Investigation of Changes in Library Usage after the
Introduction of Outsourcing in Japan
Yuhiro Mizunuma1, Keita Tsuji2
1

Graduate School of Library, Information and Media Studies, University ofTsukuba, Japan
2
Faculty of Library, Information and Media Science, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Abstract: In Japan, local governments have long managed public libraries; however,in 2003, organizations including private enterprises took over their management with theintroduction of an outsourcing system, namely the “designated administrator system.”Now, whether local governments should apply this system to public libraries is underdiscussion, and many argue that it is inappropriate for public libraries. To provide basic
data for such discussions, we investigated changes in library usage after the introductionof outsourcing. Specifically, we obtained statistics on library usage such as the gate
count, number of loans, and number of reference transactions, and measured changes inthese statistics before and after the introduction of outsourcing. The results show that thestatistics tended to increase after the introduction of outsourcing. This may suggest thatthe introduction of outsourcing promotes users’ library usage.
Keywords: Outsourcing; Library Management; Japanese Libraries; Public Libraries;
Library Usage

1. Introduction
In Japan, local governments have long managed public libraries; however, in
2003, organizations including private enterprises took over their managementwith the introduction of an outsourcing system, namely the “designatedadministrator system.” Although the number of public libraries managed under
this outsourcing system (henceforth, “outsourcing libraries”) is increasing,whether local governments should apply this system to public libraries is underdiscussion. Many argue that it is inappropriate for public libraries.
Nevertheless, few studies have examined the performance of outsourcing
libraries.
To provide basic data for such discussions, we investigated changes inlibrary usage after the introduction of outsourcing. Specifically, we obtained
statistics on library usage and measured changes before and after the
introduction of outsourcing. For library usage, we used seven types of statistics:(1) the gate count, (2) number of loans, (3) number of reservations/requests, (4)number of ILL-borrowings, (5) number of ILL-lendings, (6) number ofreference transactions, and (7) number of document copies. These statistics
were obtained from the “Statistics on Libraries in Japan (2005–2015),” which
is published annually by the Japan Library Association. We used the “Reporton Public Libraries Managed by the Designated Administrator System (2016)”
to know which library introduced outsourcing and when. In addition, to clarify
that changes are specific to outsourcing libraries, we also investigated changes
in the same period in library usage at “traditional” libraries, which are managed
directly by local governments (henceforth, “direct management libraries”).
Moreover, we classified libraries according to types such as being (a) amain library or annex and (b) according to the type of municipality served. We
also classified outsourcing libraries (c) according to the form of administrators

such as private enterprises or NPOs and (d) according to administrators such as
T company and H foundation. For each category, we examined the changes inlibrary usage.
Our research questions were as follows: (1) How did library usage change
after the introduction of outsourcing? (2) Do the tendencies of outsourcing
libraries differ from those of direct management libraries? (3) Do thesetendencies vary depending on the type of library?

2. Related Studies
Few studies have examined the performance of outsourcing libraries. In 2007,
Koyama and Nagata (2007) conducted a questionnaire survey to investigate themerits of outsourcing libraries, asking the staff of 82 public libraries that had
introduced or planned to introduce the new system to describe the impact on
costs and services. Maeda (2007) conducted a survey to determine which
services improved under outsourcing, finding that 14 libraries introduced newservices and 19 improved existing services such as reference services. The
Japan Library Association (2007) also surveyed 51 libraries that introduced
outsourcing, ascertaining that 17 libraries changed their operating hours and 10
changed their schedule of days open. Mizunuma and Tsuji (2016) andMizunuma (2016) investigated reference services in outsourcing libraries. They
compared the content of reference services and the number of referencetransactions of outsourcing libraries to those of direct management libraries.
The results showed that the services provided by these two types of libraries
tended to differ, and the number of reference transactions tended to increase
after the introduction of outsourcing.

3. Method
We selected the following seven statistics as indicative of library usage: (1) thegate count, (2) number of loans, (3) number of reservations/requests, (4)number of ILL-borrowings, (5) number of ILL-lendings, (6) number ofreference transactions, and (7) number of document copies. To investigatechanges in library usage after the introduction of outsourcing, we calculated theincrease rate (IR) for each usage. The IR is defined as follows:IR =A2 − B2
×100 (%)
B2

where B2 is the average of the usage statistics during the two years before theintroduction of outsourcing and A2 is the average for the two years after its
introduction. These data were obtained from the annual “Statistics on Libraries
in Japan (2005–2015).” For example, Chiyoda Library introduced outsourcing
in 2007; therefore, we calculated the average of the previously mentioned
library usage in 2005 and 2006. There were 280,216 and 259,788 gate counts in2005 and 2006 respectively. Therefore, the average number of gate counts inthese two years was (280,216＋259,788)/2＝270,002. Similarly, the average
number of gate counts after the introduction of outsourcing was 921,464 (foryears 2008 and 2009). Therefore, the IR of gate counts for Chiyoda Library is(921,464-270,002)/270,002=2.413. We assume that if the IR is greater thanzero, then library usage increased after the introduction of outsourcing.
We calculated the IRs (of the previously mentioned seven library usages)
for each outsourcing library, and calculated the mean (average), median,maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of each. Note that we excludedlibraries from our sample if certain statistics were not listed in the “Statistics on
Libraries in Japan (2005–2015).” For example, if the number of loans of one
library was missing, that library was excluded from the sample used to
calculate the IR of the number of loans.
In addition, to clarify that changes are specific to outsourcing libraries, we
also calculated the averages of the IRs for direct management libraries andcompared them to those for outsourcing libraries. Since there was nocomparable point in time when direct management libraries underwent achange in the system, we calculated the IR for every year from 2004 (the yearof the first outsourcing library) to 2014 (the most recent year available), andadopted the average of these numbers for comparison to the IR of outsourcing
libraries.
We used 3,811 public libraries listed in the annual “Statistics on Libraries
in Japan (2005–2015)” as our sample. We classified the libraries as either
outsourcing or direct management libraries based on “the Report on Public
Libraries Managed by the Designated Administrator System (2016).” This
source includes a list of outsourcing libraries. Thus, we identified libraries
listed in the report as outsourcing libraries and all others as direct management
libraries. This report also indicated when each library introduced outsourcing.
Furthermore, we classified the libraries as either main libraries or annexes,
and according to the type of municipality served: (1) prefectures, (2) ordinancedesignated cities, (3) Tokyo special wards, (4) cities other than ordinancedesignated ones, and (5) towns or villages1 based on the “Statistics on Libraries
in Japan (2005–2015).” In addition, we classified outsourcing libraries
according to the corporate forms of administrators: (a) private enterprises, (b)NPOs, (c) public corporations, and (d) other organizations, using “the Reporton Public Libraries Managed by the Designated Administrator System (2016).”
Next, we clarified the first three predominant administrators (i.e., thosemanaging libraries most) using the “Survey on the Introduction of the
Designated Administrator System (2012)” conducted by the Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications, and calculated the IR of each administrator.
Table 1 shows the total number of libraries in each category of our sample used
to calculate the IR. The predominant administrators are also shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of sample libraries
Outsourcing
libraries

Main vs. Annex(All libraries)

489

libraries
3,322

Annexes

317

1,743

Main libraries
Prefectural library

Types ofmunicipality

Ordinance-designated cities
Tokyo special wards
Other cities

Towns and villages
Corporate
form ofadministrator
Predominant

administrators

1

Directmanagement

172

5

232

261

2,004

107

60

381

Public corporation

53

Other organizaton

124
902

41
14

T Company

105

H Foundation

11

V Company

60

56

Private enterprise
NPO

1,579

17

In Japan, a “city” is defined as a municipality with a population of more than 50,000 people,
and an “ordinance-designated city” is defined as a city with a population greater than 500,000
people. “Tokyo special wards” are 23 municipalities with the highest population densities inJapan. Towns and villages are other municipalities, which are smaller than those alreadymentioned.

4. Results
The IRs of (1) the gate count, (2) number of loans, (3) number ofreservations/requests, (4) number of ILL-borrowings, (5) number of ILLlendings, (6) number of reference transactions, and (7) number of document
copies of outsourcing libraries are provided in Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14
respectively. The results of each library usage of direct management libraries
are provided in Tables 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 respectively. These tables show
the mean, median, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation (SD) of IRs(by percentage). For outsourcing libraries, “n” represents the number oflibraries and for direct management libraries, “n (total)” represents the total
number of samples for each year. “(All libraries)” represents the results of all
sample libraries. The results of each type of library (as mentioned in the
Introduction) are shown below “(All libraries).”
We first explain the results for all libraries. The means and medians of theIRs of all usages for outsourcing libraries were more than zero, whereas somemedians of the IRs for direct management libraries were less than zero, such as
for the gate count (-2.6%) and number of document copies (-13.4%). The
means of the IRs of five usages for outsourcing libraries were higher than theIRs of direct management libraries. For example, the mean of the IR of the gate
count for outsourcing libraries was 30.7%, while that for direct management
libraries was 6.6%. In addition, concerning all usages, the medians of the IRs
for outsourcing libraries were higher than for direct management libraries. For
example, the median of the IR for the gate count for outsourcing libraries was
9.7%, while that for direct management libraries was -2.6%. Furthermore, themedian of the IR of the number of loans was 11.1% for outsourcing libraries,
while that for direct management libraries was 0.6%. These results suggest thatthe usages tended to increase after the introduction of outsourcing.
Next, we explain the results of each type of library. The mean and mediansof IRs concerning both main and annex outsourcing libraries were more thanzero, except for document copies. The medians of the IRs for outsourcing
libraries were higher than for direct management libraries for all usages. These
results suggest that the usages tended to increase after the introduction ofoutsourcing in both main and annex libraries. Similar tendencies were observed
for the other types such as type of municipality served and type ofadministrator. Thus, the tendencies for all libraries previously mentioned holdfor most types of libraries (i.e., without depending on library type).
Table 2. IRs of gate count for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries

n

236

92

Annexes144

Ordinance-designated cities

25

Other cities

114

Private enterprises

168

Public corporations

Prefectures

Mean

30.7%
38.8%
25.5%

Median

9.7%

4.0%

13.4%

3

211.6%

137.6%

63

28.6%

18.4%

-45.1%

645.3%-45.1%

1207.7%493.7%-24.3%
3.6%

SD

101.8%

144.1%

60.5%

206.8%-18.3%

6.9%

1207.7%-45.1%

135.2%

39.4%

12.4%

1207.7%-24.7%

118.7%

36

11.1%

5.6%

66.6%

-45.1%

25.1%

T Company

68

33.7%

H Foundation

11

18.8%

Towns and villages
NPOs

Other organizatons
V Company

31
25
7

11

36.6%
8.6%
8.3%

14.8%

1207.7%

53.5%

Tokyo special wards

14.4%

Maximum Minimum

1.9%

-0.2%

1.2%

-1.6%

14.4%

7.4%

241.3%

71.1%
55.2%
31.5%

9.6%

645.3%

15.2%

53.5%

92.9%

-18.8%-24.3%-23.1%-24.3%-17.3%-24.7%
0.0%

14.3%
36.6%
26.7%
20.4%
15.3%

93.4%
28.3%
16.3%

Table 3. IRs of gate count for direct management librariesn (total)(All libraries)

12,609Main libraries

6,806

Annexes

5,803

Prefectures

482

Mean

6.6%
5.2%
8.2%
2.6%

Ordinance-designated cities

1,007

-0.3%

Other cities

7,616

9.6%

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages

496

3,008

5.9%
2.1%

MedianMaximum

Minimum-3.6%

1088.8%-90.3%

-2.6%
-1.2%
-3.6%
-2.7%
0.2%

-1.5%
-5.7%

1519.1%1519.1%669.5%
199.2%
213.5%

1519.1%1088.8%-97.1%-97.1%-53.9%-67.0%-74.7%-97.1%-89.4%

Table 4. IRs of the number of loans for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefectures

n

256
111

145

Mean

20.6%
21.6%
19.9%

Median

11.1%
6.8%

13.2%

3

217.0%

217.3%

69

17.1%

14.6%
1.4%

-38.2%

401.4%-35.0%

608.1%

411.6%

Public corporations

39

10.6%

8.4%

78.8%

T Company

82

23.0%

12.4%

401.4%H Foundation

11

16.3%

14.4%

32.2%

Other organizatons

7

V Company

13

7.1%
9.1%

11.0%
6.1%
1.9%

32.2%

608.1%

53.4%
31.2%

109.5%-6.9%-35.0%-38.2%-21.1%-15.0%-13.4%-22.8%-35.0%
1.7%

Table 5. IRs of the number of loans for direct management libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefecturesn (total)

17,853
8,921
8,932

468

Ordinance-designated cities

1,371

Other cities

11,152

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages

881

3,981

Mean

51.6%
63.6%
39.7%
6.0%

MedianMaximum

Minimum

0.2% 524845.0%-99.8%

0.6% 524845.0%
1.2% 287100.0%
0.6%

289.1%

3.7%

312.8%

0.9%

-1.2%

80.3%

1.6% 524845.0%

8.5%
3.7%

-2.3%

57.6%

SD

59.0%

74.7%

43.4%

18.2%

608.1%

9.8%

67.5%

-38.2%

12.2%

28

28.8%

55.4%

25.0%

NPOs

19.9%

20.0%

182

9.0%

41.8%

-28.6%

Private enterprises

3.4%

62.5%

109.5%

125

24.3%

59.2%

159.0%

Other cities

36-38.2%

60.8%

22.0%

23

Towns and villages

13.4%

608.1%

Ordinance-designated cities
Tokyo special wards

13.2%

Maximum MinimumSD

259.4%

1033.3%

9.3%

71.8%
68.7%
16.9%
17.9%

14.4%
55.9%
33.9%
9.3%

SD

-99.8%

4477.2%-98.8%

3037.8%-50.2%-45.6%-83.4%-98.8%-99.8%

5556.6%

30.9%
17.5%
31.7%

5664.5%

45.8%

Table 6. IRs of the number of reservations/requests for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefectures

n

281
112
169

Private enterprises

205

Public corporations

41

36

32.9%
60.0%

27

135.5%

8

21.4%

T Company

96

H Foundation

11

V Company

146.5%

36.3%

1818.5%-72.3%

152.9%

69.0%

257.5%-12.2%

40.2%

1818.5%-84.8%

189.5%

39.7%

976.0%-72.3%

101.7%-37.1%

71.3%

39.0%

26.0%

73.6%

13

45.2%
57.2%
20.6%
89.7%

SD

-84.8%

44.4%

76.8%

Maximum Minimum
1818.5%60

146

Other organizatons

60.5%

37.8%

161.7%

Other cities

NPOs

69.4%

Median208.4%

36

Towns and villages

64.0%

3

Ordinance-designated cities
Tokyo special wards

Mean

18.7%

976.0%
367.2%
490.6%
286.2%

47.7%

1818.5%13.5%

141.0%

31.7%

40.0%
6.8%

97.1%

410.6%
292.4%
122.7%
107.9%-84.8%
96.1%-72.3%-65.4%-84.8%-48.4%-50.8%-13.6%

55.6%

136.0%
115.5%

52.7%
76.1%
66.7%

360.6%

50.4%
68.9%
39.8%
18.7%

Table 7. IRs of the number of reservations/requests for direct management libraries(All libraries)

Main librariesn (total)

19,3009,280

Annexes

10,020Ordinance-designated cities

1,649

Other cities

12,458Prefectures

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages

426
975

3,792

Mean

54.1%
48.5%
59.2%

66.4%
43.7%
46.9%
60.4%
38.1%

Median

21.5%
21.2%

Maximum

Minimum

7435.7%-96.9%

18100.0%

21.8%

18100.0%

16.5%

1555.2%

22.4%
22.7%

24.9%
12.1%

3677.5%3137.6%18100.0%5591.4%SD-96.9%

216.1%-96.1%

249.2%

173.3%-69.9%

252.3%-92.8%

109.6%-89.1%

176.2%-96.9%

238.3%-96.0%

174.0%

Table 8. IRs of the number of ILL-borrowings for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefectures

n

251
111

140

3

Mean

65.2%
66.2%

64.4%
31.9%

Median

16.7%

24.3%
12.0%
5.6%

Maximum MinimumSD

1484.7%-80.0%

188.0%

1484.7%-77.3%

199.5%

1228.6%88.9%-80.0%
1.4%

172.3%
40.3%

Ordinance-designated cities

26

101.3%

23.0%

700.0%-54.8%

200.2%

Other cities

124

81.2%

32.0%

1484.7%-71.1%

219.9%

Private enterprises

179

48.0%

14.7%

1228.6%-77.3%

138.1%

Public corporations

37

20.5%

700.0%

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages
NPOs

64
34

Other organizatons

14.0%
78.4%

27

184.9%

8

0.4%

75.1%

1.3%

23.4%
45.8%
5.9%

570.3%
841.4%

1484.7%

69.4%

T Company

75

42.3%

32.1%

352.1%H Foundation

9184.3%

60.2%

700.0%V Company

15

-2.9%

0.9%

42.2%

-77.3%-80.0%-71.1%-45.9%-80.0%

85.1%

181.4%
382.6%
165.1%

45.2%-64.1%-37.0%-38.0%

70.8%
23.6%

270.2%

Table 9. IRs of the number of ILL-borrowings for direct management libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefecturesn (total)

15,460

9,177
6,283

475

Ordinance-designated cities

1,235

Other cities

9,176

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages

944

3,630

Mean

60.6%

71.4%

44.8%

MedianMaximum

Minimum

14.6%

50350.0%-99.4%

11.6%
6.9%

49.6%

27.2%

8.8%

3.5%

36.9%
57.6%
91.2%

12.2%
10.7%
15.1%

50350.0%14400.0%1097.5%1433.3%354.8%

50350.0%31100.0%

SD-99.6%

658.9%-99.6%

284.2%

822.0%-99.0%

103.6%-93.1%

110.6%-98.7%

47.2%-99.6%

711.3%-99.4%

749.7%

Table 10. IRs of the number of ILL-lendings for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries

n

198

98

Mean

782.2%
177.0%

Annexes

1001375.3%

Ordinance-designated cities

25

82.4%

Other cities

86

1673.4%

Private enterprises

1391043.2%Public corporations

31

107.5%

Prefectures

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages
NPOs

Other organizatons

3

56
28
22
6

157.9%
105.2%

90.7%

295.3%
7.0%

T Company

55

162.8%H Foundation

9

117.8%V Company

9

73.1%

MedianMaximum MinimumSD

43.1% 128220.0%-99.9%

60.0% 128220.0%-85.7% 12749.2%

39.9%

4740.0%71.0%

343.4%

62.0%

686.0%

73.3%

270.0%

39.5% 128220.0%
19.8%

1004.1%12.6%

4740.0%

21.3%

65.9%

57.4% 128220.0%
40.0%

829.2%

39.0%

2344.2%120.9%

270.0%-6.3%

473.0%-99.9%

9089.0%569.3%

59.2%

131.3%-53.6%

163.7%-86.6%

242.6%-62.1%

983.1%-85.7%

81.1%-99.9% 13738.8%-99.9% 10829.6%-64.2%-86.6%

201.7%

50.8%-75.5%

384.8%-10.3%

82.2%-53.6%

155.2%

Table 11. IRs of the number of ILL-lendings for direct management libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefectures

Ordinance-designated cities
Tokyo special wards
Other cities

Towns and villagesn (total)

12,278
7,886

4,392

483
850

904

7,397

2,644

Mean

152.0%
169.1%
121.3%

27.7%
62.8%
33.8%

173.9%
182.6%MedianMaximum

Minimum

17.4%

50900.0%-99.6%

14.2%
7.6%
8.8%
7.5%

-1.3%

17.3%
17.5%

54550.0%54550.0%1652.1%6788.6%2850.0%54550.0%20100.0%

SD-99.6%

1272.9%-99.6%

1408.2%-92.2%-98.1%-98.6%-99.6%-99.3%

1190.5%125.3%

354.3%
161.6%

1525.2%975.2%

Table 12. IRs of the number of reference transactions for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries

n

178

Mean

665.7%

62

1635.0%3

186.2%

Annexes116

Ordinance-designated cities

27

Other cities

91

1216.5%

Private enterprises

140

784.2%

Public corporations

22

27.5%

Prefectures

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages
NPOs

42
15
12

Other organizatons

45.7%

122.0%

58.3%

285.4%

24.1%
50.0%

21.4%
87.0%
16.6%

-84.4%

795.9%

409.6%-89.7%

62.1%

7614.5%158.3%

6370.2%26.9%45205.3%-84.4%

5164.5%16.9%

269.8%

60.0%
21.3%

9.4%

12.3%

8377.3%45205.3%-89.7%

38.7%

114594.6%45205.3%

14

H Foundation-89.7%

36.0%

10.9%

1048.7%970.9%

SD

45205.3%-73.0%

1168.2%60

Maximum Minimum

714.7%

4

T Company

V Company

147.6%Median2080.8%231.0%

2601.8%-80.7%-80.1%-89.7%-51.8%

2407.5%168.0%

356.2%-84.4%

35.3%

45205.3%

16.6%

48.7%

147.1%
423.3%
96.0%

713.2%

65.2%

964.5%-80.1%

5857.8%-39.9%

19.9%

107.8%

Table 13. IRs of the number of reference transactions for direct management libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefecturesn (total)

12,262
6,058

6,204

497

Ordinance-designated cities

1,541

Other cities

7,491

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages

698

2,035

Mean

170.5%
152.5%
188.1%

13.4%
56.3%

MedianMaximum

Minimum

0.2%

67816.7%-99.2%

1.7%

667.5%

1.7% 330280.0%
3.5% 330280.0%
8.4%

54.5%

-1.4%

149.2%-3.4%

221.0%

7131.4%5540.0%2.0% 330280.0%

67816.7%

SD-99.9%

3223.2%-99.9%

4305.4%-78.9%

1429.8%62.0%-95.7%

298.3%-99.9%

3998.0%-96.1%-99.8%

335.9%

1903.3%

Table 14. IRs of the number of document copies for outsourcing libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries

n

223

89

Mean

31.9%
60.8%

Annexes134

Ordinance-designated cities

34

Other cities

110

57.9%

Private enterprises

169

36.7%

Public corporations

31

Prefectures

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages
NPOs

Other organizatons

3

49
27
19
4

T Company

73

H Foundation

10

V Company

14

Median

2.1%
5.8%

12.7%

-2.1%

7.9%

7.6%

10.9%

6.5%

-81.2%

112.9%

24.5%-71.1%
1.6%

406.4%
9.9%

3828.9%-81.2%

383.5%-0.2%

3828.9%-81.2%

310.5%

8.3%

103.4%-62.2%

35.8%

37.6%

5.7%

-4.9%

1218.7%3828.9%

2.1%

12.8%

19.9%

272.3%

32.7%

17.7%

23.1%

-81.2%-49.6%

-4.3%

17.8%

SD

3828.9%

70.4%

-0.5%

4.4%

Maximum Minimum

27.3%

126.2%
303.2%
303.2%

53.2%

-0.8%

1218.7%

15.1%

70.4%

-8.0%

33.5%

-63.6%-45.4%-71.1%-36.4%

29.1%
66.7%
94.1%
33.6%

-75.5%

149.5%-11.6%

26.8%-42.9%

17.0%

Table 15. IRs of the number of document copies for direct management libraries(All libraries)

Main libraries
Annexes

Prefecturesn (total)

14,659

Mean

61.7%

7,620

107.4%

461

-5.7%

7,039

12.2%

Ordinance-designated cities

1,370

435.9%

Other cities

9,314

29.9%

Tokyo special wards
Towns and villages

780

2,734

-10.6%

14.6%

MedianMaximum

Minimum-12.5% 348086.6%-99.9%-13.4% 348086.6%-14.5%-10.7%

29688.7%

363.4%-16.8% 348086.6%-15.9%-13.2%-10.1%

365.2%

58652.1%

3360.0%SD-99.9%

3678.6%-99.5%

484.8%-88.1%

5080.4%35.4%-94.4% 11715.5%-96.7%-99.9%-93.7%

35.8%

1039.7%126.5%

5. Conclusions
In this study, we calculated the IRs for seven library usages to investigatechanges in library usage after the introduction of outsourcing. The results of ourinvestigation suggest that the IRs tended to increase after the introduction ofoutsourcing, and the rate of the increase for outsourcing libraries was higher
than that for direct management libraries during the same period. In addition,
similar tendencies were shown for each type of library such as main, annex,
type of municipality, and type of administrator. Based on this, we suggest thatthe introduction of outsourcing promotes library usage.
In the future, we aim to examine the cause of the increase of IRs foroutsourcing libraries. Furthermore, we hope to focus not only on library usage,
but also on other library services such as reference services, book selection, andloan services to users to clarify the impact of switching to outsourcing by
Japanese libraries.

References
Japan Library Association, (2005-2015). Statistics on Libraries in Japan. Tokyo: Japan
Library Association.
Japan Library Association, (2016). Report on Public Libraries Managed by the
Designated Administrator System in 2016. http://www.jla.or.jp/Portals/0/images/committe/torikumi/sitei2012.pdf, (accessed 2016-03-01). (text in Japanese).
Koyama, N. and Nagata, H., (2008). Report on Public Library Management. 34p.
http://www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/grad/assets/files/project/h19/report.pdf, (accessed 201603-01). (text in Japanese).
Maeda, H., (2007). A Study on the Actual State of Introduction of Designation
Administrator System to Public Libraries. Summaries of Technical Papers 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, 109110. (text in Japanese).
Committee on library policies of Japan Library Association, (2007). Results of thequestionnaire on introduction of designated management system in libraries.
Libraries Today, Vol.45, No.1), 41-51. (text in Japanese).
Mizunuma, Y. and Tsuji, K., (2016). Comparing Public Library Management under
Designated Administrator System with Direct Management: Focusing on Reference
Service. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on E-Service andKnowledge Management (ESKM 2016), 37-42.
Mizunuma, Y., (2016). A Comparison of Public Libraries Managed by DesignatedAdministrator System and those under Direct Management: Focusing on Reference
Services. Journal of Japan Society of Library and Information Science, Vol.62, No.4,
221-241. (text in Japanese).