But I Need It! Exploring a Magic Quadrant for Collections Needs, Wants and Contributions

Abstract

Years and years of looking at Gartner Magic Quadrant charts has finally provided an inspiration for library adoption. The Gartner Magic Quadrant is a basic 2x2 matrix that serves as a decision support tool based on criteria along the X and Y axes. The Gartner model explores the "completeness of vision" with the "ability to execute" to rank the leading firms in any space into four major categories. In working with a vendor recently who showcased numerous faculty 'testimonials,' it dawned on me that we have a good use for a 2x2 matrix for library collections. We can use this to describe two factors, "the desire to have" and the "willingness to contribute." This is a core of the difficulty we have with sustainable budgeting for resources that might be critical, but there is no other funding available. It might be good as a way to explore priorities and encourage contributions from users for the resources we are being asked to fund.

Academic libraries are constantly seeking out ways to better manage their collection budgets. As we have moved more to ongoing electronic subscriptions that require yearly fees, the challenge has always been to simultaneously meet the needs of our campus while meeting the expectations of living within our budget. Many academic libraries have sought to find novel ways to better manage what we buy. Additionally, many libraries--especially those that support professional schools such as business, law, and engineering--have sought out partnerships with other funding sources within the university to extend the reach of what they are able to offer the community.

There have been a significant number of articles addressing ways that libraries have sought to ensure that they are making the correct collection development decisions. Heather Howard focused on the work undertaken at Purdue University to ensure that the collection expenses are aligned with the values at the institution (Howard et al., 2022). Occasionally, external factors come into play and that is shown in Tracy Gilmore’s article about how emergency COVID-19 funding helped the library at California State University, Long Beach transformed their collection into one that is more digitally focused and accessible (Gilmore et al., 2023). An earlier work by Gerri Foudy and Alesia McManus explores ways that you can use a decision grid to ensure that libraries are making good ongoing decisions about collections (Foudy & McManus, 2005). Karen Harker shared the process of managing through budget cuts at the University of North Texas while asking the very question about the needs and wants of their community (Harker et al., 2016). One other article of note also is from Karen Harker who wrote about the history of “cost-per-use,” a very common metric from which we judge the perceived value of electronic resources (2022). Harker rightfully points out that the benefit of the cost-per-use is that the data is easy to obtain. She also points out that it does not really describe the value of the resource on campus, especially as the measurement of use can vary greatly and be defined differently by various vendors. In business librarianship, this evident as student-focused products are used far more frequently than more expensive faculty-focused datasets that can be used just a few times a year. What is clear is that despite the fact that each of our budget decisions can generate numbers, how to calculate the value is a challenge.

Why the Magic Quadrant?

We are very fortunate at the University of Michigan to have access to Gartner’s academic package of resources. Germane to this article, we are particularly fortunate not to have to pay for it! Gartner is a leading consulting firm focused on technology and how it may be used by all organizations, governments, and companies. In their own words, the “Gartner Magic Quadrant research methodology provides a graphical competitive positioning of four types of technology providers in fast-growing markets: Leaders, Visionaries, Niche Players and Challengers (Gartner, n.d.-a). This is a particularly useful tool when comparing similar entities in a relatively simple two by two (2x2) matrix. In Gartner’s model, the vertical axis shows the ability to execute while the horizontal axis shows the completeness of vision. With Gartner, only leading companies are represented on the Magic Quadrant, enabling the readers to see where the different possible vendors in a technology space might have benefits and potential drawbacks for your needs (Gartner, n.d.-b).

The benefit of using a 2x2 matrix is that you may compare two elements in any decision process that you might have to sort out options, companies, and just about anything. As Gartner compares the ability to execute with the completeness of vision, you can use this approach to measure any two elements where entities may be measured or classified to have both. This inspiration came to me while I was watching a presentation from a vendor about an upcoming database renewal. While I am not sharing the name of the vendor, they were making a case for us to renew their resource (as most vendors do). There were two elements that came up in the presentation. We had started with this resource in a fashion that could be called a pilot. We were generally understood to have been paying less in annual costs than many similarly sized libraries, but our approach with a limited number of seats ensured that we would not likely exceed the use of our peers.

As part of the renewal presentation, twelve testimonial quotes were provided by some of our active campus users. I understood that there were many in our community who would have benefitted from the content. There are few resources that would not be of value to someone at a large university such as the University of Michigan. However, one testimonial stood out in my mind as I watched. The comments from the faculty member ended with this phrase: “...[I] am very thankful to be able to access it for free."

This might be at a core of the issue for libraries. We receive funding centrally and go through great lengths and costs to make resources available to faculty, students, staff, and (potentially) other community members. However, as is typically the case, our patrons do not see or cannot grasp the money that is needed to manage an enterprise such as an academic library. While, we know that a large university is spending millions of dollars to provide their community with library resources, the perception among the faculty and students is that it is “free.” As we know, this could not be further from the truth.

It was from this presentation that I conceived of a new way to explore and evaluate resources that we would acquire based on the same type of 2x2 matrix used by Gartner. The goal was not to come up with a fool-proof manner with which we measure all requests for resources, but a way to conceptualize what the value might be while exploring the financial impact of adding a new resource. Our reality at Michigan and at many large universities is that we do not have the means or ability to bring on all the items that are needed. We rely on a variety of elements in assessing the requests that come to us. Libraries with collection development policies might use them to see if an item may be acquired. Even if you do not have a collection development policy or one that applies to a particular request, librarians will use their professional judgment to decide if such a resource may be added to the library. Additionally, we should explore how we can think about resources when we are not providing 100% of the funding. If another party is willing to contribute to a resource, does that change the way that we think about adding it to our library?

A Library Collections Magic Quadrant

Figure 1. Image of the Magic Quadrant for Collection Development. Y axis measures Desire to Have and X access measures Willingness to Contribute

In envisioning what a 2x2 matrix might look like for librarians to help us understand purchasing decisions and requests, I embarked on creating a Library Collections Magic Quadrant. The two elements I wish to explore are as follows:

* Vertical Axis – Desire to Have Access

* Horizontal Axis – Other Parties Willingness to Contribute

Unlike Gartner, I thought it would be more useful if this included not just the top participants, but all resources. We are constantly being asked to purchase or evaluate resources that are not as well regarded as current offerings or do not meet a need that is currently demonstrated on campus.

Here are the four names that I gave to boxes in the 2x2 matrix:

* Low desire to have and low willingness for others to contribute: No Way

* Low desire to have and high willingness for others to contribute: Cray Cray

* High desire to have and low willingness for others to contribute: This is the Way

* High desire to have and high willingness for others to contribute: Say Hey (with a tip of the cap to the recently deceased Baseball Hall of Famer Willie Mays)

Let’s look more closely at these four quadrants:

No Way: Low desire to have and low willingness for others to contribute

This is a very easy decision for librarians to make. If something is not well desired by the community (especially the librarians) and there is no additional money to fund it, this is a “slam dunk.” More often than not, these types of requests come in from external parties who are writing the library in an unsolicited manner to try to make a sale.

Cray Cray: Low desire to have and high willingness for others to contribute

This may also be a relatively easy decision for librarians to make. We had a situation at Michigan where a funding partner (in this regard one of our regional campus libraries) had money specifically for the purchase of an add on to an existing database. While the content was not exceptional and there were better alternatives, the faculty member at the campus insisted this is what was needed and for four years, we purchased this. All the cost for this data came from the campus library, so it was something that we could justify. Even if it were a 50-50 split, it was unlikely that we would have contributed.

This is the Way: High desire to have and low willingness for others to contribute

With all due respect to the Star Wars-based series The Mandalorian, this is the situation that we often find ourselves in. We have identified a tool that will be very important on campus and likely heavily used. However, we are left to fund this completely or mostly within the library. “This is the Way,” is the mantra that the Mandalorian have long abided by and a recognition of “embracing their fate” (Belluomini, 2022). Trying to ensure that our campuses have unbroken access to our most important resources is the way of the librarians. Figuring out how to pay for it also falls to the librarians. To this end, just as the Mandalorian takes on a life in service of others, librarians aspire to keep collections available even when our budgets do not have the malleability that is needed.

Say Hey: High desire to have and high willingness for others to contribute

Baseball Hall of Famer Willie Mays was referred to as the “Say Hey Kid” almost from the beginning of his brilliant career. Mays, who recently died on June 18th, 2024, is a role model for what the perfect baseball player might be. As a hitter, as a base runner, as a fielder, as a teammate, as a power hitter, and as a team leader, Mays did it all. Therefore, if we think of a scenario when we are being asked to acquire something that will be coveted by the campus community and there will be additional money to make it possible, attaching it to Willie Mays’ legacy is a good idea. But like Willie Mays, these opportunities come by only once in a long time.

Many libraries also have formal Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) outlining the arrangements for current and future payments. Jackie Nytes of the Indianapolis Public Library wrote a brief article outlining the value of a MOU (Nytes, 2018). She wrote “While an MOU may not constitute a binding contract, it does represent commitment.” Having that commitment is important as you face future renewals and price increases. While no one is thrilled when the prices go up, having partnerships with others who pay their fair share of the increase is critical. We have learned at Kresge Library Services that our library colleagues are far more trustworthy partners when compared with academic and administrative departments on campus. Librarians will rarely leave another library unit “holding the bag” for a purchase.

The goal in sharing this approach is to be pragmatic and realistic in what we can do when building our collections. No library I know of has sufficient money to buy everything they or the community that they serve desire or even “need”. Using this Library Collections Magic Quadrant enables librarians to see a graphic representation of how they are building their collections. This might come in handy if you have partners on your campus who are willing (as Heather Howard wrote) to “put their money where their mouth is,” and not leave that solely to the librarian. At the very least, it might help those in the library field envision a way to view these requests when they are submitted.

References

1. Belluomini, L. (2022). The Mandalorian as Philosophy: “This Is the Way.” In D.K. Johnson, D.A. Kowalski, C. Lay, & K.S. Engels (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Popular Culture as Philosophy (pp. 1-25). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97134-6_104-1https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97134-6_104-1

2. Foudy, G., & McManus, A. (2005). Using a decision grid process to build consensus in electronic resources cancellation decisions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(6), 533-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.08.005https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.08.005

3. Gartner. (n.d.-a). Gartner Magic Quadrant & Critical Capabilities. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://www.gartner.com/en/research/magic-quadrant. https://www.gartner.com/en/research/magic-quadrant

4. Gartner. (n.d.-b). Interactive Gartner Magic Quadrant and Gartner Critical Capabilities. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/pdf/magic_quad_faq.pdf.https://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/pdf/magic_quad_faq.pdf

5. Gilmore, T. J., Duong, K., & Travis, T. (2023). Transforming Collection Development through Three Rounds of Emergency Funding. Collection Management, 48(3), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2022.2156419https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2022.2156419

6. Harker, K., Condrey, C., Rodriguez, A., & Billings, E. (2016). Reversals of Fortune: The New Normal of Collection Development. Against the Grain, 28(4), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.7455https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.7455

7. Harker, K. R. (2022). The Depths of Cost-per-Use: Historical Context and Applications. Library Trends, 70(3), 355-386. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2022.0000https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2022.0000

8. Howard, H., Zwicky, D., & Walker, D. (2022). Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: A Values-Based Evaluation Tool for Collections Decisions. Collection Management, 48(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2022.2150733https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2022.2150733

9. Nytes, J. (2018). MOU: A Tie That Binds. Library Journal, 143(14), 25.