540 likes | 768 Views
Building a resource for practical assessment: adding value to value and impact. Stephen Town University of York, UK Library Assessment Conference, Seattle Wednesday 6 th August, 2008. Summary. The SCONUL Value & Impact Measurement Program (“VAMP”) recap The Performance Portal
E N D
Building a resource for practical assessment:adding value to value and impact Stephen Town University 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
The University Context (from the 2006 Library Assessment Conference, after Lombardi) Universities have two “bottom lines” • Financial (as in business) • 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: • Financial, through “value for money” or related measures • 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 • Attainment & retention of Library institutional income • Proof of value and impact on education and research • Evidence of comparability with peer institutions • Justification of a continuing role for libraries and their staff • 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
Community of Practice Techniques Member’s Forum (Blog?Chat?) VAMP Home Page Simple Introductions Detailed Techniques Techniques in Use (Wiki?)
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
Discussion Tools • An experiment in social networking & Web 2.0 technologies
The Ontology of Performance • ‘Frameworks’ • ‘Impact’ • ‘Quality’ • ‘Statistics’ • ‘Value’ • A visual Mind map?
Mounted European Framework for Quality Management (EFQM) Desired Key Performance Indicators The Balanced Scorecard Critical Success Factors The Effective Academic Library Frameworks
Mounted Impact tools Desired Detailed UK experience from LIRG/SCONUL Initiatives Outcome based evaluation Information Literacy measurement More on research impact Impact
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 Quality
Mounted SCONUL Statistics & interactive service HELMS statistics Desired Institutional experience of using SCONUL statistics for local advocacy COUNTER E-resource tools Statistics
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
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’
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