大專校院圖書館績效指標重要性與可行性之研究

An Importance and Feasibility Study of Performance Indicators for Academic Libraries

10.6146/univj.19-2.02

蔡欣如(Hsin-Ju Tsai)；柯皓仁(Hao-Ren Ke)

大專校院圖書館 ； 績效評估 ； 績效指標 ； 圖書館評鑑 ； academic libraries ； university libraries ； performance measurement ； performance indicators ； library evaluation

大學圖書館

19卷2期（2015 / 09 / 01）

22 - 47

繁體中文

隨著大環境的改變，圖書館所要面對的挑戰漸增。為了使圖書館能符合讀者的需求，並在科技快速進步的衝擊下，持續提供高效與高品質的服務，實有必要建立績效評估的機制。本研究主要目的為研析出重要性及可行性較高之大專校院圖書館績效指標，並了解影響大專校院圖書館執行績效評估之困難因素，以供大專校院圖書館實踐績效評估的參考。本研究以全國大專校院圖書館為研究對象，利用王怡璇、劉宜臻、柯皓仁（2012）所歸納之大學圖書館績效指標，進行問卷調查，以了解大專校院圖書館績效指標之重要程度與可執行程度，共放發162份問卷，回收109份有效問卷。本研究重要發現總結如下：（1）關於圖書館開放時間、館藏資源充分性與可得性、圖書館人力資源配置、館藏資源使用率、讀者滿意度、館際互借速度、參考問題回覆滿足率、經費等指標之重要程度較高；（2）影響指標可執行程度的因素包含指標評估方式複雜、資料取得不易、績效指標達成不易等；（3）時間與經費資源不足為國內大專校院圖書館實踐績效評估的主要困難。本研究依據研究結果提出以下建議：（1）加強推動大專校院圖書館績效評估；（2）舉辦績效評估研習與交流活動；（3）全面施行全國大專校院圖書館績效評估。

Facing a new century of highly competitiveness and challenges, libraries have to pursue distinguished service quality for meeting patron needs. Establishing a mechanism of performance measurement, libraries can continuously self-examine their service quality, and present their achievements to their patrons, parent institutions, and funding institutions. It is essential to have a standardized and universal guideline for the practical implementation of performance measurement. In view of this, this study aims at analyzing and developing a set of feasible performance indicators for academic libraries as well as comprehending performance measurement difficulties. Wang, Liu & Ke (2012) integrated existing library performance measurement standards (like ISO 11620:2008) and related projects (like BIX) to propose a total of 59 performance indicators. This study is a follow-up research of their study. Using a questionnaire survey, this study collected the opinions of academic libraries in Taiwan about the ideally important and practically feasible performance indicators. A total of 162 copies of questionnaire were distributed and 109 copies were returned. The research results are shown as follows. First, the performance indicators about library opening hours, the adequacy and availability of collections, librarian manpower allocation, collections usage, patron satisfaction, interlibrary loan speed, reference fill rate, and budget allocation were more important than others. Second, less feasible indicators possessed features such as high computation cost, difficulty to obtain data, and difficulty to accomplish good achievement. Third, time and budget were the primary reasons that academic libraries did not conduct performance measurement regularly. Suggestions for academic libraries were drawn, based on the conclusion of this study. First, the performance measurement for academic libraries should be promoted further. Second, more activities for librarians to learn about performance measurement could be conducted. Third, a nationwide performance measurement for all academic libraries should be implemented in the long run.

1. 王梅玲、李函儒(2014)。大學圖書館資料庫績效指標與評鑑模式建構之研究。大學圖書館，18(2)，24-49。
   連結：
2. 李勅毅、陳昭珍、楊智晶(2010)。圖書館電子資源投資報酬率評量研究：以南台科技大學為例。大學圖書館，14(2)，174-188。
   連結：
3. 邱莉媛、江玉婷、黃乾綱(2014)。導入決策支援系統於大學圖書館。大學圖書館，18(2)，141-165。
   連結：
4. 柯皓仁(2014)。淺談公共圖書館績效評估。臺北市立圖書館館訊，32(2)
   連結：
5. 童敏惠(2009)。從投資報酬觀點檢視大學圖書館的服務績效。大學圖書館，13(1)，107-122。
   連結：
6. 謝鳳珠(2010)。運用平衡計分卡建構圖書館之核心策略：以陸軍專科學校資訊圖書中心為例。圖書與資訊學刊，2(1)，52-73。
   連結：
7. (1995)。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。
8. 教育部統計處（2011）。大專校院學校數及學生數。檢自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview02.xls.
9. 柯皓仁（2012）。大學圖書館績效評估指標說明。圖書館績效評估網站。檢自：http://measure.glis.ntnu.edu.tw/node/33。
10. BIX (2010). BIX-The library index (Basic information in English-Working paper).Retrieved from http://www.bix-bibliotheksindex.de/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/bix_english_2010_01.pdfhttp://www.bix-bibliotheksindex.de/.
11. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee(2015).,未出版
12. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee(2014).Top trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education.C&RL News,June,291-302.
13. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee(2012).2012 top ten trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education.C&RL News,June,311-320.
14. Bertot, J. C.,McClure, C. R.(2003).Outcomes assessment in the networked environment: Research questions, issues, considerations, and moving forward.Library Trends,51(4),590-613.
15. Cullen, R.(1997).Does performance measurement improve organisational effectiveness? A post-modern analysis.Proceedings of the 2nd Northumbria international conference on performance measurement in libraries and information services,Northumberland:
16. Horowotz, L. R.(2009).Assessing library services: A practical guide for the nonexpert.Library Leadership and Management,23(4),192-203.
17. International Organization for Standardization(2008).ISO 11620 Information and documentation: Library performance indicators.Geneva.:International Organization for Standardization.
18. International Organization for Standardization(2014).ISO 11620 Information and documentation: Library performance indicators.Geneva.:International Organization for Standardization.
19. Kantor, P.B.(1984).Objective performance measures for academic and research libraries.Washington, DC:The Association of Research Libraries.
20. Ke, H. R.,Wang, Y. S.,Tsai, H. J.,Liu, Y. C.(2013).A Study of the Importance and Feasibility of Performance Indicators for Academic Libraries in Taiwan.The 5th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Library & Information Education and Practice: Issues and Challenges of the Information Professions in the digital Age,Khon Kaen, Thailand:
21. Lakos, A.,Phipps, S.(2004).Creating a culture of assessment: a catalyst for organizational change.Portal: Libraries and the Academy,4(3),345-361.
22. Lancaster, F.W.(1993).If You Want to Evaluate Your Library....London:Library Association..
23. Lancaster, F.W.(1977).The measurement and evaluation of library services.Washington, DC:Information Resources Press.
24. McClure, C. R.(1986).A view from the trenches: Costing and reference measures for academic library public services.College and Research Libraries,47,323-336.
25. Poll, R.,Boekhorst, P. te(2007).Measuring quality: International guidelines for performance measurement in libraries.Munchen:K.G. Saur.
26. Poll, R.,Payne, P.(2006).Impact measures for libraries and information services.Library Hi Tech,24(4),547-562.
27. Stoffle, C. J.,Allen, B.,Morden, D.,Maloney, K.(2003).Continuing to build the future: Academic libraries and their challenges.Portal: Libraries and the Academy,3(3),363-380.
28. 王怡璇、劉宜臻、柯皓仁(2012)。大學圖書館績效評估指標之研究。圖書館學與資訊科學，38(1)，43-64。
29. 柯皓仁、蔡欣如(2012)。大專校院圖書館績效評估指標可行性之研究。2012 年第十一屆海峽兩岸圖書資訊學學術研討會論文集A輯
30. 高翠霜譯、Drucker, P. F.(2000)。績效評估。臺北市:天下遠見出版。
31. 陳雪華(2009)。,未出版
32. 楊美華(1989)。楊美華。臺北市:臺灣學生書局。
33. 盧秀菊(2003)。圖書館之績效評估。中國圖書館學會會報，71，1-19。
34. 戴智啟(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立政治大學學校行政碩士在職專班。