METRICS FOR EVALUATING LIBRARY PERFORMANCE AND SERVICES
Abstract
This paper describes an action model for measuring library performance. The CAF – Common Assessment Framework, the Balanced Scorecard, and the Analytic Hierarchy Process are the foundations of the proposed model (AHP). The performance indicators recommended are based on ISO 11620:1998, Adm1:2003, and ISO 2789:2003. The AHP is used to calculate the relative weights for each performance measure.
The weights of the performance measures are computed by the AHP in two steps: • Comparing (pairwise) the performance measures under each criterion; • Comparing (pairwise) the proposed model’s major criteria. The primary goal of this model is to improve library performance and to develop benchmarking techniques.
The model was put to the test with the help of ten university librarians. According to the data, the most important criteria are, in decreasing order of importance, customer satisfaction, societal impact, leadership, and financial perspective.
Introduction
In the last two decades, academic libraries’ services have evolved at a breakneck pace. Electronic resources, networks, and the World Wide Web now account for a sizable portion of library and information services. Academic libraries “must also be able to demonstrate the value of what they are doing and provide evidence of the impact that they are making” (Payne, 2005), so methods for gathering assessment data are critical. Librarians must manage staff, information in various supports, and technical activities to achieve their goals.
This paper proposes a framework for assessing the performance of academic libraries. This framework is quite adaptable, and it can be easily adapted to be used in other types of libraries (public libraries, university libraries documentation and information centers).
The goal of this research is to present a model for measuring the contribution of an academic library to the institution to which it belongs as well as to society. Our model’s final output is a global performance metric. To calculate this global performance measure, the institution must first select the set of criteria that will be considered in the performance evaluation, as well as their relative weights.
Furthermore, the institution must select the set of performance indicators that will be used to measure each criterion, as well as their relative importance in that measure. As will become clear later, the dialogue between staff, academic library users, and external librarians is critical in the assessment process.
The selection of criteria and indicators, as well as the weights assigned to each criterion or indicator, is the result of a participatory performance evaluation process. Our model proposes a set of criteria and indicators relevant to measuring performance in academic libraries, as well as a method for determining the weights of each criterion or indicator.
The proposed set of criteria is based on the European Institute of Administration’s (EIA) Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). The set of criteria includes enablers as well as outcomes (as define in CAF). Furthermore, it takes into account the four Balanced Scorecard dimensions: user perspective, internal process perspective, financial perspective, and learning/growth perspective.
The recommended performance indicators are based on ISO 11620:1998 (International Organization for Standardization, 1998), Adm1:2003 (International Organization for Standardization, 2003a), and ISO 2789:2003 (International Organization for Standardization, 2003). (International Organization for Standardization, 2003b).
Our novel model employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights of each criterion or indicator (Saaty, 1990). This procedure assists us in determining the relative importance of each performance indicator (in each criterion measurement) as well as the relative importance of each criterion (in the global performance evaluation).
The following is how the paper is structured: The following section provides an overview of the CAF and Balanced Scorecard models, as well as the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The following section describes the various perspectives defined in the proposed model, which is supported in CAF and BSC, as well as the corresponding performance indicators. Section 4 describes the model’s implementation and discusses the results. Finally, we present our findings.
Do You Have New or Fresh Topic? Send Us Your Topic
METRICS FOR EVALUATING LIBRARY PERFORMANCE AND SERVICES
INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT
- 1.Your Full name
- 2. Your Active Email Address
- 3. Your Phone Number
- 4. Amount Paid
- 5. Project Topic
- 6. Location you made payment from