Comparing university libraries of different university size

Libri

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 150-158

  Kao, Chiang ^a   Lin, Ya Chi ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0343806602     PISSN: 00242667     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/libr.1999.49.3.150     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Association of College and Research Libraries. College Library Standards Committee. 1986. Standards for college libraries. College & Research Libraries News 47 (3): 139-201.
2. Association of Research Libraries. Office of Management Studies. 1987. SPEC Kit: Planning for management statistics. Washington, DC: ARL OMS.
3. Association of Research Libraries. 1995. Holdings of university research libraries in US and Canada. Chronicle of Higher Education, September 1: 29.
4. Banker, R. D., A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30 (Sept.): 1078-92.
5. Baumol, W. J. 1977. Economic theory and operations analysis. 4th ed. Englevvood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
6. Byrnes, P., R. Färe and S. Grosskopf. 1984. Measuring productive efficiency: an application to Illinois strip mines. Management Science 30 (June): 671-81.
7. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429-44.
8. Cotta-Schonberg, M. and M. B. Line. 1994. Evaluation of academic libraries: with special reference to the Copenhagen Business School Library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 26: 55-69.
9. Daly, G. M. 1995. Law-library evaluation standards: how will we evaluate the virtual library. Journal of Legal Education 45 (1): 61-78.
10. Detweiler, M. J. 1986. The 'best-size' public library. Library Journal 111 (May 15): 34-5.
11. Dougherty, R. M. 1991. Research libraries must abandon the idea that 'bigger is better'. Chronicle of Higher Education Opinion, June 19: A32.
12. Ferguson, C. E. and J. P. Gould. 1980. Microeconomic theory. 5th ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
13. Ford, G. 1989. Performance measurements: principles and practice. IFLA Journal 15 (1): 13-17.
14. Goodall, D. L. 1988. Performance measurement: a historical perspective. Journal of Librarianship 20 (2): 128-44.
15. Hendrickson, K. 1989. Standards for university libraries: evaluation of performance. College & Research Libraries News 50: 679-91.
16. John Minter Associates. 1989. Statistical norms for college and university libraries. Boulder, CO: John Minter Associates.
17. Kania, A. M. 1988. Academic library standards performance measures. College & Research Libraries 49: 16-23.
18. Kao, C., Y. C. Lin, L. C. Liang, and S. C. Lo. 1998. Ranking university libraries: the Taiwan case. Libri 48(4): 212-23.
19. Lines, L. 1989. Performance measurement in academic libraries - a university perspective. British Journal of Academic Librarianship 4(2): 111-20.
20. Lynch, B. P. 1979. Standards for university libraries. College & Research Libraries News 40: 101-10.
21. Lynch, B. P. 1987. Standards for university libraries. IFLA Journal 13: 120-25.
22. Naylor, R. J. 1987. The efficient mid-size library: comparing book budget and population to collection size. Library Journal 112 (Feb. 15): 119-20.
23. Richard, S. 1992. Library use of performance indicators. Library Review 41(6): 22-36.
24. Rzasa, P. V. and N. R. Baker. 1972. Measures of effectiveness for a university library. Journal of American Society for Information Science 23: 248-53.
25. Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.