College and Research Libraries Editorial Humble Enough/Wise Enough At an Association of Research Librar- ies (ARL) Conference last spring, William G. Grundstrom defined benchmarking as "the practice of being humble enough to admit that someone else is better at some- thing, and being wise enough to learn how to match and even surpass them at it."* More traditional definitions characterize benchmarking as the search for best practices. Both benchmarking and the related practice of comparative analysis of outcomes exist under the broader con- cept of assessment, a buzzword on many campuses. Assessment determines the ef- fectiveness of programs and the degree to which they meet their goals. In this edito- rial I recount some C&RL initiatives in comparative analysis, a C&RL bench- marking effort, and some Penn State ef- forts in those two areas. Through an improvement of practices, librarians can begin the larger task of assessing how programs meet users' needs. C&RL's Comparative Analysis. At each American Library Association (ALA) conference, the editors of the dif- ferent journals published by ALA gather to hear an update from ALA Publishing and to share common concerns. Recently I used that opportunity to gather com- parative information about acceptance rates and turnaround times. Member editors for Information Technology and Li- braries, Library Administration & Manage- ment, Library Resources & Technical Services, and RQ were willing to share figures on an informal basis. The results were humbling, as College & Research Li- braries has the longest time from accep- tance to publication and the lowest acceptance rate among the divisional journals. In many disciplines low accep- tance rates and length of time to publica- tion correlate with excellence of reputa- tion. Nevertheless, members of the Editorial Board, member referees, and the editorial group are all working to improve turnaround times. Articles in C&RL provide a good point of departure for beginning a comparison of library practices. The genres of case studies and "how I did it well" articles often portray the successes of a single library. ACRL members use such articles as a measure for the efficiency and effec-1 tiveness of local programs. C&RL refe- rees and editors encourage authors to present results in a manner that will be relevant to the varied types of libraries staffed by ACRL members. This body of information about practices is the first place a librarian should turn in seeking to improve a process. Another resource for preliminary in- formation about library practices will be the developing Association for Research Libraries' benchmarking program. This program began with a grant from the Council on Library Resources to do a pilot using the interlibrary loan process to examine the applicability of bench- marking as a technique for libraries. A report will soon be available as will courses on training and facilitation for benchmarking. In response to higher education's emphasis on assessment, ARL' s Statistics and Measurement Com- mittee continues to develop access and performance measures as an adjunct or alternative to input measures. C&RL's Benchmarking. As a people, Americans are often accused of being insular, a charge to which American aca- demic librarians are also vulnerable. The 5 6 College & Research Libraries Dutch publisher Martin us Nijhoff Inter- national annually awards a $5,000 grant to an American librarian to support a pro- ject relating to the study of European li- brarianship. This year's winner, Stephen Lehmann, coeditor of C&RL' s Book Review Section and a humanities bibliographer at the University of Pennsylvania, will be speaking to editors of German academic library journals to explore with them areas of common concern and interest. Lehmann will bring back to the United States not just a new perspective of a dis- tinguished and very different tradition of library journal publishing but also insights into the processes that create those results. Penn State's Benchmarking Efforts. Last year Penn State's Provost John Brighton required all academic units to engage in benchmarking as a part of their strategic planning initiatives. The University Libraries sought areas that were related to its strategic directions and that would allow librarians to improve the organization through comparison with others. The Libraries' Administration chose provision of electronic resources to scholars, human resource development, and interlibrary loan borrowing as being areas in which our strategic direction required excellence. Each of these areas could be clearly related to the libraries' mission and vision. A team composed of Ron Dow, Sally Kalin, Diane Smith, and I selected the areas and determined who were the best comparators. We used comparative analysis to find libraries that were like ours in key areas, such as number of electronic databases, number of interli- brary loan borrows, and number of graduate students and faculty. We then relied on our network of professional association colleagues to provide assess- ments about whose programs had out- standing reputations. The institutions we approached were exceedingly gra- January 1995 cious in spending time answering our prepared lists of questions and in show- ing us their operations. Working in one or more of the areas outlined above, we visited University of California-Los An- geles, University of Michigan, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, and University of Texas. In the area of human resource de- velopment, we engaged in generic bench- marking, working not with institutions like ours but with other organizations en- gaged in a similar task-educating staff and professionals. Two local companies, muRata Electronics North America and Coming Asahi, shared information about their programs with us. In order to prepare for the actual visits, we studied our own operations exten- sively so that we would have data to share with our comparators. We made and tested lists of questions, created flowcharts of processes, and constructed control charts showing existing performance. We prepared ourselves to answer questions about the nature of our benchmarking ex- pedition. We were aware of the imposition on host institutions and practiced our best guest behavior. We were humbled. Although we con- sider ourselves to be one of the most exciting libraries in the country, in the areas benchmarked we can make major improvements. Benchmarking is a difficult and rela- tively expensive method for improving processes and results. Careful internal planning and study are required before a successful trip can occur. However, the results of a well-planned and -executed benchmarking effort can provide dra- matic improvement. Through seeking out the best practices both in libraries and out- side them, librarians can improve prac- tices and become wise enough to embrace a paradigm of continuing assessment and coordinated change. GLORIANA ST. CLAIR * William G. Grundstrom, "C+Q+P /M=Benchmarking: TQM and Academic Libraries," "Total Quality Management in Academic Libraries" sponsored by Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services and Wayne State University, Washington, D.C., April2~22, 1994.