Search results

Standardization of library performance measures started in 1994, when several handbooks describing performance indicators had already appeared. The 1st edition of the International Standard ISO 11620 was published in 1998, followed by an amendment 5 years later, both dealing with the traditional library. As indicators for the digital library services were still developing, a pre-standard technical report for such indicators was published separately in 2003. The second edition was published in 2008 and combined 45 indicators for traditional and digital services, if possible, as “hybrid” indicators. The 3rd edition appeared in 2013 with 52 indicators, presenting new topics such as preservation and digitization. For this edition, seven indicators had been eliminated as outdated. The 4th edition was edited in 2023, presenting 61 indicators, of which 14 new indicators and many revisions. The paper follows the subject areas and corresponding indicators over time and tries to define the present and possible future trends.

The paper describes the development of library performance measurement as standardized in ISO 11620. It follows the changes, additions and deletions of indicators since the first edition in 1998 and compares them to the changes in libraries’ tasks and activities.

The analysis shows that indicators for changing tasks and technologies or for new fields of interest follow a few years after the changes, as the methods have to be developed and tested. New topics are often introduced from outside, following political trends and themes, such as cost-efficiency or support for special user groups. An important input came from other standards with quality indicators, especially ISO 21246 for museums and ISO 21248 for national libraries. An interesting issue is the changing role of indicators for the digital library in ISO 11620. Until the forthcoming edition, a simple increase in digital collections and services was often regarded as quality. The new concept is to regard the existence of digital services and collections in libraries as normal and to look for additional aspects, e.g. the use of a digitized collection.

For the first time, the forthcoming edition will contain a clause about impact assessment. Measuring the quality of library services should not stop with effectiveness and efficiency but should also include assessing the impact on individuals and society. Methods for assessing library impact are described in a separate standard, ISO 16439. However, there is evidently a borderland between evaluating the quality of library services and identifying their effect on users. The new edition of ISO 11620 tries to clarify this and includes some “border” indicators, such as measures for the awareness of libraries their services.

The overview of developments in the standardized performance measures will help to understand the relation of the indicators to the current goals and tasks of libraries and may further the use of the standard. As libraries’ tasks and activities will continue to develop and change, new topics will come up in the next few years, some of which can already be identified today.

The paper presents performance indicators for the library’s electronic services. Traditional performance indicators were meant for libraries with print collections and lending services. In several projects and international cooperation indicators have been developed for library networked resources and services. The paper describes the problems of data collection and gives definitions for the electronic collection and the different steps of using electronic services.

The purpose of this paper is to define quality criteria for museum work and try to identify indicators for assessing such quality, using the well-known quality indicators for libraries as basis of comparison.

In 2016, the first international standard for museum statistics was published (ISO 18461). At the same time, the museum community realized the need to proceed from statistics to quality assessment in order to prove the effectiveness and efficiency of museum performance and finally also the influence of museums on society. The paper analyses the existing literature on museum quality and museum evaluation and compares the findings to the established methods in the library sector.

Comparison of quality criteria and quality evaluation in museums and libraries shows not only many similarities in what is regarded as quality, but also considerable differences in the options for assessment.

The paper shows a tentative selection of potential quality indicators and quality assessment methods for museums. Further work and practical expertise will be needed for developing and testing a reliable set of methods. The new ISO project 21246 key indicators for museums will further this development.

There is an evident similarity in the mission and goals of cultural institutions such as archives, libraries and museums. Methods already in use in libraries for assessing performance quality and library impact can therefore also be useful in the museum sector. But the immense variety of museums requires an adaptation of existing methods and a number of new indicators especially devised for museum tasks.

The paper describes possible solutions for evaluating the quality of museums. As quality criteria are similar in museums and libraries, new quality indicators for museums may in turn become useful in the library sector.

The paper examines ways of assessing an economic value of library services, the social value imputed by users and non‐users of libraries, and the outcome on information literacy, information retrieval, and academic and professional success.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the changes in the information world that libraries are confronted with, and how new services are measured to ensure their usefulness.

The paper examines the standardised measures for the changing information environment.

Standardizing definitions and methods for the assessment of input, output and impact of library services will assist libraries in demonstrating value for money in the ongoing changes.

The paper examines the extent of international consensus on data to be collected and indicators to be used.

Since the 1970s the number of journal use studies has been increasing, especially in the Anglo‐American countries, and nearly every article starts the same: It is price inflation that forces us to check our subscriptions. The same applies today. For a long time libraries have tried to cling to their journal collection because it was thought wrong to produce gaps in the series that might not be repairable. But in the meantime yearly cancellations are the rule.

Gail Bader is Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. A cultural anthropologist, Bader’s research interests include educational anthropology, the cultural construction of work, computing and technology, and U.S. and Japanese culture.John M. Budd is Professor and Associate Director of the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies at the University of Missouri – Columbia. He is the author of numerous journal articles and books, including The Academic Library and Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information Science.Bambi Burgard has served as Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs/Student Achievement at the Kansas City Art Institute since May 2002. Upon completion of her undergraduate education, she began doctoral study in counseling psychology at the University of Missouri-Kansas City where she earned her Ph.D. in 1999. She completed her predoctoral and postdoctoral internships at the University of Missouri-Kansas City counseling center.Harvey R. Gover is on the library faculty of Washington State University (WSU) Libraries and is the Assistant Campus Librarian for WSU Tri-Cities. Formerly, he was Public Services Librarian, Tarleton State University, a branch campus of Texas A&M. He was a principal author of the 2000 edition of ACRL Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services.William Graves III is Associate Professor of Humanities at Bryant College in Smithfield, Rhode Island. A linguistic anthropologist, Graves is interested in the diverse roles that language and communication play in social and cultural change. He has conducted fieldwork on issues of social and cultural change among Native Americans, in diverse organizational settings in the U.S., in enterprises undergoing privatization in Russia and, most recently, among small-scale entrepreneurs in Belarus.José-Marie Griffiths served as the Chief Information Officer at the University of Michigan and Vice Chancellor for Information Infrastructure at the University of Tennessee. She was responsible for strategic IT planning; the development and implementation of academic and administrative computing, telecommunications and networking activities; and IT alliances with external organizations. She is the recipient of numerous awards for her contributions to information science, the development of the IT industry, and support for women in computing. She currently holds an endowed chair and professorship in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and is Director of the University’s Sara Fine Institute for Interpersonal Behavior and Technology.John B. Harer has been a school and academic librarian for over twenty-seven years. As an academic librarian, he has held various positions in access services, reference, and personnel administration. He is currently the Director of the Library at Catawba College in Salisbury, NC.Donna Meyer’s career has included management of computer labs, teaching computer skills, designing curricula that integrated information skills into core subject areas, creating web sites, and managing library collections. She currently works as Director of Library Resources at Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona, providing quality online graduate research services.Rush Miller has been Hillman University Librarian and Director of the University Library system at the University of Pittsburgh for eight years. He serves as co-chair for the Association of Research Libraries e-Metrics Project. Miller is active in the profession and writes regularly on library management, international librarianship, diversity, digital library content and e-Metrics.James M. Nyce, a cultural anthropologist, is interested in how information technologies are used in and can change workplaces and organizations, particularly in medicine and higher education. A docent at Linköping University, Nyce’s research interests include the historical, social aspects of library and information science, the design and evaluation of information systems, and information use in science and medicine. Nyce is Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Management, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, and Visiting Associate Professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.Charles Oppenheim is Professor of Information Science at Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. His main professional interest is where the law interacts with information services. He is also interested in knowledge management, measuring the value and impact of information, citation studies, bibliometrics, national and company information policy, the electronic information and publishing industries, ethical issues, chemical information handling, patents information and policy issues related to digital libraries and the Internet.Roswitha Poll is chief librarian of the University and Regional Library Münster. From 1991 to 1993 chair of the German Association of Academic Librarians, since 1997 chair of the German Standards Committee for Information and Documentation. She chaired the IFLA group for the handbook on performance measurement in libraries and is now convener of the ISO working group for the International Standard of Library Statistics and member of the ISO group for performance measurement. She is working in national and international groups on collection preservation, quality management, statistics and cost analysis in libraries.Mary Jane Rootes is a Public Services librarian at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College in Tifton, Georgia. She worked previously at the Pitts Library of Andrew College in Cuthbert, Georgia.Sherrie Schmidt is the Dean of University Libraries at Arizona State University. She began her tenure at ASU as Associate Dean of Library Services in 1990 and was named Dean in 1991. Prior to that, she worked at Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin, the FAXON Company, the University of Texas at Dallas, AMIGOS, the University of Florida, and Ohio State University. Most of her professional activities relate to the use of technology in libraries.Joan Stenson is a Research Associate in the Department of Information Science at Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, where she is currently undertaking a doctorate.Richard Wilson is Professor of Business Administration and Financial Management at Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. He has inter-disciplinary interests in the valuation of information assets. His publications reflect his research interests in management control, financial control, marketing control and strategic control.

The purpose of this paper is to present the new edition of the IFLA handbook Measuring Quality that since its publication in 1996 has influenced performance measurement in many countries.

The approach used is to acquaint librarians and information professionals with the present state of performance measurement and the different ways of assessing quality in specified library services.

Based on the research for the handbook, the paper presents an overview of today's performance measuring worldwide, as well in individual libraries as in joint library projects. Examples show typical varieties in measuring processes and results and possible methods for the evaluation of specified library services and products. The new edition widens the perspective to public libraries and adds indicators for electronic services and cost‐effectiveness. The 40 performance indicators in the handbook follow the structure of the Balanced Scorecard. Each indicator shows examples of results obtained in libraries and information about other possible methods.

A comprehensive overview and state‐of‐the‐art analysis of the core publications concerning performance measurement in libraries.