Presented at the 2010 Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference. -- Gayle Baker, Ken Wise, University of Tennessee -- Abstract: This project addressed academic librarian's growing need to demonstrate the return on investment (ROI) and value of the library to various stakeholders of the institution (faculty, students, policy makers, etc.) and to guide library management in the redirection of library funds to important products and services.

1. Electronic Access and Research
Efficiencies – Some Preliminary Findings
from the University of Tennessee
Library’s Return on Investment ROI
Analysis
Electronic Resources & Libraries
February 1, 2010
Gayle Baker & Ken Wise

2. Talk Outline
 Phase I Return-on-investment (ROI)
project at University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
 Phase II ROI project
 Results at University of Tennessee
 Phase III

3. Phase I - Goal
 Demonstrate role of library information
resources in generating research grant
income for the institution.
 For every monetary unit spent on the library,
the university receives “X” monetary units in
return

4. Phase I - Data
 Faculty – Survey (quantitative and
qualitative)
 Grant proposals – University-supplied data,
faculty survey
 Grant income – University-supplied data
 Library – Total budget (including collections,
facilities, personnel, etc.)
 Administrative priorities – Personal
interviews

5. Phase I
Grants ROI Model for UIUC
 78.14% faculty w/ grant proposals using citations from library
X
 50.79% award success rate from grants using citations from
library
X
$63,923 average grant income
=
$25,369 avg. income generated from grants using citations from library
X
6232 grants expended
÷
$36,102,613 library budget
=
$4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested in library
(ROI value expressed as 4.38:1 ratio)

6. Phase I - ROI Project
 University investment in the library: What’s the return? A case
study at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Judy Luther, President, Informed Strategies
http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/whitepapers/0108/lcwp010801.
html
 The Library as Strategic Investment: Results of the Illinois
Return on Investment Study
Paula T. Kaufman
http://liber.library.uu.nl/publish/articles/000269/article.pdf.

7. Phase II
 To test Phase I methodology
 8 institutions in 8 different countries

8. Phase II Results
 Faculty Survey
 Grant ROI

9. Discipline Distribution
23, 8%
51, 17%
64, 22%
Physical Sciences
Life Sciences
41, 14% Social Sciences
Health Sciences
Arts & Humanities
Other
25, 8%
92, 31%

10. Academic Rank
13, 5%
109, 37%
98, 33%
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Faculty Administrative
74, 25%

11. Proposals Submitted

12. Importance of Journal Articles

13. Number of Respondents as PI

14. Descriptions of coded
responses
 Availability / location
 Efficiency / saves time
 Expands research range
 Timeliness / currency
 Collaboration
 Miscellaneous
 Negative

15. Comments by Position

16. Comments by Discipline

17. Examples of comments
 Makes my work significantly more
efficient. Compared to the time I began
my career over 25 years ago, I spend
less than 10% of time on
finding/accessing information and
articles. Also, it has likely expanded the
amount of material available tenfold.
(Soc. Sci./Admin.)

18. Examples…
 It has saved me an enormous amount of
time. Not only is there less need to visit
the library but because I can get answers
to questions so quickly I can move on
with the formulation and re-formulation of
questions much more rapidly than in the
past. (Soc. Sci. / Asst. Prof.)

19. Examples…
 It has made me much more efficient. I
can the same work in about 1/10th the
time. Unfortunately, the literature has
grown 10-fold, so I am just breaking
even. I could not keep up with the
scientific field without electronic access.
Also much easier to find pertinent
articles. (Life Sci. / Prof.)

20. Examples…
 Electronic access has dramatically changed the
way I carry out research and teaching. I know
access articles from a much wider range of
sources (especially journal articles and
websites), instead of relying on just the main
journals in my field. It's easier to assign
readings for classes and I find that students
have gotten very good at finding their own
electronic resources. I tend to avoid resources
that are not in electronic format (including some
of my own older publications). (Phys. Sci. /
Prof.)

21. Examples…
 It has provided for more continuity in my
work by reducing the average time
needed to acquire a source. It has also
enabled me to free up time that used to
be used going to the library and visiting
various sections of the library. It has also
broadened the compass of sources used.
(Other / Assoc. Prof.)

22. Examples…
 For me the biggest change brought about by
access to electronic resources is that it has
become far easier for me to do a quick informal
search of the literature. I now routinely do
quick searches to answer minor questions or to
"pre-research" an idea to see if it may have
scientific merit. I think it helps me make more
efficient use of time for the granting
process, and also makes me a better-
informed, more up-to-date instructor. (Life Sci. /
Asst. Prof.)

23. Phase II
Grants ROI Model

24. Phase II ROI results for UTK
For every dollar invested in the UTK
libraries, the university receives a return of
$3.44 in research grant income.

25. Write-up for Phase 2 Study
 http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/librariansin
fo.librarians/lc_home
 Available in March 2010

26. Phase III
IMLS Grant for Lib-Value Study
 IMLS grant for 3 years
 Dr. Carol Tenopir and Paula
Kaufman, Dean of Libraries, UIUC
 Value, in addition to ROI

27. Questions?