Transcript Slide 1

University investments
in the library:
What’s the return?
大學在圖書館的投資: 投資報酬率如何剖析?
An overview of ROI
phases I-II
投資報酬率第一至第二階段概述
Mr. Keith Silver
Customer Insight and Communications Manager, Elsevier
CONCERT 2009
November 11-12
Library constituents perceive decreased value
圖書館組內 察覺到價值遞減
ITHAKA報告
Ithaka 2006年之高等教育數位改造
利益關係人研究
 The library is increasingly disenfranchised from the actual research
process
圖書館實際研究過程的參與日漸減少
 The perceived importance of the library’s role as a gateway for locating
information has fallen over time
外界認知圖書館扮演資訊門戶的重要角色 已隨著時間而下降。
Value gap emerges:
ARL expenditures vs perception of library
價值差距產生：美國研究圖書館協會支出 v.s. 圖書館的認知
Amount spent on
library resources
在圖書館資源的花費
Value Gap 價值差距
Web browsers
網路瀏覽者
CD-ROMs
光碟
Online catalogs
線上目錄
Chart courtesy of Dr Carol Tenopir, 2009
圖表由Carol Tenopir 於2009年提供
Perceived value of library
as an information gateway
圖書館作為資訊門戶
的認知價值
Learning about library users:
What has been done in the past
了解圖書館的讀者：過去做了什麼？
Focus groups & opinion surveys to examine
changes, make improvements
焦點小組和意見調查: 用以檢視變化、進行改善
Usage logs to show what
people do on library
systems to inform collection
decisions & growth
使用統計紀錄顯示 讀者在使
用圖書館系統的狀況表現 ，
藉以傳達藏書的決策與成長
Library
圖書館
Use surveys & data to show
value, outcomes, ROI
使用調查與數據顯示
價值、成果、投資報酬率
Methods to learn about users and usage work together to show explicit and implicit value
了解 使用者 與 使用統計兩者 以顯示有形與無形的價值
Goal of ROI 投資報酬率的目標
To demonstrate that library collections contribute to the
income-generating activities of the institution.
論證圖書館藏書 有利於學校機構的營收
For every monetary unit spent
on the library,
the university receives ‘X’ monetary units
in return.
花費在圖書館的每一塊錢，大學都將獲得 “X”元的回報。
Study in 3 phases 3個階段的研究
 Phase I: ROI in grants, case study at University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign in US (completed 2008)
第一階段：補助金的投資報酬率，美國伊利諾大學香檳分校
個案研究 (2008年完成)
 Phase II: ROI in grants, expanded to 8 institutions in 8 countries
(completed 2009)
第二階段：補助金的投資報酬率，擴大至八個國家的八個學
校 (2009年完成)
 Phase III: ROI for grants/research, teaching, and student
engagement (to begin 2010)
第三階段：補助金/ 研究、教學及學生參與的投資報酬率
(2010年開始)
Quantifying for the university 大學的量化
投資報酬率：收
入如同投資在資
產總額的一部份
全體教員為本校營造
收入。教員使用圖書
館與其藏書。
補助金%用於圖書館資源
除以
圖書館預算
在創造收入過程中，
資訊資源擔任何種角
色？
等於
“X”
Types of data: Reliable, accessible, clearly defined
數據類型：可靠、方便、明確定義
Data types 數據類型
Methods 方法
Research Faculty 研究人員
Survey: quantitative and qualitative
調查：量化和質化
Grant Proposals 補助金申請書
University-supplied data; survey
大學提供數據；問卷
Grant Income 補助金收入
University-supplied data
大學提供的數據
Library 圖書館
Total budget (including collection, facilities,
personnel, etc.)
總預算 (包括藏書、設施、人事等)
Administrators’ Priorities
行政人員的優先事項
Personal interviews (with library leadership,
university executives, and research managers)
個人訪問 (關於圖館領導統馭、大學管理人員、
以及研究管理者)
Phase I: ROI model for UIUC
第一階段：美國伊利諾大學的投資報酬率模式
78.14% faculty w/ grant proposals using citations from library
教職員運用圖書館的引文資訊 來申請補助金
X
50.79% award success rate from grants using citations from library
透過圖書館的引文資訊 而獲得補助金的成功率
X
$63,923 average grant income
平均補助金收入
=
$25,369 avg. income generated from grants using citations from library
透過圖書館使用引文資訊 而獲得補助金平均收入
X
6232 grants expended
補助金花費
÷
$36,102,613 library budget
圖書館預算
=
$4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested in library
(ROI value expressed as 4.38:1 ratio)
每一美元投資在圖書館的補助金收入為 $4.38 美元
(投資報酬率值為 4.38:1的比率)
Phase II Principal Investigator
第二階段主要調查人員
Dr Carol Tenopir 博士

University of Tennessee, Knoxville
諾克斯維爾田納西大學

Chancellor’s Professor, School of Information
Sciences
資訊科學學院校長教授

Director of Research, College of Communication
and Information
傳播與資訊學院研究主任

Director, Center for Information and
Communication Studies
資訊與傳播研究中心主任
Phase II: Narrow focus, broad range of institutions
第二階段：聚焦、學校機構 範圍擴大
 Keeps the focus on ROI for grants income
持續關注補助金收入的投資報酬率
 Extends the phase I model 延伸第一階段模式
• To 8 more institutions in 8 countries
至8個國家8個學校
• Identifies similarities and differences across the
countries and institutions
找出整個國家與學校的相似性與差異性
 Tests the model for replication 測試以複製模式
Phase II: Distribution of institutions
第三階段：學校分佈
Executive values: Issues that are similar
執行上的價值：相似議題




Attain prestige and internationalization 實現威望與國際化
Improve faculty and research productivity 提高教職員與研究生產力
Attract high quality students through high quality instruction
透過高品質教學吸引高素質學生
Expand grant funding 擴大補助基金
“Funding does not regenerate funding.
But reputation does.”
基金無法創造基金。但信譽可以。
– Charles Zukoski, UIUC 美國伊利諾大學
Executive values: Issues that are different
執行上的價值：不同的議題

University mission 大學使命
• Research-intensive versus focus on teaching 研究密集型 V.S. 著重教學型
• Cultural preservation versus globalization 文化保護 V.S. 全球化

Funding sources 資金來源
• External versus internal 外部 V.S. 內部
• National versus global 全國 V.S. 全球

Mandates 任務
• Institutional, regional, national 學校、區域、全國

Library alignment with mission 圖書館任務的結盟合作
• Investment in information resources 資訊資源的投資
• Enablement of e-access/infrastructure 啟用電子資源/基礎設備
Some logistical issues
後勤運籌的議題
 Differences in terminology 專有名詞的差異
 Academic ranks; “expenditures” versus “income” 學術排名: “支出” V.S.“ 收
入”
 Variations in data that universities keep and who keeps it over 10 years
各大學保存數據的形式各式各樣 以及 有誰保存了10年以上呢
 How data is recorded 數據記錄方式
 Fiscal year, academic year, calendar year 會計年度、學年、年度
 Grant proposals requirement, award cycles, and funding sources
補助金申請書規定、獎項週期與資金來源
 Monetary units 貨幣單位
 Academic calendar: Differences in hemisphere 學年：南北半球差異
 Languages and communication styles 語言與溝通方式
Faculty survey: ROI calculation questions
& other data checks
教職員調查：投資報酬率計算問題 與 其他數據檢查
•
•
•
•
How many proposals submitted? 提交的申請書有多少？
How many grants funded? 補助資金有多少？
Total monetary value of grants?補助金總金額？
Importance of citations in proposals and reports?
申請書報告書中的引文資訊的重要性？
• How many citations in proposals, reports, articles?
申請書、報告與文章中有多少引文資訊？
• What % of citations from the library collections?
多少百分比的引文來自圖書館藏書？
• For each cited, how many others do you read?
你還讀過其他多少項引文？
Faculty survey: Other types of analysis
教職員調查：其他分析類型
• How many hours in a typical week do you spend on:
一週你花多少時間在：
• Finding or accessing articles or books?
尋找或攫取文章或書籍？
• Reading articles or books? 閱讀文章或書籍？
• How has access to e-resources through the university
network changed the way you work?
透過大學網路而使用電子資源
如何改變你的研究工作方式？
Faculty survey: Demographics
教職員調查：人口
• What is your primary subject discipline?
你的主要學科？
• What is your current rank/position?
你目前的等級/職位？
Faculty survey comments: Value of e-resources
教職員調查意見：電子資源價值
“With the current workload, I could not
continue with research without the
convenience of access from my own
computer.”
–South Africa
“以目前的工作量，若無法使用從我自己的
電腦攫取資訊，我無法繼續研究。”-南非
“You have access to many more
articles and … you are more aware
of what is going on in the field.”
–Western Europe
…
“當你可以使用更多的文章十
你對該
領域的脈絡將更清楚。” –西歐
“A sure way to kill a proposal is not to
give proper credit or to not update new
developments.” –US
“Access has made collecting
research resources infinitely more
efficient; and facilitated
interdisciplinary research.” –US
“扼殺申請書的好方法就是不提供適當的信譽
或不更新的新的發展。” –美國
“資料的使用收集資源更有效率；並且促
進跨學科研究。”-美國
Faculty survey comments: Impact on productivity
教職員調查意見：對研究產出的影響力
“I guess that on average the online
access saves me more than 10 hour
per week.”
–Western Europe
“我想線上資料使用讓我每週省下10小
時以上時間。”-西歐
“The task of finding the most pertinent
articles on a new topic used to take a full
afternoon. The same work can now be
completed in 15 to 30 minutes.” –US
“以往尋找新主題的最相關文章都要花上一整
個下午。現在相同的工作只要15到30分鐘就完
成了。”-美國
“My productivity would drop at
least four fold if I had to go to the
library for all my needs.”
–US
“如果我必須去圖書館完成我的所有需
求，我的生產力會下降至少四倍。”
-美國
“The convenience of desktop delivery
has improved my efficiency and … my
ability to be a better researcher and
teacher.” –China
…
“電腦傳輸的便利性提升我的效率
我
能成為更好的研究員與教師”中國
Faculty survey comments: Library value to research
教職員研究意見： 圖書館在研究的價值
“Such access has become an
essential research tool.”
–Japan
“這種使用方式已成為必要的研究工
具。”-日本
“It would be impossible to be
competitive internationally without
electronic access to publications.” –
US
“若沒有電子資料可使用，將不可能具備國
際競爭力。”-美國
“I would leave this university in
a microsecond if the library
deteriorated ...” –US
“如果圖書館退化，我會立刻離開這
所大學…”美國-
“It has helped me open or discard
lines of research at the very
beginning by knowing what other
researchers have published or are
soon going to publish.”
–Western Europe
“藉由知道其他研究員已出版或即將出版
的資料，讓我一開始就能使用或摒棄許
多研究資料。”-西歐
Analytical approach 分析步驟方法

Interviews with key administrators to capture the institutional goals and values
訪問重要行政人員以了解機構的目標和價值

Library budget figures over time一段時間的圖書館預算金額

Grants income over time 一段時間內的補助金收入

Faculty survey to measure: 教職員研究以評估:
• Total number of grant proposals 補助金申請書 總數目
• Number of grant proposals that included citations 包含引文的補助金申請書數目
• Number of grant awards from proposals that included citations
包含引文的獲獎補助金申請書數目
• Importance of citations in grant proposals 補助金申請書中引文的重要性

Testimonials (in survey or through faculty interviews) that focus on outcomes of
library use 著重圖書館使用成果的證明 (透過調查或教職員訪談)
Grants ROI phase II model
補助金投資回報率第二階段模式
 Numbers/percentages input into model 數目/百分比 輸入模式中
補助金獲獎數目 X 表示引文對補助金獲獎很重要的教職員%
補助金申請書數目X包含圖書館獲得的引文的申請書%
X
平均補助金額 X 一年內補助金數目
圖書館總預算
 Juxtapose with interviews and survey responses 訪問與調查回應並列
 Put the ROI result into context for institutional faculty and executive administration
為了機構教職員與執行管理，將投資報酬率成果放進內容中
Phase II: Aggregated survey results
第二接段：聚合調查結果
References are essential, very
important, important
參考資料是必要的、非常重要、重要
Average number of citations in
proposals
申請書中引文的平均數目
Percent of citations (recognized) from
library
從圖書館獲得的引文(經認可)百分比
For every article cited, average number
of more that are read
對每篇引用的文章，被閱讀更多的平均
數目
90%
15
50%
18
Phase II: Aggregated ROI results
第二階段：聚合投資回報率結果
大學University 1
3.44
大學University 2
15.54
大學University 3
0.27
大學University 4
13.16
大學University 5
0.27
大學University 6
1.31
大學University 7
0.64
大學University 8
1.43
大學University 9
5.60
Highest values come from institutions with a purely
research mission or with a concentration in science and
technology. 最大值來自於有純粹研究任務或科學與科技專
門研究的學校
Middle values are from research-oriented institutions
that cover all disciplines and include both teaching and
research, but are located in countries or environments
where seeking externally funded competitive grants is a
priority and funds are available.
中間值來自研究導向的學校，其範圍涵蓋所有學科並且
包括教學與研究，但是地點位於將對外尋求具競爭性補
助資金列為優先項目並且資金可用的國家或環境中。
Lower values are from comprehensive liberal arts
institutions with a mix of research and teaching where
grant monies may be limited or are institutions that rely on
government funding instead of competitive grant funding.
較低值來自結合了研究與教學的綜合性人文藝術學校，其
補助金可能受限，或者是依賴政府資金而非競爭性補助資
金的學校。
[1]
The ROI value for University 4 was calculated based on some approximation of the data due to some missing information.
由於一些資訊的遺漏，大學4投資回報率的計算是根據一些數據的近似值。
[2]
There is no survey data for this university, so the ROI was calculated by averaging 4 similar universities’ values.
此大學沒有調查數據，因此投資回報率是根據4所相似大學的平均值
[3]
The original formula yielded an ROI value for UIUC of 4.38:1. This is UIUC’s recalculated ROI value.
原本的公式得出伊利諾大學投資回報率值是4.38:1。這是伊利諾大學重新計算的投資回報率值。
Phase II: Grants ROI varies
第二階段：補助金投資報酬率各不相同
 From 15.54:1 to under 1:1 從 15.54:1 到 1:1以下
 ROI depends on institutional mission
投資報酬率依賴學校任務
• Research focus is higher; teaching focus is lower
研究型大學較高；教學型較低
 Be cautious when comparing ROI among institutions with differing missions
謹慎地比較有不同任務之不同學校的投資報酬率
 ROI is one of other measures of the library’s value
投資報酬率是其他評估圖書館價值的方法之一
• Usage 使用統計 = implied value 隱含價值
• Stakeholder testimonials 出資者證言 = explicit value 明確價值
• Time & cost savings 節省時間與成本 = contingent valuation 條件評估
Phase III: Broaden focus 第三階段：擴展重點
大學任務與目標
研究
投資
教學/ 學習
投資報酬率
圖書館
社會/ 專業
成果
How the library’s functional areas measure within the university mission
在大學任務中 如何評估 圖書館的實用領域
Phase III: Downstream measures 第三階段：縱流評估
Teaching /Learning
教學/學習
Information Literacy
Instruction
資訊素養教育
Collections藏書
Classroom success
完成學業
Research
研究
Collections藏書
Social / Professional
社會/專業
Events 活動参與
Publication出版
Attendance出席率
Citations引文
Services服務
Usage使用率
Grants/TT 補助金/TT
Graduation rates
畢業率
Prestige聲望
Careers就業
Faculty Retention
教職員留任
Professional
Memberships
專業會員
Perceptions觀察力
Donations捐獻
What we can show so far: Phases I & II
目前可以展示的：第一、第二階段

Faculty use library resources to support scholarship, research, and teaching
教職員使用圖書館資源以支援學術、研究和教學

Library collections help faculty be productive and efficient, and increase interdisciplinary
and international perspectives
圖書館藏書有助於教職員的生產力與效率，並且增加跨學科與國際視野

University executives rely on the library to help recruit, evaluate, and retain faculty and
students, and increase international reputation
大學行政人員依賴圖書館以幫助招聘、評估、以及留任教職員與學生，並且增
加國際聲譽

Majority of faculty consider library resources an important part of their research and
integral to the grants process
大部分教職員認為圖書館資源是他們研究的重要部分，在補助金申請過程中是不可或缺的

For every monetary unit invested in the library, the university receives grants income that
ranges from 15:1 to less than 1:1
對於投資在圖書館每一塊錢，大學獲得從15:1 到小於 1:1 的補助金收入
What Phase III hopes to show
第三階段 希望展示的項目
The library’s products and services …
圖書館的產品與服務…
 Help faculty be successful 輔助教職員研究成就
 Help students be successful 輔助學生研究成就
 Generate both immediate and future income
創造立即與未來的收入
 Provide a good return for the investment to the
institution 提供學校在投資上的良好報酬
Some final thoughts on measuring value
衡量價值的最終理念
 Tie what you measure to your university’s mission
將你的評估與大學任務連結在一起
 Measure value and outcomes 評估價值與成果
• Quantitative data shows ROI and trends
量化的數據顯示投資報酬率與趨勢
• Qualitative information tells the story
質量的資訊成為顯示證明
 No one method stands alone 沒有任何獨樹ㄧ格的方法
 Enhanced access to information increases your library’s value to
your university 提升攫取資訊管道 可增加圖書館對於大學的價值
Recent independent works 近期相關的獨立研究報告
This computer model quantifies the association between downloads and research outcomes. A
doubling (100 per cent increase) in downloads, from 1 to 2 million, is statistically associated with
dramatic increases in research productivity. The gearing becomes even stronger as the volume of
downloads increases further. (Source: “E-journals: their use, value and impact”)
此電算模式 量化了下載與研究產出成果之間的關聯。加倍(百分之百增加)
下載，從一到兩百萬，在統計上與大幅度研究生產力的提升有關。
下載量進一步增加時，研究生產力也更強大。
(來源：“E-journals: their use, value and impact” )
百萬下載
33
文章下載
研究論文
博士獎助
研究補助金與合約
Country M – limited Electronic library lags behind
Country B in output
國家M – 有限的電子圖書館 在產出上落後B國
34
Different picture emerges when SD is fully rolled out at single
institution in Country M
當SD於M國在某大學被全面性推出時，就出現不同的情況
35
Thank you
very much!
謝謝
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/librariansinfo.
librarians/lc_home#White Paper
Further reading: Academic libraries
閱讀補給資訊: 學術圖書館
 Luther, 2008. University investment in the library: What’s the
return? A case study at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/whitepapers/0108/lcwp010801.html
 Mezick, 2007. Return on investment: Libraries and student
retention. Journal of Acad Libship 33, 561-566.
 Jones, 2007. How much do the ‘best’ colleges spend on libraries?
C&RL 68(4), 343-351.
 Tenopir & King, 2007. Perceptions of value and value beyond
perceptions. Serials 20(3), 199-207.
 Housewright & Schonfeld, 2008. Ithaka’s 2006 studies of key
stakeholders in the digital transformation of higher education.
http://www.ithaka.org/publications/facultyandlibrariansurveys
 Research Information Network and CIBER, 2009. E-journals: their
use, value and impact. http://www.rin.ac.uk/use-ejournals
Further reading: Public libraries
閱讀補給資訊: 公共圖書館
 Griffiths, King and others, 2004. Taxpayer return on investment in
Florida Public Libraries.
dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bid/roi/pdfs/ROISummaryReport.pdf
 Value for money: Southwestern Ohio’s return from investment in
public libraries. 2006.
http://9libraries.info/docs/EconomicBenefitsStudy.pdf
 Library Research Service, 2007. Return in investment for public
libraries. www.lrs.org/public/roi/
 Urban Library Council, 2007. Making cities stronger: Public library
contributions to local economic development.
www.urbanlibraries.org/files/making_cities_stronger.pdf
 OCLC and Gates Foundation, 2008. From awareness to funding:
A study of library support in America.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/funding/default.htm
Further reading: Special libraries
閱讀補給資訊: 專門圖書館
 Strouse, 2003. Demonstrating value and return on investment:
The ongoing imperative. Information Outlook (March), 14-19.
 Griffiths & King, 1993. Special Libraries: Increasing the
information edge. Special Libraries Association.
 Special Libraries Association, 1997. Enhancing competitiveness
in the information age.