level• Director of the office of • University Planning Office institutional effectiveness • The Registrar
  31. 31. A current strategic priority? Results4540353025201510 5 0 Top priority Important but A nice to have Not important I dont know not essential
  32. 32. The next five years? Results4540353025201510 5 0 Top priority Important but A nice to have Not important I dont know not essential
  33. 33. Strong appetite (demand?)Significant appetite for analytics services among this sampleStudent experience is the dominant driver for these services, along with demonstrating value
  34. 34. Strong willingness to shareSignificant willingness to share a broad range of data (but preference to be identified by JISC band as opposed to named institution)More hesitation over sharing UCAS and student data than other forms of transactional data
  35. 35. Decision-making will involve campussenior managementLibrary Directors and IT Directors seen as key decision-makersVCs, registrars, and PVCs also referencedDecision-making at the individual institution level is complex and variable
  36. 36. What would stop you from sharing?Dominant barriers include concerns over data privacy and sharing business intelligenceA more mixed response: concerns over data quality, lack of technical expertise, and institution is focused on other agenda
  37. 37. A strategic priority?For most libraries, these services are at present important but not essentialBut they view this as changing into the next five years to a top priority

×