26
Evaluating Digital Libraries DEA (not the Drug Enforcement Agency) Paul Kantor LIDA 2007

Evaluating Digital Libraries DEA (not the Drug Enforcement Agency) Paul Kantor LIDA 2007

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Evaluating Digital LibrariesDEA

(not the Drug Enforcement Agency)Paul Kantor

LIDA

2007

Prof. Saracevic showed evaluation as a magician, pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Qualitative versusQuantitative?

Economics of Digital Libraries

The baseball player with 2 hits last season; 5 hits this week.

The difference is ...Not 3

Quantitative studies are subtle

Informed by, and

informing

qualitative studies

Baseball player ..

• Outputs– Hits– Bases– Runs scored– Hit safely– Runs batted in– Attendance/fans– Earnings

• Inputs– Games played– At bats– Salary

• 1. Which players are “economically better”

You can’t learn ...– to hit a baseball– to kick a football– to dance the kolo– to play the gaida– to run a library

• by reading about it– you need to

• see it• feel it• ask questions about it

( , , )type type type typehigh medium lows s s s

• Outputs– quantity– quality– impact

• We cannot have impact without quantity– quality is an aspect of quantity

Evaluation compares output to inputs

For comparison we’d like to see a single number

• But there are many kinds of service– lending materials– reference assistance– providing copies– obtaining remote materials

• and many kinds of input– staff expenses– materials– licenses/contracts.

• Can form too many ratios:

• Sometimes called “ratio analysis”

• not very useful

( , ) /i jratio i j Output Input

With many kinds of Inputs and Outputs

The better approach

• Assess each output by its importance to the organization

• Assess each input by its cost to the organization

1 1 N NInput I I

1 1 N NOutput O O

Depends on L

Depends on L

The “small print”-- details

• Each parameter, is constrained to be “reasonable” by requiring that it relate to what is known about costs.

• Or we can use 4 instead of 2.

( ) ( )(1/ 2) / 2

( ) ( )A BaverageUnitCost A averageUnitCost A

averageUnitCost B averageUnitCost B

Sets allowable range

Then divide

• Get the performance ratio that really matters– to this organization

• How to compare with others?– Charnes and Cooper found a way– let each organization select its own weights– let it choose them to make it look as good as

possible

How to compare

• If I choose weights to make my library look as good as possible

• we can use the same weights to see how efficient every other library is– if I am the most efficient– I get a “gold star”– if not– I can compare my efficiency to the best

So DEA has two steps

• 1. For each library– make it look as efficient as possible– compare it to the others– compute

• 2. Compare the efficiencies of all the libraries in a sensible “peer group”

/tomakemelook good BestMyLibraryeff e e

Input

Output

L

C

B

A

Using the alpha and beta for library L. A, B are other libraries. They use fewer resources. They are part of the Pareto frontier,

The frontier

Slope of this line is e

Output

C

B

A

Input

Output

L

C

B

A

H

ILIH

Output

L

C

B

A

Input

Output

L

C

B

A

H

ILIH

The “hypothetical library” H could give the same outputs, with lower inputs. A, B are real libraries

( )

( )

Inputs Hefficiency

Inputs L

How to do it

• Use DEA software

• Hire a bright Operational Researcher– it can be coded into Excel– but it takes some work to do it

• Assemble a group of peer libraries

• Gather the statistics

• “Crunch the numbers”

Then what?• Either a library is Pareto optimal

– no changes required

• Or it is not, because there is some set of libraries which define a more efficient way of doing precisely what this library wants to do– arrange for visits by line managers– groups supervisors– see how they do it

L

C

B

A

Input

Output

L

C

B

A

H’

OL

OH

The “hypothetical library” could give more outputs, with the same inputs. C, B are real libraries

These libraries are doing

things better

( )

( ')

Outputs Lefficiency

Outputs H

Because the library L is “inside the envelope” made by better libraries:

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS

Visiting is necessary

• The paper description of policies and procedures can conceal 4-fold efficiency or 4-fold waste. A ratio of 16 has been observed between best and worst efficiencies

Extension to digital libraries

• Need solid, measurable definitions of services– human interaction– web-based interactions

• is it the page or the book? (King: kiloword page)• is it the page or the site• is the service in the link• or in the annotation• or in the pages retrieved [!! We cannot see them!!]

Your suggestions needed• Outputs must be

– measurable• with a reasonable effort

– comparable• meaning should be the same at other libraries

– sensible • makes sense to key “Stakeholders”• library managers• funding sources• patrons

Extension to digital libaries

• Link versus Lease

• Links– with links to other open services– partners, public sites, consortia– no direct expense to the using library per use

• Leases– direct expense– recurring -- no need to amortize :)

The kinds of inputs

• Staff

• Equipment

• Software

• Training

• Licenses

• ….. Defining these is the next step

• Input measures must be available, comparable, sensible.

[email protected]

• references are in the paper

Hvala