SPECIAL LIBRARIES: INCREASING THE INFORMATION EDGE
Jose-Marie Griffiths, Ph.D. University of Tennessee
Donald W. King King Research
SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION 1700 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Librarv of Congress Cataloglng-in-Publication Data
Griffiths, Jose-Marie. Special libraries : increasing the information edge / Jose-Marie Griffiths, Donald W. King, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index. ISBN 0-87111-414-3 1. Corporate libraries—United States. 2. Libraries, Governmental, administrative, etc.—United States. 3. Libraries and industry—United States. I. King. Donald Ward. 1932- II. Title. Z675.C778G75 1993 027.6'9'0973—dc20 93-20721 CIP
Published by the Special Libraries Association.
® Copyright 1993 by the Special Libraries Association. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this work, in whole or in part, without permission of the publisher is prohibited. ISBN 0-87111-414-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLES vii
FIGURES xi
FOREWORD xiii
PART I: BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 1: INFORMATION EDGE IN THE INFORMATION AGE 5 INTRODUCTION ' 5 THE INFORMATION AGE 6 THE INFORMATION EDGE 8 The Information Edge Among Countries 9 The Information Edge Among Companies 11 The Information Edge Among Professionals 12 Purposes of Reading 14 Importance of Information Found in Documents 14 Savings Achieved from Reading 15 Effects of Reading on Performance of Work 15 Achievement and Amount of Reading . 17 Do Some Professionals Read Too Much? 18 CHAPTER 2: INCREASING THE INFORMATION EDGE: THE ROLE OF SPECIAL LIBRARIES 21 THE INCREASING ROLE OF LIBRARIES 21 USE AND IMPACT OF LIBRARY SERVICES 23 Use and Cost of Library Services 23 What Professionals Are Willing to Pay for Library Services 25 The Dollar Value Derived from Library Services 25 IMPACT OF LIBRARIES ON ORGANIZATION GOALS 28 Increasing Productivity Through Library Services 29 Performing Work Better and with Greater Quality Through Library Services .... 29 Performing Work Faster Through Use of Libraries 31 Other Consequences of Library Use 32 TRENDS AND EXPECTATIONS 33 Managing All Documents Purchased by the Parent Organization 33 Centralization Versus Decentralization of Library Services 34 Other Trends and Expectations 35 CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 39 BACKGROUND 39 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 42 The Trail Leading to the Framework Presented Here 42 Objects of Evaluation and Evaluation Perspectives 44 Generic Types of Evaluation Measures 48 Specific Types of Measures 48 Derived Measures 52 Interaction and Externalities 55 PART II:' THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT 57 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNICATION BY PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS 59 COMMUNICATION BY PROFESSIONALS 59 The Communication Cycle 59 INFORMATION-INPUT ACTTVITIES '.'. 62 INFORMATION-OUTPUT ACTTVITIES 63 MEASURES OF INFORMATION INPUT AND OUTPUT OF PROFESSIONALS ... 65 Time Spent on Primary Work Activities 65 Time Spent on Communication-related Activities 66 Measures of Information Output 70 CHAPTERS: USAGE AND IMPACT OF INFORMATION FOUND IN DOCUMENTS . 73 DOCUMENT USAGE 73 Amount of Reading 73 The "Price" That Professionals Pay for Information Found in Documents 75 Purposes for Which Reading Is Done . 76 Relative Importance of Information Found in Documents 76 IMPACT OF READING ON PROFESSIONALS' WORK 78 Savings Achieved from Reading 78 Impact of Reading on Quality of Professionals' Work 80 Impact of Reading on Timeliness of Professionals' Work and Other Beneficial Outcomes 81 Impact of Reading on Professionals' Productivity 82 Further Evidence of the Impact of Reading 84 Consequences of Reading Versus Amount of Time Spent Reading 85
PART III: PERFORMANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, AND IMPACT OF SPECIAL LIBRARY SERVICES 87 CHAPTER 6: USAGE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL LIBRARY SERVICES ... 89 USAGE OF SPECIAL LIBRARIES 89 Introduction 89 Many Small Organizations Do Not Have Libraries 90 Use of Libraries by Professionals in 21 Organizations 92 Amount of Library Use, by the Type of Work Done by Professionals 93 Usage of Library Services 94 Purposes of Use of Library Services 96 Importance of Library Services 97 Effectiveness of Accessibility (Distance) of Libraries 100 Awareness of Library Services 101 Satisfaction with Collections and Services 102 Effectiveness of Services 104 CHAPTER 7: ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOUND IN DOCUMENTS 109 INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF PROFESSIONALS 109 Introduction 109 Attributes and Usage of Different Types of Documents 109 ACCESS TO INFORMATION THROUGH JOURNAL ARTICLES 112 Amount of and Sources of Journal Article Readings 112 The Trade-off Among Different Sources of Journal Articles 115 Journal Routing Service 121 Photocopying of Journals in Companies 122
iv ACCESS TO INFORMATION THROUGH BOOKS 123 ACCESS TO INFORMATION THROUGH INTERNAL REPORTS AND EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS .124 CHAPTER 8: USAGE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF REFERENCE AND RESEARCH SERVICES 127 USAGE OF REFERENCE AND RESEARCH SERVICES 127 Distinguishing Between Reference Services and Research Services 127 Growth of Database Search Services 127 Amount of Use of Database Search Services 129 Attributes of Database Search Services 130 Satisfaction with Search Attributes . 131 Effectiveness of Database Search Services 132 Comparing Value of Attributes of Database Search Services Using Conjoint Measurement 134 USAGE OF CARD AND ONLINE CATALOGS 135 Amount of Use of Card and Online Catalogs by Professionals 135 Attributes of Catalog Services 136 USAGE OF CURRENT AWARENESS SERVICES 137 Current Awareness Alternatives 137 Usage of Current Awareness Publications 138 Importance of and Satisfaction with Current Awareness Publication Attributes .... 138 CHAPTER 9: PERFORMANCE OF SPECLVL LIBRARIES 141 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF LIBRARIES 141 How Well Are Organization Libraries Run? 141 Components of Library Performance 141 STAFF PRODUCTIVITY 145 Productivity of User-related Functions and Services 145 Productivity of Operational Functions and Indirect Services 147 UNIT COSTS OF LIBRARY SERVICES 150 Unit Cost of User-related Services with All Indirect Costs Allocated 158 ECONOMIES OF SCALE 162 Economies of Scale Defined 162 Economies of Scale for Database Searching 162 Economies of Scale for Access to Collection 164 Economies of Scale for Volume Discounts 166 Economies of Scale for Services 166 Some Examples of Critical Mass 168 FLOW ANALYSIS 169 Serials Tracking 169 Monograph Tracking 171 CHAPTER 10: IMPACT OF SPECIAL LIBRARY SERVICES 173 THE VALUE AND WORTH OF ORGANIZATION LIBRARIES 173 THE PRICE PROFESSIONALS ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR LIBRARY SERVICES 174 DOLLAR VALUE DERIVED FROM LIBRARY SERVICES 178 Dollar Value Derived from Using Library Collections 178 Dollar Value Derived from Using Journal-routing Services . 182 Dollar Value Derived from Using Interlibrary Loan Services 183 Dollar Value Derived from Purchasing Materials for Department Use 184 Dollar Value Derived from Photocopying by Library Staff 184
v Dollar Value Derived from Use of Card Catalog 185 Dollar Value Derived from Using Online Catalog in Library 185 Dollar Value Derived from Use of Database Searches Provided by Staff 186 Dollar Value Derived from Current Awareness Publications . 186 Dollar Value Derived from Library Translation Services 187 Dollar Value Derived from Use of a Library's Self-service and Pay Photocopiers . 187 COMPARISON OF USAGE, COST, PRICE PAID, AND VALUE DERIVED FROM LIBRARY SERVICES 187
REFERENCES 191
vi TABLES Page
Table 1: Amount of Reading and Time Spent Reading, by Professional Work Role 13 Table 2: Amount of Use and Unit Cost of Typical Library Services 24 Table 3: Ratio of Price Paid by Users to Library Costs 26 Table 4: Ratio of (1) Total Cost to Use Alternatives to (2) Total Service Costs to Parent Organization 27 Table 5: Other Favorable Consequences of Reading Library Materials 32 Table 6: Number of Readings per Journal and Cost per Reading, by Source of Journal ... 33 Table 7: Average Annual Amount of Time and Proportion of Time Devoted by Professionals to Primary Work Activities 66 Table 8: Average Annual Amount of Time (Hours) Spent by Professionals in Various Activities, by Work Role 67 Table 9: Average Annual Amount of Time (Hours) Spent by Professionals in Various Communication Activities, by Work Role 68 Table 10: Average Annual Amount of Time (Hours) Spent by Professionals in Identifying, Accessing, and Reading Documents, by Work Role and Type of Document .... 69 Table 11: Estimated Average Annual Amount of Output by Professionals, by Work Role and Type of Output 71 Table 12: Average Amount of Reading: Estimated Average Amount of Reading in a Year by Professionals, by Document Type and Work Role 74 Table 13: Average Hours and Dollars Spent Acquiring and Reading Documents per Professional, by Type of Document Read 75 Table 14: Proportion of Readings of Journal Articles, Books, and Internal Reports for Various Activities 77 Table 15: Average Importance Ratings of Resources Used by Professionals for Various Work Activities by Type of Resource 78 Table 16: Proportion of Professionals Who Do Not Have a Library at Their Place of Work, by Professional Field in the U.S 90 Table 17: Organization Library Services Available to and Used by Scientists and Engineers in the U.S 90 Table 18: Proportion of Professionals Who Use Various Types of Libraries and Average Annual Uses per Professional per Year 93 Table 19: Proportion of Professionals Who Use Their Organization's Library, and Average Annual Visits per Professional per Year, by Work Role 93 Table 20: Proportion of Professionals Who Use Various Library Services and Average Annual Uses per Professional per Year, by Type of Service 95 Table 21: Purposes of Reading from Library-provided Journal Articles, Books, and Technical Reports 96 Table 22: Principal Purposes of Use of Database Searches Done By Library Staff and Current Awareness Services 97 Table 23: Importance Ratings of Various Library Services 98 Table 24: Importance Ratings of Various Service Attributes 99 Table 25: Proportion of Professionals Who Used Various Library Services at Least Once, by Service and Work Site 102 Table 26: Proportion of Professionals Who Are Not Aware of Library Services 103 Table 27: Level of Satisfaction of Professionals with the Performance of Various Library Services 105
vu Table 28: Average Level of Satisfaction of Professionals with the Performance of Library Services, by Work Role Table 29: Level of Satisfaction of Professionals with Library Staffs' Competence and Speed of Providing Assistance 107 Table 30: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Professionals for Speed of Acquiring Materials, by Service 107 Table 31: Purposes of Reading Journal Articles, Books, and Internal Reports HI Table 32: Amount of Reading from Various Sources of Journal Articles 116 Table 33: Average Number of Subscriptions for Scientists Who Do and Do Not Gain Access to Frequently Read Journals (More Than 10 Articles per Year) 118 Table 34: Proportion of Scientists Who Frequently Read Journals to Which They Do Not Subscribe, by Sources of These Journals, and Reasons for Not Personally Subscribing to Journal 119 Table 35: Average Cost per Reading of Scientific Society Journals Acquired Through Personal Subscription . 119 Table 36: Proportion of Readings of Journal Articles in Libraries and Readings from Other Sources by Age of Publications 121 Table 37: Proportion of Readings Involving Photocopies and Average Photocopies per Professional, by Source of Reading 122 Table 38: Proportion of Photocopies Made for Various Reasons, by Source of Reading ... 123 Table 39: Proportion of Photocopies Made in Various Places, by Source of Reading 123 Table 40: Number of Documents Identified, Obtained, and Read from Database Searches, by Type of Document 130 Table 41: Proportion of Professionals with Various Levels of Satisfaction with Database Searching Done by Library Staff 131 Table 42: Number of Documents Identified and Read from the Last Use of Current Awareness Publications 138 Table 43: Proportion of Professionals Who Express Various Levels of Satisfaction with Current Awareness Publications 139 Table 44: A Partial List of Functions and Services Performed in Organization Libraries ... 143 Table 45: Structure of an Organizational Library 144 Table 46: Staff Input, Output, and Performance Ratios for User-related Functions and Activities of a Typical Organization Library 146 Table 47: Staff Input, Output, and Performance Ratios for Operational Functions and Indirect Services of a Typical Organization Library 148 Table 48: Hours Required to Perform Support Functions and Indirect Services in a Typical Organization Library 149 Table 49: Hours Involved in "Other" Functions and Activities in a Typical Organization Library 150 Table 50: Total Cost of Various Functions and Activities at Six Cost Levels 151 Table 51: Unit Costs of User-related Functions/Services and Operational Functions/Indirect Services, by Two Levels of Cost 156 Table 52: Unit Cost of Circulation at Six Levels 158 Table 53: Unit Costs of Library Services 161 Table 54: Break-even Point of Purchasing Journal Versus Document Delivery Service, by Journal Subscription Price 166 Table 55: Ratio of Professionals Served per Library Staff Member, by Number of Professionals Served 167
viii table 56: Average Time Spent (by Professionals and by Others on Their Behalf) to Acquire Documents Provided by Libraries 175 Table 57: Average Amiual Time per Professional Spent Acquiring and Reading Various Types of Documents Provided by Libraries 175 Table 58: Average Time and Dollars Spent Using Various Library Services 177 Table 59: Average Additional Time (of Professionals and of Others on Their Behalf) Required to Acquire Documents Provided by Libraries, If There Were No Libraries 180 Table 60: Value Derived from Additional Costs of Obtaining Library-provided Documents If There Were No Libraries 181 Table 61: Value Derived by Savings Lost If There Were No Libraries 182 Table 62: Ratios of (1) Cost of Alternatives to Library, to Nominal Cost of Library, and (2) Cost Avoidance to Nominal Cost of Library 182 Table 63: Average Additional Time (of Professionals and of Others on Their Behalf) and Costs Required to Acquire Documents Provided by Journal Routing, If There Were No Libraries 183 Table 64: Average Use, Library Unit Cost, Price Paid per Use, and Dollar Value Derived per Use from Library Services, and Ratio of (1) Total Cost to Use Alternatives to (2) Total Service Cost 189
ix FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Information Workers as a Percentage of Work Force in the U.S 11 Figure 2: Amount of Reading of Different Types of Documents 14 Figure 3: Correlation Between Amount of Reading and Productivity Indicators 16 Figure 4: Average Amount of Reading of Various Types of Documents by Professionals Recognized by Awards Versus Nonaward Winners 17 Figure 5: Average Amount of Reading of Various Types of Documents by Professionals Recognized as "Fast Trackers" Versus Cohorts 18 Figure 6: Proportion of Readings Done Primarily for Professional Development Versus Amount of Time Spent Reading by Professionals 18 Figure 7: Proportion of Readings in Which Savings Are Achieved Versus Amount of Time Spent Reading by Professionals 19 Figure 8: Proportion of Readings in Which Quality of Work Is Improved Versus Amount of Time Spent Reading by Professionals 19 Figure 9: Proportion of Readings of Library-provided Documents and Documents from Other Sources Which Result in Savings 29 Figure 10: Productivity of Professionals, as a Function of Amount of Library Use 30 Figure 11: Proportion of Readings of Library-provided Documents and Documents from Other Sources Which Result in Improved Quality of Work 31 Figure 12: Comparison of Library Use by Persons Recognized by Special Awards, "Fast Trackers," and Cohorts 31 Figure 13: Proportion of Readings of Library-provided Documents and Documents from Other Sources Which Result in Performing Work Faster 32 Figure 14: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Object of Evaluation and Evaluation Perspectives 45 Figure 15: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Generic Measures 49 Figure 16: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Specific Measures 50 Figure 17: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Derived Measures 53 Figure 18: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Interaction and Externalities 56 Figure 19: Professionals' Primary Work Activities, Input Resources, and Output 60 Figure 20: Professionals' Communication Cycle 60 Figure 21: Professionals' Information-Input Activities, Input Resources, and Output 61 Figure 22: Professionals' Information-Output Activities, Input Resources, and Output 62 Figure 23: Distribution of Savings Observed for Journal Article Readings 80 Figure 24: Average Quality Ratings by Professionals of Activities With and Without Information Read in Journal Articles, Books, and Internal Reports 81 Figure 25: Distribution of Number of Library Uses in Last Month 92 Figure 26: Average Use of Libraries Versus Distance (in Minutes) to the Library 101 Figure 27: Number of Times Professionals Obtained Assistance in Identifying and Locating Materials Versus Level of Satisfaction with this Service 108 Figure 28: Number of Times Professionals Used Interlibrary Loan Service Versus Level of Satisfaction with this Service 108 Figure 29: Conceptual Relationships of Age and Specificity/Generality of Information Found in Documents 110 Figure 30: Proportion of Readings by Professionals of Documents by Their Age Since Publication 112
XI Figure 31: Average Price of U.S. Periodicals, All Fields: 1975-1990 114 Figure 32: Relationship Between Number of Searches Performed and Satisfaction with Relevance of Search Output to Users' Information Needs 132 Figure 33: Relationship Between Number of Searches Performed and Satisfaction with Number of References in Search Output 133 Figure 34: Relationship Between Number of Searches Performed and Satisfaction with Search Response Time 134 Figure 35: Relative Trade-off Value to User of Online Search Relevance and Turnaround Time 135 Figure 36: Total Costs of In-depth Searching, by Number of Searches Performed 163 Figure 37: Unit Costs of In-depth Searching, by Number of Searches Performed 163 Figure 38: Unit Cost per Reading of a Journal Subscription 164 Figure 39: Comparison of the Total Cost of Purchasing a $120 Journal Versus Using a Document Delivery Service, by Number of Uses 165 Figure 40: Ratio of Staff Compensation ($) to Professionals Served, by Number of Professionals Served 168 Figure 41: Ratio of Unit Cost to Library Uses, by Number of Library Uses 168 Figure 42: Work Flow for Serials Processing 170 Figure 43: Work Flow for Monograph Processing 172 Figure 44: Price-Demand Relationship of Library Use 176
xii FOREWORD
This book is a result of a research grant from the Special Libraries Association. We wish to thank Dr. David R. Bender, Executive Director of SLA; Ms. Kathy Hackl, Project Monitor; Ms. Jane Taylor; and Ms. Susan M. Hill, chair of the SLA Research Committee, for the opportunity to do this research. In addition, during the course of the project, the following members of the SLA Research Committee were sent a preliminary draft of the book for their review: Ann W. Talcott, Chair; Barbara D. Farah; Suzanne L. Lennon; Thomas E. Pinelli; and Ann J. Wolpert. We thank them all.
This book is a compilation of 23 studies of users and services of special libraries and information centers, and 4 national surveys of scientists, engineers, and other professionals. The work began with a project performed in 1981-82 for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). The objective of this project was to determine whether one could place a value on the information and services provided by OSTI. A report, "The Value of the Energy Data Base," was produced as a result of the project. Also prepared was an extensive bibliography on the value of information, from which a state-of-the-art review was prepared for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. In parallel, a National Science Foundation (NSF) study was performed to update a series of projects performed by King Research, sponsored by NSF under the general title, "Statistical Indicators of Scientific and Technical Communication." In 1984, a follow-up study was jointly sponsored by Department of Energy (OSTI) and NSF to extend the value studies to include intermediary organizations such as libraries and information analysis centers. The report on this project is entitled "A Study of the Value of Information and the Effect on Value of Intermediary Organizations, Timeliness of Services and Products, and Comprehensiveness of the EDB." Libraries that provided data for this project included Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Rockwell International, and Rocky Flats (representing six libraries).
Since then. King Research has performed studies of an additional 20 organizations with a total of 84 libraries and branches, including (in alphabetical order):
• Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.—2 studies of 4 libraries (Valerie Tucci*)
• Alabama Power Company—2 libraries (Angela Weir)
• AT&T Bell Laboratories—19 libraries (David Penniman, George Grant, Ina A. Brown*)
• Baxter Healthcare—6 libraries (Diane Sherry, David Anderson*)
• Bristol-Myers Squibb—5 libraries (Carol Bekar*)
• Colgate-Palmolive Company (Monica Grover)
• Eastman Chemicals Company—6 libraries (Gerry Cassell*, Michael Ubaldini)
• Eastman Kodak Company—12 libraries (Donna Romer, Marcia McDugle*, Mark Finke, Elizabeth Krause)
• Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy (Debby Lemkin^ Sandra Coupe)
*Reviewed initial draft of this book. xiii • Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics (Marsha Stone)
• Johnson & Johnson Vistakon (Stanley Rogaski)
• National Institutes of Health—2 studies (Carolyn Brown, Maxine Hanke*)
• National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration—4 libraries (Elizabeth Yeates)
• National Rural Electrical Cooperatives Association (Charles Rice)
• Public Service Electric and Gas Company—2 libraries (Flprine Hunt)
• U.S. Department of Justice—9 libraries (Jean Reecer, Richard Strout, Daphne Sampson)
• U.S. Department of Labor—2 libraries (Sabina Jacobsen)
• U.S. Department of Transportation—5 libraries (Larry Leonard, Dorothy Poehlman, Jane Lappin*)
• Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Susan Dresley*)
• One additional library, which required that its identity not be disclosed.
The degree to which each of the organizations participated in providing the aggregated data presented in this book varies substantially. However, we attempt to document sources for the data we provide throughout, in terms of total population served by the library and sample size. Most of the data presented are based on statistical surveys performed nationally (NSF) or from random samples of professionals found in the organizations being studied. Sometimes the random samples are of the entire population of professionals in the organization and sometimes the samples are of users of specific library services (e.g., periodical routing, database searching services, etc.). Also, some data for library staff productivity or costs were collected for 13 organizations with 54 libraries.
Above we identified a number of persons from organizations we studied who contributed to our work. Laurence W. Lannom and Anne Dunthom performed most of the computer data processing and Janet D. Miles did the word processing and graphics. More than 10,000 professionals contributed to this book by diligently responding to our questionnaires. Finally, Rhiannon helped immensely by being extremely patient and well-behaved while Mom and Dad struggled many long hours at home writing this book. To all of you, we thank you very much and hope that this book makes your support and contributions worthwhile.
Donald W. King Jos6-Marie Griffiths, Ph.D.
*Reviewed initial draft of this book. xiv Dedicated to the memory of Arnold J. King (1906-1987), whose keen interest in and encouragement of our work helped make it seem worthwhile. PARTI
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
The purpose of this book is to summarize and present accumulated evidence of the useftilness, value, and impact of information, and of the contribution that organization libraries make to the benefits gained from its use. This evidence is derived from 27 indq)endent studies performed with 16 companies, 7 government agencies, and including 4 national surveys of professionals (collectively more than 10,000 statistical survey responses from scientists, engineers, lawyers, and management, administration, marketing, and other professionals).
We show that professionals who use information extensively and effectively are more successfiil than those who do not. Increased productivity and improved quality are among the benefits gained. Furthermore, substantially greater benefits are achieved from information provided through organization libraries. This relative advantage or gain achieved through effective use of information and libraries is what we refer to as the "information edge."
The first part of this book is intended to sununarize some key indicators of the information edge achieved by professionals and organizations. Our approach is based on an examination of the various forms of conmiunication used by professionals, with particular attention to the amount of communication through documents and interpersonal means. Once the communication patterns of professionals are established, we then consider the roles of libraries in supporting them. On average, professionals spend 56 percent of their time communicating. One important role of libraries is to help reduce this communication time so professionals can spend more time making decisions, conducting research, etc. Another role is to ensure that the time devoted to communication activities is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. We describe how, for certain communication activities, libraries provide better information, faster and less expensively than any other alternative. We ftirther demonstrate that, by satisfying the key information needs of professionals, libraries help increase the productivity, quality, and timeliness of tiieir work and, in the aggregate, the performance of their parent organizations.
Information is libraries' principal product. Therefore, in Chapter 1 we first offer evidence of the usefulness, value, and impact of information. The chapter shows that we are now truly in an information age and discusses the information edge that can be achieved by individuals, organizations, and nations. While data are provided at each of these three levels, by far the most detailed results in this book are related to the information edge gained by individuals through use of information in documents. Professionals average 198 readings per year of journal articles, books, internal reports, and other documents. A sampling of key results demonstrating the usefulness, value, and impact of this information includes:
• Professionals report substantial savings as a result of reading; average sayings are nearly $600 per reading of journals, books, and internal reports. These savings, relative to the cost of acquiring and using information, yield a return-on-investment ratio of about 10.2 to 1.
• Strong evidence exists of other beneficial consequences of reading, including increased productivity, higher quality of work, and improved timeliness of work.
• Achievers recognized through awards, etc., read much more on the average than nonachlevers.
1 • Professionals' time is a scarce resource. The total time spent acquiring and reading documents is 288 hours or about $11,520 per professional. This "price" paid for information is an indicator of what professionals are "willing to pay" for information used in their work.
• Reading is performed for many purposes. Most reading (60 percent) is directly associated with primary work activities (research, management, legal work, marketing, etc.); other purposes are writing, advising and consulting, current awareness, and professional development.
• Professionals indicate that information in documents is the first or second most important of 6 principal resources they use for nearly all of 16 types of work activities.
Chj^ter 2 focuses on the role of organization libraries in helping professionals and their organizations increase their information edge. Professionals use their organization libraries an average of 50 times per year. The average annual cost to organizations for current library services is $1,700 per professional—$610 to operate the library and $1,090 in professionals' time to acquire the library-provided information. Evidence of the return on this investment includes:
• If there were no organization library, it would cost organizations about $5,010 per professional to obtain the library-provided information absolutely required by professionals, or 2.9 times more than it now costs.
• Furthermore, accounting for potential "lost benefits," it could cost about 7.2 times more not to have a library than it does to have one.
• Similar results have been obtained in studies performed by others.
• Professionals currently pay about $5,190 per professional in their time acquiring and using library-provided information.The ratio of or the"price users are willing to pay"for library- provided information to library operating cost is about 8.5 to 1 in the organizations studied.
• Libraries help achieve organization goals. For example, they help to:
• Increase productivity:
— Time and/or other expenditures are saved in more than one-third of professionals' uses of the library.
— Time and/or other expenditures are saved in about 41 percent of readings of library- provided documents.
— Five indicators of user productivity are positively correlated with amount of library use.
— Five industry-wide studies conducted by others show a positive correlation between information-related expenditures and profit and/or productivity.
• Perform work with greater quality:
— Professionals indicate that the library is absolutely essential to their work for nearly 40 percent of their uses of the library.
2 — Professionals indicate that quality of work improves in nearly 60 percent of their uses of the library. — Quality of work improves in about 57 percent of readings from library-provided documents. — Professionals whose work has been recognized through awards, etc., use libraries more than cohorts and nonaward winners.
• Speed products from discovery to the marketplace:
— Across all activities affecting product lead time, about 38 percent of library uses help professionals perform work faster.
— About 31 percent of readings of library-provided documents lead to completing work faster.
Such positive results were found in every organization we studied.
We approached the question of usefulness, value, and impact of information and libraries from a variety of perspectives, and found confirming evidence of positive results from every angle. However, some data are more robust than others. For example, estimates of the amount of reading, time spent reading, and extent of library use are all from large sample sizes and are validated in a number of ways. Other estimates, such as the impact of reading and library use, depend on a degree of recall and/or judgment on the part of respondents. Nevertheless, we have been struck by the strength of conviction with which readers and users have related their favorable experiences in hundreds of ih-depth interviews conducted by us personally, thereby reinforcing statistical survey responses. Furthermore, we are encouraged by the fact that our results appear to be consistent in a wide range of environments and in our national surveys of professionals. In new studies, we often use different methods to confirm or deny earlier findings, and in no instance have we found evidence contrary to previous results. Finally, we wish to point out that results showing the correlation between reading or library use and indicators of productivity, achievement, etc., also show that some successfiil professionals do not read or use their libraries extensively. Conversely, extensive reading and library use do not ensure success. Regardless, most professionals consider information and libraries to be essential to their work.
Abundant evidence provided by us and others suggests that information and library resources should be supported sufficiently to help professionals and their parent organizations maximize their information edge. Decisions regarding information and library resources should be made in light of consequences of the decisions for the entire organization.
Also in Chapter 2 is a discussion of trends and expectations affecting organization libraries. This includes the proportion of documents purchased by an organization that are managed by the library, issues of centralization versus decentralization, information resources management, technological developments, and total quality management (TQM).
Chapter 3 provides a review of related studies performed since 1980. It also presents a detailed conceptual framework to set the scene for the remaining chapters of the book and to explain our evaluation philosophy.
3 CHAPTER 1
INFORMATION EDGE IN THE INFORMATION AGE
INTRODUCTION
This book is a compilation of a series of studies performed by the authors during the last 12 years while with King Research, Inc. These studies focused on the library and information services of 23 companies and government agencies. Also included here are the results of four national surveys of scientists, engineers, and other professionals relating to their use of scientific, technical, and other publications and services. In the early 1980s, we were asked to investigate the feasibility of measuring the "value" of information services, including those provided by three company libraries [1,2]. These initial studies led to a series of proprietary studies in 13 companies, which we called "information audits." Similar studies were performed in seven government agencies, often to determine whether their libraries should be contracted out. The series of studies began in 1981 and still continues.
Very early on, we recognized that any studies dealing with information services such as libraries must emphasize that information is their product, and the services must be evaluated within the context of their environment, including all the means by which information is transmitted to professionals. For this reason, in six organizations we examined the extent of communication by professionals and determined the amount of time spent by professionals in acquiring, using, and producing information. Furthermore, to observe the impact of information services and products, we needed to know the extent to which the information they provide affects professionals' performance. To this end, we developed measures and indicators of their productivity and the quality, timeliness, and usefulness of their work in achieving their company's or agency's mission and goals.
Over the years, we collected more than 10,000 survey responses from four national surveys and studies of 23 organizations'. These surveys involved some data that are common to all surveys (e.g., amount of reading, number of personal journal subscriptions, extent of library use, and demographics), but many surveys focused on the consequences of reading, library use, use of specific services, or general means of communication used by professionals. In 13 of the organizations we also conducted in-depth studies of library performance (e.g., library staff productivity and unit costs of services).
We believe that we have obtained unique information and data that reveal a great deal about how professionals obtain and use information, as well as the useftilness and value of information to them and their parent organizations. We also believe that we have gained some insights as to how organizations can manage and use this essential resource more efficientiy and effectively. Finally, we have observed some trends, both favorable and unfavorable, that may be of interest to information providers, those who ftmd the services, and those who use the services. This book is our first opportunity to present the aggregated results of these studies formally.
The objective of this book is to provide a detail^ description of the benefits of library and information services to corporations and government agencies and to describe the environment within which they operate. Our description is very quantitative, reflecting our statistical and scientific backgrounds. We certainly recognize that there are many ways of characterizing libraries and their
We had response rates of more than 50 percent for all national surveys and all individual company or agency studies.
5 environments, both quantitatively and qualitatively. However, rather than discussing all of these ways, we have chosen to focus attention on the enormous amount of proprietary information and data that we collected for companies and government agencies. We hope these data can and will be used by:
• library funders, to address their often-expressed concerns about the level at which they should fiind libraries, the services that should be provided, whether the libraries are current with the state-of-the-art, and whether the libraries are well run;
• library management, to make better decisions about their operations and services, serve their users and parent organizations more effectively, and make a strong case for library and information services;
• library staff, to gain a better understanding of users and their needs and a fiill appreciation of the usefulness and value of their efforts; and
• library users, to confirm whether the way they use libraries is typical and to understand how they can use library services more effectively.
This book is presented in three parts: Background and Summary; Communication Environment; and Performance, Effectiveness, and Impact of Special Libraries. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 in this first part are summary chapters addressed to all four audiences. The remaining chapters present details that we feel will be of more interest to library management and staff.
THE INFORMATION AGE
We believe that there are five key perspectives on the notion of the "information age":
• the large amount of research on the meaning, purposes, and modes of use of information;
• the development and application of exciting new information technologies;
• the extensive consumption and varied use of information;
• the effect of information on the work force and the economy; and
• the rapidly growing information professions.
We believe that the information age is not defined by any single perspective, but rather by a combination of all of them. The importance of various information phenomena is not merely that we are in an information age, but rather that we recognize and take advantage of what is learned about creating, processing, and using information. Those individuals, companies, government agencies, educational instimtions, and nations that understand the importance of information and make the most of it will derive an enormous advantage or "information edge" over their competitors.
Megatrends [3] succeeded in focusing popular attention on the shift from an industrial society to an information society. Until recentiy, information was one of the most underappreciated resources in our lives. Even today, information is far from being well understood. There is no consensus among scholars as to what information really is. Machlup [4] has identified 37 disciplines that study
6 information—such as linguistics, artificial intelligence, information science, cybernetics, and so on—each of which provides a different perspective on information. This lack of consensus regarding information is highlighted by the fact that most of these disciplines have ongoing debates and controversies within them concerning their own particular perspectives on information. Simon [5] and Popper [6] have presented some discussion of human artifacts. Simon describes what he calls the "sciences of the artificial" and Popper the "world of objective knowledge." Both authors provide insights into approaches for looking at and dealing with the accumulating wealth of the outputs of human creativity and production, of which information and knowledge are a large part.
Even though information is an elusive concept, we do know it is similar to food, air, and other necessities of life in that we cannot function well without it. Yet we tend to take such necessities for granted. For example, we overlook how essential information is to nearly every facet of our lives. Information is a critical resource used for meeting all our personal needs such as keeping informed; coping with day-to-day problems; and dealing with life's ttaumas such as death, divorce, illness, and addiction. It is important in supporting our religions, cultural heritage, and family life, and it supports and contributes to much of our recreation, entertainment, and leisure-time activities. Information is the essence of lifelong learning, whether during preschool age, through formal education and continuing through an adult's work life, or on into retirement years. As nations advance from the agricultural and industrial ages into the information age we find that an increasing majority of their work forces are involved in information-related activities and that most people either rely heavily on information to perform their work, or else they process information as their principal work activity. Information is the basis for governing societies. How could a democracy survive without a well-informed populace? Govenunents spend hundreds of billions of dollars generating, processing, and using information. In fact, few ftinctions performed by governments are not dominated by information. Finally, information plays an extremely important role in international trade, cooperation, and understanding.
Nearly all of Machlup's disciplines of information deal with information content; that is, the message conveyed. While few people working outside these disciplines know much about them, most people are aware of the enormous proliferation of information technologies such as computers, telecommunications, laser printers, CD-ROMs, televisions, VCRs, and so on. These technologies have had a significant effect on information-seeking and -using behaviors. Pool, et al. [7] estimated that the U.S. population consumed about 7 trillion words a day through electronic and print media in 1984. The words made available to the average American by elecfronic and print media amounted to nearly 11 trillion words a day. Of these, 48,0(X) words were consumed per person over 10 years old. An "information explosion" or "information glut" resulted because the number of words made available was (and still is) growing at a substantially higher rate than the number of words consumed.^ Despite this trend, the amount of infor mation consumed is very large and the average consumption per person is increasing over time.
Even though information distributed and used through electronic media is clearly displacing the print media, we believe that most of this general consumption from electronic media involves "news" and recreational information provided through television, radio, and sound recordings. The U.S. population in general consumes about 1.5 trillion words per day from print media. Professionals using information to perform their work still rely heavily on the print media. In the workplace, professionals spend between 5 percent and 20 percent of their time reading print media (depending on their professional
^The concept of "words made available" or "words supplied" includes the number of copies distributed. Thus, if 1 million copies of a newspq>er are printed and distributed, the total number of words supplied is the number of words in the paper multiplied by 1 million.
7 field). In science alone, publishers distribute more than 3 billion copies of journal articles each year, and U.S. scientists read well over 300 million articles each year [8]. Professionals in the organizations we studied average about 1,170 hours annually communicating—745 hours through interpersonal means and 425 hours writing and reading. Documents such as journals, books, reports, and so on, clearly remain important communication media.
The United States, along with most developed nations, has experienced a movement from an agricultural age to an industrial age and now to an information age. One hundred years ago, about 5 percent of the U.S. work force was engaged in the information seaor. This proportion grew to about one-third in the 1950s, and is estimated to be more than 40 percent of the work force at the present time. This is a phenomenal occurrence with substantial implications for our economy, employment structure, social behavior, and our well-being. Description of the growth of the information work force and economy was initiated by Machlup [9, 10] and ftirther explored by Bell [11], Porat [12], Rubin [13], and others. The same phenomenon seems to be ^parent in other industrial nations as well, although to a lesser degree.
Information has become such an integral part of our lives that sometimes we lose sight of its importance, of how we actually get information, and of who is responsible for its accuracy, production, disfribution, maintenance, and accessibility. A largely hidden information community has arisen to help feed the enormous and ever-increasing appetites of information users. This information community is made up of a variety of institutional participants, including publishers, information clearinghouses, educational institutions, broadcast companies, vendors, brokers, document delivery services, libraries and information centers that serve information creators, processors, and users. We estimate that there were about 2 million information professionals working in such organizations in the early 1980s [14]. These are professionals who spend the greatest proportion of their professional lives organizing and processing information on behalf of others. They also include people who manage information programs; perform information research, development, and technology projects; and educate or train information workers or other workers in the use of information and information services.
THE INFORMATION EDGE
The "information age" is a notion in which interest may have peaked, and "information edge" is a popularized term that may very well disappear in a short while. Nevertheless, they are both concepts that we feel are worth preserving and, therefore, we use them in this book. As mentioned above, information is used extensively by individual professionals and others: In the workplace, the outcomes (or beneficial consequences) of information use include increased user productivity and improved quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of work. We provide considerable evidence in this book that professionals' productivity and work performance are positively correlated to amount of reading. Therefore, companies and govern ment agencies can and do benefit from the collective use of information by their employees. Presumably, such favorable effects of information use aggregate to yield collective benefits to organizations, industries, and nations.
We think of the "information edge" as the relative gain that can be accomplished through effective use of information by individuals, their organizations, and their countries. This edge can be increased by acquiring accurate and meaningftil information, in the right dose, when needed, and at a reasonable cost. An entire community of information organizations and information professionals has evolved to satisfy various information needs and specific requirements for information delivery. Each type of organization has found a special niche in the overall communication environment. Organization libraries
8 and information centers, for instance, provide specific types of information and information services. Their value is that they can fulfill specific needs and satisfy certain requirements better and less expensively than any other alternative. In so doing, they help increase the information edge of their users.
The Information Edge Among Countries
It would <^pear that leading world nations have an information edge in that they have achieved competitive advantages in basic and applied research, medicine, space exploration, technology, finance, and many other areas that are highly dependent on information. Information is fast becoming recognized as an important national resource just like minerals, land, clean air, water, and food. Information is an important national resource because it increases the productivity and useftilness of perhaps its most important resource—people. However, information as a resource, like all others, must be nurtured carefully and its yield optimized. For example, the U.S. spent about $157 billion in 1992 on research and development [15]. The return-on-investment is gained initially through new discoveries and inventions. Far greater return, however, is gained through continued use (or exploitation) of the information created from research and development until its value is diminished or it is replaced by better information. This ability to use and reuse information without depleting its supply makes it unique among our nation's resources. Some nations seem to have grasped this far better than others and are increasing their information edge by using existing information more extensively and more effectively than other nations.
"For the Japanese, the statement that knowledge is power is not just a pious truism, it is a basic operating principle." [16] A recent study in Japan [17] shows that Japanese managers have a deep understanding of the importance of information to their companies. Japanese firms are found to "place a tremendous value on information and do not feel the need to justify information management expenditures." In our studies of companies and government agencies, we too sometimes observed a highly positive attitude toward information, but this way of thinking is not by any means universal. In one major company, scientists literally had to sneak into their company library, because their manager had led them to believe that he thought time in a library was wasted. In another company, corporate research knowledge was virtually obliterated because one executive felt that documenting research results was "a waste of time" and he did not want competitors accessing the results; later, much of the remaining knowledge "walked out of the door." We have found a wide range of "cultures" in companies and government agencies in terms of attitudes toward information and information services. Positive or negative attitudes seem to flow from the top down. Clearly, the movement toward information resources management is an attempt to optimize the usefulness of information [18, 19]. However, we believe that the achievements of this approach have been dampened by too much focus on technologies and too little attention to the less tangible, but essential, resource of information itself
There is some evidence [20] that the production and use of information is cultural in Japan. The growth rates of words supplied and words consumed seem to be greater in Japan than in the U.S. Whether this is the result of trying to catch up or is a continuing phenomenon we do not know. In Japan, the sources of information consumed seem to be shifting less from the print media to the electronic media than in the U.S. While the per capita consumption of words from the print media is declining steadily in the U.S., it remains constant in Japan. Per capita number of words consumed from electronic media is increasing in both countries. Endangered Minds [21] has chronicled the concerns expressed by many researchers regarding the replacement of reading by television viewing, particularly in the early years when the brain begins to develop assimilation and interpretation capabilities. The concerns over television
9 viewing are threefold: the medium is passive (although it is developing into an interactive medium), the images are presented to the young viewer so rapidly that the brain is unable to assimilate them and the child does not develop the ability to concentrate, and quality programming is scarce. We share this concern because of the enormous value derived from reading by professionals. We have observed the amount of reading by scientists and engineers since 1960 and have some clues (although no solid evidence) that the amount of reading by scientists and engineers may have declined in the past 10 years [22].
International competition creates a very difficult problem with regard to information. The freedom afforded by democracies and communication technologies, among other factors, has led to an enormous flow of information among countries (sometimes referred to as transborder data flow). The net outflow of information from the U.S. is staggering. The U.S. monetary trade deficit is of great concern to economists and national leaders. One wonders what the information deficit must be. Nations like Japan and those in Europe often use information created through U.S. R&D efforts more effectively than the U.S. itself does, tfiereby giving themselves an information edge over the U.S. International patent law and, to a lesser degree, copyright law help protect information, at least among friendly competitor nations. However, ultimately it may be necessary to negotiate the free flow of information, much like the free trade of goods.
We believe that it is virtually impossible to limit the outflow of information, and too much secrecy may actually erode a nation's information edge because secrecy tends to inhibit intranational flow of information as well as international flow. We believe the best way to achieve a national information edge is to create the best information and then apply it rapidly, effectively, and wisely. To do this a nation must encourage and enhance technology transfer and information flow, and recognize that an investment is needed to do this. Research and development expenditures should continue to grow, but part of this ftinding must help ensure that the maximum return-on-investment will be achieved through subsequent uses of the information generated.
On the other hand, Rubin [23] points out that the U.S. and Japan dominate in exporting information goods and services to vutually all markets and this dominance is particularly sfrong over the nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These international goods and services consist of five broad categories: printing and published products; telecommunications services and related equipment; computers and related equipment; professional services; and consumer goods such as VCRs, televisions, and calculators.
There is substantial evidence that an appreciable amount of the information infrastructure of the U.S. has been acquired by non-U.S. companies [24]. It is clear that sources of capital in the U.S. are no longer enamored of the U.S. information industry. A substantial number of companies have been acquired or are now owned by foreign firms, including primary publishers (e.g., Doubleday, Macmillan, and Harper & Row); secondary publishers (e.g.. Aviation Online, Gale Research, Disclosure, Information Handling Service, Congressional Information Service, Information Access Company, and R.R. Bowker); information hosts, distributors, or vendors (e.g., BRS and Orbit); and related information organizations (e.g.. Aspen Systems, Molecular Design, Predicasts, and Data Resources). Traditionally it is argued that foreign investment in U.S. firms is a sign of U.S. strength. On the other hand, some in the information profession are troubled by such extensive foreign ownership of the U.S. information infrastructure.
Among the large industrial nations, the U.S. has the greatest proportion of its work force engaged in information-related activities. Rubin [25] estimates that in 1986 42 percent of the work force was made up of information workers. Older estimates for other countries (using the OECD definitions) are:
10 United Kingdom in 1978 33.2% Ausfria in 1976 32.2% Sweden in 1975 34.9% France in 1975 32.1% Japan in 1975 29.6% Finland in 1975 27.5% Canada in 1971 39.9%
However, Rubin suggests that, while the number of information workers in the U.S. continues to increase, the proportion of these workers in the total work force has peaked, as shown in Figure 1. He also shows that expenditures for knowledge production as a proportion of the gross national product (GNP) have peaked.
Figure 1: Information Worko^ as a Po'centage of Work Force in the U.S.
Parcant of U.S. Work Foica SO -1
40 - '
30 - ••
20 - -
10 - ••
I960 1970 1980 1986 2000 Yoor Sciurc** Th« S/Z0 and Shap« of th* Infonrtatton Economyr An Historical Ovorviow. [Se« Reference 22]
We simply do not know what the long-term effects of a large information-related work force might be on nations. Information has created a large number of jobs and contributes substantially to the GNP. However, one could argue that too much information-relat^ activity, particularly in the workplace, might simply be the result of expanding bureaucracies. Instead, what we hope for are long-range, positive, higher-order effects in terms of achieving national goals such as improving the economy, maintaining peace, and improving quality of life. Construction of highways, for example, not only provides jobs but also leads to better transportation and transfer of goods; the need for cars, buses, and trucks; and an improved economy. We hope, but do not know for sure, that such long-range, higher-order effects are achieved from all—or even most—information-related work as well.
The Information Edge Among Companies
Several studies have shown a positive correlation between expenditures for information-related resources and corporate profits (e.g., see Hayes and Erickson [26], Braunstein [27], Koenig [28], Jonscher [29], and Terleckyj [30]). Koenig [31] summarizes some results in a 1992 article. He concludes that, while the topic of linking provision of information services to productivity has not been
11 researched extensively, the research that has been done shows remarkable uniformity and consistency in pointing to the conclusion that "information services are cost-effective investments, and that information- dependent organizations consistently under-invest in information services." A variety of research approaches are used in these studies. Koenig indicates that the marginal product of information estimated by Hayes and Erickson using the Cobb-Douglas function was 2.54, and as calculated by Braunstein in 1980 it was 2.50.^ Koenig goes on to point out the striking similarities of these numbers to those others have found using entirely different methods, including those reported in this book. These correlations are quite strong; but, as the researchers are careful to point out, the correlations do not establish cause and effect. One cannot say for sure that high profits are a direct result of information purchase and use. Rather, all one can say is that companies and industries that expend more on information-related resources tend to be more profitable, or that those that are profitable tend to expend more on those resources (perhaps because they have more to spend).
The econometric studies referenced above all indicate that information may introduce an edge among competitors within various industries. All these studies involve economic analysis and comparison across companies within specific industries. In our studies, described throughout this book, we have tried to dissect and analyze personal information-seeking within companies and government agencies to determine the extent to which information use contributes to individual work performance. These in-depth analyses were performed to some degree in 11 of the companies and 2 of the government agencies we studied." The results that we summarize below are replicated in every single organization we observed. We feel confident that the extent of reading by professionals in all environments and disciplines does, in fact, create an information edge that is criticsd to success.
The Information Edge Among Professionals
Professionals such as scientists, engineers, lawyers, medical practitioners, managers, administrators, marketing and sales staff, and so on, spend about 56 percent of their time communicating.* This communication can take the form of interpersonal communication such as talking or listening to someone or participating in presentations to groups. It can also involve reading or writing. Typically, about 64 percent of the time spent communicating involves interpersonal exchange of information and 36 percent reading and writing. These results are consistent with other studies dating as far back as the late 1950s and early 1960s [32] to as recent as the late 1980s [33]. Professionals spend the rest of their tinae actually performing primary work activities such as making decisions, conducting primary or laboratory research, preparing engineering designs, diagnosing or treating patients, preparing legal strategies, planning and budgeting, and so on.
We find that all professionals, regardless of work role or educational background, spend about the same amount of time communicating; however, the way they communicate varies substantially by work role. For example, scientists typically read and write more than other professionals, and the materials
braunstein substitutes the "constant elasticity of substitution" (CES) and the "translog" production functions, both of which permit elasticities of other than one. The CES function yielded a marginal product of information of between 2.43 and 2.92, and the translog function yielded values between 2.34 and 3.67.
^Tiese organizations represent 61,118 professionals. Sample size is 2,229 respondents.
T)etermined from 5 companies and 1 government agency (N = 44,847 professionals; n = 695 observations). Confidence interval for this estimate is roughly 55.8 percent + 5.3 percent.
12 they read tend to be more from scholarly journals and books than from trade journals and nonscholarly books; whereas administrators tend to read much more from trade journals than from any other type of document. Administrators also spend much less time reading than other professionals. For example, administrators average about 125 hours per year reading compared with about 375 for researchers and 430 hours for lawyers. On the other hand, administrators spend more time in interpersonal communication. The average aimual amount of reading and average annual time spent reading per professional in various work roles are observed as follows*:
Table 1: Amount of Reading and Time Spent Reading, by Professional Work Role
Number of Time Spent Reading Woric Role Items Read (Hours) R&D 273 375 Medical 306 344 Legal 311 430 Management 169 150 Administration 166 125 Marketing and sales 158 145 Operations and other 139 155 ALL 198 253
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892)
In 19 of the organizations studied, the average number of readings per professional across all professionals is 198 per professional, and the average time spent reading is 253 hours per year per professional. The amount of reading of various types of documents is given in Figure 2. Professionals' time is a scarce resource; the knowledge gained must be of substantial usefulness and value to them to justify the time spent on reading each year. We have gathered a great deal of evidence that this is indeed the case.
There are many reasons why information is worth the "price" readers are willing to pay for it in terms of their time. One is the necessity of keeping up with new knowledge. In science, for example, the amount of recorded knowledge doubles about every 15 to 17 years. The implication of this is that all of die knowledge recorded throughout the history of humankind up to 1975 has now doubled, and will likely double again by the year 2010. This means that college graduates, upon graduation, have been exposed to only one-sixth of all the new knowledge that they will be expected to master during their careers. The growth of medical and legal knowledge is even greater, with growth factors of 15 to 20 during a typical career.
Tleading is defined as going beyond the contents page, title page, and abstract to the body of the document. Types of items read include journal aiticles (trade and scholarly), books, internal reports, patent documents, etc. Amount of reading was observed in 19 of the organizations we studi«l (N = 72,505; n = 7,188). Time spent reading was observed in 11 of the organizations (N = 64,998; n = 2,551). Both amount of reading and time spent reading were also observed in four national surveys of profes sionals (n = 2,986).
13 Figure 2: Amount of Reading of Different Types of Documents
Avg. No. of Raadings/ Profosslonol/Yoor
Scholarly Trade Prof- Othor Internal External Journals Journals Books Books Reports Reports Typo of Document Source; King Researcti, Inc.. surveys of professionals In 19 organizotions (N = 72,SOS: n = 7.188)
Purposes of Reading
One indicator of the usefulness of information found in documents is the purpose for which reading is done. The principal purpose is to accomplish the professionals' primary work such as management, administration, research and development, legal work, marketing, and so on. In the case of journal article reading, nearly 60 percent of the reading is for the purpose of accomplishing these primary work activities. In addition, some reading (5 percent) is primarily for advising others, making presentations, or educating others; and some reading (5 percent) is for writing reports, proposals or plans, and publications. About 18 percent of the reading is for current awareness (i.e., keeping up with the literature), and about 12 percent of the reading is for professional development. These purposes of journal reading vary substantially, depending on the work roles of professionals. For example, only about one-fifth of the journal reading by research and development professionals is for current awareness or professional development; for administtators these purposes account for nearly half of the journal reading. Administrators are much more likely than other professionals to read journals for the purpose of consulting or giving substantive advice to others.
A similar proportion of book readings are for primary work activities; fewer for current awareness (4 percent versus 18 percent); and more for professional development (23 percent versus 12 percent). Internal r^orts are almost exclusively read for work-related purposes (78 percent), interpersonal communication (12 percent), and writing (5 percent); current awareness and professional development are rarely reasons for reading internal reports (4 percent and 1 percent, respectively).
Importance of Information Found in Documents
Professionals use a number of resources in performing their work. These include computers, terminals, and other equipment (such as laboratory instrumentation); information found in documents; substantive advice fromcolleague s or consultants; support staff, such as secretaries, technicians, etc.; and information staff, such as librarians, information specialists, etc. Obviously, the most important resource
14 is the time and effort of the professionals themselves. The relative importance of the remaining resources varies among professionals and the work activities for which the resources are employed. For example, instrumentation is the most important resource to scientists and engineers doing primary research, but this resource is of litde use to administrators because they rarely perform the activity. Information found in documents is found to be important to all types of work activities, and it is the most important resource for such activities as background research; "other" R&D activities; and legal and patent work; writing proposals or plans, reports, and formal publications; and consulting and advising others. Documented information is rated low for only two primary activities: (1) management or executive and (2) finance or accounting. For these activities, documented information is ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, among the six types of resources.
Savings Achieved from Reading
We have established several indicators of the beneficial consequences of reading books, journals, and internal reports. One of the most significant consequences of this reading is that considerable dollar savings are achieved by avoiding having to do certain work at all, modifying the work, or stopping an unproductive line of work. Again, the proportion of readings that results in such savings and the estimated amount of such savings vary substantially among professionals and their work roles. These consequences also vary by die types of materials read: $310 per journal article reading, $650 per book reading, and $1,090 per internal report reading.^ These results have been found to be remarkably similar from organization to organization and from two national surveys. Savings across all professional groups and all types of reading in an organization amount to a dollar value that is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of acquiring and actually reading the documents (about $37 for journals, $83 for books, and $77 for internal reports). Thus, the retum-on-investment in information found in documents ranges from 7.8:1 to 14.2:1 (using estimated savings as the criterion).'
Effects of Reading on Performance of Work
For their most recent readings of journals, books, and internal reports, we asked professionals to indicate the effect of the information read on the quality and timeliness of the work activity for which the information was read. We found that a large proportion of readings affects the quality of the primary activity for which the reading was done (44 percent of journal readings, 61 percent of book readings, and 60 percent of internal report readings). Similarly, readings improved the timeliness of the activity, although not nearly as many as yielded improved quality. Timeliness improvements were said to occur for 19 percent of journal readings, 24 percent of book readings, and 22 percent of internal report readings. These results are simply indicators or evidence of the extent to which information affects the output performance of professionals; nevertheless, all such indicators have demonstrated the use, usefulness, and value of information found in documents. Other benefits of reading that were cited frequently by professionals include reinforcing hypotiieses or confidence in work, initiating new ideas for
One should not think of these averages as being "typical," but rather as averages from highly skewed distributions. Only about 2 percent of the readings account for nearly all the savings that contribute to the average, and about 26 percent of readings result in no savings at all. Outliers, or observations of very large savings, are not included in the averages (except as certainty samples).
^e have observed this relative retum-on-information in 3 national surveys of scientists and engineers as well as 13 in-depth studies performed in companies and government agencies.
15 work, helping guide future work, broadening or narrowing options concerning work, providing needed intelligence about competitors, and providing information for lectures, seminars, etc.
One important indicator of the impact of information found in documents involves the effect of reading on the productivity of professionals. Productivity can be measured in terms of such output quantities as number of formal reports or records of work written, number of formal publications written, number of proposals or research plans prepared, number of formal oral presentations made, and number of times professionals are consulted or give substantive advice. For all these indicators, productivity was found to be statistically correlated with the amount of reading by professionals. For example, one indicator of productivity is the number of formal records of research and technical work, divided by time actually spent doing primary and secondary research, development, and preparing such records. For the 695 professionals we observed^ the relationship between amount of reading and level of productivity for five indicators of productivity is shown in Figure 3.' It seems clear that professionals who read a great deal are more likely also to have high productivity (from 60 percent to 79 percent) and, conversely, those who do not read much are less likely to have high productivity (27 percent to 43 percent). We emphasize, however, that we do not know for sure whether high productivity is directly atfributable to high amounts of reading. We only know that those who read more (or less) tend to have higher (or lower) productivity and that the observed relationship is unlikely to have happened by chance. These results were observed in all organizations for which we did this analysis.
Figure 3: Correlation Between Amount of Reading and Productivity Indicators
Professionals w/ High Productivity (%) 1007
807
60%
urn
20%
0% Formal Consultation/ Formal Proposals Formol Raports Advic* Presentations & Plans Publications Productivity Output Indicotor
•• High Readers ^3 Low Readers
Source: King Research. Inc.. survey of professionals in six orgonizalions (N = 44,847: n = 695)
To address the concern that the correlation above is caused by the possibility that those who read a lot also write (or talk) a lot, we examined an indicator of the quality of the writing and other outputs of those who frequently read and those who did not. One company had a strong internal report system with good records on the extent of use of the internal reports. We found an even stronger correlation between the amount of reading by a professional and the subsequent number of readings of reports written
n^Iote that the level of high (and low) productivity and high (and low) amount of reading varies among organizations.
16 by that professional than we did between reading and productivity measured by number of reports written. Similarly, we found that those who read more appeared to have a higher proportion of proposals or plans approved, and had higher attendance at their presentations. Thus, the usefiilness of the output of work appears to be greater for those who read more than for others.
Achievemmt and Amount of Reading
We also looked at several indicators of the confributions that professionals make to their parent organizations to determine whether those who make the greatest contributions read more or less than others. In 11 of the organizations studied, we obtained the names of professionals who had received achievement awards, technical awards, patents, and so on. Another measure of achievement is whether a professional is asked to serve on high-level project or "problem-solving" teams or special committees. In both instances (i.e., award winners and those chosen to serve on special teams), the recognized achievers read significantiy more than others (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Average Amount of Reading of Various Types of Documents by Professionals Recognized by Awards Versus Nonaward Winners
Avg. No. Readings/ Professional too
80 60 -t t -_-^ 40
, 20 jHli^ ^^ iJ 0 _^H w^. w^ w^ ^p Scholarly Trade Profasslanal Internal Other Journals Journals Books Roports Documents Type of Document
HH Award—winners Y/'/'A Other Professionals Source'; King Research. Inc.. survey of professionols in 11 organizations (N = S3.990: n = S.827)
Finally, in one company, the personnel office agreed to provide us with the names of 25 profes sionals who were considered to be particularly high achievers (i.e., on a "fast track"). These 25 persons were compared with others in the organization who were performing the same work roles and had equiv alent degrees, fields of specialty, and years of experience (i.e., cohorts). The results of this comparison are illustrated in Figure 5. For all types of documents except reference books, the "fast trackers" read considerably more than their cohorts. Altogether, the "fast trackers" reported 82 percent more reading than their cohorts.
Clearly, recognized achievers tend to read more than others. This is not a new phenomenon. Lufkin and Miller [34] reported very similar results from a study conducted in the 1960s jointly at Honeywell and Martin Marietta. They observed that those singled out for special awards given for creativity read
17 Figure 5: Ava*age Amount of Reading of Various Types of Documents by Professionals Recognized as "Fast Tracko^" Versus Cohorts
Avg. No. Readings/ Professionol 10O I-
Scholarly Trade Journals Journals Type of Document
^^H "Fast Trockers" Vy'y'A Cohorts Source; King Research, inc., survey of professionals one organization (N = 3,932; n — 608) much more on the average than typical engineers. They observed, as we have, that not all achievers are heavy readers. In their study, about 10 percent of high achievers read hardly at all. The point is not that reading will ensure high achievement, but rather that most achievers use information found in documents as an essential resource for their work.
Do Some Professionals Read Too Much? Figure 6: Proportion of Readings Done To examine the possibility that too much time Primarily for Professional might be spent reading, in one company we looked at Development Versus Amount of the purposes and consequences of reading for those Time Spent Reading by Professionals who spend varying amounts of time reading. For example, reading for professional development might be considered less important or productive than Proportion of Roodlngs reading for primary work activities. We found that 100X those who spend less total time reading have a higher proportion of reading for professional development (Figure 6). More specifically, those who spend fewer than 10 hours per month reading (fewer than 120 COX hours per year) indicate that more than one-half of the readings are for professional development; those who %, II spend more than 34 hours per mondi (more than 400 P ii ^ j§§i K ^ ^ii rrr. hours per year) indicate that only about one-sixth of m. their readings are for professional development. 20X i» » ^ K1I ^i ^i |Ki 1p i 1 111 We looked at two additional beneficial conse < 10 10-U.5 JO-52.5 > 34 Ist. Average Hours/Montii Spent Reoding quences of reading: readings that yield savings and Sourc*: K ng Rtsoorch, Inc.. survfy of orotosslonols in readings that result in improved quality of work. In on* Orgor izotlon (N = 2.4M: n = 544f
18 both instances, the proportion of readings that result in beneficial consequences increases for those who spend more time reading (Figures 7 and 8).
Figure 7: Proportion of Readings in Figure 8: Proportion of Readings in Which Savings Are Achieved Which Quality of Work Is Versus Amount of Time Spent Improved Versus Amount of Reading by Professionals Time Spent Reading by Professionals
'roportioo of Readings Proportion of Readings lOOX 100K •
SOX SOX
SOX 60X . ^^^^^^ 1
40X 40X u 2ax ^ 20X LL ox < 10 10-19.5 J0-S2.5 > 34 < 10 10-19.5 20-32.5 > J4 Est. Averoge Hours/Month Spent Reading Est. Average Hours/Montti Spent Reading Source: King Resoorch, Inc., survey of professionols in Source: King Research. Inc.. survey of professionols in on. orgonliolion (N = 2.468: n = S**) on. organization (N = 2.468: n = 544)
It appears that the increase in favorable consequences might peak at the 20 hours to 33 hours per month (i.e., 240 to 400 hours per year) range, although more data are needed to verify this. Regardless, a significant proportion of the readings by heavy readers remains beneficial to their work.
We believe that there is abundant evidence or indicators that information from documents contributes significantly to professionals' work, thereby giving heavy readers an information edge. Such information
is extensively used for important work activities;
has substantial value (or professionals would not devote their scarce time to reading);
is said to be an important resource for most work activities and is the most important resource (compared to other resources) for several work activities;
results in large dollar savings in staff time and equipment;
results in higher quality and more timely work;
correlates with productivity measured in several ways; and
is used by high achievers considerably more than others on the average.
19 These results provide quantitative evidence that an information edge can be gained by professionals through reading. The question becomes how organization libraries and information centers contribute to this information edge.
20 CHAPTER! INCREASING THE INFORMATION EDGE: THE ROLE OF SPECIAL LIBRARIES
THE INCREASING ROLE OF LIBRARIES
In Chapter 1 we defined the information edge as the relative gain that can be achieved through effective use of information by individuals, their organizations, and countties. Professionals spend an enormous amount of time using and producing information. We presented clear evidence that profession als in companies and government agencies who read more have greater productivity, and that reading leads to improved quality, faster completion of work, and better decisions. Professionals recognized for their special achievements clearly read more than others. In this chapter, we demonstrate that organiza tion libraries play a unique and powerful role in helping professionals and their organizations achieve an information edge.
One principal role of libraries in organizations is to ensure that professionals receive relevant infor mation when they need it and at the least cost possible. We emphasize that libraries should facilitate access to information and information services. They must constandy look for the best way information can be provided to professionals; continually examine user information needs and requirements; select or provide information services in an ever-changing environment; and be aware of and adopt changing technologies that can provide better information, in new formats, faster and less expensively.
Another essential role of libraries is to minimize the time professionals spend in identifying, locating, and obtaining relevant information so they can spend more time doing the work they are uniquely quali fied to do—making decisions, conducting experiments, etc.—thereby increasing their information edge. By doing so, libraries can have an appreciable impact on increasing the information edge of professionals and, as we will show, enhancing the achievement of organization goals, thereby increasing the informa tion edge of the organization as well.
In recent years, libraries have undergone tremendous change. At one time, libraries were concerned largely with books, then serials and periodicals. Now they must also store and provide access to govern ment publications, patent documents, and other external reports; internal research and other reports; and, because of new technology, audiovisual materials and equipment, software and related documentation, and a wide variety of databases in online and CD-ROM formats. They also often provide access to cata logs and databases through office terminals and access to CD-ROM equipment, PCs, and workstations for professionals' use in the library.
A number of other factors are changing the needs and requirements of libraries and their users. Libraries must provide access to an accumulating body of recorded knowledge. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the amount of knowledge recorded throughout the history of mankind up to 1975 has now doubled. One of the most important roles of libraries is to provide access to all of the published litera ture. Naturally, they cannot each hold all of die literature ever published, nor even all published in a particular subject area, but they do provide access to it dirough interlibrary borrowing from odier libraries or through document delivery services.
21 Education in recent years has emphasized the need to keep informed, continually rely on information, and apply information tools effectively throughout one's career. Library users are becoming more information-intensive in general and are using libraries more frequently now than they have in the past. For example, from 1977 to the mid-1980s, we observed from national surveys that scientists and engi neers increased the proportion of their readings obtained from library-provided journals by 50 percent. Evidence from our studies in companies and government agencies suggests that this trend is continuing, largely as a result of the enormous increase in journal prices. Libraries have recognized the economic benefits of having frequently used materials close to users in department collections (or branch libraries) and personal collections. To enhance this economic benefit, many libraries use their unique capabilities to order such documents and help organize and manage them in die departments.
Professionals use many library services now that were not even known 25 years ago, such as biblio graphic and numeric database search tools frombot h internal and external sources. Libraries also provide such other information services as franslation, technical editing, research and evaluation of information found in documents, selection and evaluation of microcomputer hardware and software, purchase of mate rials for personal use, and management of professional society subscriptions. Library users are increas ingly exposed to new information technology. There has been a great deal of discussion in the literature of how, as the user becomes more "computer and information literate," the librarian will no longer have a role to play as intermediary. However, the opposite is observed in most environments. Admittedly, users of information do perform some of their own information searches, particularly when they have become comfortable with available systems. But, as they do more searching, they recognize that more of their scarce time is being taken up with information searching and retrieval activities. They learn that there are numerous sources of information to choose from, and that the sources change over time in terms of coverage, procedures for use, quality, etc. Once they recognize the complexity of information search ing and refrieval, they begin to return to the librarian as an intermediary, particularly for their more complex requirements. However, since their experience has given them a better awareness and under standing of information systems, they are more able to articulate their information needs and they are more sophisticated in terms of their expectations and demands on library and information services.
Librarians currently devote much more time to providing answers to questions than to pointing to where the answers can be found. They also assess, evaluate, and filter the information they find, enabling users to focus only on relevant information. In some organizations the librarians are asked to perform secondary research and prepare written reports on the results. In this way librarians, particularly those with strong subject backgrounds, are like laboratory scientists, where the laboratory is the world of knowledge found in the literature—and in the minds of scholars and scientists—that can be tapped by librarians when needed. Because the latter source of knowledge in organizations and elsewhere is often not fiillyused , libraries are building databases to identify and locate people with special competencies or using vendors with such systems.
Librarians are providing more services in recent years because they have established a niche as a source of information needed by professionals. As an example, for information found in journals, profes sionals use a combination of personal subscriptions, office collections, library collections, and other sources such as authors and colleagues. Each source has a role to play, depending on the frequency of use of the journals. Journals that are read frequently by individual professionals usually should be ob tained through personal subscriptions. It is too expensive for professionals to go to a library to read these journals, unless the library is very close. On the other hand, journals that are read infrequently by an individual, but are collectively read frequenfly, should be obtained through office collections or libraries. Furthermore, reading of older articles (of over two years) is almost always from library collections. Knowledge of these trade-offs can make librarians more effective managers of the organization's entire
22 inventory of such information resources. Librarians are playing a much more useful role in managing all such resources—thereby helping increase their organization's information edge.
USE AND IMPACT OF LIBRARY SERVICES
Over the past 12 years, we conducted studies of 23 organizations (16 companies and 7 government agencies).'" During these studies we developed a framework of measures, methods, and models that has proven to be enormously useful in describing and evaluating the entire information environment of libraries and the communities they serve. This conceptual frameworki s described in detail in Chapter 3. Using the framework, we have been able not only to assess the performance of library operations and services (i.e., produaivity, quality, timeliness, etc., of services), but also to determine how library services affect the performance of the users they serve, and how nonusers of the services obtain and use information. Below we describe the use and impact of the libraries in the organizations we studied.
Use and Cost of Library Services
Professionals in 21 of the organizations we surveyed use the libraries in their organizations an aver age of about 50 times per year. Some (4.4 percent) use their library an average of at least once a day, while many rarely use it (30 percent did not use it at all in the past month). Professionals actually use several library sources for work-related purposes. In addition to their organization's main library or branches, they use shared office collections or reading rooms about 27 times per year and an external li brary (i.e., public, academic, government, etc.) about 14 times a year for work-related purposes. The extent of use" of an organization's library depends on the type of work performed by professionals. For example, professionals engaged in legal and medical work average about 80 uses of the library per year; those involved in administration or who are managers or executives average only about 20 uses per year.
We mentioned in Chapter 1 that professionals average about 198 readings of documents a year. We find that about one-third of these readings are provided by the organization library. The extent of use of library materials and services is considerable, but the cost to provide services is not inconsequential. In Chapter 9, we present a means for calculating library service costs." The amount of use and the cost per unit or transaction of some typical services are summarized in Table 2. The average cost per use of services ranges from about $1 for directional reference and assistance and about $2 for readings from routed journals, photocopying documents, brief reference and research responses, and access to equipment
'nliese organizations represent 82,SS3 professionals and 90 libraries that have at least one staff member. We performed operational analyses in 13 of the organizations, and surveys of information use, library use, and/or impact in 21 of the organizations (representing 73,303 professionals). These surveys involved 7,366 returned responses (greater than 50 percent response rate in each organization). All of these surveys provided data on amount of reading and libraiy use as well as other basic data. Special surveys were done on detailed libraiy use (21 organizations; N = 73,303; n = 3,260); professional communication patterns (6 organi zations; N = 44,847; n = 695); reading behavior (8 organizations; N = 52,690; n = 1,892); and specific libraiy services (9 organ izations; N = 55,690; n = 1,741). Since data were collected from several surveys, we made some minor adjustments to estimates throughout the book to make the results consistent for comparative purposes.
A use can be a visit or contact through telephone, e-mail, etc. Uses include use by someone else on behalf of the professional.
Service costs include direct costs and all indirect costs allocated to services.
23 Table 2: Amount of Use and Unit Cost of Typical Library Services
Annual Uses Library Unit Cost* Service per Professional ($) Access to Libraiy Collections 63.9 readings $8.06 Circulation 13.1 readings $9.44 Materials read in libraiy 36.7 readings $5.85 Audiovisual use** 0.4 uses — Journal routing** 13.0 readings $2.07 Inteillbraiy lending*** n/a $20.25 Access to External Collections through 1.3 items $18.79 Interlibraiy Borrowing and Document Delivery Services Purchase of Materials for Depaitment Use** 0.9 uses $6.94 Photocopying by Libraiy Staff** 22.6 documents $2.13 Reference and Research Directional reference and assistance 7.9 incidents $1.18 Brief reference and research 6.8 requests $2.65 In-depth reference and research 0.5 searches $18.23 Research** 0.1 requests $152.95 Telephone reference services** 8.0 uses - Online request services** 12.3 uses ~ Catalog Services** Card catalog 5.8 uses - Online catalog in libraiy 4.6 uses — Online catalog from office 1.3 uses ~ Database Search Services 0.8 searches $134.49 Current Awareness Services** Selective dissemination/bulletins 2.7 issues $9.94/issue Serial listing of holdings 1.2 uses — Translation Services** 0.2 uses — User Training Sessions/Demonstrations** 0.1 sessions $103.80 Access to Special Facilities** Reading room/study space 7.6 uses $0.43 Individual carrels or rooms 1.2 uses - PCs/CD-ROM workstations 2.1 uses $2.22 Microform reader/printer 1.1 uses - Self-service photocopier 7.4 uses $1.55
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of libraries and professionals No source data available where blanks (~) occur. *Costs are calculated in 1993 dollars and include direct costs plus all indirect costs allocated to services (see Chapter 9). **Average cost and use based on organizations that provide such services. ***Loans to other libraries.
24 in the library, to more than $130 for database searching and for research services where analysis of document content is performed and presented to users in written form. However, as we show later in this chapter, professionals pay far more than this amount in terms of their time to acquire the information provided by libraries, and it would cost considerably more to obtain this valuable information from other sources if there were no organization library.
What Professionals Are Willing to Pay for Library Services
Most libraries cost organizations from about $400 to more dian $1,000 per year per professional in the organization, d^ending on the size of the parent organization and the range of services provided. The average amount for the organizations we studied is about $610 per professional (in current 1993 dollars)." Professionals sometimes "purchase" information services provided by their organization's library (in user charges or fees). However, the "price" paid by professionals for information is far greater in terms of the time they spend identifying, locating, obtaining, and using needed information. If they are willing to expend their most valuable resource (their time) on acquiring and using information provided by libraries, they must perceive this information to have even greater value to them and their work. In fact, in eight organizations in which we observed the time spent acquiring and using informa tion, we found that professionals average paying about $5,190 per professional per year'* for library- provided information and services. Thus, professionals place a much higher "value" on information provided by libraries than it costs to run the libraries—about 8.5 to 1 (dollar value to library cost) in all eight organizations for which these data were observed.
We found similar results for all services for which we have adequate data (see Table 3). The ratio of information value (price paid) to library service cost of the services ranges from 0.3 to 1 for user training to 46 to 1 fqr reading room and study space.
Clearly, there is substantial value in the information and services provided by libraries or profes sionals would not be willing to expend their time in this manner. Below we describe the value derived from library-provided information and services in terms of how libraries reduce the time required by professionals to acquire library-provided information.
The Dollar Value Derived from Library Services
Libraries are found in most large companies in the U.S. However, not all professionals work in organizations that have a library. About one-fifth of scientists and engineers, one-fourth of medical professionals, and one-half of lawyers and business persons do not have a library at tiieir place of work. The principal reason for this is that economies of scale are such that it requires about 50 to 75 profes sionals in an organization to justify a full-time librarian, and most companies are smaller than that. There is a penalty to be paid for not having library services. In fact, in a study of small high-technology firms [35], we found diat it costs small firms without libraries about 2 to 4 times as much to acquire and provide information as it does larger firms that have libraries.
All calculations are adjusted to 1993 dollars. Calculations of professional time are based on $40 per hour, including salaries, fringe benefits, some overhead, etc. These estimates can be adjusted to the situation in an individual organization, if desired.
'*rhis estimate includes $4,740 for professionals acquiring and reading library-provided documents, $200 for support staff acquiring documents for professionals, and $250 for time required to acquire nondocument-related services.
25 Table 3: Ratio of Price Paid by Users to Library Costs
Libraiy Ratio of Avg. Uses per Unit Cost Price Paid Price Paid Service Professional (S) ($) to Cost Access to Libraiy Collections 63.9* $8.06 $77.31** 9.6:1 Circulation 13.1* $9.44 $109.71** 11.6:1 Materials read in libraiy 36.7* $5.85 $76.47** 13.1:1 Journal routing 13.0* $2.07 $69.16** 33.4:1 Access to External Collections through 1.3 $18.79 $73.82** 3.9:1 Interiibraiy Borrowing and Document Deliveiy Services Purchase of Materials for Department Use 0.9 $6.94 $66.93* 9.6:1 Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 22.6 $2.13 $4.87 2.3:1 Reference and Research Services Directional reference and assistance 7.9 $1.18 $3.53 3.0:1 Brief reference and research 6.8 $2.65 $5.73 2.2:1 In-depth reference and research 0.5 $18.23 $13.53 0.7:1 Researeh 0.1 $152.95 $40.00 0.3:1 Database Search Services 0.8 $134.49 $9.00 0.1:1 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins 2.7 $9.94/issue $13.00 1.3:1 User Training Sessions/Demonstrations 0.1 $103.80 $28.80 0.3:1 Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space 7.6 $0.43 $20.00 46.5:1 PCs/CD-ROM woikstations 2.1 $2.22 $6.20 2.8:1 Self-service photocopier 7.4 $1.55 $14.67 9.5:1
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of libraries and professionals *Uses are readings. **Price paid includes time spent reading.
We found similar results in eight organizations in which we analyzed how much more time it would cost professionals to get information if they did not have a library in their organization. Professionals in these organizations indicated that if there were no library it would cost them about $3,920 more per year to acquire library-provided information and services than it now costs them." The average cost to operate the library in these organizations is $610 per professional; die cost to the professionals to acquire die information is about $1,090.'* Thus, it costs die parent organization $1,700 per professional
^hia estimate is made from critical incidents of reading, where professionals were asked to indicate if and how they would obtain the document they just read if it were not provided by the libraiy and, if obtained, how much it would cost them. These costs include about 50 hours of professionals' time, time delegated to subordinates to acquire information, and out-of-pocket costs such as subscribing to a journal.
'^ote that this is the user cost to acquire libraiy-provided documents. The $5,190 mentioned earlier includes the user cost to read the libraiy-provided documents ($4,100).
26 for library services; without the library it would cost about $5,010." In other words, it would cost these parent organizations about 2.9 times more for their professionals to obtain information from other sources than it now costs to run the library.
Another penalty cost not included in the above calculations relates to the consequences of potentially having to spend an average of about 50 hours additional time per year identifying and obtaining documents if they had no access to an organization library. This "lost time," if expended, might detract from their primary work. Alternatively, they might do that much less reading, in which case we estimate that it could cost as much as $12,200 per professional in potential loss of savings derived from reading. Using this measure, it would cost parent organizations about 7.2 tunes more not to have a library than it does to have one.'*
Results for the savings achieved by having organization libraries are displayed by individual service in Table 4. The ratio of the potential cost of not having a library service to current service costs ranges from 2.0 to 1 for database search services, to 9.0 to 1 for journal routing.
Table 4: Ratio of (1) Total Cost to Use Alternatives to (2) Total Service Costs to Parent Organization Libraiy Price Value Ratio of Avg. Uses/ Unit Cost Paid* Derived Price + Value Service Professional ($) ($) ($) to Cost + Price Access to Library Collections 63.9 $8.06 $13.15 $51.49 3.0:1 Journal routing 13.0 $2.07 $4.87 $57.31 9.0:1 Access to External Collections through 1.3 $18.79 $9.53 $138.00 5.2:1 Interiibraiy Borrowing and Document Delivery Services Purchase of Materials for Depaitment Use 0.9 $6.94 $2.67 $30.57 3.5:1 Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 22.6 $2.13 $4.87 $29.27 4.9:1 Database Search Services 0.8 $134.49 $9.00 $272.00 2.0:1 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins 2.7 $9.94/issue $13.00 $56.90 3.0:1 Access to Special Facilities PCs/CD-ROM woricstations 2.1 $2.22 $6.20 $16.67 2.7:1 Self-service photocopier 7.4 $1.55 $14.67 $58.00 4.5:1
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of libraries and professionals * Price paid does not include time spent reading.
Similar results have been reported by others as well:
• Drake [36] reports savings of $1.2 million compared to an operating cost of $750,000 (1.6 to 1) for a local bibliographic search system.
It is estimated that it would cost professionals $3,920 more to obtain information and seivices now provided, if there were no libraiy. This amount added to their current costs to acquire information and services ($1,090) yields a total of $5,010.
'*$ 12,200 -i- $1,700.
27 • Estabrook [37] r^orts that the worst and best case estimates show returns of between $2 saved for every $1 spent to about $48 saved for every $1 spent on document delivery services.
• Kramer [38] reports that a library staffs time spent searching saves nearly 9 times the amount in engineering staffs time.
• Manning [39] reports returns in savings on cost of library of about 5 to 1.
• Taylor [40] reports user costs of 3 to 5 times the costs of network and computing services.
Regardless of how one looks at it, a well-run library and professionals who know how to use it can save companies and government agencies an enormous amount of money. Also, professionals' produc tivity and quality of work, and company profits or retum-on-investment in professionals' time, are likely to be improved, as shown below.
IMPACT OF LIBRARIES ON ORGANIZATION GOALS
Professionals read to improve dieir work (as discussed in Chapter 1). However, sometimes diey read to keep current widi their professional specialties or for professional development. Library-provided information is much more likely to be directly used for work dian is information from odier sources." In fact, nearly all uses of library information or services can be demonsfrated to enhance die following organization goals:
• Increase productivity. In companies, this involves increasing profits; in government agencies it means doing more for less (c.f, Reinventing Government [41]). Chick [42] has expressed diis in terms of the definition and objectives of information resources management. He defines information resources management as "an approach to applying appropriate and effective management philosophy, methodology, and techniques to decisions about data and information and other information resources (equipment, software, personnel, etc.). The objectives are to assure that information produced from information sources has maximum 'value' to die organization and at die same time, is produced at minimum 'cost' dirough effective management."
• Perform work better and with greater quality. In both types of organizations this means making better decisions, achieving greater creativity, making more useful contributions to the organization, etc.
• Perform work faster. In companies this may mean speeding products from discovery to the marketplace; in government agencies it means achieving program objectives faster.
Evidence of die ways in which such goals are enhanced by library services are sununarized below.
TFor example, 89 percent of libraiy-provided journal article readings address specific woric, versus 69 percent of readings from other sources. Readings of libraiy-provided books are 81 percent woik-related, versus 72 percent from other sources; readings of libraiy-provided internal reports are 99 percent work-related, versus 95 percent from other sources.
28 Increasing Productivity Through Library Services
In one company, we asked library users to indicate favorable or unfavorable outcomes of library use. More than one-third of their library uses were said to result in saving time or money in performing work. Another type of evidence involves readings from library-provided documents. In eight organizations we asked professionals to indicate the consequences of their last-read documents. Nearly half (45 percent) of readings of library-provided documents were said to result in saving time or money. As shown in Figure 9, a higher portion of library-provided readings (about 10 percent more) than readings from other sources yield such favorable outcomes. Amount of savings is about $749 per reading, or 44 percent more than for documents obtained from other sources ($520 per reading).
Figure 9: Proportion of Readings of Library-provided Documents and Documents from Other Sources Which Result in Savings
Proportion of Raadings 100 p--•••• "
80
All JoumalB Books lnl«mol OocuiTtonta Reports
Document from: ^^H Library Y/^XA ottier Sources Source: King Resaarcti, inc.. surveys of professionals in eight organizations (N = 52.690: n = 1,892)
In six organizations, we found that the amount of library use (with distance taken into account) is correlated with five indicators of professional productivity. Figure 10 shows that frequent users of the library are more likely to be highly productive than infrequent users.
In the previous section of this chapter, we noted that organizations save about $3,920 per professional by having libraries. Such savings will clearly have a positive effect on productivity (i.e., profit or achieving more for less), perhaps by as much as 4 percent. Also, as mentioned in Chapter 1, five industry-wide studies show a positive correlation between information-related expenditures and profit and/or productivity.
Performing Work Better and with Greater Quality Through Library Services
In the company mentioned above, we gave respondents an opportunity to characterize the results of their recent uses of organization libraries in terms of two extremes:
29 Figure 10: Productivity of Professionals, as a Function of Amount of Library Use
Professlonats w/ HIgli Productivity (%) 100!5
80S
60«:
40s:
207
o% Formal Consultation/ Formal Proposals Formal Roports Advtca Presentations ft Plans Publtcatlons Productivity Output Indicator HI Frequent Ub. Users Yy^A Infrequent Lib. Users Source: King Researcli. Inc.. survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 44,847; n = 695)
• not particularly important or helpful; or
• absolutely required, could not do their work otherwise.
We found that users considered about 10 percent of the visits to the library to be not particularly important or helpful in accomplishing the work task for which they visited it. However, for 40 percent of the visits, users indicated the library was absolutely required to perform the tasks; they could not have done their work otherwise. This pattern held for nearly every one of 21 tasks or fimctions being performed by the professionals. Nearly 60 percent of the visits to libraries result in performing work better.
In eight organizations we asked survey respondents to indicate whether reading a document resulted in improving the quality of the work task for which the reading was done. As shown in Figure 11, about 57 percent of readings from library-provided documents resulted in such improved work. Fewer readings (49 percent versus 57 percent) of documents from other sources had such improvement.
In 11 organizations, we identified specific professionals as being achievers. These achievers use their libraries much more frequendy than others. Three types of recognition include (1) those who have received special achievement awards, patents, and so on; (2) those who served on high-level project or problem-solving teams or special conunittees; and (3) in one company, 25 professionals who were identified as "fast trackers" and who were compared with cohorts with similar educational backgrounds, years of experience, time with the company, and so on. A comparison of library use by these achievers and others is given in Figure 12. Again, as with reading, we find that achievers tend to use libraries more than others.
30 Figure 11: Proportion of Readings of Library-provided Documents and Documents from Other Sources Which Result in Improved Quality of Work
Proportion of Roodlngs
eo
OocuRMnI* Dc>cum«nt from: I Ubrory Y^^A Other Sources
Source: King„ Researchh., Inc.. survey of professionalprofea s In eight orgon^otfons (N ==52.690: n = 1.892)
Figure 12: Comparison of Library Use by Persons Recognized by Spedal Awards, "Fast Trackers,*' and Cohorts
Avg. Annual Uses of Library 70 r ••
"Fost Trockws" T«ants. «to. Type of Recognition
^^B Persons recognized YyyA oih«rs '"*" Fast tracl<«r cetierts Source: King Research. Inc.. survey of professionals In 11 orgonlzottons (N = 53.990: n = 5.627)
Performing Work Faster Through Use of Libraries
In one company, a clearly articulated goal was to speed products from discovery to the marketplace. We identified 21 work functions that help to achieve this goal. We observed tiiat 38 percent of the uses of the libraries for these functions resulted in performing the work faster. For the most critical functions this proportion was even higher.
31 In eight organizations, we found that 31 percent of readings from library-provided documents resulted in performing work faster (compared widi 17 percent of readings from other documents). These results are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Proportion of Readings of Library-provided Documents and Documents from Other Sources Which Result in Performing Work Faster
Proportion of Readings 100 r-" "—
Oocunwnts Document from; [ Ubrory YXj^A other Sources
Source: King Researeti. Inc.. survey of professionals in slgtit-orgon/zotlons (N =52.690: n ^ 1.892)
Othn- ConsequNices of Library Use
We also asked library users in several organizations to indicate other favorable consequences of the last reading of library-provided journal articles, books, and internal reports. Initially, we asked this question as an open-ended question, but found after several surveys that certain responses tended to show up consistendy. These other favorable consequences are given in Table 5. The consequence most frequendy mentioned is reinforcement of a hypothesis or confidence in the work being done. This is highest for journal articles and books, and a close second for internal reports. Initiating a new activity and initiating new ideas are other frequendy stated favorable consequences of reading.
Table 5: Other Favorable Consequences of Reading Ubrary Materials Proportion of Readings Favorable Consequences Journals Books Internal Reports of Reading (%) (%) {«) Initiated new activity 23 31 30 Reinforced hypothesis or confidence in woik 42 43 29 Initiated new ideas 26 25 20 Broadened options concerning woik 23 29 20 Nanowed options concerning woik 6 5 12 Provided needed market intelligence 6 5 2 Used in lectures, presentations 7 14 6
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892)
32 TRENDS AND EXPECTATIONS
Managing All Documents Purchased by the Par«it Organization
Companies and government agencies annually spend somewhere between 3 and 5 times more for documents outside the library^ than the library budgets for documents. Thus, the library directly manages only a small portion of the total collection budget of its parent organization. As discussed below, there are many valid reasons why an organization's budget for documentation is dispersed within the organization. However, we sttongly believe that the optimum management strategy in organizations is to have libraries acquire all externally published materials, regardless of where they are kept. Many organizations do this, and achieve substantial savings by doing so. Savings are achieved because the libraries are geared up to process requests faster and less expensively, they have better follow-up procedures, and they can negotiate volume discounts with publishers and brokers.
Books, external rq)orts, patent documents, directories of materials (e.g., chemicals) prices, etc., can be handled m a combination of ways. If a unit in the organization requests and is likely to be the sole user of a document, it can best reside in that unit, recognizing that, if cataloged, it can be identified and requested by others. One concern about this strategy is that materials located in units or personal libraries tend to have a higher loss rate than those found m the library. We believe this risk is far less than the gain achieved through this strategy (a rough estimate in one organization placed losses at less than 5 percent). A similar strategy can be used for journals as well, for the reasons given below.
Professionals in seven companies we studied averaged reading at least one journal article from about 12 journals in a year. The sources of these journals are given in Table 6. Some of the journals are read heavily by professionals. For example, professionals read from personal subscriptions an average of 14.1 times, shared office collections 8.2 times, and library-provided journals 5.8 times. However, when considered from the standpoint of all readings from a journal purchased, we get an entirely different picture. Personal subscriptions are read 14.1 times, for a cost of $8.50 per reading (assuming an average annual subscription price of $120); shared ofrice journals are read 33.4 times, for a cost of about $3.60 per reading; and library-provided journals are read an average of 102.4 times, for a cost of about $1.20 per reading.
Table 6: Number of Readings per Journal and Cost per Reading, by Source of Journal
Avg. No. of Number of Readings/Journal Avg. No. of All Cost/ Source of Journal Read Journals Read per Professional Readings/Journal Reading Personal subscription 3.2 14.1 14.1 $8.50 Shared office collection 0.6 8.2 33.4 $3.60 Libraiy collection 5.6 5.8 102.4 $1.20 Other sources 2.8 5.7 - TOTAL 12.2 8.3 -
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in seven companies (N = 45,280; n = 818)
^liese expenditures include purchases of personal journal subscriptions and books and shared ofHce collections.
33 Even though the use and economic pattern of journal purchases may seem to be disparate, there is an economic rationale for diis pattern. The rationale is based on professionals' time required to obtain library copies of journals. The trade-off is die cost of professionals' time compared with the number of readings and price of a personal journal subscription. For a typical society journal, it is less expensive to use a library copy if a professional reads 10 articles or fewer per year; for conunercial journals, diis break-even point is 16 articles. However, for a very expensive journal (say, $500), die break-even point could be as many as 56 articles. Our detailed analysis suggests diat, for the most part, professionals and libraries balance these "true" costs in an economically rational way. However, a major problem is that journal prices have increased at a rate substantially faster dian inflation. This means that an ever- increasing number of journals should be read from library and office collections. Our studies, ranging from die early 1970s to die present, suggest that diis is exactiy what is happening. As the price of journals increases, professionals use personal subscriptions less and rely on library copies more. This would tend to suggest diat library materials budgets should be increased, particularly for journals, so diat the economies of scale can be achieved. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.
Centralization Versus Decentralization of Library Services
When considering the issue of how much to centralize or decentralize library services, we find that there is a tendency by some to think in terms of only one approach or the other. In fact, library operations and services in large organizations can be optimized by using a combined approach. This is because economies of scale are such diat some activities can be performed much less expensively in a central unit.
Economies of scale mean that the average cost per unit or transaction decreases as the total number of units increases. Thus, it costs much less per unit to produce a large number of units dian a small number of units, up to a point we refer to as the "critical mass." There are basically four ways to achieve economies of scale:
• The most common way economies of scale occur is when an activity or service involves a large fixed cost, such as purchase or lease of equipment and systems, space, or expensive items in a collection. Unit costs decrease dramatically as the large costs are spread over an increasing number of uses.
• Economies of scale can also be achieved through negotiating volume discounts for purchasing materials, supplies, equipment, services, and so on.
• Larger libraries can perform some activities using less staff time per unit produced than smaller libraries. Examples of such activities include cataloging, interlibrary loan processing, indexing, etc. We normally find that such activities can be done more productively by having staff perform them on an ongoing basis or by batching the work than by performing them sporadically.
• Finally, economies of scale can be accomplished for some activities if die volume is sufficiendy large to maintain staff widi special competencies (i.e., knowledge and skills). Examples include database searching, research services, cataloging, etc.
Because of economies of scale, it usually costs more per user (or per use) to operate a small library than a large one. In fact, we believe tiiat a library must serve a minimum of about 50-75 professionals to
34 justify having a full-time librarian. However, we have observed that it requires only about 30 to 35 library staff to serve 5,000 professionals, not the 67 to 100 one would expect if one merely assumed 50 to 75 professionals per library staff member (i.e., 5,000 -5- 75 or 5,000 -^ 50). « Ideally, it is best to place relevant collections and reference staff as near to users as possible to reduce the expenditure of professionals' time required to acquire information. On the other hand, many operational activities, such as acquisitions, invoice processing, cataloging, and physical processing, can be done remotely or in a central library. Also, some user services, such as interlibrary borrowing or use of document delivery services, can be done remotely. It then becomes a question of how much activity is necessary to justify having a staffed branch library. Since many operational activities can be done cenfrally, branch library staff can focus on user-related services, such as database searching and other reference and research services; initiating requests for document purchasing, circulation, and interlibrary borrowing; and generally answering the multitude of questions often asked of libraries. Other "house keeping" activities would be required as well, such as processing and shelving incoming material, reshelving, weeding, etc. On balance, we believe that these activities would require about 80 profes sionals to warrant a full-time librarian, assuming the professionals served by the library average at least four in-dq)th searches per year (e.g., scientists, lawyers, or medical professionals).
Another factor that must be considered is the remoteness of an organization's unit fr'om the main library. If the unit is at another site, fewer professionals are necessary to justify having a full-time librarian. Since fravel by professionals to the main library is so expensive, they will begin to take alternative, but expensive, courses of action to acquire information. If a unit is as littie as 10 minutes away fromth e main library, even though it is in the same building or building complex, there is sufficient reason to consider that fewer than 80 professionals are required to have a branch library. If these professionals used the main library as frequendya s the average 50 times per year, their cost to go to and from the library would be about $670 per professional, or $33,500 for a unit of 50 professionals. Of course, combinations of partially staffed branches (e.g., every afternoon, or every other day) can work as well.
One organization we studied had more than 10 remote sites with branch libraries, each staffed by a single, highly qualified librarian. The problem was that each branch was operated in an autonomous manner, with the librarian performing most operational activities and all services. A survey indicated that professionals were not using reference services and some other services nearly as much as one would expect (based on the type of work being done) because of lack of awareness of these services or because they felt the librarian was "overburdened" already. It appeared that the librarians could spend nearly all their time doing database searching and other direct user-related work. Therefore, we recommended that most operational activities be centralized, and that shelving and other such activities be done by "roving" support staff (who also served as mail distributors and couriers). As a result, search services were doubled at very little additional cost, and savings to users were believed to be more than five times that additional cost. In this way, knowledge of economies of scale can be used to achieve more for less.
Other Trends and Expectations
One major trend affecting companies and government agencies is information resources management (IRM). Underlying this trend is the increasing recognition that information is a strategic asset for an organization and, as such, it should be managed effectively. Early efforts at information resources management focused heavily on information technology management. However, these efforts did little to address the true information management issues facing organizations. Today, the emphasis seems to
35 be on bodi management of information content, as distinct from information "packages", and on die management of all types of information resources.
Related to die IRM trend is die continued movement toward disti-ibuted computing. In fact, to some, extent, die IRM movement grew out of die need to regain some level of control over disfributed computing resources. Since the mid-1970s and the advent of microcomputers, computer resources have become increasingly disti-ibuted. Today, more tiian 80 percent of professionals use some form of PC or workstation as part of dieir jobs. One of die problems brought about by die level of disttibution is diat die work load is shifted from centralized support groups to die individual. As a result, each individual is faced witii learning a variety of new software products and spends increasing proportions of time performing tasks diat previously were performed by support staff—formatting for example. As resources and work loads have shifted to die individual level, economies of scale have been lost. Today, organizations are rediinking die need for technical and clerical support and how such support might be provided most effectively. Furthermore, organizations are sensing the need to integrate access to corporate information and data systems through enterprise-wide information systems.
One example of die distribution of effort in the library arena is die availability of end-user search systems, particularly for CD-ROM databases. Many libraries have offered training for end-users to perform their own searches. This was done partially to relieve demand on library staff time. While end- users can be more efficient and effective at performing some of their searches, diere are clearly cases where it is more efficient and effective for die librarian to conduct die searches on die user's behalf. To die extent diat die value of die library to die user community is to save die users' time, database searching (in online, CD-ROM, and hard-copy formats) should be done by librarians for diose searches that can best be performed by the librarian (i.e., most complex searches).
Another trend that has paralleled the distributed computing trend is the development of local area, national, and global networks. Networking has altered die ways people work and interact widi each other. Electronic mail, listserves, and electronic bulletin boards have exposed individuals to volumes of information that are fast becoming overwhelming. As a result, individuals are recognizing the need for mformation organization capabilities. Libraries can take a leadership role here. Having dealt widi external and, increasingly, internal information resources for years, die library can assist die organization in navigating the networks in an efficient manner.
There is a conunon misconception about the long-term impact of information technologies on libraries and information services. Many people believe diat libraries and dieir collections will soon be entirely electronic and diat librarians will not be needed because "we'll soon each be able to carry around the entire contents of the library in our pockets." What is rarely recognized outside the library community is diat each new technology diat emerges does not replace existing ones, it merely displaces them and increases the number of technologies and encoding formats that librarians and end-users have to deal with. While we can say widi some certainty that increasing proportions of information will be captured and distributed in electi-onic form, it is doubtful for a variety of reasons diat we will see die totally electronic library.
An in-depdi study we performed in die late 1970s [43, 44] clearly showed tiiat electronic delivery can play a useful role in distribution of scientific and technical journal articles. However, die role is to fill a niche in distribution, not to replace paper-based distribution. The niche is to distribute new articles diat are read, but infrequentiy so, or older articles diat are now distributed largely dirough interlibrary loans (or document delivery) and among colleagues. While economic factors have changed since dien as a result of technological development and diffusion, tiiey have not changed sufficiendy to
36 alter the basic conclusions of the study. A major constraint then and now is getting older materials in a common machine-readable form, although this is changing. A second major constraint is the attitude of publishers and their unwillingness to "give up control of distribution." We believe publishers actually can have not only greater control of distribution of separate copies of articles than currently exists, but also increased revenue.
When new technology is adopted by the information community, there is always a tendency to believe that more far-reaching changes will occur than ultimately do. An example of this is database searching. Far less reading results from this source than many currently believe, or could have believed when this service was first introduced. For example, less than 5 percent of articles read are identified by database searching. Nevertheless, even though a very small proportion of readings come through this means, it fills a very important niche in the dissemination and use of information. There is little question of its effectiveness and beneficial impact (see Chapters 8 and 10).
Along with the concerns of overwhelming volumes of information now accessible through distributed networks, are demands for more filtering of information on behalf of the user. Increasingly, users want to receive just the information needed, not lists of references or even sets of documents. They want intermediaries to analyze and synthesize the information retrieved so that the information they receive is in an immediately usable form. Such an activity is extremely labor-intensive, requires some subject knowledge of the information being analyzed, and requires a considerable amount of trust between users and intermediaries. Some organizations have successfully responded to these demands for customized services by placing information professionals within the work groups they are to serve, although this has created some problems of accountability, loyalty, and control.
Finally, one trend that has taken a strong hold on organizations in all sectors is total quality management (TQM) or quality management (QM). This trend has had major impacts on organizations and the individuals within them. In particular, organizational structures are changing, becoming flatter as teaming becomes the predominant culture. Such an environment would be conducive to the support of increasingly customized, proactive information services within an organization in the sense that all teams should have an information professional to support the information needs of the team. A second impact of the TQM or QM movement is the increasing concern over outcomes (effectiveness and impact) evaluations. However, the very strong focus on customer satisfaction can be problematic if not considered in the context of the resources required to achieve and maintain various levels of quality and satisfaction.
37 CHAPTERS
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
BACKGROUND
As mentioned earlier, we first studied organization libraries in conjunction with a study of the value of information services. This study included one of the first literature reviews on research into the value of information and information products and services [45]. In that review, literature was divided into two categories: that which described the concept of value and approaches to measuring value, and that which described the application of the measures specifically to information products and services. The former category contained considerably more literature than the latter, a situation that persists today. This review introduced the first of the King Research studies on the value of information. Five measures of value were defined: apparent value, consequential value, higher order consequential value, net value (simple substitution), and net value (complex substitution). .
In 1986, Taylor published a value-added model of information systems [46]. The model contains three basic elements:
• a formal system made up of specific processes which add value to items being processed;
• a user or set of users, who have certain problems which establish criteria for judging the utility of the system's output; and
• a "negotiation space" between system and users, where the system displays its outputs and the values accumulated through the system to assist users in making choices.
Taylor's value-added activities in information systems are those processes that produce, enhance, or otherwise strengthen the potential utility of messages in the system. Taylor identifies 23 values that result from these activities and classifies them into six categories: ease of use, noise reduction, quality, adaptability, time savings, and cost savings. Taylor's message is that this model and the values he presents are user-driven. Decisions regarding system design, configuration, and continuation should take into account the values that are important to the user. In our evaluation model, described later in this ch^ter, Taylor's values are similar to our attributes of service outputs and factors that affect use of services.
Estabrook [47] rtponed on the results of a study to determine the value of a document delivery system in a company. Value was measured in terms of the time saved by using the service, the dollar value of the use of information delivered, and the extent to which the information improved the firm's competitive position.
Repo [48] reviewed the literature on the economics of information for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology and included a section on the value of information. He cited several of the King Research studies described herein. He also cited work by Martyn [49], Brittain [50], Barret [51], and Blagden [52]. These four citations considered the value of timely information for research, and the costs/value of not having information.
39 In 1987 David King [53] published the results of a study of the contribution of hospital libraries to health care. Using a carefully designed unobtrusive survey of library use, King studied the outcomes of library use on 176 clinical situations. Note that this approach is similar to the critical incident ^proach used in our studies. However, King asked his questions of the respondents prior to the use of the library; King Research asked after the critical incident had occurred. The study focused on three aspects of the performance and impact of hospital libraries:
• assessments of the quality and cognitive value of information provided by the libraries and its contribution to quality patient care,
• the impact of information provided by the library on case management, and
• library performance as assessed by health professionals.
The results are presented as proportions of situations for which the information provided by the library was relevant, accurate and current, of clinical value, etc. There were no appreciable differences among the physicians, nurses, and other health professionals in their assessments of the contribution of the information provided to patient care or its impact on case management. On the other hand, nurses and other health professionals more often commented on the availability of library services; they more frequently stated that they did not know that they were permitted to use the library nor whether they could take advantage of library information services.
In 1987, Special Libraries Association (SLA) published the report of the President's Task Force on the Value of the Information Professional [54]. The task force addressed three basic approaches to measuring value: measuring time, and its monetary equivalent, saved by information services and products; determining real savings, financial gains, or liability avoidance; and assessing the worth of qualitative, anecdotal evidence. Using several approaches to value measurement, the task force demonstrated that the value of the information professional can be determined quantitatively (in terms of real cost savings) and qualitatively (in terms of time savings, increased productivity, etc). The task force recommended further research into how the corporate world values its libraries and information centers.
In 1990, SLA published Valuing Corporate Libraries [55], the results of a study by Matarazzo and Prusak. The authors surveyed corporate officials from a sample of 164 companies about the value they place on the information professional and on the corporate library/information centei:. The survey also aimed to identify emerging trends for special libraries. The study gathered mostly qualitative statements of value of the corporate library and corporate librarian to the firm. Key conclusions of this study included:
• There is little managerial consensus on how the library adds specific value to the firm's performance or how value should be measured.
• Librarians have little to say on the firm's information policies and mission. Few respondents could state what exact function the library performs within the firm's information structure.
• Librarians and their managers have done little planning on the future role of libraries within the firm as end-user database systems and other information technologies have major impact on business and other operations.
40 • There is a strong reservoir of goodwill and affection for the library and librarians—often based on an intuitive "feel" that the service is valuable and worthy of continued support.
This study provided an indication of the prevailing corporate climate and attitudes of corporate executives responsible for the library/information center toward the library and its personnel.
In 1992, Prusak and Matarazzo studied the information environment in Japanese firms [56]. They set out to identify the characteristics of the Japanese approach to acquiring, managing, and disseminating the kinds of information they consider to be critical to business success. Brief case studies were developed through interpersonal interviews with executives and managers of several Japanese firms. The findings included:
• Japanese firms place a fremendous value on information and do not feel the need to justify information management expenditures.
• The mission of the information function is already aligned with the strategic thrust of the organization.
• Information technology is seen as an enabler for information management, not the primary component.
• Management of the information function is rotated among all company managers.
• Japanese management reads.
Again, this study did not aim to actually measure the value of information in Japanese firms, but rather to provide a description of the environment within which Japanese corporate libraries and information centers operate.
In 1990, Koenig [57] reviewed the literature on the effects of information services on user and organization productivity. In a section on the value of information services, Koenig summarized the results of several of the proprietary King Research studies (which are also presented in this book), some results of studies performed before 1980 (several of which are covered in the above publications), and the results of a study performed by Martyn [58]. This was a study of the costs and benefits of various current awareness services provided to local government officials. The officials were asked to evaluate, in monetary terms, how much the product/service contributed to the job to be done.
In 1992, Koenig [59] reviewed several studies that attempted to calculate the value of information services. He compares various ratios of value (variously defined) to the marginal cost of providing the services derived from several of the studies and finds remarkably similar results. He states, "the magnitude of the effects [value derived to cost] reported in these studies is quite striking, as is the high degree of their consistency, both across different techniques and across different cases. This creates a high degree of confidence that the findings are not mere artifacts, but that they reflect a genuine phenomenon."
In 1990 and 1991, King Research prepared two manuals [60, 61]. The Keys to Success manual defined in detail a process by which performance, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and impact indicators could be developed for library and information services. A conceptual framework was developed which is the forerunner of the framework presented in the next section. The manual developed examples of
41 measures, indicators, and models based on data collected from a number of U.K. public libraries. The manual also included discussion of each measure and indicator and how each one could be interpreted and presented. The NATO manual, in contrast, focused much more on evaluation methods. This manual details the methods used to produce the results presented in this book.
Also in 1991, Broadbent and Lofgren [62] published a rq)ort of a study of the value of library- based information services. Two basic approaches to value assessment are described. One is derived from the critical success factors s^proach—what the authors call priority and performance methodology. The second approach is cost-benefit analysis, although it was not applied in its formal sense. The cost- benefit ratios calculated are not derived from analyses of alternatives; rather, they are more akin to retum-on-investment ratios. The cost-benefit approaches described in the report build heavily on the work of King Research and others.
In 1991, Marshall [63] was funded by SLA to measure the impact on corporate decision making of information provided by special libraries. The results showed that, when libraries are used in decision making situations, the information provided is frequently perceived by managers and executives as having a significant impact on their actions. Marshall measured impact in terms of:
• behavioral change as a result of the information received from special libraries,
• increase in the managers' or executives' level of confidence in making decisions,
• information enabling the managers or executives to take courses of action, and
• allowing the users to avoid potentially negative consequences for the organization.
Marshall based her methodology on that of David King. Assessments of the value of information provided by the libraries were grouped into three areas: quality of information, cognitive value, and value for decision making. Respondents to the survey were asked to agree or disagree with various statements about the information received. This study did not attempt to quantify the value of the information or the services provided. It did gather information about the value of financial transactions (if involved) associated with the decision making and found over 40 percent to involve amounts of over $1 million.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The Trail Leading to the Framework Presented Here
The genesis of the conceptual framework presented here was first formalized in a book written as a result of a National Science Foundation contract performed in the late 1960s [64]. That book addressed evaluation of information services and products such as computer searches of bibliographic databases. There we identified six basic information-related functions and developed measures of cost and effectiveness (i.e., use) and benefits (i.e., consequences of use) of these functions. In a series of statistical indicators studies performed for NSF (science and engineering) in the 1970s [65, 66, 67], we expanded on the kinds of functions involved in scientific and technical communication, and on the measures of costs, effectiveness, and benefits. Particular emphasis was given to cost and use of infor mation found in scientific and technical publications and on the processes and services used to obtain this information. This approach was also used to explore the potential of electronic publishing in science and technology [68].
42 In 1981 we were awarded a confract to examine the "value" of information services provided by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (as it is now called) of the Department of Energy [69]. This work led, in 1984, to a second study cosponsored by OSTI and the National Science Foundation to develop measures of the "value" of intermediary services such as libraries and information analysis centers (lACs) [70]. Considerable interest was generated by the library contribution to value in these studies, which undoubtedly led to the funding of the series of studies reported in this book. We note, however, that there were other studies, similar to the special library studies, which were performed with government information centers [71, 72] and a proprietary information center [73].
Most of the studies of libraries were performed for the purpose of evaluating the libraries and their components. Sometimes the libraries were considered one of several sources of information that were being evaluated. In these cases the purpose for our evaluations came from a perceived need to "set a value on" the libraries and other sources of information. Sometimes the need was to provide a better understanding of what the libraries are all about. Clearly, in the 1980s there was a tightening of budgets, and libraries were competing with other units for an ever-diminishing total amount of funds. To be competitive, libraries have had to provide stronger arguments concerning the usefulness and value of their services. Many of our studies were done with the objective of developing measures of library performance, effectiveness, and impact that would describe library operations, service use, and consequences of using information provided by libraries. Certainly the widespread interest, mentioned in the previous section, in putting a dollar value on library services is a manifestation of the need to have quantitative data to justify library budgets. Sometimes the evaluations were done to answer specific questions about library services or to make recommendations that would optimize operations and services within given budgets (e.g., studies addressed to OMB Circular A-76^')-
As we began doing studies with companies and government agencies in 1983, it became very clear that most of their libraries do not keep adequate management information, or data to help make operations decisions or to make a persuasive case to funders. There are good data on the amount of budget resources, such as stafr, collections, automated systems and equipment, facilities (sometimes), and so on. There are also data and trends concerning collection size, circulation, amount of reference services, interlibrary loans (often without distinguishing between borrowing and lending), and so on. Rarely do the libraries know what the unit cost is for specific operational activities or services. Sometimes libraries obtain sporadic data from library users concerning satisfaction with services, less often concerning satisfaction with service attributes such as quality, timeliness, etc. Too often we find that libraries do not know the size of the population served or even how many library users they have.^ It became clear that it would be useful to develop a "system of measures" that libraries could use to satisfy management or decision-making needs.
We tried to add pieces of the measurement puzzle with each study that we did with all types of libraries. However, two projects presented us with an opportunity to begin tying the pieces of the puzzle together. The first of these studies, sponsored by tiie British Library Research and Development Department of the U.K. Office of Arts and Libraries, was to develop performance measures for public
21 This defines a process for evaluating the performance of organizational units that should be considered for contracting out or outsourcing. The process includes the defmition of a Most Efficient Organization (MEO), a requirements specification, a detailed statement of costs to achieve the MEO, and a Statement of Work (SOW) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP).
'On the other hand, they do have a great knowledge and sense of user needs and requirements that are developed over time.
43 libraries in the United Kingdom [74]. In this study we had the opportunity to think through and develop a "taxonomy" of types of measures of libraries and their environments and, more important, to develop relationships among the measures and explore the meaning of these relationships. The second project emerged from a series of workshops we presented for NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) in Europe. From those workshops we were funded to prepare a book on evaluation of libraries and information centers [75]. While much of what we learned about measures and relationships from the public library project was adapted to the special library environment, we were able to give more thought to evaluation mediods and models in the prq)aration of that book.
As mentioned previously, this book is about what we have learned in evaluating 23 companies and government agencies, their libraries, and their information-use environments. Since preparing the two books above, we believe that we have learned more about library measures and how to present the framework for these measures. In this section we present that conceptual framework, because it serves as the underlying philosophy for this book. The framework is presented in five steps that build on one another in gr^hic form, llie five steps are descriptions of:
• the objects of evaluation and evaluation perspectives,
• generic types of evaluation measures,
• specific types of measures,
• derived measures, and
• interaction and externalities.
Objects of Evaluation and Evaluation Perspectives '
Above we point out that the objective of most of the studies completed in this book was evaluation of libraries and other information sources in companies and government agencies. As shown in Figure 14, there are two key dimensions to this evaluation: the object of evaluation and the evaluation perspectives. The object of evaluation can be any one or a combination of several levels of libraries. These levels consist of the entire library, the principal functions performed within a library, the services and products of the functions, the activities necessary to provide services or produce products, and the resources required to perform the activities. These levels are described further below.
The entire library can be a central or main library, or a combination of a central facility and one or more branches located throughout the organization. The branches can operate autonomously, particularly if they are sufficienfly large and remote from the centtal facility, or they can be staffed (or not) but administratively managed at the central facility. The branches may or may not have collections, although they usually do. Regardless, the entire library performs three basic kinds of functions:
• user-related functions to provide services and products that are addressed to library users;
• operational functions that are necessary to provide user services; and
• support functions that are required to administer and manage the user-related and operational functions.
44 Figure 14: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Object of Evaluation and Evaluation Pn^pectives
OBJECT OF EVALUATION
Library Function Service Activity Resource
EVALUATION PERS PECTIVES
Library
User (Actual and Potential)
Organization
Industry/Sector
Society
45 A partial list of these functions is given below:
Uso'-related Functions Operational Functions Access to Library Collections Collection Development and Management Access to External Collections Acquisitions Photocopy Services Materials Receiving and Processing Reference and Research Services Cataloging Database Search Services Catalog Maintenance Current Awareness Services Physical Processing User Instruction Access to Facilities Support Functions Automated Systems Administration Management and Adminisfration
These three categories of functions are subdivided in this way because they are evaluated differenfly in terms of their measures, and because the costs of support functions are often allocated across user-related and operational fimctions, and then the costs of operational functions are allocated to user-related functions to estimate total and unit costs of individual services.
Examples of specific services of the user-related functions are as follows:
Access to Library Collections Database Search Services Circulation Quick look-up searching Materials read in library In-depth searching Journal routing Current Awareness Services Current periodical room User Instruction Interlibrary lending Exhibits Access to External Collections Conduct tours and present briefings Interlibrary borrowing Conduct training sessions/demonstrations Document delivery services Conduct advisory service sessions Photocopy Services Access to Facilities Photocopying by library staff Study space Reference and Research Services PCs and/or CD-ROM workstations Directional reference and assistance Self-service photocopiers Brief reference and research In-depth reference and research Research
To provide any of the services above, library staff must perform several activities. For example, providing in-depth searching (under the function of Database Search Services) requires such activities as interviewing users, developing search strategies, determining sources, conducting the search, reviewing results, analyzing results, providing results, and so on. Each specific activity may require application of several resources, such as staff, equipment and systems, facilities, materials, and so on.
46 Examples of the indirect services associated with operational and support functions include:
Operational Functions Support Functions
Collection Development and Management Automated Systons Administration Collection development Back-up systems files Collection weeding Monitor system use and performance Physical withdrawal and related housekeq)ing Vendor-related activities Shelving and reshelving Staff-related activities Acquisitions Troubleshooting and maintenance Ordering Other system-related activities Invoice processing Processing materials received Management and Administration Claiming General adminisfration and management Cancellations Financial management, budgeting, and Follow-up accounting Materials Receiving and Processing Personnel management and staff Materials processing development Incoming/outgoing mail processing Facilities management Cataloging Marketing, public relations, etc. Copy cataloging Policies and procedures Enhanced cataloging Reporting to superiors Original cataloging Catalog Maintenance Catalog additions Catalog withdrawal Physical Processing Spine labeling, barcode labeling/linking Other physical processing Monograph binding and repair Periodicals binding and repair
These indirect services also involve several activities. All together, for all three types of functions, we have identified more than 500 specific activities performed in libraries.
Evaluation might involve any or all of these levels. One common object of evaluation is the productivity or performance of a resource, such as staff or automated systems. Anodier object of evaluation might be specific direct services (e.g., in-depth database searching, current awareness services, journal routing, etc.) or indirect services (e.g., cataloging, shelving, etc.). However, we find that to evaluate one level, examination of the other levels in the library may be necessary. For example, determining the cost of database searching requires data and information about searching activities and resources applied to the activities. Use of one service may very well affect other related services and, therefore, must be considered in the evaluation. The results of database search services affect the extent to which library collections are used, circulation, photocopy services, etc. Consequently, evaluation of specific library services should not be done in isolation.
Similarly, there are various evaluation perspectives. The most obvious is the library, since the objects of evaluation are the library or its functions, services, etc. However, just as evaluation of a library service should not be done in isolation from other services, library evaluation must be done with
47 regard to users, the parent organization, and, perh^s, even higher levels such as an industry or sector, or society as a whole. We bring the higher-order audiences into play in several ways as described below, including user surveys to determine the extent of use of services and consequences of use on the parent organization; comparison of use among companies within indusfries or among government agencies; and so on. As noted in Chapter 1, evaluation results can also be addressed to library staff, library manage ment, users, and organizations (e.g., funders).
Generic Types of Evaluation Measures
Below we describe generic measures for each object of evaluation and at each evaluation perspective. We refer to these five types of measures as generic because they ^ply to any kind of library service and to all object levels of evaluation. These measures are depicted in Figure 15. At the library level, there are two generic measures: inputs and outputs. There are inputs and outputs associated with activities, services and products, fimctions, and the entire library. Inputs are the amount of resources (e.g., staff, equipment, etc.) applied to perform an activity, provide a service, perform a fiinction, or operate an entire library. Outputs are the results of the resources being ^plied to provide services, etc. The outputs are characterized by the amount of an activity performed, the number of services provided, and so on.
The third generic measure is usage of services. This kind of measure is observed from the perspective of service users (both actual and potential). It includes amount of use (and nonuse) and repeat use of services, and factors that affect the extent to which services are used, such as purpose of use, satisfaction with service performance, price or cost to use the service, and so on.
The fourth generic measure is the outcome of information provided by services, or the consequences of service use. The outcome of services is considered from the perspective of the library's organization, in such terms as performance of users' work, how use affects an organization's mission and goals, and so on. One can aggregate outcomes from an organization to an industry or sector, or to society at large.
The fifth generic measure deals with characteristics of the domain within which the library operates and includes the number and type of actual and potential users, number of sites in the parent organization, and so on.
Below we discuss these generic types of measures in more detail, using specific measures as examples.
Specific Types of Measures
For an example of specific measures, see Figure 16. Assume that the object of evaluation is a service—database searching. Specific measures of input would include the amounts of resources applied to the activities that are necessary to provide the service. Resources include staff (professional and support to do photocopying, delivery, etc.), equipment (PCs, terminals or CD-ROM workstations, printers, telephones, photocopiers, etc.), facilities (space, fiimimre, utilities, etc.), communication service (database, network, vendor), materials (reference materials, search materials, library procedures, source materials, etc.), and supplies (printout paper, photocopy paper, envelopes, etc.).
48 Figure 15: Conceptual Fraimework for Measures: Generic Measures
OBJECT OF EVALUATION
Library Function Service Activity Resource
« EVALUATION PERSF^ECTIVE S GENERIC MEASURES I
Inputs Library
Outputs
User (Actual and Potential) Usage
Outcomes Organizotion
Donr ain
Industry/Sector
Society
49 Figure 16: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Spedflc Measures
OBJECT OF EVALUATION
Library Function Service Activity Resource
EVALUATION PERSF'ECTIVE S SPECIFIC MEASURES
Inputs (Resources) - Amount of resources Library - Cost of resources - Attributes Outputs (Products/Services) - Amount of output - Attributes of output - Quality - Timeliness - AvallabilHY - Accessibility User Usage (Use and Nonuse) (Actual and - Amount of Use and Nonuse Potential) - Factors Affecting Use/Nonuse - Purpose of use - Importance - Satisfaction w/attribute$ of output - Awareness - Ease/cost of use (price paid) Outcome (Consequences of Use and Nonuse) Organization - Time saved - mproved productivity - mproved quality of work - Improved timeliness of work - Va ue derived industry/Sector Donnain (Environnnental Choracteristics) - Target populotion - User/nonuser populotion - User/nonuser information needs - Number ond attributes of sites Society
50 There are three types of specific measures associated with these resources:
• amount of resources applied (e.g., number of staff and equipment hours, connect hours, etc.);
• dollar costs of resources, which is a unit of measure common to all the resources; and
• attributes of resources (e.g., staff competence, communications rate, equipment capacity, etc.).
The specific measures of output include the number of database searches performed as a result of the input resources implied. A second Icind of output measure relates to the attributes of service output, such as type of database search (quick look-up, in-depth, etc.), quality (e.g., relevance and number of items produced), timeliness of response, availability of the search service (e.g., hours the service is provided), and accessibility of the service (e.g., distance to the service). Such measures can be identified for all library services and for operational activities as well.
Moving to xisage measures, one can measure the number of times a user or group of users actually uses (or does not use) the service output—search results in our example. Usage measures also include factors that affect use, such as the purpose for which searches are requested (e.g., to do research, to prepare a legal brief, to write an article, for professional development, etc.). Such purposes can be measured by the number or proportion of searches performed for each purpose. Satisfaction with and importance of service attributes can also be measured by having users rate satisfaction and importance on a l-to-5 or l-to-7 scale. Awareness of services is another factor that affects use; one can determine the number of non-users who are unaware of the service as a measure. Another factor that can be measured is the price paid for the service. For example, some libraries charge for database search services. However, often a more significant "price" is the time spent by users in using a service. This "price" can be measured as well. Note that the total "price paid" is equivalent to the cost of use. Ease of use is another factor that affects service use.
We make a clear distinction between usage measures (which describe service use and factors related to use), and outcome measures (which describe the consequences of service use or, more precisely, of information provided by services). Examples of outcome measures include tiihe or money sav^ by having information, improved user productivity, quality of work, timeliness of work, and so on. These measures can be obtained by having users indicate (for a specific service use or library-provided document read) which consequences occurred and the amounts of savings, etc., as appropriate, that were realized. Another useftil outcome measure is to identify organizational goals that have been articulated and measure the number of times a service (or the library) is used to help achieve each goal and, if possible, the extent to which the use contributes to the achievement.
The outcomes of library services can be aggregated within a service across users and nonusers, and across services (and users) to the entire library or entire organization. They can also be aggregated across companies to an entire industry, or across government agencies to the entire sector. Outcomes at a national level include degree to which society's goals—such as a healthy economy, improved quality of life, peace, lifelong learning, improved government, and better international trade and relationships- are achieved. What may be an important goal at one level may not be at a higher level, and vice versa.
The domain measures are environmental characteristics or descriptions of the target population (e.g., all professionals in the parent organization); the user and nonuser populations and their information needs and requirements; and the geographic, organizational, and cultural climates within which the library operates. Population characteristics include educational level and discipline; work role (e.g., R&D, legal.
51 management, administration, sales, manufacturing, etc.); years of service; amount of discretionary information-related funds available; access to terminals, PCs, networks, etc.; and so on. Domain measures can be related to users of specific services or aggregated to an organization, industry/sector, or society as a whole.
Derived Measures
The measures themselves convey little meaning, other than perhaps showing trends over time. For example, a library's budget for staff has little meaning unless placed in the context of how staff members spend then- time, what they produce, or how many users they serve. We have developed several measures that are derived from the relationships between two or more measures. These derived measures are depicted in Figure 17. We will not address all relevant relationships, but will discuss a few to indicate dieir usefulness.
The first generic derived measure is the relationship between input measures and output measures. The most obvious relationship between input and output is productivity, which is defined as output quantity (e.g., circulation, number of searches performed, number of items cataloged, etc.) divided by amount of resources applied (e.g., number of staff hours or equipment time, etc., required to circulate items, to search, or to catalog). The input can also be dollar cost of the resources ^plied. The inverse of productivity is the unit cost of providing a service or performing an activity. Productivity of staff can also be measured at attribute levels (e.g., librarian versus paraprofessional, or by years of experience, etc.), or unit costs required to achieve various levels of quality, timeliness, availability, etc. A partic ularly useful relationship between input and output measures addresses economies of scale (i.e., unit [or average] costs decrease at increasing levels of units produced [or transactions performed]). Knowledge, for some activities or services, that the unit cost decreases with an increasing volume can be very important for making decisions about centralization or decentralization of services, or whether to use outside vendors or services. Collectively, we refer to these derived measures as performance of resources, activities, services, or the entire library.
Another generic derived measure involves the relationship between output measures and usage measures. Examples of relationships are between measures of service attributes and amount of use and user satisfaction. One would hope and expect that improving the quality, timeliness, etc., of services would result in increased use. Another relationship relates to the attributes and the amount users are willing to pay for services (in dollars and in their own time). One might presume that increased service accessibility should be related to improved awareness of services, or that better user instruction should result in increased awareness of services. Derived measures of such relationships are certainly useful for decision making. These derived measures are called effectiveness.
The third set of derived measures relates inputs (costs) and usage. We refer to these relationships as cost-effectiveness. An examples includes cost per use, recognizing that use of a service may extend beyond a request. For example, cost per item circulated (performance) could also be cost per reading (effectiveness) of an item circulated, because a circulated item may be read many times by a user or a user's colleagues. Since there is likely to be a cost associated with achieving improved service attributes, it is useful to know the relationship of cost to amount of use of improved services. An important aspect of both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness relates to users' time required to use a service, because the dollar value of that time is often significantly higher than the library's costs. This relationship can be measured by a ratio (cost of users' time -;- service cost) or a direct comparison (cost of users' time minus service cost; i.e., net cost or cost savings).
52 Figure 17: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Derived Measures
EVALUATION PERSPECTIVES SPECIFIC MEASURES DERIVED MEASURES
Inputs (Resources) - Amount of resources Librory - Cost of resources Perfonr ance - Attributes
Outputs (Products/Services) •— Cost-< ffedlveness - Amount of output ^""^ - Attributes of output -QuoliW - Timelintimelinese s Effecfivi ness - AvoilobilHy - AccesslbtlHy User Usage (Use ond Nonuse) Cost -Benefit (Actual and - Amount of Use and Nonuse Potentiol) - Foclors Affecting Use/Nonuse - Purpose of use - Importonce - Solisfoclion w/ottributes of output - Awareness - Ease/cost of use (price poid) Outcomes (Consequences of Use ond Nonuse) Organizotion - Time saved - Improved productivity - Improved quo% of work lm( ad - improved timeliness of work - Value derived
Industry/Sector Domain (Environmental Choracteristics) - Torget populob'on - User/nonuser population - User/nonuser information needs - Number and attributes of sites Society
53 The fourth generic set of derived measures is called impact. Examples include the relationship between amount of service usage and the resulting effects on time or money saved and on improved user productivity, quality of work, timeliness, etc. We have mentioned the "price" users are willing to pay for services or services at various levelis of quality, timeliness, etc. Similarly, one can compare the "price" against the dollar and other values derived from the services and their attributes.
The final kind of derived measure involves cost-boiefit relationships. These relationships are somewhat more complex than the ones described above. At one time, we thought of benefits as the favorable higher-order effects of services (i.e., outcomes) [76]. However, we found this ^proach to be too simplified. One problem is that both favorable and unfavorable results of changing a service can involve costs. For example, one can use a more expensive automated system to provide a service, in which case the additional cost is unfavorable. Yet such a system (e.g., a public-access online catalog) may result in saving users considerable time, in which case the reduced cost of users' time is favorable. To overcome that problem, we adapted an j^proach presented by Bickner [77], in which cost and benefit analysis involves comparisons between dtematives such as providing a service or not, having a library or not, providing a service at one level of quality or at another level, and so on.
Alternatives can be compared at each level of measure: input (costs), output (quantities and attributes), usage, and outcomes. These comparisons are categorized as to whether they are unfavorable ("costs") or favorable ("benefits"). Note that "costs" here are not defined in the same way as input costs or usage costs. A "benefit" can be expressed in terms of reduced input or usage costs, since a decreased cost is favorable; conversely, increased input or usage costs are unfavorable and would be termed "costs." Better terms might be detriments and benefits, but common usage requires that we continue using "costs" and "benefits."
We present measures of "costs" and "benefits" in several places in this book. For example, we often ask users what they would do to obtain information if there were no service or library and what it would cost them to obtain their information using alternative sources. Thus, the alternative examined is having or not having a service, such as database searching. "Costs" of having the service (or "benefits" of not having it) include the total output costs of the service (since the library would have no costs as an alternative) and usage costs of users (i.e., their time required to use the service). "Benefits" of having the service (or "costs" of not having it) include the additional usage costs required to obtain the information using alternative sources to the service (e.g., searching oneself, using a broker, or delegating the search to a subordinate). Users are also often willing to speculate that searches performed by library staff are done better and faster than would be true of alternative sources of the services, so these results would also be "benefits." One could presume that worse and slower services could affect service outcomes (e.g., user performance) as well.^ Much more is said about cost and benefit analysis in our evaluation manual [78].
Some examples of derived cost and benefit relationships include the ratio of the cost difference of using alternatives (i.e., "benefits" expressed in dollars) to current costs (i.e., "costs" expressed in dollars). At a higher level of comparison, we have estimated what it would cost users not to have library collections, in terms of savings ftom lost information (because users would have less time to read since they would be required to spend more time acquiring information). Again, these "benefits" are compared
^<4ote that a "benefit" to one paiticipant might be a "cost" to another participant. For example, if a service is purchased by a user from a commercial vendor, the vendor has a "benefit" in terms of revenue received, but the price paid by the user is a "cost" to the user (in the same amount as the "benefit" to the vendor).
54 with "costs" in the form of a ratio. In a sense, the last two ratios are like a retum-on-investment or retum-on-information (ROI).
Interaction and Externalities
Changes in service performance or output attributes should affect usage (by altering factors that affect use). Suppose the library decides to replace a departing reference librarian with one who has a stronger educational background (e.g., with a relevant subject degree) and considerably more experience. Clearly, such a change will cost more in salary. However, such a change also may result in higher quality and faster searches, which in turn might increase usage (by improving satisfaction with attributes) which, in turn, might increase user work performance, and so on. Unless the new librarian is sufficiently more productive than the old one, there will be a need for additional input resources. Also, it may be that a searcher with greater subject knowledge would require less interaction between the user and the searcher, thereby reducing the users' cost. One should consider not only the increase in input costs (from increased salary and additional service requirements) but also the increased savings to users. On a per use basis the net "benefit" may be even greater, as a result of economies of scale. That is, with an increased amount of service, the average unit cost may actually decrease, thereby further increasing net "benefit." These relationships demonstrate interactions or fe^back in the evaluation model, as shown in Figure 18.
Externalities are extraneous factors that affect measurements at all levels or perspeaives. Externalities affecting library inputs and outputs include the organization's economic standing, general attitude of fimders, where the library resides in the organization, price and quality of external sources of service (e.g., vendors and brokers), quality and salaries of the community's sources of labor, existing staff and their competencies, remoteness of the organization, and so on. In comparing one's library inputs, outputs, and performance to the results presented in this book, it is important to take such externalities into account.
Externalities that affect usage include characteristics of the target population (e.g., those addressed by the domain measures); amount of users' discretionary funds for obtaining alternative sources of information (e.g., personal subscriptions, terminals, etc.); cost, availability, and other attributes of alternative sources of information; and general attitude of users and potential users. One externality we have found to be extremely important at this level is organizational culture. Some organizations are information-intensive, while others are not, for no apparent reason other than that the culture appears to flow from the top down. For example, in one company information specialists might be well-respected, and there might be a waiting list of laboratory scientists who would like to be transferred to a search unit. In another company, search specialists might be considered as persons who have failed in the laboratory. Like companies, some industries are more information-intensive than others. Industries that are highly competitive and require continual creativity and innovation are often more information-intensive. There are also substantial differences among Federal agencies and state agencies from state to state. Finally, as mentioned in Chj^ter 1, there is some indication that national cultures have a bearing on information use.
This conceptual framework represents a "work in progress." It is presented here to help explain some of our concepts and terminology. It has helped us to design evaluation projects by serving as a reminder of the range of possible measures that might be used. We make no claim as to the completeness of the model and plan to continue to refine it and add to it over time.
55 Figure 18: Conceptual Framework for Measures: Interaction and Externalities
PERSPECTIVES MEASURES —> INTERACTION DERIVED MEASURES
^f^iSS'£ S !—• Inputs (Resources) - Amounl of resources Library - Cost of resources Perform jnce - Attributes Outputs (Products/Sen^ices) Cost-< ffectiveness - Amount of output EXTERNALITIES - Attributes of output - - iimeniess , Effectiveness - AvaiabHi^ - Accessibility _ Cost-Be lefit lser Usoge (Use and Nonuse) Actual and - Amount of Use ond Nonuse |= 'otentlal) i - Foctofs Affecting Use/Nonuse - Purpose of use - Importonce - Sotisfoction w/ottributes of output - Anareness - Eose/cost of use (price poid) Outcomes (Consequences of Use and Nonuse) - Time saved - Improved pfOd.uctiyity - Improved quality of work Imi oct - Improved timeliness of work - Volue derived Domain (Environmentol Chorocteristics) - Torget populotion - User/nonuser populotion - User/nonuser informotion needs - Number ond ottributes of sites Society
56 PARTH
THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT
In this part, we describe the communication environment within which organization libraries operate. In Chapter 4—"Communication by Professionals in Organizations"—we present study results concerning the extent to which professionals in companies and government agencies communicate, both through interpersonal means and through documented information found in journals, books, internal and external reports, and other documents. Details are provided about the amount of information used and the time spent listening and reading, and the amount of information produced and the time spent presenting and writing. In Chapter 5—"Usage and Impact of Information Found in Documents"—we discuss the purposes of reading, the importance of information found in documents, and the impact of this information on the work performance of professionals.
57 CHAPTER 4
COMMUNICATION BY PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS
COMMUNICATION BY PROFESSIONALS
The Communication Cycle
Studies by King Research and others in recent years have demonstrated that professionals in organizations devote an enormous amount of time to communication through documents (writing and reading) or interpersonal means (presenting or listening). Resources devoted to such communication can involve more than half of all labor costs of organizations. Yet we have found that such resources are often neither understood nor well managed.
Thus far, we have not dealt with a single company or government agency that knows how much of its resources go into communication. Many organizations have audits of computing equipment, etc.; however, very few maintain an "audit" of resources involving documented information such as the number of internal reports, memoranda, software, etc., produced, or the amount and cost of external literature purchased and used. Few organizations know the extent to which their resources are associated with communication because the costs of most resources used for communication activities are largely hidden within budgets. Even though the application of resources to communication processes consists of an appreciable portion of overall budgets (perhaps somewhere between one-third and one-half), there is no attempt to manage or control these resources, except to some degree through computer centers or libraries, publication centers, records management centers, etc., when recorded or documented information is involved.
To describe the extent of communication and resources applied to it, we characterize communication as an essential part of professionals' primary work activities.^ Such primary work activities include research, management, administration, legal work, operations, manufacturing, marketing and sales, and so on. As shown in Figure 19, several resources (input resources) can be applied to perform these activities. Such resources include professionals' time, support stafi time, equipment, instrumentation, facilities, and information. One can measure (or count) the amounts of these resources applied to primary work activities (e.g., hours of professional time, number of terminals or hours of terminal use, etc.). Of course, a unit of measure common to all the resources is dollars. In addition to measuring quantities, the resources can be characterized by their attributes. For example, information can be classified as (1) documented (or recorded) information, such as electronic messages, lal)oratory notebooks, internal reports, journal articles, etc., or (2) interpersonal information, such as informal consultation and advice, as well as formal presentations and workshops. Other attributes of information output include the accuracy, quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness, relevance, etc., of information content (or message being conveyed).
The application of input resources to primary work activities results in some output, such as completed work or assignments, new ideas, thoughts that are internal to professionals, and information
^Ve make a distinction between "primary" woik activities and "communication-related" activities. The latter activities include reading, writing, making presentations, attending meetings, informal conversations, etc. The former activities include time spent conducting experiments, planning, observing staff, etc.
59 Figure 19: Professionals' Primary Work Activities, Input Resources, and Output
INPUT RESOURCES OUTPUT Professionals' time rt^ PROFESSiONAI^' rt^ Information created Information received lJ=t^ PRIMARY li=n> Information — Documents or WORK ACTIVITIES communicated documentation — Documents or (text, numeric. Research documentation etc.) Legal wori< (text, numeric. —Interpersonal Management etc.) (conversations. Administration — Interpersonal meetings, etc.) Marketing (conversations. Support staff tinr^e Etc. meetings, etc.) Computing equipment Knowledge gained Facilities that is conununicated. Other than amount of completed work assignments, one can measure only the last type of output easily. For example, the number of internal reports written, formal presentations made, and incidents of consultations and advice given can be counted. Information-outputs of primary work activities also can be characterized by documented and interpersonal information as well as by attributes of relevance, comprehensiveness, accuracy, quality, timeliness, etc., of the information output. Clearly, information is one of several input resources used in primary work activities, as well as a fundamental output of professionals' work.
Figure 20: Professionals' Communication Cycle
AUDIENCE/READERS
EXTERNAL — ^ l/^ INTERNAL ^.^^ \ Quantities (reports, Effort (time spent presentations) reading, listening, etc.) INFORMATION INFORMATION OUTPUT/SENDING INPUT/RECEIVING Effort (time spertt writing Quantities (articles read, Dresenting, etc.) presentotions attended, etc.)
/
WORK ACTIVITIES: RESEARCH, ADMINISTRATION, MARKETING. ETC.
A simplified model of the professional communication process that focuses exclusively on infor mation inputs and outputs is depicted in Figure 20. The model differentiates between communication to
60 an organization's internal audience and to an external audience.^ We have made this distinction over the years because the management and control of communication involving "internal" or "external" infor mation have varied dramatically among organizations. The greatest variation among companies, in particular, has involved internal documented information. A substantial amount of the usefulness and value of information that can be documented and accessed is lost in some organizations because of poor policies and/or procedures regarding this information. From examination (Of professionals' time in 6 organizations for which we have data (5 companies and 1 government agency; N = 44,847; n = 695), we found that about 44 percent of professionals' time is spent actually doing their work (i.e., making decisions, conducting experiments, observing staff, etc.), and the remaining 56 percent is spent in information-related activities (i.e., 28.5 percent involving information-input activities and 27.3 percent involving information-output aaivities).
Referring to the right-hand side of the communication cycle in Figure 20, we find that the professionals' time is one of several resources applied to information-input activities (see Figure 21). Their time is spent on such information-input activities as reading, listening, observing, etc. To receive information, other information-input resources are also applied, such as support staff (e.g., librarians), documents (e.g., internal reports, journal articles, etc.), meeting presenters, audiovisual equipment, terminals, facilities, etc. The application of these resources can be measured (counted) and their attributes determined.
Figure 21: Professionals' Information-Input Activities, Input Resources, and Output
INPUT RESOURCES OUTPUT Professionals' time PROFESSIONALS' _£j. Documents read Documenis [L P INFORMATION- d =_/ Meetings attended Other professionals INPUT ACTIVITIES Informal discussions Etc. Etc. Reading Listening Observing Etc.
Similarly, referring to the left-hand side of the communication cycle, we find that information-output activities involve professionals' time as one of several other resources (see Figure 22). Their information-output time is spent performing such activities as writing, presenting, talking (consulting, advising), etc. Other resources include support staff (e.g., word processing staff), equipment (e.g., word processors, printers, photocopiers, projectors, terminals, telephones, etc.), supplies, facilities, and so on. Results (or outputs) are documents and presentations, informal discussions, and incidents of consulting or giving substantive advice. All of these outputs could be addressed to internal and/or external readers and audiences. Information-input activities and information-output activities are discussed in more detail below.
^y internal and external we mean readers or audiences wiio are employed by a professional's parent organization (internal) or who are not (external).
61 Figure 22: Professionals' Information-Output Activities, Input Resources, and Output
INPUT RESOURCES OUTPUT Professionals' time PROFESSIONALS' Internal reports Support staff INFORMATION- Internal Equipment ' o o OUTPUT ACTIVITIES presentations Facilities External documents Etc. Consulting External Advising presentations Presenting Incidents of advice Writing Etc. Etc.
INFORMA-nON-INPUT ACTTVITIES
One indicator of the value of information is what professionals are willing to pay for it. This can be measured, in part, by the time and effort professionals are willing to expend in acquiring, consuming, and using information. Professionals' time is a scarce resource and their decision to spend time reading, listening, etc., is a strong indicator of die value they place on information. Obviously, this is not to say that reading some reports or attending some meetings does not result in wasted time. However, through experience and over time, the amount of time spent reading or in interpersonal communication by professionals should result in concomitant value. An indication of the time professionals in organizations we surveyed spend on their information-input activities is given below. Examples of time spent per year (1) inputting information through reading and interpersonal communication, and (2) output quantities, are given below:
Information Input by Reading^ (12.1 Percent of Professionals' Time)
• Reading documents written by internal authors (3.0 percent of professionals' time)
— About 3.0 percent of time is spent reading an average of 39 internal documents, such as technical reports, laboratory notebooks, plans, etc.
• Reading documents written by external authors (9.1 percent of professionals' time)
— About 4.0 percent of time is spent reading an average of 101 journal articles (47 scholarly, 54 trade)
— About 3.9 percent of time is spent reading 13 professional books and 30 other books (e.g., reference, handbooks, directories, etc.)
^or measuring the amount of reading, "reading" is defmed as going beyond the contents page, title, or abstract of a document to the body of the document. Note that a single book or journal article may involve several distinct readings by a professional. For example, one might read one chapter of a book one time, and then read another chapter years later.
62 — About 0.6 percent of time is spent reading 10 external documents
— About 0.6 percent of time is spent reading 5 patent documents
Information Input from Interpo^onal Communications (16.4 Percoit of Professionals' Time)
• Listening to internal colleagues (15.1 percent of professionals' time)
— About 8.9 percent of time is spent receiving information from 208 occasions of informal discussions and 347 instances of consultations or advice
— About 6.2 percent of time is spent attending an average of 87 internal meetings
• Listening to persons from external sources (1.3 percent of professionals' time)
— About 1.3 percent of time is spent attending 8 external meetings
More time is spent receiving information from internal colleagues than from external persons (18.1 percent versus 10.4 percent). Much more time is spent receiving interpersonal information from internal colleagues than external sources (15.1 percent versus 1.3 percent), and about three times as much time is spent reading external documents as internal reports (9.1 percent versus 3.0 percent). Somewhat more time is spent receiving interpersonal information than reading documents (16.4 percent versus 12.1 percent). We believe tiiere may be a trend toward a higher proportion of interpersonal communication, but do not have solid evidence to prove this assertion. We do have some indication that professionals are spending more time now than in the past attending meetings, at the sacrifice of time spent reading. We note that others have observed similar results concerning relative sources of input when comparing scientists and engineers with scientists and engineers in our database [79]. See, for example, Gerstenfeld and Berger [80]. Also, Pinelli, et al. [81] show very similar amounts of reading for engineers compared with engineers from our database.
INFORMA'nON-OUTPUT ACTIVITIES
Obviously, one purpose of the effort expended in formally documenting (or orally communicating) the ou^ut of one's work is to provide evidence of one's accomplishment. However, there are other consequences that undoubtedly far outweigh this purpose. One immediate result is to gain feedback from others, and this is particularly well achieved through interpersonal communications. A longer-range beneficial consequence is the consumption and use of the information by others. Thus, professionals communicate the results of their work by various means and for different purposes. They communicate their work to colleagues in their organizations, as well as to people outside of their organizations, through interpersonal means as well as through written documents. Altogether, professionals spend about as much of their time on information-output activities as they do on information-input activities (27.3 percent versus 28.5 percent). Examples of the effort or time spent per year in information-output activities and corresponding quantities of output are given below. Measures of these information-output activities are average number of times information is output per professional.
63 Documoited or Recorded Information Output (8.1 Percoit of Professionals' Time)
• Documents written primarily for internal users, such as internal reports, proposals or plans, software programs, etc. (7.7 percent of professionals' time)
— About 3.1 percent of time is spent to produce an average of 16.1 interim or final reports, 1.8 standards and specifications, 1.0 legal brief, 24 regular memoranda, 18.4 reports of original data, and 6.7 other internal documents
— About 3.3 percent of time is spent writing an average of 4.9 proposals or plans for a new project, etc.
— About 1.3 percent of time is spent prq)aring 2.5 software programs
• Documents written primarily for external users, such as journal articles, patent applications, books, etc. (0.4 percent of professionals' time)
— About 0.4 percent of time is spent writing 0.09 journal articles, 0.08 patent applications, 0.002 books, and 0.19 other publications on the average
Interpersonal Information Output (19.2 Pa*cent of Professionals' Time)
• Information presented primarily to internal users, such as consultation, advice, internal presentations, etc. (17.5 percent of professionals' time)
— About 13.9 percent of time is spent consulting or giving substantive advice to others on 347 occasions
— About 3.4 percent of time is spent making 27 internal (formal or informal) presentations
— About 0.2 percent of time is spent giving 2 internal workshops or seminars
• Information presented primarily to external users, such as external presentations, workshops, etc. (1.7 percent of professionals' time)
— About 1.6 percent of time is spent giving 3.3 external presentations
— About 0.1 percent of time is spent giving 0.7 external workshops, seminars, or classes
More than 10 times as much time is spent communicating to internal colleagues as to external persons (25.2 percent versus 2.1 percent). This is true for both documented information (7.7 percent versus 0.4 percent) and interpersonal information (17.5 percent versus 1.7 percent). More than twice as much time is spent communicating to others by interpersonal means as through written documents (19.2 percent versus 8.1 percent). Pinelli, et al. [82] observed very similar results for engineers as we did for engineers in our database [83].
64 MEASURES OF INFORMATION INPUT AND OUTPUT OF PROFESSIONALS
Time Spent on Primary Work Activities
In this section we describe measures of information input and output of professionals having various work roles. Professionals in organizations are classified by the following five self-reported primary work roles:
• research and development (R&D);
• management and executive;
• administration, finance, and legal;
• marketing and sales; and
• other (including operations, manufacturing, medical and other support).
Estimates are presented for the average amount of time spent by these professionals performing various activities; average amount of information input by reading documents; average time spent by professionals identifying, accessing, and reading documents; and the average amount of information output in documents. These data are presented for each of the five types of professionals above and averages are given for all professionals.
The first analysis involves the projected amount of time spent by professionals performing various work activities. In Table 7, these activities are categorized generally into primary work activities (e.g., research, engineering, technical support, management, etc.). Professionals are projected to spend an average of 2,094 hours a year working (not including vacation, sick leave, holidays, etc.). One assumes that die normal eight-hour work day results in about 1,800 hours of work a year (again, excluding vacations, sick leave, holidays, etc.). Survey respondents were asked to indicate the number of hours per year, in addition to the eight-hour work day, that they devote to work for their organization or their own professional development. This amount is estimated to be 294 hours per year or 5.6 hours per week.
In Table 7 we show that, on the average across the six organizations in which these data were gathered, professionals perform a wide range of primary activities." Primary research, engineering, and management each consume more than 15 percent of professionals' time (i.e., a total of 48 percent for the three activities). The table also shows evidence of how scattered most activities are, from the standpoint of how many professionals spend at least some time on the activities and how many spend at least 25 percent of their time on them. For example, 65 percent of the professionals spend some time on technical or research support, but only 6 percent say they spend at least one-fourth of their time performing this activity. More than half the professionals spend some time on professional development but, as expected, none spends more than one-fourth of the time, and altogether they spend less than 3 percent of their time on this activity.
Note that the five work roles mentioned earlier are divided further into 13 primary activities for detailed analysis.
65 Table 7: Average Annual Amount of Time and Proportion of Time Devoted by Professionals to Primary Work Activities
Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Professionals Professionals Average Hours Professionals' Who Spend Who Spend per Professional Time Some Time >25% of Time Primary Activity per Year (%) («) («) Primary research (data collection, 332 15.9 38 21 experimentation, ^c.) Engirteering (design, drawings, etc.) 349 16.7 35 10 Technical or research support 249 11.9 65 6 Background information research 98 4.7 25 8 Systems development, programming 54 2.6 21 6 Management 324 15.5 45 11 Finance, accounting, budgeting, etc. 159 7.6 27 6 Legal/patent 25 1.2 10 2 Manufacturing-related 139 6.6 15 1 Operations (purchasing, facilities 77 3.7 11 3 engineering, mail services, etc.) Marketing and sales 143 6.8 13 2 Other (administrative, medical, etc.) 84 4.0 21 3 Professional development 61 2.9 51 - TOTAL 2,094 100.1
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 44,847; n = 695)
In Table 8, we give the total time spent by professionals and the time spent on various primary work activities. For example, in the organizations we surveyed, we found that managers and R&D professionals (i.e., engineers and scientists) work the greatest number of hours (2,510 and 2,384, respectively). "Other" professionals and administration professionals work the fewest number of hours, on the average (1,913 and 2,015, respectively).
The data in Table 8 are presented here for two reasons. First, we want to point out that even though one has a particular work role (e.g., R&D), the type of work performed varies substantially. For example, professionals who indicate their primary work role is R&D spend considerable time in other kinds of activities, such as management (204 hours per year) or marketing and sales (68 hours per year). In fact, about one-fifth of their time is spent in such non-R&D activities. Second, we show below that professionals in different work roles vary substantially in the number of hours they spend communicating and in how they communicate. They also vary in the extent to which they use libraries (see Chapters 6 through 8). Thus, if one reads this book with an eye to comparing results with one's own organization, the staffing patterns or mix of work roles should be kept in mind.
Time Spent on Communication-related Activities
Professionals are projected to spend about 56 percent of tiieir time communicating. This information is obtained by asking professionals first to indicate the proportion of time they spend performing their primary work activities (the sum being 100 percent). We then ask them to subdivide their time into the proportion spent acmally doing the analysis, experiments, accounting, supervision, etc., and the
66 Table 8: Average Annual Amount of Time (Hours) Spent by Professionals in Various Activities, by Work Role
Work Role Proportion of Mgmt./ Admin./ Mktg./ Total Time Type of Activity R&D Exec. Fin. Sales Other All {%) Primary research (data collection. 736 74 10 75 64 332 15.9 experimentation, etc.) Engineering (design, drawings, etc.) 802 157 - 5 286 349 16.7 Technical or research support 109 68 - 40 536 249 11.9 Background information research 152 42 32 8 ~ 98 4.7 Systems development, programming 58 4 2 - - 54 2.6 Management 204 1,501 241 517 45 324 15.5 Finance, accounting, budgeting, etc. 68 228 1,081 56 134 159 7.6 Legal/patent 13 27 170 12 2 25 1.2 Manufacturing-related 31 99 21 ~ 340 139 6.6 Operations (purchasing, facilities 7 50 17 " 189 77 3.7 engineering, mail services, etc.) Maiketing and sales 68 106 - 1,242 58 143 6.8 Other (administrative, medical, etc.) 54 101 383 91 221 84 4.0 Professional development 82 53 58 25 38 61 2.9 TOTAL 2,384 2,510 2,015 2,071 1,913 2,094 100.1
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 44,847; n = 695) proportion spent communicating (e.g., through consulting or advising others, writing, reading, etc.).^ Considering the staffing patterns in the six organizations surveyed, mformation-input activities include about 16.4 percent of professionals' time receiving information through interpersonal means (Table 9). Of this time, most involves information from organization colleagues (i.e., 92 percent through informal discussions and attending internal meetings). The rest involves attending external meetings.
Of more concern to this book is information-input through reading. We estimate that approximately 12.1 percent of professionals' time is spent reading. This proportion varies substantially by type of professional. Scientists and engineers spend the most time (377 hours per year) and the largest proportion of time reading (15.8 percent). Managers and executives spend about 12 percent of their time reading; whereas, administration professionals spend less than 10 percent of their time reading. Perhaps these results reflect the work-related need for recorded knowledge and perhaps they reflect personalities that are attracted to various fields.
Another perspective on the time and effort spent inputting information by reading involves the average time spent identifying, accessing, and reading certain types of documents (Table 10). These data were obtained by asking professionals for information about their last reading of journal articles, books, and internal reports (usuily through surveys of readings of each of these types of documents). One sur vey question asked the professionals to estimate the time (in hours or minutes) they spent reading the last- read article, book, or internal report. In another question, we asked the professionals to estimate the amount of time spent on this last reading in going to a library or other source, identifying the article, locating the article, obtaining it, and photocopying it. We also asked how much of someone else's time
28Sometime, s this question was asked by combining all primary and all communication-related activities.
67 Table 9: Average Annual Amount of Time (Hours) Spent by Professionals in Various Communication Activities, by Work Role
Work Role Proportion of Mgmt./ Admin./ Mktg./ Total Time Type of Activity R&D Exec. Fin. Sales Other All (%) Information Input - Reading articles, reports, etc. 377 310 163 219 267 253 12.1 Attending internal meetings 121 226 149 96 88 129 6.2 Attending external meetings • 34 22 57 25 18 28 1.3 Informal discussions 81 252 207 152 192 187 8.9
Writing proposals, plans 66 104 79 54 68 70 3.3 Writing internal reports 89 43 87 47 49 65 3.1 Writing computer programs/ software 6 22 19 138 28 1.3 Writing external documents 19 1 14 5 3 8 0.4 Consulting/advising 316 293 208 128 249 290 13.9 44 117 61 37 21 71 3.4 Internal workshops, etc. 13 2 1 2 3 5 0.2 Making external presentations 21 27 13 143 5 33 1.6 External workshops, etc. 3 - - 3 1 2 0.1 TOTAL (communication only) 1,190 1,419 1,039 930 1,102 1,169 55.8 TOTAL (including primary work activities) 2,384 2,510 2,015 2,071 1,913 2,094 100.0
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 44,847; n = 695) was involved, if they asked someone else to do these activities, and we asked what other costs were involved (e.g., photocopy, document purchase, etc.). The values in Table 10 include only die time of the professionals diemselves. Journals include two classes: (1) professional or scholarly journals, law reviews, etc., and (2) trade journals, bulletins, nontechnical magazines, newsletters, etc. Books also include two classes: (1) professional, legal, technical, or business books, and (2) reference books, handbooks, directories, manuals, etc. Internal reports include technical reports, laboratory notebooks, legal briefs, plans, analytical methods, competitor analyses, etc. "Other" documents include external technical reports, market summaries, economic reports, patent documents, etc.
The number of documents read on the average by professionals is 198 readings per year, as follows:
Scholarly journal articles 47 readings Trade journals, bulletins, etc. 54 readings Professional books 13 readings Other books 30 readings Internal reports 39 readings External reports 10 readings Patent documents 5 readings
The most frequently read types of documents are ttade and scholarly journals (54 and 47 readings, respectively), with internal reports next (39 readings) and "other" books (e.g., reference books.
68 Table 10: Average Annual Amount of Time (Hours) Spent by Professionals in Identifying, Accessing, and Reading Documents, by Work Role and Type of Document
Woric Role Mgmt./ Admin./ Mktg./ Type of Document R&D Exec. Fin./Legal Sales Other All
Reading 121 84 59 42 63 84 Identifying 7 7 3 3 4 6 Accessing 5 5 2 2 4 4 Total* 133 96 64 47 71 94 Books—Professional and Other Reading 97 47 37 25 71 82 Identiiying 4 1 2 1 3 2 Accessing 6 3 5 1 4 5 Total* 107 51 44 27 78 89 Internal Reports Reading 125 52 15 89 36 63 Identiiying 5 6 1 4 3 6 Accessing 7 9 3 5 4 6 Total* 137 67 19 98 43 75 Other Documents Reading 34 127 52 63 97 24 Identifying _ - - — 3 Accessing _ - - ~ 3 Total* 34 127 52 63 97 30 Total—Journals, Books, Internal Reports, and Other Documents Reading 3T7 310 163 219 267 253 Identifying 16 14 6 8 10 17 Accessing 18 17 10 8 12 18 Total* 411 341 179 235 289 288
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in 11 organizations (N = 64,998; n = 2,551) ^•Totals do not always sum correctly due to rounding. handbooks, etc.) nearly as much (30 readings). However, the pattern of readings varies substantially among types of professional work roles (see Table 12 in Chapter 5).
The average amount of time spent reading also varies by type of document and professional work role. For example, the average amount of time spent reading per item read varies from 50 minutes per article reading to 1.9 hours per book reading and 1.6 hours per internal report reading. The average time spent reading a journal article varies from 60 minutes (management) to 34 minutes (marketing). The average time spent reading books ranges from5 6 minutes per reading by marketing professionals to about 3.5 hours by R&D professionals. Time spent reading internal reports does not vary much among profes sionals.
Referring back to Table 10, we see that varied amounts of reading and average time spent per reading are reflected in average time spent reading per professional. As mentioned before, in our surveys
69 of organizations, the overall average time spent reading per professional is 253 hours. Among various work roles, this amount of time varies from 163 hours by administration professionals to 377 hours by professionals primarily engaged in R&D.
The amount of time spent identifying and accessing documents is about 17 hours and 18 hours per year, respectively (altogether, 1.7 percent of professionals' time). The average amount of time spent accessing documents is small for all types of documents (ranging from 3 hours for "other" documents to 6 hours for internal reports). The time spent identifying documents is 6 hours for articles and internal rqwrts, 2 hours for books, and 3 hours for "other" documents. Looked at from average time, it takes 9 minutes per reading to identify internal reports, 3 minutes per reading for books, about 4 minutes per reading for journal articles, and 12 minutes for "other" documents. The time to access the documents averages 9 minutes per internal report reading, 7 minutes for books, and 2.5 minutes for articles, and 12 minutes for "other" documents. Note diat in Chapter 10, we show that the amount of time identifying and accessing documents is much higher for documents obtained from the library. This is because many documents are read from personal collections, which requires less time in these artivities (thereby bringing the overall average down considerably).
Measures of Information Output
Information output of professionals is summarized in Table 11. Two kinds of information output are presented: (1) number of times the professionals were consulted or gave substantive advice to others, and (2) number of documents prepared or written. Both kinds of information output are obtained from a general survey of professionals. Managers, in particular, indicate that they are consulted or give substantive advice (482 times per year). Note that managers' knowledge often comes from internal reports and trade journals. The least consulting/advising output is by marketing and sales professionals (185 times). The remaining professionals average between about once a day and twice a day. The average amount of time spent per consulting/advisory session varies among types of professionals. Across all professionals it is about 50 minutes per session. Managers spend a little more than a half-hour each time; marketing and sales professionals, scientists and engineers, and administration, etc., professionals spend about three-quarters of an hour; and "other" professionals spend about an hour and a quarter.
Internal reports written or prepared by professionals cover a wide range from proposals and plans to formal reports, regular/internal memoranda, etc. Proposals and plans are written most often by marketing and sales professionals (8 per year). Not surprisingly, memoranda are the documents most frequently written or prepared (24 per year or about one every other week). These documents are written most by administration professionals (42 per year) and marketing and sales professionals (34 per year). Other frequently prepared documents include reports on original data (18 per year—mostly by scientists and engineers), software programs (2.5 per year—mostly by programmer professionals included in "other," although some by scientists), standards and specifications (1.8 per year), and technical memoranda (5.2 per year).
Looked at from the perspective of type of professional, research and development professionals average preparing 143 documents, about 26 percent of which are reports of original data, 12 percent are technical reports, 12 percent are regular memoranda, and the rest are mostiy other kinds of internal rqwrts. Managers do not document as much as other professionals (31 documents per year), but rather are more accustomed to using interpersonal methods (e.g., consulting or giving advice) for their informa tion output. Memoranda are the most common documents prepared by them (41 percent), and proposals
70 Table 11: Estimated Average Annual Amount of Output by Professionals, by Work Role and Type of Output Work Role Mgmt./ i Admin./ j Mktg./ j Output R&D I Exec. Fin. Sales i Other All Times consulted or gave advice 428 j 482 i 230 185 206 347 '.~. «..MMHi.. Presentations: formal internal meetings L 11.3 Presentations: formal internal lecaires : 1.1 ; 0.2 External presentations 1 2.1 : : External workshops/universify classes j___^ j__ 0.6 Reports written in last year j Formal report/lab document 6.4 3.8 \ 0 1 4.0 2.5 3.6 Technical, final 14.5 : 1.6 0 1.5 j 3.2 2.7 Lab notebooks 1.9 0.1 0 0 1 0.3 0.6 Legal briefs 1.2 j 0.5 6.9 i 0 = 0.1 1.0 Software programs 3.2 i 0.6 ! 0 j 0 1 0 2.5 Technical, interim 17.2 : 0.7 1 0 1 1.5 1 2.2 4.0 Regular/internal memo 16.8 12.5 42.1 j 34.4 18.9 24.0 Technical memo 11.3 j 1.4 0 i 0.9 3.5 5.2 Standards and specifications 4.9 3.0 jo i 0.4 0 1.8 Original data 36.7 1 0 : 0 i 0.8 4.1 18.4 Written proposals/plans prepared in past year 4.8 6.3 8.1 j 5.7 4.9 Articles written in past year: Sole author 0.1 i 0 i 0 1 0 1 0.02 0.05 Coauthor 0.6 1 0 ! 0 ! 0 0.06 0.2 Books written in past year: Sole author 0.016 i 0.002 ! 0 ; 0 0 0.002 Coauthor 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Trade journal contributions in past year Sole author 0 i 0 : 0 \ 0 j 0.02 0.004 Coauthor 0 0.05 I 0.07 1 0 i 0.04 0.03 Patents granted in past 5 years: Sole author 0.025 ! 0 j 0 1 0 0 0.008 Coauthor 0.13 j 0 I 0 0 0 0.038 Other publications in past yean Sole author 0.19 1 0.09 0.08 I 0 0.12 0.13 Coauthor 0.34 1 0.10 0.16 j 0.07 ! 0.15 0.20
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 44,847; n = 695) Blanks indicate no data available. and plans are next (21 percent). No other type of document comprises more than 15 percent of their output. Of the 55 documents prepared by administration professionals, most involve memoranda (77 percent), proposals and plans (11 percent), and legal briefs (9 percent). Written outputs by marketing and sales professionals (52 documents) are documented by memoranda (67 percent) and proposals and
71 plans (16 percent). "Odier" professionals prepare an average of 41 documents, of which 47 percent are memoranda, with no other types of documents exceeding six documents per year.
Professionals in the six organizations in which detailed inputs and outputs were studied simply do not publish externally as much as internally. In fact, including sole or coauthorship of articles, books, frade journals, patents, and other publications, professionals prepare or write less than one document per year (0.66) and half of these are other publications (e.g., conference proceedings, etc.). Note that the average is biased upward because of the way averages are computed. Coauthors may i^pear in the calculations more than once. For example, there are an average of 0.2 coauthors of other publications. If these documents average four coauthors, the average number of other publications would in fact be 0.18 (i.e., 0.13 plus 0.05) and not 0.33.
72 CHAPTERS
USAGE AND IMPACT OF INFORMATION FOUND IN DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT USAGE
Amount of Reading
In Ch^ter 4 we showed that professionals read^ an average of nearly 2(X) documents per year and spend a great deal of time identifying, accessing, and reading them—about 288 hours annually per professional. The amount of time they spend acquiring and reading documents is evidence of the "price" professionals are willing to pay for information found in the documents. We believe that they would not be willing to spend their scarce time on reading documents if there were not corresponding value derived from the information content. In studies of a number of organizations and in national surveys of scientists, engineers, and professionals in other fields, we attempted to determine usage factors, such as:
• the "price" users are willing to pay for information found in documents;
• the purposes for which reading is done; and
• die relative importance of information found in documents compared with other resources used by professionals to do their work; and the outcomes or consequences of reading, in terms of such evidence as:
• the amount of dollar savings achieved from reading;
• the extent to which reading affects performance of professionals in terms of the quality and timeliness of their work;
• the extent of other favorable consequences of reading, such as broadening options in work, initiating new ideas, etc.; and
• the establishment of a correlation between the amount of reading and indicators of productivity of professionals.
Further supporting evidence of the importance of reading is that professionals recognized through their achievements read more than those not so recognized.
Referring to Figures 19 and 22 in Chapter 4, information from documents is given as one of several input resources professionals use to perform their work. Professionals read a great deal and this is one indicator of the importance of information found in documents. As mentioned in Chapter 4, we estimate that the professionals average about 198 readings of documents (i.e., journal articles, books, internal and external reports, or patents) per year.
^y "read" we mean going beyond the contents page, title, and abstract to the text of the article or other document. A "reading" means a single incident of reading as documents may be read on several occasions.
73 The amount of reading by professionals in different fields is shown in Table 12. National and organization surveys show tiiatthos e engaged in legal work, R&D, and medical work read far more than professionals in other work roles. These professionals average about 311, 273, and 306 readings per year, respectively. The estimated amount of reading by R&D professionals in organizations surveyed roughly parallels the amount of reading by scientists and engineers observed in national surveys. The R&D professionals who responded to the organization surveys average 82 readings of scholarly journal articles, 19 professional books, 53 internal rqwrts, and 12 external technical rq)orts. Nationally, estimates of readings of those documents are 95, 15, 52, and 8, respectively.
Table 12: Ava*age Amount of Reading: Estimated Average Amount of Reading In a Year by Professionals, by Document Type and Work Role
Work Role Mgmt./ Admin./ Mktg./ Type of Document R&D Medical Legal Exec. Fin. Sales Other All Scholariy journal articles 82 177 26 17 11 22 17 47 Trade journals, bulletins, etc. 51 57 62 62 78 51 52 54 Professional books 19 13 67 13 14 14 13 13 Other books 34 27 36 18 11 13 21 30 Internal reports 53 20 14 45 6 39 26 39 External reports 12 11 82 9 9 16 7 10 Patent documents 22 1 24 5 37 3 3 5 TOTAL 273 306 311 169 166 158 139 198
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 19 organizations (N = 72,505; n = 7,188) and four national surveys (n = 2,986)
The pattern of reading varies substantially among professional work roles^ in terms of the amount of reading and types of document read. As mentioned above, professionals involved in legal work appear to have the most readings (311 readings per year), closely followed by professionals engaged in medical work (306 readings), and research and development (273 readings). The least amount of reading is by "other" work roles (e.g., operations, manufacturing, etc.). Scholarly journal articles'' are the most frequently read type of document for medical and R&D professionals. Trade journals, bulletins, newsletters, etc., are read much more frequently than scholarly journal articles by executives or professionals engaged in management, marketing or sales, administration or finance, legal work, or "otiier" work roles. Interestingly, all fields read professional, legal, technical, or business books about the same amount on the average (13 to 19), except professionals involved in legal work (67 readings). Annual reading of reference books, standards and specifications, handbooks, directories, etc., varies from as few as 11 to 13 times by professionals involved in administration, etc., and marketing and sales, to as much as about 30 or so times by medical, legal, and R&D professionals. Professionals involved in administration, etc., rarely read internal reports, but R&D and management professionals and executives read them about 50 times annually. There is little difference in the amount of reading of external reports
^ote that we have expanded the number of work roles in this chapter, since the sample size used to observe reading is substantially greater than the one used to observe professional input and output time (6,085 versus 695 responses).
This includes professional journal or law review articles (i.e., those that are refereed or that report research results, etc.).
74 among professionals in different work roles, except for legal professionals, who read them extensively (82 readings per year).
The "Price" That Professionals Pay for Information Found in Documents
One indicator of the value of information is the amount of time professionals are willing to spend acquiring and reading information found in documents. Professionals' time is a scarce resource and they are carefiil about how they spend it. If they choose to spend time reading, this time is an indicator of the value of the information read. Time spent acquiring and reading documents is summarized in Table 9 in Chapter 4. Professionals in the organizations surveyed expend an average of about 94 hours annually acquiring and reading journal articles (i.e., a litde less than 1 hour per reading); 89 hours acquiring and reading professional and other books (i.e., 2.1 hours per reading); 75 hours acquiring and reading intern^ reports (i.e., 1.9 hours per reading); and about 30 hours acquiring and reading other documents (i.e., 2.0 hours per reading). Altogether these professionals work an average of about 2,094 hours annually, of which 253 hours are spent reading and 35 hours are spent acquiring; thus, they expend nearly 14 percent of their time acquiring and reading all such documents. If the average hourly salary of professionals is about $40^ (including 50 percent for fringe benefits and overhead), these professionals expend an average of about $11,500 in terms of their time obtaining work-related information through reading journals, books, and other documents (see Table 13). On a per-reading basis, this "price" paid by professionals ranges from about $37 per reading of journal articles to $83 per reading of books. Yet, later in this chapter we show that the information and knowledge gained is found to yield substantially greater value than that indicated by the amount of time (and dollars) expended in acquiring and reading it.
Table 13: Average Hours and Dollars Spent Acquiring and Reading Documents per Professional, by Type of Document Read
Amount Spent Amount Spent Amount Spent Acquiring Reading Acquiring and Reading Avg. No. of Dollars Spent/ Type of Document Readings Hours Dollars Hours Dollars Hours Dollars Reading Journals 101 10 $400 84 $3,360 94 $3,760 $37.23 Books 43 7 $280 82 $3,280 89 $3,560 $82.79 Internal reports 39 12 $480 63 $2,520 75 $3,000 $76.92
Other documents 15 6 $240 24 $960 30 $1,200 $80.00
TOTAL 198 35 $1,400 253 $10,120 288 $11,520 $58.18
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in 11 organizations (N = 64,998; n = 2,551)
^liis amount is our best estimate of current (1993) professional compensation.
75 Purposes for Which Reading Is Done
One indicator of the worth^ of reading is the purpose for which reading is done. One piece of evidence of this lies in the work roles of professionals who do the reading, as shown in Table 12. However, as with the work roles, one also can determine amount of reading for the purposes of per forming various kinds of activities. For example, a reading can contribute to the conduct of primary research or the thinking necessary to do other kinds of work. As mentioned in Ch^ter 4, we refer to these as prunary work activities. Reading also can be done primarily to support communication-related activities, such as consulting or giving advice, making presentations, or writing. Also, work-related reading can be for keeping up with the literature (i.e., current awareness) or in support of professional development or continuing education.
In Table 14 we give the proportions of readings of journal articles, books, and internal reports that are done to support these four basic purposes. Journal articles and book readings have similar purposes, except journal articles tend to be used more for current awareness (18 percent versus 4 percent) and books much more for professional development (23 percent versus 12 percent). Internal reports are read far less for these two types of activities, but more than journal articles or books for conducting other R&D activities (e.g., design, engineering drawings, writing computer programs, etc.) and for consulting or giving substantive advice to others.
Relative Importance of Information Found in Documents
An indicator of the importance of information to professionals was established by asking professionals in six organizations to rate the importance of information found in documents and of other resources used by them. They were asked to rate the importance of these resources in performing several of their work activities. Ratings were from 1 to 5^ (1 being "not at all important," 3 being "necessary, but not essential," and 5 being "absolutely essential"). These results are displayed in Table 15. As mentioned in Chapter 4, professionals use a number of resources to do their work. Such resources include computing equipment or PCs, other equipment or instrumentation, information found in docu ments (e.g., articles, books, patents, technical reports, etc.), support staff (e.g., secretaries, technicians, etc.), information staff (e.g., librarians, information specialists, etc.), and advice from consultants or colleagues. The rankings of information found in documents relative to the five other resources are given in parentheses for each primary work activity.
Information found in documents is rated on the average to be the most important resource for performing three primary work activities (i.e., other R&D, legal or patent work, and background research). Information found in documents is ranked lo^f/ among the resources in primary work activities for finance or accounting (fifth), management or executive (fourth), and operations and administration (third). This resource is ranked first or second for all communication-related activities and first for professional development.
T'or definitions of "value" and "worth," see Chapter 10.
nNote that resources may not be applicable for some activities and, therefore, are not rated by survey resportdents. These instances are not included in the average rating scores.
76 Table 14: Proportion of Readings of Journal Articles, Books, and Internal Reports for Various Activities Journal Articles Books Internal Reports (%) (%) (%) Primary Work Activities Actually conducting primary researeh (e.g., data collection, experimentation, etc.) or laboratory research 13 12 14 Conducting other R&D activities such as design, engineering drawings, writing computer programs, etc. 8 12 24 Background information research 20 16 16 Management or executive 2 4 5 Administration and finance 3 2 4 Legal woric 3 3 3 Other (e.g., medical, operations, marketing, etc.) 10 12 12 TOTAL 59 61 78 Communication-related Activities Consulting or giving substantive advice to others 3 5 10 Making internal presentations 1 1 1 Making external presentations 1 1 1 Writing reports, etc. 1 . 1 3 Writing proposals 3 1 2 Writing articles, books, etc. 1 2 - TOTAL 10 11 17 Current Awareness 18 4 4 Professional Development 12 23 1 TOTAL 100 100 100
Source: King Researeh, Inc., survey of professionab in eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892) Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The resource with the highest average rating score for primary research is computing equipment and/or terminals (4.11 versus 4.03 for information found in documents). Information found in documents is nearly equal to computing equipment in being rated the most important resource for performing odier R&D activities. The resource with the highest average rating score for marketing, sales, or promotions is advice from consultants or colleagues (3.68), with information found in documents second highest (3.50). We also obtained rating scores for four types of communication work activities: consulting or giving advice to others (versus receiving it); writing (proposals, reports, articles, etc.); making internal or external presentations; and "other" (such as training). Generally, the resources are rated as less important for these activities than for primary work activities; nevertheless, the average rating scores for information found in documents are generally in the high-3 to low-4 range of importance ratings (i.e., above necessary, but not essential).
Information staff generally is rated low in comparison with the other five resources used by professionals. However, we believe this is because information staff is used relatively infrequently compared with odier resources. Nevertheless, this resource is rated higher flian a three for some primary activities: background research (3.22), primary research and medical work (3.08 each), and marketing and sales (3.01). The average ratings of this resource for various primary work activities pretty much reflect the extent of library use among professionals performing various work roles (see Chapter 6).
77 Table 15: Ava*age Importance Ratings* of Resources Used by Professionals for Various Work Activities by Type of Resource Computing Other Information Advice from Equipment/ Equipment/ Found in Support Info. Consultant or PCs Instrumentation Documents** Staff*** Staff Colleague Primaiy Work Activities Primary research 4.11 3.98 4.03 (2) 3.59 3.08 3.73 Other R&D 3.86 3.40 3.87 (1) 3.34 2.64 3.64 Management/executive 3.48 2.00 2.99 (4) 3.40 1.93 3.22 Administration 3.56 2.23 2.96 (3) 3.56 2.24 2.94 Finance or accounting 3.71 2.86 2.66 (5) 2.98 1.84 3.49 Legal/patent 3.44 1.90 3.95 (1) 3.39 2.48 3.72 Medical 2.89 1.92 3.65 (2) 3.61 3.08 4.50 Marketing/sales 3.42 2.52 3.50 (2) 3.40 3.01 3.68 Operations 3.43 2.72 3.27 (3) 3.33 2.07 3.13 Backgrouitd research 2.92 2.19 4.36 (1) 3.06 3.22 3.50 Communication Activities Consulting/advising othera 3.34 2.53 3.60 (2) 2.95 2.61 3.62 Writing 3.74 2.64 3.76 (1) 3.39 2.82 3.02 Presentations 3.70 3.11 3.62 (2) 3.37 2.62 3.35 Other 3.55 2.80 3.31 (2) 2.54 2.28 2.73 Professional Development 3.42 2.47 4.05 (1) 2.53 2.71 3.61
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 44,847; n = 695) *In^rtance Ratings: 1—Not at all important; 3—Neutral; 5—Absolutely essential. **Articles, books, reports, etc. ***Secretaries, technicians, etc. Ranking of information found in documents among the six resources is found in parenthesis.
IMPACT OF READING ON PROFESSIONALS' WORK
Savings Achieved from Reading
Surveys conducted in eight organizations asked professionals to indicate whether reading journal articles, books, and internal reports saved them (or their coworkers) any labor time or other resources. We found that such savings were experienced in 26 percent of journal article readings, 42 percent of the book readings, and 50 percent of internal report readings. The comparable proportions for a national survey of scientists and engineers are 24 percent, 38 percent, and 74 percent for scholarly journal, book, and internal report readings, respectively. Reasons for savings were examined relative to die work being performed by professionals, such as research, administration, marketing and sales, and so on. Typical reasons given by professionals for savings achieved from reading are:
• Avoided having to do some primary research, administration, marketing, etc. (49 percent of article readings in which savings were incurred, 22 percent of book readings, and 51 percent of internal report readings)."
'^ote that the proportion of readings found in all the reasons given can add to more than 100 percent since professionals sometimes reported more than one reason for savings.
78 • Provided confirmation of research, adminisfration, marketing, etc. (27 percent of article readings, 13 percent of book readings, and 25 percent of internal report readings).
• Stopped an unproductive line of research, administration, marketing, etc., thus avoiding having to do it (10 percent of journal article readings, 21 percent of book readings, and 22 percent of internal r^ort readings).
• Modified a research or engineering design (12 percent of article readings, 13 percent of book readings, and 19 percent of internal report readings).
• Modified analysis methods (16 percent of article readings, 30 percent of book readings, and 9 percent of internal report readings).
From the survey of organizations, the total amount of such savings, in dollar terms, per reading is estimated to be about:
• $310per journal article reading;
• $650 per book reading; and
• $1,090 per internal report reading.
These average savings are identified through questions asked about critical incidents of reading (i.e., the last article, etc., read). The question asked whether the reading saved the reader (and/or their co workers) any labor time or other resources. If such savings are indicated, the professionals were asked how the savings were achieved and the dollar amount of savings in (1) labor and (2) other things such as equipment, avoidance of regulatory penalties, etc. For labor savings, they were asked how many coworkers were involved so that the amount of savings could be adjusted downward (since all such workers had the possibility of being in the survey and being asked about that incident of savings).
Interpretation of these average savings per reading should proceed cautiously. One should not think of the averages as being "typical" savings since the averages are computed from highly skewed distri butions. That is, only about 1 percent or 2 percent of the readings account for nearly all the savings that contribute to the averages. The distribution of savings observed for journal article readings is given in Figure 23. Similar results have been observed in two national surveys of scientists and engineers—where the average savings across all readings observed for national surveys of scientists and engineers comes to about $385 for journal article readings, $700 for book readings, and $706 for technical report readings.
In our early studies, we always asked respondents to indicate how savings were achieved. Examples from one survey of how savings were achieved are as follows:
• A nuclear scientist indicated that a recent reading of a technical report on electrical discharges in a vacuum "saved time by letting me perform work that could not have been done otherwise."
• A scientist indicated that his reading of a coal gasification processing report "provided collated information in a single volume, which meant that we did not have to do the collation."
• A basic energy scientist said that his reading of a report on double effect absorption cooling "prevented having to do a complete design of a system including design calculations."
79 Figure 23: Distribution of Savings Obsa*ved for Journal Article Readings
Proportion of Readings (X) lOOS!-
90X - 75.»X
eox-
403! -
20X - ^M 12.5X ^S^A ^S ^^^ 3.«J{ 4.2* ,.4, ,,^ I'xxSc^ ?88 Os'?g?vXH i?i »0 »«- »11- tioi- tt.ooi- tio.ooo 10 100 1,000 10.000 and up Annual Amount of Savings ($) Sourea: King Resaareh, Inc., survey of professionals In •Ight orgonrzaflons (N = 52.690; n = 1,892)
We were always struck by the fact that the amount of savings mentioned appeared to be consistent with reasons given for savmgs. Also, over a number of surveys, we began to notice a consistency in the reasons given for the savings. Thus, in our later surveys, we simply ask respondents to check reasons from a list provided to them, although they have the option to add other reasons.
Total savmgs across all readings by all professionals averages about $31,300 per professional annually for reading journal articles, $28,000 per professional for reading books, and $42,500 per profes sional for reading internal reports. Thus, the return on labor investment (i.e., labor savings yielded per time spent acquiring and reading) comes to about 8:3 to 1 for acquiring and reading journal articles, 7.9 to 1 for books, and 14.2 to 1 for internal reports. That is, the estimated savings attributed to reading articles is $31,300 and cost of reading is $3,760 (see Table 13); dius, die ratio is 8.3 to 1.
Impact of Reading on Quality of Professionals' Work
Other indicators of the impact of information relate to how reading information might affect the quality and timeliness of the work of professionals, whether a new activity was initiated as a consequence of reading, and so on. The quality of an activity is, of course, difficult to measure. To address how quality might have affected work, professionals were asked to indicate (1) the principal work activity for which the reading was being done, and (2) whether the last reading of a journal article (or book or internal r^wrt) resulted in better quality performance of the activity. If they indicated that the reading resulted in improved quality, they were asked to provide their best judgment of the level (or anticipated level) of quality of the activity without the information read and with the information read. Quality levels for the two situations were measured using a l-to-7 rating scale (where 1 was low quality, 4 was medium quality, and 7 was high quality). About 70 percent of the readings of journal articles, 83 percent of book readings, and 77 percent of internal report readings were associated with activities for which quality is applicable. In these instances, 63 percent of journal article readings, 73 percent of book readings, and 78 percent of internal report readings resulted in some improvement of the quality of the principal activity
80 for which the information was read (see Figure 24). The average assessment of the level of quality of the activity without the information was 4.04, 3.57, and 3.52, respectively. The quality of the activities with the information was judged to be 5.82, 5.68, and 5.78, respectively, thus yielding increases in judged quality of 44 percent, 59 percent, and 64 percent for journal articles, books, and internal reports, respectively.
Figure 24: Average QuaUty Ratings by Professionals of Activities With and Without Information Read in Journal Articles, Books, and Internal Reports
Awraga Quality
• Rating (1 to 7) 7 -
a - 5.82 S.68 5.78 J^;^^ ^^ »- 1M^. 4.04 ^P 4 - 3.57 3.52 ^^ ^^ a -
2 - 1 - I^S W^/. ^^^ ^^^^ Journal Books Intarnal Artlclaa 73,5 „, ,^rf,„,. Raporta es% of rcodlnga 78Z of rvodlngs •• Quality w/o reading RP73 Quality w/ raadlng Source: King Research. Inc.. survey of professionals In four organizations (N = 31,003; n = 1,164)
Impact of Reading on Timeliness of Professionals' Work and Other Beneficial Outcomes
Improving the timeliness of completing an activity (for which a document was read) was found to be applicable for about 60 percent of the readings of journal articles, 63 percent of book readings, and 43 percent of internal report readings. For those relevant readings, about 32 percent, 38 percent, and 52 percent, respectively, resulted in faster performance or completion of the activity. Furthermore, many of die professionals indicated other benefits of having read information from documents. These other beneficial outcomes, and the proportion of readings from which they were derived, are:
• A new activity was initiated as a consequence of reading—23 percent of journal article readings, 31 percent of book readings, and 30 percent of internal report readings.
• Reinforced hypothesis or confidence in work—42 percent of journal article readings, 43 percent of book readings, and 29 percent of internal reports readings.
• Initiated ideas for new research, administration, marketing, etc.—26 percent of journal article readings, 25 percent of book readings, and 20 percent of internal report readings.
• Broadened options concerning research, administration, marketing, etc.—23 percent of journal article readings, 29 percent of book readings, and 20 percent of internal report readings.
81 Narrowed options concerning research, administration, marketing, etc.—6 percent of journal article readings, 5 percent of book readings, and 12 percent of internal report readings.
Provided needed market intelligence about competitor(s)—€ percent of journal article readings, 5 percent of book readings, and 12 percent of internal report readings.
Used in lectures, seminars, etc.—7 percent of journal article readings, 14 percent of book readuigs, and 6 percent of internal report readings.
Impact of Reading on Professionals' Productivity
Anodier indicator of die impact of information is the correlation of indicators of professionals' productivity with die extent to which diey read. This correlation was established for each of five indicators of productivity. Professionals surveyed m six organizations were asked about dieir input (time spent on various activities) and ouQ)ut, in terms of number of formal records of work prepared, proposals or plans written, incidents of consultation or advice given, number of presentations made, and number of formal publications. Each respondent was also asked to indicate the number of documents read in the past mondi (which was converted to annual readings). We first attempted to do a straight plot of reading versus corresponding measures of professionals' productivity. This analysis produced low statistical correlation. Therefore, we decided to take a more coarse approach to examining diis correlation. Examples of the correlation between productivity of activities and amount of reading are given below.
One measure of productivity is:
• Number of items of formal documentation of work (e.g., technical reports, legal briefs, laboratory notebooks, etc.), divided by the time spent performing the work and preparing such documents: 0.0107 reports per hour, or 93 hours per document. Tinie performing work includes only the time involved widi primary activity. For example, it does not include time spent managing by scientists who prepare laboratory notebooks as an output.
The productivity and total amount of reading are both classified into high and low productivity and amount of reading. The 460 professionals who responded to all the questions leading to the relevant survey questions are classified into four groups of diose whose: (1) productivity is high and amount of reading high, (2) productivity is low and amount of reading low, (3) productivity is low and amount of reading high, and (4) productivity is high and amount of reading is low.
Number of Formal Records of Woric Productivity Low High Total High 8S 135 220 Amount of Reading Low 151 89 240 Total 236 224 460
The above distribution of professionals and their productivity (of records written per hour of actual research and development activity) and their amount of reading appears to show that those who read a lot tend to have high productivity (135 of 220) and diose who read less tend to have low productivity (151
82 of 240). A statistical test (chi-square) rejects the hypothesis (at a = 0.005) that productivity and reading are indq)endent (i.e., no relationship exists). Note, however, that we do not know for sure whether high productivity is direcdy attributable to frequentreading . We only know that those who read more (oi* less) tend to have higher (or lower) productivity and that the observed relationship is not likely to have happened by chance.
Another indicator of productivity concerns the number of times professionals give substantive advice or consultation. This productivity is defined as follows:
o Number of times consultation or substantive advice is given, divided by the time spent providing such advice: 1.22 times per hour (or conversely, ^>out 49 minutes spent for each time advice is given).
The relationship of this indicator of productivity and the amount of reading is:
Number of Consultations Productivity Low High Total High 82 138 220 Amount of Reading Low 132 94 226 Total 214 232 446
Heavy readers tend to have high consultation productivity (138 of 220) and those who read less tend to have low consultation productivity (132 of 226). The independence hypothesis is rejected at a = 0.005. Thus, once again, this indicator of productivity of professionals is correlated with amount of reading.
Another indicator of productivity is defined as:
• Number of internal presentations made, divided by the amount of time spent doing the work: 0.016 presentations per hour, or 63 hours per presentation.
The relationship of this indicator of productivity and amount of reading is as follows: Number of Presentations Productivity Low High Total High ' 62 95 157 Amount of Reading Low 94 71 165 Total 156 166 322
The heavy readers tend to have high productivity (95 of 157) and light readers tend to have low productivity (94 of 165).
Another indicator of productivity is defined as:
83 • Number of written proposals or plans, divided by the time spent writing the proposals or plans: 0.038 proposals or plans per hour, or 26 hours per plan.
The relationship of this mdicator of productivity and amount of reading is as follows: Number of Written Proposals or Plans Productivity Low High Total High ' 22 43 65 Amount of Reading Low 37 27 64 Total 59 70 129
Again, those with high readings per year tend to have high productivity in terms of proposal preparation (43 of 65) and those who read less tend to have low productivity (37 of 64).
The final indicator of productivity is defined as:
• Number of journals, books, and other publications authored or coauthored, divided by the time spent doing primary and secondary research and development and writing the publication manuscripts: 0.0017 publications per hour, or 588 hours per manuscript.
The relationship of this indicator of productivity and amount of reading is:
Number of Formal Publications Productivity Low High Total High 6 22 28 Amount of Reading Low 22 8 30 Total 28 30 58
We have many fewer observations, but the correlation persists.
Further Evidence of the Impact of Reading
Higher productivity and improved performance of professionals would tend to suggest potential recognition through achievement awards, technical awards, patent recognition, and so on. Our surveys revealed that the winners of such awards tend to read more than those who have not received them. In fact, on the average, award winners read about:
• 53 percent more professional journal or law review articles (52 versus 34);
• 43 percent more trade journal articles (83 versus 58);
• 13 percent more professional, legal, technical, or business books (16.7 versus 14.8);
84 • 147 percent more internal reports (37 versus 15); and
• 43 percent more other types of documents (60 versus 42).
Another measure of achievement or, perhaps, competency, is whether a professional is asked to serve on high-level project or problem-solving teams or special committees. Again, such persons tend to read more tiian persons who have not served on such assignments. On average, they read:
• 21 percent more professional journal or law review articles (40 versus 33);
• 82 percent more professional, frade journal, articles (1(X) versus 55);
• 19 percent more professional, legal, technical, or business books (17.5 versus 14.7);
• 53 percent more internal rq)orts (52 versus 34); and
• 33 percent more other types of documents (56 versus 42).
Finally, in one company the personnel office agreed to provide us with the names of 25 professionals who were considered to be particularly high achievers (i.e., on a "fast track"). These 25 persons were compared with others (i.e., cohorts) in the organization who were performing the same work roles and had equivalent degrees, fields of specialty, and years of experience. The results of this comparison show that the "fast track" professionals on the average read:
• 59 percent more professional or scholarly journals or law review articles (62 versus 39);
• 156 percent more trade journals, or articles (87 versus 34);
• 28 percent more professional, legal, technical, or business books (23 versus 18);
• 60 percent fewer reference books, handbooks, manuals, etc. (6 versus 15); and
• 260 percent more internal and external reports (90 versus 25).
Altogether, across all readings the "fast trackers" have 82 percent more readings than their cohorts.
Clearly, recognized achievers read more than others. We also looked at external professional awards and/or elected offices held as an indicator of achievement, but did not observe the same results (i.e., employees who received these honors do not read more than those who have not).
ConsequNices of Reading Versus Amount of Time Spent Reading
Above, we provided some indicators of the use, usefulness, and value of information found in documents. We also imply that more reading affects readers' work in several positive ways. From this, one might presume that everyone should simply read more and increased quality, timeliness, and produc tivity of work would result automatically. There are two clear problems with this assertion. First, people assimilate information differendy. Some prefer to read, while others depend more on interpersonal communication. Native ability to assimilate information and use it wisely and productively varies widely
85 among professionals. The second problem is that time spent reading defracts from time performing pri mary work activities. Thus, there must be some optimum balance of how one should allocate time to information production, consumption and use, and other work activities. Unfortunately, we have no definitive answer to this issue. However, we did some analysis in one organization to determine if there is evidence that there might be too much reading by some professionals. We subdivided sampled responses into four roughly equal categories of estimated amount of time spent reading (i.e., less than 10, 10 to 19.8, 20 to 32.8, and more than 34 hours per month). We then determined, at these four levels, the proportion of work that yielded savings, improved timeliness of work, and improved quality of work. Generally, we found that these work performance indicators are low for professionals who spend littie time reading, but that there appears to be a peak at which point the indicators of the consequences of time spent reading level off and, perh^s, even decrease slightiy (see Figures 6 through 8 in Chapter 1).
86 PART in
PERFORMANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, AND IMPACT OF SPECIAL LIBRARY SERVICES
In this part, we provide five chapters dealing with the performance, effectiveness, and impact of special library services. Even though our conceptual framework is presented in this order, we have chosen to discuss these derived measures in anodier order. Chapter 6—"Usage and Effectiveness of Special Library Services"—discusses the extent to which special libraries and library services are used and presents factors that affect service use. Some examples are given to demonsfrate the relationship between amount of use and satisfaction with service atfributes. In Chapter 7—"Access to Information Found in Documents"—we discuss, in detail, the relative role libraries play in providing access to information found in journal articles, books, and internal reports. Libraries fill a special niche in providing access to these documents, as a result of economic trade-offs, information needs, and user information-seekmg behavior. Ch^ter 8—"Usage and Effectiveness of Reference and Research Services" —discusses usage and effectiveness of automated bibliographic and numeric database search services and current awareness services. Chapter 9—"Performance of Special Libraries"—provides an in-depdi discussion of typical functions and services performed in and provided by special libraries. For many services, we give examples of productivity measures (i.e., outputs per minute or per hour). Staff time worked is converted to salaries, and costs of other resources are allocated to the services, so that derived measures of unit costs can be given. We then provide unit costs of services, including allocation of all indirect costs. Finally, we discuss economies of scale and implications of this phenomenon. Chapter 10—"Impact of Special Library Services"—compares what users pay for special library services, the value derived from savings achieved by having library services, and the impact of services on professionals and their organizations.
87 CHAPTER 6
USAGE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL LIBRARY SERVICES
USAGE OF SPECIAL LIBRARIES
Introduction
In this ch^ter we discuss the extent to which libraries are used by professionals and factors that relate to how much the libraries are used. The results presented here are based on three sources of studies we have done:
« statistical surveys of professionals found in 21 companies and government agencies with sizes ranging from 1(X) to 17,(XX) professionals;
« four national statistical surveys of 2,565 scientists and engineers and 421 other professionals; and
« a national statistical survey of 385 small, high-tech companies in the United States.
We show that libraries, both internal and external to organizations, are extensively used by professionals, although it is clear that a number of factors affect how much libraries are used. Factors related to the extent of use include externalities such as:
• the size of the organization; and
• the kind of work performed by professionals; and usage factors such as the:
• purposes for which the services are used;
• importance of library services;
• availability of die library;
• accessibility (distance) and cost of alternative sources to the library collection;
• quality of the library collection;
• level of performance attributes of services; and
• awareness of services.
The extent to which libraries and basic services are used by professionals and the degree to which the factors above affect amount of library use are discussed below and in subsequent chapters.
89 Many Small Organizations Do Not Have Libraries
Unfortunately, many professionals do not have libraries in their places of work. A Table 16: Proportion of Professionals Who Do national survey in the mid-1980s showed that Not Have a Library at Their Place of this phenomenon varies substantially by Work, by Professional Field in the U.S. professional fields, as shown in Table 16. Proportion of Professionals Who Do Not Have a Libraiy Available From a national survey of scientists and Professional Field engineers, we estimated the availability and Science 18 use of specific library services as shown in Table 17 [84]. The availability and use of Engineering 20 these services is less for scientists and Education 12 engineers in industry than in academic Medical practice 26 institutions or government. The same is true Business 55 for those not funded by the government. Law 54
Libraries clearly fill a specific and Source: King Research, Inc., national survey of professionals important niche for providing access to (n = 749) scientific and technical information. Generally, most articles, books, and internal and external documents that are infrequently used by individuals are obtained through Table 17: Organization Library Services Available libraries. For example, almost all journals to and Used by Scientists and Engineers that are read fewer than 10 times a year or in the U.S. that are very expensive are obtained tiirough Proportion libraries. Nearly all articles (more than 80 percent) that are more than two years old are Available Used obtained from libraries. This is true even for (%) (%) those articles from journals to which scientists Access to a collection of materials 79 72 or engineers have personal subscriptions. It Interlibraiy loan of materials 62 39 has been found that all services provided by Online bibliographic database searching 54 36 libraries save scientists and engineers an In-depth information analysis 21 12 enormous amount of time and the libraries often provide the services faster and with Source: King Research, Inc., national survey of scientists and greater quality than alternative sources for the engineers (n = 749) services.
Scientists and engineers read at least one article from an average of 13.4 journals. About half of these journals are from libraries (5.3) or shared office collections (1.2). Personal subscriptions account for 3.8 of the journals read, and 3.1 of the journals read come from other sources such as colleagues, authors, and publisher promotion. The average number of readings from personal subscriptions is 15.9 and readings are between 7.5 and 7.9 for library copies and shared office collections. Note that library copies include journals routed to scientists and engineers, and very expensive journals that are read infrequently.
Libraries in the U.S. have been ingenious and generous in sharing resources. There are more than 800 formal library cooperatives (sometimes called networks) that provide: (1) access to collections through interlibrary loan and reciprocal borrowing agreements; (2) reference and referral services; and
90 (3) other operational functions and services. Much of this sharing involves scientific and technical materials or related services. In some states large libraries have been funded and designated to serve the research community (e.g.. New York Public and Boston Public libraries). Some states [85, 86] also have set aside specific fiinds to support research through library resource sharing (e.g., the Reference and Research Library Resources Systems in New York, at more ttian $5 million).
The Federal Depository Library program ensures the scientific conmiunity access to Government Printing OfRce (GPO)-provided and other government documents. In 1988 there were 1,394 libraries in a nationwide system tfiat provides free public access to federal government information. Most of these libraries are academic or law school (66 percent) or public (20 percent) [87]. The entire depository program involves an average of 195,200 users per week or 10.2 million users per year. It is not known how much of this use is scientific and technical, although 44 percent of the public library users are professional (32 percent) or technical (12 percent).
Evidence suggests that part of the reason many organizations do not have libraries is their small size. For example, a national survey of 13,950 small businesses engaged in research and development^ shows that only about 10 percent of Uiose with fewer than 50 employees have a librarian or information support person, and 24 percent of those firms with 50 to 500 employees have such library support [88]. We believe that the number of professional employees in an organization largely determines the extent of library use, although this is not to say that technical and support staff do not use libraries to support their work as well. Our early studies have shown that professionals use libraries for work-related purposes substantially more than nonprofessionals. We mention this because the numbers of employees reported above for small businesses includes both professionals and nonprofessionals.
One problem small businesses have is that most do not or, perhaps, cannot afford to have an information support staff member or librarian. Only 13 percent of the small businesses surveyed have such a person. Note, however, that about 51 percent of the small businesses have someone to search bibliogr2q)hic databases and nearly all have access to computers or terminals.
Another problem with small businesses is that they do not have a sufficient volume of library use to achieve the economies of scale of which larger firms can take advantage. We believe that economies of scale begin to appear in organizations that have more than 50 to 75 professionals (see Chapter 9). Smaller companies seem to rely on academic libraries, public libraries, multitype library cooperatives, or private or government information services for their library needs. It is clear, however, that small companies that do not have libraries must pay substantially more for information than companies with libraries, in terms of (1) time spent by their professionads in acquiring and using information, and (2) monies paid for publications and information services. In fact, evidence suggests that they may pay as much as 2 to 4 times more than firms that are large enough to achieve economies of scale and have their own libraries. Professionals in small companies average subscriptions to more than six journals per professional. Professionals in large companies that have libraries and office collections average about half the number of subscriptions of those in small companies. Furthermore, it costs professionals nearly $750 less (mostly in terms of their time) per online bibliographic search in large companies than in small companies. More is said about economies of scale in Chapter 9.
^*The size of these businesses is highly skewed: 35 percent have fewer than five employees; 35 percent have between five and 19 employees; 24 percent have between 20 and 250 employees; and 6 percent have more than 250 employees (with a few having more than 500 employees). These 13,950 small businesses included firms that are solely research or technology organizations (24 percent), manufacturers with R&D capabilities (30 percent), service companies with R&D capabilities (30 percent), and other (4 percent).
91 Use of Libraries by Professionals in 21 Organizations
The professionals we surveyed in 21 organizations rely heavily on libraries." In fact, the profes sionals rq)orted that they used their library an average of 4.2 times in the last month (or about 50 times per year).^ However, tiie distribution of times used is very skewed; that is, many professionals did not use the library at all in the past month (30.4 percent) and a few (4.4 percent) used it an average of at least once a day. The disfribution of special library use is given in Figure 25. Projecting the proportion of use of the library to one year indicates that about 84 percent of the professionals probably used the library at least once in the past year. About 70 percent of the uses of the library in an organization involve actual visits to the library; the remaining uses are requests made by electronic means, telephone, etc.
Figure 25: Distribution of Number of library Uses in Last Month
Proportion of Professionala (%) 36-
30.4 30- M 26- ^ m^ 21.9 20- ^^ «»« 16.9 ,6.* 16- m ^
10- mi ™ 7.6 8- 2.3 m 17 1.6 1.2 o -Iu y ^^ S U§JIssAs d %%Sfe¥ ^^ 3-4 10-14 20-24 30» 1-2 6-9 15-19 26-29 Number of Uses In Last Month Sourco: King Research, Inc.. surveys of professionals in 21 organizotions (N = 73.303: n = 7.366)
The professionals in organizations that have organization libraries indicate they also use other library sources, including a shared collection in their unit, an academic library, a public library, or other type of external library. The extent to which such libraries are used is given in Table 18.
About 55 percent of library uses from all types of libraries involve the professionals' organization library (main or branch) and another 30 percent of uses are of an office collection (usually maintained by a secretary or junior staff member, although increasingly supported by main library staff). The remaining uses are from external libraries—half of which are public libraries.
37.Thes, e surveys involved 21 organizations with 84 libraries. The total number of professionals in the organizations is 73,303. Number of survey responses (with greater than 50 percent response rates) is between 2,876 professionals and 7,366 professionals, depending on data gathered.
^e asked respondents, chosen randomly from the entire population of professionals in an organization, to report the number of times they visited their organization's main libraiy (or branch) or used it by other means (such as electronic mail, telephone, etc.) in the past month. The number of uses also represents uses of the libraiy by someone else on the respondent's behalf.
92 Table 18: Proportion of Professionals Who Use Various Types of libraries and Average Annual Uses per Professional per Year
Proportion Who Used Library in the Past Month Average Uses Type of Libraiy Per Professional Per Year Main libraiy and branches 69.6 50.4 Shared office collection 30.8 27.1 Academic library 8.8 3.2 Public libraiy 20.3 6.9 Other library (e.g., govenunent) 24.3 3.8 ALL TYPES ~ 91.4
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 7,366)
Amount of library Use, by the Type of Work Done by Professionals
Whether the organization library is used and the extent to which it is used vary substantially by the work role of the professional, as shown in Table 19.^ Clearly, professionals engaged in R&D, legal work, and medical work are more likely to use the library (from 74 percent to 81 percent) and to use it extensively (from 59 to 82 times per year). Only about half of the otiier professionals are likely to have used the library in the last month and they use the library only an average of about 20 to 30 times per year (depending on their work role). Pinelli, et al. [89] showed that engineers use libraries about 42 times per year, compared with 39 uses from our database [90].
Table 19: Proportion of Professionals Who Use Their Organization's Library, and Average Annual Yisits per Professional per Year, by Work Role Proporti on Who Used Average Uses Library in the Past Month Per Professional Professionals' Piimaiy Woik Role (%) Per Year Research and development 81 59.2 Legal 74 77.0 Medical 74 81.7 Administrative (e.g., accounting, finance, personnel. etc.) 61 21.6 Management/executive 51 19.7 Other (e.g., operations, sales and maiketing, etc.) 47 29.1
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 7,366)
Professionals in organizations that have libraries use office or laboratory collections and other types of libraries quite frequently (an average of 27 times per year). In Ch^ter 7 we will show that it is less expensive for an organization to have office or laboratory collections for publications that are often used collectively by professionals. As shown in Table 18, professionals also use academic, public, and other libraries (3, 7, and 4 average uses per year, respectively). These nonorganization libraries are more
^lie values in ? can be used as "norms" for organizations by applying them to the professional staffing pattern of one's own organization. For example, if an organization has 35 percent R&D professionals, 5 percent doing legal work, 20 percent doing administrative work, 10 percent doing management and executive work, and 30 percent doing other work, the "expected norm" for average annual uses would be 39.6 average uses per professional per year (0.35 X 59.2) -I- (0.05 X 77.0) + (0.20 X 21.6) + (0.10 X 19.7) -I- (0.30 X 29.1) = 39.6. Total use would be the average times the number of professionals.
93 likely to be used by company or government agency professionals when there is no main or branch library on-site (more than half of the uses in these instances), when the professional is going to school, or when working after hours or on a weekend. In only a few mstances out of thousands of responses are external libraries found to be used as a complete substitute for the library in a professional's organization.
Usage of library Services
Organization libraries provide a large number of services ranging from (1) traditional access to collections of materials (e.g., journals, books, internal reports, market research reports, external research or technical reports, patent documents, engineering documents, etc.) found in the library, access to such materials from other sources such as purchasing books and journals for personal use, availability from document delivery services, and interlibrary borrowing; to (2) very personalized services such as database searching, training in use of database searching, and translation of articles or other documents.
As mentioned in Chapter 5, we estimate that professionals annually read an average of 101 journal articles, 43 books, 39 internal reports, and 15 other documents. This comes to an average of 198 readings per professional, of which about 32, 14, 13, and 5 readings, respectively, are from materials provided by organization libraries. As discussed in Ch^ter 7, evidence suggests a trend toward a higher proportion of reading from library-provided materials, particularly journal articles.
The amount of use of specific library services was summarized in Table 2. In Table 20 we indicate the proportion of professionals who have used the service at least once in the past year and the average use per professional** (i.e., all professionals in the organization). The most uses came from access to library collections, particularly reading materials in the library. When photocopying is provided by library staff, about 43 percent of professionals use the service for an average of 22.6 times a year. More than half of professionals use self-service photocopiers, but those who use this service use it far less frequentiy than those who use library-provided photocopying.(13 uses per year of self-service photo copiers versus 53 uses per year of library-provided photocopying).
To find materials, professionals used the card catalog about 5.8 times per year, or die online catalog about 4.6 times per year in the library and 1.3 times per year from their office. In addition to assistance in circulating materials, the library's staff^ spend considerable time providing assistance and locating materials for professionals (7.9 times per year per professional). Furtiiermore, staff answer research or other questions or provide specific information on a topic about 6.8 times per year per professional, and provide in-depth reference and research services 0.5 times per year. Database search services are used by one-sixth of the professionals (0.8 times per year), and current awareness services by about one-fourth of all professionals. More than half of the professionals use the library's reading room or study space, and about 1 in 7 professionals personally uses CD-ROM workstations or PCs provided to them by the library. About 8 percent of the professionals use the library's translation services. On average, users said they used tiie service an average of 2.5 times per year, or about 0.2 times per professional. The proportions of users placing requests for franslations for various types of documents are as follows:
Average use per user can be calculated by dividing average use by the proportion who use. For example, those who ask for circulated items average using them 12.6 times per year (4.9 -r- 0.39).
94 Table 20: Proportion of Professionals Who Use Various Library S^nces and Ava>age Annual Uses* per Professional per Year, by Type of Service
Proportion Who Used Service Average Uses in the Past Year per Professional Service (%) per Year Access to Libraiy Collections Circulation** 39 4.9 Materials read in libraiy 62 36.7 Audiovisual use 17 0.4 Journal routing** 33 4.8 Interlibrary lending n/a n/a Access to Inteiiibraiy Borrowing and Document 19 1.3 Deliveiy Service, Purchase of Materials for Department Use 43 0.9 Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 43 22.6 Reference and Research Services Directional reference and assistance 34 7.9 Brief reference and research 14 6.8 In-depth reference and research Uidaiown 0.5 Research Unknown 0.1 Telephone reference services 24 8.0 Online request services 26 12.3 Catalog Services Card catalog 32 5.8 Online catalog in libraiy 25 4.6 Online catalog from office 17 1.3 Database Search Services 17 0.8 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins 24 2.7 Serial listing of holdings 21 1.2 Translation Services 8 0.2 User Training Sessions/Demonstrations 7 0.1 Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space 59 7.6 Individual carrels or rooms Unknown 1.2 PCs 13 1.2 CD-ROM workstations 15 0.9 Microform reader/printer 10 1.1 Self-service photocopier 57 7.4
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 3,260) *Averages arc for all professionals, users or not, and averaged only when service is provided. **Numbcr of readings is 13.1 for circulated items and 13.0 for routedjournals .
95 Journal articles 62% Government documents 10% Patent documents 7% Other 28%
The likelihood of use of library services and extent of use varies substantially by professionals with different work roles. For example, 89 percent of professionals engaged in legal work read material in libraries during the last month, while only about one-third of those engaged in administration did. Of those who do read the materials in libraries, legal professionals average doing so 142 times per year, but administration professionals do so only 53 times per year. Those primarily involved in research and development are more likely than other professionals to request answers to research or other questions, or to ask for specific information on a topic (24 percent). Professionals engaged in management, legal work, or medical work rarely request such information from their librarians. These results reflect most core library services.
In Chapters 7 and 8 we delve more deeply into core library services such as access to library collections, journal routing, database searching, and current awareness services. In addition to the services mentioned above, some libraries provide referral to special professional capabilities in and out of their organizations, catalogs or lists of nonlibrary holdings in the organization, an entire range of proprietary (or records management) services, technical writing support, audiovisual services and meeting room scheduling, processing professional society membership dues, and even processing travel cash/checks and petty cash disbursements. It is clear that some of these services are delegat^ to the libraries because they are information-related or because the library director is a good manager.
Purposes of Use of library Services
We examined survey results for document readings from library-provided documents to determine the purposes for which readings were done. Generally, as shown in Table 21, readings for specific work activities make up a greater percentage of readings from library-provided materials than of readings in general. It is clear that library-provided documents are read more frequentiy for direct work-related purposes than are documents from other sources. The types of work for which this reading is done are similar to those reported in Table 14 in Chapter 5.
Table 21: Purposes of Reading from Library-provided Journal Articles, Books, and Technical Reports Proportion of Readings Journal Articles Books Technical Reports Principal Puipose of Reading (%) (%) (%) Specific work activities 73 (59) 66 (61) 81 (78) Current awareness and professional development 12 (31) 19(27) 1 (5) Communication 16 (10) 15(11) 18(17) TOTAL 100 100 100
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in 8 organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892) Proportion of all readings given in parentheses for comparative purposes.
96 Also indicative of the usefulness of both database searches performed by library staff and current awareness services is the purpose for which these services are provided. Estimates of the proportions of searches done for various purposes are given in Table 22. Clearly, these services are performed for a wide variety of essential work.
Table 22: Principal Purposes of Use of Database Searches Done By library Sta^ and Current Awareness So'vices Proportion of Searches Database Seiarches Current Awareness Principal Purpose of Search (%) (%) Research and development 29 39 Background research 24 33 Technical support - 8 Management or executive woik 11 '6 Legal work 12 10 Marketing, sales', or sales management 6 1 Administration/finance 5 3 Business planning 1 - Writing or giving presentations 4 ~ Presentations 2 ~ Consulting or giving advice to others 3 - Professional development 2 - Other 1 _ TOTAL 100% 100%
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in 10 organizations (N = 55,690; n = 761)
Importance of Library S«'vices
We consider ratings of importance of services to be a surrogate measure of the impact or value derived from library services. It is a useful measure to consider in conjunction with satisfaction ratings. For example, if satisfaction is low for a service that is considered highly important, one would be more concerned than if the service were not considered particularly important. In Table 23, we give impor tance ratings for 16 typical library services, where ratings are from low to high (i.e., 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important). Importance ratings were used in six organizations (five were companies). In the surveys, importance was rated generally for collections of books, journals, etc. Internal reports were done separately (4.13 average importance rating) because some organizations do not provide access to internal reports. Collection-related services continue to have high importance ratings, with database search services being the only noncollection-related service among the top five services (including access to internal reports). Nearly two-thirds of the professionals rated the collection of books, journals, etc., as being very important. At least half of the professionals rated 15 of the 17 services (the 16 services in the table plus access to internal reports) as being important or very important. It is interesting to note that in the one organization in which it was observed, searching by staff was rated appreciably higher tiian searching by oneself (online search of databases 4.32 versus 3.50; search of CD-ROM databases 4.13 versus 3.90).
97 Table 23: Importance Ratings* of Various library Sa*vices
Importance Rating Average 1 2 3 4 5 Inqwrtance Service (%) (%) («) (%) Rating Access to Libraiy Collections Circulation 1.2 3.7 12.1 32.3 55.2 4.50 3.8 5.3 15.3 12.3 63.5 4.26 Audiovisual use 15.8 10.5 21.1 42.1 10.5 3.21 Journal routing 13.7 7.0 19.6 34.4 25.3 3.51 Interlibrary lending n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Access to Interlibrary Borrowing 8.9 2.2 22.2 26.7 40.0 3.87 and Document Deliveiy Services Purchase of Materials for 6.9 10.7 19.0 32.7 30.7 3.70 DqMutment Use Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 7.3 4.1 11.6 25.3 51.7 4.10 Reference and Research Services Directional reference 11.9 7.7 19.7 30.1 30.6 3.60 Brief refermce and research 3.2 12.1 25.1 31.6 31.0 3.84 In-depth reference/research Research Telephone reference services Online request services Catalog Services Card catalog Online catalog in libraiy 2.6 6.1 21.0 39.4 30.7 3.89 Online catalog from office 0.1 11.4 29.7 33.6 32.7 3.81 Database Search Services 4.2 4.4 17.5 24.6 49.3 4.10 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/ 10.2 7.1 32.5 40.1 10.0 3.32 bulletins Serial listing of holdings - - - — _ _
Translation Services ~ — — — „ User Training Sessions/ ~ - - ~ ~ - Demonstrations Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space 16.2 8.8 22.5 25.1 27.4 3.39 Individual carrels or rooms 27.4 15.9 35.7 13.2 7.8 2.58 PCs/CD-ROM 9.3 16.4 26.4 30.7 17.2 3.30 Microform reader/printer ~ - ~ ~ — _ Self-service photocopier ~ ~ - ~ - -
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in six organizations (N = 10,579; n = 969) *Impoitance Ratings: 1—Not at all Important; 3—Neutral; 5—Veiy Important.
98 We also provide some evidence of the importance of attributes of database searching, current aware ness publications, journal routing, and photocopying services in Table 24. Relevance of information is clearly the most important attribute of both database searching and current awareness publications. Response time is much more important for database searching than for photocopying, which seems to place priorities where one would expect. Comprehensiveness of collections and relevance of database searching are found to be very important.
Table 24: Importance Ratings* of Various Service Attributes
Importance Rating Average 1 2 3 4 5 Inqx>rtance Service/Attribute (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Rating Books in Library Currency of books 1.3 5.2 12.8 22.9 57.8 4.31 Conqirehensiveness of book collection 1.1 6.1 10.9 21.0 60.9 4.35 Journals Comprehensiveness of journal collection 1.1 4.3 8.9 24.9 60.8 4.40 Internal Reports Currency 3.2 8.1 22.1 38.5 28.1 3.80 Comprehensiveness 2.3 3.3 16.1 32.6 45.7 4.16 Database Searching Relevance of output 1.2 1.8 5.9 22.7 68.4 4.55 Response time 2.8 4.0 • 13.3 21.8 58.1 4.28 Searcher's knowledge 3.1 7.7 9.2 40.1 39.9 4.06 Number of citations 2.4 6.1 19.8 27.6 44.1 4.05 Current Awareness Publications Relevance of information 1.4 0.5 20.2 39.8 38.1 4.13 Amount of information 4.2 7.9 19.1 36.1 32.7 3.85 Pbotocopying Service Response time 5.0 5.2 25.9 22.2 41.7 3.90
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in seven organizations (N = 17,283; n = 450) *Importance Rating: 1—Not at all Important; 3—Neutral; 5—Very Important.
In addition to considering the importance of services and their attributes, professionals were asked to rate the importance of library staff and facilities. Overall, the various services' ratings are ranked as follows:
Responsiveness of staff 4.29 Knowledge of staff 4.21 Skills of staff 4.18 Attitudes of staff 4.12 Availability of staff 3.96 Hours that library is open 3.87 General ambience of library 2.99
99 Staff competence is generally far more important than facility characteristics, witii staff responsiveness and knowledge being most important of all these staff characteristics.
The professionals engaged in the various work roles responded somewhat differentiy to this rating. The R&D professionals rated the knowledge and responsiveness of the staff as most important. Management professionals rated skill and responsiveness of staff as most important. Adminisfration, finance, and legal professionals rated the attitudes of staff as most important, followed by the responsiveness and skills of staff as joint second choice. Operations professionals rated the responsiveness of staff as most important, with knowledge of staff as second choice, and availability of staff as third choice.
Effectiveness of Accessibility (Distance) of libraries
The size of an organization and professionals' work roles are important factors related to the extent of use of organization libraries. These factors, while important to know, are not within the libraries' control. There are also some other factors, of which libraries should be aware, that enter into decisions of professionals to use organization library services or some alternative means for obtaining materials or services. One of the most significant factors involves the time required by professionals to use the services. This factor is the "price" that users pay to use library services (or at least tiie principal component of price, if there are user charges). The time factor is evident in tiie fact that the number of library visits (and, therefore, use) is highly dependent on time or distance to the library.
There is ample evidence, for example, that professionals consciously (or unconsciously) consider the trade-off of the cost of subscribing to journals against the time (and delay) in using library copies of journals. If a professional is about five minutes from a library, the break-even point is about 10 readings of a journal. That is, if the professional reads more than 10 articles from a typically priced journal, it is less expensive to subscribe to that journal than to go to a library to read it. Of course this trade-off enters heavily into the decision of whetiier to subscribe personally when a journal is likely to be available through an office (or laboratory) collection and the main libraries (see Chapter 7).
We have observed a clear relationship between the number of visits to a library and distance measured in minutes to tiie library, as shown in Figure 26. Visits to libraries drop off significantiy as distance (in minutes) increases. If professionals are less than one minute away from the library, they average visiting it about 4.24 times per month (or about once per week). If the professionals are more than 10 minutes away, their average number of visits drops to less than two visits per month. Profes sionals can use organization libraries without visiting them; for example, through electronic mail or telephone services. However, we find that additional uses of libraries averages about one use per pro fessional per year and the number does not increase as distance to the library increases. On the other hand, we find from exit surveys tiiat professionals located fartiier away from libraries tend to "batch" tiieir uses of libraries when tiiey visit them. That is, users located far away from tiieir library tend to use more services or use them more heavily, and to spend more time in the library when they do visit it. However, the increase in uses of services and time in the library are not appreciably higher for those who are far away tiian for tiiose who are nearer. Thus, it appears tiiat tiie phrase "out of sight, out of mind" applies to library use. Almost all tiie uses of shared office (or laboratory) collections involve a distance of less than five minutes and, therefore, distance does not appear to be an overriding factor in total amount of their use. The overall average number of visits is 3.1 and total use is 4.2 uses per montii per professional.
100 Figure 26: Average Use of Libraries Versus Distance (in Minutes) to the library
Avcraa* Vlalta and Total Uaaa Par Month
a.21 6.08
1.41
0-1 2-3 4-6 e-10 11-15 IB* DIatanoa In Minutaa to Library
I I Vlalta ^77?L Additional Uaaa Source: King Research. Inc., surveys of professloncls In 21 organlzollons (N = 73.303: n = 7.366)
Another indicator that distance to the library is a significant issue with professionals is observed in organizations that have sites without libraries. Not surprisingly, professionals who have branch libraries at their sites are much more likely to use their library's services (see Table 25). Table 25 gives estimates from one company of the proportion of professionals who have used specific library services at least once. In particular, some services are more likely to be used by those who have library services at their sites for tiie following services: database search by library staff (23 percent versus 17 percent), list of library holdings (32 percent versus 7 percent), translations of articles (12 percent versus 2 percent), assistance in locating or identifying materials (61 percent versus 26 percent), obtaining materials from other libraries/interlibrary loan (29 percent versus 7 percent), use of microform equipment (21 percent versus 2 percent), article photocopying service (38 percent versus 17 percent), and processing member ships in societies (19 percent versus 10 percent). On the other hand, professionals at nonlibrary sites are more likely to use the telephone reference/information service (30 percent versus 15 percent). There may be several factors related to this discrepancy; distance is surely one of these factors.
Awareness of library Services
Another perh£y)s surprising factor that affects the extent to which library services are used is, simply, awareness of the services. There continues to be a fairly high degree of ignorance concerning services provided in modem libraries. Evidence is found of the lack of awareness of some services provided by libraries (see Table 26). Lack of awareness can be important because an appreciable proportion of professionals who are not aware of significant services are potential users (depending on tiieir work roles). Respondents to surveys indicated they would use the services now that they are aware of them. Low awareness is more typical with nonfraditional library services such as current awareness services, use of online catalog from one's office, translation, purchasing materials for personal use, and so on. Many of these services are likely to be used if the professionals are aware of them. Lack of awareness suggests that librarians should be more aggressive in promoting these services, particularly since many professionals say they would use them now that they are aware of them. Of equal concern, we believe.
101 Table 25: Proportion of Professionals Who Used Various Ubrary Services at Least Once, by Service and Work Site
Proportion of Professionals Who Used Libraiy Services at Least Once in the Last Month Sites with Sites without AU Sites Libraries Libraries Libraiy Services (%) (%) (%) Database search by library staff 20 23 17 Training/assistance in how to do own bibliographic searching 7 4 10 Current awareness/selective dissemination of information 7 5 6 Online catalog accessed from terminal in office 6 6 5 Training or assistance in how to search online catalog system 2 - 5 List of jounud holdings 21 32 7 Translations of articles 7 12 2 Assistance in locating or identifying materials 45 61 26 Telephone reference/information service 22 15 30 Obtaining materials from other libraries (ILL) 19 29 7 Microform reading/printing equipment available 14 24 2 Libraiy photocopying service 28 38 17 Purchasing of books and journals for personal use 14 22 5 Purchasing memberships in societies 15 19 10 Retrieval of patent documents 11 12 10
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in one organization (N = 3,314; n = 89) is that so many professionals are unaware of traditional or core library services such as database search services performed by library staff (21 percent unaware), availability of internal documents such as technical reports (37 percent unaware), journal routing (20 percent unaware), and interlibrary borrowing or access to article copies from document delivery services (15 percent unaware). Unfortunately, such lack of awareness is observed in most organizations in which we conducted studies. Of equal concern is that about one-fourth to two-fifths of those unaware of services said they were likely to use them now that they are aware of them.
Satisfaction with Collections and Services
In addition to distance to the library and awareness of services, probably the most important factors that affect extent of use of organization libraries are quality of the collections and performance of services provided (i.e., in terms of their timeliness, quality, etc.). Below we provide estimates of users' assess ment of library services in terms of their level of satisfaction with the performance of various services and with the collections of materials. Following that, we offer evidence of the extent to which service attributes affect the amount of use of services.
Attributes of library services are a significant factor in use of services. Here we assess attributes from the users' perspective. To measure users' assessment of attributes of library services, we asked them to rate their satisfaction with these services if they had used the services in the past year. The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is "Very Dissatisfied," 2 is "Dissatisfied," 3 is "Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied," 4 is "Satisfied," and 5 is "Very Satisfied"). In particular, we observed levels of satisfaction for some typical library services.
102 Table 26: Proportion of Professionals Who Are Not Aware of library Services Proportion of Professionals Not Aware Likely to Use Service (%) (%) Access to Library Collections Circulation 4.8 3.2 Materials read in libraiy n/a n/a Audiovisual use 57.1 Unknown Journal routing 20.2 Unknown Interlibraiy lending n/a n/a Access to External Collections through Interlibrary 15.3 6.5 Borrowing and Document Delivery Services Purchase of Materials for Department Use 51.1 20.3 Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 19.9 Unknown Reference and Research Services Directional reference 8.1 Unknown Brief reference and research 12.9 4.6 In-depth reference/research 12.1 7.3 Research 68.8 Unknown Telephone reference services 57.0 49.0 Online request services Unknown Unknown Catalog Services Card catalog Unknown Unknown Online catalog in library 35.6 16.7 Online catalog from office 64.1 45.8 Database Search Services 21.4 6.9 Currait Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins 58.9 13.0 Serial listing of holdings 54.6 Unknown Translation Services 50.8 4.6 User Training Sessions/Demonstrations 56.5 Unknown Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space 6.4 1.6 Individual carrek or rooms Unknown Unknown PCs/CD-ROM workstations 29.1 11.5 Microform reader/printer 12.7 6.6 Self-service photocopier 15.0 5.0
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 3,260)
103 The highest ratings of the library services listed in Table 27 are for those that involve library staff, including database search services (4.32), brief reference and research services (4.32), and in-depth reference and research services (4.27). In fact, more than 40 percent of the respondents who use these services said they were very satisfied with them. The lowest rating of the 23 services for which we have satisfaction data is journal routing (3.34). This service varies substantially among libraries in terms of routing list sizes. Another service that is rated low is online request services (3.50). This may be because "bugs" in the service have not been ironed out. Collections of books, journals, and reports available for reading in the library are also rated quite low (3.90). However, nearly three-fourths of the respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the collections. We also had internal reports rated in several firms; average satisfaction is 4.12.
Instances in which importance is rated high but satisfaction low include collections of books, journals, and reports available for reading in the library (4.26 importance versus 3.90 satisfaction) and circulation (4.50 versus 3.79). This result holds for most libraries for which we had data. Services with high importance and high satisfaction ratings include database search services (4.10 and 4.32) and photocopying by staff (4.10 and 4.06).
It is interesting to note that there appears to be a difference in the ratings of services according to work roles of professionals (see Table 28). Medical and management/executive professionals typically rate services lower than other professionals do, and legal and "other" profession's rate services higher on the average. We believe, without substantiating evidence, that legal professionals generally have excellent libraries and that accounts for their ratings. The expectations of "other" professionals (e.g., operations, marketing, etc.) with regard to libraries are not high and may account for their generally high ratings. On the other hand, the expectations of medical and management/executive professionals concerning libraries may be high, thereby resulting in their generally lower ratings of services.
We also asked professionals to rate the competence of library staff, where competence is judged by knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The results of these ratings are given in Table 29. No instances were reported for persons being very dissatisfied with knowledge or skills of library staff. In fact, about 40 percent are very satisfied. On the other hand, speed of providing assistance has a somewhat lower average rating of 4.15. Speed of acquiring materials is always a problem, because librarians' involvement is often only one link in a chain of events that involves external organizations or persons (particularly when acquisition involves external materials).
Ratings of satisfaction with speed of acquiring materials are given in Table 30 for article photocopying, borrowing (from nonorganization libraries), circulation, and ordering from publishers. In all instances, the average ratings are below "satisfied" (i.e., 4.00). Even though the average ratings may seem low, more than 60 percent of the users of article photocopying and interlibrary loan are satisfied or very satisfied with the speed of acquiring materials by these methods. It is clear that satisfaction with speed of ordering from publishers is considerably less than satisfaction with the services above, with 15 percent and 20 percent of users, respectively, being either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
Effectiveness of Services
The reason why attributes of library services are important is the strong evidence that output performance affects extent of library use. Two examples of this evidence are given below: assistance in identifying and locating materials and interlibrary loan services. More evidence is provided in the chj^)ters dealing with specific services (Chapters 7 and 8). In Figure 27, the average number of times
104 Table 27: Level of Satisfaction* of Professionals with the Performance of Various library Sauces Level of Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 Avg. Service (%) (%) Rating Access to Library Collections Circulation 4.6 11.9 23.2 28.8 31.5 3.79 Materials read in library 0.8 5.9 18.4; 52.1 22.9 3.90 Audiovisual use 3.2 - 33.7 42.6 20.5 3.77 Journal routing 3.1 21.8 28.4 31.1 15.6 3.34 Interlibrary lending n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Access to External Collections through 0.7 5.0 15.0 69.8 12.8 3.99 Interlibrary Borrowing and Document Delivery Services Purchase of Materials for Department 6.8 9.1 12.3 29.5 42.3 3.91 Use Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 0.1 0.3 11.8 66.2 21.0 4.06 Reference and Research Services Directional reference/assistance 1.2 1.9 11.9 42.4 42.6 4.23 Brief reference and research 0.3 0.'9 13.4 37.6 47.8 4.32 In-depth reference/research 0.5 1.8 9.4 46.9 41.4 4.27 Research Telephone reference services 0.3 0.7 9.5 62.8 24.3 4.03 Online request services 4.8 6.0 44.4 24.2 20.8 3.50 Catalog Services Card catalog 4.2 9.0 18.5 58.2 10.1 3.61 Online catalog in libraiy 2.4 6.0 21.6 46.1 24.0 3.83 Online catalog from office 2.1 5.3 22.8 42.6 27.2 3.87 0.3 0.9 13.4 37.6 47.8 4.32 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins 4.6 10.1 15.9 41.7 27.7 3.78 Serial listing of holdings ~ - - - ~ ~ Translation Services 1.9 2.0 15.6 70.3 10.2 3.85 User Training Sessions/Demonstrations ~ ~ - ~ - - Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space 1.1 2.0 23.1 50.6 24.1 3.97 Individual carrels or rooms ~ ~ ~ ~ - - Access to PCs/CD-ROM 4.2 4.8 16.3 34.9 39.8 4.01
Microform reader/printer 1.5 6.4 28.7 42.6 20.8 3.75 Self-service photocopier 6.8 9.1 9.1 29.5 45.5 3.98
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 4,302) No source data available where blanks (--) occur. *Satisfaction Scale: 1—Veiy Dissatisned; 2—Dissatisfied; 3—Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 4—Satisfied; 5—Veiy Satisfied.
105
•- Table 28: Avo^ge Level of Satisfaction* of Professionals with the Po-formance of Library Services, by Work Role
Work Role Mgmt./ Admin./ Service All Exec. Fin. R&D Legal Medical Other Access to Library Collections Circulation — ______Materials read in library 3.90 3.80 3.85 3.91 3.95 3.70 3.97 Audiovisual use — ~ _ _ .. _ _ Journal routing — — _ _ _ _ „ Interlibrary. lending ______Access to External Collections through 3.99 3.87 3.96 3.95 4.03 3.83 4.07 Interlibraiy Borrowing and Document Delivery Services Purchase of Materials for Department Use — — Photocopying by Library Staff 4.06 3.78 3.71 4.00 4.14 3.98 4.10 Reference and Research Services Directional reference 4.23 4.19 4.27 4.19 4.33 4.13 4.26 Brief reference and research In-depth reference/research 4.27 4.20 4.11 4.22 4.48 3.75 4.30 Research Telephone reference services 4.03 3.87 3.92 4.01 4.11 3.90 . 4.07 • Online request services ~ ~ — _ — .. _ Catalog Services Card catalog ~ — Online catalog in Ubraiy 3.83 3.56 3.S0 3.88 4.00 4.00 3.63 Online catalog from office — — — Database Search Services 4.32 4.17 4.41 4.25 4.37 4.25 4.50 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins — Serial listing of holdings — — .... Translation Services - - _ „ .. User Training Sessions/Demonstrations - - ...... _ .. Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space ~ — Individual carrels or rooms — — PCs/CD-ROM workstations - ~ ~ ~ — Microform reader/printer 3.75 3.43 3.61 3.75 3.89 3.67 3.86
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 4. 302) No source data available where blanks (—) occur. 'Satisfaction scale: 1—Very Dissatisfied; 2—Dissatisfied; 3—Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 4—Satisfied; 5—Very Satisfied.
106 Table 29: Level of Satisfaction* of Professionals with library Staffs' Competence and Speed of Providing Assistance Level of Satisfaction Factors Affecting 1 2 3 4 5 Average Staff Assistance (%) (%) (%) Rating Knowledge of staff 0.0 1.3 10.9 45.9 41.9 4.28 Skills of staff 0.0 0.6 11.2 48.4 39.8 4.27 Staff attitude 1.8 3.6 11.4 37.1 46.1 4.22 Speed of providing assistance 0.8 3.2 12.2 47.6 36.2 4.15
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 organizations (N = 73,303; n = 4,302) 'Satisfaction scale: 1—Very Dissatisfied; 2—Dissatisfied; 3—Neither Satisfied nor DLraatisfied; 4—Satisfied; 5—Very Satisfied.
Table 30: Average Satisfaction Ratings* of Professionals for Speed of Acquiring Materials, by Sa-vice Speed of Acquiring Material Average Satisfaction Rating Article photocopying 3.79 Borrowing from another library (i.e., ILL) 3.84 Circulation 3.79 Ordering from publishers 3.47
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals in 21 oiganizations (N = 73,303; n = 4,302) 'Satisfaction scale: 1—Very Dissatisfled; 2—Dissatisfied; 3—Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 4—Satisfied; 5—Very Satisfied. per month professionals obtained assistance from library staff in identifying and locating materials is given by reported levels of satisfaction with this service. We find that the average number of uses drops from 3.19 in the last month when users are very satisfied with service, to none in the last month when they are very dissatisfied. A similar picture occurs for interlibrary loan services (see Figure 28) for professionals who use this service. Professionals who reported they are satisfied or very satisfied with the service (there are fewer observations for this service) average using it 2.33 times per month, and those who reported they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied used the service about half that amount. This evidence, along with the results given in the subsequent ch^ters, demonstrates very clearly that performance and extent of use of services are positively correlated.
For five libraries, we obtained an indicator of the comprehensiveness of library services (i.e., fill rate) by asking whether users found what they wanted on their last visit to the library. About one-eighth of the respondents (i.e., 12.4 percent of uses) indicated they were not looking for something specific. Of the remaining instances of use, 81 percent were found to have yielded what users were looking for. Of those who did not find what they were looking for, about three-fourths said they partially found it and one-fourth indicated they did not find it. There is no appreciable difference in these results among the five libraries studied. The proportion who found what they wanted ranged from 76 percent to 86 percent. When users did not find what they were looking for, nearly one-third indicated they found or obtained equally useful material or information; 15 percent said tiieyfoun d or obtained acceptable, but less useful, material or information; about one-third reported an interlibrary loan request was made for them; and 3 percent indicated an item was placed on reserve. About 18 percent of the time, users indicated they left without needed material or information or did not obtain it at all. Thus, for about 3 percent of the uses, the users did not get what they wanted (i.e., 18 percent of tiie 19.1 percent who did not find something or partially found it).
107 Figure 27: Number of Times Professionals Obtained Assistance in Identifying and Locating Matoials Va*sus Level of Satisfaction with this Sorice
Number of Time* per Month 4.00-
3.19 3.00- ^^g 2.72
^^
sSX''''y''5 >''Sc''''5'''s jXXjISotoS
1.60 ^ ^m ^^^^^ ^^^^ 1.00- ^m ^H^^^ SS ^^s 0.00 CxxsssS^S ^M VERY SATISHED NEITHER DISSATISFIED VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED Level of Satisfaction
Source: King Research, Inc.. surveys of professionals In 21 organizations (N = 73.303; n = 4.302)
Figure 28: Number of Times Professionals Used Into-Iibrary Loan Service Vw^us Level of Satisfaction with this Service Number of Timea Per Month 3.00
2.00
1.00
O.OO VERY SATISFIED NEITHER DISSATISnED OR SATISFIED SATISFIED NOR OR VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED Level of Satisfaction
Source: King Research. Inc.. surveys of professionals Ir 21 orqonlzollons (N = 73.303; n = 4.302)
108 CHAPTER?
ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOUND IN DOCUMENTS
INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF PROFESSIONALS
Introduction
We believe one of the most important roles of an organization library is to facilitate access to information found in documents such as scholarly and trade journals, scholarly books, popular business books, handbooks and standards, directories, internal reports and other proprietary documents, external technical r^orts, patent documents, and so on. By facilitating access to such information we mean access not only tiirough the library collections but also through collections found elsewhere, both internal and external to the parent organization. To facilitate access to all such collections, it is important for organization libraries to understand the information-seeking behavior of professionals in their organizations, as well as factors that affect or determine where they obtain their information. This chapter describes the information-seeking behavior we have observed in eight organizations.
Altogether, professionals average about 198 readings per year per professional. Nearly all (92 percent) of these readings involve journal articles (professional or trade), professional books, or. internal reports. For this reason, we have largely focused our discussion in this chapter on these types of documents. Types of documents that are mentioned, but not studied in depth, include patents, market studies, and otiier external reports (e.g., government documents from National Technical Information Service [NTIS], GPO, etc.).
For each of these types of documents, there are many alternative sources from which professionals might choose to obtain needed information. For example, journals read by professionals are usually obtained from a variety of sources such as personal subscriptions, library copies, shared office collections, or other sources (e.g., authors, colleagues, publishers [for review], etc.). Professionals could also obtain the information from colleagues, or even perform work resulting in information. We show that there are valid reasons why a range of sources should be used by professionals. Libraries fill an important niche for acquiring information that is based on considerations of tiie cost of purchasing and using documents, frequencyo f use, purpose for which information is used, and age of documents when used. Evidence shows tiiat, for the most part, libraries and professionals apply a reasonable economic rationale in both managing and using documents.
Attributes and Usage of Di^erent Types of Documents
Prior to detailing the information-seeking behavior of professionals, we discuss some attributes of information needed by professionals and the role that various types of documents fulfill in providing them information. Two such attributes are the currency or age of information and the specificity/generality of information. Generally, as depicted in Figure 29, different types of publications fulfill different needs for these two attributes. For example, trade and news journals provide fairly general, but newly created information. Scholarly or professional journals are more likely to provide more specific information but are usually published one, two, or even three years following its creation. Often the information is first recorded in internal or external reports (more specifically tiian in journal articles). If the information is
109 Figure 29: Conceptual Relationships of Age and Specificity/Generality of Information Found in Documents
Very Old Books
Scholarly General Handbooks, Standards, Tables, etc.
Age of Information Found In Documents Journol Articles ^'clToloFly
Very New
Specific General Specificify/Generalify of Information Found in Documents not proprietary, it may then be presented to the public in conferences, and then in conference proceedings. By the time information is formally recorded in books, it is often several years since its creation, and it is frequentiy (but not always) refined or combined with other information and presented in a ratiier general form. Some books, such as Reinventing Government, can also be very general, whereas handbooks and books of standards or tables might be considered very specific. Each type of document fulfills an important niche in the spectrum of user needs [91].
Another aspect of user needs is that information may be required at different times following its creation and publication, depending on the purpose for which it is used. Generally, professionals use information in four basic ways. One principal use of information is to become aware of its existence. It is very important for professionals to be loiowledgeable about what is hi^pening in their fields, what new techniques and methods are being employed, and so on. Sometimes, certain individuals in a work unit assume (or are even assigned) the responsibility of being the "gatekeeper" for their colleagues in
110 terms of keeping up witii tiie literature. Journal literature (scholarly, trade, news), in particular, plays a major role in helping professionals keep current witii the literature.
The second principal use of information is to ^ply it to specific work activities such as research, design, administration, management, marketing, and so on. The need to ^ply information for work can arise at any time following publication of tiie information. All types of documents are used for specific ^plication to work, altiiough books and internal documents (particularly internal reports) tend to be used longer after publication than journal articles.
The tiiird principal purpose for which recorded information is used is to assist users document and communicate tiie results of tiieir work, tiirough writing reports, plans or proposals, journal articles, or by interpersonal means, such as formal or informal presentations, giving consultation or substantive advice, or through informal discussions with colleagues.
The fourth principal use of the information is for professional development or continuing education. As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 5, professionals, at tiie time tiiey leave college, have been exposed to only a small proportion of tiieknowledg e tiieymus t master tiiroughout tiieir careers. The need to educate oneself continually is essential to most professionals. Different types of documents are used somewhat differentiy for tiiesegenera l purposes. The principal purposes for which various types of information are used are summarized in Table 31.
Table 31: Purposes of Reading Journal Articles, Books, and Internal Reports
Proporti on of Readings Journal Articles Books Internal Reports Principal Puipose of Reading (%) (%) (%) Specific woik activities 59 61 78 Conununication 10 11 17 Current awareness and professional development 31 27 5 TOTAL 100 99 100
Soun»: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892)
The age of documents read gives anotiier indication of why various types of documents are read (see Figure 30). Most readings of journal articles take place right after publication (e.g., about half immediately upon receipt and 80 percent witiiin six montiis), altiiough some reading of tiiese articles continues for decades following publication (e.g., about 2 percent of tiie readings are from articles published more tiian 10 years ago and 0.6 percent more tiian 20 years ago). The average age of articles read is 1.3 years. Much of tiie reading of newly published articles is for current awareness and professional development (altiiough most reading over time is for specific work activities and communication).
The disfribution of age of readings of books is much different from tiiat of journal articles. Readings of books involve much older publications. Not only is tiie information in books older tiian information in journals, but tfie books tiiemselves are older when read. One-half of tiie books are more tiian tiu-ee years old when read. About 13 percent of tiie readings are of books more tiian 10 years old and about 2 percent are more tiian 30 years old. The average age of book readings is 5.3 years, substantially older tiian articles. Many of tiie readings involve old texti)ooks dating to school years or handbooks to which professionals refer.
Ill Figure 30: Proportion of Readings by Professionals of Documents by Their Age Since Publication
Proportion of Readings (%) 100J5 -|
8055-
I Journal Articles 605! - 1
I,--"--... Internal Documents 40%-
2055 - / /\ >,^^^Books
6 2 15 Months Y«ars Years
Age of Documents
The average age of internal reports read among organizations varies from about 1.1 years to more than 7 years old. Very littie internal report reading is for current awareness or professional development. The age of reading of external documents is somewhat different from either journals or books since nearly all of the readings take place witiiin four or five years. The age of reading of internal reports varies substantially among organizations because there is a great deal of difference in the methods available for professionals to access internal reports. The average age of external documents read is about 1.3 years.
Libraries have attempted to adapt to the varied information needs and requirements associated with books and journals and, to a much lesser degree, internal rq>orts. This has been done by accommodating the trade-offs among costs; frequency of use of specific journals (or books); and requirements for currency, timeliness, and accessibility. These factors are discussed in more detail for each type of document below.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THROUGH JOURNAL ARTICLES
Amount of and Sources of Journal Article Readings
As indicated above, professionals read an average of 47 professional journal or law review articles (i.e., those refereed or that report research results, etc.) per year and 54 articles from frade journals, bulletins, or news items. Not only do professionals read a large number of articles, they spend a substantial amount of time reading: about 0.83 hours per article read (i.e., about 84 hours per professional per year).
Professionals must keep current with the literature. Most journal article readings are of the current literature (80 percent) and about two-thirds of the readings are found while browsing personal subscriptions, library-routed journals, or current periodicals found in library or office collections. Browsing helps professionals keep up with the literature but sometimes reveals information that has
112 immediate utility for research or other activities. However, since an information need can occur at a later date, the browsing and familiarity with an article often leads to subsequent use at a later time. In fact, 13 percent of readings are from articles that were read previously (i.e., more than one month earlier).
Professionals find out about the articles they read from a variety of sources in addition to browsing through current journals. The most frequent of these other sources is from another person such as a colleague (19 percent of readings). The remaining sources for identifymg articles are citations in another article (6 percent), citations in a printed index (3.4 percent), and database searches (3.9 percent). The pattern for identifying articles read is similar to that observed in.a national survey of scientists and engineers [92].
The sources of journal articles read by professionals in eight organizations we surveyed are somewhat different from those observed nationally (see Table 32 in the next section). In these organizations, about 44.6 percent of journal article readings are from personal subscriptions and . 37.0 percent are from the library (32.1 percent) or shared office collection (4.9 percent). For scholarly journal readings, 41 percent come from personal subscriptions and 34 percent come from the library (32 percent) or sharai office collection (2 percent). Nationally, for scientists and engineers, about 62 percent of the readings come from personal subscriptions and 24 percent come from library copies (including office collections). We believe that personal subscriptions are used more extensively in small companies, where a large proportion of the scientists and engineers work. Other sources of articles read are tiiose obtained from authors, colleagues, and so on.
Nationally, scientists, engineers, and other professionals average 5.4 personal subscriptions each, about half of which are paid for by employers. In the larger firms and govenunent agencies we surveyed, the average number of subscriptions is 3.2 personal subscriptions, 46 percent of which are paid for by the parent organization. Evidence from our national studies indicates tiiat professionals choose to subscribe to journals if they read more than about 10 articles from a journal in a year. Most of this reading involves browsing of current issues of journals. Otherwise, they typically go to a library (or to an office collection or receive routed copies) to browse current journals. TTiey use library copies almost exclusively to get access to older articles. The choice of how to acquire journals is largely one of deciding between (1) the personal subscription price and convenience and (2) the cost (in professionals' time) and inconvenience of going to a library or shared office collection (or waiting for a routed copy, if that service is available). Evidence shows tiiat, without access to library subscriptions, scientists would have to subscribe to about twice the number of journals as the number to which they currentiy subscribe, to achieve their current level of reading. Furthermore, they would have to go to great expense and substantial time delay to obtain copies of older articles. This is what happens in small high-tech firms [93].
There is some national evidence of shifts from personal subscriptions to more extensive use of libraries. In recent years: (1) tiie prices of journals have increased substantially even in constant dollars (see Figure 31); (2) the average number of personal subscriptions has decreased about one subscription per scientist per seven-year period; and (3) the proportion of readings from library subscriptions appears to increase about 50 percent over seven-year periods. Thus, libraries and their collections of journals provide substantial and increasing economies to scientists and their employers. As mentioned, in larger organizations with organization libraries, many of the articles read by professionals are from their libraries (32 percent), and shared office or laboratory collection copies of journals are often read as well (5 percent). External libraries are rarely used for the journal readings.
Below we quote from our recent study on scientific and technical journals [94]:
113 The average price for periodicals has increased substantially over the years. In fact, since 1975, the Bowker Annual indicates that the average price in constant dollars has more than doubled [Figure 31]. In 197S, the average price was $19.94 ($34.60 in constant dollars) and it was $93.45 ($71.05 in constant dollars) in 1990, an increase of 369 percent in real dollars and 105 percoit in constant dollars. . . .
Figure 31: Average Price of U.S. Periodicals, All Fields: 1975-1990
Av«rag« Price $100
I I Convfont
$80
$60
$40
$20
$o>-4 i_J 1 I I ' I J 1-J I I I L J I I I I I L 1975 1980 1985 1990 Y«ar
NOTE: GNP Implicit Price Deflator was used to obtain 1982 constant dollars SOURCE: The Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information, Eds. 8-35 (New York: R.R. Bowker Co.. 1962-1990).
Data from a san^le of journals from Ulridi 's Guide to Periodicals show that the average price of scholarly joiunals was $85.17 in 1985 and $137.14 in 1990. The increases for trade journals were $53.55 in 1985 and $56.58 in 1990. In constant dollars these increases are as follows:
Price in Constant S Scholarly Trade 1985 $45.47 $28.59 1990 $61.77 $25.48 Change +36% -11%
Thus, the change in price over the past five years is attributable almost exclusively to scholarly scientific and technical journals with commercial publishers accounting for most of the increase, as shown below:
Price in Constant Dollars | Year Commercial Society Educational Other 1985 $58.01 $49.13 $14.82 $21.83 1990 $91.35 $53.99 $13.59 $20.21 Change +57% + 10% -8% -7% 1
Note that commercial publishers give some journals away free, but most of those are trade, not scholarly, journals. The free (i.e., zero) prices are not included in averages. The increase in price of commercial scholarly journals by 57 percent in constant dollars in the past five years is appreciable.
114 The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) studied journal price data from 1971 to 1988. Overall expoiditures grew by 234 percoit during that period. From 1986 to 1989, U.S. serials have increased at a rate of 9 percmt per year and non-U.S. serials at a rate of 18 perc^it per year. Causes are attributed in the study to: monopolization of publishing (i.e., more journals published by fewer publishers), dual pricing (libraries different from individuals), foreign exchange, increasing profit to cost ratios of commercial publishers and systemic causes such as pressure to publish within academic communities, editorial policies, etc. [95]
There are several reasons for the steady increase in journal prices. One is that some U.S. publishers are now owned by non-U.S. companies and foreign exchange rates have required automatic increases in journal prices. Also, non-U.S. publishers have traded to rely more on the library market than the individual personal subscription market. Acquisitions and mergers of commercial publishers have had another effect on journal prices. Some of the acquired journals were either losing money or barely recovering costs. The new owners are said to have increased prices to put the publications on a sounder financial basis. The library market is less sensitive to increases in price than individual subscriptions (particularly when a society membership is not involved). Several studies have shown that there is a clear-cut break-even point between (1) library purchases of journals and (2) relying on interlibrary loan (ILL) or obtaining copies of articles from dociunent delivery services [96]. In the mid-seventies, the break-even point was typically about five readings (depending on price) per title per year. That is, if a journal title had fewer than five readings per year, it was less expensive to get separate copies of articles (through ILL or from elsewhere) and, if the readings were greater than five, it was less expensive to subscribe to the journal. That is why librarians agreed to the 'five and tmder' rule for the 1976 Copyright Law. However, as the prices of subscriptions increase, the break-even point also increases. Furthermore, over time, the cost of ILL borrowing has decreased in constant dollars and ILL services have inq)roved considerably in timeliness and quality of photocopy. Thus, the break-even point has increased evea more than would be expected from price increases alone. Note that changes in the break- evea points (at the levels involved) do not affect many journals because of the existing heavy reading of library journals. The price is relatively inelastic and price changes do not significantly affect the demand for library subscriptions, but do result in substantial increases in revalue for the publishers.
Even though library subscriptions compared with personal subscriptions are relatively insensitive to price changes, the reliance on interlibrary loan and document delivery services has increased dramatically over rec^it years. From several King Research studies, it is estimated that, in 1983, there were about 7.5 million copies of articles distributed by ILL or docum^it delivery services and the amount is estimated to be nearly double that number in 1990 at 14.6 million. This growth is attributed to increased library subscription prices, coupled with improved interlibrary loan services and document delivery services.
As mentioned above, each journal article reading averages about 0.83 hours of professional time. About 33 percent of the article readings are done "with great care," 55 percent "with attention to the main points," and 13 percent "just to get the idea." This is about the same as for national survey results.
The Trade-off Among Different Sources of Journal Articles
We estimate that professionals in the organizations we surveyed read at least one article from an average of 12.2 journals in a year. They tend to read some journals heavily and more of the journals infrequendy. In fact, for some journals; they will read only 1 or 2 articles obtained from an author or colleague, or from interlibrary loan (or a document delivery service), perhaps after identifying the needed article from a database search. The average number of readings per journal read (at least once) by a professional is 8.3 readings. In Table 32 we show that the pattern of reading from four basic sources of journal articles varies considerably. The basic sources include (1) personal subscriptions to journals; (2) journals found in organization libraries; (3) journals found in shared office collections; and (4) other
115 sources such as interlibrary borrowing (or document delivery services), a photocopy sent by an author or colleague, a publisher's reprint, informal routing, photocopies from undetermined sources, and so on.
Table 32: Amount of Reading from Various Sources of Journal Articles
Avg. No. of Avg. No. of Avg. Readings Avg. Total Source of Articles Readings per Journals Read per Journal Readings per That Are Read Professional per Professional per Professional Journal Personal subscriptions 45.0 3.2 14.1 14.1 32.4 5.6 5.8 102.4 Shared oflice collections 4.9 0.6 8.2 33.4 Other 18.7 2.8 5.7* — ALL SOURCES 101.0 12.2 8.3
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in seven conqtanies (N = 45,280; n = 818)
*Sonie articles obtained thnHigh other sources could, in fact, also be found in their own subscriptions or are available from their libraries or shared office collections. Such sources might include, for example, a photocopy of an article given to the professional by a colleague, author, etc., that coincidentally is also found in a journal to which the professional subscribes.
Of the 101 annual readings of journal articles, about 44.6 percent are from personal subscriptions, nearly one-third are from organization libraries, 4.9 percent are from shared office collections, and the remaining 18.5 percent are from other sources. Yet, of the journals read, nearly half (45.9 percent) are from organization library copies (5.6 journals) and 26.2 percent are from personal subscriptions (3.2 journals). The reason for this pattern is that the average reading per journal read varies substantially among the sources. For example, average amount of reading from a personal journal subscription is 14.1 readings per subscription; whereas, the average readings per organization library journal read at least once per professional is 5.8 readings, and the average readings per shared collection journal read at least once per professional is 8^2 readings. The pattern makes sense from an economic standpoint, as will be shown later. First, we show that there are some basic economic implications of this pattern to organizations.
First of all, the organizations from which these data are gathered are larger organizations averaging about 5,300 professional employees. The average number of journal titles to which these organization libraries subscribe is 1,100 titles (about 1,700 subscriptions). In addition, fliere are an average of about 17,100 personal subscriptions, of which nearly 7,900 are paid for by the parent organization. Altogether, the parent organizations pay for about 10,4(X) journal subscriptions, including those for shared office collections (about 8(X) subscriptions). Thus, they pay for 5.1 times as many personal subscriptions and shared office subscriptions as library subscriptions (i.e., 8,700 -^ 1,700). Furthermore, personal journal subscriptions average about 14 readings per subscription, whereas organization library subscriptions average about 158 readings per journal title or 102 per subscription, and shared office collections average about 33 readings per subscription. Considered on a per-reading basis, personal subscriptions cost about five times as much per reading as library subscriptions (since some library subscriptions are free and some cost considerably more than personal subscriptions), and shared office collection subscriptions cost about twice as much per reading as library subscriptions (since shared office collections often are paid for by personal subscriptions). Yet, this kind of pattern still makes economic sense.
Note that the number of library subscriptions per professional stated above is about 0.3 per professional. However, as the number of staffed branch libraries in the organization increases, the average number of subscriptions appears to increase at a rate of about 0.05 subscriptions per professional
116 per branch library. That is, if there are five branch libraries, the average number of subscriptions mcreases to 0.55 per professional. This, accordingly, affects the relationship of costs among the various sources of subscriptions mentioned above. Also, as noted earlier, libraries serving smaller communities tend to require more journals per professional.
The trade-offs regarding which sources to use for reading journals depend largely on the frequency of reading a journal and the cost to professionals of using alternative sources. If a journal is read frequently by a professional, the professional should probably subscribe to it personally. If it is read infrequendy, a professional should go to the shared office collection, if the journal is there, or to the organization library. When a subscription price is higher, a professional must read more from a personal subscription to mdke it worthwhile. Also, since reading from journal copies drops dramatically over time, it becomes less worthwhile to maintain older personal copies or shared office collections after about two years.
In fact, this economic rationale spears to underlie how many professionals behave. As indicated above, most reading takes place fromone' s own journal subscriptions. However, with research and other primary activities becoming increasingly multidisciplinary in nature, professionals simply cannot afford to subscribe to all journals that they must read. Also, with the widespread use of database search services, readers identify needed articles from a wider spectrum of journals than in the past. In fact, professionals must decide annually whether to subscribe to specific journals. Even though they subscribe to a fairly large number of journals (5.4 average per professional nationally and 3.2 in the larger organizations surveyed), there are other journals from the average total of 12.2 that must be obtained from libraries and other sources for reading. Attributes that affect the decision to subscribe to a journal include the journal price, whether the journal subscription comes with a society membership, and accessibility of journals from other sources such as a library or shared office collection.
There is abundant evidence that professionals tend to behave in the manner described above. They definitely rely on library copies for more expensive journals; they read more articles from personal subscriptions than from library copies (i.e., 14.1 readings per journal per professional versus 5.8 readings); professionals close to libraries take fewer personal journal subscriptions than those farther away (e.g., 2.8 subscriptions for those less than 10 minutes away versus 4.0 subscriptions for those 10 minutes or more away); professionals close to libraries use the libraries more often; and those close to libraries and office collections read more from these sources than from personal subscriptions. In other words, if professionals are:
• less than 5 minutes away, 55 percent of their readings are from library and office collection copies;
• between 5 minutes and 10 minutes away, 38 percent of their readings are from library and office collection copies; and
• more than 10 minutes away, 25 percent of their readings are from library and office collection copies.
These comparisons are among personal subscriptions, library copies, and office collections only as sources of journal article readings.
Two pricing studies by King Research, Inc. (one for NSF and the other for a publisher of 19 journals), suggest that the rationale above explains professionals' behavior and decisions quite well.
117 About 15 years ago, we helped design a journal-pricing study that used a sophisticated mathematical model developed by Charles River Associates, Inc., under a National Science Foundation confract [97]. The model** derives ^propriate weights for factors that explain the probability that a professional will subscribe to a (scientific) journal. The most important factors (in order of importance) are:
• availability of the journal in a library frequently used bythe professional and convenience of the location of the library to the professional;
• subscription price;
• proportion of articles read for current awareness;
• whether it is an association journal; and
• amount of professionals' expenditures on journals and other information services.
The other study is discussed later in this chapter.
Professionals have the option of subscribing to a journal or going elsewhere, such as to a library or shared office collection to get a copy to read. As noted above, the trade-off seems largely to be between the price of the journal and the time and effort necessary to go to a library to read. Furdier evidence of whether this actually reflects the behavior of professionals is that scientists in a national survey were asked to indicate whether there were any journals from which they read at least 10 articles per year to which they do not personally subscribe. Of those who said yes (about half), the average number of sub scriptions received by them was 3.3 compared with 5.8 subscriptions for those who said no. Of the subscriptions received, about two-thirds were paid for by the scientist. The remaining were mostly paid by their employers. The relationship here was about 2 to 1 for yes to no. These results are displayed in Table 33.
Table 33: Average Number of Subscriptions for Sdentists Who Do and Do Not Gain Access to Frequently Read Journals (More Than 10 Articles per Year)
Scientist Read at Least 10 Articles per Year from Journals to Which S/He Docs Not Personally Subscribe
Yes No
Average Total Personal Subscriptions 3.3 subscriptions 5.8 subscriptions Average Subscriptions Paid for By Scientist 2.3 subscriptions 4.5 subscriptions
Source: King Research, Inc., National Statistical Indicators survey (n = 985)
Of the scientists in this survey who frequently read journals to which they do not subscribe, most (76 percent) get them from the library or from office collections. As shown in Table 34, the reasons for not subscribing to the journal are the price of the journal (66 percent) and its availability from the library (61 percent). Clearly, there does appear to be an economic basis for the high level of reading of library materials by these scientists.
Disaggregated multiple regression.
118 Table 34: Proportion of Scientists Who Frequoitly Read Journals to Which They Do Not Subscribe, by Sources of These Journals, and Reasons for Not Personally Subscribing to Journal Proportion of Scientists {%) Sources of Journals Borrow or obtain from colleague 21 Libraiy copy 76 Other 3 Reasons for Not Personally Subscribing to Journal* Readily available from colleague 10 Price of journal 66 Readily available from libraiy 61 Other 3
Source: King Research, Inc., National Statistical Indicators survey (n = 985) * Proportions do not add to 100 percent, since respondents could have more than one reason.
Recently, commercial publishers, in particular, have increased their prices dramatically (see Figure 31 in the previous section). This price increase affects individuals and libraries in somewhat different ways. Doubled and even tripled commercial journal prices have meant that individuals subscribe less frequently to commercial journals and more frequently to society journals. However, overall, scientists and engineers have subscribed to fewer journals in recent years. The average number of personal subscriptions dropped from nearly 10 per scientist and engineer in 1977 to 5.4 per scientist and engineer in 1985, and to fewer in current years.
The surveys of library users in organizations Table 35: Ava'age Cost pa* Reading of show that a high proportion of the professionals Scientific Society Journals Acquired are located near an organization library. In fact. Through Personal Subscription more than 60 percent of the professionals are —r;—:— z—; ~ . . , _ . /-,.,., , . Number of Total Cost per within 5 minutes of their library and more than R^j^g, Cost Reading 75 percent within 10 minutes. From results pre- • S83.50 $83.50 sented earlier, we assume that the critical time 87.00 43.50 affecting the decision to visit the library is 4 90.50 30.17 minutes each way, the time spent browsing is 10 ^ 94.00 23.50 minutes per article read, and three articles are '^ 97.50 19.50 read per visit (based on library exit surveys). 5 101.00 16.83 Thus, the total cost (in the professional's time) 6 104.50 14.93 per reading is about $8.40, or $11.20 including 7 photocopying ($8.40 + [0.57 x $4.87]), given g 108.00 13.50 that 57 percent of library journal readings are g 111.50 12.39 photocopied (see Table 37) and $4.87 is the cost 115.00 11.50 to professionals to use photocopy services (see 118.50 10.77 subscriptioChapter 10)n. Thincludee cosst ofth readine subscriptiog from one'n sprice own, 11 acquisition and storage, and searching time. Table 35 gives the total cost and cost per reading of a typical society-published journal. One can see that the break-even point (with the conditions assumed) is at 10 readings, where the cost per reading of a library-held subscription is $11.20 and the cost per reading from one's own subscription is $11.50.
119 Below 10 readings it is less expensive to go to the library, and above that number it is best to subscribe to the journal. The break-even point is about 16 readings for a typical commercial journal. If the distance to the library increases to 10 minutes, the break-even points decrease to 8 and 12 readings, respectively. Obviously, this economic analysis is oversimplified, partially because professionals do not themselves pay for all their journals. However, it does show the relative importance of distance to the library and the subscription price.
One of the most significant trends observed in scientific journal reading from 1977 to the mid-1980s, from two national surveys of scientists and engineers, was the large increase in reading of current journals from library copies. This is evidenced by the proportion of articles found by browsing library copies. In 1977, about 6 percent of the articles found by browsing involved library copies. In the mid-1980s, this proportion jumped to 12 percent, and in recent years the proportion has grown to more than 15 percent. This is seen as further evidence that the large journal price increases have resulted in more reading of journals in libraries. This phenomenon has two effects on libraries. First, it creates more reading of library journals, thereby requiring diat libraries purchase more journals previously subscribed to by individuals. Second, it has an effect on the ttade-off of libraries subscribing to journals versus relying on interlibrary loan or document delivery services. Here again, the break-even point is dependent on amount of reading of die library journals. As journal prices go up, the break-even point goes up so that the advantage of more readings from library journals is somewhat diminished. Thus, it may be more cost-effective to order more article copies through interlibrary loan or document delivery services.
Libraries consider several factors in making their decisions regarding whether to (1) subscribe or (2) obtain individual copies of articles from interlibrary borrowing, document delivery services, or odier sources. The first factor is the amount of reading that takes place from a journal. Generally, it is less expensive to borrow a copy (i.e., get a photocopy from another library) if the number of readings in a year's issues is greater dian 11 (see Chapter 9 for details of this analysis). However, if the price of a journal subscription increases, the break-even point also moves up. For example, if the price of a journal increases from $120 to $240, the break-even point moves from about 12 to 18 readings. On the other hand, if the cost of obtaining a copy decreases, die break-even point also moves down. Odier factors that are taken into consideration include the speed of delivery, the quality of reproduction, and whedier special graphics are available for individual copies of articles.
It is clear diat any further economic or technological changes in the system will affect the entire system. Frequency of use and quality of individual article copies (as opposed to bound issues of articles) will be enhanced through (1) less expensive delivery (interlibrary loans now cost the borrower and lender about $18 to $20 on the average, including indirect costs), (2) faster delivery (interlibrary loans and requests from colleagues tend to be relatively slow), and (3) delivery from a centralized store (many requests require multiple placement because copies are not available from requested sources).
Materials read in libraries are, on die average, quite a bit older than materials read from odier sources.**^ This suggests tiiat professionals rely on dieir libraries to gain access to older articles. The age of readings by scientists and engineers is given in Table 36 for journal articles. The average age of journal articles read from library copies is 2.8 years, compared to less dian a year for articles read from personal subscriptions and 11 months for articles obtained from other sources (including office collections).
'However, the trend in age is down because more journals are being read in libraries for current awareness.
120 Another, perh^s more relevant, way to look at Table 36: Proportion of Readings of age of materials read is to consider the proportion of Journal Articles in libraries readings of older materials that are from library copies. and Readings from Other Over 80 percent of the readings of articles published Sources by Age of Publications more than 2.5 years ago are from library copies. One of the reasons that older materials are read in libraries Source of Journal Articles is that they are almost always identified from non- Ag<^o f Libraiy Personal Jou mal Copy Subscription Other browsing methods. Only 2 percent of articles identified (Yeare ) by browsing are over two years old. Stated in another (%) («) way, fewer than 6 percent of older articles read are < 'A 46 84 67 found through browsing. VS-•VA 18 10 17 VA--VA 8 4 12 VA- -TA 18 * 2 As indicated, there are basically two philosophies TA- -\VA 5 « 1 or ^proaches to providing access to journal articles. n^A- -22'A 3 * 1 One approach is to purchase and locate them: (1) with > 23 2 0 0 individuals for current reading (if they read enough, Avg. Age 2.8 years 0.6 years 0.9 years say, more than 10 articles per year); (2) in the shared office collections or branch libraries for current or Source: King Research, Inc., survey of .professionals in collective office reading (of, say, more than 10 eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 982) articles); and (3) in a main library for infrequendy read * Less than 1 percent articles and for older journals (say, more than two years).
Journal Routing Service
A second approach is for a library to route journal copies to interested professionals. The following factors affect the choice of one approach over die other:
• Timeliness of receiving journals. Assuming that individuals receive their subscriptions on time and office collections are received on time, diese approaches have an advantage over journal routing because routing is done serially and one must wait until people ahead on the list are finished with the journal. The number of professionals on a routing list makes a tremendous difference to timeliness.
•> Cost of subscription. The overall cost is usually, but not necessarily, less for the routed journal approach. The reason why journal routing is less expensive than personal subscriptions and office collections is that fewer subscriptions per user are required to satisfy the same needs. On the other hand, the cost of creating and maintaining current routing lists is expensive.
The trade-off for journal routing is the penalty of not always having the journals inunediately and not having a personal (or nearby) copy for later reference versus lower organization costs.
The larger organizations that do journal routing tend to do it extensively. Typically, about one-third of the professionals in these organizations use this service. Professionals who receive routed journals receive an average of 2.4 journals in this manner. Routing serves a dual role in providing current awareness and access to the aiticles (compared with current awareness tools that provide only titles and sometimes abstracts of articles). Major difficulties with routed journals are their cost, deniad of access to the journals by odiers when they are being routed, and the time it takes users to get the journals. The
121 number of names on a routing list is typically 8 to 15. The average time required to receive a routed journal is 36 days from initial disfribution date. The professionals who receive routed journals frequently are not satisfied with the time it takes issues to get to them. Based on the last journal routed to them, professionals' level of satisfaction with the time they received it was:
Very Dissatisfied (1) 15.2% Dissatisfied (2) 12.7% Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (3) 37.6% Satisfied (4) 24.1% Very Satisfied (5) 10.4%
The average satisfaction rating is 3.02. The average wait for those who are first through sixth on the list is 18.1 days, and their average satisfaction rating is 3.68. The average wait for those seventh and later on the list is 51 days, and their average satisfaction rating is 2.62. Thus, as one would expect, waiting does affect satisfaction with timeliness of the service.
In one company, we also examined whether position on the routing list affects the amount of reading of routed issues. The number of articles read is 2.7 articles per issue received. This average was 2.8 and 2.5 for the top and bottom halves of the lists, respectively. Thus, being later on the list does not seem to affect number of articles read appreciably. About 10 percent of the most recentiy routed issues were said not to be read by the recipient professional. (This does not imply that other issues of the same journal will not be read.) At the extreme, about 10 percent of the routed issues had five or more articles read by the recipient professional.
Photocopying of Journals in Companies
There is a substantial amount of photocopying of journals read from all four sources mentioned above, but to varying degrees. Across sources, professionals from four organizations surveyed made photocopies (or had someone make photocopies for them) for about 33 percent of journal readings. The amount of photocopying by source is shown in Table 37. Professionals average about 34.4 photocopies per professional per year. About 54 percent of these are from library copies and about one-fourth are from personal subscriptions. Scholarly journals are much more likely to be photocopied than trade journals, etc. (39.2 percent of readings versus 22.9 percent), and popular magazines were not observed to be photocopied, even though some readings were observed.
Table 37: Proportion of Readings Involving Photocopies and Average Photocopies per Professional, by Source of Reading Proportion of Readings Proportion of All Involving Photocopies Average Photocopies Photocopying Source of Reading (%) Per Professional (%) Personal subscription 18.2 8.2 23.8 Libraiy subscription 57.4 18.6 54.1 Office collection 17.4 0.9 2.6 Other 36.0 6.7 19.5 ALL 32.8 34.4 100.0
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in four organizations (N = 31,003; n = 448)
122 Reasons for photocopying are shown in Table 38. Very similar reasons are given for photocopying scholarly journals as for trade journals, etc. Generally the most common reason for photocopying is to keep the photocopy in the professional's personal collection for future reference. Otherwise, photo copying of library subscriptions is done to make it easier to read the article (elsewhere) and to permit annotation or highlighting. More than half of the photocopying from personal subscriptions is to keep the article in a personal collection for future reference, and about two-thirds is to pass the article on to others. Thus, multiple copies are sometimes made. In fact, the average number of photocopies made (for both scholarly and frade journals) is about 1.5 copies per incident even though two-thirds of the incidents involve only a single photocopy.
Table 38: Proportion* of Photocopies Made for Various Reasons, by Source of Reading Source of Reading Personal Subscription Libraiy Subscription Other Reasons for Photocopying (%) (%) (%) To read article more conveniently 22 64 38 To permit annotation or highlighting 33 56 23 To keep in personal collection for future reference 56 80 46 To file with laboratoiy or other documentation — 8 8 To pass the article on to others 67 24 23 Other 11 4 8
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in four organizations (N = 31,003; n = 448) * Proportions do not add to 100 percent because there are multiple reasons for photocopying.
The place where the photocopy is made depends to a large degree on the source of the readings (i.e., where the original copy is found), as shown in Table 39.
Table 39: Proportion of Photocopies Made In Various Places, by Source of Reading Source of Reading Personal Subscription Library Subscription Other Place Where Photocopied (%) (%) Libraiy machine Supervised 11 24 15 Unsupervised 11. 36 Machine in work area 67 32 62 Machine elsewhere 11 8 23 TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in two companies (N = 31,003; n = 448)
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THROUGH BOOKS
Professionals annually average about 13 readings*^ of professional, legal, or business books, and 30 readings of other types of books, such as reference, standards and handbooks, directories, and books
^he number does not mean that an average of 13 books are read, but that books were read on 13 distinct occasions.
123 of proceedings, key papers, etc. As would be expected, the age of books read (5.3 years) is substantially greater than the age of journal articles read.
Professionals indicate that they read the book wifli great care about 35 percent of the time, widi attention to the main points for about 54 percent of the readings, and just to get the idea of what is in the book for only 11 percent of the readings. The average time spent reading books is substantial, about 1.9 hours per reading.
Professionals initially found out about the books most often from another person such as a colleague (about 44 percent). Sometimes they identified the books from citations in anodier book or journal article (about 11 percent). The remaining sources of identification, which involve libraries, are browsing dirough library stacks (15 percent), a librarian (5 percent), new book display in the library (2 percent), citation m the output of a database search (2 percent), citation in a printed index (2 percent), or other.
About 33 percent of the books read are from an organization library, including library copies of books (21 percent), library ordering but not holding the books for the professionals (11 percent), or borrowing from another library (ILL) (1 percent). The most frequent other sources of the books read are coworkers or book authors (25 percent) and publishers or other (9 percent). All libraries account for 43 percent of book readings. Libraries in the pirofessionals' organization account for about 76 percent of diese book readings, shared office (or laboratory) collections account for 14 percent of readings, and public libraries or academic libraries account for 10 percent of all readings. The organization library copy of the book was often located by a librarian (26 percent), but the professionals also often located the copy themselves (43 percent) or used the online catalog (7 percent) or other catalogs (9 percent). Sometimes professionals sent a secretary or other subordinate to the library to get the book (12 percent) or the library sent the book to them thinking they might be interested in it (3 percent). Professionals rarely read books in the library (5 percent). Rather, they almost always read books in the office (58 percent), or while traveling, at home, or on vacation.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THROUGH INTERNAL REPORTS AND EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS
Internal reports and external documents are used extensively by professionals. They average reading 54 such documents each year (i.e., 39 internal and 15 external). As mentioned earlier, the amount of reading of internal reports varies greatly among organizations depending on how well companies handle such documents. The average amount of reading of internal reports per professional varies among com panies surveyed from as few as 21 per professional to as many as 88. Internal reports are thoroughly read: 41 percent with great care, 48 percent with attention to the main points, and 12 percent just to get the idea." The readers average about 1.6 hours per reading of these documents.
Many of the copies of internal reports and external documents are identified from another person, such as being sent or given the copy by a colleague or by a superior (41 percent). About one-third of the readings of internal reports were from documents obtained fi-om the library (32 percent); from other sources, including the audior (20 percent); or from a copy being sent or given to the reader by another person such as a colleague (17 percent) or a superior (23 percent). The principal remaining sources cited are copies found in one's organization's file (6 percent) or other (2 percent).
The average age of internal reports read is more than one year (1.3 years), which is much newer than the age of book readings (5.3 years), and about the same as journal articles (1.3 years). It is
124 interesting to note that nearly four-fifths of the readings are from internal rq)orts less than sue months old. About one-fourth of the readings involve documents that had been read previously by the profession als. These were read an average of less than one year previously (0.8 years).
Internal rq)orts are used for many purposes. The most frequent purpose for reading library-provided documents is for R&D, including primary research (14 percent), other R&D activities (22 percent), or background research activities (16 percent). The remaining purposes of reading are for other primary activities, such as adminisfration and finance (4 percent), management or executive (5 percent), legal (3 percent), and other (17 percent). Communication activities account for 18 percent of the reading, with most for consulting or advising others (12 percent). Only 1 percent of the reported readings are for professional development.
125 CHAPTERS
USAGE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF REFERENCE AND RESEARCH SERVICES
USAGE OF REFERENCE AND RESEARCH SERVICES
Distinguishing B^ween Reference Services and Research Services
In Ch^ter 7 we discussed physical access to information found in documents. In this chapter we describe "logical" access to information through database search services, catalogs, and current awareness services. These services provide "information" that helps identify and locate needed information. Increasingly, libraries are providing services that identify and locate individuals who have special knowledge and skills to help answer questions (within the organization and elsewhere). To provide this service, the libraries sometimes develop a database of people or purchase this service from vendors. These are all reference (or referral) services. Unfortunately, we do not have nearly as much information on research services that actually provide the answers to questions, as opposed to telling users where they can obtain the answers. Yet many of the libraries we smdied had extremely active and enormously useful services for providing answers to brief questions such as the year and location of an event (results given in this book as part of "brief reference and research" m Chapters 6, 9, and 10); answers to in-depth questions such as a detailed description of the event (as part of "in-depth reference and research" in Ch^ters 6, 9, and 10); and secondary research, in which information is obtained from multiple sources, evaluated, and analyzed, with the result being a written (and sometimes oral) report. In between the extremes of providing reference (or referral) and providing actual answers to questions, librarians are increasingly evaluating database search output and annotating tides with conunents.
Growth of Database Search Services
In this chapter, we discuss the reference and research services provided by organization libraries. One of the most rapidly growing technologies in the information field has been automated bibliographic and numeric database searching, both online and on CD-ROM (referred to collectively as database search services). Dramatic growth has occurred in the number of bibliographic databases available, the number of professionals who use these services, and the average number of searches performed by or for professionals.
The growdi of these services for science and technical information (STI) is reported by Williams [98] as follows :
• The number of STI databases available in 1990 was 2,223, or 62 percent of the total 3,589 databases available. The total number of available databases grew by a factor of 19 from 1975 to 1990.
• Increasing numbers of databases are distributed on CD-ROM. In 1990, 428 STI databases (50 percent of the total) were distributed on CD-ROM. This represents a growdi factor of 2.5 over the previous year.
• The number of database producers and vendors has grown considerably from 1975 to 1990:
127 — database producers from 200 to 2,224, a factor of 11; and
— database vendors from 105 to 850, a factor of 8.
Note that specific data for STI database producers and vendors were not available.
• Although the federal government is a major producer of databases, it accounts for a decreasing proportion of the total number of databases produced (from 82 percent m 1977 to only 17 percent in 1990).
• The size of databases is increasing. The average number of records in word-oriented databases grew by a factor of 3.6 from 1975 to 1990. Numeric databases, image databases, and full-text and multimedia databases will dramatically increase this trend in the future.
• The number of bibliographic database searches performed for or by scientists and engineers has grown from 8.1 million in 1984 to 14.4 million in the late 1980s (or from 2.02 to 2.50 per scientist and engineer). Note, however, that the average amount of reading per scientist and engineer is decreasing.
• Scientists and engineers spend about 1.7 hours per year searching and/or using the outputs of bibliogr^hic searches; the comparable number for numeric databases is 83 hours per year.
• There has been a clear increase in the use of librarians/information specialists to perform automated bibliogr^hic database searches on behalf of scientists and engineers. In the late 1980s, 60 percent of the searches were performed by intermediaries, up from 47 percent in 1984. Note that similar data for numeric database searching were not available; however, in view of the amount of time spent on searching the two different types of databases, it would appear that scientists and engineers tend to perform more of their own numeric database searching. In addition, there has been an accompanying trend of increased end-user searching as evidenced by increasing sales of user-friendly, front-end search aids.
• The use of STI databases by libraries and information centers grew by a factor of two over the period 1982-1989, in terms of numbers of databases used and in connect hours. STI databases accounted for 40 percent of the connect hours for all databases used and for 32 percent of the revenues generated in 1989.
During the 1970s there was broadly accepted speculation that most online searching would migrate from being conducted by reference librarians (or information specialists) to end-users themselves. Extensive efforts have been made by vendors, organization libraries, and others to make searching more "user friendly" and to frain end-users to perform their own searching. In reality, even though some searching is done by end-users, there simply has been little change from having reference librarians perform searches for users. Organizations that have been particularly diligent in end-user training appear to have merely created a greater need for searching; however, most of this searching—particularly the most difficult searching—is done by reference librarians or information specialists who support end-users. The principal reason that many end-users (when frained and when some hands-on experience is gained) ultimately revert to support staff is that such searching is very time-consuming and the time of scientists, engineers, lawyers, managers, etc., is a scarce resource. If end-users feel that reference librarians can search better and/or faster, professionals are likely to use them to save their own time. We show here that this attitude is prevalent among professionals in the organizations we studied. In most organizations.
128 online and CD-ROM database searching services have been integrated thoroughly into the reference and research services. ,
A study performed by the University of Pittsburgh and King Research [99] estimated that in the early 1980s there were more than 100,0(X) information professionals in the United States whose principal work was searching on behalf of others. This number of information professionals is impressive when one considers that, at the time of the study, there were only about 140,000 professional librarians. It is clear that many of these information professionals are people who were educated in one field (e.g., science, medicine, etc.) and changed careers to become information professionals with a specialty in searching, mosdy automated bibliographic and numeric databases.
Amount of Use of Database Search Services
About 22 percent of professionals in organizations we surveyed either conduaed database searches or had someone (e.g., a subordinate or reference librarian) search on their behalf. Professionals averaged about 2.0 searches per year. Those who searched themselves averaged about 9.0 searches per year.** About 37.7 percent of all searches (i.e., 0.7 searcheis per professional) are performed by professionals themselves. About 38.2 percent of the searches (i.e., 0.8 searches per professional) are performed by library search specialists (across all professionals). The rest are performed by subordinates or search specialists in the professionals' unit (0.3 searches per professional) or by another library (0.1 searches per professional). Medical professionals in large organizations are much more likely to use library search services than other professionals. Nearly 95 percent of their searches are performed by their libraries. The proportions of database searches performed in organization libraries for professionals with other work roles are 18 percent for management/executive, 32 percent for administration/finance, 29 percent for R&D, 16 percent for legal, and 64 percent for other work roles.
We estimate that more than one-sixth of all professionals use library database search services. All professionals use libraries for this service an average of about 0.8 times per year, or an average of 4.5 uses per professional who uses the library services. Most uses of the library services were made direcdy by the professionals, and about 40 percent were delegated to colleagues or subordinates. A small proportion of database searches (5 percent) is performed by external libraries or brokers. The database searches performed by library staff tend to be more difficult or in-depth than those performed by end- users.
Users of the database search services were asked how they benefited by having a staff member from the organization library perform the most recent search for diem. Eighty-two percent said having the reference librarian do the search saved them (or their staff) time; in fact, an average of about 7.2 hours per request when time is saved. About 79 percent of the end-users said that the reference librarians could perform the search faster and 65 percent said they could do it better. This level of confidence in delegating searching to the reference librarians is borne out by the satisfaction with searches performed for them.
ihis average substantially by woric roleso f professionals. Only about one-fourth of legal professionals surveyed indicated they searched bibliographic databases in the past year. However, those who do search for themselves search extensively (35.9 searches per professional per year). Atx>ut 84 percent of these professionals performed the searches themselves. We believe that this average number of searches may be dominated by paralegal staff who do a lot of searches early in their legal careers. In contrast, 67 percent of medical professionals and 58 percent of R&D professionals surveyed indicated they searched in the last year, averaging 5.7 and 4.6 searches per professional, respectively.
129 Attributes of Database Search Services
Below we discuss die results of satisfaction widi database search services performed by library staff. However, we think it is useftil first to describe the search to understand how database searches are performed and what search outputs look like. End-users and reference librarians interact in several ways. Sometimes users sit down widi die librarians while die search is being performed, aldiough diis occurs in less dian 10 percent of the library-provided searches. Usually, users leave the search entirely up to die librarian, sometimes following negotiation of response time. In fact, many users do not know what databases or vendors are used (20 percent and 40 percent, respectively).
For the most part, bibliographic databases consist of references to such documents as journal articles, books, technical rqwrts, patent documents, conference proceedings, and so on. Search output can run from a very few documents identified to very many, d^ending on die purpose of die search and die skill of searchers. The purpose of searches can range from attempting to identify one or two documents diat are relevant to a specific need, to attempting to identify a large number of documents diat are relevant to a general bibliogrqjhy diat might be needed. The ideal search, of course, would be one tfiat identifies all relevant documents and no irrelevant (or unwanted) ones; diat is, die information contained in diose documents is relevant and not irrelevant to the need.
The number of documents identified in the most recent searches performed by library staff tends to be large, particularly when compared widi die number of documents obtained and actually read (which are indicators of relevance). Estimated average numbers of documents identified, obtained, and read are summarized in Table 40 by type of document. Journal articles are die most frequendy identified type of document (42 percent) and die most frequendy read (48 percent). The average number of documents identified is 45.6 per search. About half of diese documents are obtained (mosdy from library copies) and most of die ones obtained are, in fact, read (78 percent). The average number of documents identified (45.6) may seem high; however, looked at across all searches we find diat die distribution of number of documents identified is highly skewed. That is, a few searches account for a large number of die documents identified (i.e., 10 percent of die searches account for about half of die documents identified). This also may account for die small proportion of material diat is read (33 percent), since the output of these searches may often be to develop a bibliography.
Table 40: Number of Documents Identified, Obtained, and Read from Database Searches, by Type of Document
Type of Document Number Identified Number Obtained Number Read/Intend to Read Journal articles 19.2 8.3 6.7 Books 2.0 1.2 0.6 External technical reports 4.4 2.0 1.3 Patent documents 9.0 2.6 3.0 Conference proceedings 2.1 0.7 0.5 Internal reports 6.0 2.1 1.3 Other 2.9 2.2 1.5 TOTAL 45.6 19.1 14.9
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionab in nine organizations (N = 56,303; n = 613)
130 Satisfaction with Search Attributes
Three indicators of searching performance that we observed are:
• relevance of output to users' information needs;
• number of references in search output; and
• time between request and receipt of search output.
End-users were asked if, to their knowledge, any relevant documents were missed on the most recent search performed for them. For about 30 percent of the searches, the end-users did not know whether relevant documents were missed. For the remaining searches, about 9 percent knew that relevant documents were missed. The average number of missed relevant documents was estimated by users to be about four per search. End-users said they were satisfied or very satisfied with relevance for 86 percent of the searches regarding relevance (Table 41). The average rating of satisfaction was 4.17."" End-users also were asked how satisfied they were with the number of references presented to them in the search output (average being 45.6). Here, we find satisfaction to be a bit lower (average rating of 4.11), with 81 percent being satisfied or very satisfied. Nearly all of the end-users who were dissatisfied felt they received too many references, as opposed to too few.
Table 41: Proportion of Professionals with Various Levels of Satisfaction* with Database Searching Done by Library Staff
Satisfaction Level Average 1 2 3 4 5 Satisfaction Attributes of Database Searching (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Level Relevance of output to users' information needs 1.7 1.5 10.5 51.1 35.2 4.17 Number of references in search output 1.2 2.8 14.2 47.7 34.1 4.11 Time between request and receipt of search output 1.5 2.0 5.6 38.8 52.1 4.38
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in nine organizations (N = 56,303; n = 613) ^Satisfaction scale: 1—Very Dissatisfied; 2—Dissatisfied; 3—Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 4—Satisfied; 5—Veiy Satisfied.
In terms of timeliness of response, the average duration of time to receive search results is 3.5 days. About 34 percent of the search results were delivered within one day and another 25 percent on the second day. About 20 percent of the searches took more than a week to complete. When asked the time requirement for receipt of search results (to achieve the greatest value), most indicated times equal to or greater than the actuid delivery time. The average for this time requirement is 5.3 days (compared with 3.5 days for actual delivery). Ninety-one percent of the end-users said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the response time of the most recent search performed for them. The average satisfaction rating (4.38) is higher than ratings for quality of search.
End-users were asked to indicate the importance of the searcher's knowledge of the subject field searched and the searcher's skill in conducting the search. About 55 percent of the end-users consider
Obseivations for these searches are made from critical incidents (i.e., the most recent search). Observations made in Chapter 6 are for ratings of database searches in general, thus explaining the difference.
131 knowledge of die subject field to be important or very important. However, searching skill is diought to be more important, since 86 percent consider this competency to be important or very important.
En'ectiveness of Database Search Services
User satisfaction is important partially because it means diat satisfied users will continue to use organization library services. We have some evidence diat die amount of searching and user satisfaction are correlated. For example, if we look at satisfaction widi relevance of output to information needs, the average amount of searching by diose end-users who are very satisfied is 6.15 searches per year and for diose who are satisfied 3.93 searches per year. For diose who are neidier satisfied nor dissatisfied, the average number is 2.73 searches per year; for diose who are dissatisfied, the average number is 2.04 searches per year; and for those who are very dissatisfied, the average number is 0.45 searches per year (Figure 32). Interestingly, the number of times professionals use alternative sources for their searches (e.g., searching themselves, delegating to a colleague or subordinate, or using another library) is inversely correlated widi satisfaction widi searches performed by library staff. For example, diose who are very satisfied with library searches average 1.5 searches from other sources; those who are satisfied average 2.3 searches from other sources; and those who are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied average 4.1 searches from other sources. For all levels of satisfaction, professionals average about 4.5 searches from all sources per year. Thus, it would j^pear that die more users are satisfied widi searches done by their organization libraries, the fewer searches are done from other sources.
Figure 32: Relationship Between Number of Searches Performed and Satisfaction with Relevance of Search Output to Users' Information Needs
Number of Searehee per YMr 7.00-
6.16 e.oo- ^^
6.00 -
4.00 • • 3.03 ^^^ ^ ^^^^ 3.00- • ^m^ 2.73 2.04 2.00 - ^^^ ^^^ P ^^^ ^Vi^^^^R^H S88888S 1.00 - ^^^^ w^^^^ 0.4S ^^^ III 11 8 ^^^ S:S l$x VERY SATISFIED NEITMCR IMSSAT1SFIE0 VERY SATISriEO SATISHED NOR OlSSATISnEO •MSSAHSnEO Level of Sotlsfactlon Soure«: Kln^ Raaaarch, Inc., surveys of profasslonols In nine organizations (N = 56,303; n = 613)
User satisfaction with the number of references presented in the search output also has a similar relationship with the number of searches performed, as shown in Figure 33. Those very satisfied average about 5.74 searches per year and those satisfied averaged 3.37 searches per year. The professionals who
132 Figure 33: Relationship Between Number of Searches Performed and Satisfaction with Number of Refa*ences in Search Output
Number of Searehee per >»er 7.00-
•.00- 6.74
8.00-
4.00- 3.37 QQQQQOQQJ 3.00- ^^s 2.00- 1.03 B iSSSSSS m 1.00 1.00 - nmw |xx< ASSSS \'t '5W'5K' ! i i ?i O 0.00 J 1^ SATISnEO SAnSFIED NOR OlSSATtSFICO oissAnsriED Level of Satisfaction
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals In' nine organizations (N = 56,303: n == 613) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied average about 1.83 searches per year; those dissatisfied average 1.00 searches; and those very dissatisfied average 0.78 searches.
In considering timeliness, we can compare satisfaction versus actual response times. For example, when the search response is returned in one day, the average satisfaction is 4.73 (i.e., nearly all users are very satisfied). For 1 to 10 days' response, the average satisfaction rating drops to 4.06, and it continues dropping for 2 to 4 weeks (3.97) and more than 30 days (3.86). However, satisfaction is affected by whether search response time is negotiated between the searcher and user. When required response time is taken into account, we find that average satisfaction ratings go down as the difference between required response times and actual response times increases, but not so dramatically. These results are as follows:
• When the response is faster than the needed time, the average satisfaction rating is 4.47.
• When the needed and actual response times are the same, the average satisfaction rating is 4.16.
• When the actual response time is greater than the needed time, the average satisfaction rating drops to 3.13.
Clearly, response time is important when time requirements are considered. This is why it is so important to establish the user's requirement for receiving a response, and then actually to meet that requirement.
Similarly, there is a positive relationship between satisfaction with search response time and the number of searches requested by users. This relationship is shown in Figure 34. On average, far fewer searches are perform^ by those dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with response time (2.16 and 1.50 searches per year, respectively) than those who are satisfied or very satisfied with response time (4.33 and 5.44 searches per year, respectively). This result would suggest that quality of online searches is also
133 Figure 34: Relationship Bi^weai Number of Searches Performed and Satisfaction with Search Response Time
Number of Searahea per Vkar 6.00- 6.44
e.oo- I
4.33 4.00- 1 :i ^^^ 8.28 3.00- '' •' '!'''' '\' 'l ^^^^^K ^^^^^^S1^^^s 888888$ s i. ' ''?'' 2.16 2.00- 1^^^ So^^^? 1 'i' 1 '81 1 s 1 ^s ^B' 160 Im 1 ei c 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 S> •'c• 1 1.00- ^^8^888v Tvc ?8sS8v ?8888v8S e ^^ »\ ^^^^ » ' ''S ' ^»|s| »^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^P '^ l y O-OO "WRV SATtSHEO ^^^^^sHEITHER BliSATlSTIE B VEftV SATISFIED SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED OISSATISFICD Level of Satisfaction
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of professionals In nine organizations (N = 56.303; n = 613)
more important than timeliness of response. This assertion is reinforced below when we look at the value placed on these two measures of performance.
End-users who were required to pay service charges were asked how much they paid for their searches. The average amount paid was $290. For 71 percent of the searches, the price was said to be about right; 26 percent said the price was too high; and 2 percent said it was much too high. This is considered evidence of what professionals are willing to pay for their searches.
Comparing Value of Attributes of Database Search Services Using Conjoint Measurement
To establish the relative value of quality and timeliness of database searches, we used a market research tool called conjoint measurement. This requires users of a service (database searching) to make judgments about sets of alternatives for different combinations of search performance attributes: quality, timeliness, and price. The attribute of quality was specified at three levels: high, medium, and low relevance of items retrieved. Timeliness was also specified at three levels: speed of response within 1 day, between 1 and 3 days, and more than 3 days (from negotiated or required time). Finally, price was measured at three levels: $60, $175, and $290 (in today's value). As we indicated previously, database searching is delegated by users to library staff because users feel that the library staff can save them time and the staff can do the searches better and faster.
The relative value of quality and timeliness is expressed in Figure 35. This figure shows the value of all nine combinations of levels of relevance and speed of delivery. If search results are returned within one day, but relevance of items retrieved drops from high to medium, the value decreases from $290 to $170. Similarly, if relevance remains high but response time drops from within one day to one to three days, the value drops from $290 to $225. Thus, over all combinations of these two service attributes, we estimate that the value of quality is greater than the value of speed of delivery, although both are appreciable. One can see that low relevance of items retrieved and response time of more than three days
134 Figure 35: Relative Trade-off Value to User of Online Search Relevance and Turnaround Time
VALUE ($) High
RELEVANCE Within 1 Day
1-3 Days
Over 3 Days
Over 3 Days High Medium Low Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in five organizations (N = 23,809; n = 358) reduce value to only $15. Clearly, both quality and timeliness of response should be kept at a high level when at all possible.
USAGE OF CARD AND ONUNE CATALOGS
Amount of Use of Card and Online Catalogs by Professionals
In the organizations surveyed, we estimated the use of card catalogs, online catalogs (online public access catalog—OP AC) used in the library, and online catalogs used from remote locations (offices and homes). One organization we surveyed had both an extensive card catalog and a recentiy installed online catalog (OPAC). In that organization, we had the opportunity to compare usage of the two catalogs for searching the library's holdings. Across organizations, we observed the following extent of use of catalog services:
Proportion of Professionals Who Used in Past Year Average Number of Uses Card catalog 32 5.8 Online catalog in library 25 4.6 Online catalog from office 17 1.3
135 The extent of use of die card catalog and online catalog in die library is about die same (about 18 uses per user). Thus, die fact diat a lower proportion of professionals use die online catalog is probably due to their unfamiliarity with it or to concerns about using the technology.
In one organization, which had both card and online catalogs, we surveyed users of the services while in die library. About 40 percent of all professionals had used die card catalog and 34 percent had used the online catalog (which had been installed about two years prior to the survey). Of those individuals identified as card catalog users, 72 percent had also used the library's online catalog in the past month. Similarly, 35 percent of the users of the online catalog had also used the card catalog in die past month. Thus, more users of the card catalog tended to also use the online catalog than online catalog users used die card catalog. In terms of die amount of use made of the two forms of catalog, it would appear that card catalog searchers perform more searches (9.6 on average) than users of the online catalog (5.6 on average). One reason for the high number of searches of the card catalog versus the online catalog may lie in the inherent searching capabilities of each form of catalog. The card catalog can be searched via a single access point at a time (e.g., audior, tide, subject). Widi an online catalog, a number of access points can be used and features like truncation can broaden a search strategy. The card catalog is best suited to quick look-up searches, particularly for known items. The online catalog is better suited to more complex searches and browsing.
Attributes of Catalog Services
In Chapter 6 we indicated that more than one-third of professionals are unaware of the online catalog in the library and nearly one-half of those who are unaware are likely to use the service. Nearly two- thirds of professionals are unaware of online catalog services from their offices, and 71 percent of these professionals would likely use die service now that they know about it. Thus, lack of use of new catalog technology is potentially attributable to lack of awareness. Online catalog access in the library and office are both considered important by users (3.89 and 3.81 average importance rating, respectively; ranked fiffli and seventh of 16 services). Average satisfaction ratings for card catalog, online catalog in the library, and online catalog from die office are 3.61, 3.83, and 3.87, respectively. Below we give some aspects of online catalog atttibutes that can contribute to or diminish amount of use. These results are from the organization that had both a card catalog and an online catalog.
It appears that the card catalog performs better than the online catalog in terms of its ability to identify relevant documents. The average number of relevant items identified per search is:
Card Catalog Online Catalog Author search 1.3 items 0.3 items Tide search 1.1 items 1.0 items Subject search 1.8 items 0.5 items
The two catalogs appear to perform similarly for tide searches, but for audior and subject searches the card catalog seems to be better than the online catalog. It is not easy to understand why this is so. However, many users of die online catalog did not receive any training in how to use it. Only 10 percent of the users had attended an orientation or training session on the online catalog. Consequendy, the potential of the online catalog may not have been realized fully. This result emphasizes die need for orientation and training when implementing such systems and services.
136 One area where the online catalog is generally considered to be superior to the card catalog is the ability to determine the circulation status of items in the library's collection (i.e., whether an item is currendy on loan). Ease of searching by author was seen as an important benefit by 90 percent of online catalog users, ease of searching by tide by 88 percent, and ease of searching by subject by 78 percent. Anotiier benefit, seen as important by 53 percent of online catalog users, is the ability to determine whether an item is out on loan. Benefits identified as important by 23 percent to 25 percent of oidine catalog users are ease of searching by call number, ability to access the catalog without going to the library, and the ability to browse through the catalog. The ability to access the catalog when the library is closed was seen as a benefit by 15 percent of online catalog users. One other benefit, identified by 3 percent of online catalog users, is the ability to search for journals in the online catalog.
The satisfaction of two specific aspects of the card and online catalogs were considered: the ability of each form of catalog to identity items by audior or tide, and their ability to identify items by subject. It is clear that card catalog users are generally more satisfied with its performance than online catalog users are widi die online catalog (4.01 and 3.82 for die card catalog, and 3.84 and 3.23 for die online catalog). It is also clear that users are more satisfied with both catalogs' ability to identify items by author or tide than by subject.
Because of lower satisfaction with the online catalog, the satisfaction of online catalog users with various features of the online catalog that they had used was investigated. The features of the online catalog for which users had the least satisfaction were instructions for using the system (3.35), the usefulness of the online catalog in identifying needed and relevant material (3.47), the usefulness of the online catalog in identifying materials diat are currendy out on loan (3.52), the usefulness of online information displayed (3.56), ease of use of the touchscreen terminal (3.59), overall ease of use of the online catalog (3.59), ease of use of die keyboard terminal (3.82), and speed of response (3.94).
USAGE OF CURRENT AWARENESS SERVICES
Current Awareness Alternatives
Two means that professionals use for keeping current with the literature are to browse through new journals to which they subscribe or go to their library to review current journals. However, this can be very expensive if professionals must keep current with a large number of journals. Two services are sometimes provided by organization libraries to help professionals keep up with the literamre. The first is current awareness (CA) services, in which library staff identify current and relevant journal articles, books, external technical reports, conference proceedings, and so on. Lists of these items are published in CA bulletins, digests, tables of journal contents, or as selective dissemination of information (SDI) outputs that are distributed periodically to professionals. The usage and effectiveness of this service are discussed below. The second kind of service provided by libraries is journal routing to professionals. The comparative advantages of these alternatives for keeping current with the literature are as follows:
• Current awareness services generally provide broader coverage in terms of amount of material as well as type of material. They are usually less expensive than routed journals. However, as the service provides only descriptions of materials and not full text, professionals must get die full text by some means, and sometimes the full text reveals that the article is irrelevant.
137 • Journal routing provides full text so that professionals can read, or at least scan, relevant articles. However, coverage is less dian for CA services, and the service is generally much more expensive on a per-use basis.
Usage of journal routing was discussed previously in this chs^ter; current awareness usage is discussed below.
Usage of Curroit Awareness Publications
The CA publications are usually very specific. They can be based on up to 200 profiles of users or small groups of users, or have from about 10 to 25 detailed subject areas or types of materials (e.g., patents) covered, with numbers of users receiving them ranging from as low as 20 to as high as 1,000 (in organizations we studied). CA publications are used primarily for research purposes, and secondarily for technical support, legal or patent work, engineering, and management or executive work.
The CA publications are estimated to be used from once to about 50 times per user per year. They are used largely for browsing the most current issue (95 percent of uses), although occasionally a professional will remember a reference that is needed and refer back to a CA publication to identify, verify, or locate it. Back issues of a CA publication are used about 8 percent of the time. The professionals spend an average of 28 minutes each time they use a CA publication.
The CA publications appear to be quite effective in identifying items that are obtained and read (or likely to be read). All told, professionals identified 15 items and read (or are likely to read) about 6 of them (Table 42). Thus, they spend an average of nearly five minutes identifying a current item that they read using a CA publication.
Table 42: Number of Documents Identified and Read from the Last Use of Current Awareness Publications Type of Document Number Identified Number Read/Likely to Read Journal aiticles 7.6 3.2 Books 0.5 0.2 External technical reports 0.7 0.6 Conference proceedings 0.5 - Patent documents 5.1 1.6 Other 0.6 0.2 TOTAL 15.0 5.8
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in four companies (N = 35,838; n = 405)
Importance of and Satisfaction with Current Awareness Publication Attributes
Users rated the importance of these services at an average rating of 3.44 (with 1 being of very little importance and 5 being very important), and rated average satisfaction at 3.73 (with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied). We asked recipients of CA publications to comment on their satisfaction with various attributes and features of this service. The results are summarized in Table 43.
138 The degree of satisfaction with current awareness publications is satisfactory, but lower than for database search services.
Table 43: Proportion of Professionals Who Express Various Levels of Satisfaction* with Current Awareness Publications Satisfaction Level 1 2 3 4 5 Avg. Satisfaction Performance Measure (%) (%) (%) Level Relevance of information to users' needs 0 8.7 20.2 44.5 28.8 3.95 Amount of information provided 0 13.2 21.9 43.0 21.9 3.74 Currency of items/entries 3.7 5.6 12.9 66.3 11.4 3.76 Coverage (neither too much nor too little) 3.7 1.8 24.2 63.0 7.4 3.69 Quality of reproduction 1.9 1.9 21.8 51.3 23.1 3.92 Format of information 1.9 5.8 25.6 55.4 11.3 3.68 Ease of ordering 0 4.3 31.8 51.8 12.0 3.72 Delay of receipt 0 0 50.9 33.5 15.6 3.62
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in four companies (N = 35,838; n = 405) *Satisfaction scale: 1—Very Dissatisfied; 2—Dissatisfied; 3—Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 4—Satisfied; 5—Very Satisfied
139 CHAPTER 9
PERFORMANCE OF SPECIAL LIBRARIES
FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF LIBRARIES
How Well Are Organization Libraries Run?
In most of our studies of organization libraries (and other types of libraries as well), we spend considerable time with the fimders of die libraries (i.e., the persons to whom the library directors report) and increasingly with CEOs and high-level adminisfrators. One concern they all express, in one way or another, is wh^er the library is well managed. They often confess ignorance as to how productively and efficiendy the library is being run. They certainly have a sense of it, based largely on the library director's personality and their interaction, as well as feedback (or lack of it) they receive from users. However, for the most part, librarians cannot provide details of their operational performance because they simply do not have sufficient data. Librarians usually have sound data on total costs of their resources (e.g., collections, staff, space [sometimes], equipment and systems, supplies, and so on), and they sometimes have good data on measures of output (e.g., collection size and additions, number of visits, circulation, number of journal routings, reference activity, interlibrary lending and borrowing, etc.). However, we have found that few organization librarians have data on their productivity, unit costs of operational aaivities or services, or output attributes such as quality, timeliness, accessibility, availability, and so on. This chapter is directed to providing some guidance on how to address how well the library is doing in terms of staff productivity and costs.
In this ch^ter, we discuss various aspects of measuring the performance of libraries. We begin by presenting an approach to examining performance and then present some examples of input measures, output measures, productivity, and unit costs. Unit costs are presented at several levels: (1) including staff costs only, (2) including costs of other resources, and (3) including costs of indirect.support functions. Finally, we allocate the costs of operational services to user-related services to estimate unit costs of services with all costs of the library allocated. We next discuss economies of scale, which significantiy affect productivity and unit costs, and present examples of the "critical mass" in terms of numbers of units (or transactions) at which unit costs no longer decrease significantiy. This leads into a discussion of library resource sharing. Finally, we present some examples of flow analysis.
Components of Library Performance
To measure die performance of libraries, it is necessary to describe, in detail, all die functions performed, the resulting services and products, the activities required to perform services or produce products, the resources necessary to perform the activities, and the attributes of these resources. For each principal activity, one must be able to determine the amount of resources applied (and their attributes) and the quantity and attributes of output. We have collected data on diese three components of library performance in 13 organizations involving 54 libraries and 522 staff members. Below we provide a composite of results found for typical core library services and for operational and support functions.
To begin with, we have subdivided library functions into four categories:
141 • User-related functions, including access to library collections, access to external collections, photocopy services, reference and research services, database search services, user instruction, and access to library facilities.
• Operational (or technical) functions, including collection development and management, acquisitions, materials receiving and processing, cataloging, catalog maintenance, and physical processing.
• Support functions, including automated systems administration and overall management and administration.
• Other functions, such as fringe benefit time and other "nonproduction" time.^
These functions are purposely limited in our discussion because we feel it best to limit the functions to those that have been most common to all organizations studied. In this way we can present better examples of productivity and unit costs. The examples in this chapter exclude a wide range of services provided by some libraries, such as translation, management of proprietary information (records management), development and searching of databases of internal reports, audiovisual services, access to conference rooms and facilities, purchase of materials and payment of professional society dues for professionals and departments, maintenance of departmental collections, online request services, and so on. A partial list of principal activities associated with the functions above is given in Table 44.
The subdivision of functions and categorization of services is based on convenience and partially on the need for allocation of costs to estimate the unit costs of services at various levels. User-related functions and services are those in which users are directly involved or in which staff has direct contact with users. Furthermore, there is a reasonably clear ability to identify and allocate input resources and output associated with each.
Operational functions and their indirect services only indirectly aifect user services, but they can be associated with corresponding user services (e.g., collection development and cataloging costs are associated with access to library collections: circulation, in-library use, and interlibrary lending). The operational functions and their indirect services also have identifiable input resources and output quantities. Some operational functions and indirect services, such as reshelving, could be considered user-related since most reshelving is associated with circulation, in-library use, photocopying, and so on. However, we have found that it is neither simple, nor particularly necessary, to isolate the different sources of shelved or reshelved items. Thus, we have categorized this activity as an indirect service under collection management.
Support functions and their activities are separated for two reasons. First, the costs of these activities are allocated across user-related and operational functions. Second, they do not have easily identifiable outputs, thus making assessment of productivity more difficult.
Finally, "other" functions and their activities are allocated to all user-related, operational, and support staff time. We like to isolate these activities to remind staff and management of how much
^nThe term "nonproduction time" is not intended to be derogatory. Other functions include all time spent by library staff in activities that do not directly result in the measurable outputs associated with user and operational services. An example would be professional development, which is certainly important and has an effect on the perfonnance of woik, but which is not always easily associated with a specific service.
142 Table 44: A Partial List of Functions and Services Performed in Organization Libraries
User-related Functions/Services Operational Functions (cont.) Access to Library Collections Cataloging Circulation Copy cataloging Materials read in library Enhanced cataloging Journal routing Original cataloging Current periodicals room Catalog Maintenance Interlibrary lending Catalog additions Access to External Collections Catalog withdrawal Interlibrary borrowing Physical Processing Document delivery services Spine labeling, barcode labeling/ Photocopy Services linking Photocopying by library staff Other physical processing Access to photocopy equipment Monogr^h binding and repair Reference and Research Services Periodicals binding and repair Directional reference and assistance Brief reference and research Support Functions/Activities In-depth reference and research Automated Systems Administration Research Back-up systems files Database Search Services Monitor system usage and Quick look-up searching performance . In-depth searching Vendor-related activities Current Awareness Services Staff-related activities User Instruction Troubleshooting and maintenance Exhibits Other system-related activities Conduct tours and present briefings Management and Administration Conduct training sessions or General administration and demonstrations management Access to Facilities Financial management, budgeting, Access to study space and accounting Access to PCs and/or CD-ROM Personnel management and staff workstations development Facilities management Operational Functions/Indirect Services Marketing, public relations, etc. Collection Development and Management Policies and procedures Collection development Reporting to superiors . Collection weeding Physical withdrawal and related Other Functions/Activities housekeeping Benefit Time Shelving and reshelving Vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. Acquisitions Professional development/training Ordering Other "nonproduction" Time Invoice processing Time going to and from and Processing materials received attending general staff meetings Claiming Slack time Cancellations Scheduled "coffee breaks," etc. Follow-up Materials Receiving and Processing Materials processing Incoming mail processing Outgoing mail processing
143 "nonproduction" time is found in libraries. There are other ways of handling allocation of these activities, which will be mentioned later.
An example of the further breakdown of fimaions, services or products, detailed activities, resources, and resource attributes is displayed in Table 45 as a hierarchical categorization of these five components of library performance.
Table 45: Structure of an Organizational Library Examples of Examples of Resources Examples of DATABASE IN-DEPTH Used to Attributes of Exanq>les of Library SEARCHING SEARCHING CONDUCT SEARCH PROFESSIONAL Functions Services and Products Activities Activity STAFF User-related Functions/ Services Access to Library Collections Access to External Collections Photocopy Services Staff RefereiKe and Research PROFESSIONAL DATABASE SEARCHING Par^rofessional Current Awareness Services User Instruction Equipment Access to Facilities Specific Tenninals/CD-ROM Interview users workstations CompiBtencies ODcrational Functions/Indirect Develop search strategy Telephone Knowledge Services Determine search Photocopying Skills Collection Development and Quick Look-Up method Audiovisual Attitudes Management Searching Determine source Acquisitions IN-DEPTH CONDUCT SEARCH Communication Service Backeround Materials Receiving and SEARCHING Review results Database Education Processuig Analyze results Network Training Cataloging Provide results Vendor Experience Catalog Maintenance Translate titles/abstracts Physical Processing Materials Reference materials Support Functions/Activities Search materials Automated Systems Library procedures Administration Source materials Management and Administration
"Other" Functions/Activities Benefit Time Other "Nonproduction" Time
The first column gives the examples of library functions described above. From this column, we selected one function (database search services), and listed two services performed as part of this function: quick look-up searching and in-depth searching. From this column we selected one service (in-depth searching) and listed specific activities related to this service: interview users, develop search
144 strategy, etc.*^ Several types of resources are necessary to perform these activities. For example, to conduct searches, there must be staff, equipment, communication sei^^ices (or CD-ROM databases), and materials. These resources are listed in the next column for the "conduct searches" activity. Finally, each resource can be described in terms of its attributes or characteristics. Listed in the last column are attributes of "professional staff": competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) that are developed through background (education, training, and experience). Attributes identified should have some relationship to input costs (e.g., salaries) and output quantities and attributes (e.g., quality of searches). Other resources have similar attributes: depth, comprdiensiveness, etc., of database; price of vendor service; speed of transmission for online access; and so on.
STAFF PRODUCTTVITY
We performed staff analyses in 13 organizations with 54 libraries (including staffed branches). More than 500 library staff members reported their time to us. Analyses included estimating the amount of input time required to perform library activities, and output quantities for relevant activities. We developed productivity "norms" for these activities so that they could be applied to the outputs observed in each library to estimate the amount of time expected to produce the observed outputs. The norms are estimates of tiie ratio of minutes per unit produced for each activity. We then multiply this ratio times the observed number of units actually produced in a library to estimate an expected amount of time required to perform the activity. For example, our norm for shelving and reshelving is 0.88 minutes per item shelved. If we observed 50,0(X) items shelved in a library, we would expect this activity to take 733 hours:
0.88 minutes per item x 50,(X)0 items _ -^^ . 60 minutes per hour
In Table 46 we provide a set of "norms" for the functions and services listed in Table 44. However, one should recognize that these norms are subject to variation among libraries caused by processes used (e.g., automated or not), size of operation (i.e., economies of scale), number of branches, output attrib utes, and level of staff employed. The norms are developed from the average of observed outputs and the amounts of staff time to perform activities, which are then totaled to produce estimates of service productivity. Estimates of output quantities, input staff levels, and ratios of input to output are given in Table 46 (for user-related functions and services) and Table 47 (for operational functions and indirect services). The average output quantities and staff times are estimated for a typical library serviiig 3,500 professionals. Below we present an example of staff productivity, unit costs, economies of scale, and work flows for a hypothetical library. This library is a single library in an organization (i.e., there are no branch libraries). The entire example shows inputs and outputs and their interrelationships for a one- year period.
Productivity of User-related Functions and Services
As an example, in Table 46 we show that our typical library circulates 17,200 items in a year. In Chapter 6, we estimated that organization libraries average 4.9 items circulated per professional, thus
Note that one could also list some general activities related to this function, including keeping abreast of sources, services, and technologies; maintaining and reporting statistics; developing charging strategies; etc.
145 Table 46: Staff Input, Output, and Performance Ratios for User-related Functions and Activities of a Typical Organization library
Output Input Minutes/ Units/ User-related Functions/Services Quantities Hours Unit Hour Access to Library Collections Circulation 17,200 items 1,950 6.8 8.8 Materials read in library 109,300 readings n/a n/a n/a Journal routing 16,800 routings 200 0.7 86 Current periodicab room 64,600 readings n/a n/a n/a Inteiiibrary lending 1,200 items 410 30.3 2.0 Access to External Collections
Interlibrary borrowing 1,300 items 590 23.5 2.6 Document delivery services 3,200 items 620 11.7 5.1 Photocopy Services
Photocopying by library staff 79.100 docs. 5,270 4.0 15.0 Reference and Research Services
Directional reference and assistance 27,700 incidente 1,290 2.8 21.4 Brief reference and research 23,800 requests 1,670 4.2 14.3 In-depth reference and research 1,800 searches 800 26.6 2.3 Research 100 requests 470 4.7 hours 0.2 Database Search Services
Quick look-up searching 500 searches 50 5.8 10.3 In-depth searching 2,300 searches 4,790 125 0.5 Current Awareness Services 150 profiles 720 289 0.2 User Instruction Exhibits 10 exhibits 160 16 hours 0.06 Conduct tours and present briefings 50 tours 40 52 1.2 Conduct training sessions or demonstrations 10 sessions 20 96 0.6 Access to Facilities
Access to study space 14,000 uses n/a n/a n/a Access to PCs and/or CD-ROM 3,800 uses n/a n/a n/a workstations
Total User-related 19,050
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of library staff in 13 oi^anizations (n = 522) yieldmg about 17,200 for a library serving 3,500 professionals. Our "norm" for circulation is about 6.8 minutes per item, resulting in an estimated 1,950 total staff hours required to provide circulation services. The value of 6.8 minutes per item converts to 8.8 items per hour (17,200 items -i- 1,950 hours), which is the actual productivity measure.
We provide several output measures in terms of numbers of readings. For example, readings of materials in the library are estimated to be 109,300 readings per year. Also, for this example, we have isolated readmgs from a current periodicals room (64,600 per year), for a total of 173,900 readings in
146 the library (about 670 per day or 84 per hour).** There are about 150,5(X) readings of books, of which 49,700 come from the library. In Chi^ter 7 we estimate that about 5 percent of these readings are from books read in the library (2,5(X) readings). There are an estimated 189,000 readings of other documents, of which about 61,200 come from the library (43,700 internal rq)orts and 17,500 external documents). Therefore, we estimate that there are a total of 109,300 in-library readings, excluding the current periodicals room (i.e., 45,600 journal articles, 2,5(X) books, and 61,2(X) other documents). Some readings of books and other documents done in the library may be of materials that are also circulated. As indicated above, we estimate a total of 17,200 items circulated. We estimate that there are about 45,700 readings from the books circulated, or 2.66 readings per item circulated. The 4,7(X) items borrowed or obtained from document delivery are assumed to be 3,200 articles and 1,500 books.
Readings are given as an ou^ut for in-library use and current periodical room use because later we compare readings to the costs allocated to this use (i.e., purchase price, processing, shelving, space, etc.). Similarly, library services include access to study space and access to PCs and/or CD-ROM workstations. Outputs are the numbers of uses of these facilities, which are later compared to nonlabor costs (e.g., space, equipment, etc.) to establish unit costs (or cost per use).
From Chapter 7, we estimate about 18.6 photocopies per professional are made by library staff from library materials, which would yield a total of 65,100 photocopies per year. We estimate another 14,0(X) photocopies made for users from nonlibrary materials, giving a total of 79,100 photocopies made by the library service each year. Amounts of services for reference and research are from Chapter 6. The total staff time for user-related services is 19,050 hours.
Productivity of Opa*atlonal Functions and Indirect Sa*vices
Table 47 (operational function "norms") presents data similar to those given above for user-related functions and activities. For example, in a library serving 3,500 professionals, we estimate that the library acquires (through purchase) about 2,600 books; 1,100 periodical subscriptions (i.e., 700 titles and 1,1(X) subscriptions); 24,200 formal reports, final technical reports, laboratory notebooks, and legal reports (based on outputs estimated in Chapter 4); and 9,300 other documents (e.g., patent documents, government reports, economic and marketing reports, etc.). An estimated total of 770 hours are necessary for collection development, based on a norm of 3.7 minutes per item.
Shelving and reshelving would include 109,300 items from in-library use; 64,600 items read in current periodicals room; 17,200 items from circulation; 16,800 journal issues routed; 65,100 items returned from photocopying; 1,200 interlibrary loan items; and 44,400 new journal issues, books, internal reports, and otiier documents. This gives a total of 318,600 items shelved or reshelved at 0.88 minutes per item or 4,670 total hours.
^Tie number of readings in the current periodicals room is based on total journal article readings of 113,400 (i.e., 32.4 readings/professional X 3,500 professionals). In Chapter 7, we showed that about 64 percent of the readings of library-provided articles take place in the first 1.5 years (46 percent in '/S year and 18 percent in '/4 to VA years). We assume that 57 percent of the readings are done from new journals (i.e., less than one year old), presumably from the current periodicals room (or journal routing); multiplying total journal readings of 113,400 X 57 percent gives 64,600 readings in the current periodicals room. The remaining 48,800 readings are from older journal materials provided by the library (45,600 in-library use and 3,200 interlibrary loan or document deliveiy). For the sake of this example, we assume the library has both journal routing and a current periodicals room, thereby artificially increasing total reading of library journals to 158,800.
147 Acquisitions requires processing 44,400 new items, including 24,200 internal rq)orts. We do not include die latter in mateirials receiving and processing. We combined spine labeling, barcode labeling/ linking, and other physical processing under "physical processing."
Table 47: Staff Input, Output, and Pa*fonnance Ratios for Operational Functions and Indirect Services of a Typical Organization Library
operational Functions/ Output Input Minutes/ Units/ Indirect Services Quantities Hours Unit Hour Collection Development and Management Collection development 12,600 items 770 3.7 16.2 Collection weeding 930 items 70 4.8 12.5 Physical withdrawal, related housekeeping 930 items 70 4.8 12.5 Shelving and reshelving 318,600 items 4,670 0.9 66.7 Acquisitions Ordering 9,340 items 560 3.6 16.7 Invoice processing 9,340 items 700 4.5 13.3 Processing materials received 44,400 items 1,200 1.6 37.5 Claiming 600 items 60 6.2 9.7 Cancellations 200 items 20 6.2 9.7 Materials Receiving and Processing Materials processing 20,200 items 500 1.5 40.0 Incoming and outgoing mail processing 260,000 Items 4,770 1.1 54.5 Cataloging Copy and enhanced cataloging 2,150 tiUes 640 17.9 3.4 Original cataloging 450 titles 440 58.6 1.0 Catalog Maintenance Catalog additions 2,600 tiUes 750 17.2 3.5 Catalog withdrawal 930 tides 330 21.1 2.8 Physical Processing, including spine labeling. 36,100 items 3,910 6.5 9.2 barcode labeling/linking, and other physical processing Monograph binding and repair 550 items 130 14.0 4.3 Periodicals binding and repair 1,200 items 280 14.0 4.3 Total Operational 19,870
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of library staff in 13 organizations (n = 522)
The total staff time for operational indirect services comes to 19,870 hours, compared with user- related services time of 19,050 hours.
Tables 48 and 49, respectively, present estimated hours for support functions and activities, and for "other" functions and activities. These values are all derived as a proportion of the other values. For example, automated systems administration hours are based on the amount of equipment and systems in the library. In the example, we assume an integrated library system, eight PCs or terminals, one large photocopier, and microform viewing and printing equipment.
148 Table 48: Hours Required to Perform Support Functions and Indirect Services in a Typical Organization library Support Functions/Activities Hours Hours/FTE Automated Systems Administration Back-up systems files 170 N/A Monitor system usage and performance 330 N/A Vendor-related activities 240 N/A Staff-related activities 210 N/A Troubleshooting and nuintenance 820 N/A Other system-related activities 450 N/A Total Automated Systems Administration 2,220 N/A Management and Administration General administration and management 5,830 220.0 Financial management, budgeting, and accounting 730 27.5 Personnel management and staff development 880 33.2 Facilities management 150 5.7 Marketing, public relations, etc. 120 4.5 . Policies and procedures 320 12.1 Reporting to superiors 620 23.4 Total Management and Administration 8,65Q 326.4 Total Support 10,870 N/A
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of library staff in 13 organizations (n = 522)
Management and administration hours are based on the total other hours. One can compute this as support time per full-time-equivalent (FTE) supported. For example, about 215 hours per FTE supported (i.e., 56,450 hours or 27.1 FTEs) gives 5,830 hours for general administration and management. General administration and management hours (5,830 hours) can also be taken as 10.3 percent of the total other staff hours (i.e., 56,450 hours of automated system administration, user-related functions, operational functions, and "other" functions). Financial management, budgeting, and accounting hours (730 hours) are found to be 1.3 percent of the same total, or 26.9 hours per FTE. The inverse of these proportions could be considered productivity measures (i.e., number of persons managed divided by amount of staff resources used to manage them).
Time of "other" functions includes benefit time (vacations, holidays, sick leave, etc.) and professional development and training. This category also includes other "nonproduction" time such as (1) time going to and from and attending general staff meetings, (2) slack time, and (3) scheduled "coffee breaks," etc. Altogether, we estimate that there are about 31 full-time-equivalent employees (i.e., 65,100 total staff hours at 2,080 per FTE). About one-fourth of the time is not directly related to services or operations, as defined above. Of this time, about 60 percent is a "benefit" to the staff. If staff members take a 15-minute break twice a day, and work about 225 days per year, the total time comes to about 112 hours per person, or about 6 percent of their time at work. Over the libraries studied, this comes to 4.7 percent of all time (i.e., 4.7 percent of 65,100 hours in the example).
Above, we examined the productivity of library staff in terms of the hours required to provide services or perform operational functions. The productivity of support and "other" functions is
149 Table 49: Hours Involved in "Other" Functions and Activities in a Typical Organization Library
"Other" Functions/Activities Hours Benefit Time Vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. 8,580 Professional development and trairting 790 Other "Nonproduction" Time Time going to and from and attending general staff meetings 1,140 Slack time 1,740 Scheduled "coffee breaks," etc. 3,060 TOTAL "OTHER" 15,310
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of library staff in 13 organizations (n = 522) determined as a ratio to the rest of the staff time. The idea here is, for example, that amount of administrative staff time should be a function of the amount of staff overseen. For the first two types of fiinaions, productivity is given as the units per hour of staff time; for the latter two functions, productivity is given as the number of FTEs (or hours) per hour of relevant support staff time.
UNIT COSTS OF LIBRARY SERVICES
In this section we convert staff time to dollars, and allocate other resources (e.g., space, equipment and systems, vendor charges, collection, and supplies) to specific functions, services, and activities. In Table 50 we estimate the total cost of all resources used by the hypothetical library discussed above, which serves 3,500 professionals and has about 17,500 square feet of space. We consider this example to be a composite of the 13 libraries studied, but not necessarily typical. This is because the libraries studied included both company and federal government libraries, and because the libraries vary substantially in collection size and composition and, as a result, in extent and types of equipment and integrated library systems used. The unit cost example is provided to illustrate the usefulness of examining unit costs, and should not necessarily be considered to represent "norms" of unit costs.
In the first cost column of Table 50, we give (1) salary and fringe benefit (i.e., pension, insurance, FICA, etc.) costs for each library function and activity, and (2) the expected costs of other resources. The total cost of $2,121,353 includes:
Staff and fringe benefits $1,079,854 50.9% of total Space and shelving $359,099 16.9% of total Equipment and systems $90,503 4.3% of total Vendors and supplies $199,297 9.4% of total Collection $392,600 18.5% of total $2,121,353 100.0% of total
The proportion of total costs of these resources has varied substantially among the libraries studied."'
One organization, for example, had almost an equal amount of budget allocated among staff, space, and the remaining resources (compared with 51 percent, 17 percent, and 32 percent above).
150 Table 50: Total Cost of Various Functions and Services at Six Cost Levels
Cost Level Equipment & Collection, Salary & "Other" Time Space Systems Vendors, & Administration Fringe Benefits Allocated Allocated Overhead Supplies Allocated Functions/Services ($) ($) {$) ($) . ($) ($) User-Related Functions/Services Access to Library Collections - Circulation $27,823 $37,853 $132,514 $166,019 $243,024 $292,987 Materials read in library — — 149,500 149,500 341.511 411,722 Journal routing 2,283 3.106 3,357 6,107 66.772 80,499 Current periodicals room — — 5,600 5,600 66.265 79,888 Interlibraiy lending 6,675 9,081 9,814 16,858 19.792 23,861 Access to External Collections Interlibraiy borrowing 7,708 10,487 11,335 19,502 21,102 25,440 ^rt Document deliveiy services 6,396 8,702 9.406 9,406 47,806 57,634 Photocopy Services Photocopying by libraiy staff 45,586 62,019 67.833 116.361 132,458 159,690 Reference and Research Services Directional reference and assistance 18,408 25,044 27.069 27.069 27.069 32,634 Brief reference and research 35.556 48,374 52,288 52,288 52,288 63,038 In-depth reference and research 18,512 25,185 27.222 27.222 27,222 32,819 Research 8,627 11.737 12,687 12,687 12.687 15,295 Database Search Services • Quick look-up searching 1,065 1,449 1,642 2,014 6.814 8,215 In-depth searching 133,588 181,746 206.010 213,168 305.568 368,389 Current Awareness Services 2,080 2.830 3,208 4,045 14.845 17,897 User Instniction Exhibits 4,371 5.947 6,741 6.741 6,741 8,127 Conduct tours and present briefings 825 1.122 1.213 1.213 1,213 1,462 Conduct training sessions or demonstrations 585 796 861 861 861 1.038 Table 50: Total Cost of Various Functions and Services at Six Cost Levels (cont.)
Cost Level Equipment & Collection. Salary & "Other" Time Space Systems Vendors, & Administration Fringe Benefits Allocated Allocated Overhead Supplies Allocated Functions/Services ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Access to Facilities Access to study space — — $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,028 Access to PCs and/or CD-ROM woikstations — — 1.200 3.989 6,989 8,426 TOTAL USER-RELATED $320,088 $435,478 734.500 845,650 1,406,027 1,695,089 Operational Functions/Activities Collection Development and Management Collection development 19,001 25,851 27,943 27,943 27,943 33,688 Collection weeding 1,064 1,447 1.565 1,565 1,565 1,887 Physical withdrawal, related housekeeping 1.064 1,447 1,565 1.565 1,565 1,887 Shelving and reshelving 24,231 32.966 34,821 34,821 34.821 41.980 Acquisitions Ordering 8,077 10.989 11,878 21,501 21.714 26,178 Invoice processing 10,096 13,735 14.846 26,874 27.240 32,840 sISJ Processing materials received 15,900 21,632 22,755 22,755 22,755 27,433 Claiming 1,090 1.483 1,603 2,635 2,666 3.214 Cancellations 363 494 534 878 968 1,167 Materials Receiving and Processing Materials processing 8,615 11,721 13,086 13,086 13,086 15,776 Incoming and outgoing mail processing 32,106 43,680 47,213 47,213 47,213 56,919 Cataloging Copy and enhanced cataloging 9,901 13.470 15,268 19,564 28,938 34,887 Original cataloging 5,712 7.771 8,808 11,762 18,208 21,951 Catalog Maintenance Catalog additions 10,289 13.998 15,130 28.015 28,015 33,775 Catalog withdrawal 5,489 7.468 8,072 13.742 13,742 16,567 f Table 50: Total Cost of Various Functions and Services at Six Cost Levels (cont.)
Cost Level Equipment & Collection, Salary & "Other" Time Space Systems Vendors, & Administration Fringe Benefits Allocated Allocated Overhead Supplies Allocated Functions/Services ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Physical Processing, including spine labeling, barcode labeling/linking, and other physical processing $39,722 $54,042 $55,552 $55,552 $55,552 $66,973 Monograph binding and repair 1,635 2,224 2,404 2,404 2,404 2,898 Periodicals binding and repair 3.522 4.792 5,179 5.179 5,179 6.244 TOTAL OPERATIONAL 197,877 269.210 288,222 337.054 353,574 426.264 Support Functions Automated Systems Administration Back-up systems files 2,725 3,707 4,025 — — Monitor system usage and performance 7,237 9,846 10,643 — — Vendor-related activities 5,998 8,160 8,821 — — Staff-related activities 5.511 7,498 8,104 — — Troubleshooting and maintenance 21.930 29,836 32,250 — — Other system-related activities 9,458 12.868 13.909 — — Management and Administration General administration and management 137,654 187.277 208.930 217,203 232,203 Financial management, budgeting, and accounting 20,937 28.485 32.288 32,288 32,288 Personnel management and staff development 26,649 36.256 39.189 39,189 39.189 Facilities management 4,308 5.861 6.643 6,643 6.643 Marketing, public relations, etc. 3,814 5,189 5,881 5,881 5.881 Policies and procedures 9,296 12,647 14,336 14,336 14.336 Reporting to superiors 20,240 27,536 31,212 31,212 31.212 TOTAL SUPPORT 275,757 375,166 416,231 346,752 361.752 "Other" Functions Benefit Time Vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. 148.178 Professional development and training 19.848 Table SO: Total Cost of Various Functions and Services at Six Cost Levels (cont.)
Cost Level Equipment &. Collection, Salaiy & "Other" Time Space Systems Vendors, & Administration Fringe Benefits Allocated Allocated Oveihead Supplies Allocated Functions/Services ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Other "Nonproduction" Time Time going to and from and attending general staff meetings $28,826 — — — — — Slack time 31.992 — — — — _ Scheduled "coffee breaks." etc. 57,288 — — — — _ TOTAL"OTHER" 286,132 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL STAFF WITH ALLOCATION $1,079,854 $1,079,854 $1,438,953 $1,529,456 $2,121,353 $2,121,353 SPACE AND SHELVING 359,099 359,099 — — — — EQUIPMENT & SYSTEMS 90,503 90.503 90,503 — — , — VENDORS & SUPPLIES 199,297 199,297 199,297 199,297 — — COLLECTION 392,600 392,600 392,600 392,600 — — OVERALL TOTAL $2,121,353 $2,121,353 $2,121,353 $2,121,353 $2,121,353 $2,121,353
4^ The staff costs in the first cost column are allocated to the specific functions and activities based on the staff hours given in Tables 46 through 49. The costs r^resent staffing patterns of professional librarians, paraprofessionals, secretarial and other support staff, and student aides. All but the last group are assumed to have full fringe benefits.
At the cost level above, we find a cost of $286,132 for "other" fiinaions. In the second cost column, this time is allocated to all other functions and activities. For the sake of simplicity, these costs are allocated proportionately to staff and frmge benefits costs; that is, each number is multiplied by a factor of 1.360494 (i.e., $1,079,854 H- $793,722)." A more accurate calculation would be to allocate the "other" function time directly to salaries on a person-by-person basis.
In the third cost column, we allocate the $359,099 cost of space to staff and specific activities or services. The allocation to staff varies by level of staff because the amount of space varies (e.g., management has more space than par^rofessionals) and cost of space varies. Allocated space costs also include $229,800 for shelf space (including shelving), $5,000 for reading space, $5,600 for a current periodicals room, $5,000 for study space, and $1,2(X) for user PCs or CD-ROM workstations. With such space allocation, the user-related function costs increase 69 percent (from $435,478 to $734,500), operational function costs increase 7.1 percent, and support and "other" function costs increase about 10.9 percent. The user-related functions increase disproportionally because of the nonstaff-related space requirements, such as shelving, photocopy room, a reference and circulation desk, etc.
In the fourth cost column, we allocate equipment and systems costs ($90,503 depreciated) and automated systems administration costs ($77,752) to the appropriate services and activities. The equipment and systems costs are allocated as a proportion of staff time spent using the equipment. The exception to this is database search services; in this instance, we use the time spent actually searching. For example, we assume that depreciated costs of database searching are about $4,500 for three terminals. Referring to Table 46, the staff hours break down to 40 hours for quick look-up searching (i.e., 4 minutes/search), 770 hours for in-depth searching (i.e., 20 minutes/search), and 90 hours for current awareness searching (i.e., 3 minutes/update); this equates to 4.44 percent, 85.55 percent, and 10 percent, respectively. Note that these numbers represent only the time actually searching. The $4,500 equipment costs are allocated as $200 to quick look-up searching, $3,850 to in-depth searching, and $450 to current awareness searching. The $77,752 automated systems administration costs are allocated proportionately to the equipment and systems costs (i.e., 85.9 percent more, or 1.859 times the equipment costs). This amounts to $372 for quick look-up searching, $7,158 for in-depth searching, and $837 for current awareness searching. We refer to this cost as equipment and system overhead. These amounts are added to the values in the previous columns to obtain this new cost level.
We then allocate collection, vendor, and supply costs (the next-to-last column in Table 50). Vendors, paper, toner, etc., come to an estimated $16,097 for the photocopy service. The automated systems vendor costs are assumed to be $21,8(X); the document delivery vendor costs are $38,400; and online search vendor costs are $108,000. Costs of other supplies ($15,000) are allocated to general administration and management. We estimate actual log-on time for database searching to be 900 hours at $120 per hour, or $108,(X)0 total. This time is allocated proportionately as before (i.e., [40 hours -^ 900 total hours] x $108,000 = $4,800 for quick look-up searching, and so on). The resulting amounts are $4,800 for quick look-up searching, $92,400 for in-depth searching, and $10,800 for current awareness searching. These amounts are added to the amounts in the previous column. These values
^liis factor is taken to six decimal places to avoid large rounding errors.
155 include allocation of all resources (i.e., staff, space, shelving, equipment and systems, collections, vendors, and supplies) to each appropriate service and activity. "Other" time and automated systems administration time are also allocated to appropriate functions and services. What remains is to allocate management and administration costs and tiien operational costs to user-related services.
The final cost level on Table 50 mcludes allocation of all resources and all indirect costs (i.e., for support and "other" functions) to user-related services and operational indirect services. In this way, we have a rough measure of total costs and can calculate unit costs for each service and indirect service. The total management and administration costs are $361,752. This amount is allocated proportionately to the total cost of all direct functions and activities. The total cost of all direct functions is $1,759,601 (i.e., $2,121,353 - $361,752). The allocation is done by multiplying each service and indirect service total cost by 1.2055875 (i.e., $2,121,353 ^ $1,759,601). For example, total circulation costs prior to allocation are $243,024; after allocation the amount is $292,987. The total costs of all user-related functions and services are $1,695,089, and the total costs for operational functions and indirect services are $426,264 (20.1 percent of the total library costs).
Unit costs for user-related and operational services are given in Table 51. Unit costs are presented for two extreme cost levels: (1) including salary and fringe benefits only, and (2) including allocation of all resources and indirect services and activities. For example, the unit cost of circulation is $1.62 per item circulated when only staff salaries (and fringe benefits) are considered. However, if all resources and indirect functions and activities are included, the unit cost increases to $17.03 per item circulated. The latter, of course, includes an allocation of shelving space and shelving and the purchase price of die collection which, with other allocations, makes the latter cost more than 10 times greater than the cost when only staff time and compensation are included.
Table 51: Unit Costs of User-related Functions/Services and Operational Functions/Indirect Services, by Two Levels of Cost
Unit Costs Salary and Resources & Indirect Fringe Benefits Functions Allocated Functions/Activities Output Quantities ($) ($) User-related Functions/Services Access to Library Collections Circulation 17,200 items $1.62 $17.03 Materials read in libraiy 109,300 readings ~ 3.76 Journal routing 16,800 routings 0.14 4.79 Current periodicals room 64,600 readings - 1.24 Interlibraiy lending 1,200 items 5.56 19.88 Access to External Collections Inteiiibraiy borrowing 1,500 items $5.14 $16.96 Document delivery services 3,200 items 2.00 18.01 Photocopy Services Photocopying by library staff 79,100 docs. 0.58 2.02 Reference and Research Services Directional reference and assistance 27,700 incidente 0.66 1.18 Brief reference and research 23,800 requests 1.49 2.65 In-depth reference and research 1,800 searches 10.28 18.23 Research 100 research reqs. 86.27 152.95
156 Table 51: Unit Costs of User-related Functions/Services and Ope^tional Functions/Indirect Services, by Two Levels of Cost (cont.)
Unit Costs Salary and Resources & Indirect Fringe Benefits Functions Allocated Functions/Activities Output Quantities ($) ($) Database Search Services Quick look-up searching 500 searches 2.13 16.43 In-depth searching 2,300 searches 58.08 160.17 Current Awareness Services 150 profiles 13.87 119.31 User Instruction Exhibits 10 exhibits 437.10 812.70 Conduct tours and present briefings 50 tours 16.50 29.24 Conduct training sessions or demonstrations 10 sessions 58.50 103.80 Access to Facilities Access to study space 14,000 uses ~ 0.43 Access to PCs and/or CD-ROM workstations 3,800 uses - 2.22 Operational Functions/Indirect Services ^ Collection Development and Management Collection development 12,600 items 1.51 2.67 Collection weeding 930 items 1.14 2.03 Physical withdrawal, related housekeeping 930 items 1.14 2.03 Shelving and reshelving 318,600 items 0.08 0.13 Acquisitions Ordering 9,340 items 0.86 2.80 Invoice processing 9,340 items 1.08 3.52 Processing materials received 44,400 items 0.36 0.62 Claiming 600 items 1.82 5.36 Cancellations 200 items 1.82 5.84 Materials Receiving and Processing Materials processing 20,200 items 0.43 0.78 Incoming/outgoing mail processing 260,000 items 0.12 0.22 Cataloging Copy and enhanced cataloging 2,150 titles 4.61 16.22 Original cataloging 450 tides 12.69 48.78 Catalog Maintenance Catalog additions 2,600 tides 3.96 12.99 Catalog withdrawal 930 tides 5.90 17.81 Physical Processing, including spine labeling, barcode labeling/linking, and other physical processing 36,100 items 1.10 1.86 Monograph binding and repair 550 items 2.97 5.27 Periodicals binding and repair 1,200 items 2.94 5.20
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of 13 organizations (n = 522)
Unit costs can be calculated for any intermediate cost level, by dividing the costs by output quantities —17,200 items circulated in the example. The circulation example is carried forward in Table 52. The unit cost at the six levels varies from $0.58 per item circulated for allocating "other" time to $5.50 per item circulated for allocation of space and shelving. The unit cost Of allocated collection purchases and the circulation vendor is $4.47. Recall that shelving space, shelving, and collection purchases are allocated in proportion to use in the library and use through circulation.
157 Table 52: Unit Cost of Circulation at Six Levels Unit Cost At Cost Level Total at Level Cost Level ($) ($) Salary and fringe benefits $1.62 $1.62 "Other" time allocated 0.58 2.20 Space allocated 5.50 7.70 Equipment & systems and overhead allocated 1.95 9.65 Collection, vendon, and supplies allocated 4.47 14.13 Management and administration allocated 2.90 17.03
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of 13 organizations (n = 522)
Unit Cost of User-related Services with All Indirect Costs Allocated
Above we have developed one of several possible methods for allocating resources and indirect costs to estimate the unit costs of user-related services and operational indirect services. Next we develop examples of unit costs for user-related services only. This is done by allocating the total costs of operational indirect services to the user-related services. In this analysis we also use units of service or transactions that reflect service use, as opposed to service outputs. For example, the unit cost of circulation and journal routing is based on the cost per reading, rather than the cost per item circulated or the cost per journal routing, as given previously. Doing this gives us a better unit cost comparison of all the collection-related services.
We provide one possible method for allocating the $426,264 total cost of operational functions. All of this cost is allocated to collection-related services: circulation, in-house use of the collection, reading current periodicals, journal routing, and interlibrary lending of articles. The allocation involves a two- step process. First, the operational costs are allocated to books, journals, and other documents. Then these costs are allocated in turn to the different collection-related services, based on amount of reading. The operational costs are categorized into six groups of indirect services:
Total Cost ($) Collection development, collection weeding, physical withdrawal, ordering, and $96,480 invoice processing Acquisitions, materials received, materials processing, and mail processing $103,342 Copy and enhanced cataloging, original cataloging, catalog additions, catalog $174,153 wididrawals, and physical processing Periodica] claiming, cancellations, and binding and repair $7,411 Monograph binding and repair $2,898 Shelving and reshelving $41,980 TOTAL $426,264
158 This categorization is used because allocations within these categories use common units of output quantities.
The first category is allocated proportionately to books, journals, and external documents based on number of titles (2,600 books, 1,100 journals, and 5,640 other document sets). Thus, the $96,480 is subdivided as $26,857 for books, $11,363 for journals, and $58,260 for external documents. The cost of acquisitions processing is allocated by number of incoming items (2,6(K) books, 8,300 journal issues, 24,200 mtemal reports, and 9,300 other documents). Thus, the $103,342 is subdivided as $6,052 for books, $19,318 for journals, $56,326 for internal rqwrts, and $21,646 for external documents. Cataloging, etc., involves books ($107,180); physical processing ($66,973 total) involves books ($4,824), internal reports ($44,896), and external documents ($17,253). Costs for periodical claiming, etc, and for monograph binding are allocated to journals and books, respectively. Shelving is dealt with differently, as we explain later.
Excluding shelving, the total costs by type of document are:
Books $147,811 Journals 38,092 Internal reports 101,222 Other documents 97,159 TOTAL $384,284
The collection-related services include circulation, in-library use, current periodicals room, journal routing, interlibrary lending, and photocopying service. The three types of documents are allocated to each by the relative amount of reading derived from the services above. The proportions are as follows:
« Books ($147,811), subdivided into circulation (92.0 percent), in-library use (5.0 percent), and mterlibrary borrowing (3 percent).
• Journals ($38,092), subdivided into in-library use (28.5 percent [45,600 of 160,000 uses]), current periodicals room (40.4 percent [64,600 of 160,000 uses]), journal routing (28.4 percent [45,400 of 160,000 uses]), interlibrary borrowing (2.0 percent [3,200 of 160,000 uses]), and interlibrary lending (0.75 percent [1,200 of 160,000 uses]).
• Internal reports ($101,222), in-library use (100.0 percent).
• External documents ($97,159), in-library use (100.0 percent).
159 Then, costs are found as follows:
Intemal/Extemal Books Journals Documents Shelving Total Collection-related Service ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Circulation $135,915 $2,592 $138,507 Materials read in libraiy 7,435 $10,856 $198,381 19,152 235,824 Joumal routing - 10,808 ~ 2,534 13,342 Current periodicals room - 15,380 - 8,965 24,345 Interlibraiy borrowing 4,461 762 - — 5,223 Interiibraiy lending - 286 — 158 444 Photocopying - ~ — 8,579 8,579 TOTAL $147,811 $38,092 $198,381 $41,980 U26,264
The cost of shelving ($41,980) is subdivided proportionately by 17,200 items circulated, 109,300 items read in-library, 64,600 items read in the current periodicals room, 16,800 joumal issues routed, 1,200 items loaned on ILL, 65,100 items photocopied, and 44,000 new items (allocated to circulation— 2,470, in-library use—36,050, joumal routing—2,430, and current periodicals room—3,450), for a total of 318,600 items shelved or reshelved. These costs are added to the costs found in the last column of Table 50 for appropriate user-related services. The results are shown in Table 53.
The total costs are $2,121,353, since all indirect costs are now allocated. Costs of access to the library collection by professionals range from about $1.61 and $2.07 per reading for the current periodicals room and joumal routing to $9.44 per reading for circulation. As will be shown in the next ch^ter, the value and worth (or value derived) of these services are substantially greater. Interlibrary lending costs $20.25 per item with all resources and indirect costs included. The cost to access external collections is much higher both for interlibrary borrowing and use of document delivery services. These costs reflect the fact that most organizations tend to use document delivery services for items that are more difficult to locate and when "rush" delivery is required (about 30 percent of the requests). The photocopy services cost $2.13 per document, or about $0.18 per page, with all indirect costs included.
Reference and research services range from $1.18 per incident for directional help and assistance to $153 per research request. Not all organizations provide the latter service, but there is a trend in this direction. Database search services cost about $16 for quick look-up and $160 for in-depth searching. In many organizations, professionals tend to perform their own searches or delegate them to a subordinate, if the searches are relatively simple. This explains the disparity between the number of quick look-ups (500) and the number of in-depth searches (2,300). The current awareness service costs about $9.95 per monthly issue, or $119 per profile (150 profiles), or $1.89 per document read as a result of using these tools.
Access to library space amounts to $0.43 per use, and user access to PCs or CD-ROM workstations amounts to $2.22 per use. Both seem reasonable on a per-use basis. User instmction costs about $800 per exhibit, $30 per library tour or briefing, and $100 per training session or demonstration. These costs also could be allocated, but they are small enough that they would not affect the other unit costs by much.
Again, we emphasize that the general allocation method we have discussed is only one of many that might be used. However, we strongly believe that examination of unit costs provides a valuable indicator
160 Table 53: Unit Costs of Ubrary So-vices
Cost per Unit or Number of Service Total Cost Transaction User-related Functions/Services Units or Transacdons ($) ($) Access to Library Collections Circuladon 45,700 readings $431,494 $9.44/reading Materials read in libraiy 109,300 readings 647,546 $5.92/reading Joumal routing 45,400 readings 93,841 S2.07/reading Current periodicals room 64,600 readings 104,233 $1.61/reading Interlibrary lending 1,200 items 24,305 $20.25/item Access to External Collections Interlibrary borrowing 1,500 items 27,107 $18.07/item Docuntent delivery services 3,200 items 61,190 $19.12/item Photocopy Services Photocopying by library staff 79,100 docs. 168,269 $2.13/document Reference and Research Services Directional reference and assistance 27,700 incidente 32,634 $1.18/incident Brief reference and research 23,800 requests 63,038 $2.65/rBquest In-depth reference and research 1,800 searches 32,819 $18.23/search Research 1(X) research reqs. 15,295 $152.95/res. req. Database Search Services Quick look-up searching 500 searches 8.215 $16.43/sean:h In-dq)th searching 2,300 searches 368,389 $160.17/seaich Current Awareness 1,800 monthly issues 17,897 $9.94/issue User Instruction Exhibits 10 exhibite 8,127 $812.70/exhibit Conduct tours/present briefings 50 tours/briefings 1,462 $29.24/tour Conduct training sessions/ 10 sessions 1,038 $103.80/session demonstradons Access to Facilities Access to study space 14,000 uses 6,028 $0.43/use Access to PCs and/or CD-ROM 3.800 uses 8,426 $2.22/use workstations TOTAL $2,121,353
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of 13 organizadons of library performance and a useful tool for arguing for the value and worth of services (see Chapter 10). For example, the cost of $9.44 per reading of circulated materials may seem high, but the alternatives are even more expensive. It costs professionals nearly $6 on the average to visit the library (i.e., including the time required to travel to and from the library). The total cost to operate libraries is only about $12 per use. Similarly, the cost of access to extemal collections may seem high, but we will show that the costs of alternatives are even higher on the average. This leads us to emphasize that die unit cost of collections must be considered relative to the amount of use for individual documents. The reason is that frequency of use usually varies dramatically among documents. One should take advantage of this fact by providing access to documents differently, according to frequency of use. Some examples are offered below in our discussion of economies of scale.
161 ECONOMIES OF SCALE
Economies of Scale Defmed
Above we provided some examples of the unit costs of services at various levels of cost, depending on which resources and indirect costs are included in the calculation. One very important aspect of unit costs is that the unit costs of many user-related services and operational indirect services decrease as the numbers of units provided (or transactions performed) increase. That is, with such services it costs less per unit to provide many units than to provide a few of them. This phenomenon is called economies of scale. There are two important reasons why economies of scale should be recognized:
• First, the unit costs of services or indirect services (to which economies of scale J^ply) tend to decrease appreciably as the amounts of output increase, up to a point at which they may con tinue to decrease but in very small increments. We refer to that level of output as the "critical mass." Ideally, a library should operate at or above the critical mass to operate at minimum unit costs. Sometimes libraries share resources (or "network") so that a group of libraries can perform or provide services at or above the critical mass. The same may be tme when an organization served by a library has multiple sites and/or branch libraries. To operate close to the critical mass, it may be necessary to perform or provide some services centrally.
• Second, knowledge of how unit costs decrease can be used to develop optimum strategies for providing services. Some library services are designed with this in mind.
There are basically four ways that economies of scale can be achieved:
• The most common is when a service involves a large fixed cost, such as purchase or lease of equipment and systems, space, or expensive items in a collection. Unit costs decrease dramatically as the large costs are spread over an increasing number of uses.
• Economies of scale also can be achieved through volume discounts for purchasing materials, supplies, equipment, services, and so on.
• Larger libraries can perform some services using less staff time per unit produced than smaller libraries. Examples include cataloging, interlibrary loan processing, indexing, etc. We normally find that such services can be productive by having staff perform them on an ongoing basis or by batching the work, rather than performing them on an on-again, off-again basis.
• Finally, economies of scale can be accomplished for some activities if the volume is sufficiently large to maintain staff with special competencies (i.e., knowledge and skills). Examples include database searching, research services, cataloging, etc.
Economies of Scale for Database Searching
The first example of economies of scale deals with spreading large fixed costs. This example is best illustrated by showing how the total cost increases as the number of output units increases, then showing how unit cost decreases with increasing units or transactions. Figure 36 shows the total cost of database searching by library staff plotted over a number of searches. As shown, there are fixed costs and variable costs associated with this service. The fixed costs are those costs incurred that do not vary with the
162 amount of searching done. Examples of fixed Figure 36: Total Costs of In-depth Searching, costs include the cost of a terminal, space, fur by Number of Searches Po'formed niture, special reference materials, etc. Based on our data given previously, the fixed costs for data Tolat Cosls base searching would be about $7,500 (consisting (*) largely of depreciated equipment, system adminis tration, and space). Variable costs are those costs that are incurred with each search. Examples of variable costs include staff time^S vendor charges
(if online), photocopying, etc. In our example, the stop Cost variable costs for in-d^th searching are about $132 per search on the average.^ The variable VortaUo Cos»^ cost of each search is referred to as the incre mental cost. If there are no searches, the total cost is $7,500. If there is 1 search, the total cost is Incromonlal Cost $7,632; 2 searches, $7,764; 10 searches, $8,820; 100 searches, $20,700; 1,000 searches $139,500; Rxod Costa and so on. At some point in the increasing num ber of searches, the terminal and space would be L used fully and more would need to be obtained. Numbor of Transactions / Units This would require new fixed costs or step costs, as shown in the figure.
Unit costs are calculated by dividing the total costs at each amount of use by the number of uses. Figure 37: Unit Costs of In-depth Searching, For the example above, the unit cost of 1 search is by Number of Seardies Performed $7,632; 2 searches, $3,882 per search; 10 searches, $882 per search; 100 searches, $207 per Avoraga Cost p«r search; 1,000 searches, $139.50 per search. Transaction/Unit (») These unit costs are shown in Figure 37. Clearly, the unit costs decrease dramatically initially, then Flxod Costs level off and approach (but never reach) an asymptote. The asymptote is the incremental cost. That is, the unit costs of database searching will decrease to nearly $132, but will never quite reach that amount. For example, at 2,000 searches, the unit cost is about $134.
One reason why it is desirable to approach the critical mass is that the library's organization achieves greater benefits at that level. For Incromentol Voiiabto Costs example, we show in Chapter 10 that the derived value of database searches performed by library Number of Transactions / Units
We assume that staff time would be redirected, depending on how much time is spent searching. Otherwise, staff compensation would be a fixed cost.
n'o simplify the example we ignore other search applications (current awareness), but we do include allocation of indirect coste.
163 staff is $272 per search. At a small number of searches, the net benefit (i.e., derived value less library cost) is actually negative; this continues up to about 30 searches, at which time the net benefit is positive and increases as the number of searches increases. For example, the net benefit at 500 searches is $125 per search (or $62,500 total). Yet, twice that number of searches yields only a slightly larger net benefit ($132.50 per search). Certainly one could say a "critical mass" is achieved at the level of about 500 searches and higher. For this reason, one should attempt to reach at least that number of searches in a year to derive the maximum net benefit.
Economies of Scale for Access to Collections
There are fixed and variable costs associated with the purchase and use of materials. For example, purchasing joumal subscriptions costs an average of about $188 per subscription; that is, $120 for an average subscription price plus $68 for collection development, acquisitions, ordering, claiming, processing, and space and shelving costs, as well as allocation of management and administration costs. The $188 is considered a fixed cost. Variable costs would include those costs associated with reading materials in the library and joumal routing. Reading materials in the library would require reshelving (about $0.13 per item reshelved) plus $1.21 for photocopying (i.e., 0.57 x $2.13 = $1.21) for a total of $1.34 per reading. The unit costs of reading joumals in the library are shown in Figure 38. As shown, the unit costs drop dramatically at first, and then begin to level off in the 50 to 1(X) readings range (note that the average reading of a library subscription is estimated to be 102 readings per subscription [see Chapter 7]). The principal derived value per reading of library-provided joumals is $49 per reading (see Chapter 10). The net value of the readings is $46 per reading at 100 readings. Therefore, sharing the joumals through the library collection presents a considerable derived value to organizations.
Figure 38: Unit Cost pa* Reading of a Joumal Subscription
Avg. Cost/Raading $20O -
tiso •
$100- $50- vZ_ $0 -11 1 1 r 0 20 40 60 80 100 Numbflr of Reading?
We have pointed out that alternatives, such as personal subscriptions, shared office collections, and library-provided joumals, all make sense depending on the extent to which journals are read by the
164 individual subscriber, collectively in an office or unit, or collectively from a library. However, we find that the extent of use of a joumal in an organization library must be considered as well, because articles from mfrequently read joumals can be obtained from alternatives such as interlibrary loan or document delivery services. We find that the average costs of these two services are about $18.07 and $19.12, respectively (or $18.79 between them).
Libraries have found that it is less expensive to borrow, or use document delivery services to obtain, infrequently used materials (or those that have been lost or mutilated) than to purchase them. Library materials cost a great deal more than the purchase price alone. For example, as mentioned, it costs about $68 to process a joumal. Because of dieir nature, some materials will be used infrequently in some libraries and, therefore, it is less expensive to borrow than to purchase them. However, borrowing books or obtaining photocopies of articles is expensive for both die borrowing and the lending library. A borrowing library must locate a source from which to borrow, sometimes do bibliographic verification, log-in the borrowed item, and retum it. The lending library must process the request (and sometimes do bibliogr^hic verification), see if it is available, obtain it from the shelf (and/or photocopy it), record the loan, package it, send it, and log-in and reshelve the item upon retum. There also should be a mechanism for sending messages and materials. Libraries lending books and other monographs can incur other costs as well. Sometimes access is denied to the lending library's users because the item is out (5 percent of ILLs) and some materials are retumed damaged (1 percent of ILLs). Similarly, there is a cost to borrowing users in terms of delays. Professionals need materials in less than 2 days 30 percent of the time, and in 2 to 5 days 16 percent of the time. The average elapsed time from request to receipt is often more than a week.
Figure 39: Comparison of the Total Cost of Purchasing a $120 Journal Versus Using a Document Delivery Service, by Number of Uses
Total Coat t300
$250 /^
Putxho^lnq Joumal / - $200
Braok-ayan poinf $150 Using Documant / ol ~10.8 raa'dlngs Dvlivary Sarvica /
$ioo y
$50 y
m- 0 S 10 IS No. of Usas of Joumal
Even so, we will show that it is less expensive to use a document delivery service or "borrow" a photocopy of an article through interlibrary loan than to purchase an infrequently used journal. In Figure 39 we show a comparison of the total costs of purchasing a $120 joumal and of using a document delivery service (with rush requests satisfied by courier). The break-even point for purchasing versus ILL/document delivery ($18.79) is about 10.8 readings of all articles in the journal over the life of the
165 joumal. That is, if there are fewer than about 11 readings, it is less expensive to obtain individual copies of the articles by document delivery. If there are more than 11 readings, it is less expensive to purchase the journal.*' Of course, the break-even point increases as the price of the joumal increases, as shown in Table 54. For example, if a journal costs $240, the break-even point (all other things being equal) is about 17.7 readings. Similarly, if the cost of obtaining individual copies of articles (say, through electronic delivery) decreases, the break-even point also increases. For example, if the cost to obtain an article decreases by $10 per copy (including library allocated costs), the break-even point for a $120 joumal increases from 10.8 to 25.2 readings.** Thus, knowledge of unit costs (and economies of scale) can be usefiil in examining altematives to library services.
Table 54: Break-even Point of Purchasing Joumal Yorsus Documoit Delivery Sa*vice, by Joumal Subscription Price Subscription Price Break-even Point ($) (Readings) $50 6.8 $100 9.6 $120 10.8 $150 12.5 $250 18.2 $500 32.6 $1,000 61.2
Economies of Scale for Volume Discounts
We mentioned above that economies of scale can be achieved through volume discounts (e.g., with fumiture, supplies, brokers, etc.). Organization libraries might want to explore volume discounts with large publishers (or subscription agencies), particularly those from which the library and the organization as a whole has subscriptions to multiple titles. Licensing arrangements could be made to include a value- added price to permit unlimited photocopying (or electronic distribution) within the organization. This would avoid the burden of recordkeeping on a transaction or any other basis.
Economies of Scale for Services
We also mentioned that economies of scale can be achieved for some operational indirect services. An indicator that smaller libraries tend to cost more than larger ones is shown in Table 55.
^ote that the break-even point was about five readings for a typical joumal in the early 1970s, which led to the "five and under" rule proposed by libraries in the 1976 Copyright Law. At that time, the rule finessed the royalty issue, because royalty payment was not required by the borrowing library for five or fewer articles "borrowed." If they had to borrow more than that number, they should have subscribed anyway.
*^ote that we have assumed royalty payments are included in the vendor charges. Presumably, document delivery vendors do include such costs.
166 Table 55: Ratio of Professionals Served per library Staff Member, by Number of Professionals Served Professionals per Libraiy Staff Member Number of Professionals Served Average Median <200 ' 57 56 200-1,000 77 77 1,001-2,000 * * 2,001-3,000 94 108 3,001-4,000 120 142 >4,000 169 169
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of 17 libraries * No data for libraries at this level.
Here we show that the number of professionals served per library staff member tends to increase as the number of professionals served increases. For example, for 17 organizations for which we have good data, if there are fewer than 200 professionals in the parent organization, the number of professionals served per library staff member (FTE) is about 55. The number of professionals served per library staff member increases to about 170 in organizations with more than 4,000 professionals. It spears that libraries serving large organizations are more productive than libraries serving small organizations. In fact, in Chapter 3, we point out that it appears that an organization needs to employ about 50-75 professionals to justify a fully staffed, full-service library.
Another way to express this indicator of economies of scale is shown in Figure 40. In the figure, we plot staff compensation costs per professional served against number of professionals served. At about 100 professionals served, the cost is $610 per professional served. At 600 professionals, the cost is $452 per professional, and the cost decreases to $208 per professional at 6,000 professionals. The amount seems to begin flattening out at about 3,500 professionals, in much the way it would if there were a large fixed cost involved. This would suggest a critical mass at about that point, and a variable staff cost of about $200 per professional served. We believe that two factors are associated with this indicator of economies of scale: a large fixed cost and the production-like aspects of some activities. From the perspective of total and unit costs of user-relat^ activities and services, there is a large fixed cost associated with the operational fimctions and activities, in the sense that these costs are basically independent of library use. In the example given earlier, for a single library serving about 3,500 professionals, we see that the fixed cost is $426,264 and the variable (i.e., user-related) costs are $1,695,089, or about $9.61 per library use on the average (for 176,400 total visits and additional uses [see Ch^ter 5]). Of course, the amount of operational costs would normally adjust themselves somewhat to the extent of use, but assuming it does not we would have a picture of unit costs per library use similar to that shown in Figure 41. At 176,4(X) library uses (i.e., with an overall average use per professional of 50.4), the unit cost is $12 per library use (or about $2.40 per use above the incremental cost).
167 Figure 40: Ratio of Staff Compensation ($) to Professionals Sa*ved, by Number of Professionals Served
Stoff ($) / Professionals Sorvod t700
$( 10 $600
$500 $W2
$400 '•$S48 •.$306 $300
-.$205 $200
$100
$0 >0 2.500 3,500 No. of Professionals Servod Source: King Research, Inc., survey of 17 libraries
Figure 41: Ratio of Unit Cost to Library Uses, by Number of Library Uses
Unit Cos* ($) / Library Use $60 -
v«52.24. *50 -
$*o - \
\»30.92 $30 -
\j20.27 $20 - ^^^•^..^•16.71 — •'='-87 ^,. ,^
$10 -
0 2S.OOO 50.000 7S.OOO 100.000 125,000 1 50.00 Numb«r of Usos per Yeor
Source: King Research. Inc.. survey of 17 libraries
Some Examples of Critical Mass
In the research leading to this book, we had hoped to clearly establish economies of scale estimates for individual library services, but were unable to do so except in a rough manner. Services and indirect services for which economies of scale are apparent and for which we have evidence of critical mass are as follows:
168 Service/Indirect Service Critical Mass Manual searching 1,0(X) searches Database searching 5(X) searches Circulation control (manual) 15,(X)0 items Circulation control (automated) 1(X),000 items Interlibrary borrowing or lending 1,000 items Acquisitions, ordering, invoice processing 5,000 items Cataloging 10,000 items Physical processing 10,000 items
If these critical masses are valid, a library should attempt to organize these services and indirect services to come as close as possible to achieving the critical mass levels.
FLOW ANALYSIS
We have found it useful to accompany staffing analyses with an analysis of the flow of materials through operations. In this section we briefly discuss materials tracking for serials and monographs from initial receipt through display on shelving in the reading room. The purpose of the tracking is to determine the average time required for materials to complete the technical processing route and to identify any stages in the route where delays occur.
Serial tracking was performed in one organi2:ation and monograph tracking in two organizations" for a sample of all materials received in the Acquisitions unit. A tag with a barcode label was inserted into each item in the sample to mark the items for tracking data collection. Data were collected using a barcode reader to read the barcodes and record the location of all items at specified sampling points along the route and at fixed time intervals. The data from the reader were uploaded to a microcomputer and stored on a floppy disk for computation and analysis.
Serials Tracking
The analysis of the data from serials tracking was performed using a sample of 369 items in one organization. Seven workstations were used as sampling points in serials tracking. The first five of these, in the Technical Services Unit work area, were (1) Receipt, (2) Awaiting Serials-processing Module, (3) Awaiting Special Processing "A," (4) Awaiting Specijd Processing "B," and (5) Awaiting Manual Checking. The last two buffers, located in the Circulation work area, were (6) Awaiting Sensitization and (7) Awaiting Display. The two primary paths of the work flow are shown in Figure 42.
Two primary work flow results were identified in serials processing. In these, materials either went to work station (2) Awaiting Serials-processing Module, or to workstations (3) Awaiting Special Processing "A" and (4) Awaiting Special Processing "B." However, in the sample we found a significant
Since data were collected in one or two organizations only, these results should not be considered typical. They are presented here as an example of the type of flow analysis that might be implemented.
169 Figure 42: Work Flow for Serials Processing
(1) Receipt
1 ' i > (3) (2) Awaiting Special Awoitina Serials- processing Module Processing "A" Services work area
1 '
1 1 1 (4) 1 Awaiting Special 1...... -.—.....J Processing "B"
(5) Awaiting Manual Checking i 1 (6) Awaiting Sensitization Circulation i work area (7) Awaiting Display
proportion (18 percent) of items that were tracked from (2) Awaiting Serials-processing Module to (4) Awaiting Special Processing "B," which was outside the expected material flow. Because of the size of this group, we included them as a distinct group in the analysis, designating them as Serials with Partial Special Processing.
The average duration time in hours for serials processing is:
• 33.5 hours for serials without special processing; • 39.5 hours for serials with partial special processing; and • 41.8 hours for serials with complete special processing.
Serials that go through the regular processing route take 1.4 days for processing. Those that receive partial special processing take 1.6 days, and those with complete special processing take 1.7 days. Another way of looking at these data is to see the proportion of all serials that are processed within specified times. The proportion of all serials that are processed from (1) Receipt through (7) Awaiting Display for certain time periods are:
170 • 22 percent are processed within 1 day; • 71 percent are processed within 2 days; and • 7 percent are processed within 3 days.
Monograph Tracking
The sample of monographs tracked in two organizations was all monogr^h items at any point in processing on the first day of the data collection period. These items were tagged and tracked once a day for two weeks. Twelve workstations were used in tracking monographs. The first 10, in the Technics Services Section work unit, were (1) Receipt, (2) Awaiting Reference Cart, (3) Awaiting Special Processing, (4) Return from Reference, (5) Awaiting OCLC, (6) Original Cataloging, (7) OCLC Cataloging, (8) Awaiting Physical Processing, (9) Awaiting Link/Label, and (10) Awaiting Circulation. The last two work stations were at other locations in the library; they were (11) Awaiting Sensitization and (12) Awaiting Shelving. The primary work flow paths are shown in Figure 43. As Figure 43 shows, an item could be sent to (3) Awaiting Special Processing early in the route. Items usually went to either (6) Original Cataloging or (7) OCLC Cataloging, but not to both.
The average total time in work days for monograph processing from (1) Receipt through (11) Awaiting Sensitization, by type of monograph order, is:
• 5.8 days for direct orders • 4.4 days for rush orders
Others: • 10.7 days Original Cataloging • 10.5 days OCLC Cataloging
All: • 10.1 days Original Cataloging • 10.0 days OCLC Cataloging
There is litde difference in the time required to process a direct order monograph and a rush order monogr^h. Other monographs require 10 days longer for processing. If the time required for technical processing of monographs is expressed in weeks, rush orders and direct orders are processed in {^proximately one week and other monographs in three weeks. The overall time for monographs is also three weeks.
The average four-day waits between (1) Receipt and (2) Awaiting Reference and between (2) Awaiting Reference and (4) Return from Reference reflect the standard procedures established between the Acquisitions and Reference units. All monographs received during a week are collected and sent to Reference on a specified day. After their review and approval process. Reference returns the materials at the end of the following week. If it can be assumed that original cataloging requires more time and effort than copy cataloging, then it is surprising that there is so litde difference between monogr^hs for which original cataloging was necessary and those that were processed using copy cataloging. Less than half a day's difference was found. Possible explanations for this include additional steps (such as checking) that copy cataloging goes through, or a lack of fit between OCLC cataloging copy and the library's requirements. Note that these results are given as an example, and should not be considered norms.
171 Figure 43: Work Flow for Monograph Processing 1 (1)
Receipt 1 • 1 (3) 4 Awaiting Awaiting Special Processing Reference Cart 1 (4) Return from Reference 1 (5) Awaiting OCLC 1' ' r
Original OCLC Cataloging Cataloging
Awaiting Physical Processing I Awaiting Link/Label
I (10) Awaiting Circulation 1 (11) Awaiting Sensitization i (12) Awaiting Shelving
172 CHAPTER 10
IMPACT OF SPECIAL LIBRARY SERVICES
THE VALUE AND WORTH OF ORGANIZATION LIBRARIES
Economists make a clear distinction between the value and the worth of goods and services. "Value" is the amount paid for goods or services, since price is a gauge of the value one is willing to pay. "Worth," on the other hand, reflects what is gained or the value derived from the purchase. Machlup [100] points out that value and worth may or may not be equivalent. For example, gems may have a high value or price, but a low worth. Air, on the other hand, has low value but high worth. The same may be said of information. One may not need to pay much for a journal compared with an instance of reading from which an enormous consequence might be derived. On the other hand, one could spend a great deal of time and money conducting a particular database search that produces little new information. For this reason, we have attempted to provide evidence of both the value of library- provided information and services, and their worth—or the value derived—in terms of outcomes or consequences of their use.
There are two components of the price paid by professionals for information services and products. The first component is the amount of money exchanged and the second is the value of the time spent acquiring and using information services. For most services provided by organization libraries, the first component (dollars exchanged) is nonexistent or applies to only a few services for which users are charged. On the other hand, the "price" paid by users in terms of their time spent acquiring and using information can be substantial. In fact, we will demonstrate that this component of value or price is usually substantially greater than the cost to libraries to provide the services. We also will show that one of the greatest benefits of library services is to minimize the "price" component that consists of professionals' time necessary to acquire information. The driving goal of library and information services should be to minimize value (price) and maximize worth (value derived).
The price professionals are willing to pay for information involves the information content itself. However, there are attributes of information, information packages, and information services that also affect the price users are willing to pay. Attributes of information include relevance of the information to needs, accuracy, quality, currency, comprehensiveness, and so on. Attributes of information packages include quality of reproduction, type fonts, format, readability, and so on. Attributes of information services include quality, timeliness, availability, accessibility, and so on. Each such attribute has associated with it a price that users may be willing to pay and a perceived favorable outcome or worth (or they would not pay the price).
In this chapter we discuss the price professionals are willing to pay for library-provided information and information services. We also try to demonstrate the worth of this information and these services to users. We show that the value derived is generally substantially greater than the price paid for information and information services. In Chapter 2 we showed that one indicator of worth or outcome is the extent to which library use affects the parent organization mission and goals. We then showed evidence of the impact of library use. We further demonstrated that all the evidence and indicators of the impact of information in Cliapter 5 are observed to a greater degree for information provided by libraries than for information obtained from other sources. In this chapter, we provide evidence that
173 library services result in substantial savings to parent organizations. This evidence is compared with library costs and current user costs (i.e., the price) for all services for which we have those data.
THE PRICE PROFESSIONALS ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
Libraries are found to cost organizations in the neighborhood of about $400 to more than $1,000 per professional in the organization (depending on the size of the organization served and the range of services provided). A question funders frequendy ask is whether such expenditures are worthwhile. One piece of evidence to address this question is what professionals are willing to pay for the information and services provided by libraries. We measure how much professionals pay for information and services in terms of their time spent acquiring and reading information provided by the libraries. Professionals' time is a scarce resource and we assume they choose to spend it in ways that are most beneficial to them and their organizations.
We examined how much time professionals spend acquiring and reading documents provided by libraries. This was determined by a survey of professionals in larger organizations in which we asked a series of questions about their most recent reading of journals articles, books, internal reports, and other documents such as external reports, patent documents, and so on. When a reading was from a library- provided document, we asked how much time was spent by the professional going to and from tlie library, identifying the document, locating it, obtaining it, photocopying it, and reading it. Sometimes, of course, there was no time involved for some of the activities al)ove. For example, a journal article read from a library-routed journal requires no time spent going to and from the library. Generally, professionals indicated that about one-tiiird of the total acquisition time was divided among (1) going to and from the library, (2) identifying and locating the document, and (3) obtaining and photocopying it. Also, the average amount of time spent acquiring and reading journal articles and books was greater for readings from library-provided materials than for readings from materials obtained from other sources. Estimates of time (in minutes) spent by professionals are given in Table 56.
The average annual number of readings and the average time spent acquiring and reading documents provided by libraries are summarized in Table 57. Altogether, professionals average reading 63.9 documents a year provided by the library. The total amount of time spent acquiring these documents is 15.9 hours, or about 15 minutes per document read (versus 8.6 minutes for nonlibrary documents). The total time spent reading these documents is 102.7 hours per year per professional, or about 1.6 hours per reading (versus 1.1 hours for nonlibrary documents). Thus, professionals "pay" about 118.5 hours per year to acquire and read library-provided documents.
In current dollars, we find that professionals' average hourly rates are of the order of magnitude of $40 per hour, including fringe benefits.^ Thus, professionals average directly paying a "price" of about $4,740 per year for library-provided information found in documents. This is more than 10 times the cost of the least expensive organization libraries and more than 4 times the cost of the very expensive ones. We find that professionals sometimes use support staff to acquire library-provided materials. On the average, this adds another $200 to the total $4,740 price paid for these materials (versus $515 cost to the library per professional to provide materials). Clearly, the value, expressed in this way, far exceeds the total cost of the library; this value does not express what professionals might pay if required to do so, only what they actually pay for library-provided materials.
^f desired, one can adjust professionals' average houriy rate to fit a particular organization and substitute throughout.
174 Table 56: Average* Time Spoit (by Professionals and by Others on Thar Behalf) to Acquire Documents Provided by Libraries Type of Document Internal Other Journals Books Reports Documents Time Spent by Professionals (minutes) Going to the libraiy 3.9 5.8 0.6 4.3 Identifying needed document 1.9 2.1 4.7 4.4 Locating the document 2.6 4.1 5.7 6.1 Obtaining a copy 1.0 2.3 6.1 5.8 Photocopying the document 1.9 2.2 2.1 3.2 TOTAL 11.3 16.S 19.2 23.8 Time Spent by Someone Else on Behalf of Professionals (minutes) Going to the libraiy 2.7 4.8 3.4 Unknown Identifying needed document 3.6 1.7 1.2 Unknown Locating the document 1.6 6.3 1.5 Unknown Olrtaining a copy 1.0 1.6 1.1 Unknown Photocopying the document 0.9 1.2 4.0 Unknown TOTAL 9.8 15.6 11.2 Unknown
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892) * Average based on all readings of libraiy-provided documents.
Table 57: Average Annual Time per Professional Spent Acquiring and Reading Various Types of Documents Provided by Libraries No. of Acquiring Reading Total Readings (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) Journal articles 32.4 6.1 41.4 47.5 Books 14.2 3.9 33.2 37.1 Internal reports 12.5 4.0 20.3 24.3 Other documents 4.8 1.9 7.8 9.7 All documents 63.9 15.9 102.7 118.6
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in eight oi;ganizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892)
One other way to look at "price" in terms of users' time is to reexamine the relationship between distance and number of visits to organization libraries (see Figure 25). If we think of the distance to the library in minutes of users' time (a "price" paid to visit a library), and the number of visits as "demand," we have a relationship very much like a price-demand curve, as shown in Figure 44. The relationship shows that the "demand" for library visits increases as "price" decreases. The relationship also shows that price-demand appears to go from inelastic to elastic as time increases. At each price, one can roughly assess the number of library users who are willing to pay the price, if we assume a visit represents a user. Even though a particular user may use a library several times, the user must make a price determination each time the library is visited. The total "value" of what users are willing to pay is the sum of the area under the price-demand curve.
One can also examine individual library services from the viewpoint of the price paid to use them. For example, in Table 58 we list 27 typical services and the average price paid per use in terms of users'
175 Figure 44: Price-Demand Relationship of Library Use
Pries (MinuUs) 20
IS
10
S
o 0 1 2 3 4 5 Visits
Source: King R«s«arch, Inc., surveys of profossionals In 21 organizcrtions (N = 73.303; n = 7,366) time (in minutes at $40 per hour). The total price paid for many of these services in terms of users' time well exceeds the cost of the services (see Chapter 9 and the last section of this chapter). The average price paid by users for most services ranges from about $3 to $30 per use, where the lower prices involve staff-provided services and the higher prices involve the use of materials (i.e., because of the need to identify, locate, and obtain the materials), the use of facilities, or instances where the user must explain what is needed (e.g., research and in-depth reference and research). We caution that Uiese costs (prices) cannot be summed to estimate total user costs, because some are not used in the same library (e.g., card and online catalogs), and some services are subsumed in others (e.g., time spent reading materials in the library possibly could include use of one of the catalog services, time of use of the reading room may overlap with the time spent using materials in the library, and so on). This is why we ended up using incidents of document reading to estimate users' time (or cost or price).
On the other hand, some services are independent of reading, such as translation, user training, use of PCs/CD-ROM workstations for research purposes, use of study space (for thinking, writing, etc.), some current awareness, directional reference or assistance, and purchase of materials for department use. The sum of user costs (price) of the services (or portions of services) that we believe fit this category is about $250 per professional. These costs can be added to the professionals' time required to identify, locate, and obtain documents provided by the library ($640), and cost of support staff to perform these tasks ($200) to yield a total price (cost) of about $1,090 in nonreading costs to users.
Sometimes the funders of libraries feel that professionals should pay for library services. This argument is based largely on the premise that, if library services are free, they will be used spuriously. Further, the argument goes, if users are forced to choose how to spend discretionary funds, they will choose the best (and least costly) services. The fact is, as shown above, library services are not free. Rather, the information provided by libraries costs professionals substantially more in terms of their time than the dollar price they pay for the information, and probably substantially more than any user charge. They already must make choices as to how to expend their time. This is not to say that there are no instances where user charges make sense, only that one should keep two things in mind: (1) spurious use of services is not a particularly relevant argument; and (2) it is often questionable whether the cost of bookkeeping related to user charges is worth it.
176 Table 58: Average Time and Dollars Spent Using Various Library Services Average Avg. Uses/ Avg. Time per Use Price** Service Professional (minutes) ($) Access to Libraiy Collections 63.9* 15.0 $13.15 Circulation 13.1* 6.8 $4.53 Materials read in libraiy 36.7* 18.3 $12.20 Audiovisual use 0.4 20.0 $13.33 Journal routing 13.0* 7.3 $4.87 Inteilibiaiy lending n/a n/a n/a Access to External Collections through Interlibraiy 1.3 14.3 $9.53 Borrowing and Document Deliveiy Seivices Purchase of Materials for Department Use 0.9 4.0 $2.67 Photocopying by Library Staff 22.6 7.3 $4.87 Reference and Research Services Directional reference/assistance 7.9 5.3 $3.53 Brief reference and research 6.8 8.6 $5.73 In-depth reference and research 0.5 20.3 $13.53 Research** 0.1 60.0 $40.00 Telephone reference services 8.0 5.6 $3.73 Online request services 12.3 5.0 $3.33 Catalog Services Card catalog 5.8 7.6 $5.07 Online catalog in libraiy 4.6 26.0 $17.33 Online catalog from office 1.3 16.3 $10.87 Database Search Services 0.8 13.5 $9.00 Current Awareness Seivices Selective dissemination/bulletins 2.7 19.5 $13.00 Serial listing of holdings*** 1.2 10.0 $6.67 Translation Services 0.2 15.0 $10.00 User Training Sessions/Demonstrations 0.1 43.2 $28.80 Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space*** 7.6 30 $20.00 Individual canels or rooms*** 1.2 45 $30.00 PCs/CD-ROM woricstatjons 2.1 9.3 $6.20 Microform reader/printer*** 1.1 10.0 $6.67 Self-service photocopier 7.4 22.0 $14.67
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in three organizations (N = 14,582; n = 793) *Uses are readings. **Cost of reading time not included. ***Rough estimate of time spent using, based on an exit survey.
177 DOLLAR VALUE DERIVED FROM LIBRARY SERVICES
We tried to think of a variety of ways in which we could demonstrate the usefulness or worth of libraries. In every instance of derived indicators and in every organization surveyed, we found that organization libraries were considerably valuable and wordiwhile. We believe the sfrongest evidence of this is in examination of what it would cost professionals to acquire library-provided information if there were no libraries in their organizations. We had an opportunity to do this analysis in four ways. First, we did a study for the Small Business Administration in which we studied information access and use by small, high-tech firms in the United States. One purpose of this study was to determine whether such firms had libraries, and if not, how information was obtained. Results from that study showed that firms without libraries spend an average of 2 to 4 times more per professional for information than firms with libraries (depending on how this is calculated).
In one organization we asked library users the following question to obtain evidence of how much savings are achieved by using libraries: "If X organization did not have a library, what would you do and how much more would it cost in time or money to get the needed information or materials obtained from the last visit?" For about 37 percent of the uses of libraries, the professionals indicated that they did not know what they would do (or they did not respond to the question). For the remaining library uses, professionals said they would:
• go to another library 44 percent of the time;
• go to another source for the information 33 percent of the time;
• try to purchase the item 10 percent of the time; or
• take some other course of action 13 percent of the time.
The total estimated additional cost, in professionals' time and for purchases, etc., is 2.2 times the libraries' budgets for basic (or core) services. That is, it would cost professionals 2.2 times more than it currently costs the libraries to obtain needed information.
For a number of library services we asked service users to indicate what they would do to obtain information provided by the service, if there were no library. This series of questions addressed only the last time the service was used (i.e., critical incident).
Dollar Value Derived from Using Library Collections
In eight organizations we addressed the issue of the value derived from libraries by asking professionals to indicate what they would do and how much more it would cost them to get information found in the most recent library-provided reading of journal articles, books, and internal r^orts. Below we give estimates of cost to readers to acquire these library-provided documents. All the questions below deal with the last reading of a document (i.e., journal article, book, or internal report). We led up to the cost questions by first asking:
• "Did you know about the information reported or discussed in this [document type] prior to reading about it?"
178 • "To your knowledge, could the information obtained from this [document type], or equally usefiil information, have been obtained elsewhere?"
• "Where would you have obtained this [document type] or equally useful information?" Examples include from a colleague, consultant, other library, the professional's own collection, or other source.
Then, for library-provided documents we asked:
• "Considering the least expensive other source for the [document type] or information, approximately how much more would it cost to identify and get the [document type] or information (than you actually spent)?"
Responses included:
— Minutes of the professional's time: identifying source, locating source, getting information from other document or information obtained orally, photocopying,
— Minutes of someone else's time (e.g., secretary, technician, etc.): identifying source, locating source, getting information from other document or information obtained orally, photocopying,
— Other costs: subscribing to journal, ordering document, photocopying, making long distance calls, and so on.
The background questions resulted in somewhat different results for the three types of documents, as follows:
• About 50 percent of the readings of journal articles involved new information. Of the readings in which die information was not new, the information could be obtained most frequendy from a colleague or consultant. A journal found at another library was named as another source in 35 percent of the readings, and consultant was mentioned in 7 percent of the readings.
• About 59 percent of the readings of books provided by libraries involved books containing information whose existence was known prior to reading. About 55 percent of the time the respondents indicated that the information could have been obtained elsewhere, such as from another library (55 percent), a colleague, consultant, etc. (21 percent), or the professional's own collection (22 percent).
• About 47 percent of the readings of internal reports involved information that was new. As would be expected (particularly with internally reported research), in only 34 percent of the instances was it felt that the information could be found elsewhere (usually from a colleague or another internal report).
Even though professionals know aljout the information much of the time, the additional cost of locating and acquiring it is expensive. Note that, typically, about 20 percent to 30 percent of the professionals do not respond to this series of additional cost questions.
179 The estimated amount of additional time required to acquire documents currently provided by organization libraries is given in Table 59.
Table 59: Average Additional Time (of Professionals and of Others on Their BehalO Required to Acquire Documaits Provided by Libraries, If There Were No libraries
Type of Document Internal Other ^ Journals Books Reports Documents Time Spent by Professionals (minutes) Going to the libraiy 20.9 26.7 Identifying needed document 11.0 8.6 Locating the document 11.5 6.7 Obtaining a copy 2.2 2.8 Photocopying the document 3.6 4.2 TOTAL 49.2 49.0 Time Spent by Someone Else on Behalf of Professionals (minutes) Going to the libraiy 10.7 9;7 2.8 Unknown Identifying needed document 7.1 4.8 2.5 Unknown Locating the document 2.4 3.0 1.3 Unknown Obtaining a copy 3.5 1.6 0.9 Unknown Photocopying the document 12.6 5.5 3.0 Unknown TOTAL 36.3 24.6 10.5 Unknown
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in eight organizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892)
The additional time spent in going to other libraries is high for journals and books, but less for internal reports and other documents because they are not usually found in other libraries. Nonetheless, the time diat would be necessary to identify and locate internal reports is much higher than with other types of documents. Time spent by someone else is generally lower because this method for obtaining documents would be used less, although the amount of others' time per use would be much higher for identifying, locating, and obtaining the documents.
Estimates of all additional costs, including purchases and other sources of costs, are given in Table 60. Note that the costs are averaged over all readings. Thus, the additional cost of acquiring documents provided by libraries is estimated to be $3,290, which is substantially greater than the cost of libraries—anywhere from three times to eight times the cost of the libraries. If one includes cost of die libraries and user time to use them (i.e., $515 -I- $840), die cost widiout a library ($3,290 + $840) would be three times the cost of use and the cost of the libraries. This is one estimate of an ROI: that is, of retum-on-investment, or retum-on-information, found in library-provided documents.
Another way to look at the value derived from journals provided by libraries is to consider that professionals seem to spend a relatively fixed amount of time seeking information and reading (based on national data we have collected over the past 30 years). If we assume that this continues to be true for professionals, they would have less time for this activity (i.e., acquiring and reading articles) if a library were not available (or did not exist). Professionals average reading 32.4 articles per year from library- provided journals. The average time a professional spends identifying, gaining access to, and reading journal articles accessed through the library service is 47.5 hours per professional. The additional time
180 Table 60: Value Derived from Additional Costs of Obtaining library-provided Documents If Tho'e Were No libraries
Source of Cost No. of Professional's Someone Purchases, Type of Readings/ Time Else's Time Photocopying, etc. Total Cost Document Professional ($) ($) ($) ($) Jouinal articles 32.4 $32.80 $12.11 $4.14 $1,589 Books 14,2 $32.67 $8.20 $30.93 $1,019 Internal reports 12.5 $26.47 $5.27 $11.32 $538 Other documents 4.8 $30.00 Unknown Unknown $144 All documents 63.9 - - - $3,290
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in eight oiganizations (N = 52,690; n = 1,892) necessary to obtain articles previously provided by the library (if the services were not available) is about 26.6 hours; thus, a new average time per article read would be 2.29 hoiurs per reading ([47.5 + 26.2] •i- 32.4), Dividing this into hours devoted by professionals to this activity (47.5 hours) yields 21 readings. Therefore, on average, about 11 readings would be lost to professionals. Average loss in savings attributable to reading journal articles is 12.6 hours per reading ($504), and total loss in time would be 139 hours of a professional's time (i.e., 12.6 x 11). This is roughly 7 percent of the total time of professionals. This means that professionals' productivity might be reduced by ^proximately 7 percent if a library were not available for providing journal articles. In addition to lost time savings, the lost readings also would have some effect on quality, timeliness, and other work performance factors.
Similarly, professionals read about 14.2 library-provided books and spend 37.1 hours acquiring and reading the books. The additional cost to professionals (in their time) for obtaining the book-related information is about 12.6 hours per professional. Taking this additional cost into account results in a new average of 3.5 hours per reading. To maintain a constant total of 37.1 hours per professional, the number of readings would be 10 books instead of 14 books. Therefore, four readings would be lost. The value of these lost readings represents the potential savings in time and equipment (i.e., 19.8 hours of professional time per reading [$790]), quality, timeliness, and so on, that would have been achieved. Converted to professional time, this comes to about 800 hours, or 3.8 percent of all professional hours.
Professionals read about 12.5 internal r^orts and spend 24.3 hours acquiring and reading them. Additional costs of professionals' time involved with internal rq)orts are estimated to be about 0.66 hours per reading, or a new total of 2.6 hours per reading, at which rate (to maintain a total of 28.3 hours) there would be about 9 readings of internal and external reports. Thus, there would be a loss of diree readings. The value of diese lost readings is estimated to be $1,175 per reading (29 hours) in labor time, and the quality, timeliness, etc., are also lost. The total lost professional time is 87 hours, which is about 4 percent of all professional hours.
Table 61 shows the estimated savings lost by not having a library (across the three types of documents). These savings due to cost avoidance come to $12,240 per professional, or about 7 to 10 times the cost of libraries and cost to users to acquire the information. Koenig [101] called companies and asked them to report their ratios of (1) relative value derived from cost to use alternative services, to nominal cost of providing services; and (2) cost avoidance (above) to nominal cost of services. His results are summarized in Table 62. These results show a considerable potential value derived from library services.
181 Table 61: Value Derived by Savings Lost If There Wore No libraries
Professional's Time Saved Lost Savings Type of Document (Hours) ($) Journals 139 $5,560 Books 80 $3,200 Intemal reports 87 $3,480 TOTAL 306 $12,240
Table 62: Ratios of (1) Cost of Alternatives to library, to Nominal Cost of library, and (2) Cost Avoidance to Nominal Cost of library
Cost of Alternatives Cost Avoidance Major Diversified Chemical Company "A" 2.6 to 1 5to 1 Major Diversified Chemical Company "B" 2.7 to 1 19tol Major Electronics and Communications Company 3.6 to 1 16 to 1 Major Public Utility 8to 1 17tol
Source: Adafted from Michael Koenig. "The Importance of Information Services for Productivity: 'Under-recognized' and Under-invested." Special Libraries 83(4), 199-210, Fall, 1992. [References 31, 101]
Dollar Value Derived from Using Journal-routing Services
Readings from routed journals generally are found to be less expensive per reading than readings from other sources, because the journals are shared (and therefore subscription price is shared) and professionals frequently read these journals. The difference in costs to the library per reading is about $0.46 per reading ($2.07 versus $1.61), not including professionals' time. In addition to costs of the journal subscription, processing, and distribution to professionals, professionals spend about 7.3 minutes ($4.87) per reading identifying articles to be read (by browsing through journal issues) and 19.3 minutes ($12.87) reading the articles.
About 60 percent of the readings from journal routings contain information that professionals did not know about prior to reading about it. Respondents indicated they could obtain the same or equally useful information elsewhere for about half of the articles read. The most common source of this information is another journal (76 percent), altiiough asking a colleague, consultant, etc., is indicated frequendy as well (29 percent). The journal articles can be obtained most often from a library (60 percent), colleague or consultant as stated above (48 percent), or a technical information center (27 percent). Rarely is a professional's own collection indicated as an alternative source (8 percent).
The average additional time spent using the least expensive alternative source for routed journals is shown in Table 63. The cost of alternative sources to journal routing is estimated to be $57.31 per reading, compared with $6.94 per reading cost to die library and users for browsing (not including reading time). The cost of alternatives to the library service is about nine time the current cost to users and the library.
182 Table 63: Average Additional Time (of Professionals and of Othn^ on Their BdialO and Costs Required to Acquire Documents Provided by Journal Routing, If Th^e Were No libraries Time per Other Coste per Reading Reading (minutes) ($) Time Spent by Professionals Identifying the source 19.3 Locating the source 13.9 Getting the information from article/other 8.1 document/orally Photocopying article/other document 4.1 TOTAL 45.4 Time Spent by Someone Else on Professional's Behalf Identifying the source 5.2 Locating the source 6.3 Getting the information from article/other 3.8 document/orally Photocopying article/other document 2.6 TOTAL 17.9 Other CosU Subscribe to journal $5.03 Older copy of article/other document $2.06 Photocopy article/other document $0.13 Other (e.g., telephone calls) $13.86 TOTAL $21.08
Source: King Research, Inc., survey of professionals in four organizations (N = 20,495; n = 351)
Dollar Value Derived from Using Interlibrary Loan Services
About 14 percent of professionals have used the library's interlibrary loan (ILL) service. On average, users said tiiey used die service an average of 0.4 times per year (or 1.3 times, including use of document delivery services). The proportion of users placing requests for various types of material in the last year are as follows:
Journal articles 92% Books 77% Conference proceedings 23% Government documents 17% Technical reports 15% Patent documents 13 % Odier 15%
Users of ILL services indicated that they would use die following alternatives if dieir ILL service were not available:
Would not have bothered to use alternative 15% Another library 68% Other document(s) needed 6%
183 Publisher of document(s) needed 6% OUier 5%
From a user perspective, these alternatives will tend to cost more (in terms of time or expenditures); otherwise, they would be used instead of the library's ILL service. The average additional cost (over the cost of using die library's ILL service) to use these alternative services per ILL request is 2.3 hours of the professionals' own time ($92), 0.7 hours of someone else's time ($14), and $32 for various charges, purchases, etc., or $138 per use, compared with library costs ($18.79) and user costs ($9.53). This yields a ratio of about 5.2 to 1.
Dollar Value Derived from Purchasing Materials for Departmoit Use
In organizations where this service—m which materials are purchased by the library for departmental (or personal) use—is available, about 43 percent of professionals use it. Average use is 0.9 uses per professional. Professionals indicate that they benefit from this service because they save their own time or that of someone else for about 70 percent of the orders, and because the library staff could place the order faster about 65 percent of the time. If the library could not provide the service, the professionals would have handled the order themselves 61 percent of the time, delegated the order to someone else on the staff 32 percent of the time, and gone elsewhere to place the order 7 percent of the time. We estimate that it would cost $30.57 more per item ordered for the professionals to use these alternative methods of ordering (i.e., 32.3 minutes in professionals' time, 17.3 minutes in someone else's time, and $3.27 in other costs such as telephone call, fees, etc.). This is compared with the cost to the library of $6.94 and to the user of $2.67, or a ratio of about 3.5 to 1.
Dollar Value Derived from Photocopying by Library Staff
About 43 percent of professionals use their library's photocopying service when available. On average, they use the service an average of 22.6 times per year. Requests are distributed as follows:
Journal articles 88% Books 7% Conference proceedings 4% Organization technical reports I %
Users of the photocopying service indicate that on average they save themselves 22 minutes by using the service, or $14.67.
Sometimes self-service copiers are also available. The reasons why users of the photocopying service used that service rather than the self-service copiers are:
Didn't have time to do own copying 54% Self-service is too crowded/busy 22% Had too much copying to do it by myself 32% Service provides better quality copies 5% Odier 43%
184 Users of the library's photocopying service indicate that they would use the following alternatives if the service were not available:
Would not have made copies 8% Would have used the self-service copiers in the library 49% Would have checked out the items and photocopied them myself: - at another copier in my department 24% - at another library 3% Would have checked out the items and had someone on my staff photocopy them 14% Odier 2%
The average additional cost (over the cost of using the library's photocopying service) to use these alternative services per photocopy request is 22 minutes of the professionals' own time per document ($14.67), 42 minutes of someone else's time ($14), and $0.60 for various charges. This total additional cost of $29.27 compares with $2.19 for library cost and $4.87 for the professional to use this service. The ratio of cost savings to cost is 4.1 to 1.
Dollar Value Derived from Use of Card Catalog
Users of a card catalog indicate they would use the following alternatives if their library's card catalog were not available:
Would not have bothered 9% Would have asked library staff 61 % Would have browsed the shelves 25% Would have sent a staff member to find the item(s) 5%
The cost to use these alternatives is generally higher in terms of the users' time, or they would be used instead of the library's card catalog. The average additional cost to use the alternatives is 13 minutes of the professionsd's time ($8.67). This cost compares with $5.07 to use the card catalog.
Dollar Value Derived from Using Online Catalog in library
Users of the library's online catalog indicate they would use the following alternatives if the online catalog were not available:
Would have used the card catalog by myself 83% Would have asked library staff 7% Would have browsed the shelves 10%
The cost to use these alternatives is generally higher in terms of the users' time, otherwise they would be used instead of the library's online catalog. The average additional cost to use the alternatives is 24 minutes of the professionjds' own time ($16) and 3 minutes of someone else's time ($1), or a total of $17 per use.
185 Dollar Value Derived from Use of Database Searches Provided by Staff
Below, we provide results for database searches performed by library staff. One way of looking at the dollar value derived from searches performed by library staff is to see how much more it would cost users to do the searches if there were no staff. We found that about 16 percent of the searches would not have been done. Al)out half of the searches (47 percent) would have been done by the professionals themselves. Otherwise, the professionals would have delegated the search to someone else on their staff (12 percent), purchased the search from a broker (11 percent), obtained the search from an external library (12 percent), or contacted a consultant or colleague (2 percent). The cost of using alternative means of searching is estimated to be about $272 more than they currendy spend on the searches (about $9). Most of this additional cost is in terms of the users' time ($232), but some of it is in the additional cost to purchase a search ($20), someone else's time ($18), or other expense ($2). Thus, the additional cost ($272) plus user cost ($9) is about twice die current total of library cost ($134) and user cost ($9).
Dollar Value Drnved from Curroit Awareness Publications
The users of current awareness publications indicate a number of ways in which they benefit by having the last current awareness publication, as follows (users may name more than one benefit):
Identified needed sources that they probably would not have identified otherwise 58% Identified needed sources sooner than they could have otherwise 29% Saved them or their staff time in identifying needed documents 21%
If the current awareness publications were not provided to the professionals, the users would identify the needed sources in the following manner:
Could not have done it 34% Would not obtain information 25% Would conduct an online search 9% Would delegate an online search 8% Would do a manual search 8% Would contact a colleague or outside source 2% Odier 14%
The cost of using other sources is estimated to be about $57 per use of the current awareness publications. This cost of alternative sources is derived from:
Using their own time 51 minutes Using the time of others 36 minutes Cost of purchasing a search service $10.60 Telephone calls and others $0.30
The total additional costs ($56.90) plus user costs ($13) compares widi $9.95 library cost and $13 current user cost, or a ratio of 3 to 1.
186 Dollar Value Derived from library Translation Services
Users of the library's translation service indicate that they would use the following alternatives if the service were not available:
Would not have bothered to use alternative 22% Would have asked a colleague 34% Would have used a commercial franslatingservic e 28% Odier 16%
The average additional cost (over the cost of using the library's translation service) to use these alternative services per translation request is 1.2 hours of the professional's own tune ($48), 1.5 hours of colleagues' time ($60), 0.9 hours of someone else's time ($18), and $20.80 for various charges, purchases, etc. The total additional cost of translation services is about $147; current user costs are about $10.
Dollar Value Derived from Use of a Library's Self-service and Pay Photocopiers
Users of libraries' self-service and pay photocopiers indicate they would use the following alternatives if the service were not available:
Would not have made copies 32% Would have used the library's photocopying service 24% Would have checked out the items and copied them myself: - at another copier in my dq)artment 24% - at another library 9% Would have checked out the items and had someone on my staff photocopy them 2% Odier 9%
The average additional cost (per photocopier use) to use these alternative services is 1.4 hours of professional's time ($56) and 0.1 hours of someone else's time ($2). This alternative cost compares with user costs of $14.67, plus cost to maintain the machines (about $1.55 per use); the cost of the alternatives are about 4.5 times the current cost.
COMPARISON OF USAGE, COST, PRICE PAID, AND VALUE DERIVED FROM LIBRARY SERVICES
In this section we summarize our estimates of the amount of use, library cost, value in terms of what users are willing to pay, and dollar value derived from what it would cost users and their organizations to obtain library-provided information if there were no library. All estimates are normalized by number of professionals." For all services leading to library-provided documents, these estimates are:
Note that libraiy costs and average use of library services (e.g., libraiy journals) will vary by number of professionals served (see Chapter 9 for a discussion of economies of scale).
187 • Number of readings from library-provided documents—63.9 readings per professional.
• Library cost to provide library-provided documents—$515 per professional.
• Library cost to provide nondocument services—$95 per professional.
• Cost of entire library budget—$610 per professional.
• Price paid by users in their time (and support staff) to acquire library documents—$840 per professional.
• Price paid by users to use nondocument services—$250 per professional.
• Price paid by users for library-provided documents and nondocument services—$1,090 per professional.
• Total price paid for the information provided in library documents and other services—$5,190 per professional (time acquiring—$840; time reading—$4,100; other services—$250).
• Dollar value derived from library-provided documents in costs of alternatives—$3,290 per professional.
• Dollar value derived from non-document services—$630 per professional.
• Total dollar value derived from library services—$3,920 per professional.
• Total cost to organizations for current services—$1,700 per professional ($610 library cost plus $1,090 user cost).
These data show that it costs the library about $8.06 per reading of library-provided documents ($515 -H 63.9). It costs professionals about 1.6 times more in terms of their time to acquire the documents as it does the library to provide them ($840 -5- $515). The users are willing to pay about $4,940 in their time (and support time) to acquire and read the library-provided documents. This "value" is nearly 10 times die cost to the library to provide the information found in die documents ($4,940 H- $515). If there were no library, it would cost users about $3,290 per user ($51.50 per reading) more than it costs them now to obtain the information found in the documents. Thus, it would cost the parent organizations three times more than it now costs ([$3,290 + $840] -^ [$515 + $840]). We believe that this is die return-on- investment for providing documents and document-related services such as database search services, library photocopying, and so on. Including both services that lead to use of documents and those that do not include materials, we find diat such retum-on-investment is 2.9 to 1 ([$3,920 -I- $1,090] -;- [$610 -I- $1,090]).
Some of these data are available on specific library services, as shown in Table 64. The data above are summarized in this table under "Access to Library Collections." Again, the costs and price paid of some specific services (e.g., database search services) are subsumed in these estimates. The ratios of the cost of alternatives to the current costs range from 2 to 1 for database search services'* to 9 to 1 for
Note that Miriam Drake found this ratio to be 1.6 to 1 for a local bibliographic search service.
188 Table 64: Average Use, library Unit Cost, Price Paid per Use, and Dollar Value Derived per Use from library Services, and Ratio of (1) Total Cost to Use Alt«*natlves to (2) Total So'vice Cost Libraiy Price Value Ratio of Avg. Uses/ Unit Cost Paid** Derived Price** -1- Value to Service Professional {$) ($) ($) Cost -1- Price Access to Libraiy Collections 63.9* $8.06 $13.15 $51.49 3.0:1 Circulation 13.1* $9.44 $4.53 .- ~ Materials read in libraiy 36.7* $5.85 $12.20 - ~ Audiovisual use 0.4 - $13.33 - - Journal routing 13.0* $2.07 $4.87 $57.31 9.0:1 Inteiiibraiy lending n/a $20.25 n/a n/a n/a Access to External Collections through 1.3 $18.79 $9.53 $138.00 5.2:1 Interlibrary Borrowing and Document Deliveiy Services Purchase of Materials for Department Use 0.9 $6.94 $2.67 $30.57 3.5:1 Photocopying by Libraiy Staff 22.6 $2.13 $4.87 $29.27 4.9:1 Reference and Research Services Directional reference/assistance 7.9 $1.18 $3.53 ~ ~ Brief reference and research 6.8 $2.65 $5.73 ~ - In-depth reference and research 0.5 $18.23 $13.53 - - Research 0.1 $152.95 $40.00 - ~ Telephone reference services 8.0 - $3.73 - - Online request services 12.3 - $3.33 ~ ~ Catalog Seivices Card catalog 5.8 - $5.07 $8.67 ~ Online catalog in library 4.6 ~ $17.33 $17.00 ~ Online catalog from office 1.3 $10.87 $28.43 - Database Search Services 0.8 $134.49 $9.00 $272.00 2.0:1 Current Awareness Services Selective dissemination/bulletins 2.7 $9.94/issue $13.00 $56.90 3.0:1 Serial listing of holdings 1.2 - $6.67 - - Translation Services 0.2 - $10.00 $147.00 ~ User Training Sessions/Demonstrations 0.1 $103.80 $28.80 ~ ~ Access to Special Facilities Reading room/study space 7.6 $0.43 $20.00 - ~ Individual carrels or rooms 1.2 ~ $30.00 ~ - PCs/CD-ROM worif.stations 2-1 $2.22 $6.20 $16.67 2.7:1 Microform reader/printer 1.1 ~ $6.67 - ~ Self-service photocopier 7.4 $1.55 $14.67 $58.00 4.5:1
Source: King Research, Inc., surveys of libraries and professionals No source data available where blanks (~) occur. *Uses are readings. **Cost of reading time not included.
189 journal routing. It seems abundantiy clear that library services pay for themselves by orders of magnitude. REFERENCES
1. King, Donald W., Jos6-Marie Griffidis, Nancy K. Roderer, & Robert R. V. Wiederkehr. The Value of the Energy Data Base. D^artment of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, March, 1982. (NTIS No. DE82-014250)
2. King, Donald W., Jos6-Marie Griffidis, Ellen A. Sweet, & Robert R. V. Wiederkdir. A Study of the Value of Information and the Effect on Value of Intermediary Organizations, Timeliness of Services and Products, and Comprehensiveness of the EDB (3 vols.). DOE Report DE 85003670, September, 1984. (DOE/NBM-1078)
3. Naisbitt, John. Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York: Warner Books, 1982.
4. Machlup, Fritz, & Una Mansfield (Eds.). TJie Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
5. Simon, Herbert Alexander. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969. 2nd Edition, revised and enlarged. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.
6. Popper, Sir Karl Raimund. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
7. Pool, Ithiel de Sola, Hiroshi Inose, Nozomu Takasaki, & Roger Hurwitz. Communication Flows: A Census in the United States and Japan. Amsterdam: North-Holland and University of Tokyo Press, 1984.
8. Griffiths, Jos6-Marie, Donald W. King, Martha E. Williams, Bonnie C. Carroll, & Christine Sheetz. Description of Scientific and Technical Information in the United States: Current Status and Trends (2 vols.). Prepared for the National Science Foundation by the University of Tennessee, July, 1991.
9. Machlup, Fritz. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.
10. Machlup, Fritz. Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Significance (Vol. III). Knowledge and Knowledge Produaion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
11. Bell, D. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
12. Porat, Marc U., & Michael R. Rubin. The Information Economy (9 voh.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Government Printing Office, 1977.
13. Rubin, Michael Rogers, & Mary Taylor Huber. The Knowledge Industry in the United States, 1960-1980. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
14. Debons, Andiony, Donald W. King, Una Mansfield, & Donald L. Shirey. The Information Professional: Survey of an Emerging Field. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1981.
15. Jankowski, John. National Patterns of R&D Resources. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1992. (NSF 92-230)
191 16. Christopher, R. C. The Japanese Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.
17. Prusak, Lawrence, & James Matarazzo. Information Management and Japanese Success. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1992.
18. Horton, Forest W. Information Resources Management: Concept and Cases. Cleveland: Association for Systems Management, 1979.
19. Synnot, W. R., & W. H. Gruber. Information Resource Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
20. Pool, et al. 1984.
21. Healy, Jane M. Endangered Minds: Why Our Children Don't Think. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
22. Griffiths, et al. Description of Scientific and Technical Information. July, 1991.
23. Rubin, Michael Rogers. "The Size and Shape of the Information Economy: An Historical Overview." In Information: A Strategy for Economic Growth. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1990.
24. Hlava, Marjorie M. K. "The Internalization of the Information Industry." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 19Q), 12-15, February-March, 1993.
25. Rubin. 1990.
26. Hayes, Robert M., & T. Erickson. "Added Value as a Function of Purchases of Information Services." Information Society 1{A), 307-338, 1982.
27. Braunstein, Yale M. "Information as a Factor of Production: Substitutability and Productivity." Information Society 5(3), 261-273, 1985.
28. Koenig, Michael E. D., «& Daniel J. Gans. "The Productivity of Research Effort in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry." Research Policy 4{A), 331-349, October, 1975.
29. Jonscher, Charles. "Information Resources and Economic Productivity." Information Economics and Policy 1(1), 13-35, 1983.
30. Terleckyj, Nestor E. "A Growth Model of the U.S. Communication Industry, 1948-1980." In Meheroo Jusawalla «fe Helene Ebenfield (Eds.). Communication and Information Economics: New Perspectives. New York: North-Holland, 1984. (pp. 119-145)
31. Koenig, Michael. "The Importance of Information Services for Productivity: 'Under-recognized' and Under-invested." Special Libraries 55(4), 199-210, Fall, 1992.
32. Ackoff, Russell, & Miles Martin. An Operations Research Study of the Dissemination and Use of Recorded Scientific Information. Cleveland: Case Institute of Technology, 1960.
192 33. Pinelli, T. F., M. Glassman, W. E. Oliv, & R. O. Barclay. Technical Communication in Aeronautics: Results of an Ejqjloratory Study. NASA TM-101534, 1989.
34. Lufkin, J. M., & E. H. Miller. "The Reading Habits of Engineers: A Preliminary Survey." IEEE Transactions on Education E-9(4), n9-lZ2,DecQmhQT, 1966.
35. King, Donald W., David M. Liston, Jr., Gail L. Kutner, & Ronald G. Havelock. Analysis of Technology Assistance Available to Small High Technology Firms. Prepared for the Small Business Administration by King Research, Inc., Knoxville, TN, May, 1985.
36. Drake, Miriam A. "Value of the Information Professional: Cost/Benefit Analysis. In President's Task Force on the Value of the Information Professional. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, June, 1987.
37. Estabrook, Leigh. "Valuing a Document Delivery System." Research Quarterly 27(1), 58-62, Fall, 1986.
38. Kramer, J. "How to Survive in Industry." S;pea<2/Liftrflnej 52(11), 487-489, November, 1971.
39. Manning, Helen. "The Corporate Librarian: Great Return on Investment." In Presidem's Task Force on the Value of the Information Professional. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, June, 1987.
40. Taylor, Roberts. Value-Added Processes in Information Systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1986.
41. Osborne, David, & Ted Gasbler. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1992.
42. Chick, Morey J. "Information Value and Cost Measures for Use as Management Tools." In Information: A Strategy for Economic Growth. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1990. (pp. 19-36)
43. King, Donald W., & Nancy K. Roderer. Systems Analysis of Scientific and Technical Communication in the United States: The Electronic Alternative to Communication Through Paper- Based Journals. Prepared for National Science Foundation by King Research, Inc., Knoxville, TN, May, 1978.
44. King, Donald W., Dennis D. McDonald, & Nancy K. Roderer. Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Produaion, Use, and Economics. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 1981.
45. Griffiths, Jos6-Marie. "The Value of Information and Related Systems, Products and Services." In Martha E. Williams (Ed.). Annual Review oflnformation Science and Technology. White Plains: Knowledge Industry Publications for the American Society for Information Science, 1982.
46. Taylor. 1986.
47. Estabrook. 1986.
193 48. Repo, Aatto J. "Economics of Information." In Martha E. Williams (Ed.). Annual Review of Information Science and Technology: Volume 22. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers for the American Society for Information Science, 1986.
49. Martyn, John. Literature Searching Habits and Attitudes of Research Scientists. London: The Research Group, 1986.
50. Brittain, M. "Consensus in the Medical Sciences and Their Implications for Information Systems." In H. J. Dietschmann (Ed.). Representation and Exchange of Knowledge as a Basis oflnformation Processes, Proceedings of the 5th International Research Forum in Information Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1984.
51. Barret, A. J. "TheCostsof Not Having Refined Information." In The Value of Information as an Integral Part of Aerospace and Defense R&D Programmes, Proceedings of Technical Information Panel Specialist Meeting, SeptemheT 4-5,1985, Cheltenham, England. Springfield, VA: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), 1985.
52. Blagden, John F. Do We Really Need Libraries: An Assessmem of Approaches to the Evaluation of the Performance of Libraries. London: Clive Bingley, 1980.
53. King, David N. "The Contribution of Hospital Library Information Services to Clinical Care: A Study in Eight Hospitals." Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 75(4), 291-301, October, 1987.
54. President's Task Force on the Value of the Information Professional, Final Report. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1987.
55. Matarazzo, James M., Laurence Prusak, & Michael R. Gauthier. Valuing Corporate Libraries: A Survey of Senior Managers. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association in cooperation with Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc., 1991.
56. Prusak & Matarazzo. 1992.
57. Koenig, Michael E. D. "Information Services and Down Stream Productivity." In Martha E. Williams (Ed.). Annual Review oflnformation Science and Technology: Volume 25. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. for the American Society for Information Science, 1990.
58. Martyn, John. Library and Information Services Provided to Local Government (Officials and Others in Leicestershire: A Study of Costs and Benefits. London: Aslib, 1980.
59. Koenig. 1992.
60. Griffiths, Jos6-Marie, & Donald W. King. Keys to Success: Performance Indicators for Public Libraries. London: HMSO, 1990. [Available in the United States from Unipub, 4611 F Assembly Drive, Lanham, MD 20706; 1-800-274-4888.]
61. Griffiths, Jos6-Marie, & Donald W. King. A Manual on the Evaluation oflnformation Cemers and Services. Neuilly sur Seine, France: AGARD, 1991. (AGARDographNo. 310) [Available in the United States from American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Technical Information Service, 555 West 57th Street, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10019.]
194 62. Broadbent, Marianne & Hans Lofgren. Priorities, Performance and Benefits: An Exploratory Study of Library and Information Units. Melbourne, Australia: CIRCIT Ltd. and ACLIS, 1991.
63. Marshall, Joanne G. The Impact of the Special Library on Corporate Decision-Making. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1993.
64. King, Donald W., & Edward C. Bryant. Evaluation of Information Services and Products. Washington, DC: Information Resources Press, 1971.
65. King, Donald W., F. W. Lancaster, D. D. McDonald, N. K. Roderer, & B. L. Wood. Statistical Indicators of Scientific and Technical Information Communication (1960-1980). Volume I: A Summary Report. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1976.
66. King, Donald W., D. D. McDonald, N. K. Roderer, C. G. Schell, C. G. Schueller, & B. L. Wood. Statistical Indicators of Scientific and Technical Communication (1960-1980, 1977 Edition). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, March, 1977.
67. King, et al. 1981.
68. King & Roderer. 1978.
69. King, etal. 1982.
70. King, et al. September, 1984.
71. Roderer, Nancy K., Donald W. King, & Sandra 2. Brouard. The Value of Defense Technical Information Cemer Produas and Services. Prepared for the Defense Technical Information Center, Cameron Station, by King Research, Inc., Knoxville, TN, 1983.
72. King, Donald W., & Jos6-Marie Griffiths. A Standard Reference Data Marketing Study. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Conmierce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Reference Data, by King Research, Inc., Knoxville, TN, June, 1990.
73. King, Donald W., Sandra E. Brouard, &. Nancy K. Roderer. The Use and Value of EMPIS (Proprietary). Prepared for General Electric Company by King Research, Inc., Knoxville, TN, January, 1983.
74. Griffiths & King. Keys to Success. 1990.
75. Griffiths & King. A Manual on the Evaluation. 1991.
76. King & Bryant. 1971.
77. Bickner, Robert E. "Concepts of Economic Cost." In Donald W. King, Nancy K. Roderer, & Harold A. Olsen (Eds.). Key Papers in the Economics oflnformation Systems. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, Inc. for the American Society for Information Science, 1983.
78. Griffiths & King. A Manual on the Evaluation. 1991.
79. Griffiths, et al. Description of Sciemific and Technical Information. July, 1991.
195 80. Gerstenfeld, A., & P. Berger. "An Analysis of Utilization Differences for Scientific and Technical Information." Management Services 26, 165-179, 1980.
81. Pinelli, et al. 1989.
82. Pinelli, et al. 1989.
83. Griffiths, et al. Description of Scientific and Techrucal Information. July, 1991.
84. Griffiths, et al. Description of Scientific and Techrucal Information. July, 1991.
85. Griffiths, Jos^Marie, & Donald W. King. Library Systems in New York State. Prepared for New York State Library, Division of Library Development, by King Research, Inc., l6ioxville, TN, April, 1989.
86. Griffiths, Jos€-Marie, & Donald W. King. Massachusetts Libraries: An Alliance for the Future: Final Report. Prepared for the Massachusetts Board of Library Conmiissioners, Boston, MA, by King Research, Inc., Knoxville, TN, October, 1991.
87. McClure, Charles R., & Peter Hemon. Users of Academic and Public GPO Depository Libraries. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989.
88. King, et al. May, 1985.
89. Pinelli, et al. 1989.
90. Griffiths, et al. Description of Scientific and Technical Information. July, 1991.
91. Garvey, William D. Communications, the Essence of Science: Facilitating Information Exchange Among Librarians, Scientists, Engineers, and Students. Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1979.
92. Griffiths, et al. Description of Scientific and Technical Information. July, 1991.
93. King, et al. May, 1985.
94. Griffiths, et al. Description of Scientific and Technical Information. July, 1991.
95. Economic Consulting Services. "A Study on Trends in Average Prices and Costs of Certain Serials Over Time." ARL, April 19, 1989; Okerson, Ann. "Of Making Many Books There Is No End. ARL, April 19, 1989; Astle, Deana, & Charles Hamaker. "Journal Publishing: Pricing and Structural Issues in the 1930s and the 1980s." Advances in Serials Marutgement 2, 1989.
96. King, etal. 1981.
97. Charles River Associates, Inc. Development of a Model of the Demand for Sciemific and Technical Information Services. Prepared for the National Science Foundation, April, 1979.
98. Griffiths, et al. Description of Sciemific and Technical Information. July, 1991.
99. Debons, etal. 1981.
196 100. Machlup, Fritz. "Uses, Value and Benefits of Knowledge." In Knowledge: Creation, Definition, Utilization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1979.
101. Koenig. 1992.
197 ABOUT THE AUTHORS
JOSE-MARIE GRIFFITHS, Ph.D.
Dr. Griffiths is Professor and Collaborating Scientist in Information Science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, a position jointly sponsored by the University and Martin Marietta Energy Systems. She also serves as Director of the Graduate School and Directorof the Center for Information Studies. She is internationally renowned for her work in designing and implementing new technology and information systems in a wide range of information-relate applications. She has been a Speciad Libraries Association lecturer in the areas of new technology and evaluation for 10 years. She has also conducted a number of studies assessing the usefulness and value of information systems and services.
Dr. Griffiths has given invited lectures in 23 countries and is often asked to present keynote addresses to a wide range of information-related audiences. She has authored, coauthored, or edited nine books and hundreds of other formal publications. She has been recognized for her achievements: Lazrow Distinguished Lecturer (1992); American Society for Information Science Research Award (1990); OCLC Distinguished Lecturer (1986); Royal Society/British Library Research Fellowship in Information Science (1977-1979); University College, University of London, Honorary Research Fellowship in Statistics and Computer Science (1977-1980). She is currently President of the American Society for Information Science. She holds degrees in Physics (B.Sc. with Honors, 1973) and Information Science (Ph.D., 1977), both from University College, University of London.
DONALD W. KING
Mr. King is a consultant with King Research and the University of Illinois. Prior to that, he served as Executive Vice President of Westat, Inc., and President of Home Testing Institute (a marketing research firm) and King Research, Inc. He has more than 30 years' experience in applying statistics and operations research methods to a wide range of areas, including the information field. He is internationally renowned for his studies, which have quantitatively described the information environment.
He has also lectured worldwide (17 countries) and has authored, coauthored, or edited 13 books (two of which have won awards). In the late 1970s he was named one of the 10 most-cited authors in the field of information science. His awards and honors include the American Society for Information Science Research Award (1990) and Award of Merit (1987); Distinguished Alumnus of the College of Commerce and Industry, University of Wyoming (1984); elected Fellow of the American Statistical Association (1983); Stallman Distinguished Lecturer (1983); Miles Conrad Award and Distinguished Lecturer (1979); and National Bureau of Standards, Distinguished Lecturer (1978). Mr. King has served as President of the American Society for Information Science (1983-84) and Governor District 1, American Statistical Association. He has also served on the Board of Directors of several companies and professional organ izations. His educational background is in Statistics (B.S., 1959; M.S., 1960) at the University of Wyoming. He was a fighter pilot during the Korean War. WASHIDNOTONI,