Presented by Carol Tenopir and Rachel Fleming-May, University of Tennessee, and Tina Chrzastowski, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign

1. Measuring Value and ROI of
Academic Libraries:
The IMLS Lib-Value Project
Carol Tenopir
University of Tennessee
ctenopir@utk.edu
Charleston
2011
Center for Information and Communication Studies

2. Multiple institutions using
LIB-VALUE: multiple methods to
measure multiple values for
multiple stakeholders
Center for Information and Communication Studies

3. Measuring value
Special Information
Ebooks
Collections Commons
Journal Teaching and
All Services
Collections Learning
Website and
Reading and
Building Tools Value
Scholarship
Bibliography
Center for Information and Communication Studies

4. Return on investment in a strict sense…
…is a quantitative measure expressed as a ratio of
the value returned to the institution for each
monetary unit invested in the library.
For every $/€/£ spent on the library,
the university received ‘X’ $/€/£ in return.
Demonstrate that library collections contribute to
income-generating activities
Center for Information and Communication Studies

5. Return on investment is also…
…values of all types that come to
stakeholders and the institution
from the library’s collections,
services, and contribution to its
communities.
Center for Information and Communication Studies

6. In the information context economist
Machlup described 2 types of value:
1.purchase or exchange value: what one
is willing to pay for information in money
and/or time, and
2. use value: the favorable consequences
derived from reading and using the
information.
Center for Information and Communication Studies

7. Lib-Value Comprehensive Library Value
Study (Bruce Kingma)
• Economic (private)
– What is the value to an individual to use the library
resources?
• Social (public)
– What is the value to the institution of the library?
• Environmental (externality)
– What is the value of the environmental savings of
library provision of electronic resources?
– Have libraries gone green without knowing it?
Center for Information and Communication Studies

8. Readings for work related purposes
Center for Information and Communication Studies

9. Average readings per month:
U.K. faculty, 2011
30
25
25
20
15
11
10 8
5
0
Article Book Other Publication
n=2117, June 9 2011, 6 UK
universities Center for Information and Communication Studies

10. Source of article readings
100
90
80
70 65
60
Percent
50
40
30
20 14
9 6 6
10
0
Library Free Web Dept. or Personal Colleague's Copy Other
Subscription Journal, Website Subscription
n=1189, June 9, 2011, 6 U.K universities Center for Information and Communication Studies

11. Where did you read this last article?
(Articles from library only)
Home
26%
Travelling
10%
Library
2%
Office, Lab
62%
n=764, June 9, 2011, 6 Center for Information and Communication Studies
U.K universities

12. Preliminary faculty survey results
Average last 30 % of
Activity days respondents
Physical Visits 2.9 visits 73%
Remote Visits 14.2 visits 88%
Average Total Resources Used:
in-person visit to the library 7.3 uses 80%
remotely online 14.9 uses 89%
Center for Information and Communication Studies

13. Use of library collections for articles
US, 2005 UK, 2011
Print Print
28% 7%
Electronic Electronic
72% 93%
n=562 n=775
June 9, 2011, 6 U.K universities Center for Information and Communication Studies

14. Outcomes of journal article reading
2004-06 2011
1st Inspire new thinking or ideas 55% 54%
2nd Improve results 40% 38%
3rd Narrow/broaden/change the focus 27% 28%
4th Resolve technical problems 12% 10%
5th Save time or other resources 12% 10%
6th Aid in faster completion 7% 5%
7th Assist or result in 6% 4%
collaboration/joint research
Center for Information and Communication Studies

15. Portrait of a successful faculty member…
”
•Publishes more
•Wins awards
•Reads more
•Reads more from the
library
•For every article
cited, reads 27-40
additional articles
Center for Information and Communication Studies

16. More details and searchable Lib-Value
bibliographic database available on the
project website:
http://libvalue.cci.utk.edu
Center for Information and Communication Studies

17. LIB-VALUE:
TEACHING & LEARNING
Rachel A. Fleming-May, Assistant Professor
School of Information Sciences,
The University of Tennessee

18. • Value of academic library resources &
services in support of teaching
• Instructors:
•Survey, to be followed by “real time”
conversation

19. • All UTK Constituents with instructional
responsibilities:
Survey:  Tenured/tenure-track faculty
 “Clinical” faculty
 Part-time faculty
 GTA’s
 Administrators (e.g., Dean of Students’
Office)
• Materials used for teaching support, whether
or not provided by UTK Libraries
 Readings, etc., for
students, print, electronic, other formats
 Reading to support own pedagogical
development

20. Perceived Benefits of Support provided by
UTK Libraries:
• Savings…
of own time
of own money
of other resources
• Improvements…
teaching
course-relatedmaterials
student performance

21. Determining the Focus of Inquiry:
Institutional
priorities
VolVision 2015

22. …And Federal
Higher Education Opportunity Act
Regulations

23. Communication &
Information
Colleges:
Agricultural Sciences
and Natural Education, He
Resources alth, Human
Architecture and
Design
Services
Arts and Sciences
Business
Administration
Communication and
A&S
Information
Education, Health, an
d Human Sciences
Engineering
Law
Agricultural
Sciences &
Nursing
Natural
Social Work
Resources
Veterinary Medicine

24. Has your approach to identifying readings for your classes
changed in the past 3-5 years?
• They are more likely to
search or browse subscription databases for readings.
True/ Somewhat True : 59%
browse electronic journals to identify readings for my
students.
True/ Somewhat True : 66%
• …and less likely to
browse print journals to identify course readings.
True/ Somewhat True: 50%
(Only 7% more likely to browse print journals)

25. Has your approach to collecting and distributing readings for
your classes changed in the past 3-5 years?
• I require my students to purchase fewer printed
textbooks.
True or Somewhat True: 34%
• I require my students to purchase more printed
textbooks.
Untrue: 60.0%
• I require my students to purchase fewer course
packets of printed materials.
True or Somewhat True: 31%
N/A: 44.4%

26. As a result of using the Libraries' services, collections,
or facilities, do you feel that your teaching has
improved in any of these ways?
• The readings I assign are more up-to-date and/or
varied
True or Somewhat True: 70%
• I read more/more widely to prepare for teaching
True/Somewhat True: 63%
• My assignments are more creative
True/Somewhat True: 48%

27. Do you feel that your
performance has improved as a result of
your using the Libraries'
services, collections, or facilities to support
your teaching?
My students are...

28. True or Somewhat True:
• citing sources that are more appropriate
for academic work.
52%
• writing citations that are more complete
and/or correct.
40%
• accessing information from a wider
variety of sources.
66%

29. ≤5 hours
6-10
In a typical
hours
semester, I save
11-15
hours
time by using the
library to support
≥16 my teaching.
hours
I do not
save time.

30. In a typical
semester, using $50 or
the library less…
saves me
money that I
might have
spent on
materials (such
as books,
journals, or
photocopying)
to support my
teaching or my
+$1001
students'
learning. $0

31. I save…
paper and ink
paper because I do not make as many copies as I
used to.
Money and paper formerly expended on
printing/photocopying.
Time!
Time: I can access services from home so do not
need to travel to campus. Can work by my own
schedule
time in terms of accessing readings on timely topics
time!!!!

32. Successes…
• “Over the years, the library has been a great support in
diverse ways: library orientation is mandatory in our first
year; researching precedents is expected of all
architecture students from first year on; DMS, Reserve,
Studio, Map Library, and Archives, have all assisted me in
a great way.”
• “My students are also composing information in a wider
variety of sources.”
• “[My students are] more able to distinguish between
valid sources and ‘junk.’”

33. …and “opportunities”:
• “We need clear help with proper citations, especially
for images. I am confused about faculty access to
image data bases too.”
• “Just never thought about [using the library services to
support teaching] - especially with distance education
students.”
• “The level of difficulty of the materials at the library is
much more advanced than the subjects I teach.”
• “I teach primarily doctoral students. If they need
advice about the library they won't make it through
the program.”

34. Caveats Next Steps
• Having the survey vetted • Targeted email invitations
by librarians was • Conversations with
essential. faculty
• Be prepared for • Student learning and
“backseat driving” about experience:
the instrument itself.  Multi-phase instructional
• Identify a program for at-risk students
comprehensive  Studies of Commons use
(and non-use)
distribution strategy
 In-library survey
 In-class survey

35. THANK YOU!
Rf-m@utk.edu

36. Assessing the Value of Ebooks to
Academic Libraries and Users

37. Assessing the Value of Ebooks to
Academic Libraries and Users
•
–

38. Assessing the Value of Ebooks to
Academic Libraries and Users
•
–
–

39. Assessing the Value of Ebooks to
Academic Libraries and Users
•
–
–
•

40. Assessing the Value of Ebooks to
Academic Libraries and Users
•
–
–
•
–

41. What is Value?
(from dictionary.com)
–
–
–

42. What is Value?
(from dictionary.com)
–
–
–

43. What is Value?
(from dictionary.com)
–
–
–

44. What is Value?
(from dictionary.com)
–
–
–

45. Data Sets Employed to Answer
Research Questions
•
•
•
•
–
–
–

46. Overall Ebook Growth at UIUC
2008-2011
Fiscal #Ebooks Added Per Cumulative Ebook Percent Increase Per
Year Year* Total Year
2007 292,002 NA
2008 27,531 345,186 9%
2009 66,178 411,364 19%
2010 73,404 484,768 18%
2011 129,435 614,203 27%
*Counts are per volume, not per title

47. UIUC Cost Per Ebook 2008-2011
Fiscal Year $ Spent #New Ebooks $ per Ebook
2008 $224,047 27,531 $8.13
2009 $204,678 66,178 $3.09
2010 $383,167 73,404 $5.22
2011 $732,725 129,435 $5.66

48. Definition of an Ebook “Use”
•
•
•
•

49. Cost and Use Data for UIUC Ebooks 2008-2011
#Ebooks Added
#Ebooks Amount Avg. $ per new Cost Per
Fiscal Year from Previous Total Uses
(Cumulative) Spent Ebook Use
Year
2007 292,002 $185,991
2008 345,186 $224,047 27,531 $8.14 151,089 $1.48
2009 411,364 $204,678 66,178 $3.09 251,273 $0.81
2010 484,768 $383,167 73,404 $5.22 563,871 $0.68
2011 614,203 $732,725 129,435 $5.66 709,944 $1.05
* Use data available from 82% of ebook publishers

50. Top 10 FY2011 Ebook Publishers by
Number of Volumes Available at UIUC
Publisher #Ebooks in FY2011 FY2011 Uses
Gale (includes Eighteenth Century
Collections Online, Making of American
Law, Making of Modern Mind) 332,609 69,769
Early English Books Online 106,853 94
Archives of Americana 66,892 Unknown
Springer 45,924 206,740
EBSCO 11,936 Unknown
Wiley 10,448 88,875
CRCNetBase 6,857 6,768
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 6,615 545
Netlibrary 6,182 1,234
American Council of Learned Societies 3,368 33,123
Total 597,684 (97%) 407,148 (57%)

51. UIUC Number of Ebook Uses/Year for
Four Publishers
These four publishers’ total downloads represent 49% of total uses for
ebooks at UIUC in 2011and 11% of total ebook holdings

52. UIUC Ebooks Used and Unused
Wiley, Elsevier, RSC and Springer
70,000
36.9% Used
34.0% Used 41,543
60,000
31.1% Used 38,578
50,000
34,465
20.2% Used
40,000
Ebooks Unused
29,268
30,000 Ebooks Used
20,000 24,260
19,857
15,564
10,000
7,405
0
2008 2009 2010 2011

53. Use Frequency: Average uses per ebook

54. RSC Ebooks at UIUC by Use Frequency
500
450
400
350
300
1 Use
250 2-20 Uses
200 20-100 Uses
101+ Uses
150
100
50
0
2009 2010 2011
149 Uses in 2009 of “Molecular Biology and Biotechnology”
130 Uses in 2010 of “Handbook of Surface Plasmon Resonance”
317 Uses in 2011 of “Food Flavors and Chemistry”

55. Comparison of per-object cost of print versus
electronic storage (relative to print cost).
From: Courant and Nielsen, 2010, “On the Cost of Keeping a Book.”

56. From the perspective of library value, ebooks:
• Have a low cost-per-ebook purchase
• Have a low cost-per-use
• Are more cost effective to lend, store and preserve than print
• Offer greater accessibility to users (24/7 anywhere)
• Offer greater availability to users (higher uses per ebook than print)
• Can provide broader collection variety due to low cost, package
purchases and lower facilities and staffing costs; also
• Often no need to purchase multiple copies
• But….

57. From the perspective of library value, ebooks:
• Have a low cost-per-ebook purchase
• Have a low cost-per-use
• Are more cost effective to lend, store and preserve than print
• Offer greater accessibility to users (24/7 anywhere)
• Offer greater availability to users (higher uses per ebook than print)
• Can provide broader collection variety due to low cost, package
purchases and lower facilities and staffing costs; also
• Often no need to purchase multiple copies
• But…. What do Users Think?

58. The Value of Ebooks to Users
•
•
•
–
–
–
–

59. Survey Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•

60. The Value of Ebooks to Users
In which field are you working? N=129
Social Sciences, 3
Engineering and
Computer
Science, 22 Humanities, 4
Interdisciplinary, 1
Life Sciences, 21 Engineering and Computer Science
Physical Sciences, 77
Humanities
Interdisciplinary
Life Sciences
Not applicable
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences
Not applicable, 1

61. The Value of Ebooks to Users
My position is best described as:
Professor/
Researcher/Other
15 (12%)
PhD student
114 (88%)

62. The Value of Ebooks to Users
What is your preferred form at this moment for a scholarly book?
n = 114 (PhD students)
do not know / no opinion
/ does not apply, 1
print, 45 electronic, 45
no preferred form, 23

63. The Value of Ebooks to Users
What is your preferred form at this moment for a
scholarly book?
n = 15 (Professor/Researcher/Other )
print, 6 electronic, 7
no preferred
form, 2

64. The Value of Ebooks to Users

65. The Value of Ebooks to Users
My usage of (printed or electronic) books for research purposes is
characterized by:
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Humanities and Social Sciences
40%
Life Sciences
30%
20% Physical Sciences, Engineering
and Computer Science
10%
0%
I use bits of I read one or I read most or all
information two chapters chapters from a
from a book from a book book

66. The Value of Ebooks to Users
What are the main advantages of E-books from your perspective?
[PLEASE TICK A MAXIMUM OF 3 BOXES]
# Responses Percent
24 hours/7 days per week access 82 63.6%
online access 79 61.2%
easy to search and navigate 52 40.3%
downloading to laptop 39 30.2%
easy storage 36 27.9%
off campus access 33 25.6%
copying and pasting 16 12.4%
downloading to e-reader 9 7.0%
easy to share with colleagues 8 6.2%
easy to use in an electronic learning environment 6 4.7%
easy to use multiple documents at once 5 3.9%
use of multimedia in the E-book 4 3.1%

67. The Value of Ebooks to Users
My online behavior includes the following characteristics:

68. How do you value the information from this
Elsevier E-book?
Based on over 800 ebook uses

69. How do you value the information from this
Elsevier E-book?
Based on over 800 ebook uses

70. Comment Box Responses Following
Value Questions
Comment Description Not Clear Negative Positive
Lack of relevant material 2 89 0
Did not have access to material 10 57 5
Did no better providing information than other resources
(Google, journal articles) 5 27 0
Ebook was convenient and easy to access 2 0 6
Not clear 55 0 1
Obtained relevant/useful information 2 0 79
Liked ability to search within the ebooks 0 0 2
Would serve as a nice additional resource 0 1 13
Liked the ebook because it gave background information 4 1 39
Liked the ebook because it gave good detail 0 0 1
Search is good 0 0 9
Search results similar to other sources 1 1 0
Did not like search 0 6 0
Contained current information 0 0 1
E-book was not up-to-date enough 0 8 0
Information in E-book was too general 0 3 0
Liked platorm search 0 0 2
E-book content was too specific 0 3 0
Totals 81 196 158

71. From the perspective of the user, ebooks:
• Offer impressive 24/7 accessibility from anywhere
• Are found using multiple search engines
• Are “Nice to Have” (12.6%) or “Need to Have” (54.8%)
• Are not likely to be shared with colleagues, printed out, or be
used in “cut and paste”
• Are most likely to be read from the screen or briefly reviewed
• Need to have the ability to be downloaded in some format
• Are often difficult to access, despite strong interest in the title.

72. Conclusions
• Ebooks offer value to the library in both a monetary way and through
documented “usefulness” to patrons (although YMMD).
• As noted by Courant and Neilsen, ebooks are less expensive to
own, circulate, maintain and preserve than print books.
• Ebooks offer value to patrons, who “esteem” them due to
– Accessibility and availability (24/7, literally anywhere in the world)
– Portability
– Search and navigation capabilities
• There is still plenty of room for improvement!

73. Conclusions
• Despite documented value to both users and libraries, some ebook
issues remain to be solved, including:
– Non-standard downloading policies
– Non-standard cut and paste capabilities
– Confusion about what ebooks are locally available
– Inadequate and non-standard discovery tools
– Digital rights management
– Perpetual access “guarantees”
– Sparse content in some disciplines
– However… all predictions are for these issues, and others that have yet to
arise, to be solved within the next 5-10 years.

74. Thank you!
Special thanks to UIUC Graduate Assistants Dan Tracy and William Weathers
and to Wendy Shelburne, Michael Norman and Elsevier.
This research is a part of
Values, Outcomes, and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries ("Lib-Value"),
a three year study funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services
IMLS grant # LG-06-09-0152-09.