1. Library Analytics Survey
How important will analytics be to
academic libraries now and in the
future, and what is the potential for a
service in this area?

2. Dear Colleagues,
We are currently undertaking a preliminary survey to
understand potential demand for data analytics services
which can enhance business intelligence at the institutional
level, and so support strategic decision-making.
We envision a shared service that centrally ingests and
processes raw usage data from different systems, and
provides analytics tools and data visualisations back to local
institutions…

3. 66 institutions responded
• University of Sussex • University of Bradford
• University of York • Sheffield Hallam
• London School of Economics • Bangor University
• University of Oxford • Swansea University
• Heriot Watt University • University of Leeds
• University of Bradford • University of Buckingham
• University of St Andrews Library • University of the West of Scotland
• University of Hull • De Montfort University
• University of Bedfordshire • Newcastle University Library
• University of Warwick • Aston University
• Queen Mary, University of London • University of Westminster
• Cardiff Metropolitan University • Royal Holloway University of London
• University of East London • Birmingham City University
• Edge Hill university • University of West London
• Glasgow Caledonian University • National Library of Scotland
• University of Aberdeen • Leeds Metropolitan University
• Aberystwyth University • Birmingham City University
• London Metropolitan University • Cardiff University
• University of Sussex • University of Birmingham
• University of Central Lancashire • University of Kent
• Glasgow School of Art • Brunel
• CranfieldUniversity • University of Glasgow Library

4. Please indicate which of the
following services would be
potentially useful:

5. 1. Automated provision of analytics demonstrating the
relationship between student attainment and resource/library
usage within your institution
Yes (96%)
No (4%)

6. Automated provision of analytics demonstrating the relationship
between student attainment and resource/library usage benchmarked
against other UK institutions
.
Yes (94.6%)
No (3.6%)
Other (1.8%)

7. Automated provision of analytics demonstrating e-resource and
collections (i.e. monograph) usage according to demographics (e.g.
discipline, age, year, nationality, grade).
Yes (87.7%)
No (10.5%)
Other (1.8%)

8. The ability to benchmark and compare against other institutions
Yes (96.5%)
No (3.5%)

9. Key strategic drivers
• Supporting research excellence
• Enhancing the student experience
• Collection management
• Creating business efficiencies
• Demonstrating value for money
• None of the above

10. Other drivers….
“Building a business case for additional resources”
“Support development of University corporate strategies”
“Get student buy-in for using our resources”
“Marketing”
“Support bids for additional internal funding”
“Support the case for better resourcing of the library”

11. In principle, would your institution
be willing to contribute data that
could be linked to anonymised
individuals in the following areas?:

12. (or, how willing do you think your
institution is to share its data?)

13. Circulation data
Yes (96.4%)
No (3.6%)

14. UCAS data
Yes (80%)
No (20%)

15. Library entrance data
Yes (89%)
No (11%)

16. Student Data
Yes (79%)
No (21%)

17. Other data
Yes (79%)
No (21%)

18. ‘Other’ responses
• Can only respond on behalf of the library
• I cannot make this decision on behalf of the
institution
• “not in my power” “not within my gift”
• “There will be other streams of data collected but
under-utilised”
• Anonymised shibboleth data?
• Would need considerable assurances about
security of the data

19. In principle, would your institution be willing to allow its data to be
used as a benchmark for other institutions if anonymised and made
available by a category such as JISC band?
Yes (91%)
No (0%)
Other (9%)

20. ‘Other’ responses
• “Cannot comment on other categories of data
listed as a University level decision would be
required”
• “Library information, yes. UCAS & Student
data, probably not”

21. In principle, would your institution be willing to allow its data to be
used as a benchmark for other institutions with users being able to
see your institution's name?
Yes (47%)
No (20%)
Other (32%)

22. ‘Other’ responses
“I think that has to be a maybe”
“Cannot comment without taking advice”
“not sure”
“this would have to be discussed in detail with other
departments at the University”
“We already contribute to SCONUL so may be prepared to
do something similar”

23. What would prevent you from
sharing this data?

24. Concerns over data privacy
Yes (91%)
No (7%)
Other (2%)

25. Concerns over divulging business intelligence
Yes (85%)
No (15%)

26. Reservations over the quality of your data
Yes 55%)
No (41%)
Other (4%)

27. Technical barriers (e.g. resource for extracting data, lack of the
skills required to benefit from this activity)
Yes (76%)
No (24%)

28. Institutional focus is on other goals/projects
Yes (41%)
No (57%)
Other

29. Who at your institution would be the key decision-maker in this
area?
Results
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Library Director IT Director eLearning Director of a Other
Director converged
service

30. Significant number of ‘other’
responses
• “Academic • Head of Collections
registrar, Director of Finance • Head of strategic
and Planning” planning, D of Finance
• Deputy Director who lead • Head of Student
admin team Administration
• Deputy Librarian • IT Directors
• Deputy VC • Library Exec team
• Director of Curriculum • PCV for learning and
design and teaching teaching
enhancement • PVC level
• Director of the office of • University Planning Office
institutional effectiveness
• The Registrar

31. A current strategic priority?
Results
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Top priority Important but A 'nice to have' Not important I don't know
not essential

32. The next five years?
Results
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Top priority Important but A 'nice to have' Not important I don't know
not essential

33. Strong appetite (demand?)
Significant appetite for analytics services among
this sample
Student experience is the dominant driver for
these services, along with demonstrating
value

34. Strong willingness to share
Significant willingness to share a broad range of
data (but preference to be identified by JISC
band as opposed to named institution)
More hesitation over sharing UCAS and student
data than other forms of transactional data

35. Decision-making will involve campus
senior management
Library Directors and IT Directors seen as key
decision-makers
VCs, registrars, and PVCs also referenced
Decision-making at the individual institution
level is complex and variable

36. What would stop you from sharing?
Dominant barriers include concerns over data
privacy and sharing business intelligence
A more mixed response: concerns over data
quality, lack of technical expertise, and
institution is focused on other agenda

37. A strategic priority?
For most libraries, these services are at present
important but not essential
But they view this as changing into the next five
years to a top priority