Einstein, Drucker, and others have pointed to the conundrum that "not everything we measure is important, and what is important may be impossible to measure". The topic of "Information Services Return on Investment" figures regularly in my professional activities - to wit, I will be a panel member at a session offered October 27 by the Ottawa Chapter of the Canadian Association for Special Libraries and Information Services (CASLIS is a section of the Canadian Library Association). Here are some key aspects of the conundrum associated with demonstrating the value of information centers, libraries, intranets, collaboration tools, and the like:
►The professional literature on ROI from libraries and information centers features quite a few titles sounding promising …some with publication dates in the 1970s. We have been working on the challenge for a long time.
►As examples, perceptions of value derived from research into renewable energy tend to be positive, and few would question the value of diagnostic imaging technology. Such 'carte blanche' acceptance of associated investments is more elusive when it comes to information centers and libraries.
►The fact that many of the costs of information centers are "sunk" - that is, we must pay for library systems and content licenses before the first customer arrives and regardless whether 100 or 1000 employees avail of our content and research service offerings - bedevils us. Cost cannot be scaled with consumption (but to make matters even more complicated, consumption may not be seen as translating into value).
►Metrics of activity - searches, article downloads, page views, turnstile counts, circulation, reference questions, and so on - are a staple of operational reporting, yet the valid question is raised: What do the numbers mean? Does "5000 views" suggest users are confused or indicate users are getting appropriate information in apporiate volume? It is no surprise that executives express difficulty in translating counts into an understanding of impact.
►Calculations such as literature research time saved by knowledge workers as a result of our assistance point to ROI but are at best indicative. Moreover, time savings and other soft benefits such as reduced risk and better-informed decision making may be nice-to-haves in the context of budgetary scrutiny.
►To provide context for impact assessment, we need to show the difference our work makes: To what kind of decision/policy/project/deliverable was our assistance applied? Was the outcome different from what it might have been without the information or guidance we provided? Although answers to such questions cannot constitute proof of ROI, they may be essential in demonstrating our contribution to the success of the organization we serve.
Should you have succeeded in developing new ways to assess and indicate the value and impact of your work, anecdotally or otherwise … thousands of your colleagues would be grateful to hear about them! In the spirit of Thanksgiving - October 12 in
Comments