1. 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

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

3. Library Value Wheel

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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]

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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.”

16. 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.”

17. 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%”

18. 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…”

19. 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

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

21. Value as perception: Final thoughts
EFFECT
INPUT
OUTPUT
ROOT CAUSE

22. Thank you to continue the discussion
Danuta A. Nitecki Eileen G. Abels