Exploring the Cause and Effect of Library Value Danuta A. Nitecki and Eileen G. Abels 9th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services August 24, 2011 York, England

Value as stakeholders’ perception: Introduction to the study EFFECT CAUSE

Library Value Wheel

5 Whys Method Input factors…Why? “How do you rate library’s value? …Why Input factors…Why? “why does this contribute to library value?”… Why?...Why…Why? Chart “causes” on whiteboard Clusters identify root cause=valued impact

Guiding Study Objectives 1) Identify effects [perceived value] of the library held by faculty 2) Identify root causes faculty identify that affect their perceived value of the library 3) Identify issues related to the use of the “5 Whys” protocol to uncover root causes related to perceptions of value

Research design: Adapting 5 Whys Case study: one university with diverse disciplinary programs and both research and teaching faculty Short individual oral, in-person interviews Reviewed recorded interviews Clustered factors, identified causes Focus group validation of the results Member checks

Objective 1: Identify effects [Perceived value] How would you rate the value the Library provides you as a faculty member? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1= little or no value and 10= maximum value

Objective 1 Findings: Value score Overall [n=10] Mean = 7 Median = 7.5 Range = 3 – 9 Research [tenure track] faculty [n=7] Mean = 7.5 Median = 8 Teaching & Admin [non-tenure track] faculty [n=3] Mean = 6.5 Median = 6.5

Objective 2: Identify Causes “Whys” uncovered multiple tiers: Tier 1: Input factors Library services and resources Tier 2: Root Causes Impact on stakeholders

Objective 2: Findings Input factors Information resources [archives, reserves, stacks, electronic] Staff Space Access [circulation, ILL, online catalog] Assistance [Instruction & reference] Purpose of Use [e.g. reason to use the library]

Objective 2: Findings Root causes [Supported through focus group interview] increase my productivity expand student ability do my job save money indulge intellectual curiosity [Not supported in focus group interview] [not] feel frustrated meet accreditation criteria change the university

Objective 2: continued Why might these contribute to the value of the Library? To archive student work To find 95% of what you need online To provide space for faculty that is quiet, separate, peaceful, attractive, without being bugged To provide space for students To hang out To meet study groups To work together

Objective 2: Findings Additional root causes Archive: Historic value of student work Students get jobs and are more successful in their field Finding online: Save time and being efficient Space for faculty: Shape faculty scholarly attitude Space for students: Makes stronger students

Objective 3: Observed “5 Whys” issues Adaptable Awkward Answering implicit whys Evaluation versus root cause analysis Complicated interview management

Discussion: Insights about factors Library purpose: “I don’t use all the value that is there” “Thought librarians are there just for students, not for me.” Space: “I’m nervous that the digital is taking away the value of the library.”

Discussion: Insights about factors [continued] Library resources: “ [staff enthusiasm offers] compensation a lot for lack of collection, but without collection can’t get to 10” “The number of online resources in my field are limited.”

Discussion: Insights about root causes To do my job: “If libraries did not exist, I could still do my research” “Without the library, my productivity would be reduced by 75%”

Discussion: Insights about effect ratings Single quantitative number rating of value is unstable: “Hmmm…now maybe a 9 or a 10…higher value since the librarians work with adjuncts and faculty needs of our department.” Lack of awareness of library opportunities: “I’m not familiar with all library provides teachers and students…”

Research limitations Qualitative case study: Institutional influences: difficult to generalize Validation incomplete Institutional influences: Teaching and research faculty cultures Experiential learning emphasis Technology-centric, applied research Collection is significantly electronic over physical Faculty have access to nearby research library

Strategies for maximizing value Distinguishing perceptions of satisfaction and value Marketing to root causes Factoring root causes in strategic planning

Value as perception: Final thoughts EFFECT INPUT OUTPUT ROOT CAUSE

Thank you to continue the discussion Danuta A. Nitecki danuta.nitecki@drexel.edu Eileen G. Abels ega26@drexel.edu