CAUL Advisory Committees

Library Assessment Conference – a review

A new article in The Journal of Academic Librarianship

An assessment of the Library Assessment Conference!

The Library Assessment Conference — Past, Present, and Near Future!
Steve Hiller, Martha Kyrillidou, Megan Oakleaf
Pages 410-412

Frances O’Neil

Associate Librarian, Scholarly Information Services


Filed under: General, Quality & Assessment

Workforce Transformation Stories: ARL Launches Monthly Column

Transforming Research Libraries (TRL) Steering Committee is pleased to announce a new monthly column on the ARL website devoted to stories of research library workforce transformation.The column, Workforce Transformation Stories, is the outgrowth of many conversations and ARL activities, including the New Roles for New Times reports, Scenario Planning, the 2012 Human Resources Symposium, and Strategic Thinking and Design.

View article…


Filed under: Quality & Assessment, Workforce

Driving with Data: A Roadmap for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Academic Libraries

New issue brief from SR Ithaka on what it takes to create an evidence-based decision-making environment within the academic library.

Filed under: Quality & Assessment

Closing the Loop: Evaluating Your Key Scholarly Communication Programs and Services

Feed: News | Association of Research Libraries® | ARL®
Posted on: Thursday, 22 May 2014 3:00 PM
Subject: Closing the Loop: Evaluating Your Key Scholarly Communication Programs and Services

seattle-skylineAugust 7, 2014, in Seattle, image © Chris TarnawskiMany libraries have been operating scholarly communication programs or providing scholarly communication services for several years. We have identified what is important to our communities. We have thought strategically about what services we might best offer. We have discussed how we might organize ourselves to deliver those services. How can we maximize the impact of the scholarly communication programs and services we offer? How do we know we’ve achieved our intended outcomes for our target audiences? What tools can help us begin to measure those outcomes?

View article…

This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.

Filed under: Quality & Assessment, Research

Library Assessment Conference 2014 – Registrations Open

Registration is now open for the 2014 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment, to be held August 4–6, in Seattle, Washington. The conference aims to build and develop a vibrant library community through invited speakers, contributed papers, posters, lightning talks, panels, workshops, and networking with those interested in assessment. The fifth Library Assessment Conference is co-sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the University of Washington (UW) Libraries.

Filed under: Quality & Assessment, ,

Value & impact studies UK data services: new report

Forwarding for information:

Jisc has just published the synthesis report of the value & impact studies of Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC).

This report is available to download from []

It summarises and reflects on the findings from a series of recent studies, conducted by Neil Beagrie of Charles Beagrie Ltd. and Prof.John Houghton of Victoria University, into the value and impact of these three well established research data centres . It provides a summary of the key findings from new research and reflects on: the methods that can be used to collect data for such studies; the analytical methods that can be used to explore value, impacts, costs and benefits; and the lessons learnt and recommendations arising from the series of studies as a whole.

The data centre studies combined quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to quantify value in economic terms and present other, non-economic, impacts and benefits. Uniquely, the studies cover both users and depositors of data, and we believe the surveys of depositors undertaken are the first of their kind. All three studies show a similar pattern of findings, with data sharing via the data centres having a large measurable impact on research efficiency and on return on investment in the data and services. These findings are important for funders, researchers, and data managers, both for making the economic case for investment in data curation and sharing and research data infrastructure, and for ensuring the sustainability of such research data centres.

The quantitative economic analysis indicated that:

·The value to users exceeds the investment made in data sharing and curation via the centres in all three cases – with the benefits from 2.2 to 2.7 times the costs;

·Very significant increases in work efficiency are realised by users as a result of their use of the data centres – with efficiency gains from 2 to 20 times the costs; and

·By facilitating additional use, the data centres significantly increase the returns on investment in the creation/collection of the data hosted

– with increases in returns from 2 to 12 times the costs.

The qualitative analysis indicated that:

·Academic users report that the centres are very or extremely important for their research. Between 53% and 61% of respondents across the three surveys reported that it would have a major or severe impact on their work if they could not access the data and services; and

·For depositors, having the data preserved for the long-term and its dissemination being targeted to the academic community are seen as the most beneficial aspects of depositing data with the centres.

An important aim of the studies was to contribute to the further development of impact evaluation methods that can provide estimates of the value and benefits of research data sharing and curation infrastructure investments. This synthesis reflects on lessons learnt and provides a set of recommendations that could help develop future studies of this type.

Many thanks Rachel

*Rachel Bruce*

Director Technology Innovation

* <> *

Filed under: Quality & Assessment, Research, , , , , , , ,

Ithaka S&R US Library Survey 2013

Many of you might have seen this already – there is a new Ithaka S&R US Library Survey 2013 – the last one was in 2010.

However Bryan Alexander, Ph.D. Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education (NITLE) has provided a good summary at his blog:

For the full report see –

Filed under: Quality & Assessment,

CQAAC 2014 strategic priorities

CAUL Strategic Plan & CQAAC 2014 priorities

Note: CQAAC’s plan was amended to reflect interest in standards (working with ALIA) for Australian academic Libraries and workforce planning initiatives.

5. Proactively build influence and visibility with policy makers through representation on relevant external bodies and coordinate responses to relevant public enquiries, as appropriate. (Executive, Advisory Committees)

60. Monitor quality initiatives, including AUQA and TEQSA developments, relevant to university libraries. (Executive, CQAAC)

10. Develop, maintain and promote the CAUL website as a source of information about higher education issues of relevance to university libraries. (Executive Officer and Advisory Committees)

14. Encourage collaboration between CAUL Advisory Committees on matters of shared interest. (Advisory Committees)

22. Further investigate the contribution of libraries to learning outcomes and the student experience by drawing on research such as the AUSSE, UES surveys. (CLTAC)

51. Liaise with Insync Surveys to improve survey for benchmarking between CAUL members. (CQAAC)

55. Review and share workforce development activities for the sector to ensure the development of a capable workforce for the future. (CQAAC)

56. Develop KPIs/benchmarking criteria for electronic materials availability. (CQAAC)

54. Advise CAUL on the use of benchmarks to improve performance. (CQAAC)

Filed under: Quality & Assessment, ,

Impact of library discovery technologies: a report for UKSG

Impact of library discovery technologies: a report for UKSG. [By Valérie Spezi et al] The report was prepared for UKSG with the support of JISC and in partnership with LISU, Loughborough University, Centre of Information Management, Loughborough University and Evidence Base, Birmingham City University. Published by UKSG November 2013 (UK)

The goals of the study were:

  • To evaluate the impact that library discovery technologies (such as link resolvers and web-scale resource discovery services) have on the use of academic resources
  • To provide evidence to determine if there is a case for (a) investment in discovery technologies by libraries and (b) engagement with library discovery technologies by publishers and others in the academic information supply chain (unless no positive impact is found, in which case to provide evidence to this effect)
  • To provide recommendations for actions that libraries, publishers and others in the academic information supply chain should take to engage with such technologies to best support the discovery of resources for teaching, learning and research
  • To identify additional research, data, discussion, initiatives or other activities required that will support the implementation of the findings of this study.

Filed under: Quality & Assessment,

Lib-Value: new article/preprint in College & Research Libraries

Lib-Value: Values, Outcomes, and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries, Phase III: ROI of the Syracuse University Library

Bruce Kingma, Professor, School of Information Studies and Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University,

Kathleen McClure, MSLIS graduate of Syracuse University.

“The library must determine which public goods to provide based on the total value to the patrons. Likewise, the university administration must determine how much funding to invest in the library based on the value of the public goods it provides. The ROI of the academic library is the total value of these goods to the patrons divided by the cost.”

“The value of a public good includes the economic, environmental, and social value. The economic value is the worth of access to the library resources by a patron. It is what a patron would be willing to pay for the services if he were required to purchase them. Patrons do not purchase access, but can express what they would have spent in time and money if these resources were not available to them.”

The authors refer to the following report from ACRL by Megan Oakleaf: The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report

  • “Oakleaf makes an extensive review of methodologies and best practices in the area of ROI in libraries.”
  • “A key point in The Value of Academic Libraries is that “all assessment methods have advantages and disadvantages,” and “no tools are perfectly valid or reliable….To address this, Oakleaf and others recommend multiple method approaches.”

Filed under: Quality & Assessment, , ,