Editorial

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Performance Measurement and Metrics, Volume 13, Issue 2.

It is now nearly 15 years since Jacob Harnesk reported on the draft ISO standard on Library Performance Indicators – ISO 11620 – and Rowena Cullen exhorted us to look beyond just measuring inputs and outputs but to look deeper into outcomes and impact (Harnesk, 1997; Cullen, 1997). To me (and probably several others who read this) it seems such a short time since we sat in Morpeth listening to these two papers and then debating where our efforts needed to be directed.

It has taken a long time, but we do seem to have made significant progress,if only recently. The most recent Northumbria Conference was subtitled “Proving Value in Challenging Times”, and proved to be a platform for several papers which showed measurable links between library services and outcomes, impact and value; revised and expanded versions of three papers from Northumbria appear in this issue, and I hope to share more in later issues.

One paper from that conference, by Roswitha Poll, describes the latest ISO standard, ISO 16439, “Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries” which intends to standardise the terminology and the definitions for impact assessment and describe and harmonise the methods that have been tested and that have delivered meaningful results. Although you may disagree with a part of the standard (I might quibble with the odd definition here and there),at last we have a standardised set of definitions and descriptions of techniques which can be used consistently. One might say though that it is sad that for many library services which could have benefited from having standardised indicators to demonstrate their impact and value to their communities, it is now too late.

At the time of writing, many library services in England and Wales were under a greater threat than ever before. One in five professional librarians, some 700, have lost their jobs in the last year. A total of 2,000 library posts have gone, with public libraries opening for 3,000 hours less per week between them. Local authorities are cutting back budgets and closing branches, and across the UK they are looking at those services which are core, and which are extras,cutting those “extras” as either unessential or just not really legally obliged to supply.

These cuts are not limited to just public libraries. Budget cuts are being applied to national libraries in England, Wales and Scotland. Another paper, by Judith Broady-Preston and Wendy Swain looks at the very question of what services are perceived as core and what are not at the National Libraries of Wales and Scotland in their strategic thinking, future planning and performance measurement. As they say, such categorisations are not black and white, nor are they set in stone. What was once considered a core and immovable fixture among the services offered may, just a few years later, have become superfluous. Equally, what was once a fancy, value-added service may now be essential?

The paper by Pat Barclay, Angela Conyers, Claire Creaser and Sonya White also reflects this continuous change in services and requirements. The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) produced its first set of e-measures in 2003/2004. As the years have gone by increased use and changes in the way e-resources are delivered had led some libraries to question the detail of some of the original definitions used, and particularly to suggest that the statistics required and reported on by SCONUL did not always match the requirements or practice of the libraries themselves. This paper describes a revised scheme and its implementation, initially as a pilot and now fully implemented in the national statistics, the decision making behind it, together with the pitfalls and other problems.

The paper by Kornelija Petr Balog and Bernardica Plašak reflects the changing attitudes to performance measurement in Croatia. Around 15 years ago it would not be unfair to say that there was no performance measurement (PM) among its libraries, there was no culture of PM nor any requirement to do so in place. In the last ten years Croatia has signed the Bologna Declaration, and laws have been introduced requiring that all HE institutions must undergo the process of external evaluation. This is described as a massive wake-up call to the institutions’ libraries. This paper presents part of the findings of the first attempt to systematically collect information about customer satisfaction by the Faculty of Philosophy in Osijek Library. This is important for the institution because the library plans to collect customers’ opinions systematically in the future. By taking the first steps along the road to consistent data collection and analysis it is hoped that this will help systematic quality control and improvement.

I hope you enjoy these papers as much as I have.

Stephen ThorntonEditor