610 Assignment

jsbfg0001

Public_administration_approach.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >610 Assignment

Public administration approach What do libraries need for consistent

information services evaluation Jurgita Rudžionien

. e

Faculty of Communication, Vilinus University, Vilinus, Lithuania, and

Jaroslav Dvorak Department of Public Administration and Law, Klaip

. eda University,

Klaip . eda, Lithuania

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to define the problem and to initiate discussion on library evaluation as significant part of institutional evidence-based management from public administration approach. Design/methodology/approach – In order to fulfilling the purpose, special attention to present the concepts of valuing information, library performance evaluation, measurement, etc. is drawn, main evaluation functions are analysed. Economic aspects of information services vs intellectual ones are discussed. Consistent patterns and principles of public administration as well as possibilities of public administration influence in creation of systematic base of library performance evaluation as well as of information services impact to the user are analysed. Findings – The paper provides insights about different aspects of information services evaluation. Results of analysis of economic aspects of information services vs intellectual ones are presented, consistent patterns and principles of public administration, possibilities of public administration influence in creation of systematic base of library performance evaluation as well as of information services impact to the user possibilities are presented. Originality/value – The paper fulfills need to study how public administration could involve library evaluation as tool for evidence-based decision making.

Keywords Performance, Value, Evaluation, Public administration, Library

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction The main challenge for today’s society globally is rapidly growing information flows. Information specialists face the information management problems when seeking to fullfil constantly growing users’ information needs and providing high-quality information services timely. Specialists in various fields are involved in creating and finding appropriate ways, and collaboration is crucial attempting to develop the field successfully.

During the last decades evaluation “boom” is observed in different parts of the world and sectors. Public sector organizations opened themselves for performance evaluation and measurement striving to create higher level public services for customers. Comparing evaluation to other instruments of public management ( performance/internal audit, activity management), it can be stated that it is not provided with the authority mandate, as the most often the description, measure, research or service concepts are used because it is necessary to plan the financing of evaluation, which is not a part of the organizational infrastructure.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm

Received 8 February 2014 Accepted 17 February 2014

Library Management Vol. 35 No. 6/7, 2014

pp. 495-507 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0143-5124 DOI 10.1108/LM-02-2014-0019

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2013 QQML Conference in Rome, Italy, 4-7 June, www.isast.org/qqml2013.html

495

Libraries need for consistent

information services

Important step of the analysis is to formulate and describe the main evaluation functions: improvement of strategic planning; accountability; knowledge production; marketing; community consolidation; enlightening and learning. The present research emphasizes that evaluators attempt to ensure several functions. The choice of the functions depends on the aim of the evaluator, evaluation information, evaluation type or even the approaches of evaluation organization.

For assessment of library performance validation the four-level approach, which consists of following elements are presented: infrastructure of library; innovativeness of library; human resources; quality of the place (Rudžionien

. e and Dvorak, 2013).

Valuing information, evaluation of information services as well as overall public sector performance and its results is still challenging for libraries all over the world. Articulating and demonstrating the value and impact of information is still a major challenge for information management in libraries. It makes particular difficulties for developing an adequate institutional management and library administration. Lot of efforts to find the best ways for creating and implementing evaluation culture for information institutions, including libraries, are made (The value of academic libraries, 2010; Bawden and Robinson, 2012).

Evaluation is interdisciplinary concept and is used in wide range of sectors. Evaluation is close interrelated with quality of information (ISO 11620, 2008). “Amidst the increasing quantity of available information, a quality of information becomes a crucial factor for the effectiveness of organizations and individuals”, points Eppler (2006, p. 1). Moreover, the author indicates that “[y] information quality is not only [y] an issue that involves graphic designers, information systems architects, communication trainers, or technical authors. It is also (and perhaps primarily) a management challenge as knowledge work – which requires information both as input and output factors – becomes increasingly collaborative and and distributed and thus requires continuous and systematic coordination and management” (Eppler, 2006, p. 1).

Libraries as social institutions have their long history from manuscript to modern institution dealing with creation, organization, preservation and management of electronical content and delivering high-quality information services based on this content to the user aiming to fullfil their information needs providing as professional competencies of the specialists as well as their diverse information needs. Social library function is treated as one of the core library function, and is intrinsic to all types of libraries, especially public ones (Viešosios bibliotekos skaitmenin

. es eros sankryžose,

2002), and library specialist is not only mediator between document and user, but the shift is given to librarian as information interpreter and manager. Social value of library constitutes a background of the library concept itself – library is defined as social communication institution (LST ISO, 2008; Knygotyra, 1997). As it was once created, this value should be constantly maintained in the process of fulfilling all library functions in the best way striving to implement all library activities.

Public administration treats evaluation as tool for evidence-based decision making. Professional administration following the main principles of public administration definitely has positive influence to overall library activities. Libraries fall into public sector, and thus unambiguously they are the subject of public administration. On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind, that libraries as any other public sector organizations, has their own specific dealing with information services delivering. These specifics should be considered when arranging their organization and management from the point of public administration.

496

LM 35,6/7

Analysis of evaluation of libraries as public sector institutions from the point of public administration view attempting to solve problems of successful library evaluation assurance is made in this paper[1].

2. How is evaluation defined? Evaluation has a different meaning for various people and can be used for various purposes. Apparently, there is a significant variety of evaluation, different paradigms and conception of evaluation (Dahler-Larsen, 2006). Possibly, this influences the confusion concerning the conception of evaluation because it is a very dynamic and complex phenomenon.

One of the most trivial evaluation definitions claims that “evaluation is a systematic determination of a subject’s merit, worth and significance. Evaluation is a systematic acquisition and evaluation of information, which provides a useful feedback about a certain object” (Trochim, 2006). From the provided definition, it is clear that the concept of evaluation is intertwined with the determination of an object‘s worth and merit. While preparing to present the information, it is necessary to gather and analyse it systematically; therefore, an evaluation system is necessary. When only a few evaluation reports are prepared during several years, it is possible to maintain that the systematicity of evaluation activity is low (Leeuw and Furubo, 2008). Systematicity comprises the preparation of annual evaluation plans, financing of evaluation, presentation of evaluation results, publishing of certain publications, relationship with the media and the existence of professional society. The progress of the evaluation object is understood as a conformity to evaluation standards and specifications; in other words, an attempt is made to determine what is performed well by the evaluation object, what it had to perform, what are the effects which were not foreseen, etc.

Another definition concretizes that the procedures of a social research are applied, which in fact comprise all stages of the programme cycle. Thus “evaluation research is a systematic application of social research procedures, evaluating the conceptualization of social intervention programmes, plan, implementation, and use” (Rossi and Freeman, 1993). It is important to add that such a research is made in the political-administrative, not in the academic environment. Besides, this definition is limited because contemporary evaluation is interdisciplinary and is based not only on social research procedures but also on the approaches of natural and technological sciences research.

In this research, evaluation is defined as an interdisciplinary and conceptual evaluation of a library performance based on predefined external and internal criteria and use of the foreseen functional evaluation results.

3. What are the functional variety of evaluation? This research aims at identifying the variety of evaluation functions of a sustainable library activity. The analysis of the sources allows distinguishing the following functions, which are analysed in the present paper in greater detail:

. improvement of the strategic planning of a library;

. accountability for the use of financial resources;

. knowledge production;

. marketing;

. consolidation of the local community; and

. organizational learning.

497

Libraries need for consistent

information services

Improvement of strategic planning Libraries, as well as public sector organizations, started using management instruments in their activities. Apparently, library leaders and sharers are concerned about the distribution of financial and human resources in order to implement the competing organizational goals. The evaluators have to answer the questions on how to use the financial resources the most effectively and what alternatives of using resources will provide most benefit for the library users. The information obtained during the interim evaluation is used for the development of strategic planning. The evaluators evaluate the alternatives and foresee the social-economic benefit and compare it with expenses. While carrying out an evaluation, SWOT and PEST analyses and needs assessments are applied. During the implementation of strategic planning, the evaluator takes the position of a neutral moderator so that the leaders of a library, staff, establishers and other interested parties would contribute to implementing this task creatively.

Accountability for the use of financial resources Ineffective and inappropriate use of financial resources remains the main reason of applying the evaluation instrument. The evaluators collect information which may influence the future financing of the library or termination of its activity. The evaluators cannot apply sanctions. They control library activities, indicate the inadequacies and contradictions, and motivate the staff for changes without conflicting with the library leaders (Perrin, 2007). While carrying out an accountability-oriented evaluation, a financial and performance audits techniques are applied, as well as impact evaluation.

Knowledge production The knowledge created during the evaluation may decrease uncertainty and ambiguity of library leaders and sharers about the decision being made. Evaluation attempts to clarify why such results are obtained. In other words, they can help the library leader and sharers to find objective answers about effective or ineffective means. Probably, after creating the knowledge, uncertainty about the decision being made will decrease; however, ambiguity cannot be reduced only by gathering information because it is the expression of many ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomenon (Radin, 2000). Thus evaluation is understood as the explanation of the present consequences and results of the library activities.

Marketing The libraries have to use the provided evaluation results and recommendations in marketing. This paper also analyses the participation of visitors in the provision of library services; however, the postulates of participatory evaluation emphasize the broader involvement of the stakeholders into the evaluation process. The involvement of the library visitors into evaluation may provide them the feeling of ownership and responsibility about the internal everyday performance of the library and the willingness to find out more about the process of providing library services. Evaluation results will help for the present and future library visitors to choose; they will value that their opinion is taken into consideration and their attempts are fulfilled in the library activities.

Consolidation of the local community Evaluators may be the only possibility to affect the performance of the public organization for various user groups, i.e. students, retired persons, prisoners, charity

498

LM 35,6/7

recipients and disabled people. These stakeholders are often excluded from the decision making process. Therefore, an evaluator can represent the public interest against the interests which have power. The leaders of the organization under evaluation have to understand that the aim of evaluation is to evaluate the performance, not the people. In fact, evaluation provides the possibility for the stakeholders to express their opinion on the improvement of library activities. The assessees tend to cooperate much more if they know that for participation they will receive, for instance, useful feedback and information (Geva-May and Thorngate, 2003).

Organizational learning If the libraries ignore the evaluation results, they will not have motives to learn from the data obtained during evaluation. A common database of library activity quality has to be established, which would provide the possibilities for the library staff to learn from each other and would increase the cooperation of the stakeholders. When making this database, it is important to consider the following important questions: what and whose evaluation criteria will be applied? Who are asking the questions – internal or external evaluator? What data will be used? What does the evaluation comprise and what is not analysed? All evaluation types are applied, during which evaluators become instructors and advisors; lectures, conferences and interviews are organized; publications for the use of evaluation recommendations in decision making are published, etc.

4. Value and evaluation in library context “Libraries cannot demonstrate institutional value to maximum degree until they define outcomes of institutional relevance and then measure the degree to which they attain them” (The Value of Academic Libraries, 2010, p. 12). Value at the library is perceived in different ways, and various aspects are emphasized – use of services, return-on-investment, commodity production, impact, etc. (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003; The Value of Academic Libraries, 2010). Two types of the focus of the value could be indicated – internal and external. Use and return-on-investment are the most popular ones of defining internal focus value, as return-on-investment is most often perceived as financial value, value for money. Use of the library focus as a rule is linked directly with library statistics, e.g. inputs and outputs. In most cases it is traditionally accept that the higher figures of library activities the better is library. Nobody can argue that quantitative side of library performance is highly important. Moreover, library statistics is a background for performance evaluation (ISO 2789, 2006). But in no way equals sign can be putted between statistics and evaluation, and statistics should be not perceived as final stage of evaluation activities but used by managers of libraries and decision makers of all levels as performance evaluation prerequisite and mean. In addition to that, the real value of statistics can be obtain if only separate indicators are used in comparing with the others in the library, or with the indicators which are obtained from parent institution performance results (the latter is actual for academic, school libraries) (Bawden and Robinson, 2012; The Value of Academic Libraries, 2010, p. 20; Berryman, 2005). The most actual external value is library impact. While this value is the most complex nowadays as much as it is important and actual for library advocacy (Markless and Streatfield, 2008).

Attention should be drawn to one more important aspect when dealing with library performance evaluation. It is important to underline, that concept measurement is not synonymous to concept evaluation. Those concepts have different meaning – measurement deals with quantitative library performance aspect, and evaluation means qualitative

499

Libraries need for consistent

information services

aspect of library performance. Evaluation usually is based on library statistics, e.g. on quantitative expression of the performance. It is not the only problem in using different concepts in evaluation context. Concepts outcome, output, impact undergo different problems when understanding and using them, for example, still in many cases output or outcome is identified as impact, in those cases difficulties to separate performance results and their influence (impact) to users is observed (Lancaster, 2003; Markless and Streatfield, 2008; Poll and Boekhorst, 2007; Rudžionien

. e, 2012).

Evaluation in library context could be seen from two aspects: professional and general one. Library performance evaluation usually is perceived as the whole society and each of its member prerogative. Each stakeholder (library users, financial bodies, politicians, etc.) admits and even are sure that they are able to evaluate library activities, and they do that. In general they have right for that, as library is social institution. Anyway, it is usually done based not on reliable library performance results, it is done rather based on emotional and non-professional basis. Thus is why evaluation should be arranged and implemented in professional way so that evaluation results could be delivered to various stakeholders in order to convince them clearly about real library activities results and demonstrate library value and role in society.

Library performance evaluation as seen from professional side is more complex. Consequent institutional performance evaluation system should be implemented as well as evaluation culture in the field should be created. Those ensure appropriate institutional management. Huysmans and Oomes (2012) state, that libraries need to implement their politics based on decisions made according to the main content of their performance and performance evaluation results, because public sector suffers from permanent budget cuts. Library politics created in this way can help them to demonstrate their input in creating society’s welfare.

5. Exploratory criteria for a library evaluation The main function of evaluation is to achieve the result which is appropriate for the stakeholders, which are the users of this result at the same time. An important condition in the implementation of this function is the consensus of all stakeholders on the evaluation criteria. If it is impossible to reach a consensus, the evaluator can choose from the following action possibilities: to apply a client-oriented approach because the client pays for the evaluation service; to adapt the advocacy approach, i.e. the point of view of the selected stakeholders; understanding approach, when the evaluator applies his/her personal point of view and convictions; multi-criteria approach; and emancipation approach when the evaluator applies the point of view of a group which has less powers (Stufflebeam and Shinkfield, 2007).

This research follows the position of the understanding approach because it provides personal points of view of the publication authors towards the evaluation criteria of library activities. In order to use evaluation results, evaluation criteria have to be informative for the library professionals and have to have a desired impact on their work. Four evaluation criteria useful for certain audiences are analysed in this research (see Figure 1).

Library infrastructure While evaluating library activities according to the public administration principles, it is assumed that a contemporary library infrastructure has to be competitive and has to meet the needs of modern and demanding visitors. Thus the literature analysis reveals three trajectories necessary to fulfill these aims.

500

LM 35,6/7

Trajectory one: coproduction in the provision of library services. While providing library services, their recipients participate in this process. On the one hand, the library visitors have to contribute to the provision of the service voluntarily (e.g. search in the database, ordering documents or returning them), and the rules of the library have to be flexible so that the recipients of the library services could modify them. Coproduction refers to the situation when the recipients of library services perform an active role in the provision of library services.

Trajectory two: personalization of library services. Personalization is a mechanism which applies the service to a specific situation of an individual and comprises a wide variety of initiatives (Needham, 2011). Personalization of library services improves the consequences of service provision and manifests itself through an individual transformation of a person; possibly, personalization helps to save because personal budgets precondition a more effective use of the budget. On the other hand, personalization has an impact on people’s lifestyle and distances from the propagated consumer-oriented values. Personalization may be applied to anyone; people become the experts of their life and transform into counter-bureaucracy.

Trajectory three: shared service centre. Shared service centres are a partly wide-spread business practice in the public sector. The possibility for application of the existing models of joint service provision (Dollery et al., 2008) is provided below:

(1) Horizontal shared service model: this model comprises partnership among libraries which usually border geographically with each other. In this model, several or more libraries share the resources or take some activity areas totally. An exceptional feature of this model is the question of property because according to this model, services, resources, equipment and tools are the property of the joint libraries. The municipalities which act together control activities and procedures and also have to take the responsibility about expenditure, income, profit, and risk. In general, it is possible to maintain that in this model, shared services are managed and the property belongs to the joint libraries.

(2) Vertical shared service model: this model comprises cooperation among all or several libraries in the country and the associations of libraries in the country.

Infrastructure Innovations

Human resources

Quality of place

Figure 1. Criteria for a

library evaluation

501

Libraries need for consistent

information services

Usually in this model, the library association of the country suggests a certain service for the municipalities- members as its help or for a certain fee. According to these circumstances, this association is a property of libraries-members, and at the same time the libraries control the activities of the association.

Innovations A dominant opinion is that libraries are a system of providing “orthodox” information services, where there is no room for innovation. On the other hand, information technology and the internet changed everything upside down because advanced libraries can not only perform standard actions but also programme. The libraries, which have understood their needs and the challenges of informatization, have become the creators of innovations spreading their variety (e.g. systems of public internet access). The evidence show that innovative libraries become leading, competitive and changing service providers, which are more technically oriented and rarely use the skills of external providers (von Hippel, 2010).

Human resources of libraries In order to determine the skills necessary for human resources of libraries, in July 2012, four structured interviews were conducted with the representatives of non-governmental organizations. According to the respondents, the libraries tend to be ascribed to the non-governmental sector; thus the answer has to be found what skills and why can be typical of library staff. The respondents of the qualitative research were chosen according to the following criteria: experience in NGO; work in different sectors; and variety of work activities.

The qualitative research determines that the representatives of the non-governmental organizations do the following typical jobs: leading a team, activity ( people or events) coordination, planning, preparation of projects and monitoring of their implementation. It can be maintained that library employees need to have managerial skills because the dynamics of the contemporary library environment requires orientation towards the goals and the result. During the qualitative research, the respondents admitted that an untypical task is representation of the organization in events (e.g. seminars or project completion events). Apparently, library employees need to have the skills of organizing and representing the organization in events because only by having a full service library can attract all client types (Matthews, 2009). C.G. Johansen and N.O. Pors have indicated that library employees need an exceptional professional competence. A specialist may need the competencies acquired not only during work but also in non-standard situations or an open social position (hobbies or social work). In this situation, evaluation is a necessary tool, which can affect the understanding of the library staff about the need of broad competencies; the library employees have to be provided with the necessary information and at the time when they need this information. This means that the leaders of libraries have to look through strategic goals of the institution and to suggest new services in addition to the traditional ones.

Quality of the place In order to assess the quality of the library environment, three variables are suggested.

Summing up the information provided in Table I, it can be observed that each variable may be dominant depending on the circumstances. Libraries have to become social hubs where it is interesting to communicate for people depending on their interests, share the information and feel that you are not alone in the community.

502

LM 35,6/7

Empowerment means that the library staff should be able to create a space, which is pleasant, cosy and open to various groups of stakeholders. Harmony of the library environment is evaluated in a broad sense because library visitors have to be attracted by the aesthetic beauty of the rooms and green spaces inside and outside the library.

6. Library evaluation as public administration instrument Adequate perception and organization of library performance evaluation is one of the prerequisites for successful library public administration and management. Library performance in general is understood as complex and versatile entirety. Brophy (2006) indicates to two effective performance rules: it is impossible to manage performance which is not evaluated, and it is possible to manage only those activities which are evaluated. Performance measurement and evaluation cannot be seen apart from successful institutional management (Lancaster, 2003; Poll and Boekhorst, 1996, 2007; Rudžionien

. e, 2012). Without information about what kind of results libraries have

achieved, they cannot move towards expecting for higher quality information services. Results of library performance should be compared with the library goals and tasks, and only this way creates possibility to envisage and foresee the purpose of library services as well as to judge about if various resources (financial, human resources, etc.) are allocated in the most rational way (Lancaster, 2003; Poll and Boekhorst, 1996, 2007).

Giedraityt . e and Raipa (2012, p. 188) according to E.D. Glor describes public

administration’s origin as constantly dealing with problems in application innovations. Obstacles occurring in innovative processes due to institutional management are closely linked with specific thinking. Public sector institutions, and libraries among them especially, differently from private institutions usually cannot accept their failures. This is the reason why libraries actually are trying to avoid innovations trying to feel themselves more save. It indicates lack of changes in management and public administration, as well as low library performance evaluation competencies and skills.

Determining public administration role S. Batare (2012, p. 172) states referring to Samuelson (1954) that “the task of the public sector as the element of the macroeconomic flow model is to ‘produce’ public goods and services primarily for collective consumption – the so-called public good”. Batare (2012, p. 172) indicates that “a public good has a collective nature. Moreover, when used by one person, others who have not been engaged in consumption benefit from it as well, which means that the external effect has been created”. Evaluation has its certain role in public administration. Moreover, evaluation is treated as decision-making instrument. Acceptation of this attitude is of high importance striving to enhance those libraries avoiding their performance evaluation towards more active, systematic and professional their performance evaluation culture. Evaluation of library contribution

Variables Theoretical argument

Social hub A library should be viewed as a place where people can meet to communicate, discuss information, and share it among each other; to feel that the community members take care of each other

Empowerment This refers to a library which is nice, cosy and open to various groups of stakeholders (minorities, pupils, etc.)

Harmony of the environment

Aesthetic beauty of the library buildings and rooms is evaluated, as well as green spaces inside and outside the library

Table I. Variables and theoretical

arguments of place quality evaluation

503

Libraries need for consistent

information services

to national economy is a complex matter. It requires consideration of a number of different dimensions – the value added can be see in economic, cultural, social, intellectual dimensions. Value added could be seen both to those who use library products and services directly, and indirect benefit from the library and its services could be earned to the wider population (British Library, 2002).

During last decades diffusion of public sector evaluation culture created prerequisites for libraries to guide public administration principles. It enables public administration institutions and libraries among them to activate evaluation of their activities. Lack of decision-based management and administration in libraries should be eliminated. So called “evaluation chain” illustrates library activities levels which could be consider as segments for library performance evaluation organization. The evaluation of this evaluation chain is observed during the last period starting with chain version Input-Process-Output-Outcome (Viešosios bibliotekos skaitmenin

. es eros sankryžose, 2002), to the last one of

Input-Process-Output-Outcome-Impact (Impact assessment guidelines, 2009). Certain indicators typology should be chosen and used while evaluating performance on different levels. Input indicators usually describe various resources (financial, human, collections, facilities, etc.). Process indicators attribute library internal functions (document received at the library processing, e-catalogue creation and maintenance, etc.). Library services are described by indicators which belong to results level (document delivery). Library performance impact evaluation indicators describe the last level – impact evaluation. On this level it is supposed to evaluate how library services (library activity results) influence users, what kind of social, economical impact do libraries have.

Usually library statistics includes data on input and process level. Anyway, it is not enough to measure only input and processes as they do not reveal library performance quality. It is not sufficient background for conclusions about how good or not library is performing. Results and impact levels evaluation are of extremely high importance leading to the evaluation of services impact to users and the whole society. Library services impact for users facilitate changes in different fields and sectors as information services change users’ knowledge and competences.

Performance evaluation in libraries are both actual in knowledge-driven economy as complicated one. Anyway it is treated as one of the crucial factor in striving:

. to assure excellent library management and public administration;

. to bring together all public sector institutions in order to strive towards better quality information services;

. to ensure survival of public sector institutions and libraries among them aiming to fullfil their social, cultural, etc. mission in society;

. to develop successfully in competing environment;

. to demonstrate both internal and external institutional transparency; and

. to show value for money (ISO 11620, 2008; The Value of Academic Libraries, 2010; Brophy, 2006; Berryman, 2005).

7. Conclusions Current analysis reveal libraries “as public sector institutions” performance evaluation main possibilities from the point of view of public administration:

. Continual and systematical library performance analysis and evaluation is of vital importance for libraries. It ensures development of institutional

504

LM 35,6/7

management striving to better quality of information activities and their result as – information services. From this viewpoint public management and administration should act as a mean which helps libraries to arrange their activities towards high-quality information services for the users.

. Measurement of library performance creates possibilities to collect library performance statistical data aiming to facilitate comparisons between libraries and between libraries in different countries, regions etc. The strong requirement from the market to describe and publicize library activities can be realized when data collection follows rules and procedures of precise statistical data gathering. Library performance statistical data enables library performance evaluation.

. Evaluation is interdisciplinary and is crucial for all sectors. Decision-based professional administration and following the main public administration principles definitely adds value to the whole public sector institutions as well as to libraries and ensures their successful development.

. After analysing and generalizing the scientific literature, it is possible to compose a renewed classification of evaluation functions for the case of library. The following main evaluation functions are distinguished: improvement of strategic planning, accountability for the use of financial resources, knowledge production, marketing, community consolidation and organizational learning. The choice of the functions depends on the aim of the evaluation customer, evaluation type or even the approaches of evaluation organization in the country.

. Many evaluation models and approaches are propagated in the scientific and specialized literature without any clear evidence of their effectiveness and suitability. We offer four exploratory criteria for library evaluation – library infrastructure, innovations, human resources of the library and quality of place. Those criteria are actual for the evaluation of the library performance in four levels: input (costs) evaluation, process evaluation, evaluation of results (information services) and impact.

Note

1. The paper is based on the paper delivered at the international conference, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, Roma, 4-7 June, 2013.

References

Batare, S. (2012), “Efficiency of public spending on education”, Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 171-186.

Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2012), Introduction to Information Science, Facet Publishing, London.

Berryman, J. (2005), “Sustaining communities – measuring the value of public libraries”, available at: www.sl.nsw.gov.au/services/public_libraries/docs/sustainingcommunities.pdf (accessed 2 July 2013).

British Library (2002), “Measuring Our Value: Results of an Independent Economic Impact Study Commissioned by the British Library to Measure the Library’s Direct and Indirect value to the UK Economy”, available at: www.bl.uk/pdf/measuring.pdf (accessed 21 June 2013).

Brophy, P. (2006), Measuring Library Performance: Principles and Techniques, Facet Publishing, London.

505

Libraries need for consistent

information services

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2006), “Evaluation after disenchantment? Five issues shaping the role of evaluation in society”, in Shaw, I.F., Greene, J.C, Mark, M.M. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Evaluation, Sage Publications, London, pp. 142.

Dollery, B.E., Grant, B. and Akimov, A. (2008), “Shared service in Australian local government: a proposed taxonomy”, Working Paper Series 8, University of North England, available at: www.une.edu.au/clg/working-papers/08-2008.pdf (accessed 20 January 2013).

Eppler, M.J. (2006), Managing Information Quality: Increasing the Value of Information in Knowledge-Intensive Products and Processes, 2nd ed., Springer.

Geva-May, I. and Thorngate, W. (2003), “Reducing anxiety and resistance in policy and programme evaluations: a socio-psychological analysis”, Evaluation, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 205-227.

Giedraityt . e, V. and Raipa, A. (2012), “Inovacijų įgyvendinimo trukdžiai šiuolaikiniame viešajame

valdyme”, Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 187-197.

Huysmans, F. and Oomes, M. (2012), “Measuring the public library’s societal value: a methodological research model”, in Frank, H. and Marjolein, O. (Eds), Information in E-Motion: BOBCATSSS2012, 20th International Conference on Information Science, Abstracts, Amsterdam, 23-25, January, BOCKþHERCHEN Verlag, Bad Honnef, p. 55.

Impact Assessment Guidelines (2009), “European commission”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf (accessed 25 June 2013).

ISO 11620 (2008), “Information and documentation”, Library Performance Indicators, ISO, Geneva.

ISO 2789 (2006), “Information and documentation”, International Library Statistics, ISO, Geneva.

Knygotyra: enciklopedinis žodynas (1997), “Knygotyra: enciklopedinis žodynas” in Dubauskas, S. et al. (Eds), Alma Littera, Vilnius.

Lancaster, W.F. (2003), If You Want to Evaluate Your Library, 2nd ed., Library Association Publishing, London.

Leeuw, F.L. and Furubo, J.E. (2008), “Evaluation systems: what are they and why study them?”, Evaluation, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-169.

LST ISO 5127 (2008), “Informacija ir dokumentavimas”, Aiškinamasis žodynas.

Markless, S. and Streatfield, D. (2008), Evaluating the Impact of Your Library, Facet Publishing, London.

Matthews, J.R. (2009), “The customer focused-library: re-inventing the library from the outside-in’, Publisher: Libraries Unlimited, Santa-Barbara, CA.

Megan, O. (2010), “The value of academic libraries: a comprehensive research review and report”, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, available at: www.acrl.ala.org/ (accessed 18 June 2013).

Needham, C. (2011), Personalising Public Services: Understanding the Personalisation Narrative, Policy Press, Bristol.

Perrin, B. (2007), “Towards a new view of accountability”, in Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., Lonsdale, J. and Perrin, B. (Eds), Making Accountability Work. Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswich and London, p. 290.

Poll, R. and Boekhorst, P. (1996), Measuring quality: International Guidelines for Performance Measurement in Academic Libraries, IFLA Section Of University Libraries And Other General Research Libraries, IFLA Publications No. 76, K G Saur, München.

Poll, R. and Boekhorst, P. (2007), Measuring Quality: Performance Measurement in Libraries, 2nd ed., K G Saur, IFLA Publications, München, p., 127.

Radin, B.A. (2000), Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.

506

LM 35,6/7

Rossi, P. and Freeman, H.E. (1993), Evaluation. A Systematic Approach, 5th ed., Sage Publications.

Rudžionien . e, J. (2012), “Culture of performance evaluation: seeking the ways of better quality

library management and university teaching methodology”, Tiltai, Nr., Vol. 1 No. 58, pp. 149-158.

Rudžionien . e, J. and Dvorak, J. (2013), “Public administration approach: what do libraries need for

consistent information services evaluation”, in Anthi, K. (Ed.), Book of abstracts of the 5th Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference, June 4-7, Roma, ISAST, Roma, pp. 226-227.

Samuelson, P.A. (1954), “The pure theory of public expenditure”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 387-389, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/1925895 (accessed 1 June 2013).

Stufflebeam, D.L. and Shinkfield, A.J. (2007), Evaluation Theory, Models and Applications, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Trochim, W.M.K. (2006), “Introduction of evaluation”, Research Methods Knowledge Base, available at: www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.php (accessed 22 September 2008).

Viešosios bibliotekos skaitmenin . es eros sankryžose: Europos Sąjungos projekto PULMAN

gair . es (2002), Trans. by E. Banionyte et al., Vilnius: VU leidykla.

von Hippel, E. (2010), “Inovacijų demokrat . ejimas”, Lietuvos inovacijų centras.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, McGraw-Hill, Irwin, OH.