Measuring ROI for Research Libraries Phase I Judy Luther Informed Strategies ASERL Membership...
-
Upload
hollie-rogers -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Measuring ROI for Research Libraries Phase I Judy Luther Informed Strategies ASERL Membership...
Measuring ROI for Research LibrariesPhase I
Measuring ROI for Research LibrariesPhase I
Judy Luther Informed Strategies
ASERL Membership MeetingSpring 2010
© Informed Strategies
Project ObjectiveProject Objective
“It used to be that the way you put together a library budget was to look at like institutions and then argue for a little more. Now my provost is saying to me then argue for a little more. Now my provost is saying to me, “If I give you x dollars, what is the return on investment to the University?”
T. Scott Plutchak, Librarian, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Project Objective
To articulate library’s value in terms of institutional objectives
Criteria for Measurement• Quantifiable• Meaningful & compelling• Replicable by other institutions
1
© Informed Strategies
Administration PrioritiesAdministration Priorities
University Goals• Attract and retain outstanding faculty• Increase impact of university’s research• Sustain & enhance university’s reputation
University Strategic Plan• Focus on new intellectual directions• Strengthen interdisciplinary work• Find resources• Connect with community, state, nation, globally• Achieve efficiency in all areas
2
© Informed Strategies
Connect Research to RevenueConnect Research to Revenue
3
Faculty research
Publications
Grants
© Informed Strategies
Value of LibraryValue of Library
• Teaching & Learning
• Social & Professional
4
• Research & Publications
© Informed Strategies
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
• Assessments in literature survey– Academic:
• Cost/benefit analyses – time saved • Faculty productivity – correlate citations and grants
– Public: econometric & contingent valuation– Corporate: Time/cost saved & income generated
• Correlation over time – explored but not used– Too early to have enough reliable usage data – New system with invalid data for 1 year– Time lag between application & award– Regression analysis
5
© Informed Strategies
HypothesisHypothesis
6
© Informed Strategies
Data CollectionData Collection
• Grant income– All disciplines & types of faculty grants– Grant $ expended not awarded
• Library budget– Not limited to materials– Use ARL data on entire library budget
• Survey– Include tenure track faculty – grant proposals– Exclude professional academics - little involvement
Criteria: clearly defined, reliable, accessible
7
© Informed Strategies
The SurveyThe Survey
• Test Assumptions– Faculty use citations in grant proposals– Citations are important in successful grant proposals– Citations used in grant proposals are found through university
network / Library gateway
• Implement Survey– More than 2000 tenure track faculty– All disciplines– Espresso card incentive– IRB approval
8
© Informed Strategies
ModelModel
(# faculty with grants x 94% use citations in grant proposals) = % faculty using citations in grant proposals
x(# grant proposals x 94% obtain citations through library gateway) X
(# grant awards x 95% state citations important)=% proposals include citations obtained thru library
xAverage size grant
= Avg grant $ generated using citations obtained through library
X # of grants
÷ $ library budget
=$ grant income for each $1 invested in library (ROI value)
9
© Informed Strategies
Study – Intent & LimitationsStudy – Intent & Limitations
• ROI = income received as a % of amount invested
• Demonstrate quantitatively that – the investment in library collections – contributes directly to university receiving income
• Disclaimers– Cannot be predictive– Was not intended to increase claim on grant funds– Focused on income rather than savings in cost or time– Did not include tech transfer from research
10
© Informed Strategies
Survey ResponseSurvey Response
• 16% response rate 328/2045 – >50% spend >50% of their time doing research
• Respondents were evenly distributed across multiple profiles– Disciplines:
• Social Science, Arts & Humanities• Life Sciences, Health Sciences
– Faculty rank• Full professor, Associate, Assistant
– Time at university • 5 yrs or less, 6-15 years, more than 15 years
11
© Informed Strategies
Survey ResultsSurvey Results
• Assumptions– 95% Faculty indicated references vital– 94% Faculty report using library resources in grant
proposals– 94% Faculty obtain citations via campus network/Library
Gateway
• Comments– Better quality, more competitive proposals– Enhanced interdisciplinary exploration– Integrated with their workflow– Increased efficiency and productivity
12
© Informed Strategies
QuotesQuotes
• “Without…references the grant proposal would likely not be reviewed.”
• “A sure way to kill a proposal is not to give proper credit or to not update new developments.”
• “It has increased the strength of my grant proposals...by allowing for…thorough evaluation of the literature on any particular topic.”
• “’Finding’ and ‘accessing’ is synonymous with ‘reading’ when access is via the online gateway.”
13
© Informed Strategies
UIUC Model for 2006UIUC Model for 2006
78.14% faculty w/ grants using citationsX
50.79% grant successful proposals using citations from libraryX
$63,923 avg. grant income=
$25,369 avg. grant income generated using citations from libraryX
6,232 grants expended÷
$36,102,613 library budget=
$4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested by the university
in the library (ROI Value)
14
© Informed Strategies
Looking Forward Looking Forward
• Phase II – Gayle Baker– Broaden to more institutions
• IMLS Study – Carol Tenopir– Expand the model to include more inputs – Widen the study to include other aspects of library value
15