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


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


Connect Research to RevenueConnect Research to Revenue

3

Faculty research

Publications

Grants


Value of LibraryValue of Library

• Teaching & Learning

• Social & Professional

4

• Research & Publications


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


HypothesisHypothesis

6


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Measuring ROI for Research Libraries Phase I Judy Luther Informed Strategies ASERL Membership...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring ROI for Research Libraries Phase I Judy Luther Informed Strategies ASERL Membership...