accounting for differences in library performance helen greenwood lisu, loughborough university
TRANSCRIPT
Accounting for differences in library performance
Helen Greenwood
LISU, Loughborough University
Accounting for differences in library performance2
Introduction
Background
Approach
Key findings
Ongoing work
Accounting for differences in library performance3
Background to the study
Library performance evaluation based on data reported to CIPFA
Suspected inconsistency in the compilation of data
Need to draw valid comparisons between similar library services
Some authorities appear to be high spending but low performing
Accounting for differences in library performance4
Comparing apples to oranges?
‘idiom … used to indicate that two items or groups of items have not been validly compared’
(Wikipedia, 2007)
Accounting for differences in library performance5
‘I am … aware of the criticisms from colleagues within the profession that some of the data we collect are no longer relevant and that some collection methodologies leave much to be desired’ (Lightfoot, 2003)
Accounting for differences in library performance6
Numbers should be interpreted with care!
Rseearch at Cmabrigde University shwos it deson’t mttaer in what order the ltteers in a word are, as long as the frist and lsat letters are in the rghit palce
… If only the same were true of numbers!
Accounting for differences in library performance7
Approach
For the study to be relevant and valuable in practical terms it was necessary to identify similar authorities
Based on:
- geographical factors
- statistical benchmarking based on CIPFA data
Accounting for differences in library performance8
Geographical factors
• Counties only
• Population distribution information was not readily available so approach taken used the ratio between population density of the two most densely populated districts of each county
• Where the most densely populated district was more than nine times more densely populated than the first, these counties were excluded
Accounting for differences in library performance9
Statistical benchmarking
Proportion of population aged under 15 and over 60
Average population per service point
Expenditure per capita
Book stock per capita
Total population, county area & pop density
Accounting for differences in library performance10
‘Nearest neighbour’ analysis
Each measure was standardised across the counties
↓
Average ‘distance’ from Leicestershire calculated
↓
Distances ranked and plotted
↓
Possible authorities identified
↓
Key output measures consulted
Accounting for differences in library performance11
‘Distance’ from Leicestershire
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rank
Ave
rage
'dis
tanc
e' fr
om L
eice
ster
shire
Accounting for differences in library performance12
Selecting the benchmarking group
issues (book & AV)
requests
enquiries
visits
cost per visit
population per professional staff
staff expenditure
materials expenditure
Output measures considered to assist decision-making
Accounting for differences in library performance13
Accounting for differences in the data
visitors premises stock transport staff services ICT income
expenditure
A working group of seven local authorities was formed
Key areas were examined:
Accounting for differences in library performance14
Accounting for differences in the data
How these data were compiled was discussed during in-depth interviews
> In groups & individually
> Opportunity to talk openly about concerns with the data & seek important contextual info
Seminar focusing on visits, staff and ICT expenditure data
> Forum for the exchange of questions, concernsapproaches and ideas
Accounting for differences in library performance15
Key findings
Considerable variation in data collection, compilation and reporting to CIPFA
Particular issue with catch-all categories e.g. miscellaneous & support services expenditure
Reasons for inconsistencies include:
> Organisational differences
> Difficulties apportioning central costs
> Different accounting protocol
> Insufficient guidance from CIPFA
> Lack of respondents’ notes
> A desire to present favourable data!
Accounting for differences in library performance16
Visits
Definition of a visit
Counting at events & shared-use buildings
Methods of counting
e.g. Manual count: 3.26M visits
Automatic count: 3.10M visits
A difference of >150,000, yet both methods are acceptable
Calibration of people counters
Views on reliability of figures
Which figures reported to CIPFA
Accounting for differences in library performance17
Staff costs
Cost of central support
Salary scales/grades/rates
Overheads - % part-time staff
Training costs
Contribution to wider objectives of the authority
Accounting for differences in library performance18
ICT
How ICT infrastructure is managed & funded> same type of expenditure found in three different categories within the group!
Non-financial computing costs
What provision includes
Equipment replacement policy & sustainability
Measuring use of electronic services
Accounting for differences in library performance19
Ongoing work
Leicestershire and Warwickshire continuing to work together
Staffing structures & formulas
Further examination of accounting procedures
Adopted same approach to submitting data to CIPFA
Reporting to Midlands Performance Group
Accounting for differences in library performance20
Further information
Anonymised report available to download:
www.lboro.ac.uk/depts/dis/lisu/pages/publications
Nigel Thomas [email protected] Ayub Khan [email protected]
