Building a resource for practical assessment: adding value to

value and impact

Stephen TownUniversity of York, UK

Library Assessment Conference, Seattle

Wednesday 6th August, 2008

Summary

• The SCONUL Value & Impact Measurement Program (“VAMP”) recap

• The Performance Portal• ‘Value’ options

– UK drivers (TRAC)– Institutional Case: The Open University’s Best Value

project– Benchmarking & national statistics

Introduction & recap

The University Context (from the 2006 Library Assessment

Conference, after Lombardi)

Universities have two “bottom lines”

1. Financial (as in business)

2. Academic, largely through reputation in• Research (the priority in “leading” Universities)• Teaching (& maybe Learning)

Library Pressures for Accountability

The need is therefore to demonstrate the Library contribution in these two dimensions:

1. Financial, through “value for money” or related measures

2. Impact on research, teaching and learning

This also implies that “competitive” data will be highly valued

The Aim & Role of Universities & their Libraries: cautions for

measurement• Research, Teaching & Reductionism

– ‘Mode 1’ Research & impact ‘transcendental’– ‘Mode 2’ Research & impact ‘instrumental’– Value, Price & ‘Mandarinisation’ of research and its support– Interdisciplinary research– Collaborative research across institutions– Learning as a set of discreet assessed modules

• All of this may damage the idea of Libraries as ‘transcendent’, collective and connective services

SCONUL Member Survey Findings

• 70% undertaken value or impact measurement

• Main rationales are advocacy, service improvement, comparison

• Half used in-house methodologies; half used standard techniques

• Main barrier is lack of tools, – Creating issues of time and buy-in

Member Survey Conclusions

• There is a need to demonstrate value and that libraries make a difference

• Measurement needs to show ‘real’ value• Need to link to University mission• Libraries are, and intend to be, ahead of the

game• Impact may be difficult or impossible to measure• All respondents welcomed the programme, and

the prospect of an available toolkit with robust and simple tools

VAMP Objectives

• New missing measurement instruments & frameworks

• A full coherent framework for performance, improvement and innovation

• Persuasive data for University Senior Managers, to prove value, impact, comparability, and worth

Missing methods

• An impact tool or tools, for both teaching & learning and research (from the LIRG/SCONUL initiative?)

• A robust Value for Money/Economic Impact tool

• Staff measures• Process & operational costing tools

Program Benefits

1. Attainment & retention of Library institutional income

2. Proof of value and impact on education and research

3. Evidence of comparability with peer institutions

4. Justification of a continuing role for libraries and their staff

5. Meeting national costing requirements for separating spend on teaching and research

Communities of Practice

“groups of people who share a passion for something that they know how to do,and who interact regularly to learn how to do it better”

“coherence through mutual engagement”

Etienne Wenger, 1998 & 2002

VAMP Project Structure

• Analysis March-June 2006• Tools I (Impact ) - June 2007• Site Development - June 2007• Tools II (Value) - ?• CoP development• Maintenance

The Performance Portal

Member’s Forum(Blog?Chat?)

Techniques in Use(Wiki?)

VAMP Home Page

SimpleIntroductio

ns

DetailedTechniques

Community of Practice

Techniques

The ‘Performance Portal’

• A Wiki of library performance measurement containing a number of ‘approaches’, each (hopefully) with:– A definition– A method or methods– Some experience of their use in libraries (or links to

this)– The opportunity to discuss use

Content submission

User guide

Discussion Tools

• An experiment in social networking & Web 2.0 technologies

The Ontology of Performance

• ‘Frameworks’• ‘Impact’• ‘Quality’• ‘Statistics’• ‘Value’

• A visual Mind map?

Frameworks

Mounted

• European Framework for Quality Management (EFQM)

Desired

• Key Performance Indicators

• The Balanced Scorecard

• Critical Success Factors• The Effective Academic

Library

Impact

Mounted

• Impact tools

Desired

• Detailed UK experience from LIRG/SCONUL Initiatives

• Outcome based evaluation

• Information Literacy measurement

• More on research impact

Quality

Mounted

• Charter Mark• Customer Surveys

– LibQUAL+– SCONUl Survey– Priority Research

• Investors in People

Desired

• Benchmarking• Quality Assurance• ISO 9000s• ‘Investors in People’

experience• Opinion meters• Quality Maturity Model

Statistics

Mounted

• SCONUL Statistics & interactive service

• HELMS statistics

Desired

• Institutional experience of using SCONUL statistics for local advocacy

• COUNTER• E-resource tools

Value

Mounted Desired

• Contingent valuation• ‘Transparency’ costing• Staff & process

costing, value & contribution

• E-resource value tools

Value

What is value?

• Cost efficiency• Cost effectiveness• Cost comparison (Case 3)• Financial management process standards & audit• Financial allocation (Case 1)• Valuation• Value added• Return on investment• Best value (Case 2)

Case 1: TRAC

UK Higher Education Transparency initiative 2000-09

Transparent approach to costing

• The standard method for costing in UK HEIs

• Government requirement• Ending of cross-subsidy (T vs R)• Research funding based on full economic

costing (fEC)• Positive effects on funding• Positive effect on pricing

Implications

• All activity to be identified as ‘research’, ‘teaching’ or ‘other’

• Library as other? or• All library activities either research or

teaching, or a simplistic apportioning to each• Libraries omitted as a component of

research costs, and therefore as a share recipient

Case 2: the UK Open University Library’s Best Value Program

OU Best Value Program Objectives

• To increase the business skills of library managers & staff

• To develop skills to support customer-focused, cost-efficient management decision making

• To develop benchmarking evaluation skills that balance quality, value and cost efficiency

Strands

• Business reporting• Process costing and continuous

improvement• Service planning• Benchmarking

‘to generate real accountability’

Business reporting elements

• Library business areas• Five PIs per area, including cost, quality

& customer impact• Forecast, variance & remedial action

Has improved use of management information, efficiency, prioritisation and expenditure control

Process Costing

• Complete process and stage costing• Average times and skill levels• Included enquiries, cataloguing, e-resources, IT

support, document delivery, counter services

Has delivered justification for staffing levels against activity, staffing formulae, redeployment to priority areas, and process improvements

Service plans

• Costed service plans to achieve medium term improvement and development through a rolling program

Included document delivery, enquiries, information literacy, and e-resources

Program benefits and outcomes

• Staff development – cost-conscious decision-making– business skills

• Management information improvement• Clarity about customers and use• Improved quality• Ability to ‘sell benefits’

Case 3: Financial benchmarking

International Benchmarking initiatives

• OU able to engage and lead an exercise against distance education Universities worldwide

• In one 2008 international benchmarking study– Only one institution (out of eight) had a

comprehensive costing model

Financial Statistical Convergence

• York Meeting, 2008– OCLC/RLG– ARL– SCONUL– CAUL

Conclusion & Questions

• What do mean by value?• Why do we not yet have a collective

view on costing approaches?– Skills deficiency?– Lack of real need or real financial performance

accountability?– We would rather not know?– Are we more intent on increasing budgets than

seeking efficiency improvement?

Acknowledgments

• The VAMP Subgroup of SCONUL WGPIMaxine Melling, Philip Payne, Rupert Wood

• The Cranfield VAMP Team, Darien Rossiter, Michael Davis, Selena Lock, Heather Regan

• The Open University, Ann Davies

• ‘Value’ Consultants, Sue Boorman, Larraine Cooper

• Attendees at the York Statistics meeting