We were asked by RSLP to undertake a study of access control systems as a means of identifying the issues involved in measuring the burden of use of libraries by external researchers. We were asked specifically to:
1. Make recommendations regarding an auditable method of recording the burden.
2. Consider entrance/exit counts, time-spent-in-library counts, time spent in answering face-to-face enquiries and time spent in answering queries received via letter, email, fax and telephone.
3. Consider alternative means of obtaining auditable data.
4. Consider the compatibility of existing systems.
5. Consider the likelihood of the Funding Councils being able to compare data obtained on a like-for-like basis.
A small group was established from the staff of the University libraries at Strathclyde and Glasgow and a questionnaire was circulated under the auspices of RSLP to all UK higher education institution libraries. The results were analysed by staff at Glasgow University Library and are appended to this report.
It is not intended to comment on each question since the full analysis is appended. However, where a particular finding appears important to the study a brief comment is provided.
Just over three-quarters of libraries currently have no system. The technology is not widespread in HE libraries.
There is a great disparity in the systems installed by the minority of libraries that have them. PAT and SB are clear leaders but there are significant numbers of other solutions. It is not known how many of these systems are scalable or capable of further refinement. The lack of unity also militates against comparability and auditability of data.
An overwhelming number of those libraries with a system do not have this capability and few have plans to install it.
60% of respondents have either no plans or would only install a system subject to funding being made available. Only 10% of respondents have firm plans with a timescale. For a variety of reasons there is a clear reluctance to embrace technology in this area.
Just over 40% of respondents indicated the presence of distorting factors. This casts further doubt on the accuracy of any statistical data that is collected.
13% indicated that this was the case but more than half said that they were unable to exclude such persons from statistics gathered. Therefore although payment for access is still relatively rare, those libraries that do receive funds from this source cannot in the main, isolate such users.
In respect of access control systems it seems clear that if the way forward is perceived to be via such systems, it may be necessary to establish a standard requirement for statistical collection that libraries would have to attain to receive funding. It may also be the case that the funder(s) would need to work closely with a supplier to ensure that its requirements were deliverable. Clearly, however, any such decision might disadvantage those libraries where systems are already in place. Moreover, given the lack of knowledge exhibited by most libraries in respect of the origin and nature of their external users, there would be little or no incentive to such libraries to install a system without a reasonable guarantee that benefits would accrue financially from doing so.
The survey concentrated on access control systems since it was felt that these might provide the best means to measure accurately the external use made of libraries. It seems clear from the survey that such systems are not the panacea that they might appear to be.
Other means of measuring use were considered since access alone need not represent a significant charge on the host library. No technology that the Group is aware of allows actual use of staff time and services to be measured. Moreover, many libraries have placed materials freely on the web and have also installed computer systems that permit many enquiries to be answered directly by all users. Indeed, remote use may take place without users ever entering a library. Any system of measurement used needs to be rigorous and acceptable but simple and cheap if it is to gain acceptance and authority. It appears that usage is very hard to measure and that some means of measuring access other than an automated one is preferable. Manual recording of telephone, email and similar enquiries does not necessarily have to be time consuming but there are concerns about the accuracy and reliability of such methods.
The initial distribution of funds was done on the basis of a detailed and extensive telephone consultation based on experience gained from an earlier pilot. Although the costs of this appear to be high they represent only a tiny fraction of the sum of money actually distributed. It appears to the group that the survey method may well be the best means of facilitating any future distribution given the inherent problems of access control systems that were originally installed for quite different local reasons and were designed to solve local problems. Consideration might be given to refining the survey in the light of experience but as a means of assessing use it may be as fair and impartial as any method.
The Group considers that access control systems cannot deliver the type of quantifiable, reliable and consistent data that would be required for accurate and impartial distribution of future funds. There are too many variables involved to attain this, not the least of which is that many libraries that have existing systems have installed them for very different reasons and that the systems produce data that is difficult to analyse and all but impossible to compare. Neither does technology exist to allow libraries to collect data on actual use quickly and cheaply and in a comparable manner. The refinement and continuation of the telephone survey method would seem to represent the most promising approach to future distribution of funds. The analysis of the output of existing systems is beyond the scope and competence of the present Group and may not in any event be very illuminating. If it were thought that further investigation of this area would be useful it is suggested that a Research Assistant be appointed for 12 months or that consideration be given to awarding a contract to a body such as the Centre for Digital Library Research in order to investigate the feasibility of a standard statistical model of data output from access control systems, together with a technical specification for designing such a system.
Content: Gill Davenport
Last updated: 24 July 2000