Benchmarking with purpose

Benchmarking is a familiar practice in academic libraries. By comparing collections, services and investment patterns with peer institutions, libraries can identify gaps, understand strengths and make decisions that are both strategic and defensible. Institutions take a variety of benchmarking approaches that step beyond simple comparison, interpreting peer data to inform decision making, and support advocacy, planning and alignment with local priorities.

Inspired by a ProQuest benchmarking report that examined database holdings across 171 U.S. academic libraries, Clarivate teamed with Library Journal to present a webinar that explored how librarians use academic collection data for decision making. The result was a lively discussion among a group of academic librarians about the opportunities, risks and practical uses of benchmarking data. Panelists included:

• • Edward Lener, Director of Collections at Virginia Tech
  • James Rhoades, Associate Director of Resource Acquisition and Description at the University of Virginia Library
  • Rob Tench, Head of Resource Fulfillment at Old Dominion University

Accurate Interpretation Relies On Local Context

One of the clearest messages from the panel was that benchmarking is most useful when it starts with the right questions. Metrics can surface patterns, but they do not explain why those patterns exist or how they should shape local choices.

Lener cautioned against overreliance on any single data point. “Too much dependence on any single point can potentially lead you down the wrong path,” he said, noting that unexpected spikes or dips in usage often require deeper investigation rather than quick conclusions.

Across institutions, panelists emphasized that benchmarking only becomes meaningful when it is interpreted through local context. Institutional mission, research priorities and user behavior all shape how comparative data should be read. Without that grounding, benchmarking risks flattening important differences.

Peer Groups Are Hard To Define

Peer selection emerged as another recurring theme. Libraries often compare themselves to institutions that appear similar on paper, but panelists stressed that similarity can be deceptive.

Rhoades described how institutions with comparable budgets can look very different once spending priorities are considered. “Our annual budgets are very similar, but it’s all dependent on how the organization divides up those collection or material funds,” he said. At University of Virginia, a significant portion of the collections budget supports special collections, which are not reflected in digital benchmarking data.

Rather than seeking perfect matches, panelists described peer groups as tools for reflection, not scorekeeping.

Using Benchmarking For Budget Decisions

In practice, benchmarking often functions as a starting point for conversation. Panelists described using comparative data to frame discussions about priorities, sustainability and tradeoffs.

At institutions facing sustained budget pressure, benchmarking helps validate difficult decisions. Tench described how flat funding and inflation have required ongoing cancellations and restructuring at Old Dominion University. “When you’re smaller, you have to be creative,” he said, pointing to consortial tools, trials and faculty input as ways to supplement formal analysis.

For larger institutions, benchmarking supports efficiency rather than abundance. Lener noted that even well-resourced libraries face constraints. “We really don’t have as much time or staff resources as someone outside might think,” he said, underscoring the need to use data selectively and strategically.

Several panelists highlighted the role of benchmarking in communication beyond the library. Comparative data can help librarians explain decisions to campus leadership by situating local choices within broader patterns.

Used this way, benchmarking becomes shared understanding rather than a performance metric. It helps libraries articulate why certain investments matter, where constraints exist and how collections align with research and teaching priorities.

Equity, Sustainability and Looking Ahead

As the discussion turned toward the future, panelists emphasized that benchmarking will remain important as collections respond to evolving research practices and interdisciplinary teaching. For example, news and newspaper content are excellent teaching and research resources, yet access varies widely across institutions. Comparative data can help libraries identify gaps and opportunities to improve coverage.

Panelists also discussed how the cost of emerging technologies, including AI-enabled tools, could force difficult tradeoffs between content and infrastructure. At the same time, others noted that AI may change how usage and value are measured, requiring libraries to rethink how they interpret data altogether.

Continue The Conversation

The panelists reframed benchmarking as a strategic practice rather than a technical exercise. Data matters, but only when it is interpreted with care, grounded in institutional context and paired with professional expertise.

For librarians interested in exploring these ideas further, the full webinar offers additional perspective from the panelists. The accompanying whitepaper provides deeper analysis of the ProQuest benchmarking data itself.

Listen to the webinar to hear directly from the panelists and download the whitepaper to explore how benchmarking can support more intentional, equitable and sustainable collection decisions.