@ Brett – Your comments and concerns are well-taken. The ROI studies we encountered in prepping this article don’t profess to be comparable or transferable from one library to another library. One of the major downfalls of these studies is that they are context-specific, and those seeking to do cross-library comparisons, cannot rely on these kinds of ROI studies to do that. This was part of the rationale for the LJ Index. The folks who designed the LJ Index wanted to get around the problem of not being able to compare peer libraries. But the result is that the LJ Index doesn’t really provide the sense of a return on investment, which is what the ROI studies intend to do. I’d love to hear about libraries or non-profit organizations that have designed rigorous ROI studies. I think the Illinois study that focuses on ROI for grant dollars is a step in that direction. If folks know of others, please post them or email us.

@ Keith – thanks for sharing the LRS.org set of resources and links on ROI. For those interested in following-up with Keith on his “roadshow” of ROI workshops, his website is http://www.keithcurrylance.com/

@ Hyun-Duck – thanks for the link to Karen Coyle’s article on return on investment for new/evolving technology adoption. I don’t think we came across other articles/work in that flavor, but it’s possible that they exist for the IT realm in general. If I find something that clicks, I’ll post it here.

For links to that and other recent ROI studies of public libraries, interactive ROI tools, and other resources needed to do an ROI study on a shoestring budget, visit the Library Research Service (LRS) website: http://www.LRS.org.

Also, FWIW, I did a well-received, multi-stop ‘roadshow’ of workshops on this topic in NE last year.

“What’s two plus two?” I asked.

The consultant leaned across my desk and whispered conspiratorially, “What do you want it to be?”

Sorry about the old joke. Still… look at the list of references:

1. Every study was conducted by a librarian or library consultant.

2. None of the studies on ROI can be replicated (that is, they’re non-transferable).

3. All of the studies mentioned, especially the new LJ Index (sponsored by Baker & Taylor’s Bibliostat), seem to choose their measures based on how easy they are to compile rather than on whether they’re actually measuring libraries’ worth relative to each other or, more importantly, to other uses for municipal, institutional, or corporate funds.

While I think the ROI results themselves should be taken with a pillar of salt, the article itself is a good introduction to an important metric; librarians need to understand ROI. The current batch of ROI studies provide some creative ways to begin looking at what we do and how well we do it, but they’re best viewed as ideas we can use in formulating real questions and rigorous studies, not as answers that any of us should cite as fact.