2018 7th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics

Survey on Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing,with a Focus on Library Usage, Opening Days, andDirectors’ Qualifications
Yuhiro Mizunuma
Graduate School of Library, Information and Media Studies
University of Tsukuba
Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken, JAPANyuhiro@klis.tsukuba.ac.jp
Keita Tsuji
Faculty of Library, Information and Media Science
University of Tsukuba
1-2 Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken, JAPANkeita@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

studies have examined the performance of outsourcing libraries
using largescale comprehensive samples.

Abstract—In Japan, public libraries have long been managed
by local governments. However, in 2003, organizations including
private enterprises took over the management of libraries andintroduced an outsourcing system called the “designatedadministrator system.” Today, it is being debated whether thisoutsourcing system is appropriate for use in libraries, whereinmany argue that it is inappropriate. To provide basic data forthis discussion, we used cross-sectional analysis and time series
analysis on almost all public libraries in Japan in order to clarify
the differences between public libraries managed by theoutsourcing system (“outsourcing libraries”) and those managed
by local governments (“direct management libraries”). We
focused on the changes made after the introduction ofoutsourcing, including differences in library usage, number of
opening days, and director qualifications and workload. The
results show that the number of opening days and the percentage
of certified directors in outsourcing libraries were higher thanthose in direct management libraries. Our research also
indicated that library usage, number of opening days, and thenumber of certified directors tended to increase after an
outsourcing system was introduced.
Keywords—designatedadministrator
management; public libraries

system;Within this context, we used almost all Japanese public
libraries as data and conducted two types of analysis: (1) crosssectional analysis and (2) time series analysis, with a focus on
library usage, opening days, and director qualifications. For the
cross-sectional analysis, we analyzed the differences between
outsourcing libraries and “traditional” libraries directly
managed by local governments (henceforth “direct
management libraries”) at a certain point in time. Morespecifically, we obtained statistics on library usage, opening
days, and directors’ qualifications, and compared statistics
from approximately 300 outsourcing libraries with those fromapproximately 2,000 direct management libraries (the exact
number varies depending on the investigation). This data was
obtained from the 2015 edition of Statistics on Libraries inJapan [1], published by the Japan Library Association. For thetime series analysis, we analyzed changes in statistics fromapproximately 200 libraries before and after they introduced
outsourcing. This data was obtained from the 2003 to 2015
editions of Statistics on Libraries in Japan [1]. The following
five types of statistics were considered to determine library
usage: (a) gate count, (b) number of loans, (c) number of books
borrowed through Inter-Library Loan (ILL), (d) number ofbooks loaned through ILL, and (e) number of referencetransactions. We examined the number of opening days per
year and whether the libraries were open on holidays. Finally,
we analyzed whether the directors held librarian certifications
and were working as full-time equivalent employees.

library

I. INTRODUCTION
In Japan, public libraries have long been managed by local
governments. However, in 2003, organizations including
private enterprises took over the management of libraries andintroduced an outsourcing system called the “designatedadministrator system.” Although the number of public libraries
managed under this outsourcing system (henceforth“outsourcing libraries”) is increasing, many argue that it is an
inappropriate system for public libraries due to concerns overdegradation of services, decrease in staff expertise, and decline
in the level of cooperation between libraries. Nevertheless, few

978-1-5386-7447-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2018.00021

II. RELATED STUDIESIn Japan, some librarians working in outsourcing libraries
reported changes after the introduction of the outsourcing
system [2][3]. In addition, Maeda (2007) [4], the Japan Library
Association (2007) [5], and Koyama and Nagata (2008) [6]
used questionnaires to investigate the merits of outsourcing
55

libraries or the changes that occurred after outsourcing systems
were introduced. These investigations ascertained that
outsourcing systems improved services; opening hours
expanded and library usage increased. As we previously
mentioned, there are many discussions regarding outsourcing
libraries. In order to provide basic data for such discussions,
statistical analysis based on large and encompassing data
should be conducted. However, these studies had relatively
small samples. Therefore, in this study, we conductedstatistical analysis based on large and encompassing data. On
the other hand, Mouri and Ohba (2015) [7] conducted acomparative study focusing on certified directors in
outsourcing libraries and those in direct management libraries.
However, unlike our study, they did not conduct time series
analyses.

includes the data on the first outsourcing library and the 2015
edition is the most recent edition available. We classified thelibraries as either outsourcing or direct management libraries
on the basis of The Report on Public Libraries Managed by
the Designated Administrator System (2016) because it was
the latest edition available. This report also indicated the time
when each library introduced outsourcing.
To track library usage and opening days, we calculated theincrease rate (IR) for each category. The IR is defined asfollows:
IR =A2 − B2
×100 (%)
B2

where B2 is the mean during the two years before theintroduction of outsourcing and A2 is the mean of the usage
statistics for the two years after its introduction. For example,
the Chiyoda Library introduced outsourcing in 2007; therefore,
we calculated the mean of the previously mentioned usage
statistics in 2005 and 2006. There were 280,216 and 259,788
gate counts in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Therefore, themean number of gate counts in these two years was ((280,216+ 259,788)/2 =) 270,002. Similarly, the mean number of gate
counts in the two years following the introduction ofoutsourcing was 921,464 (for years 2008 and 2009). Therefore,
the IR of gate counts for Chiyoda Library is ((921,464 270,002)/270,002 * 100 =)241.3. We assume that if the IR isgreater than zero, library usage increased after the introductionof outsourcing.

III. METHOD
We conducted two kinds of analysis: cross-sectional
analysis and time series analysis. In the following subsections,
we explain each method.
A. Cross-sectional Analysis
Through the cross-sectional analysis, we investigated thedifferences between outsourcing and direct management
libraries at a certain point in time. We selected the 2015 editionof Statistics on Libraries in Japan because it was the mostrecent edition available when we started our research. This
edition listed the FY 2014 gate count, number of loans,
opening days per year. Information on holiday openings andwhether the directors held library certifications and worked
full-time was included as of April 2015. We took the 3,253
public libraries listed in the Statistics on Libraries in Japan(2015) as our sample and classified them as either outsourcing
or direct management libraries on the basis of how they werecategorized in The Report on Public Libraries Managed by the
Designated Administrator System (2015) [8].

To measure whether they were open on holidays andwhether the directors held librarian certifications and were
working full-time, we first measured four years of patterns foreach library (two years before the transition to outsourcing and
two years after). For example, Chiyoda Library’s status of
directors holding library certification in 2005, 2006, 2008, and2009 were No, No, Yes, and Yes, respectively. Therefore, thepattern is NNYY (N means No and Y means Yes). There were
16 possible patterns, (1) NNNN, (2) NNNY, (3) NNYY,...,(16) YYYY. We calculated the rate of each pattern foroutsourcing libraries and assumed that if the pattern was
NNYY, a non-certified director was assigned until the
introduction of outsourcing and a certified director was
assigned after outsourcing.

We selected the following five usage statistics asindications of library usage: (1) gate count, (2) number of loans,(3) number of books borrowed through ILL, (4) number ofbooks loaned through ILL, and (5) number of referencetransactions. For the cross-sectional analysis, we consideredlibrary size by dividing the number of usage statistics by the
population of the municipality where the library is located, andthen calculated the usage statistics per resident for each library[because larger libraries tend to have more use as, in general,they have many residents (i.e., users) around them]. We
compared the mean and median of usage between outsourcing
and direct management libraries. We also compared the mean
and median of the numbers of open days between both kinds oflibraries. We further compared the rates of openings duringholidays and whether directors held library certifications andworked full-time.

In this section, we show the results concerning library
usage, opening days, and director statistics.

B. Time Series Analysis
For the time series analysis, we investigated changes after
the introduction of the outsourcing system. We used 3,811
public libraries listed in the annual Statistics on Libraries inJapan (2005–2015) as our sample because the 2005 edition

A. Results of Library Usage
The results of cross-sectional analysis concerning (1) gate
count, (2) number of loans, (3) number of books borrowed
through ILL, (4) number of books loaned through ILL, and (5)number of reference transactions, for both outsourcing and

In addition, we also calculated the IRs and the rate of eachpattern at direct management libraries, comparing them withthose of outsourcing libraries. Since there was no comparable
point in time when direct management libraries underwent achange in system, we calculated the IRs and the rate of eachpattern for every year from 2005 to 2015.
IV. RESULTS

56

direct management libraries are provided in Table I. In thistable, “N” represents the number of libraries and the double
asterisks in the “Mean” column represent significant
differences based on Welch’s test and those in the “Median”
column represent the significant differences based on the
Brunner-Munzel test. The asterisks “*” and “**” in thesecolumns represent the differences at 0.05 and 0.01 significancelevels, respectively. Concerning the number of books borrowed
through ILL, the mean and median of direct management
libraries (0.0169 and 0.0054, respectively) were higher thanthose of outsourcing libraries (0.0095 and 0.0024, respectively).
For the number of books lent through ILL, the mean andmedian of direct management libraries (0.0090 and 0.0032,
respectively) were higher than those of outsourcing libraries(0.0061 and 0.0016, respectively). There were significant
differences at the 0.01 level, suggesting that direct
management libraries borrow more library materials from otherlibraries and lend more library materials to other libraries thanoutsourcing libraries do.

management libraries (22.6% and 12.4%, respectively) weresignificantly higher than those of outsourcing libraries (4.2%
and 1.4%, respectively). These results suggest that more
outsourcing libraries tend to be open on holidays while direct
management libraries tend to be closed on holidays or open on
fewer holidays.
The results of the time series analysis are provided intables V and VI. The IRs of opening days are provided inTable V while the rates of each pattern concerning holiday
opening are provided in Table VI. In this table, a library is notopen on holidays and is not planning to (“N”), open on six
holidays or less (“6”), open on more than six holidays (“7”),or not open on holidays but is planning to (“P”). The numbers
in parentheses represent the number of libraries. For instance,“NN77” for outsourcing libraries was “21.8 (78),” which
represented 78 outsourcing libraries that were not open on
holidays during the two years before the introduction of theoutsourcing system but were open on more than six holidays
during the two years after introduction. Such libraries accountfor 21.8% of outsourcing libraries for all patterns.
Due to space limitations, we omitted the line if there wasno outsourcing library that corresponds to a pattern. Table V
shows that the means and medians of the IRs of opening daysfor outsourcing libraries were 4.5% and 2.3%, respectively,
whereas those for direct management libraries were 1.5% and0.4%, respectively. As previously mentioned, 21.8% of
outsourcing libraries were not open on holidays during the twoyears before the introduction of the outsourcing system butwere open on more than seven holidays in the two years after
introduction, whereas only 2.5% of direct management
libraries followed this pattern. These results suggest that
opening days tended to increase after the introduction ofoutsourcing and more libraries began to open on holidays after
the introduction of the outsourcing system.

The IRs of individual library usage are provided in Table II.
This table shows the means and medians of IRs (bypercentage) for outsourcing and direct management libraries.
The means and medians of IRs for usages at outsourcing
libraries were all more than zero, whereas the median of IR forgate count at direct management libraries was less than zero(−2.6%). The means of the IRs for four usages at outsourcing
libraries were higher than the IRs at direct management
libraries. The mean of the IR for gate count at outsourcing
libraries was 30.7% while that for direct management libraries
was 6.6%. In addition, the medians of the IRs for all usages at
outsourcing libraries were higher than those for direct
management libraries. The median of the IR for the number ofloans was 11.1% for outsourcing libraries while that for direct
management libraries was 0.6%. These results suggest thatlibrary use tends to increase after the introduction ofoutsourcing.

C. Results of Directors
The results of cross-sectional analysis concerning whether
the directors held librarian certifications are provided in Table
VII and the results concerning whether the directors were
working full-time are provided in Table VIII. Significant
differences were observed between outsourcing and direct
management libraries in the rates of library certification as
well as full-time versus part-time employment. Table VIIshows that the rate of outsourcing libraries where the director
held a librarian certification was 58.7%, whereas at direct
management libraries, the rate of certification was 25.1%.
Table VIII shows that the rate of outsourcing libraries where
the director worked full-time was 91.9%, whereas at direct
management libraries it was 84.9%. These results suggest that
more directors of outsourcing libraries tend be certified
librarians and work full-time as compared to directors of
direct management libraries.
The results of the time series analysis are provided intables IX and X, wherein “N” and “Y” represent “No” and“Yes,” respectively. The line of “NNYY” in Table IX showsthat 31.5% of the directors of outsourcing libraries did not
hold librarian certification during the two years before theB. Results of Opening Days
The results of cross-sectional analysis with regard to
opening days at outsourcing and direct management libraries
are provided in Table III. Results of whether they were open
on holidays are provided in Table IV. In Table IV, thecolumns indicate the rates of libraries that do not open on
holidays and are not planning to (“No”); the rates of libraries
that open on six holidays or less (“Yes (=< 6 days)”); the rates
of libraries that open on more than six holidays (“Yes (>=7days)”); and the rates of libraries that do not open on holidays
but are planning to (“Planning”). The double asterisks
represent significant differences based on the Z-test for
proportions.
Table III shows that the means and medians for opening
days at outsourcing libraries (309.0 and 303.0, respectively)
were significantly higher than those for direct management
libraries (288.8 and 290.0, respectively). In addition, Table IVshows that the rates of outsourcing libraries that open on morethan six holidays, “Yes (>=7 days),” was (94.4%), which wassignificantly higher than that of direct management libraries(64.7%). The rates for “No” and “Yes (=< 6 days)” at direct57introduction of outsourcing system but did hold librariancertification during the two years after its introduction,
whereas 5.0% of the directors of direct management libraries
did so. On the other hand, the line of “YYNN” in the Table IX
shows that only 4.2% of the directors of outsourcing libraries
held librarian certification during the two years before theintroduction of the outsourcing system but did not holdlibrarian certification during the two years after its
introduction. These results suggest that outsourcing libraries
tended to install certified directors after the outsourcing
system was introduced.
Further, the line of “NNYY” in Table X shows that 6.3%of the directors of outsourcing libraries were not working full-time during the two years before the introduction of theoutsourcing system but were working full-time during the twoyears after its introduction, whereas only 2.0% of the directorsof direct management libraries made the transition to full-timework in that same period. In addition, the line of “YYNN” in
Table X shows that 4.3% of the directors at outsourcing
libraries were working full-time during the two years before
the introduction of the outsourcing system but were notworking full-time during the two years after its introduction,
whereas 1.9% of the directors of direct management libraries
made the same shift. These results suggest that outsourcing
libraries tend to change the director's employment form offull-time with the introduction of the outsourcing system.

Table I Results of the cross-sectional analysis of library usage per capita
The gate count

N

Mean

381

1.534

0.563

Direct management libraries 2,149

1.204

0.584

Outsourcing libraries

417

2.253

1.015

Direct management libraries 2,629

2.158

1.149

385 0.0095

0.0024

Outsourcing libraries

Number of loans
Number of ILL-borrowings

Outsourcing libraries

MedianDirect management libraries 2,150 0.0169  0.0054 
Number of ILL-lendings

Outsourcing libraries

333 0.0061

0.0016

Direct management libraries 1,879 0.0090  0.0032 
Number of reference transactions Outsourcing libraries

374 0.0186

0.0057

Direct management libraries 2,089 0.0209

0.0064

Table II Results of the time series analysis of library usageN
The gate countOutsourcing libraries
Direct management libraries

Number of loans
Number of ILL-borrowings

9.7

12,609

6.6

-2.6
11.1

256

20.6

17,853

51.6

0.6

251

65.2

16.7

15,460

60.6

11.6

198

782.2

43.1

12,278

152.0

14.2

178

665.7

24.1

12,262170.5

1.7

Outsourcing libraries
Direct management libraries

Number of ILL-lendings

Outsourcing libraries
Direct management libraries

Number of reference transactions Outsourcing libraries
Direct management libraries

Median30.7

Outsourcing libraries
Direct management libraries

Mean

236

Table III Results of the cross-sectional analysis of opening days
Outsourcing libraries

N

Mean

Median415

309.0 303.0 

288.8

290.0

Direct management libraries 2,738

Table IV Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether libraries were open on holidays
NNo

Outsourcing libraries

431

4.2%

Yes（=<6 days） Yes（>=7days）
1.4%

94.4% 0.0%

Direct management libraries

2818

22.6% 12.4% 

64.7%

0.2%

Table V Results of the time series analysis of opening daysN
Outsourcing libraries
Direct management libraries

58

Mean

Median

259

4.5

2.8

18,2721.5

0.4

Planning

Table VI Results of the time series analysis of whether libraries were open on holidays
Direct management

Outsourcing libraries

libraries

NNNN

3.6

(13)

24.7

(5,168)

NN66

0.3

(1)

1.7

(351)

NN7N

0.3

(1)

0.0

(3)

NN77

21.8

(78)

2.5

(521)

NNPP

0.3

(1)

0.1

(18)

N677

0.3

(1)

0.3

(56)

N777

1.1

(4)

1.4

(293)

NPNN

0.3

(1)

0.0

(1)

6NNN

0.3

(1)

0.4

(77)

6666

1.7

(6)

9.6

(1,999)

6667

0.6

(2)

0.9

(184)

6677

5.6

(20)

2.5

(517)

6777

0.6

(2)

1.6

(343)

7777

63.1

(226)

47.1

(9,839)

P777

0.3

(1)

0.3

(69)

Table VII Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors held librarian certifications
N

No

Outsourcing libraries

431

41.3%

Yes
58.7% Direct management libraries

2792

74.9% 25.1%

Table VIII Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors worked full-timeNNo

Outsourcing libraries

419

8.1%

91.9% Direct management libraries

2787

15.1% 84.9%

Table IX Results of the time series analysis of whether
directors held librarian certifications
Outsourcing libraries

Yes

Table X Results of the time series analysis of whether
directors worked full-time

Direct management

Outsourcing libraries

Direct management

NNNN

39.3

(140)

libraries
66.5(13,857)

NNNY

4.5

(16)

3.1

(647)

NNNY

0.6

(2)

0.7

NNYN

2.5

(9)

1.0

(217)

NNYN

0.0

(0)

0.2

(37)

NNYY

31.5

(112)

5.0

(1,051)

NNYY

6.3

(22)

2.0

(410)

NYNN

0.3

(1)

0.9

(191)

NYNN

0.3

(1)

0.2

(34)

NYNY

0.0

(0)

0.1

(22)

NYNY

0.3

(1)

0.0

(7)

NYYN

0.0

(0)

0.6

(125)

NYYN

0.0

(0)

0.1

(14)

NYYY

1.4

(5)

1.9

(395)

NYYY

0.9

(3)

1.2

(253)

YNNN

0.6

(2)

2.6

(550)

YNNN

0.0

(0)

1.0

(204)

YNNY

0.0

(0)

0.3

(57)

YNNY

0.0

(0)

0.2

(34)

YNYN

0.0

(0)

0.1

(12)

YNYN

0.0

(0)

0.0

(0)

YNYY

1.4

(5)

0.4

(88)

YNYY

0.9

(3)

0.3

(62)

YYNN

4.2

(15)

4.4

(908)

YYNN

4.3

(15)

1.9

(395)

YYNY

0.3

(1)

0.4

(88)

YYNY

0.0

(0)

0.3

(64)

YYYN

1.4

(5)

1.6

(341)

YYYN

0.3

(1)

1.1

(225)

YYYY

12.6

(45)

11.0

(2,304)

YYYY

83.1

(290)

80.9

(16,825)

59

NNNN

3.2

(11)

libraries
10.0(2,080)(152)

V. DISCUSSIONS

governments that are considering the introduction of thedesignated administrator system. This study also found thatsome arguments regarding the outsourcing system wereincorrect. We expect that discussions concerning outsourcing
libraries will become more constructive based on our results.

Many people in Japan argue that introducing theoutsourcing system to public libraries is inappropriate because
it may degrade library services, decrease the expertise oflibrarians, and reduce cooperation with other libraries. In thissection, we focus on these arguments.

There are five limitations of this study: (1) only
quantitative analyses were conducted, (2) the cause-effectrelationship was not proven, (3) many other library services
were left unexamined, (4) library budgets were notinvestigated, and (5) only the current situation was clarified(tendencies may change). It would be beneficial for futurestudies to examine other library services, such as those
provided to minorities, library budget, and feelings ofsatisfaction among users as well as librarians. Through thesestudies, the appropriateness of switching from direct
management libraries to outsourcing libraries can be
determined.

The first issue concerns the degradation of library services.
Our results indicate that the introduction of the outsourcing
system to libraries does not degrade services. The results ofour cross-sectional analysis indicate that outsourcing libraries
are open on more days than direct management libraries,
including holidays. In addition, the results of time series
analysis suggest that the number of opening days tended toincrease after the introduction of outsourcing. While the crosssectional analysis indicated that some usages, such as ILL
borrowing, were higher at direct management libraries, thetime series analysis showed that library usage did tend inincrease after outsourcing.

[1]

The second area of contention concerns the accusation that
outsourcing library management decreases the expertise oflibrarians. However, we found that the designatedadministrator system did not lead to a decrease in expertise, atthe least among directors. The results of cross-sectional
analysis on the directors suggested that a higher number of
directors at outsourcing libraries held librarian certification andworked full-time when compared to directors at direct
management libraries. In addition, the results of time series
analysis indicate that outsourcing libraries tended to employ
certified directors with the introduction of the outsourcing
system.

[2]

[3]

[4]

Lastly, some worry that outsourcing libraries will
cooperate less with other libraries. Nevertheless, our results
indicate that ILL lending and borrowing actually increased
after the introduction of outsourcing although the degree ofactivity may still be under the national average. As previously
mentioned, the results of cross-sectional analysis concerning
library usage suggest that ILL borrowing and ILL lending at
direct management libraries was higher than those atoutsourcing libraries. However, the results of time series
analysis suggest that library usage, including ILL borrowing
and ILL lending, tended to increase after the introduction ofoutsourcing. We might conclude that ILL services at
outsourcing libraries were inactive before the introduction of
the outsourcing system. If we assume the rates of ILL
borrowing and ILL lending as indexes of cooperation, it can beconcluded that cooperation with other libraries was inactive
before the introduction of the system in outsourcing libraries,
and became active afterwards.

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]

VI. CONCLUSIONSIn this study, we conducted cross-sectional analysis andtime series analysis with a focus on library usage, opening
days, and director qualifications. This study clarified several
differences between outsourcing and direct management
libraries. The results can be used as basic data for local

60

Japan Library Association. Statistics on Libraries in Japan 2003-2005
edition, 2004-2016. (text in Japanese)
M. Takahiro. Further seriousness of seven-year-old designatedadministrator: The Yamanakako public library for the people's creativity
and the society for digitization of local materials (NPO) and the futureof library. Social Education, 2010, 65(10), pp.66-69. (text in Japanese).
H. Yorozuya. How is regular staffs in the regularization: with thedesignated administrator. Everyone's library, (441), pp.45-49. (text inJapanese).
H. Maeda. "A Study on the Actual State of Introduction of Designation
Administrator System to Public Libraries," Summaries of TechnicalPapers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. E-1,
Architectural Planning and Design I, Building Types and Community
Facilities, Planning and Design Method Building Construction System
Human Factor Studies Planning and Design Theory 2007, 2007, pp.109110. (text in Japanese).
Committee on library policies of Japan Library Association. "Results of
the questionnaire on introduction of designated management system inlibraries," Libraries Today, 2007, 45(1), pp. 41-51. (text in Japanese).
N. Koyama and H. Nagata. Report on Public Library Management,
2008, 34p. http://www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/grad/assets/files/project/h19/
report.pdf, (accessed 2018-03-01). (text in Japanese).
R. Mouri and I. Ohba. "Desirable capabilities for public library directors
in Japan, " Library World, 2015, 66(5), pp.326-342. (text in Japanese).
Japan Library Association. Report about Public Libraries Managed by
Designated Administrator System, http://www.jla.or.jp/library/tabid/311/Default.aspx, (accessed 2018-03- 01). (text in Japanese).