BIX - The Library Index Roswitha Poll Chair of ISO TC 46 SC 8: Quality – Statistics and performance evaluation Roswitha Poll Chair of ISO TC 46 SC 8: Quality – Statistics and performance evaluation Hamar 2010

a benchmarking system for public and academic libraries since 1999 (public libraries) resp (academic libraries) participation voluntary, but the indicators a must annual fee: 170 € organized by: Bertelsmann Foundation (start); German Library Association (DBV) Participants 2009: 257 libraries 177 public libraries (of ca ) 80 academic libraries (Germany: 68 of ca. 350; 12 from Austria)) BIX – The Library Index

2 separate indices (public/academic) 17 indicators each 4 dimensions = Balanced Scorecard resources customer focus (use) efficiency development (potentials) BIX – The Library Index Kaplan, R.S./Norton, D.P.: Kaplan, R.S./Norton, D.P.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston 1996

4 dimensional scores and ranks 1 overall score and ranked list 8 categories - public libraries by size (5 categories) - academic libraries by organisation - integrated library systems - two-tier-systems (central libraries only) - polytechnics BIX – Ranking Indicators for academic libraries are not weighted !

Library BIX results Library Total rank Total score resources rank and score resources rank and score customer focus rank and score customer focus rank and score Indicator values Indicator values Indicator values Indicator values efficiency rank and score efficiency rank and score

► BIX-magazine ► press releases ► blueprints for participants‘ press releases ► seminars ► individual analysis /consultancy ► BIX website BIX – Publication of results bibliotheksindex.de/

BIX- Magazine Tables of results Best Practices Stories Testimonials/ Interviews

Methods of quality assessment in libraries Performance indicators measure the effectiveness and cost- efficiency of library services: quantitative, objective User satisfaction surveys measure the perceived quality, the users‘ impression of library services: qualitative, subjective Outcome assessment tries to show the benefits, the value for individual users and society

BIX – benchmarking with performance indicators The performance indicators Should have informative content: show whether the service or activity that is „measured“ is „good“ or „bad“ Results should be comparable between libraries of similar structure and clientele The data for the indicators should for the most part be taken from the national library statistics: practical Only a few indicators - but for all services and all stakeholders

Collections of performance indicators for libraries ISO 11620, 2nd ed. (2008), Information and documentation – Library performance indicators (45 indicators) ISO TR (2008), Information and documentation – Performance indicators for national libraries (30 indicators) Poll, R. and te Boekhorst, P., 2nd ed. (2007), Measuring quality, performance measurement in libraries, Saur, München (IFLA Publications 127) (40 indicators)

BIX indicators for public libraries Resources Media in the collection per capita User area in m 2 per 1,000 capita Library staff per 1,000 capita Workstation hours available per capita Internet services Events per 1,000 capita Customer Focus (Use) Visits per capita Loans per capita Collection turnover rate Opening hours per year per 1,000 capita Efficiency Acquisitions budget per loan Employee hours per opening hour Visits per opening hour Total expenditure per visit Development Renewal rate (additions to stock) Training as percentage of all employee hours Investment budget per capita

Indicators for public libraries: Internet services Sum of yes-answers Library website WEB–OPAC Interactive functions (account, reservations, etc.) reference service Electronic collection Active information services (news, events…) Probably most public libraries will have such services

Resources / Infrastructure Square meters of user area Library staff Expenditure on literature and information per 1,000 members of the population Percentage of that expenditure spent on the electronic collection Opening hours per week Academic libraries

Usage Library visits per capita (physical visits) Electronic usage (virtual visits; central counting of homepage and OPAC page visits) User training attendances per 1,000 members of the population Immediate availability (Immediate loans as a percentage of total loans including reservations and ILL) User satisfaction rate (Identical online survey in all libraries, not used at the moment)

Efficiency Library expenditure per active user (acquisitions, material costs, staff) Ratio of acquisitions expenditure to staff costs Efficiency of processes (Example: Media processing. Processed media per FTE staff) Efficiency of processes (Example: Lending. Processed loans and ILL per FTE staff)

Development (Potentials) Days of training per staff member Percentage of the university budget allocated to the library Percentage of library means received through third-party funds, special funds and income generation Percentage of library staff providing and developing electronic services

BIX - A method for counting virtual visits Counting sessions on the homepage and the OPAC start page by a counting pixel downloaded from a central server (Sebastian Mundt, Stuttgart Media University (Sebastian Mundt, Stuttgart Media University The advantage of this method is that it easy to use The disadvantage is that access to other pages is not counted is not counted

Advantages of benchmarking "The value of benchmarking as a proven tool to achieve quality management should be rated very highly indeed" ►Explains the library‘s own results ►Shows „best practice“ ►Detects problems in processes and organisation ►Higher attention for the results in the public, the media and funding institutions ►Higher credibility of the library’s reports

BIX: Survey 2010 “More indicators”, “less indicators” and “anonymous participation” all lower than 40 %. ►1.570 libraries; responses 694 = 44 % ►Which data are most important for your daily work? 1. A practical user satisfaction survey 2. Data showing cost-efficiency 3. Reliable measuring for use of electronic services 4. Data for impact and outcome ►In what direction should BIX develop? 1. More participants (ca. 80 %) 2. No ranking, only groups (ca. 51 %) 3. Additional analysis of the results (ca. 47 %)

BIX: Satisfaction with the system (1 to 5, 1 = best) Results presented as ranking1,9 The set of indicators2,4 Number of participants / option of comparison within my group2,9 Representativeness of the results3,0 Usefulness for external presentation2,2 Internal effect for management2,3 Transparency / tangible calculations and results2,7 Effort of data collection in the library2,3 Organisation of the BIX procedures1,9 Cost-benefit ratio2,2

Play alone and you're bound to win Arabian Proverb