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
1. “How do you rate library’s value? …Why
2. Input factors…Why?
3. “why does this contribute to library
value?”… Why?...Why…Why?
4. Chart “causes” on whiteboard
5. 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:
– 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