IIAI International Journal of Service and Knowledge Management
International Institute of Applied Informatics
2019, Vol. 3, No. 2, 62 – 81

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing:
A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days, andDirectors’ Librarian Qualiﬁcations and Workloads
Yuhiro Mizunuma ∗ , Keita Tsuji †Abstract
Public libraries in Japan were managed by local governments for a long time. However, in
2003, organizations including private enterprises, NPOs and foundations took over their
management with the introduction of an outsourcing system, namely the ‘designated administrator system’. The question of whether this outsourcing system is appropriate forpublic libraries is a subject of current debate, wherein many argue that it is inappropriate.
To provide basic data for this discussion, we conducted a cross-sectional and time series
analysis on almost all public libraries in Japan focusing on library usage, number of open
days, and director qualiﬁcations and workload. The results show that the opening days andpercentage of certiﬁed directors of public libraries managed by the outsourcing system(‘outsourcing libraries’) was more than those managed by local governments (‘direct
management libraries’), whereas the number of Inter-Library Loan (ILL)-borrowings andthe number of ILL-lending were more in direct management libraries than in outsourcing
libraries. It was also shown that the library usage and open days, as well as the number ofcertiﬁed directors increased after the introduction of the outsourcing system.
Keywords: designated administrator system, library management, public libraries.

1

Introduction

Public libraries in Japan were managed by local governments for a long time.
However, in 2003, organizations including private enterprises, NPOs and foundations took
over their management with the introduction of an outsourcing system, namely the‘designated administrator system’. Although the number of public libraries managed
under this outsourcing system (henceforth ‘outsourcing libraries’) is increasing, manyargue that it is an inappropriate system for public libraries because of concerns over the
degradation of services, the decrease in staff expertise, and the decline in the level ofcooperation between libraries. Nevertheless, few studies have examined theperformance of outsourcing libraries using large-scale comprehensive samples.
∗†

Surugadai University, Saitama, Japan
University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

Within this context, we used almost all Japanese public libraries as subjects and conducted two types of analysis: (1) cross-sectional analysis and (2) time series analysis, witha focus on library usage, open days, and the director. For the cross-sectional analysis, weanalyzed the differences between outsourcing libraries and ‘traditional’ libraries managed
directly by the local government (henceforth ‘direct management libraries’) at a certain
point in time. More speciﬁcally, we obtained statistics on library usage, open days, and thequaliﬁcations and workload of the directors, and compared statistics drawn from approximately 300 outsourcing libraries with those from approximately 2,000 direct management
libraries (the exact number varies depending on the investigation). Those data were obtained from the 2012 and 2015 editions of Statistics on Libraries in Japan [1], publishedby the Japan Library Association. For the time series analysis, we analyzed changes instatistics from approximately 200 libraries before and after they introduced outsourcing.
This data were 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 of books loaned through ILL, and (e) number of reference transactions.
We also examined the number of open days in a year and evaluated whether the libraries
were open on holidays. We also analyzed whether the directors held librarian certiﬁcations
and were working as full-time or equivalent employees.
In this paper, we ﬁrst provide a brief overview of the designated administrator system
in Japan in section 2, and the related surveys and studies in section 3. In section 4, we
describe the method of this study. We then provide the results of this study in section 5 andpresent a discussion of our ﬁndings in section 6. Finally, we summarize and conclude thepaper in section 7.

2

Brief Overview of the Designated Administrator System

The ‘designated administrator system’ was introduced in Japan through the revision of the
Local Autonomy Act in 2003. The new system allows organizations organizations
including private enterprises, NPOs and foundations to manage public facilities, which
include public libraries. Then, organizations including private enterprises, NPOs andfoundations took over public library management with the introduction of the newoutsourcing system. The local government is supposed to revise the municipal ordinancebased on a resolution of the local council in order to introduce the system to public
facilities. It was also established by the Local Autonomy Act that the procedure fordesignating, the scope of operations, and designated period must be described in therevised municipal ordinance.
The number of public libraries managed under this outsourcing system has been
increasing from 2003. However, as mentioned previously, there are many views on
applying this outsourcing system to libraries. For example, the Japan Library Association[2] argued that it was inappropriate to apply this system to public libraries, while theJapan Association for Promotion of Social Education [3] also argued that the system
would infringe on the residents’ right to learn. There are a lot of negative comments suchas that outsourcing may degrade the quality of library services provided, decrease theexpertise of librarians, and reduce cooperation with other libraries [2][3][4].

Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

63

64

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

3

Related Studies

Within the context stated above, some librarians working in outsourcing libraries reportedchanges after the introduction of the outsourcing system [5][6]. Some researchers and related organizations also clariﬁed the changes after the introduction of the new system. For
example, Maeda [7], the Japan Library Association [8], and Koyama and Nagata [9] used
questionnaires to investigate the merits of outsourcing libraries or the changes that
occurred after outsourcing systems were introduced. These investigations ascertained that
outsourcing systems improved the quality of services provided, increased the number ofopen hours, and increased library usage.
Some studies have focused on the changes in the statistics after the introduction of theoutsourcing system in speciﬁc regions. Yamaguchi [10] clariﬁed the changes after the introduction of the outsourcing system by focusing on the number of loans and theprevailing ﬁnancial situation in eight public libraries in Tachikawa-city. In his study,
Yamaguchi concluded that the number of loans had increased only in ﬁve libraries after the
introduction of the outsourcing system, and noted that the expenditure incurred throughoutsourcing tended to increase. Kambayashi [11] studied the changes after the introductionof the outsourcing system in Ota-ku, speciﬁcally focusing on the number of users enrolled,
the loans and reservations made, and the employment costs incurred. This study found that
although the number of users enrolled, loans, and reservations had increased, the ﬁnancial
resources saved by cutting down on a full-time worker was not used towards the
improvement of library services. Shiomi [12] searched a list of municipalities whose
libraries had introduced the outsourcing system (106 municipalities) and prepared a list of
the top 10% municipalities based on the number of loans (132 municipalities) made andfound that only 10 municipalities appeared in both lists. However, the above-mentioned
studies (based on questionnaires and statistical data) used relatively small samples. On theother hand, in this study, we conducted a statistical analysis based on large and allencompassing data in order to provide a wholesome picture.
Mouri and Ohba [13] conducted a comparative study similar to our study, concerning
certiﬁed directors in outsourcing and direct management libraries. They noted the rate ofcertiﬁed directors in outsourcing libraries and in direct management libraries using thegovernment survey conducted in 2011 (The Survey on Social Education by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). The results show that directors in
outsourcing libraries are more likely to have librarian certiﬁcations as opposed to those indirect management libraries. We conducted a similar analysis using the 2012 and 2015
editions of Statistics on Libraries in Japan, and also conducted a time series analysis.
If we do not limit the data to that on outsourcing libraries, we can ﬁnd many studies
that conducted time series analyses using statistical data on libraries. For example, there
are studies concerning certiﬁed directors [14][15], reference transactions [16][17], andopen days[18] of libraries in Japan. Tsuji[19] investigated the kind of learning commonsthat leads to an increase in library usage. In this study, the increase rates were calculated
based on the means of gate counts, the number of loans made, and the number of referencetransactions (the data were obtained from Statistics on Libraries in Japan), and identiﬁedsome of the elements of learning commons that may increase the gate counts and referencetransactions. As described above, many studies show the actual situation of libraries using
statistical data such as Statistics on Libraries in Japan, and there are studies that conduct
time series analysis in order to clarify the changes that take place with an event (for example, installing learning commons) such as Tsuji. Therefore, we conducted cross-sectional
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

and time series analysis using Statistics on Libraries in Japan in order to clarify theactual situation of libraries with a focus on outsourcing.

4

MethodWe conducted two kinds of analysis: cross-sectional analysis and time series analysis. In
the following subsections, we ﬁrst explain each method, following which we explain theclassiﬁcation of sample libraries.

4.1

Cross-sectional Analysis

Through a cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences between outsourcing
and direct management libraries at a certain point in time. We ﬁrst selected the 2015 edition of Statistics on Libraries in Japan because it was the most recent edition available
when we began our research. This edition listed the FY 2014 gate count, number of loans,and open days per year. Information on working holidays and whether the directors held
library certiﬁcations and worked full-time was also included as of April 2015. We took the
3,253 public libraries listed in the Statistics on Libraries in Japan as our sample. We thenclassiﬁed the sample libraries as either outsourcing or direct management libraries basedon The Report on Public Libraries Managed by the Designated Administrator System(2015)[20]. This source includes a list of libraries managed under the designatedadministrator system. Thus, we identiﬁed libraries listed in the report as outsourcing
libraries and all others as direct management libraries. We also used the 2012 edition of
Statistics on Libraries in Japan to improve the reliability of the data. We took the 3,224
public libraries listed in the Statistics on Libraries in Japan as our sample and classiﬁedthem as either outsourcing or direct management libraries based on The Report on Public
Libraries Managed by the Designated Administrator System (2012) [20].
We selected the following ﬁve usage statistics as indicators of library usage: (1) gate
count, (2) number of loans made, (3) number of books borrowed through ILL[21], (4)number of books loaned through ILL, and (5) number of reference transactions[22]. For
the cross-sectional analysis, we considered the library size by dividing the usage statistics
by the population of the municipality where the library was located, and then calculated
the usage statistics per resident for each library (because larger libraries tend to have more
use as, in general, they have many residents, that is, users, around them). We compared themean 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. Further, we also compared the number of working holidays and whether directors
held library certiﬁcations and worked full-time.

4.2

Time Series Analysis

In 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 in Japan
from the 2005 to 2015 editions as our sample, because the 2005 edition includes the dataon the ﬁrst outsourcing library and the 2015 edition is the most recent edition available.
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

65

66

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

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)[20] because it was the latest edition available. This report also indicated the time wheneach library introduced outsourcing. To track library usage and open days, we calculated
the increase rate (IR) for each category. The IR is deﬁned as follows:
IR(%) =

A2 − B2
× 100(%)
B2

where B2 is the mean in the two years before the introduction of outsourcing and A2
is the mean of the usage statistics in the two years after its introduction. For example,
the Chiyoda Library introduced outsourcing in 2007. Therefore, we calculated the meanof the previously mentioned usage statistics in 2005 and 2006. There were 280,216 and259,788 gate counts in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Therefore, the mean of gate counts inthese two years was ((280,216 + 259,788)/2 =) 270,002. Similarly, the mean of gate counts
in the two years following the introduction of outsourcing 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 is greater than zero, library
usage or open days increased after the introduction of outsourcing.
To identify whether they were open on holidays and whether the directors held
librarian certiﬁcations and worked full-time, we ﬁrst measured the patterns over four years
for each library (two years before the transition to outsourcing and two years after). For
example, Chiyoda Library’s status of directors holding library certiﬁcations in 2005, 2006,
2008, and 2009 were No, No, Yes, and Yes, respectively. Therefore, the pattern 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 for outsourcing 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. If thepattern was YYNN, a certiﬁed director was assigned until the introduction of outsourcing
and a non-certiﬁed director was assigned after outsourcing.
We also calculated the IRs and the rate of each pattern in the direct management
libraries, comparing them with those of the outsourcing libraries. Since there was nocomparable point in time when the direct management libraries underwent a change intheir system, we calculated the IRs and the rate of each pattern for every year from 2005 to
2015. The statistical data we analyzed and each analytical method are summarized inTable 1.

4.3 Classiﬁcation of Sample Libraries
We used the public libraries listed in the Statistics on Libraries in Japan as our sample
libraries. As mentioned previously, we classiﬁed them as either outsourcing or direct management libraries based on the Report on Public Libraries Managed by the DesignatedAdministrator System.
We also classiﬁed the libraries as either main libraries or annexes, and based on thetype of municipality served, into (1) prefectures, (2) ordinance-designated cities, (3) Tokyo
special wards, (4) cities other than ordinance-designated ones, and (5) towns or villages[23].
The classiﬁcation was based on Statistics on Libraries in Japan. We also classiﬁed
outsourcing libraries based on the corporate form of the administrator into the following
categories: (a) private enterprise, (b) NPO, (c) public corporation, or (d) other organization,
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

67

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

Table 1: Our analysis subject and each analytical method
Statistical data
Usage

Gate countNumber of loans
Number of books borrowed through ILL
Number of books loaned through ILL
Number of reference transactions
The numbers of open days
Openings during holidays
Whether directors held library certiﬁcations
Whether directors worked full-time

Open days
Directors

Analytical Method
Cross-sectional Time series
We comparedWe calculated
the mean andthe IR
median

We compared
the rate

We measured
four years ofpatterns

using Report on Public Libraries Managed by the Designated Administrator System. Next,
we identiﬁed the top three predominant administrators (i.e. those managing the most libraries) using the Survey on the Introduction of the Designated Administrator System [24]conducted by the Government (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications). Table 2
shows the total number of libraries in each category in our sample. The predominant administrators are also shown in Table 2. In this table,‘OL’ means outsourcing libraries, and‘DML’ means direct management libraries.
Table 2: Sample libraries（All Libraries）
Main vs.Annex
Main libraries
Annexes
Types ofPrefectural librarymunicipality
Ordinance-designated cities
Tokyo special wards
Other cities
Towns and villages
Corporate
Private enterpriseform ofNPO
administrator
Public corporation
Other organisation
Predominant
A Company
administrators
B Company
C Foundation

5

Cross-sectional
2012 edition
2015 edition
OL
DML
OL
DML
2,822
299
2,925
431
116
1,235
154
1,211
183
1,690
277
1,611
2
59
4
56
36
243
55
226
76
149
99
124
146
1,917
216
1,865
39
557
57
551
207
—
323
—
36
—
40
—
47
—
52
ー
9
—
16
—
98
—
104
—
9
—
17
—
11
—
11
—

Time series
OL

DML

489
172
317
5
56
107
261
60
381
41
53
14
105
17
11

3,322
1,579
1,743
60
232
124
2,004
902
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Results

In this section, we present the results concerning library usage, open days, and director
statistics.
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

68

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

5.1

Results of Library Usage

The results of the 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 direct management libraries
are provided in Table 3. As in Table 2,‘OL’ refers to outsourcing libraries, and ‘DML’ refers
to direct management libraries in the tables below. ‘N’ represents the number of libraries,
the 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 these columns represent the differences
at 0.05 and 0.01 signiﬁcance levels, respectively. ‘2012 edition’ and ‘2015 edition’ present
the results based on the 2012 edition of Statistics on Libraries in Japan and the 2015
edition of the book, respectively.
Based on the number of books borrowed through ILL in the 2012 edition, the mean
and median of direct management libraries (0.0143 and 0.0046, respectively) weresigniﬁcantly higher than those of outsourcing libraries (0.0093 and 0.0031, respectively).
Based on those in the 2015 edition, the mean and median of direct management libraries(0.0169 and 0.0054, respectively) were signiﬁcantly higher than those of outsourcing
libraries (0.0095 and 0.0024, respectively). Further, for the number of books lent throughILL in the 2012 edition, the mean and median of direct management libraries (0.0084 and0.0027, respectively) were higher than those of outsourcing libraries (0.0069 and 0.0019,
respectively). Based on those in the 2015 edition, the mean and median of direct
management libraries (0.0090 and 0.0032, respectively) were signiﬁcantly higher thanthose of the outsourcing libraries (0.0061 and 0.0016, respectively). These results suggestthat direct management libraries borrow more and lend more library materials from and toother libraries than do outsourcing libraries.
The IRs of individual library usage are provided in Table 4. This table shows
the means and medians of IRs (by percentage) for outsourcing and direct management
libraries. The means and medians of IRs for usage in outsourcing libraries were all morethan zero, whereas the median of IR for gate count in direct management libraries was lessthan zero (-2.6%). The means of the IRs for four instances of usage in outsourcing libraries
were higher than the IRs in direct management libraries. For example, the mean of the IR
for gate count in outsourcing libraries was 30.7% while that for direct management
libraries was 6.6%. In addition, the medians of the IRs for all usages in outsourcing
libraries were higher than those for direct management libraries. For example, themedian of the IR for the number of loans was 11.1% for outsourcing libraries, whilethat for direct management libraries was 0.6%. These results suggest that library use
tended to increase after the introduction of outsourcing.
Next, we look at the results for each type. As mentioned previously, we
compared outsourcing and direct management libraries based on type (main libraries orannexes, the type of municipality served, corporate form of the predominant
administrator, and the administrator). In studying main libraries, annexes, and the typeof municipality served, we simply compared outsourcing and direct management libraries
based on type. In studying the corporate form of the administrator and the administrator(A company, B company, and C Foundation), we compared each type of outsourcing
library with all direct management libraries.
Tables 5 and 6 show the results of the cross-sectional analysis. Due to space constraints,
we omitted the line if there was no signiﬁcant difference observed in either the 2012 or the
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

Table 3: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of library usage per capita

Gate countNumber of loans
Number of
ILL-borrowings
Number of
ILL-lendings
Number of referencetransactions

OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML

N
253
2,074
272
2,725
261
2,279
222
1,926
254
2,097

2012 edition
Mean
Median1.600
0.707 **
1.281
0.610
2.671
1.516 **
2.281
1.167
0.00930.00310.0143 ** 0.0046 **0.00690.00190.00840.00270.01670.0068 *0.02150.0054

N
381
2,149
417
2,629
385
2,150
333
1,879
374
2,089

2015 edition
Mean
Median
1.534
0.563
1.204
0.584
2.253
1.015
2.158
1.149
0.00950.00240.0169 ** 0.0054 **0.00610.00160.0090 ** 0.0032 **0.01860.00570.02090.0064

Table 4: Results of the time series analysis of library usage（IR(%)）
N
Mean Median
Gate count
OL
236
30.7
9.7
DML 12,609
6.6-2.6
Number of loans
OL
256
20.6
11.1
DML 17,853
51.6
0.6
OL
251
65.2
16.7
Number of ILL-borrowings
DML 15,460
60.6
11.6
Number of ILL-lendingsOL
198 782.2
43.1
DML 12,278 152.0
14.2
178 665.7
24.1
Number of reference transactions OL
DML 12,262 170.5
1.7

Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

69

70

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

2015 edition. In Table 6, if there was ‘∗’, the type’s library usage was signiﬁcantly higher
than that of all direct management libraries, whereas if there was‘†’, the type’s library usage was signiﬁcantly lower than that of all direct management libraries. Table 6 shows
outsourcing libraries managed by private enterprises. It showed that B Company and C
Foundation had the same tendency with all libraries (i.e. libraries without type classiﬁcation). These outsourcing libraries were signiﬁcantly lower than direct management
libraries in terms of the number of books borrowed and lent through ILL.
The mean and median IRs were over 0% among all types of outsourcing libraries
except for the gate count in NPO and outsourcing libraries management by otherorganizations, and the number of books borrowed and lent through ILL in the outsourcing
libraries managed by B Company. We can conclude that almost all types of libraries tend
to experience increases in library usage after the introduction of outsourcing.
Table 5: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of library usage per capita (each type)

Annexes

Gate countOrdinance-designated cities
Other cities

Towns andvillages

5.2

Number ofloans
ILL-lendings
Gate countNumber ofloans
Number of
loans

OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML

N
149
1,099
158
1,543
26
135
122
1,281
138
1,763
39
528

2012 edition
2015 edition
Mean MedianN
Mean Median
0.630 ** 0.355 ** 240
0.573 ** 0.310 **0.389
0.226 1,157
0.357
0.215
0.989 ** 0.598 ** 265
0.827 * 0.529 **0.770
0.459 1,477
0.704
0.443
0.00020.000052
0.00010.00000.0006 ** 0.0001 ** 121 0.0007 ** 0.0001 **1.443 ** 0.987 ** 190
1.389 ** 0.891 **1.076
0.563 1,322
1.020
0.540
2.758 ** 2.366 ** 204
2.398 ** 1.926 **
1.904
1.136 1,725
1.801
1.038
6.883 * 5.626 *57
6.059 * 5.217 *
4.950
4.099
519
4.559
3.817

Results of Open Days

The results of the cross-sectional analysis of open days at outsourcing and direct management libraries are presented in Table 7. The results of whether they were open on holidays
are presented in Table 8. In Table 8, the columns indicate the number of libraries that do
not open on holidays and are not planning to (‘No’); the number of libraries that are open
on six holidays or less (‘Yes (=< 6 days)’); the number of libraries that are open on morethan six holidays (‘Yes (>=7 days)’); and the number of libraries that are not open on
holidays but are planning to remain open on holidays(‘Planning’). The double asterisks
represent signiﬁcant differences based on the Z-test for the proportions at 0.01 signiﬁcancelevels.
Table 7 shows that the means and medians for open days in the 2012 edition for outsourcing libraries (305.1 and 302.0, respectively) were signiﬁcantly higher than those fordirect management libraries (286.5 and 288.0, respectively). The means and medians foropen days in the 2015 edition for outsourcing libraries (309.0 and 303.0, respectively)
were signiﬁcantly higher than those for direct management libraries (288.8 and 290.0,
respectively), as well.
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

Table 6: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of library usage per capita (each outsourcing
type)

PrivateenterpriseNPO
Public corporation
B Company

C Foundation

ILL-borrowings
ILL-lendings
Number of loans
Number of loans
The gate countNumber of loans
ILL-borrowings
ILL-lendings
The gate countNumber of loans
ILL-borrowings
ILL-lendings

N
176
149
36
44
9
7
9
8
11
11
11
11

2012 edition
Mean
MedianN
0.0064 †† 0.0019 †† 285
0.0058 † 0.0017 † 241
3.731 ** 2.683 ** 40
3.970 *
3.043 *
49
0.377 †† 0.358 †† 17
0.593 †† 0.553 †† 17
0.0017 †† 0.0017 †† 17
0.0012 †† 0.0011 ††90.262 †† 0.261 †† 11
0.412 †† 0.361 †† 11
0.0002 †† 0.0001 †† 11
0.0002 †† 0.0000 †† 112015 edition
Mean
Median0.0069 †† 0.0017 ††0.0053 †† 0.0013 ††3.470 ** 2.844 **3.828 *
3.121 *
0.375 †† 0.330 ††0.544 †† 0.519 ††0.0023 †† 0.0017 ††0.0010 †† 0.0008 ††0.251 †† 0.249 ††0.367 †† 0.319 ††0.0001 †† 0.0001 ††0.0002 †† 0.0000 ††Table 8 shows that the rates of outsourcing libraries that remain open on more than six
holidays, ‘Yes (>=7 days)’, was 94.6% for the 2012 edition and 94.4% for 2015 edition,
which were signiﬁcantly higher than those of direct management libraries (60.2% for 2012
edition and 64.7% for 2015 edition). The rates for ‘No’ and ‘Yes (=< 6 days)’ for direct
management libraries were signiﬁcantly higher than those for outsourcing libraries. 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 a lesser number of holidays.
The results of the time series analysis are presented in Tables 9 and 10. The IRsof opening days are presented in Table 9, while the rates of each pattern concerning
working on holidays are provided in Table 10. In Table 10, each character represents
the status concerning working on holidays (i.e. a library is not open on holidays and is
not planning to (‘N’), open on six holidays or less (‘6’), working on more than six
holidays (‘7’), or not working on holidays but is planning to (‘P’)) . The numbers inparentheses 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 in the two years before the introduction of the outsourcing system but wereopen on more than six holidays in 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 was no outsourcing library that corresponded to a pattern.
Table 9 shows that the means and medians of the IRs of opening days foroutsourcing libraries were 4.5% and 2.8%, respectively, whereas those for direct
management libraries were 1.5% and 0.4%, respectively. As mentioned before, 21.8%
of outsourcing libraries were not open on holidays in the two years before the introductionof the outsourcing system but were open on more than six holidays in the two years after
introduction, whereas only 2.5% of direct management libraries followed this pattern.
These results suggest that the number of open days tended to increase after the
introduction of outsourcing and more libraries began to open on holidays after the
introduction of the outsourcing system.
Next, we look at the results for each type. Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 show the results of
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

71

72

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

Table 7: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of open days

OL
DML

N
281
2,806

2012 edition
Mean
Median305.1 **
302.0 **
286.5
288.0

N
415
2,738

2015 edition
Mean
Median309.0 **
303.0 **
288.8
290.0

Table 8: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether libraries were open on holidaysN
2012 edition
2015 edition

OL
DML
OL
DML

299
2,919
431
2,818

Yes
Yes
Planning(=<6 days) (>=7 days)
3.3%
2.0%
94.6% **
0.0%
26.4% **
13.2% **
60.2%
0.2%
4.2%
1.4%
94.4% **
0.0%
22.6% **
12.4% **
64.7%
0.2%
No

Table 9: Results of the time series analysis of open days（IR(%)）

OL
DML

N
259
18,272

Mean
4.5
1.5

Median2.8
0.4

Table 10: Results of the time series analysis of whether libraries were open on holidays
OL
NNNN
NN66
NN7N
NN77
NNPP
N677
N777
NPNN
6NNN
6666
6667
6677
6777
7777
P777

3.6 %
0.3 %
0.3 %
21.8 %
0.3 %
0.3 %
1.1 %
0.3 %
0.3 %
1.7 %
0.6 %
5.6 %
0.6 %
63.1 %
0.3 %

(13)
(1)
(1)
(78)
(1)
(1)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(6)
(2)
(20)
(2)
(226)
(1)

DML
24.7 %(5,168)
1.7 %
(351)
0.0 %
(3)
2.5 %
(521)
0.1 %
(18)
0.3 %
(56)
1.4 %
(293)
0.0 %
(1)
0.4 %
(77)
9.6 %
(1,999)
0.9 %
(184)
2.5 %
(517)
1.6 %
(343)
47.1 %(9,839)0.3 %(69)

Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

the cross-sectional analysis of open days and whether libraries were open on holidays
for each type. In Tables 13 and 14, we omitted the columns for ‘open on six holidays or
less’ and ‘not open on holidays but is planning to’.
Table 11 and Table 12 show that there was no type for which the mean and median of
opening days were signiﬁcantly lower than those of direct management libraries. Table 13
and Table 14 show there was no type under which the rate of libraries that worked on morethan six holidays were signiﬁcantly lower than those of direct management libraries. Thesetables also show that there were some types of outsourcing libraries whose mean andmedian of opening days were signiﬁcantly higher than those of direct management
libraries and rate of libraries that worked on more than six holidays were signiﬁcantly
higher than those of direct management libraries.
On the other hand, in the time series analysis, the mean and median IRs for
opening days were over 0% among all types of outsourcing libraries. We can thus
conclude that all types of libraries tended to experience increases in the number of open
days after outsourcing. For working on holidays, the rates of ‘NN77’ were over 0%
among all types of outsourcing libraries, excluding the prefectural library andoutsourcing libraries managed by C Foundation. The ‘NN77’ rate of both prefecturaland outsourcing libraries managed by C Foundation were 0%. On the other hand, there
was no outsourcing library that corresponded to ‘77NN’.
Table 11: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of open days (each type)

Main libraries
Annexes
Prefectural library
Ordinance-designated cities
Tokyo special wards
Other cities
Towns and villages

5.3

OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML

N
111
1,159
170
1,647
2
57
27
240
76
144
141
1,853
35
512

2012 edition
2015 edition
Mean
MedianN
MeanMedian304.3** 299.0**
296.2** 295.0** 145
287.0
288.0
1,161
290.4
289.0
311.0** 315.5** 270
311.5** 309.5**
286.3
289.0
1,577
287.7
291.0
325.0
325.0
4
316.3
321.5
287.2
289.0
56
294.3
293.0
292.5
289.0
54
300.8
300.0
295.7
296.5
226
299.8
302.0
325.3** 330.0**99331.7** 332.0**
303.3
300.0
123
303.7
295.0
299.4** 298.0** 205
302.7** 301.0**
285.0
287.0
1,816
287.5
289.0
293.1*
293.0*
53
298.9** 294.0**
283.0
287.5
517
284.5
288.0

Results of the cross-sectional analysis concerning Directors

The results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether the directors held librarian certiﬁcations are presented in Table 15. The results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether the
directors were working full-time are presented in Table 16. Signiﬁcant differences wereobserved between outsourcing and direct management libraries in terms of the extent oflibrary certiﬁcation as well as full-time versus part-time employment. Table 15 shows that therate of outsourcing libraries where the director held a librarian certiﬁcation was signiﬁcantly higher than that of direct management libraries (42.6% and 21.5%, respectively), based
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

73

74

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

Table 12: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of open days (each outsourcing type)

Private enterpriseNPO
Public corporation
Other organisation
A Company
B Company
C Foundation

N
193
34
46
8
94
9
11

2012 edition
Mean
Median311.2 **
316.0 **
298.0 *
296.0 **
289.7
290.0 *
277.8
292.5
309.5 **
306.5 **
323.2 **
323.0 **
294.6
290.0

2015 edition
Mean
Median312.6 **
312.0 **
300.0 **
296.5 *
295.8 **
291.0
301.9 *
294.0 *
312.0 **
303.0 **
307.1 *
315.0 **
290.4 *
290.0

N
311
38
51
15
100
17
11

Table 13: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether libraries were open on holidays(each type)N
Main libraries
Annexes
Prefectural library
Ordinance-designatedcitiesTokyo special wards
Other cities
Towns and villages

OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML

116
1,235
183
1,684
2
59
36
243
76
149
146
1,911
39
557

2012 edition

2015 edition

Yes
No
N
(>=7 days)
6.9%
88.8%** 154
24.2%**
59.4% 1,211
1.1%
98.4%** 277
28.0%**
60.8% 1,607
0.0%
100.0%
4
5.1%
86.4%
56
0.0%
100.0%** 55
11.5%
79.4%
226
0.0%
100.0%** 99
7.4%*
85.9%
124
2.7%
96.6%** 216
26.8%**
59.3% 1,861
15.4%
71.8%** 57
39.0%**
45.2%
551

Yes
(>=7 days)
5.8%
90.9%**
20.6%**
64.4%
3.2%
96.4%**
24.1%**
64.9%
0.0%
100.0%
3.6%
87.5%
0.0%
100.0%**
8.8%*
84.5%
0.0%
100.0%**
7.3%*
84.7%
4.6%
95.4%**
22.1%**
64.9%
14.0%
75.4%**
35.6%**
49.2%
No

Table 14: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether libraries were open on holidays(each outsourcing type)2012 edition
N
Private enterpriseNPO
Public corporation
Other organisation
A Company
B Company
C Foundation

207
36
47
9
98
9
11

Yes
No
(>=7 days)
0.0%††
100.0%**
13.9%
80.6%*
6.4%††
85.1%**
22.2%
77.8%
0.0%††
100.0%**
0.0%
100.0%*
0.0%
100.0%*

2015 edition
N
323
40
52
16
104
17
11

Yes
(>=7 days)
0.3%††
99.7%**
17.5%
77.5%
11.5%
80.8%*
25.0%
75.0%
0.0%††
100.0%**
0.0%
100.0%**
0.0%
100.0%*
No

Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Dayson the 2012 edition. The rate of outsourcing libraries where the director held a librariancertiﬁcation was signiﬁcantly higher than that of direct management libraries (58.7% and25.1%, respectively), based on the 2015 edition. Table 16 shows that the rate ofoutsourcing libraries where the director worked full-time was 90.2% whereas that of thedirect management libraries was 84.5% based on the 2012 edition. The rate of outsourcing
libraries where the director worked full-time was 91.9%, whereas that of the direct
management libraries was 84.9% based on the 2015 edition. These results suggest that
outsourcing libraries tend to have directors who hold librarian certiﬁcations and work fulltime when compared to direct management libraries.
The results of the time series analysis are provided in Tables 17 and 18, wherein ‘N’and ‘Y’ represent ‘No’ and ‘Yes’, respectively. The line of ‘NNYY’ in Table 17 shows that
31.5% of the directors of outsourcing libraries did not hold librarian certiﬁcations for two
years before the introduction of the outsourcing system but did hold librarian certiﬁcationsin 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 17 shows that only
4.2% of the directors of outsourcing libraries held librarian certiﬁcations in the two years
before the introduction of the outsourcing system but did not hold librarian certiﬁcations in
the two years after its introduction. These results suggest that outsourcing libraries tended
to employ certiﬁed directors after the outsourcing system was introduced.
Further, the line of ‘NNYY’ in Table 18 shows that 6.3% of the directors ofoutsourcing libraries were not working full-time in the two years before the introduction of
the outsourcing system but were working full-time in the two years after its introduction,
whereas only 2.0% of the directors of direct management libraries made the transition to
full-time work in the same period. The line of ‘YYNN’ in Table 18 shows that 4.3% of
the directors of outsourcing libraries were working full-time in the two years before theintroduction of the outsourcing system but were not working full-time in the two years
after its introduction, whereas 1.9% of the directors of direct management libraries madethe same shift.
Table 15: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors held librarian certiﬁcations

OL
DML

N
298
2,893

2012 edition
No
Yes
57.4%
42.6% **
78.5% **
21.5%

N
431
2,792

2015 edition
No
Yes
41.3%
58.7% **
74.9% **
25.1%

Table 16: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors worked full-time
2012 edition
2015 edition
Yes
N
No
Yes
N
No
OL
286
9.8%
90.2% *
419
8.1%
91.9% **
DML
2,890
15.5% *
84.5%
2,787
15.1% **
84.9%
Finally, let us look at the results for each type. Tables 19, 20, 21 and 22 show the resultsof the investigation of whether directors held librarian certiﬁcations and worked full-time.
Due to space constraints, we omitted the line if no signiﬁcant difference was observed for
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

75

76

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

Table 17: Results of the time series analysis of whether directors held librarian certiﬁcationsOL
DML
NNNN 39.3 %(140)
66.5 %(13,857)
NNNY
4.5 %
(16)
3.1 %
(647)
NNYN
2.5 %
(9)
1.0 %
(217)
NNYY 31.5 %
(112)
5.0 %
(1,051)
NYNN
0.3 %
(1)
0.9 %
(191)
NYNY
0.0 %
(0)
0.1 %
(22)
NYYN
0.0 %
(0)
0.6 %
(125)
NYYY
1.4 %
(5)
1.9 %
(395)
YNNN
0.6 %
(2)
2.6 %
(550)
YNNY
0.0 %
(0)
0.3 %
(57)
YNYN
0.0 %
(0)
0.1 %
(12)
YNYY
1.4 %
(5)
0.4 %
(88)
YYNN
4.2 %
(15)
4.4 %
(908)
YYNY
0.3 %
(1)
0.4 %
(88)
YYYN
1.4 %
(5)
1.6 %
(341)
YYYY 12.6 %(45)
11.0 %(2,304)

Table 18: Results of the time series analysis of whether directors worked full-time
OL
DML
NNNN
3.2 %
(11)
10.0 %(2,080)
NNNY
0.6 %
(2)
0.7 %
(152)
NNYN
0.0 %
(0)
0.2 %
(37)
NNYY
6.3 %
(22)
2.0 %
(410)
NYNN
0.3 %
(1)
0.2 %
(34)
NYNY
0.3 %
(1)
0.0 %
(7)
NYYN
0.0 %
(0)
0.1 %
(14)
NYYY
0.9 %
(3)
1.2 %
(253)
YNNN
0.0 %
(0)
1.0 %
(204)
YNNY
0.0 %
(0)
0.2 %
(34)
YNYN
0.0 %
(0)
0.0 %
(0)
YNYY
0.9 %
(3)
0.3 %
(62)
YYNN
4.3 %
(15)
1.9 %
(395)
YYNY
0.0 %
(0)
0.3 %
(64)
YYYN
0.3 %
(1)
1.1 %
(225)
YYYY
83.1 %(290)
80.9 %(16,825)

Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

either the 2012 or 2015 edition in 21 and 22. There was no type under which the number of
directors who both held librarian certiﬁcations and worked full-time, were higher thanthose of direct management libraries.
Table 19: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors held librarian certiﬁcations (each type)

Main libraries
Annexes
Prefectural library
Ordinance-designatedcitiesTokyo special wards
Other cities
Towns and villages

OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML
OL
DML

N
115
1,234
183
1,659
2
59
36
243
76
149
145
1,889
39
553

2012 edition
No
65.2%
83.8%**
52.5%
74.5%**
100.0%
91.5%
38.9%
61.7%*
42.1%
79.2%**
63.4%
77.3%**
79.5%
88.1%

Yes
34.8%**
16.2%
47.5%**
25.5%
0.0%
8.5%
61.1%*
38.3%
57.9%**
20.8%
36.6%**
22.7%
20.5%
11.9%

N
154
1,208
277
1,584
4
55
55
226
99
124
216
1,839
57
548

2015 edition
No
Yes
55.2%
44.8%**
80.2%** 19.8%
33.6%
66.4%**
70.9%** 29.1%
75.0%
25.0%
92.7%
7.3%
32.7%
67.3%**
57.1%** 42.9%
20.2%
79.8%**
69.4%** 30.6%
43.5%
56.5%**
73.6%** 26.4%
75.4%
24.6%*
86.1%*
13.9%

Table 20: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors held librarian certiﬁcations (each outsourcing type)2012 edition
2015 edition
N
No
Yes
N
No
Yes
207
51.7%†† 48.3%** 323
34.1%†† 65.9%**
Private enterprise
NPO
36
69.4%
30.6%
40
62.5%
37.5%
Public corporation
46
73.9%
26.1%
52
71.2%
28.8%
Other organizaton
9
55.6%
44.4%
16
37.5%†† 62.5%**
A Company
98
57.1%†† 42.9%** 104
38.5%†† 61.5%**
B Company
90.0%†† 100.0%** 1711.8%†† 88.2%**
C Foundation
11
45.5%†
54.5%*
11
54.5%
45.5%

6

Discussions

As we mentioned in section 2, many people in Japan including librarians, scholars
and politicians have argued that introducing the outsourcing system to public libraries
was inappropriate because it had the potential to degrade the quality of library services,
decrease the expertise of librarians, and reduce cooperation among libraries. In this section,
we focus on these arguments.
The ﬁrst issue concerns the degradation of the quality of library services. The results of
our analysis based on data from Statistics on Libraries in Japan indicated that the introduction
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

77

78

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji

Table 21: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors worked full-time (eachtype)

AnnexesOL
DML2012 edition
2015 edition
N
No
Yes
N
No
Yes
171
5.3%
94.7% ** 265
3.8%
96.2% **
1,657
14.7% ** 85.3%
1,580
14.6% ** 85.4%

Table 22: Results of the cross-sectional analysis of whether directors worked full-time (eachoutsourcing type)

Private enterprise
A Company

N
195
98

2012 edition
No
Yes
N
2.6% †† 97.4% ** 311
4.1% †† 95.9% ** 1042015 editionNo
Yes
2.9% †† 97.1% **3.8% †† 96.2% **of the outsourcing system to libraries did not degrade the quality of the services
provided. The results of our cross-sectional analysis indicate that outsourcing libraries
are open on more number of days than are the direct management libraries, including
holidays. The results of the time series analysis also suggest that the number of open
days tended to increase after the introduction of outsourcing. On the other hand,the cross-sectional analysis indicated that some forms of usage, such as ILL borrowing,
were higher in direct management libraries, and the time series analysis showed thatlibrary usage did increase after outsourcing.
Some literature on outsourcing libraries[5][6][7][9] showed that opening hours had expanded and library usage had increased with the introduction of the outsourcing system insome libraries. In this study, the same tendencies were observed, and we can safely say thatthe tendencies were generally prevalent in outsourcing libraries in Japan.
The second issue is that outsourcing library management decreases the expertise of librarians. However, we found that the designated administrator system did not lead to adecrease in expertise at the least among the directors. The results of our cross-sectional
analysis on the directors suggested that a higher number of directors of outsourcing libraries held librarian certiﬁcations and worked full-time when compared to the directors of
direct management libraries. The results of the time series analysis indicate that outsourcing libraries tended to employ certiﬁed directors after the introduction of the outsourcing
system.
Nobuta[14][15] clariﬁed that libraries whose directors held librarian certiﬁcations
tended to perform better, which manifested in many areas such as increased library usage
and longer opening hours. From his results, it is possible to infer that the higher usage ofand longer opening days at outsourcing libraries may have some relationship with a higher
rate of certiﬁed directors being employed.
The last issue is that outsourcing libraries will cooperate less with other libraries. Our
results indicate that ILL lending and borrowing actually increased after the introduction ofoutsourcing although the degree of activity may still be under the national average.
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

As mentioned earlier, the results of the cross-sectional analysis of library usage
suggest that ILL borrowing and lending in direct management libraries were higher thanthose in outsourcing libraries. However, the results of the time series analysis
suggest that library usage, including ILL borrowing and lending, increased after the
introduction of outsourcing. ILL services in outsourcing libraries were inactive before
the introduction of the outsourcing system. If we assume the rates of ILL borrowing andlending as indexes of cooperation, it can be concluded that cooperation with other libraries
was inactive before the introduction of outsourcing and became active afterwards.
We also conducted the same analysis on each library type. However, the tendencies for
all libraries mentioned previously hold for most types of libraries (i.e. without
depending on library type).

7

Conclusions

In this study, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis and a time series analysis with afocus on library usage, open days, and director qualiﬁcations and workloads. This study
clariﬁed several differences between outsourcing and direct management libraries. The
results in this study can be used as basic data for local governments that are considering
the introduction of the designated administrator system. This study also found that somearguments opposing the outsourcing system were incorrect. We expect that discussions on
outsourcing libraries will become more constructive based on our results.
This study has ﬁve limitations: (1) only quantitative analyses were conducted, (2) the
cause-effect relationship was not proven, (3) many other library services were left unexamined, (4) library budgets were not investigated, and (5) only the current situation wasclariﬁed (tendencies may change). In addition, it would be beneﬁcial for future studies to
examine other library services such as those provided to minorities, library budgets, andfeelings of satisfaction among users as well as librarians. Through these studies, the appropriateness of switching from direct management to outsourcing libraries can be
determined. In addition, Niioka[26] argued about a social ‘mission’ of public libraries witha focus on outsourcing libraries. Our results clariﬁed some tendency of outsourcing
libraries but the service may be cut if the service were judged as inefﬁcient. When we
introduce the outsourcing libraries, we should concern about such social mission of public
libraries.

References[1] Japan Library Association, Statistics on Libraries in Japan 2005-2015 edition, 20062016. (text in Japanese).
[2] Japan Library Association, “About designated administrator system for public libraries,” http://www.jla.or.jp/library/tabid/311/Default.aspx. (text in Japanese).
[3] Japan Association for Promotion of Social Education, “Japan association for promotion of social education’s View for ofﬁcial documents on designated administrator system on January 25th, 2005 by ministry of education, culture, sports, science and technology,” 2005; http://japse.main.jp/wp-content/uploads/kenkai20050528.pdf. (text inJapanese).
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

79

80

Y. Mizunuma, K. Tsuji[4] The Society of study on library problems, “Appeals against adoption of designated administrator system in Public Libraries,” July 2006;
http://www.jca.apc.org/tomonken/apeal20060711-1.html. (text in Japanese).
[5] T. Maruyama, “Further seriousness of seven-year-old designated administrator: The
Yamanakako public library for the people’s creativity and the society for digitizationof local materials (NPO) and the future of library,” Social Education, vol. 65, no. 10,
2010, pp.66-69. (text in Japanese).
[6] H. Yorozuya, “How is regular staffs in the regularization: with the designated administrator,” Everyone’s library, no. 441, 2014, pp.45-49. (text in Japanese).
[7] H. Maeda, “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, 2007, pp.109-110.
(text in Japanese).
[8] Committee on library policies of Japan Library Association, “Results of the questionnaire on introduction of designated management system in libraries,” Libraries Today,
vol. 45, no. 1, 2007, pp. 41-51. (text in Japanese).
[9] N. Koyama and H. Nagata, “Report on Public Library Management,” 2008;
http://www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/grad/assets/ﬁles/project/h19/report.pdf.
(textinJapanese).
[10] G. Yamaguchi, “In order to accomplish the purpose of establish, effectively; Public library can develop when local governments have responsibility,” Japanese Publications
News and Reviews, no. 2461, 2017, pp.4-9.(text in Japanese).
[11] Y. Kambayashi, “Non-regular workers and outsourcing method in public library management,” Libraries Today, vol. 47, no. 3, 2009, pp. 145-157. (text in Japanese).
[12] N. Shiomi, “Some thoughts on the present situation of the designated management
system,” Library Journal, vol. 105, no. 7, 2011, pp.428-431. (text in Japanese).
[13] R. Mouri and I. Ohba, “Desirable capabilities for public library directors in Japan,”Library World, vol. 66, no. 5, 2015, pp.326-342. (text in Japanese).
[14] S. Nobuta, “A comparative study of public libraries’ management,” The Journal of
Otemae Women’s University, vol. 22, 1988, pp.210-236. (text in Japanese).
[15] S. Nobuta, “Comparative study on public library’s activities with the director’s librarianship,” The Journal of Otemae Women’s University, vol. 29, 1995, pp.127-143. (textin Japanese).
[16] T. Watanabe, “Reconsidering the value of reference service in public libraries inJapan,” Library and Information Science, no. 66, 2011, pp.153-165. (text in Japanese).
[17] S. Yasuda, “The tracks of reference service for 12 years: from the experience in Toyota
city library,” Library World, vol. 59, no. 3, 2007, pp.202-209. (text in Japanese).
Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Investigation of Public Libraries Managed by Outsourcing: A Study Focusing on Library Usage, Opening Days

[18] Y. Miyakawa，M. Honma, and N. Kanou, “An increase in the total opening hours ofuniversity libraries as a consequence of societal needs: relationship with setting up
of evening classes,” The journal of Information Science and Technology Association,
vol. 65, no. 2, 2015, pp.79-82. (text in Japanese).
[19] K. Tsuji, “Investigation on the Elements of Learning Commons that Increase Library
Use,” Proceedings of the Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Library & Information Education& Practice 2015 (A-LIEP 2015), pp.38-51.
[20] Japan Library Association, “Report about Public Libraries Managed by DesignatedAdministrator System,” http://www.jla.or.jp/library/tabid/311/Default.aspx. (text inJapanese).
[21] ILL the acronym of Interlibrary loan and a service whereby a patron of one library canborrow materials that are owned by another library.
[22] Reference Transactions are information consultations in which library staff recommend, interpret, evaluate, and/or use information resources to help others to meetparticular information needs (deﬁned by RUSA: A division of the American libraryassociation, http://www.ala.org/rusa/guidelines/deﬁnitionsreference).
[23] In Japan, city is deﬁned as a municipality that has a population over 50,000 and especially ‘ordinance-designated city’ is deﬁned as a city that has a population greaterthan 500,000. ‘Tokyo special wards’ are 23 municipalities that have highest population
density in Japan. Towns and villages are the other municipalities, which are smaller
than the others: cities and Tokyo special wards.
[24] MinistryofInternal
AffairsandCommunications,“Surveyonthe Introduction of the Designated Administrator System,” 2012;
http://www.soumu.go.jp/iken/siteikanrisya dounyujyoukyou kohyou h240401.html.
(text in Japanese).
[25] H. Minai, “How reference service of libraries should be,” The journal of Okinawa
library association, no. 9, p.82-103, 2005. (text in Japanese).
[26] S. Niioka, “A Study on the Legal Limitations of Introduction of Designated Administrator System to Public Libraries,” Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly andAcademic Papers, Graduate School of Education, vol. 130, p. 133-149, 2018. (text inJapanese).

Copyright © by IIAI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

81