Demonstrating RoI in the library: the Holy Grail search continues
| Pages | 645-653 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011093414 |
| Date | 26 October 2010 |
| Published date | 26 October 2010 |
| Author | Peter Edward Sidorko |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Demonstrating RoI in the library:
the Holy Grail search continues
Peter Edward Sidorko
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to examine approaches by academic libraries in demonstrating return on
investment (RoI).
Design/methodology/approach – As a participant in a recent international RoI study, the author
reviews the various difficulties in developing a suitable methodology.
Findings – Using grant income as the basis for demonstrating RoI, it was found that wide differences
in results may be attributable to a number of factors related to the parent organisation, the availability
of grant funding and the country of the study.
Research limitations/implicati ons – Further work is necessary to ar rive at a suitable
methodology for a diverse range of academic libraries.
Practical implications – Library managers are alerted to issues and problems surrounding the
development of return on investment methodologies.
Originality/value – This paper will prove useful to librarians considering investing time and other
resources in developing methodologies for demonstrating return on investment.
Keywords Academic libraries,Return on investment, Value analysis
Paper type Viewpoint
Holy Grail: A difficult or near-impossible goal that would prove to be a major benefit [...]
(Wiktionary, 2009).
Background
In 2008, a white paper produced by Elsevier reported results of a study into return on
investment (RoI) undertaken at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. The
paper, “University investment in the library: what’s the return? A case study at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)” (Luther, 2008), developed a
methodology for measuring the RoI in the UIUC Library based on grant success at the
University and the Library’s contribution to that success. Subsequent to the publication
of that report, a second study, currently unpublished and still in progress and referred to
in this paper as “The international study (phase II)”, was commissioned to test the
methodology across a range of institutions from across the globe. In 2009, eight
institutions agreed to participate in this study, with the author’s institution being one of
these eight. While providing only some preliminary results, this paper intends to reflect
more on the process and the inherent difficulties involved in undertaking such a study.
Tough times, tough measures
Frankly, funding needs to flow into other aspects of the academic program (Kolowich, 2009:
citing Daniel Greenstein, Vice Provost for Academic Planning and Programs at the
University of California System).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm
Demonstrating
RoI in the library
645
Received 5 February 2010
Revised 10 April 2010
Accepted 13 April 2010
Library Management
Vol. 31 No. 8/9, 2010
pp. 645-653
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-5124
DOI 10.1108/01435121011093414
To continue reading
Request your trial