The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm ROI in German Return on investment (ROI) in libraries German librariesThe Berlin School of Library and Information Science and the University Library at the 141 Humboldt University, Berlin – a case study Received May 2010 Revised June 2010 Kathrin Grzeschik Accepted June 2010 ¨ Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin/Berlin School for Library and Information Science, Berlin, GermanyAbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to verify the proposition by the University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), that their return on investment (ROI) formula developed for academiclibraries and based on hard facts is broad enough to be used throughout the world for ROI studies inacademic institutions/libraries. It further aims to verify that UIUC’s methodology is adaptable enoughto work in other academic environments as well.Design/methodology/approach – The methodology developed by UIUC (an ROI formuladeveloped for academic libraries based on grant proposal applications and citations) has been“copied” and thereby adapted to enable it to be used in an academic environment in Europe/Germany.Findings – The methodology developed by UIUC was adaptable enough to be used in a Germanacademic environment for calculating the ROI of a University library. However, the methodology wassometimes complicated and therefore simpliﬁed for this and possible further studies. Likewise, the ROIformula was very complex and this study found that it was possible to simplify it as well for furtheruse.Research limitations/implications – There was difﬁculty in gathering all the informationnecessary for conducting such a study in Germany as grant proposals contain sensitive data thatpeople are unwilling to display. Further, it was noticeable that German statistics on funding wereunable to provide the necessary data without further enquiries, despite the German law that publicinstitutions are obliged to disclose funding information.Originality/value – Previously no one else has tried to verify the methodology for an ROI studydeveloped by UIUC. This study gives evidence that UIUC was right in claiming that their ROI formuladeveloped for academic institutions/libraries may be used for any academic library in the world.Further, this study shows how the formula and the methodology may be adapted to ﬁt individualacademic environments.Keywords Return on investment, Libraries, GermanyPaper type Case studyIntroductionThe following paper describes the experiment to implement the return on investment(ROI) concept developed by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) (see The Bottom Line: Managing LibraryKaufman, 2008a or Luther, 2008) for the ﬁeld of LIS (Library and Information Science) Finances Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010 ¨at the University Library of the Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin (HU) and the Berlin pp. 141-201School of Library and Information Science (IBI) (www.ibi.hu-berlin.de/). It investigates q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0888-045Xthe principal ideas and methodology developed by UIUC and applies those in a German DOI 10.1108/08880451011104009
BL academic environment. One of the features Illinois claimed for their study, was the23,4 chance for other institutions to use and copy the main steps. Quantitative and qualitative measurements have been used in public, corporate and academic libraries before, but this paper focuses on ROI as a quantitative method to evaluate a library’s monetary value. The research question is: “Can the methodology developed by UIUC be applied to German universities?” It is not the aim of this study to142 come up with a true ROI ﬁgure for the IBI and the HU, but the testing and evaluation of the UIUC method; nevertheless, all calculations aim to achieve as true of a possible ﬁgure as can be determined. The institutions that are part of this study are both well established in higher education in Germany, The IBI is one of the two European members of the iCaucus. Since the middle of the past decade, more and more grant proposals have been issued by the IBI, which makes a study based on the ROI study of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign feasible, as the core of the ROI study by UIUC are grant proposals. The university library at the Humboldt University, Berlin (UB) was founded in 1831, and currently has an inventory of 6.5 million media. It sprawls over several section libraries, but the collection for LIS is situated at the main library in the newly-built Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm Zentrum in Berlin-Mitte. Literature review The “gain from investment” is not easily determined by libraries. The literature review will demonstrate the lack and need of a continued investigation in ROI in academic libraries in Germany, as well as the speciality of the concept developed by UIUC. ROI is a ﬁnancial metric performance measure to calculate what a certain investment is worth. Very simply put, ROI is how much one gets back for what one has put into something. “To calculate ROI, the beneﬁt (return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment; the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio”. A positive percentage or ratio indicates that more beneﬁt than cost has been generated; a negative percentage or ratio indicates less beneﬁt was generated. In order to calculate ROI, one needs to be able to quantify how much money was invested into something and compare it with the loss or gain that is a result of handling the initial investment. ROI is a well-used performance measure in ﬁelds such as human resources, marketing, engineering, business studies, and training. A problem libraries have to deal with is ` that they are not capitalistic corporations, but exist to support their speciﬁc clientele with information and technology. This is true for any library: the difﬁcult part for a ROI study in libraries is the assignment of monetary values for library services. Among the uses of ROI in libraries, differences are discernible between the aims addressed in studies: Quantitative measurements for a special library’s ROI include time saved by library users (. . .); the money users save by using the library instead of alternative sources; and revenue generated with the assistance of the library (Strouse, 2003, para. 9). Commonly-used methods to ﬁlter monetary values for non-proﬁt organisations are: . “assessing time costs (replacement value of a client’s time)”; and . “the contingent valuation method” (Poll and Boekhorst, 2007, p. 36).
The ROI study by UIUC focused on revenue generated with the assistance of the ROI in Germanlibrary in question. libraries The ﬁrst method is valuable when average salaries of users are known, as itcalculates time costs with the help of average salaries. These measures may thentranslate into actual dollar savings; nonetheless, the method is not feasible in anacademic surrounding, as most users of academic libraries are students who do notearn a regular salary. 143 The second method, contingent valuation (CV), is a technique that assigns economicvalue to non-market resources with the help of surveys. It has been around a while, butwas quite controversial until it gained a better reputation when scientists discussed themethod at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Panel in 1993.They found it meaningful when a set of rules was followed: [. . .] [B]y means of carefully designed surveys it is possible to elicit, in quantitative terms, how much people value a particular organisation or service (British Library, 2004, p. 4).Other publications followed, for example Mitchell and Carson (1993) claimed toprovide: [. . .] decision makers, policy analysts, and social scientists with a detailed discussion of a [. . .] technique for the valuation of goods not traded in private markets. [. . .] the technique draws upon economic theory and the methods of surveys to elicit directly from consumers the the values they place upon public goods (Mitchell and Carson, 2000, p. xv).These surveys ask participants how much they would be prepared to pay (WTP –willingness to pay), and how much they would be willing to accept for loss of quality oflife (WTA – willingness to accept). Since this panel, the method has been used incost-beneﬁt analysis concerning the environment as Arrow et al. (1993) did, in realestate, and lately libraries have adopted this method as well. As people (users and potential users) receive indirect (and direct) beneﬁts fromlibraries, CV is a valuable method to use in the library environment: Applied in a library/information context the methodology enables consideration to be given to the cost implications of having and of not having a library service. The direct economic contribution of the library to their users is calculated including investment in terms of time and travel (Missingham, 2005, p. 146).Libraries employing CV as a method assign ﬁnancial value to intangible products. Themost famous CV study performed in the area of library and information science is theBritish Library study from 2004. The surveys used in the British Library CV studyasked questions such as “how much beneﬁciaries would be willing to pay for thelibrary’s continued existence” and “how much they would invest in terms of time andmoney to make use of the library” (British Library, 2004, p. 4). After evaluating thesurveys, the research organisations found that “[f]or every £1 of public funding theBritish Library receives annually, £4.40 is generated for the UK economy“ (BritishLibrary, 2004, p. 5). It is difﬁcult, however, to establish objective economic value based on surveys thatask people for estimations. Even the British Library (2004) indicates in its summarythat this method is seen as one of the most appropriate available, but it is still not anexact science. UIUC set their goals to ﬁnd a more tangible ROI method that could besummarised in a formula adaptive enough to be used by other academic libraries and
BL institutions. Apart from that, the UIUC-study is the ﬁrst ROI study based in an23,4 academic setting. The British Library is a national library and their study was not set in such an environment; therefore, it is less adaptable to be used in an academic setting. The interest in ROI and performance measurement in general has generated huge interest in the past decade. Missingham (2005) spoke about a third wave of ROI studies. Demonstrating that libraries are worth their expenditures is not a new topic for144 librarians. Librarians are no longer secure in their assumptions that the impact of a library will be recognised by the communities served, or the authorities that fund them. “As librarians we naturally tend to think our libraries and our services are invaluable.” (The Krafty Librarian, 2008, para. 1). But it is rather the opposite that is believed by academic as well as public communities and their funding bodies. One of the major reasons for the strengthened demand for value is the paradigm shift of media processed and stored in libraries. The shift has been induced by the massive changes in technology development in the past two decades. Libraries have been very adaptive, and included each new technology as it came along, but critics have often voiced to librarians the familiar question: “Why do we need libraries when everything is on the internet now.” It is common knowledge among library staff that technology is altering the way information is created and thereby technology is creating new ways of how information is distributed; nevertheless, this information needs to be prepared and made available the same way printed information has been. What has changed is the perception of the public and of funding bodies, “libraries cannot take for granted, if they ever could, that they have a monopoly over the provision of information” (Payne and Conyers, 2005, p. 1). This shift in thinking as well as economic problems have lead to an accumulation of calls from funding bodies for proofs of value. Aabø (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on what she calls the “subgroup of library valuation that returns a return on investment or a cost-beneﬁt ratio”: Public libraries [. . .] need to prove how the taxpayers’ money is used to beneﬁt both the individual citizens and the local communities. Academic libraries, school libraries, and special libraries in different businesses meet similar types of demands, being asked for performance measurement, cost justiﬁcations, and return on investment from the administration of their university, school, or enterprise. These demands have been strengthening due to increasing economic pressure (Aabø, 2009, p. 312). Aabø emphasised that, owing to the ﬁnancial crisis, the need for library valuation grows stronger. Libraries in the private as well as the public sector have a slightly longer tradition in proving their value with the help of ROI, compared to academic libraries. Although collecting, analysing, and presenting quantitative and qualitative data has been part of a library’s pursuits for a longer period of time, only in the past few years it has shifted from “simple questionnaires to complex surveys, and from simple economic cost/beneﬁt assessments to complex economic algorithms and forecasts” (Imholz and Weil Arns, 2008, p. 5). Only recently have German libraries realised that performance measurement is not only an internal task but an external one: “[. . .] das ¨r Bewusstsein fehlte, wofu Bibliotheken und Bibliothekar/innen eigentlich da waren ¨ ¨ und wie sie die Unterstutzung der Offentlichkeit [. . .], gewinnen und behalten konnen,¨ ¨ [. . .] heute erst hat sich das geandert!” (Busch, 2004, p. 13).
In the 1990s Holt et al. (1996) researched into frameworks for evaluating public ROI in Germaninvestment in public libraries. They emphasised that “economic impact occurs only librarieswhen a business’s or institution’s activities bring outside clients to the region, therebybringing new dollars into the region, or when an institution attracts ﬁscal support fromoutside the region for its activities”. (Holt et al., 1996, p. 3). They strengthened thenotion that libraries are among those institutions that are able to have economicimpact. A 2004 ROI study by the State Library and Archives of Florida showed “that 145when Florida’s state and local governments invest in libraries, it enhances the qualityof life in communities and helps build a stronger state economy” (Grifﬁth, 2004,Overview). Academic libraries supporting academic institutions that bring newdollars, or in this case Euro, into their institutional region, have the chance to havesimilar economic and qualitative impact as described above by Holt et al. and Grifﬁth. Public libraries have been especially creative in ﬁnding solutions to raise awarenessfor ROI regarding their library. Aabø found that “of the 38 studies [evaluated in hermeta-analysis], 32 are of public libraries” (Aabø, 2009, p. 311). Browsing the web pagesof public libraries showed many Anglo-American ones creating their own ROIcalculators. An example is the Library of Michigan ROI calculator that enables taxpayers to calculate their own ROI when using the library. Further discoveries werepublic libraries doing surveys, listing their studies’ results or uploading videos onYouTube. ROI calculators by public libraries help customers to get an insight into their ROI ontax money spent when using a library; academic libraries need to focus on the ROI fortheir funding bodies. Poll and Payne (2006) demonstrated a variety of purposes andmethods used, again mostly by public libraries. They distinguished among othersbetween the “correlation of library use and academic or professional success [. . .]impact on information literacy, the importance of the local library on research [. . .]social impact [. . .] [and] the ﬁnancial value of libraries” (Poll and Payne, 2006, p. 6).Two of their ﬁndings are particularly important for this study: ﬁrst, they emphasisedthat measuring the ﬁnancial value of libraries is the most interesting to fundinginstitutions. Despite the social importance of libraries and their impact on informationliteracy, what counts for funding bodies is the money made. There is evidence for thistheory even in Germany. German universities and their libraries are recognized moreand more for the monetary value they bring their communities. For example, theGerman Exzellenzinitiative considers third-party funds in their benchmark ofparticipating universities; naturally, that makes German universities interested in themonetary surplus or deﬁcit their libraries are producing. Second, Poll and Payne (2006)mentioned two studies that show that the impact of local libraries on research hassuccessfully been measured with the help of citations analysis. Both studies evaluated“what percentage of the material cited was (or could have been) retrieved via the locallibrary” (Poll and Payne, 2006, p. 7). Additionally, they conducted surveys to supporttheir assumptions. The study at UIUC started in a similar way, but went a step furtherand added real economic value to citations by calculating ROI with the help of citationanalysis in grand proposals. There have been studies on performance measurement in Germany as well, but veryfew in the academic sector and even fewer considering ROI as a method. In 2003 asimilar tendency was seen in the Anglo-American academic ﬁeld of LIS:
BL Precious little attention is currently given to development and collection of ROI data. Among the three primary types of special libraries (corporate, academic, government), corporate23,4 libraries are most likely to study their value impact, and academic libraries are least likely (Strouse, 2003, para. 3). Later international outcome-studies such as “Worth Their Weight” conducted by Imholz and Weil Arns (2008) showed that opinions and trends, at least among the146 public library sector in continental America, have changed. This development gives hope for a new trend in Europe. Imholz and Weil Arns presented seventeen US-American studies by public libraries punctuating current approaches and methods used by contemporary scholars and researchers. Nevertheless, two years earlier Blanck (2006) surveying performance measurements in (mainly public) libraries in Germany was correct to claim that “Im deutschen Bibliotheks- und Informationsbereich ﬁndet hierzu bisher so gut wie keine Diskussion statt.” (Blanck, 2006, p.13). One exception in the growing ﬁeld of evaluations of public library ROI studies (see Missingham, 2005; Blanck, 2006; Imholz and Weil Arns, 2008; Aabø, 2009) is Blanck’s predecessor Fett (2004), who collected literature on performance measurement in academic libraries. He devoted a short chapter to the topic of ROI and lists only the Value-Added Library Methodology (V þ LM) by Ruth MacEachern. This methodology is based on CV and results from “eine Ermittlung von Schatten- oder Quasipreisen durch Erhebungen bei den Nutzern“ (Fett, 2004, p. 42); additionally, replacement costs are calculated. As previously mentioned, the problem of CV and V þ LM are the often very subjective monetary values assigned to library services that are then used as hard facts. Designing an ROI measurement based on hard facts and ﬁgures is a sensible task for the German ﬁeld of academic libraries. UIUC’s study provides a new way to calculate ROI for libraries based on hard facts instead of assumptions (see for example the British Library study). UIUC, however, had to gather certain ﬁgures with the help of surveys. These minor approximations are amended in this study due to its smaller scale and the possibility to count and individually evaluate citations. The making of the UIUC return on investment study In 2007, researchers of the Library at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign together with Judy Luther, president of Informed Strategies at Elsevier and Dr Carol Tenopir, Professor at the University of Tennesee at Knoxville, conducted the ROI study that is the basis for this study. The starting point of their study was the common perception that academic libraries are in need of a tool that is easy to use for answering the demands for accountability from funding institutions. The research group aimed at having numbers rather than ﬁgurative values for proving what their university library gives back to their funding institutions, “[. . .] it is important to demonstrate that investment in the library yields a ‘return’ that contributes to the strategic goals of the institution” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 29). Their aim was to ﬁnd a formula that would answer the question “for every dollar invested by the University in the library, the University received x dollars in return” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 30). The ground-breaking approach was that they did not plan to develop a model based on predictions as is the case with the CV method, but they planned to base the formula on real ﬁgures. In order to have real ﬁgures, they were in need to ﬁnd a connection between the library and
strategic concerns of the university that could be expressed in quantiﬁable terms. ROI in GermanTheir goals were to: libraries [. . .] demonstrate that the library and its research collections contribute to [essential] income-generating activities [. . .], quantify the return on the University’s investment in its library, highlight the library’s role in the extra-mural funding process on campus [and to] demonstrate correlation between the library and grant activities, rather than attempt to prove cause and effect (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 30). 147Roger Strouse’s (2003) approach for a ROI-study in corporate libraries was theapproach chosen by UIUC for the development of a generic model that is not predictiveand works in the academic environment. Strouse developed a formula that determinesvalue based on “revenue generated with the assistance of the library [. . .] [and] theimportance of information provided by the library that the user would not have foundor had access to without the library’s intermediation” (Strouse, 2003, para. 8). His formula (adapted by Judith Luther (Kaufman, 2008a, Slide 7)) was to multiplythe percentage of respondents generating revenue with library’s support by thepercentage of instances when the library was used and thereby revenue generated.This was multiplied by the median revenue generated in US dollars. This would leavea certain amount of US dollars generated per library use (Kaufman, 2008b, p. 430). ThisCorporate Library Model by Roger Strouse (adapted by Judith Luther) is shown below: xx% of respondents report generating revenue w= library’s support £ xx% of instances when library was used £ $xx median revenue generated ¼ $xx average revenue generated per library useThe research team in Illinois decided that grant proposals are revenue generatingincomes in an academic setting that are created with the help of library resources. Inorder to conﬁrm that assumption, Illinois distributed an online survey among 2,000members of their faculty. The survey elicited how users perceived the library and itsresources when constructing grant proposals. “Almost 75% of respondents stated thatmore than three-quarters of the citations they included in their grant applications wereaccessed through the library” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 31). After evaluating the surveyresults, calculating the ROI for Illinois’ university library based on the use of citationsin successful grant proposals was conﬁrmed as a reasonable method. Calculating the ROI with the total library budget, the researchers determined a ROIof $4.38 for every dollar invested in the library, for the ﬁscal year 2006 (Kaufman,2008a). This result is based on surveys, i.e. evaluating “percentages of staff usingcitations in their grant proposals” and budgets provided i.e. “the actual size of grantsawarded ” by the ﬁnance department (see Table I). The ROI was calculated by dividing the proportion of grant income in US dollarusing library materials by the total library budget (see Table I, E). The researchers atUIUC decided to use the total library budget instead of for example the materialsbudget or a subset of the budget (i.e. electronic resources), because staff and supportcosts are also part of acquiring materials that are used for citations. Nevertheless, toshow the difference, they calculated the ROI with the materials budget of UIUC libraryand it resulted in a ROI of approximately $12. It is important to note that:
BL No. tenure system faculty 2,04523,4 No. principal investigators 1,700 *Survey Q11-94% faculty use citations in grant proposals A ¼ % faculty using citations in grant 78.14 (1,700 £ 94%)/2,045 proposals * No. grant proposals 2,897 * *Survey Q12-94% proposals include148 citations that are obtained via campus network/Library Gateway No. grant awards 1,456 * *Survey Q10-95% faculty state citations important or essential in grant awards B ¼ % proposals inc. citations obtained 50.79 (1,456 £ 95%)/(2,897) £ 94%) through library $ Average size grant 63,293 C ¼ $ proportion of grant $ secured using 25,369 (78.14% £ 50.79% £ $63,923) library materials No. grants (expended) in year 6,232 D ¼ $ proportion of grant income using $158,099,608 ($25; 369 £ 6; 232) library materials $ Total library budget $36,102,613 E ¼ University return in grant $ on $4.38 ($158,099,608/$36,102,613) libraryTable I.UIUC ROI calculations Source: Kaufman (2008a) [. . .] [f]aculty survey results factor into the equation in three separate places. In this way, the model does not assume that all grant proposals use references, it does not assume that that all references come from the library, and it does not assume that citations are deemed critical to all grant proposals (Kaufman, 2008b, p. 433). The differing amounts of citations per grant proposals in this study show, that UIUC was right in assuming the above, but the model designed by UIUC is a feasible version of including revenue generating actions supported by the library (citations in grant proposals (see Appendix 1)) into a ROI calculation for academic libraries. Designing an ROI study for the Berlin School of Library and Information Science When initially planning to adopt the University of Illinois ROI study for a German setting, a study larger in scale and more similar to the Illinois ROI study was intended. ¨ It was planned to conduct the study for the Niedersachsische Staats- und ¨ ¨ Universitatsbibliothek Gottingen and its partner the Georg-August-Universitat ¨ ¨ Gottingen. These institutions were possible candidates for a German ROI study, because they represent a major research university and library. They are major players in receiving grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as well as ¨ the Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). What the author did not consider was the sensitive nature of data grant proposals contain; collecting the necessary data was an impossible hurdle. In addition, the data that were available in the end for running a ROI study comparable to the one developed by UIUC have incompatible categories that cannot readily be disentangled in the time available. The problems and their possible consequences will be noted in the sections below.
To narrow down the scope and receive usable material, the author chose to examine ROI in Germanthe Berlin School of Library and Information Science (IBI) and the Library and librariesInformation Science section at the university library. The Berlin School for Library andInformation Science is the only LIS-research-orientated academic institution inGermany that actively participates in current state-of-the-art research. In past years,the IBI has actively participated in grant proposals applied for in cooperation withother major research universities, as well as applying on its own. Researching the 149activities of other LIS-orientated academic institutions with the help of the DFG searchengine GEPRIS showed no results. Neither of the major Universities of AppliedScience had any projects listed in the ﬁeld of LIS that were funded by the DFG inthe past ﬁve years. By choosing a smaller institution than the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaignand its library for this study, the author had to adjust the longitudinal scope. In orderto have a substantial enough amount of grant proposals, it was extended to threeconsecutive years (2006-2009). In total, 13 grant proposals applied for by the IBI and partners have been awardedwith grants in those three years. The total budget of these conglomerates wase3,190,502.72 (see Appendix 2 Grants Calculations). This budget is a compositenumber compiled with the help of budgets forecast in the grant proposals. Anapproximate number had to be established because ofﬁcial budget listings forthird-party funds vary a lot, and unfortunately the listings by the HU are notsufﬁcient for this study. The above ﬁgure has been composed of average wage costs(salary and fringe beneﬁts) as well as travel costs, print and publishing costs, plusmiscellaneous costs listed in the grant proposals. The average salary and fringe beneﬁt costs were calculated on the basis of apersona being just under 30 years of age and being paid on BAT IIa level 1.BAT IIa is a standard level for a scholarly member of staff working on a researchproject at the HU. The age plays an important part, as BAT scales income based onmaturity. For example, a 26-year-old person would earn a gross income of e2,293.30 permonth plus residence allowance and further allowances based on marital status andchildren. A person having the same conditions but being 30 years of age would earn agross income of e2,523.37 per month plus allowances simply because of being fouryears older. The basic idea was that people being older have had more experience andare therefore better qualiﬁed. This way of calculating easy changed from April 2010 ¨ ¨with a new collective wge agreement called TV-L (Tarﬁvertrag fur den offentlichen ¨Dienst der Lander), but the average salary and fringe beneﬁts will not changesigniﬁcantly because of those changes. The salary and fringe beneﬁts are not the amount such research project employeesreceive in their paychecks, but the amount of money the institution actually spends onthem. In Germany, institutions support their employees by paying proportions forcertain beneﬁts such as health insurance, pension, unemployment insurance, andsometimes accident en route. These proportions are paid directly to the respectiveorganisation responsible for the beneﬁt or the state. For the above-described persona(just under 30 years of age, level 1 BAT IIa) it amounts to e3,492 per month. Thisamount correlates with expenditures for one person-month. Person-month is a measureof work effort, for example if a project will take three months to ﬁnish with three people
BL working full time on it, the project requires 3*3 ¼ 9 person-month effort. That would23,4 imply e31,428 in salary and fringe beneﬁts costs at the HU for such a project. As mentioned above, UIUC conducted a survey. They found out that 94 percent of proposals include citations that are obtained via a campus network or library gateway. This survey, however, is the weakest part of the UIUC ROI study. A response rate of 16 percent is not seen as low, but a higher response rate would have been better, because150 UIUC based their percentage of proposals including citations obtained through the library on the survey results. Certain factors determine the statistical conﬁdence of surveys, these factors are for example the size of the population or the degree of variance in responses from the population. All the same, Bennekom (2002) states there is no average response rate, and UIUC had Dr Bruce Kingma of Syracuse University consulting their research methodology. Due to the smaller scale of this study, a survey was not deemed necessary. It was possible to evaluate the citations individually to retrieve a more accurate proportion of grants in Euro secured by using library materials; the number was acquired by calculating the (%) proportion of citations obtainable through the library. The starting-point was to ﬁnd and investigate each citation in the successful grant proposal. All references made to a published or unpublished source, including websites, were identiﬁed as citations and either found as footnote, link in the full-text, or traditionally in the bibliography. References in German grant proposals are usually added in the section “Ausgangslage/Eigene Vorarbeit”, but the variety of proposals for the differing funding bodies showed that simply searching through this section was not enough; each proposal was searched from top to bottom. For the established references the focus was the availability either through the Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) or the digital library accessible via Virtual Private Network (VPN). The OPAC of the UB is connected with the Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV). Loan sharing is one of the features KOBV (n.d.) facilitates among its participants, and any citations available via loan sharing were therefore counted as belonging to the UB. In the 13 grant proposals, 474 individual citations are discernible. Individual means that some proposals cited the same source twice, for example as a proper citation in the references list and as a link in the full-text; in this case, the citation was counted as one only. For 190 citations, its source could be traced back via the materials provided by the UB. This means either the source being a physical or electronic item at the UB, or the source being obtainable via loan sharing and thereby listed in the OPAC. 284 citations were purely internet-related sources; quite a few of those were websites created by other projects led by HU members and/or institutions. The number of citations per proposal varied a lot as well. Some projects had a very low number of citations, others comparatively very high numbers (see Appendix 3 Citations). The project LuKII (LOCKSS-und-KOPAL-Infrastruktur-und-Interoperabilitat) ¨ with the lowest amount of citations cites only seven sources, whereas the project Distributed Open Access Reference Citation Services (DOARC) cites 103. Grand proposals applied for at the DFG are supposed to cite or add literature references, but “Der Antrag sollte nicht mehr als 20 Seiten umfassen und aus sich heraus, auch ohne ¨re Lektu der zitierten oder beigefu ¨gten Literatur, verstandlich sein”. Therefore the ¨ amount of citations seem to be individually determinable. Owing to the survey results gathered by UIUC, citations in grant proposals were assessed as valuable
measurement for revenue generated by the respective library. This assumption is ROI in Germanbased on perceptions by the tenure system faculty. The question is if this is true for librariesGerman grant proposals as well. The vastly differing amount of citations persuccessful grant proposal for the IBI suggests that citations might not carry such animportance for success or failure in Germany. Comparing the two studies in this matteris impossible, however, as UIUC did not count the individual citations and no surveywas conducted for this study. Hence for this study, UIUC’s assumption of value for 151citations in grant proposals is taken as fact. Some of the internet-based sources cited in the grant proposals link to projects bythe HU, those that are very closely linked to the IBI and which sources are found via theUB catalogue have been counted as belonging to the UB (i.e. DINI – Deutsche Initiative ¨fur Netzwerkinformation e.V). Those that are linked to the HU by being a projectbut whose sources are not (yet) obtainable via the library are counted as internet-basedsources. Some grant proposals cite internet-based sources more often than once; for example ¨IUWIS lists press releases by “Borsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels” in itsreferences list as well as in its footnotes. Sources listed twice were counted once only,but sources linking to differing locations on one website were counted twice. Thepercentage of citations obtainable via the university library were calculated accordingto above descriptions. This adds up to 40.08 percent citations that are obtainablethrough the UB (see Table II). As brieﬂy mentioned above, calculating the percentage of citations obtainable via thelibrary by counting and evaluating the citations single-handedly is a different way ofutilising the results as UIUC purported. With the help of data gathered with the surveyamong tenure system faculty, UIUC determined what percentage of faculty is usingcitations in grant proposals. Afterwards, they established the percentage of proposalsincluding citations obtained through the library, by multiplying the grants awarded withthe percentage of faculty stating that citations are important or essential in their grantsawards. This ﬁgure was then divided through the grant proposals made multiplied withthe percentage of proposals, including citations that are obtained via the library (seeTable I, UIUC ROI calculations). As said before, by counting and evaluating the citationsindividually, the established ﬁgures are more accurate and allow a more precisecalculation of the ROI. One has to keep in mind, however, that UIUC would have toevaluate the citations of 1,456 successful grant proposals for 2006 alone. Given thedifferences in scope, other institutions working with the UIUC method need to analyse ifcounting and evaluating costs more or less time and effort than executing a major survey.The grant proposals evaluatedBetween 2006 and 2009, 13 grant proposals applied for by the IBI were successful andhad grants awarded by either DFG, BMBF, or the European Union (EuropeanTotal amount of citations 474 Table II.Amount of citations obtained through UB 190 Citations obtainedProportion of citations obtained through UB in all through UB (library) inproposals (%) 40.08 (190/4.74) proposals (%)
BL Commision/i2010). (for more details, see the paragraphs on each grant proposal23,4 below or Appendix 3 Citations). When looking at this appendix the comment “not applicable” might catch someone’s eye, or the fact that there are more running numbers listed than citations in the total count. Not all footnotes were counted as citations. If the text provided in the footnote was additional information regarding the proposal but not a link or reference, the information was not counted as citation.152 As said before, the third-party funds statistics available at the HU website are not sufﬁcient for the purpose of this study; the HU statistics do not segment third-party funds into individual years per institute for more than the last accounting year (currently 2008). The funds expended are split between the institutions receiving grants, but the previous years are summarised as third-party funds expenditures for the entire HU. This fashion of listing funds forced individual calculations for each proposal to be made. The budget calculations themselves proved to be challenging. For example, the travel budget intended for DOARC was split up between the three participating institutions. This information posed the question of how detailed the calculations were going to be. If only the travel costs allotted to the HU were calculated, the costs for travel, publishing, and miscellaneous costs would minimize to e13,932.72 instead of e23,132.72 in total. Initially this way seemed to be the right way to go, as this study is concentrating on the IBI and the UB. Further considerations, however, indicated splitting up travel costs like that would imply splitting up the other costs as well. This in turn would demand a level of interrogation of applicant bodies that is not possible. In addition, it is not traceable which partner added which citation to the grant proposal. If the costs would be split up between the participating institutions, the citations would have to be split up too. This approach is too highly structured and not feasible simply because of applicants not remembering their citations. Under US practice, it is quite possible that grant money for one institution is also used to fund travel for people at other universities. Trying to tease out the amounts for other partners is not necessarily improving the comparability of data. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that this is a ROI study for the IBI and not for the other institutions, as the ROI is calculated on the basis of citations obtainable via the UB and the materials budget for the UB. The budgets of grant proposals applied for on a European level posed another problem. Total budgets for European projects amount to millions; for example, EuropeanaConnect has a budget of e4,798,149 (without own contribution) of which the HU receives only e191,986 (without own contribution). If this study were to use the total budgets allocated for European projects, as done for the DFG or BMBF funded projects, the ﬁnal ROI ﬁgure would be distorted immensely and thus lead to serious misrepresentations. Additionally, the amount of e191,986 allocated to the IBI for EuropeanaConnect as well as the budgets of the other two European-based projects, correspond with the budgets calculated for the non-European projects. Although this study does not aim at calculating a precise ROI number for the IBI and UB, but at reconstructing the UIUC study in a German academic setting, the ﬁgures should be as close as possible to reality and provide an approximate result in the end. Hence, for all European-based grant proposals only the budgets (without own contribution) allocated to the IBI were used for calculating the total budget.
IUWIS ROI in German ¨Infrastruktur Urheberrecht fur Wissenschaft und Bildung (IUWIS) is a two-yearproject applied for by Professor Michael Seadle from the IBI and Professor Rainer libraries ¨Kuhlen from the University in Constance (Universitat Konstanz). It is based at theIBI and funded by DFG. IUWIS has calculated to need 60 person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent,creating a salary and fringe beneﬁt budget of e209,520. Additionally e46,464 are 153needed for four student assistants each working 40/h per month for both years. Costsfor printing, travel, as well as miscellaneous costs are summed up to e55,515; totallingthe grants awarded for IUWIS to e311,500. The proposal has 28 citations for sources found at the UB and 36 purelyinternet-based ones, summing up to 64 citations in total. Some citations appear twice,once in the footnotes and once in the references; depending on their source they are ¨ ¨counted once or twice. For example, the Gottinger Erklarung is listed as aninternet-based source, as well as a source obtainable through the library because the ¨references in the grant proposal point to differing sources established by the Gottinger ¨Erklarung.LuKII ¨LOCKSS-und-KOPAL-Infrastruktur-und-Interoperabilitat (LuKII) is one of the newestprojects currently pursued by the IBI. Its topic is the ongoing problem of long-termdigital archiving. Applicants are Professor Michael Seadle (IBI), Professor PeterSchirmbacher (IBI/CMS) and Dr Elisabeth Niggemann (DNB). LuKII was planned to run for two years and calculated to need 57 person-month onBAT IIa level or equivalent as well as one student assistant working 80/h month forboth years. The average salary and fringe beneﬁts can be estimated at e222,276.Additional costs such as scholarly equipment, travel expenses, and publishing costsare calculated at e58,450; totalling the probable budget to e280,726. Altogether, LuKII has only seven citations in total. Four citations are for sourcesobtainable through the UB and three are internet-based sources. This is speculative,but maybe because the websites for LOCKSS and kopal provide excellentinformation on each project and further references are not needed. In addition, LuKIIoperates on a new level of digital archiving and relevant sources may not be availableyet.EuropeanaConnectEuropeanaConnect is a project funded by the European Union working in closecontext with the major European library project Europeana. The applicant at theIBI is Professor Stefan Gradmann; he is one of 31 pan-European applicants. EuropeanaConnect asks for a total budget of e4,798,149 as contribution from theEuropean Commission. Of this large amount a mere e191,986 (4%) accrue to the IBI. Itis important to note that European projects are always funded only partly by theEuropean Commission, as much as up to half of the funding may come from within theparticipating institutions. In the case of EuropeanaConnect only 25 percent (e1,199,538)have to be contributed by the participating institutions. To incorporate thesedifferences for this study is unnecessary for the ﬁnal ROI calculations; for eachEuropean-funded project the grants awarded without own contribution are used.
BL EuropeanaConnect has 26 citations; only one is from a source obtainable by the UB.23,4 All other citations are links to European websites. This grant proposal differs from most of the others as it did not contain a separate reference list or high amount of footnotes, but links in the running text. Galateas154 Generalized Analysis for Logs for Automatic Translation and Episodic Analysis of Searches (Galateas) is a project with eight participants all based in Europe; the applicant at the IBI is Professor Vivien Petras. The total budget allotted for Galateas is e3,700,000 (without own contributions). The European contribution is e1,850,000 of which the IBI receives e62,356. This is the total budget for one research staff member and a student assistant working for two years, including travel costs. Altogether, the grant proposal for Galateas holds 31 citations of which 19 sources are obtainable via the UB and twelve are internet-based ones. Among the internet-based ones are two journals that have earlier issues available at the UB, but it was not clear if the needed issue is available as well; therefore, these were ascribed to the internet-based citations as they were available online. DOARC Distributed Open Access Reference Citation Services (DOARC) is a project of the IBI, the Institute for Chemistry at the HU, the Carl von Ossietzky University in Oldenburg, and the Institute for Science Networking in Oldenburg. The applicants are Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Dr Frank Havemann (IBI), Dr Wolfgang Christen (HU), Professor Volker Mellert (Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg), and Professor Eberhard R. Hilf (Institute for Science Networking). Not surprisingly, considering the topic, DOARC is the grant proposal with most citations. DOARC has 103 citations of which 39 are obtainable via the UB databases or OPAC, 64 citations are internet-based ones. A couple of the internet-based citations link to open access publications by the applicants, as for example Havemann (2004) “Eprints in der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation.” One of the citations that were counted as being obtainable via the UB is not explicitly allocable. DOARC’s citation No. 51 (see Appendix 3 Citations is a publication by S. Katz in Science and Public Policy from 2006. The publication was not traceable at the HU for this speciﬁc year but for the year 2000; nor did the authors’ website provide the publication from 2006. As the source from 2000 was at ACM and the double non-appearance of the later publication might indicate a typing mistake by the applicants, the citation was counted for the UB. The total third-party funds allocated for DOARC sum up to e183,692,72; e160,560 are for stafﬁng costs and e23,132.72 for travel, publishing, and miscellaneous costs. EERQI European Educational Research Quality Indicators (EERQI) is a European research project in the 7t77h Framework Programme for Research in the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities Theme (SSH). The applicant at the IBI is Professor Stefan Gradman.
Altogether, nineteen European institutions are participating in this project, the total ROI in Germanamount of grants awarded are e1,494,624. The Berlin School for Library and librariesInformation Science receives e136,720. As with the other European projects this projectis only partly funded by the European Commission, the total budget is e2,226,323.08and 67,13 per cent are funded. The amount left needs to be contributed by theparticipating institutions. The grant proposal contains 43 citations; 20 refer to sources obtainable by the UB 155and 23 are purely internet-based. Like the grant proposal EuropeanaConnect, the grantproposal for EERQI contains many references as links in the full-text. No peculiaritieswere discernible for citations in the grant proposal for EERQI.Forschungsdiversitat ¨ ¨The full title for this project is “Messung der Diversitat der Forschung”, applicants ¨ ¨are Dr Jochen Glaser (Freie Universitat Berlin), Michael Heinz (IBI), and Dr FrankHavemann (IBI). This project aims at creating methods for measuring the diversity ofresearch in various special subject areas and their respective organisations. ¨ The total budget for Forschungsdiversitat is e230,013. This is split up in e103,645for staff, consisting of e88,621 for 18 person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent pluse17,424 for other stafﬁng costs not further speciﬁed. e126,338 are allocated for travel,scholarly equipment, publishing, and other costs. The staff budget for this project wasnot calculated with the help of the persona developed for this study, but taken from thebudget listing provided by the grant proposal. In contrast to grant proposals appliedfor at DFG that list the person-month only, grant proposals applied for at BMBF haveto calculate the person-month and the costs connected. Eighteen person-monthmultiplied with the e3,492 used as median for salary and fringe beneﬁts throughoutthis study sum up to e62,856. This is e25,765 less than the budget for staff costs ¨calculated throughout this study. Forschungsdiversitat has therefore calculated theirbudget with an older person in mind. As this study does not aim to provide an exactROI result, these differences are not important. For a concrete ROI ﬁgure, furtherinformation such as what age the actual person working in a position has, as well asthe marital status and place of residence would be necessary; however, this kind ofinformation is deemed to be too private in Germany. ¨ The citation count for Forschungsdiversitat is 48 in total; 41 are citations obtainablevia the UB. This is the grant proposal with the largest amount of citations obtainablevia the UB, the runner up is DOARC with 39 citations obtainable via the UB. Onlyseven citations are internet-based ones. None of the citations found were peculiar.CARPETThe motivation for CARPET (Community for Academic Reviewing, Publishing andEditorial Technology) was the ongoing process of virtualisation of workingprocesses in the academic area. The applicants are Professor Peter Schirmbacher ¨(IBI/CMS), Dr Norbert Lossau (SUB Gottingen), and Dr Laurent Romary (Max PlanckDigital Library, Berlin). CARPET (n.d.) was planned for two years and calculated to need 72 person-monthor three members of research staff for two years. Additionally three student assistantseach working 80h/month for two years were estimated, the budget for staff costs ise321,120. Additional e27,820 for travel and publishing raised the total budget to
BL e348,940. This is the highest budget for a DFG-funded project the IBI is involved in, the23,4 runner-up is IUWIS with e1,441 less. Twenty-six is the total count of citations made in the grant proposal for CARPET, with a very high amount of internet-based sources (20) and a small amount of library-obtainable sources (ﬁve). Four internet-based resources (DRIVER, eSciDoc, Berlin Declaration, Budapest Open Access Initiative) point to projects the HU is156 involved in. Meta-Image Art history is a visual-orientated subject and the digitalisation of scholarly life has opened new possibilities for research in art history. Applicants are Dr Martin Wanke ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ (Leuphana Universitat Luneburg), Lisa Dieckmann (Universitat zu Koln), and Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS). Meta-Image (n.d.) has a total budget of e271,520 composed of e209,520 for staff and e62,000 for travel, publications, and miscellaneous costs. There is no budget for scholarly equipment as these are goods on own account. The citation count is relatively low, only 14 citations altogether. Nine are citations for publications obtainable via the UB and ﬁve are internet-based ones. One of the citations obtainable via the library is not clearly allocable, because it is microﬁche based at the UB until 1998 and then superseded by a link to the resources based in Marburg (Bildarchiv Foto Marburg). The resources provided on Marburg’s website, however, are freely accessible for everyone and do not have special access rights. A test browsing the site with HU VPN and without it showed no differences in presentation or access; therefore, the citation could have been listed as internet-based source as well. I decided to list it as UB source as the microﬁche is on-site at the main library, the website is detectable via the OPAC, and the reference in the grant proposal does not refer to a certain year. MUNIN-RS MUNIN-RS (Entwicklung und Implementierung einer Open-Source-Repository-Solution ¨ fur vernetztes Arbeiten mit wissenschaftlichen Bild- und Multimediasammlungen/ Modiﬁable Universal Image Network – Repository Solution) aims at developing and implementing a kind of repository-based solution for picture and multimedia collections. The applicant is Prof. Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS). The total budget estimated for MUNIN-RS is e276,880. Next to e214,080 for staff, the project calculates a very high amount of e53,000 for miscellaneous costs of which e 50,000 are intended for a service contract. A further e9,800 is budgeted for travel. A relatively low amount of citations (12) is split in ﬁve citations obtainable via the UB and seven purely internet-based ones. One of the internet-based sources is a website by the HU (Medienportal); it is counted as an internet-based resource because the Medienportal (n.d.) was not detectable via the OPAC or the digital library. OAN Open Access Netzwerk (OAN) is the oldest grant proposal of the 13 analysed for this study. Applied for in 2006 the project was funded for two years by DFG; starting the assembly of a network of certiﬁed open access repositories. The applicants are
¨ ¨Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Dr Judith Plumer (University of Osnabruck), ROI in German ¨and Dr Norbert Lossau (SUB Gottingen). Based on the calculations for the persona developed for this study, e202,464 are librariesbudgeted for staff working 48 person-month on BAT IIa level as well as three studentassistants each working 40h/month for two years. In addition e38,700 are estimated forscholarly equipment, travel expenses, and publications. The total amount calculated ise241,164. 157 OAN is one of the grant proposals with a very high count of citations forinternet-based sources. Of the 39 counted 31 are internet-based and only eightobtainable via the UB. All but one of the eight are online sources belonging to the UB(i.e. DINI website or edoc-Server). All of these are detectable with the aid of the OPACand therefore counted as sources belonging to the UB. A high amount of internet-basedsources is not remarkable, considering the requirements related to open access that isthe key element of this grant proposal.OAN2OA-Netzwerk 2 (OAN2) is the direct continuation of the OAN project. The grantproposal for OAN2 was written in 2009 and continues where OAN terminated. ¨Applicants are Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Dr Judith Plumer (University ¨ ¨of Osnabruck) and Dr Norbert Lossau, (SUB Gottingen), in addition Professor StefanGradmann (IBI) has joined the team. The total budget for OAN2 is e86,858 more than assessed for the previous projectOAN; the sum totals are e328,022. e286,272 are calculated for stafﬁng; 72person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent and 18 month for a student assistantworking 40/h a month. Further costs add up to e 41,750. OAN2 has the third highestbudget of all grant proposals. Citations in the grant proposal for OAN2 add up to 17 citations only, of which 13 areinternet-based ones. Only four citations are obtainable via the UB; again, the citationsmirror the OA topic of the grant proposal. One of the internet-based sources links to theMathematics Subject Classiﬁcation which is available in print via loan sharing. Theprint version is from 2000, however, and the link refers to an up-to-date version, thecitation was counted as internet-based resource and not as belonging to the UB.DocupediaDocupedia is a project by Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Professor WilfriedNippel (Institute for History at the Humboldt University), and Professor Martin ¨Zabrow (Zentrum fur Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam). It aims at creating asubject-speciﬁc organised, dynamically-growing repository containing encyclopaedictexts about contemporary history. This project was planned to run for three years and funding was applied for twoyears. The applicants calculated for 60 person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent aswell as two student assistants each working 80/h per month for both years. Theaverage salary and fringe beneﬁt costs can be estimated at e255,984. Additional costsare calculated at e35,000 totalling the approximate budget to e290,984. The proposal has 45 citations; only seven citations can be found with the help of theUB and 38 citations are purely internet-based ones. Of the latter nine, links to websitescreated by projects the IBI, CMS or HU are involved. Quite a few links direct to the
BL same page but at varying contents. For example arxiv.org is counted twice because23,4 one link in the grant proposal leads to the main page and the second link to the information “How to replace an article in arxiv”. Double references like those are counted as two separate citations, because they do indicate two different destinations. Determining the ROI158 Usually determining the ROI is a simple mathematical, monetary calculation (see equation below), but as described before, UIUC had to conduct a survey and evaluate certain data to ﬁt into this kind of basic mathematical formula: ðGain from investment 2 Cost of InvestmentÞ ROI ¼ Cost of Investment The term “gain from investment” sounds innocent, but as discussed in the literature review of this study is rather difﬁcult for libraries, because no direct monetary gain from investment is discernible. For both studies, investment in libraries is understood as the budget allocated to a library. For UIUC the total library budget is $36,102,613. As visible in Table I, UIUC did not as indicated in the formula above, subtract the “cost of investment” from the “gain from investment” before dividing it. They simply divided the “total library budget” from the “gain from investment.” In the UIUC study the gain from investment is the proportion of grant income using library materials in US dollars. This assumption is the basis for their study. Probably UIUC decided to change the basis formula accordingly, because a library budget is not a real cost of investment for a certain product. Without the library budget a library would not exist. In contrast to almost 100 per cent of a library budget being provided by the federal state in Germany,59 library budgets or higher education in general are not highly state-subsidized in the USA: Public support for higher education in the USA has declined over the past quarter century. Nearly half of Illinois’ budget came from state funding in 1980; by 2008, that ﬁgure had declined to less than 17% (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 29). Nevertheless, the budget allocated is always the core of existence for a library and again for both studies the basis for the ROI calculation. In their study, UIUC calculated the ROI with the total library budget and only for comparison reasons with the materials budget. “If the materials budget, rather than the total budget, had been used, the ROI would have been approximately $12.” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 32). For this study, the materials budget assigned to the Library and Information Science section at the UB is used. This is done because this study focuses on the IBI and not on the HU in general. For comparison, a second calculation is done with the complete materials budget of the UB. The materials budget of the UB is usually a combined amount of federal state money and earmarked capital such as third-party funding, funds for educational books, and special grants for the acquisition of electronic resources as well as funds spent on speciﬁc research. The latter is not included in the materials budget used for comparison, because the budget for the LIS section comes from the part of the materials budget that is state-funded. This second calculation makes sense as the citations in the grant proposals by the IBI do not remain
entirely in the LIS section. Some additional sources from ﬁelds such as law, economics, ROI in Germanand ICT (Information and Communication Technology) are used as well. libraries In 2009 the materials budget for the UB was e4,700,000. Approximately e2,200,000was earmarked capital as explained above, the rest (approximately e2,500,000) wasdistributed among the various subjects. The UB has a deﬁned model for the dispersionof budgets among all subjects available at the HU. In 2009 the budget for the LISsection was e30,600 (1.21 per cent of the federal state funding). The ROI is calculated 159with both values, e30,600 and e2,500,000.Doing the mathBetween 2006 and 2009, 13 grant proposals applied for by applicants related to the IBIhave been successfully accomplished or begun. The total amount of grands awardedfor these grant proposals sums up to approximately e3,190,502.72 (in three years),approximately e1,063,500.90 per year. The average size of grants the IBI received isapproximately e245,423.29. Owing to the decisions made for calculating the budgetand evaluating the citations, the ﬁgures are all approximate ﬁgures. Illinois calculated their proportion of grants secured using library materials in USdollar, by using their average size grant (see Table III, lines 7 and 8 of the ROIcalculation by UIUC below). In a second step, UIUC multiplied the result of the above calculation with thenumber of grants expended in the year 2006. This provided UIUC with the size of thegrant income using library materials (see Table IV, lines 9 and 10 of the ROIcalculation by UIUC). For the German study, the total amount of Euro secured with the help of third-partyfunds is available for calculating the proportion of grant income using librarymaterials; hence no average size grant is needed. The two steps above were combinedinto one. The proportion of grants awarded in Euro using the library is then calculatedby multiplying the percentage of citations obtainable through the UB with the totalamount of third-party funds awarded for 2006-2009 (see Table IV ROI calculation forthe IBI and the UB). Table V ROI calculations for the IBI and the UB shows the following results: . 13 grant proposals contain 474 citations of which 190 are obtainable through the library; . more than 40 percent of the grants awarded to the IBI came from citations in those 13 grant proposals that are obtainable through the UB; $ Table III.Average size grant 63,923 Lines 7 and 8 of the ROIProportion of grant $ secured using library materials 25,369 (78.14% * 50.79% * $ 63,923)/100/100 calculation by UIUC Table IV.No. grants (expended) in year 6,232 Lines 9 and 10 of the ROI$ proportion of grant income using library materials 158,099,608 (25,369 * 6,232) calculation by UIUC
BL No. grant proposals 13 Total no. of successful grant proposals at23,4 the IBI between 2006-2009 No. citations 474 Total count of citations No. citations obtainable through the UB 190 1st calculation % citations obtainable through the UB 40.08% For all grant proposals160 In total (see Appendix 2. Grants e total size of grants awarded 3,190,502.72 Calculations Final) 2nd calculation e proportion of grant income using the UB 1,278,753.49 (40,08% * 3,190,502.72)/100 No. of materials budget expended for LIS in 2009 e30,600 Approx. no. of materials budget expended for LIS in 2006-2009 e91,800 (e30,600 * 3 years) 3rd calculation University return in e grant on LIS 13,93 (1,278,753.49/91,800) Approx. no. of total materials budget for UB in 2009 2,500,000 Approx. no. of total materials budget for UB in 2006-2009 7,500,000 (e2,500,000 * 3 years)Table V. 4th calculationROI calculations for the University return in e grant on library e0,17 (1,278,753.49/7,500,000)IBI and the UB with the help of the IBI (materials budget) . for 2006-2009 the total grant income at the IBI is approximately e3,190,502.72; . the average proportion of the grant income generated by using the library resources is approximately e1,278,753.49; . dividing the proportion of the grant income generated by using the library resources through the approximate amount of the materials budget expended for the subject area LIS in three years, calculates a ROI of e13,93 for every Euro invested in the subject area LIS between 2006 and 2009; and . dividing the proportion of the grant income generated by using the library resources through the approximate total materials budget expended in three years, calculates a ROI of e0,17 for every Euro invested in the materials budget of the UB between 2006 and 2009. The results show that implementing the UIUC concept and formula in a different, in this case German academic setting, is possible. Certain amendments had to be made, but no major problems occurred. Similarities and differences In summary, it is clear that the essentials of the study created by UIUC have stayed the same, but that components were adapted for the study to work in a German academic setting that is considerably smaller in scope than UIUC’s facilities. For one, UIUC had to deal with a very large amount of grant proposals in just one year. This study had to adapt UIUC handling of large amounts of proposals in order to be able to work with a
comparably very small amount of 13 grant proposals. The huge difference in scope ROI in Germanindicated the possibility and maybe necessity to change the analysis and evaluation of librariesthe citations. As mentioned previously, the smaller scale of this study made afull-blown survey unnecessary. It was possible to evaluate the citations individuallyand thereby to retrieve a more accurate proportion of grants in Euro secure-able byusing library materials. Using citations in grant proposals as basis for incomegenerated by the library has stayed the same. 161 Further, UIUC had to establish that applicant bodies do actually use their ownlibrary and its resources for citations made in grant proposals. For this they had toconduct a large scale survey examining the tenure system faculty perceptions on therole the library plays in their research and grant-seeking activities (Kaufman, 2008a).On the one hand, the study for the IBI and the UB could rely on UIUC’s ﬁndings that“75% of respondents stated that over three-quarters of the citations they included intheir grant applications were accessed through the library” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 31). Onthe other hand, individually evaluating each citation gave a clear result which citationsand how many citations were obtainable through the library (UB), not indicatinghowever if the applicant bodies really used the UB. Regarding the latter, when asking faculty at the IBI for the necessary documentsand grant proposals to conduct this study, a question intended to afﬁrm UIUC’sproposition was included. The recipients were asked to rate on a spectrum rangingfrom one to ﬁve how often they use materials that could be made available by theuniversity library; including databases, eBooks, electronic journals, and theedoc-Server. Rating with a one would imply 0 per cent of one’s materials aredetectable with the help of the UB, two would imply 25 per cent are obtainable, threewould imply 50 per cent, four would imply 75 per cent and ﬁve would imply 100 percent are obtainable through the UB. The spectrum was kept very elementary tosimplify answering the question. It was done in the hope of receiving a greater amountof replies. Even so only two answers came back; one voted a one or maximum two,stating that the grant proposals involved are usually focusing on applied researchrather than subject-speciﬁc fundamentals, thereby indicating that those grantproposals are not citing many resources obtainable through a library. Interestinglyenough, the grant proposals by this person had low amounts of citations. The secondanswer voted a four but was very unsure about it, simply because the person felt it wasimpossible to prove it. The grant proposals this person was involved in containedconsiderably more citations than the grant proposals by the previous person. As it was possible to analyse each citation individually, receiving answers from allapplicants was not that important for this study, but it would have been interesting toﬁnd out how much perception (rate) and reality (analysed citations) there is. If moreanswers were received, it would have been possible as well to verify that UIUC wasright in their assumption to use the statements by their tenure system faculty (i.e. 78.14per cent of faculty using citations in grant proposals) as basis for their ROIcalculations. All the same, this is not the research question of this study, but could bean interesting follow-up study. The ﬁnal calculations differ at two places. On the one hand, UIUC calculates theproportion (%) of grant income using library materials with the help of an average sizegrant that is multiplied with the number of grants expended in the year in question.For the IBI/UB study, calculating the average size grant was not necessary. As part of
BL the evaluation of the thirteen grant proposals, the total amount of grants awarded was23,4 estimated and used for receiving the result (proportion of grant income using library materials). In the ﬁnal calculation by UIUC, the ROI was calculated with the total library budget of UIUC’s university library. The ROI calculated as part of this study, was calculated with the materials budget allocated for the LIS subject area. Only for162 comparability was it calculated with the total materials budget as well. The latter calculation is not important for this study, because the grant proposals that were evaluated are all based on the IBI and the subject area Library and Information Science. Table VI lists all similarities and differences at a glance. Essentially, UIUC’s formula for calculating a ROI for an academic library has been maintained, but certain amendments due to scale and information available were made. Conclusion Although a different academic setting, the study for the IBI is very small in scale and focused on one subject area only. A further study for all subject areas at the Humboldt University, Berlin would provide a clearer picture of the strength and weaknesses adapting the formula devised by UIUC into a different environment. The author, however, does not believe that any major problems would appear when conducting the study on a larger scale in any German academic setting. Going along as this study did, and individually analysing hundreds of citations in grant proposals might be too much of an effort on a larger scale. This depends on the amount of people involved, however, and one could always resort to the way UIUC estimated their amount of proposals including citations. When conducting such a survey, a limitation of people who would receive the survey is not necessary in Germany; professors, faculty, and members of research staff should be allowed to answer if they take part in grant proposal applications. Interestingly, another question came up that, in the author’s opinion, could be answered with the help of UIUC’s formula. The author believes the difference in grant Description of process UIUC IBI/UB Initial position/ Study conducted for a major university Study conducted for a subject area and scope and its library its institution at a university Amount of Large (2,879 proposals/1,456 successful Small (13 successful proposals) proposals ones) Analysis With the help of estimations/based on a Individual evaluation for each citation large-scale survey (50,79% proposals (474 citations in total, 190 obtainable inc. citations obtained through library) through the library ¼ 40,08%) Calculation 1 Calculates $ of grant income using Calculates the proportion of grant library materials with an average size income using library materials with the grant multiplied with grants (expended) total amount of grants awarded between in 2006 2006-2009Table VI. Calculation 2 Calculates ROI with the total library Calculates ROI with the materialsSimilarities and budget budget for LIS (plus total materialsdifferences budget/total library budget)
proposal application behaviour between subject areas could be explored. One would ROI in Germanexpect application-orientated subjects such as ICT, physics, chemistry, and economics librariesto have large amounts of grant proposals with a high ROI, as they are understood asthe subjects third-parties are interested in. It is true that technically- andeconomically-orientated universities have higher third-party funding than others.Some of the application-orientated grant proposals for the IBI had low amounts ofcitations, however, and would not have a very high ROI in regards to the library. A 163quick glance at the amount of grant proposals at the HU in subject areas such asAfrican studies/literature (ten research projects), English and American Studies (26research projects), or German literature (43 research projects) show a surprisingamount of research studies; it occurred that it would be interesting to evaluate theirROI in regards to the library. The ﬁnal ROI ﬁgures would not indicate which subject isbetter or worth more in creating a ROI for the university, but the size of results wouldperhaps illuminate differences in research behaviour and eventually help a universitylibrary to decide which collections for which subject area to extend. UIUC has planned applying their ROI formula to multiple institutions as well asexpanding the longitudinal scope. It will be interesting to see their follow-up studiesthat might show differences in institutional characters or in the countries as well. The only problem that can be seen with the study by UIUC is the fact that they basethe proportion of grant proposals containing citations obtainable through the libraryon a survey. Kingma validated their model, but the survey is UIUC’s weakest link, andany study going along the same lines needs to make sure that their survey isimpervious. This study validates the original research question “Can the methodologydeveloped by UIUC be applied to German universities?” It shows that UIUC developeda ROI model and formula that is modiﬁable enough to ﬁt into different academicsettings. Their formula had to be adapted, but it was easy to do so. As said before,university libraries implementing the formula have to take extra special care whenevaluating the citations either with the help of a survey, or by counting themindividually. If striving for a concrete ROI ﬁgure, the evaluation of the citations is thefocal point. Hopefully, ROI studies as this one by UIUC will help to value academic libraries’impact on research and revenue generating activities.Notes 1. www.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010). 2. “Deans from a number of leading iSchools have joined together to leverage the power of leading iSchools in building awareness of, support for and involvement with the iField among key constituencies, principally the media, business community, those who fund research, student prospects, and users of information.“ www.ischools.org/site/about/ (accessed February 15, 2010). 3. www.ub.hu-berlin.de/ueber-uns/proﬁl (accessed February 15, 2010). 4. www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp (accessed March 27, 2010). 5. See publications in Social Enterprise Journal (2005), Strategic HR Review (2009), Journal of Consumer Marketing (1999), International Journal of Hospitality Management (1983), Handbook of Business Strategy (2004), Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (1996).
BL 6. www.google.de/url?sa ¼ t&source ¼ web&ct ¼ res& cd ¼ 1&ved ¼ 0CBAQFjAA&url ¼ http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.129.23,4 2114%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei ¼ zmSFS-eCNKTqmgP-8cGtAg&usg ¼ AFQjCNE3g7V508WEU8gUbIigWvmf-No_CQ&sig2 ¼ Sb7IC6GJzU9hotNT-kHoUQ (accessed February 21, 2010). 7. www.bl.uk/pdf/measuring.pdf (accessed February 21, 2010).164 8. This quote translates as: “The awareness for reasons why libraries and librarians exist was missing as well as the comprehension how to gain and keep support from their beneﬁciaries. Only now this has changed.” 9. http://mel.org/ﬁles/calculatorcode.php (accessed March 23, 2010). 10. The Library of Michigan Return on Investment Calculator as well as the North Suburban Library System (NSLS) calculator allows its users to enter the amount of books, magazines, audio books, movies, etc. borrowed per month and calculate the ROI in the case of NSLS with the help of average list and retail prices of those items. Michigan in return does not specify where the numbers come from and let you speculate if they used retail prices as well or considered other costs such as library budget used for human resources needed for records management as well. 11. www.youtube.com/watch?v ¼ TgqoM5ZNu3Q (accessed March 23, 2010) The video shows a selfmade advertisement for the North Suburban Library System’s ROI calculator. 12. www.bmbf.de/de/1321.php (accessed February 21, 2010). The German Exzellenzinitiative ¨ funded by the BMBF (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung) claims to support cutting-edge research at outstanding universities, but the ﬁrst two rounds (2006, 2007) show a strong bias towards richer German states. Only a fraction of the nominated winning ¨ universities are not in the two richest German states Baden-Wurrtemberg and Bavaria. 13. Freely translated this quote says: “The German ﬁeld of Library and Information Science (LIS) has not shown much inclination to deal with this.” 14. Freely translated this quote says: “Virtual prices are estimated through surveys conducted with users.” 15. www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ (accessed February 18, 2010). 16. www.uni-goettingen.de/ (accessed February 18, 2010). 17. www.dfg.de/index.jsp (accessed March 23, 2010). 18. www.bmbf.de/ (accessed March 23, 2010). 19. http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/OCTOPUS/ (accessed March 23, 2010). ¨ 20. The ﬁve Universities of Applied Science searched for, were: Hochschule fur Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg, Fachhochschule Potsdam, Hochschule Darmstadt, Hochschule ¨ fur Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig and Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart. 21. http://forschung.hu-berlin.de/statistik/ (accessed March 16, 2010). ` 22. Personae are ﬁctive people devised to represent a certain clientele (in Marketing) or users (Usability studies). The persona devised for this study is between 26 and 28 years old, single, has a postgraduate degree and starts the ﬁrst job as research assistant. 23. For calculations of the BAT (Bundesangestelltentarif) see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag or http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/tv-l/berlin/ (accessed March 26, 2010). People employed in the public service in Germany are paid based on a complicated system considering previous knowledge, age, marital status, place of residence and other. As this is very complex only average costs may be calculated.
24. For more information on TV-L see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarifvertrag_f%C3%BCr_ ROI in German den_%C3%B6ffentlichen_Dienst_der_L%C3%A4nder (accessed March 26, 2010) Again there are no sources available in English. libraries25. Translates as: Initial position/own preparatory work.26. www.kobv.de/ (accessed April 16, 2010). Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin Brandenburg’ is the cooperative network of all academic, public and many corporate libraries in Berlin and Brandenburg supporting each other by creating a wholesome stock of 165 ` materials and media as well as devising new services for their clientele.27. www.dfg.de/forschungsfoerderung/formulare/download/1_02.pdf (accessed January 12, 2010). Freely translated this quote says: “The grant proposal should not exceed 20 pages and should be coherent on its own; reading citations and additional literature should not be necessary for comprehension”.28. www.dini.de/ (accessed April 10, 2010).29. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm (accessed March 30, 2010).30. Most of the time European projects receive only 50 per cent of the estimated budget for funding. The other half needs to be contributed by the participating institutions (own contributions). Hence is it important to indicate when talking about European budgets if the numbers are including or excluding own contributions. As far as I understood the calculations, own contributions are not always monetary, but can be set against equipment such as computers, costs for Internet connection and such.31. www.iuwis.net/ (accessed April 13, 2010)32. www.uni-konstanz.de/ (accessed April 23, 2010).33. www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/index.html.de (accessed April 14, 2010).34. CMS are the facilities responsible for all computer and technical support at the HU situated in South-East Berlin in Adlershof. The director of the CMS is at the same time a professor at the IBI.35. http://lockss.stanford.edu/lockss/Home (accessed April 23, 2010).36. http://kopal.langzeitarchivierung.de/index_koLibRI.php.de (accessed April 23, 2010).37. www.europeanaconnect.eu/ (accessed April 5, 2010).38. http://europeana.eu/portal/ (accessed April 5, 2010).39. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/project-galateas_en.html (accessed April 20, 2010).40. http://doarc.projects.isn-oldenburg.de/ (accessed April 5, 2010).41. www.eerqi.eu/ (accessed April 3, 2010).42. Translates as: “Measuring the diversity of research”43. See: www.fu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 15, 2010).44. www.carpet-project.net/ (accessed April 20, 2010).45. www.mpg.de/instituteProjekteEinrichtungen/weitereEinrichtungen/mpdl/index.html46. www.uni-koeln.de/47. www.fotomarburg.de/ (accessed April 12, 2010).48. http://medienportal.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 15, 2010).