The Balanced Value Model

[Jody DeRidder]

Simon Tanner and Marilyn Deegan of Kings College, London have just published a potentially very helpful article about measuring impact, entitled:

"Measuring the impact of digitized resources: The Balanced Value Model"  Published by IEEE: 10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6744724

The abstract: 

"This paper introduces an innovative new model for measuring the impact of digital heritage resources - the Balanced Value Impact Model. The Balanced Value Impact Model (BVI Model) brings together into a holistic framework aspects from disparate Impact Assessment (IA) disciplines into a cohesive and logical process. This model balances vital tangible gains from economic, social and innovation perspectives with harder to measure cultural values. The model has found wide acceptance in the targeted communities, and is being adopted and implemented in a number of organizations, in particular, the Europeana Impact Task Force, which Simon Tanner chairs. Recent research into the value and impact of digitized collections has shown that there are clear benefits and value in the activity, but there is also a lack of measures to back up assertions about Impact with significant evidence beyond the anecdotal. The approach we took was to look outside the heritage community and see how Impact is measured in other sectors, where there are well-understood methods and substantial results. We consulted expert practitioners within and outside the cultural sector, including professionals in the health, environment and transport fields. Our focus was upon unifying knowledge from disparate perspectives. The outcome of this cross-disciplinary approach is a new and targeted model of IA for the cultural and heritage sector. The research that led to the BVI Model was funded by the Arcadia Fund in 2012 and developed by Simon Tanner and Marilyn Deegan at the Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London."

[Martha Kyrillidou]

This work interestingly enough has some parallels with the following article (of which I am a co-author in the interests of full disclosure and conflict of interest appearances):

J. Stephen Town, Martha Kyrillidou, (2013) "Developing a values scorecard", Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 14 Iss: 1, pp.7 - 16

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17086961

The Town/Kyrillidou article is freely available as the recipient of the journal's outstanding article award for 2013.

Best, Martha

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Digital Library Assessment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to digital-library-ass...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to digital-libra...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/digital-library-assessment.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/digital-library-assessment/12ebfef9-02c6-43f0-8687-086630fbb59c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Martha Kyrillidou

Association of Research Libraries

******************************************************************************************************************************

Register now: http://www.libraryassessment.org

Library Assessment Conference, August 4-6, 2014

More events by ARL at: http://www.arl.org/events

******************************************************************************************************************************

http://www.arl.org/stats

http://www.libqual.org

http://www.climatequal.org

http://www.minesforlibraries.org

http://www.arlstatistics.org

http://www.statsqual.org

[Joyce Chapman]

Thanks for the links to these articles, Jody and Martha. If anyone doesn’t have access to the first article, I was able to find a freely available report on the research project by the author here: http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/pubs/BalancedValueImpactModel_SimonTanner_October2012.pdf I'll give due warning though, this version of the report is 100+ pages, so if you can get your hands on the article it will be a time saver:) Their project website can also be found here: http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/impact.html, and Tanner (the first author) also did another related JISC-funded project to investigate the values, benefits, and impacts of digitized resources. The report on that one is freely available here: http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Inspiring_Research_Inspiring_Scholarship_2011_SimonTanner.pdf

As for Martha’s article, I’m intrigued by the area of value measurement called “library momentum.” I like the idea of the pace of innovation being a critical organizational asset. For anyone who doesn’t have access to the article, here’s the relevant bit:

“The final dimension introduces the concept of time into the overall mix. If libraries need to prepare for a different future, then the pace of innovation will be a critical organisational asset. There already exist quality maturity matrices which allow measurement of organisational capability for change and innovation, but there is an additional value benefit to be realised and measured in this context. Further work is required to develop this idea into specific metrics, but some potential areas for value measures might include:

. capital saved or gained by progress;

. capital assets developed early;

. facilitation of research capital;

. facilitation of learning capital;

. facilitation of quality; and

. capital saved by sustainability”

Martha, has anyone has done further work with the proposed values scorecard framework since you all published the article?

Joyce

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/digital-library-assessment/CACH0ZFPLBFgnOjsa-AGcn4HyLU6f%2BJRBJtf%2BddPe9GHdtdX5Cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martha Kyrillidou]

Greetings!  Sorry for the delay in replying -- a trip to the west of the country occupied my attention the last few days.

So, the work on developing a 'value scorecard' is continuing.  Stephen Town has published a bit more at the 2012 Library Assessment Conference (word document attached here from the forthcoming proceedings) and at the 2013 Northumbria conference last year (powerpoint also attached).  I am also working on incorporating some of these ideas in our Balanced Scorecard consulting service with various libraries. An upcoming call for participation will be out in a month or so and hope we will have a group of libraries that will experiment with these new approaches.  Figuring out how all this works with some of the LibValue work funded by IMLS and the emerging ARL Strategic Thinking and Design process will also be additional interesting pieces in this puzzle.

At the forthcoming Library Assessment Conference in Seattle (still time to register till July 6), Stephen Town will also discuss how he is implementing the Value Scorecard at the U of York in the UK (see http://libraryassessment.org/schedule/index.shtml for the scheduled presentations).  If you don't make it, keep an eye for the forthcoming presentations on this website and the proceedings.

Last but not least, just a couple of days ago I got a google citation alert and found the following article by Sheila Corrall of interest:
 

Library Service Capital: The Case for Measuring and Managing Intangible Assets

Sheila Corrall
http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida/article/view/169

Looking forward to continuing these conversations. 

All the best,

Martha

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:24:44 PM UTC-4, joyce.chapman wrote:

Thanks for the links to these articles, Jody and Martha. If anyone doesn’t have access to the first article, I was able to find a freely available report on the research project by the author here: http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/pubs/BalancedValueImpactModel_SimonTanner_October2012.pdf I'll give due warning though, this version of the report is 100+ pages, so if you can get your hands on the article it will be a time saver:) Their project website can also be found here: http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/impact.html, and Tanner (the first author) also did another related JISC-funded project to investigate the values, benefits, and impacts of digitized resources. The report on that one is freely available here: http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Inspiring_Research_Inspiring_Scholarship_2011_SimonTanner.pdf

As for Martha’s article, I’m intrigued by the area of value measurement called “library momentum.” I like the idea of the pace of innovation being a critical organizational asset. For anyone who doesn’t have access to the article, here’s the relevant bit:

“The final dimension introduces the concept of time into the overall mix. If libraries need to prepare for a different future, then the pace of innovation will be a critical organisational asset. There already exist quality maturity matrices which allow measurement of organisational capability for change and innovation, but there is an additional value benefit to be realised and measured in this context. Further work is required to develop this idea into specific metrics, but some potential areas for value measures might include:

. capital saved or gained by progress;

. capital assets developed early;

. facilitation of research capital;

. facilitation of learning capital;

. facilitation of quality; and

. capital saved by sustainability”

Martha, has anyone has done further work with the proposed values scorecard framework since you all published the article?

Joyce

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Martha Kyrillidou <mar...@arl.org> wrote:

This work interestingly enough has some parallels with the following article (of which I am a co-author in the interests of full disclosure and conflict of interest appearances):

J. Stephen Town, Martha Kyrillidou, (2013) "Developing a values scorecard", Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 14 Iss: 1, pp.7 - 16

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17086961

The Town/Kyrillidou article is freely available as the recipient of the journal's outstanding article award for 2013.

Best, Martha

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jody DeRidder <jody.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

Simon Tanner and Marilyn Deegan of Kings College, London have just published a potentially very helpful article about measuring impact, entitled:

"Measuring the impact of digitized resources: The Balanced Value Model"  Published by IEEE: 10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6744724

The abstract: 

"This paper introduces an innovative new model for measuring the impact of digital heritage resources - the Balanced Value Impact Model. The Balanced Value Impact Model (BVI Model) brings together into a holistic framework aspects from disparate Impact Assessment (IA) disciplines into a cohesive and logical process. This model balances vital tangible gains from economic, social and innovation perspectives with harder to measure cultural values. The model has found wide acceptance in the targeted communities, and is being adopted and implemented in a number of organizations, in particular, the Europeana Impact Task Force, which Simon Tanner chairs. Recent research into the value and impact of digitized collections has shown that there are clear benefits and value in the activity, but there is also a lack of measures to back up assertions about Impact with significant evidence beyond the anecdotal. The approach we took was to look outside the heritage community and see how Impact is measured in other sectors, where there are well-understood methods and substantial results. We consulted expert practitioners within and outside the cultural sector, including professionals in the health, environment and transport fields. Our focus was upon unifying knowledge from disparate perspectives. The outcome of this cross-disciplinary approach is a new and targeted model of IA for the cultural and heritage sector. The research that led to the BVI Model was funded by the Arcadia Fund in 2012 and developed by Simon Tanner and Marilyn Deegan at the Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London."

--