What are you worth in cost conscious times?My presentation at Online Information 2011 discusses the value of library and information professionals, their services and skills, and asks what value remains in collections.

1. Demonstrating the value of
information services and information
professionals
Peter Griffiths
Independent Information Specialist
Online Information 2011 – Theatre 1, 1 December 2011

2.  On a global scale
 In every type of information service and
library
The financial pressures we are facing come largely
from inexorable economic, social, and demographic
trends over which […] librarians have no control.
And they will undoubtedly get worse in the decade
ahead.
- Richard de Gennaro
 But should the focus be on cost or value?

3. ◦ ‘When funding diminishes, public scrutiny sharpens toward such
nonrevenue producing sectors as police, fire, sewers, roads, schools and
libraries. Police or sewers? Roads or libraries? One overarching trend
is that scarce funds for supporting all the public goods will make for an
acrimonious process of resource allocation.’ – The 2003 OCLC
Environmental Scan : pattern recognition.
 This is not just an issue for public libraries
 It’s a key issue for information services in both the
public and private sectors

4.  In the current economic climate, information services of
all types are under increasing pressure to measure their
value. (Marshall, 1993)
 In times of economic distress, the roles and activities of
institutions are scrutinized with particular fervor. The
library is no exception. (Bookstein, 1981)
 In a new era of austerity in […] libraries, more realistic
concepts of collection building will have to be adopted
and new patterns of service will have to be devised (de
Gennaro, 1975)
 And so on …

5.  The organisations that fund us are under pressure to
show value for money…
 … and ask us to show VfM in their terms, not ours
 Libraries and information services see their value in
things you can’t put a price on directly …
◦ enhancing social cohesion and community identity
◦ increasing equity and access in society
 … as well as in more calculable benefits
 Attempts to calculate financial value have been flawed
◦ Critics find it easy to challenge claims – libraries find it difficult to
prove them
◦ Where is our evidence?

6.  In the library collection?
◦ Increasingly the collection is electronic, the place is small
◦ The collection doesn’t exist in a physical sense but is mainly
assembled on demand to resolve a query
◦ Others have near-identical collections, and users have access to
alternative collections via the Internet
◦ Where and what is the value of the stock anyway?
 Physical value of print on paper between covers (antiquarian
curios or books by the metre?)
 In the juxtaposition of related items curated by subject experts?
 Accountants – half the books are worth £1 each, the others
aren’t (but we don’t know which half)

7.  In the LIS personnel?
◦ A team that brings its expertise to the service
◦ Expert knowledge
 But this is being outsourced – supplier selection
 Wikipedia makes everyone an “expert”
◦ Peer-level colleagues of the users
 In what the LIS professionals are able to
undertake?
◦ A range of opportunities that need LIS / KM / IM skills …
◦ … but not necessarily any kind of LIS collection?

8. The problem of “squidgy” measures
and “crunchy” funding pressures
◦ “New research has further strengthened
the case for the public library as a highly
valued community asset which makes a
substantial impact on the lives of both
individuals and communities.” (Green and
McKrell, 1997)
(Yes, but what does it cost and how much is it worth?)

9.  In the library and information service?
◦ Calculating the value of support to other activity e.g. learning
◦ Calculating the value of contribution to political / social
objectives
 Direct, e.g. in support of government objectives like learning
 Semi-direct e.g. by giving citizens access to e-government
services (they could go to a cybercafe or an Advice Bureau or a
friend)
 Indirect e.g. indirectly reducing crime by running homework
clubs, or through prison libraries
◦ Problem of defining the service, scoping the alternatives, and
allocating authentic costs (and valuing benefits)

10.  In the user’s use and appreciation of the service?
◦ How do users estimate value?
◦ How do they express it?
 Current measures reflect user activity, not the
service provider (Hammond, 2002)
◦ Loans, enquiries, library visits are initiated by service
users
◦ Many base costs of the service remain however few or
many times the service is used
◦ Therefore service funders cut the entire service in order
to save

11.  “The absolute nightmare for the library service is
that they close it down and don’t actually save any
money. That seems to be what is happening -
slowly but surely the service is being torn apart -
first books, then opening hours, then buildings -
and at the end of it all the cost is exactly the same
as it was before.”
 Tim Coates, November 2011 (quoted in The Bookseller)

12.  Many current systems measure activity not benefit
◦ CIPFA public library statistics – everything that moves
◦ BUT – what benefit was gained from the activity?
◦ BUT – are the available resources any use to satisfy user
needs?
 Some attempts to quantify value
 described in following slides

13.  So how have others tried to prove the value of
library and information services?
◦ Benefit calculators (Massachusetts Library Association)
 Provide value for tax dollar based on your use of services
 Based on assumptions that are open to challenge
 eBooks have changed the equation – so, say the doubters, has
Google
 n.b. - your funding body will challenge any advocacy that
doesn’t support their view of what the service is worth
 More work is needed, and some common base data
 how much does borrowing a book actually save?
 how much might borrowing the wrong book cost?
 was this the cheapest way of obtaining the information
 would something else have done equally as well (esp. fiction)?

14.  Some more methods of proving service value
◦ Contingent valuation (CV) – what would people be willing to pay to
keep the service, or willing to accept to lose it?
 Allows a value to be calculated for a public good
 Notable work by Aabø (though open to challenge)
 British Library used CV to derive its value to the UK taxpayer
 Doesn’t prove your service is the best way to deliver requirements
◦ Secondary economic impact – what indirect benefits accrue?
 e.g. Service staff pay taxes and make purchases in the locality
 e.g. People using the service also visit nearby businesses
 e.g. Good information services may attract new businesses to the
area
 BUT indirect benefits often don’t benefit the people who directly fund you

15.  Aabø reports CV values
of 4:1
 Do the same values
apply outside Norway?
Jo Nesbø’s latest novel –
NOK 399 = £47 or $73

16.  Comparing the inputs to the LIS with the value of the
output
 Not as simple as it might sound…
 How much does an LIS activity cost?
◦ What’s the cost of a book?
 Local bookstore, chain bookstore, library supplier, Amazon
 What about an academic title that costs £100?
 Is there a standard cost – or is the best available only an average?
 And how do you value the output?
◦ Use of surveys – can be very subjective

18. Costs used to populate the ROI calculator
US university library
• The figures aren’t ROI, they’re guesstimates of retail costs
• The costs are subjective – our headsets are better so worth
double what you pay on an airline
• The originating library’s costs aren’t counted for ILL – but
nor are they relevant to the argument

19. Place Publ. date Return ( x :1)
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin 2010 0.17 / 13.93
University of Illinois (UIUC) 2010 0.27 – 15.54
South Korea (special libraries) 2008 1.85
University of Illinois (UIUC) 2008 4.38
Florida (Public libraries) 2008 8.32
Pennsylvania (Griffiths & King) 2006 5.5
Southwest Ohio (Public libraries) 2005 3.81
Florida (public libraries) 2004 6.54
British Library 2004 4.4
Observations :
(1), different things were counted in each case, in different ways
(2), every study relied on some guesswork
(3), when studies are repeated or analysed, inconsistencies appear

20.  “To date, public and special libraries are those most seriously
challenged to demonstrate value in terms understood by financial
managers. User communities are usually deeply appreciative of
library services: we see this from the usage statistics for Australian
public libraries mentioned at the beginning of this paper and from
the various studies of individual government and corporate libraries.
A large body of literature discusses the social benefit of libraries,
but the economic benefit has been more difficult to quantify.
“However, what is most needed is the systematic collection of
data which can be compared nationally”.
◦ McCallum and Quinn (2004) - my emphasis

21. Libraries bolster the economic prosperity of their
communities, they contribute to the economic well-
being of the businesses that surround them, they
improve the market worth of their communities,
they support their local economies, they benefit
local businesses, and they offer Canadians highly
skilled and often highly technical jobs in an
automated environment.
Leslie Fitch and Jody Warner. Dividends : the benefit of public
libraries in Canada. Book and Periodical Council, 1997.

22.  You need to prove real savings and added value
 In business, saving 15 minutes a day of every employee’s time
isn’t a real saving – they’ll just use it to drink coffee or go home
early
 You need to find “dark room” savings – i.e. you can turn off the
lights in an empty room when they are implemented
◦ It’s difficult to convince your critics (and the financial
hawks) with values that don’t start with £ $ € ¥

23.  “We’re not talking about entitlements anymore.
We’re talking about value. […] Government is
investing in the service. What is the intended
outcome? How do we measure it? How do we
determine that our shareholders—the taxpayers—
are getting a return on their investment?”
 Ken Haycock, Emeritus Professor, Library Science School,
University of British Columbia
 ‘Who cares about libraries? ‘ Macleans, 29 August 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/29/who-cares-about-libraries/

24.  Demonstrate contribution to corporate
objectives
◦ UK Government librarians’ Guideline sets out the
value of information professionals to the business
◦ show that LIS objectives support the business
◦ You have to work with your organization – if it uses a
Balanced Scorecard approach, that’s the tool you use
◦ More than that – a business tool can help you to
show benefits
 Work within the business
◦ expose the Google fallacy
◦ highlight existing embedded roles,
◦ take on new work where IM skills can contribute
positively

25.  We need more and better evidence
◦ US, Norwegian and other studies may not hold good for other
countries and markets (we will have to prove they are valid)
◦ Method still being refined (e.g. Chung - “warm glow”)
◦ Check for updates! (Florida 2004, 2008)
◦ Find out why different studies have different findings
 e.g. lack of consistent data for costs of book purchase, etc
 Keep searching for new examples and findings
◦ The method is still developing
 But be sure that the case fits your situation
 There still isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution

26.  Look at what you do from the business’s point of view
 Communicate your value at every opportunity: use
business language and business methods (e.g. BSC)
 Demonstrate smarter ways that you and the LIS work –
 collaborative procurement, shared services,
 not saying an automatic “yes” to every new request
 Collect plaudits from people the bean-counters trust
 find internal champions and key users
 Network, research, look for unchallengeable evidence

27.  Aabø, Svanhild (2005). ‘Are public libraries worth their price?’ New
Library World, 106, (1218/1219), 487-495
 Bookstein, Abraham (1981). ‘An economic model of library service’.
Library Quarterly, 51, (October), 410-428.
 Chung, Hye-Kyung (2010). ‘Assessing the warm glow effect in
contingent valuation for public libraries.’ Journal of Library and
Information Science, 42, 236-244
 De Gennaro, Richard (1975). ‘Austerity, Technology, and Resource
Sharing: Research Libraries Face the Future.’ Library Journal, 100, 10,
15 May, 917-923
 De Gennaro, Richard (1980). Matching commitments to needs and
resources: reflections on managing the academic library in hard
times. University of Tennessee Library Lecture 32


28.  Green, A. and McKrell, L. (1997). ‘Libraries make a difference : case
proven.’ Library Association record, 99 (12), December, 663-664
 Grzeschik, K (2010). ‘Return on investment (ROI) in German
libraries.’ The bottom line, 23 (4), 141-201
 Hammond, C.J. (2002). ‘Efficiency in the provision of public services:
A data envelopment analysis of UK public library systems’. Applied
Economics, 34 (5), 649-657.
 Imholz, S. and Arns, J.W. (2007). Worth their weight: an assessment
of the evolving field of library valuation, Americans for Libraries
Council, available at: www.actforlibraries.org/pdf/WorthTheirWeight.pdf
 Jaeger, Paul and others (2011). ‘Describing and measuring the value
of public libraries : the growth of the Internet and the evolution of
library value.’ First Monday , 16 (11), 7 November. Web resource,
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3765
/3074

29.  Marshall, Joanne (1993). The impact of information services on
decision making : some lessons from the financial & healthcare
sectors. London, British Library R&DD. (Information policy briefings,
1).
 Matthews, Joseph R. (2002). The bottom line : determining and
communicating the value of the special library. Westport, CT :
Libraries Unlimited.
 McCallum , I, Quinn, S. (2004) ‘Valuing libraries’. Australian Library
Journal, 53, (1), 55-69
http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/alj/53.1/full.text/mccallum.quinn.h
tml
 Sidorko, P.E. (2010). ‘Demonstrating RoI in the library : the Holy
Grail search continues.’ Library management, 31 (8/9), 645-653

30. Peter Griffiths
Independent Information Specialist
peter.griffiths.info@gmail.com
@peter6d
+44 (0) 7527 177552
© Peter Griffiths 2011