Title (in english or french, caps lock, times new roman, bold, 90pt, centered)

1. International Conference on Library and Information Science  INNOVATION WITHIN LIBRARIES Braşov, Romania, 3th – 5th, June 2010 Title (in english or french, caps lock, times new roman, bold, 90pt, centered) First AUTHOR (first name, last name) (Times New Roman, bold, 50pt, centered) Affiliation 1 (Library, University etc.) (Times New Roman, 44pt, centered) E-mail: …………. Second AUTHOR (first name, last name) (Times New Roman, bold, 50pt, centered) Affiliation 2 (Library, University etc.) (Times New Roman, 44pt, centered) E-mail: …………. Article Goals Evaluation must give anwsers to specific objectives. Therefore, defining the objectives is a crucial phase. Objectives may converge, match or even be contradictory. They may be short or long term, simple or complex, of small or wide perimeter. They adress various people (inside or outside the institution). They generally imply decision taking, locally, regionally or nationally. So, additionally to the acquiring of statistical and methodological skills, of the statistics and methodology aspects, the point is to exploit results of evaluation, to make them known to the right purpose. (Times New Roman,36pt , italic, justified) • Applications • The difficulty of assessing university libraries : controlling authorities • Up to now, the assessing of university libraries was mainly controlled by the SDBIS, now MISTRD. • The point was, those last years, to have a better integration of the libraries in the university project. The libraries have to be integrated in the information system of the university. However, the visibility of the libraries contribution to the assessment of the university remained low, especially for education and research. Libraries budgets remained equally low. • AERES (Agence d’Évaluation de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur/Agency for assessing Research and Higher Education): since 2009 (C Vague -2009/2012), the agency takes into account more precise elements regarding libraries but focussing on students work environment only: • Documentation resources • Access to these resources • Research skill programmes • Auto-evaluation: all university libraries implement it (Miquel Report’s revolution) • The university ? The current reforms regarding the autonomy managing policy and efficient financing of universities should make evaluation more necessary than ever. University libraries must be vigilant to be part of it. • Methodology and tools: dashboards • Definition : a dashboard is a structured viewer providing, quickly and clearly, relevant,if not key information about the missions and objectives of an organism, a department, and that may take place at all levels of the organization. • Within big organizations, dashboards may be structured in a matrix, an arborescence, an organizaton chart aiming to reinforce coherence and sum up all efforts to the same strategy. • Relevancy and clarity make quality. All concerned staff members must be able to read the dashboard,understand it and know how to manage theirs parts in it. It must correspond to a team project. It must give both a global vision of the project and each and every one’s contribution. It may enhance the sense of responsibility. It should be a federative factor. • A dashboard should allow to outline key information. One benefit of the dashboard is an unambiguous communication about the expected results and on the means to implement. • The importance of choosing the indicators reflecting missions and objectives. • Workingshops with all concerned staff for each category of missions and projects. • There can be as many dashboards as types of activities and contexts. The point is not to copy and paste readymade formulas but to create corporate culture around projects. • Some types of indicators • Performance indicators (efficacy +efficiency) ; strategy indicators • Economy ; activity ; productivity ; quality ; costs • Results ; implementation ; contextual ; management • Indicators must allow to anticipate, act and react : PDCA method of E. Demming: Plan, Check, Do, Act. • Methodology and tools : national inquiries • The French ESGBU and some comparable inquiries in (REBIUN, Die deutsche Biblioteksstatistik, SCONUL, etc.) • Some categories of collected data : • Acquisitions • Books, number of volumes • Books, spending Results Evaluation project, quality policythe UTBM example Conclusions In France, the national inquiry, ESGBU, is a solid basis for evaluation. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient nowadays to give a true reflect of libraries performance. Some university libraries are developing new evaluation angles (SICD2 de Grenoble, SCD de Lyon1, Angers, Brest, etc.). But such approaches require means (methods, exploitation, communication) that are generally too heavy for one establishment. The BIX system (or SCONUL or such others) may be an example to follow as it allows a national cooperation dividing the costs between many libraries and providing strategic information to all of them. • Bibliography (Times New Roman, bold, 40pt) • 1 “Evaluation et prospective .” Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France, t 53, n°3, 2008. http://bbf.enssib.fr/sommaire/2008/3. • 2. Alix, Yves. “Evaluation et prospective.” Blog du BBF, Mai 19, 2008. http://bbf.enssib.fr/blog/2008/05/19/evaluation-et-prospective. • Acknowledgments