Volume 28, Issue 3 (12-2025)
jha 2025, 28(3): 109-124 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Panahi S, Ansari N, Hosseini Ghahjavarestani A, Ansari M. Performance evaluation of the central libraries and information centers at the Iranian universities of medical sciences using the balanced scorecard model. jha 2025; 28 (3) :109-124
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4691-en.html
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4691-en.html
1- Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Student Research Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran & Scientometrics Center, Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran. ,masomehansari@gmail.com
2- Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Student Research Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran & Scientometrics Center, Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran. ,
Keywords: performance assessment, library, balanced scorecard model, University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Full-Text [PDF 1152 kb]
(189 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (396 Views)
Table 1. Distribution of employees’ demographics
Table 3. The one-sample t-test of the performance of libraries and central information centers by librarian’s perspectives
Table 4. Performance score of libraries and central information centers by the perspectives of managers
Full-Text: (104 Views)
Introduction
The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a widely recognized framework for evaluating organizational performance and aligning services with strategic goals. By integrating financial and non-financial metrics in a balanced approach [1], it enables more comprehensive assessments. In library contexts, this model helps identify strategic priorities, align activities with strategic plans, and enhance communication about organizational objectives [2–4]. As a reporting tool, BSC also promotes transparency across all levels of library operations [5].
In recent years, assessing organizational performance has gained prominence in professional and academic discours, as it supports mission fulfillment and strategic objectives [6]. Organizations face both risks and opportunities due to the dynamic interplay of internal factors and ongoing shifts in the external environment [6, 7]. Performance assessment offers critical insights into an organization’s current status and strategic trajectory [8–10]. Managers in both public and private sectors recognize that such systems influence employee behavior and the effectiveness of strategies. This is particularly relevant for university libraries, which play a pivotal role in education and research [11,12].
Kaplan [1,12] emphasizes that quantifying and measuring library strategies help clarify goals and management practices. Traditional evaluation methods often overlook the link between operational performance and strategic objectives, as well as the dissemination of these goals throughout the organization, mainly due to their focus on financial oversight and control [13]. Consequently, many organizations, including libraries, have adopted modern approaches such as the balanced scorecard to evaluate their performance [7,8,10,11,14-16].
Originally developed in 1990 by Kaplan and David Norton for industrial strategic planning and performance evaluation [17], BSC is now a versatile tool across diverse organizational contexts. It consists of four key dimentions: financial health (the natural tendency to profit), staff learning and growth, customer satisfaction, and internal processes. These dimentions encourage organizations to strengthen strategic thinking [2]. This model aims to align work activities with organizational strategies, improve communication, and evaluate performance based on defined strategic goals [2–4]. In some cases, it can support strategy development [4].
In recent years, BSC has been applied to evaluate library performance in several countries, such as Australia, Finland, Germany, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States [18]. It has also been used to assess management systems in higher education libraries in Portugal [19], the Royal Library of Denmark [20], and the National Library of Scotland [21]. Key benefits of implementing this model in libraries and information centers include enhanced transparency, responsiveness to user needs, focus on critical issues, and cost reduction [22–24]. Numerous studies have examined performance evaluation in different types of university libraries using BSC [4,5,15,18,21,22]. The literature indicates that this model is effective in assessing overall organizational performance, improving management effectiveness, optimizing processes, and providing a coherent overview for achieving organizational goals.
In Iran, few studies on libraries and information centers have applied BSC [23–26], and some have only suggested performance evaluation indicators based on its perspectives [25]. Therefore, this research aimed to evaluate the performance of libraries and central information centers at Iranian universities of medical sciences, employing the balanced scorecard model.
Methods
This applied quantitative study, conducted in 2024, employed a descriptive survey targeting managers and librarians at Iranian universities of medical sciences. Data were collected using two self-administered questionnaires, tailored separately for employees and managers, developed based on Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard framework. The instruments included demographic items and evaluated four key performance dimensions: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth, rated using a Likert scale.
The validity of the questionnaires was assessed through feedback from 10 experts (managers with expertise in librarianship and medical information, information science, and epistemology), and their reliability was confirmed with Cronbach's alpha of 0.863 for managers’ questionnaire and 0.946 for librarians’ questionnaire.
No sampling was conducted to select managers; instead, those who expressed interest in participating were included through a census approach. In contrast, librarians were sampled using a random sampling method based on Cochran's formula using these parameters: Z=1.96, p=q=0.5 and d=0.05. The estimated sample size was 136, based on a 90% confidence interval and a 10% dropout rate.
.PNG)
Inclusion criteria encompassed librarians employed in central libraries or information centers affiliated with Iranian universities of medical sciences during 2024, regardless of educational background or employment type; those working in hospital or college libraries were excluded. The questionnaires were distributed to managers of central libraries through organizational email or social networks (WhatsApp or Telegram), followed by telephone contact and reminder emails when necessary. Responses were tracked through an online repository to monitor participation across groups. Overall, 94 individuals completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 69.12%. Following data collection, responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard deviation) and inferential tests (one-sample and independent t-tests).
The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a widely recognized framework for evaluating organizational performance and aligning services with strategic goals. By integrating financial and non-financial metrics in a balanced approach [1], it enables more comprehensive assessments. In library contexts, this model helps identify strategic priorities, align activities with strategic plans, and enhance communication about organizational objectives [2–4]. As a reporting tool, BSC also promotes transparency across all levels of library operations [5].
In recent years, assessing organizational performance has gained prominence in professional and academic discours, as it supports mission fulfillment and strategic objectives [6]. Organizations face both risks and opportunities due to the dynamic interplay of internal factors and ongoing shifts in the external environment [6, 7]. Performance assessment offers critical insights into an organization’s current status and strategic trajectory [8–10]. Managers in both public and private sectors recognize that such systems influence employee behavior and the effectiveness of strategies. This is particularly relevant for university libraries, which play a pivotal role in education and research [11,12].
Kaplan [1,12] emphasizes that quantifying and measuring library strategies help clarify goals and management practices. Traditional evaluation methods often overlook the link between operational performance and strategic objectives, as well as the dissemination of these goals throughout the organization, mainly due to their focus on financial oversight and control [13]. Consequently, many organizations, including libraries, have adopted modern approaches such as the balanced scorecard to evaluate their performance [7,8,10,11,14-16].
Originally developed in 1990 by Kaplan and David Norton for industrial strategic planning and performance evaluation [17], BSC is now a versatile tool across diverse organizational contexts. It consists of four key dimentions: financial health (the natural tendency to profit), staff learning and growth, customer satisfaction, and internal processes. These dimentions encourage organizations to strengthen strategic thinking [2]. This model aims to align work activities with organizational strategies, improve communication, and evaluate performance based on defined strategic goals [2–4]. In some cases, it can support strategy development [4].
In recent years, BSC has been applied to evaluate library performance in several countries, such as Australia, Finland, Germany, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States [18]. It has also been used to assess management systems in higher education libraries in Portugal [19], the Royal Library of Denmark [20], and the National Library of Scotland [21]. Key benefits of implementing this model in libraries and information centers include enhanced transparency, responsiveness to user needs, focus on critical issues, and cost reduction [22–24]. Numerous studies have examined performance evaluation in different types of university libraries using BSC [4,5,15,18,21,22]. The literature indicates that this model is effective in assessing overall organizational performance, improving management effectiveness, optimizing processes, and providing a coherent overview for achieving organizational goals.
In Iran, few studies on libraries and information centers have applied BSC [23–26], and some have only suggested performance evaluation indicators based on its perspectives [25]. Therefore, this research aimed to evaluate the performance of libraries and central information centers at Iranian universities of medical sciences, employing the balanced scorecard model.
Methods
This applied quantitative study, conducted in 2024, employed a descriptive survey targeting managers and librarians at Iranian universities of medical sciences. Data were collected using two self-administered questionnaires, tailored separately for employees and managers, developed based on Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard framework. The instruments included demographic items and evaluated four key performance dimensions: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth, rated using a Likert scale.
The validity of the questionnaires was assessed through feedback from 10 experts (managers with expertise in librarianship and medical information, information science, and epistemology), and their reliability was confirmed with Cronbach's alpha of 0.863 for managers’ questionnaire and 0.946 for librarians’ questionnaire.
No sampling was conducted to select managers; instead, those who expressed interest in participating were included through a census approach. In contrast, librarians were sampled using a random sampling method based on Cochran's formula using these parameters: Z=1.96, p=q=0.5 and d=0.05. The estimated sample size was 136, based on a 90% confidence interval and a 10% dropout rate.
Inclusion criteria encompassed librarians employed in central libraries or information centers affiliated with Iranian universities of medical sciences during 2024, regardless of educational background or employment type; those working in hospital or college libraries were excluded. The questionnaires were distributed to managers of central libraries through organizational email or social networks (WhatsApp or Telegram), followed by telephone contact and reminder emails when necessary. Responses were tracked through an online repository to monitor participation across groups. Overall, 94 individuals completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 69.12%. Following data collection, responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard deviation) and inferential tests (one-sample and independent t-tests).
Results
The performance of libraries and central information from librarians' point of view
A total of 94 librarians participated in the study. The majority were female (83%), and the most represented age group was over 35 years (51.1%). Regarding education, most participants held a master’s degree (52.1%). Work experience ranged from 6–10 years (17%) to over than 15 years (38.3). Most respondents were affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences, followed by Yazd University of Medical Sciences (Table 1).
The performance of libraries and central information from librarians' point of view
A total of 94 librarians participated in the study. The majority were female (83%), and the most represented age group was over 35 years (51.1%). Regarding education, most participants held a master’s degree (52.1%). Work experience ranged from 6–10 years (17%) to over than 15 years (38.3). Most respondents were affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences, followed by Yazd University of Medical Sciences (Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of employees’ demographics
| Variable | Subgroup | Frequency | Percentage |
| Gender | Female | 78 | 83 |
| Male | 16 | 17 | |
| Age group | 20-25 | 4 | 4.3 |
| 26-30 | 13 | 13.8 | |
| 31-35 | 29 | 30.9 | |
| >35 | 48 | 51.1 | |
| Educational level | AD | 8 | 8.5 |
| BD | 31 | 33 | |
| MD | 49 | 52.1 | |
| PhD | 6 | 6.4 | |
| Working length (year) |
<5 | 22 | 23.4 |
| 6-10 | 16 | 17 | |
| 11-15 | 20 | 21.3 | |
| >15 | 36 | 38.3 |
Performance of libraries and information centers was assessed across four balanced scorecard perspectives. Average scores (± SD) were as follows: financial (11±3.96; range: 4–20), customer (10.56±3.58, range: 5–20), internal processes (22.13±7.28, range: 10–48), and learning and growth (13.93±4.82, range: 6–30). For "financial performance", Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences ranked first with an average score of 17. Fars University of Medical Sciences ranked first for "customer service", "internal processes" and "learning and growth", with average scores of 17, 36 and 28, respectively. Khorasan University of Medical Sciences had the lowest score for "financial performance", "customer service" and "internal processes" was avargae scores of 5, 5 and 11, respectively. Hamadan University of Medical Sciences also had the lowest average score for "growth and learning performance" with an average score of 8.67 (Table 2).
The one-sample t-test revealed that employees rated the performance of libraries and information centers as poor across all four balanced scorecard dimensions (Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning and Growth). These scores significantly deviated from the established benchmarks, indicating overall dissatisfaction and highlighting performance deficiencies from the employees’ perspective (Table 3).
The one-sample t-test revealed that employees rated the performance of libraries and information centers as poor across all four balanced scorecard dimensions (Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning and Growth). These scores significantly deviated from the established benchmarks, indicating overall dissatisfaction and highlighting performance deficiencies from the employees’ perspective (Table 3).
The performance of libraries and central information centers from managers' point of view
A total of 25 managers participated in this study. Of these, 40% were female. In terms of educational background, 4% held a bachelor’s degree, 52% held a master’s degree, and 42% possessed a PhD. The average managerial work experience was 15.12 years (SD=7.96), with a range from 1 to 27 years.
From the managers' perspective, the average scores were as follows: financial (26.72±7.36; range 13–44), customer (17.36±3.6; range 8–23), internal processes (12.76±2.65; range 7–18), and learning and growth (8.96±2.89; range 4–15). These figures illustrate varying perceptions of libraries’ performance, with financial aspects receiving the highest and growth and learning the lowest scores (Table 4). The one-sample t-test revealed that managers assessed the performance of libraries and central information centers as poor across all four dimensions. Statistically significant differences were found between the average ratings and benchmark scores in the customer, internal processes, and learning and growth dimensions, indicating clear underperformance in these areas. In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the financial dimension, suggesting that managers viewed financial performance more favorably. Additionally, managers rated the financial dimension as average, indicating a slight disparity between managerial and employee perspectives (Supplementary Table 1).
Comparing the opinions of managers and employees
An independent t-test revealed statistically significant differences between managers’ and employees’ evaluations of library and information center performance across all four dimensions. Managers assigned higher ratings in financial and customer domains, whereas employees provided higher scores in internal processes and learning and growth, underscoring contrasting perceptions based on organizational roles (Supplementary Table 2).
A total of 25 managers participated in this study. Of these, 40% were female. In terms of educational background, 4% held a bachelor’s degree, 52% held a master’s degree, and 42% possessed a PhD. The average managerial work experience was 15.12 years (SD=7.96), with a range from 1 to 27 years.
From the managers' perspective, the average scores were as follows: financial (26.72±7.36; range 13–44), customer (17.36±3.6; range 8–23), internal processes (12.76±2.65; range 7–18), and learning and growth (8.96±2.89; range 4–15). These figures illustrate varying perceptions of libraries’ performance, with financial aspects receiving the highest and growth and learning the lowest scores (Table 4). The one-sample t-test revealed that managers assessed the performance of libraries and central information centers as poor across all four dimensions. Statistically significant differences were found between the average ratings and benchmark scores in the customer, internal processes, and learning and growth dimensions, indicating clear underperformance in these areas. In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the financial dimension, suggesting that managers viewed financial performance more favorably. Additionally, managers rated the financial dimension as average, indicating a slight disparity between managerial and employee perspectives (Supplementary Table 1).
Comparing the opinions of managers and employees
An independent t-test revealed statistically significant differences between managers’ and employees’ evaluations of library and information center performance across all four dimensions. Managers assigned higher ratings in financial and customer domains, whereas employees provided higher scores in internal processes and learning and growth, underscoring contrasting perceptions based on organizational roles (Supplementary Table 2).
Table 2. Average Performance scores of libraries and central information centers at by the librarian’s perspectives
| Medical University | Financial | Customer | Internal processes | Staff learning and growth |
| Iran | 12.4 | 11.4 | 22.6 | 12 |
| Kurdistan | 10.83 | 11.5 | 20.5 | 13.5 |
| Mashhad | 15 | 12.33 | 26.33 | 15.67 |
| Tehran | 13.36 | 9.73 | 23.73 | 13.55 |
| Rafsanjan | 9.67 | 11.67 | 21 | 15.33 |
| Yazd | 11.44 | 11.33 | 28.11 | 17.33 |
| Tehran | 12 | 10 | 20 | 13 |
| Guilan | 11 | 10 | 19 | 14 |
| Arak | 12 | 10.6 | 20.8 | 15.2 |
| Fars | 15 | 17 | 36 | 28 |
| Kermanshah | 7 | 9.33 | 15.33 | 12.33 |
| Khorasan | 5 | 5 | 11 | 11 |
| Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences | 10 | 15 | 31 | 15 |
| Isfahan | 10 | 10 | 19.5 | 11.5 |
| Ahvaz | 13.5 | 14.5 | 26.5 | 16 |
| Birjand | 11 | 10 | 15 | 10 |
| Sarab | 10 | 10 | 21 | 13 |
| Tabriz | 14.67 | 16 | 31.6 | 20.67 |
| Kerman | 10 | 12.67 | 23 | 12 |
| Semnan | 8 | 13 | 17 | 15 |
| Hamadan | 6.33 | 8.33 | 20 | 8.67 |
| Lorestan | 10.5 | 5.5 | 23 | 10 |
| Golestan | 10 | 10 | 24 | 27 |
| Yasouj | 9 | 7 | 13 | 11 |
| Hormozgan | 17 | 10 | 24 | 19 |
| Larestan | 16 | 7 | 12 | 17 |
| Sabzevar | 9 | 12.5 | 18.5 | 14.5 |
| Jiroft | 14 | 6.5 | 20.5 | 16 |
| Zanjan | 9.5 | 10 | 19.5 | 10 |
| Shahid Beheshti | 6 | 8 | 20.5 | 11 |
| Sirjan | 8 | 7 | 15 | 13 |
| Zahedan | 6 | 7.5 | 15 | 9.5 |
| Jahrom | 6 | 7 | 14 | 10 |
| Dezful | 8.67 | 10.33 | 24 | 11.33 |
| Total mean | 11±3.96 | 10.56±3.58 | (22.13±7.28) | 13.93±4.82 |
Table 3. The one-sample t-test of the performance of libraries and central information centers by librarian’s perspectives
| Perspective | Mean | Benchmark score | Standard deviation | P-value | Mean difference | 95% confidence interval | |
| Lower bound | Lower bound | ||||||
| Financial | 11 | 30 | 3.96 | 0.016* | -19 | -19.81 | -18.19 |
| Customer | 10.56 | 39 | 3.58 | 0.001* | -28.436 | -29.17 | -27.70 |
| Internal processes | 22.13 | 27 | 7.28 | 0.001* | -4.872 | -6.36 | -3.38 |
| Growth and learning | 13.93 | 24 | 4.82 | 0.001* | -10.074 | -11.06 | -9.09 |
Table 4. Performance score of libraries and central information centers by the perspectives of managers
| Medical university | Financial | Customers | Internal processes |
Staff learning and growth |
| Ilam | 42 | 18 | 15 | 8 |
| Tehran | 27 | 13 | 9 | 8 |
| Yazd | 25 | 13 | 12 | 7 |
| Rafsanjan | 23 | 18 | 12 | 9 |
| Kerman | 32 | 19 | 18 | 12 |
| Yasouj | 29 | 17 | 13 | 6 |
| Arak | 30 | 22 | 15 | 12 |
Table 4. Continued
| Medical university | Financial | Customers | Internal processes |
Staff learning and growth |
| Larestan | 44 | 16 | 7 | 4 |
| Isfahan | 25 | 18 | 13 | 8 |
| Semnan | 25 | 19 | 14 | 8 |
| Iran | 26 | 16 | 12 | 8 |
| Abadan | 25 | 22 | 13 | 15 |
| Sirjan | 29 | 22 | 12 | 11 |
| Dezful | 25 | 18 | 11 | 8 |
| Shahid | 25 | 15 | 12 | 7 |
| Golestan | 34 | 15 | 14 | 12 |
| Qazvin | 28 | 22 | 15 | 9 |
| Hormozgan | 34 | 23 | 18 | 15 |
| Kurdistan | 26 | 22 | 17 | 11 |
| Khorramabad | 27 | 14 | 12 | 12 |
| Zanjan | 23 | 18 | 12 | 4 |
| Jahrom | 13 | 16 | 10 | 8 |
| Jiroft | 13 | 14 | 12 | 8 |
| Zahedan | 13 | 8 | 9 | 6 |
| Hamadan | 25 | 16 | 12 | 8 |
| Total mean | 26.72±7.36 | 17.36±3.6 | 12.76±2.65 | 8.96±2.89 |
Discussion
The balanced scorecard model provides a structured framework for evaluating library performance across four dimensions: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth. By highlighting strengths and weaknesses, it supports strategic planning and performance improvement. Previous studies have validated its effectiveness as a reliable method for assessing organizational performance, including libraries [14,18,23,27,28].
At Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences, managers and employees perceive library and information center performance as poor in customer satisfaction, internal processes, and learning and growth. A notable divergence appears in the financial dimension: managers rated performance as moderate, while employees considered it poor. This inconsistency indicates different perceptions on financial management in libraries. This unbalanced evaluation contrasts with prior findings. For example, Moradi et al. [29] reported acceptable and balanced customer-related performance at Razi University libraries, a result that is not aligned with the present study. Similarly, the library of Kerman University of Medical Sciences showed moderate effectiveness in financial aspects, although its performance varied across subdimensions, ranging from moderate to desirable [20].The study revealed that library services were perceived as unbalanced and insufficient in meeting users’ needs. This finding differs from previous research. Moradi et al. [29] reported balanced and acceptable service delivery in the customer dimension, while Zaboli et al. [24] found service levels to be average. Given the central role of users, ranging from students to faculty, in shaping service effectiveness, addressing their diverse needs is crucial for enhancing satisfaction, improving assessment practices, and advancing service quality.Weak performance was also identified in the internal processes of libraries and central information centers at Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences. This dimension, which includes staff interactions, task execution, and process efficiency, received unfavorable evaluations. These results contrast with those of Zaboli et al. [24], who reported more positive outcomes. Nonetheless, improvements in infrastructure, optimization of resource utilization, and resolution of operational issues provide avenues for enhancing internal effectiveness.Consistent with the present study, Moradi’s research also identified imbalances in library internal processes [29]. Addressing these inefficiencies through managerial support and infrastructure improvements could enhance operational workflows and service delivery. Such measures may further promote intellectual collaboration and stimulate innovations within libraries.
In the present study, the growth and learning dimension, covering employee training, technological adaptation, organizational culture, and recruitment, was rated “weak” by both managers and employees. This finding is consistent with the results of the study by Moradi et al. [29] However, it contradicts the findings of Zaboli et al.’s study [24], which reported average performance in staff development and electronic services at Kerman University. The findings of this study indicate limited investment in staff training and organizational culture development, including teamwork. Another study evaluated specialized libraries in Iran and reported strong performance in “internal processes”, “customer satisfaction” and “empowerment” which is in contradiction with our findings for the same components. However, this study, similar to our findings, reported weak performance for financial management [27].
Overall, the customer dimension emerges as the most critical element of the balanced scorecard model, as user satisfaction drives positive outcomes across other performance areas. Effective internal processes are closely linked to higher customer satisfaction, highlighting the need to enhance operational efficiency. Achieving meaningful growth and development in academic libraries requires strengthening staff information literacy through empowerment programs, expanding available resources and facilities, and recruiting and retaining qualified staff. Given the aging workforce (average age over 35 years) and extensive experience of library staff, prioritizing in-service training, especially in emerging technologies, would improve service delivery and promote organizational adaptability.
Limitations
This study utilized a questionnaire-based data collection method. However, some participants, particularly managers, declined to participate despite repeated reminders via follow-up phone calls and in-person visits. Additionally, the results cannot be generalized to all librarians in libraries and information centers.
Conclusion
The balanced scorecard model constitutes a robust framework for enabling managers to make evidence-based decisions and systematically evaluate organizational performance across multiple dimensions. In the context of libraries, particularly those affiliated with universities of medical sciences which are central to advancing health-related knowledge, comprehensive performance assessments at a national level are critical. This study indicates that both managers and employees perceive the overall performance of these libraries as suboptimal across the balanced scorecard dimentions. Consequently, adopting and effectively implementing the balanced scorecard model can serve as a strategic mechanism to enhance service quality, promote customer satisfaction, increase operational transparency, and foster innovation within library and information center operations. Recruiting adequately trained personnel, particularly in information technology, information retrieval, and search methods, can significantly strengthen internal processes and increase user satisfaction.
Online supplements
Additional Tables
Declaration
Ethical considerations: This research was approved by the Ethical approval [IR.IUMS.REC.1401.137] was granted by Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences. All research was performed following relevant guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Also, according to the decision of this committee, obtaining informed consent was deemed unnecessary according to national regulations.
Funding: This study was supported by the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology of Iran University of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: 21981). The funding body had no role in the data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Authors' contributions: Sirous Panahi: Conceptualization, Study design, Methodology, Writing– review & editing, Visualization, Project administration, Final approval; Atiye-Sadat Hosseini Ghahjavarestani: Data curation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing; Nasim Nasari: Conceptualization, Study design, Data curation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review; Masoumeh Ansari: Data curation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing, Data analysis, Visualization, Supervision. All authors read and approved the content of the manuscript.
Consent for publication: Not applicable.
Data availability: All data analyzed and generated during the current research were included in this paper; however, raw data are also available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
AI declaration: Artificial intelligence was not used for this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to the Vice-Chancellor of Research of Iran University of Medical Sciences for advocating this research.
The balanced scorecard model provides a structured framework for evaluating library performance across four dimensions: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth. By highlighting strengths and weaknesses, it supports strategic planning and performance improvement. Previous studies have validated its effectiveness as a reliable method for assessing organizational performance, including libraries [14,18,23,27,28].
At Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences, managers and employees perceive library and information center performance as poor in customer satisfaction, internal processes, and learning and growth. A notable divergence appears in the financial dimension: managers rated performance as moderate, while employees considered it poor. This inconsistency indicates different perceptions on financial management in libraries. This unbalanced evaluation contrasts with prior findings. For example, Moradi et al. [29] reported acceptable and balanced customer-related performance at Razi University libraries, a result that is not aligned with the present study. Similarly, the library of Kerman University of Medical Sciences showed moderate effectiveness in financial aspects, although its performance varied across subdimensions, ranging from moderate to desirable [20].The study revealed that library services were perceived as unbalanced and insufficient in meeting users’ needs. This finding differs from previous research. Moradi et al. [29] reported balanced and acceptable service delivery in the customer dimension, while Zaboli et al. [24] found service levels to be average. Given the central role of users, ranging from students to faculty, in shaping service effectiveness, addressing their diverse needs is crucial for enhancing satisfaction, improving assessment practices, and advancing service quality.Weak performance was also identified in the internal processes of libraries and central information centers at Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences. This dimension, which includes staff interactions, task execution, and process efficiency, received unfavorable evaluations. These results contrast with those of Zaboli et al. [24], who reported more positive outcomes. Nonetheless, improvements in infrastructure, optimization of resource utilization, and resolution of operational issues provide avenues for enhancing internal effectiveness.Consistent with the present study, Moradi’s research also identified imbalances in library internal processes [29]. Addressing these inefficiencies through managerial support and infrastructure improvements could enhance operational workflows and service delivery. Such measures may further promote intellectual collaboration and stimulate innovations within libraries.
In the present study, the growth and learning dimension, covering employee training, technological adaptation, organizational culture, and recruitment, was rated “weak” by both managers and employees. This finding is consistent with the results of the study by Moradi et al. [29] However, it contradicts the findings of Zaboli et al.’s study [24], which reported average performance in staff development and electronic services at Kerman University. The findings of this study indicate limited investment in staff training and organizational culture development, including teamwork. Another study evaluated specialized libraries in Iran and reported strong performance in “internal processes”, “customer satisfaction” and “empowerment” which is in contradiction with our findings for the same components. However, this study, similar to our findings, reported weak performance for financial management [27].
Overall, the customer dimension emerges as the most critical element of the balanced scorecard model, as user satisfaction drives positive outcomes across other performance areas. Effective internal processes are closely linked to higher customer satisfaction, highlighting the need to enhance operational efficiency. Achieving meaningful growth and development in academic libraries requires strengthening staff information literacy through empowerment programs, expanding available resources and facilities, and recruiting and retaining qualified staff. Given the aging workforce (average age over 35 years) and extensive experience of library staff, prioritizing in-service training, especially in emerging technologies, would improve service delivery and promote organizational adaptability.
Limitations
This study utilized a questionnaire-based data collection method. However, some participants, particularly managers, declined to participate despite repeated reminders via follow-up phone calls and in-person visits. Additionally, the results cannot be generalized to all librarians in libraries and information centers.
Conclusion
The balanced scorecard model constitutes a robust framework for enabling managers to make evidence-based decisions and systematically evaluate organizational performance across multiple dimensions. In the context of libraries, particularly those affiliated with universities of medical sciences which are central to advancing health-related knowledge, comprehensive performance assessments at a national level are critical. This study indicates that both managers and employees perceive the overall performance of these libraries as suboptimal across the balanced scorecard dimentions. Consequently, adopting and effectively implementing the balanced scorecard model can serve as a strategic mechanism to enhance service quality, promote customer satisfaction, increase operational transparency, and foster innovation within library and information center operations. Recruiting adequately trained personnel, particularly in information technology, information retrieval, and search methods, can significantly strengthen internal processes and increase user satisfaction.
Online supplements
Additional Tables
Declaration
Ethical considerations: This research was approved by the Ethical approval [IR.IUMS.REC.1401.137] was granted by Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences. All research was performed following relevant guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Also, according to the decision of this committee, obtaining informed consent was deemed unnecessary according to national regulations.
Funding: This study was supported by the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology of Iran University of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: 21981). The funding body had no role in the data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Authors' contributions: Sirous Panahi: Conceptualization, Study design, Methodology, Writing– review & editing, Visualization, Project administration, Final approval; Atiye-Sadat Hosseini Ghahjavarestani: Data curation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing; Nasim Nasari: Conceptualization, Study design, Data curation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review; Masoumeh Ansari: Data curation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing, Data analysis, Visualization, Supervision. All authors read and approved the content of the manuscript.
Consent for publication: Not applicable.
Data availability: All data analyzed and generated during the current research were included in this paper; however, raw data are also available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
AI declaration: Artificial intelligence was not used for this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to the Vice-Chancellor of Research of Iran University of Medical Sciences for advocating this research.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Medical Librarianship and Information Science
Received: 2025/08/29 | Accepted: 2025/11/27 | Published: 2025/12/9
Received: 2025/08/29 | Accepted: 2025/11/27 | Published: 2025/12/9
پیوست [PDF 315 KB] (35 Download)
Supplement [PDF 171 KB] (29 Download)
References
1. Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review Boston Hbrb; 1996. Available from: https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-performance-2
2. Ball K, Lewis V. Implementing the balanced scorecard as a strategic planning and performance management tool: a case study from McMaster University Library. Quality and the Academic Library: Elsevier; 2016. p. 259-65. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-802105-7.00025-7]
3. Gawankar S, Kamble SS, Raut R. Performance measurement using balance score card and its applications: a review. Journal of Supply Chain Management Systems. 2015;4(3):6-21. DOI: [DOI:10.21863/jscms/2015.4.3.009]
4. Reid MM. Is the balanced scorecard right for academic libraries? The Bottom Line. 2011;24(2):85-95. [DOI:10.1108/08880451111169106]
5. Brui O. Implementation of strategic management based on the balanced scorecard in a university library. Library Management. 2018. DOI: [DOI:10.1108/LM-09-2017-0086]
6. Marta RG, editor. Evaluating the organizational performance and social impact of third sector organizations: a new functional realm for nonprofit marketing. 8th International Conference for the International society for Third Sector Research JSTOR; 2008: Citeseer. Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/working_papers_barcelona/reygarcia.pdf
7. Nystrom V, Sjögren L. An evaluation of the benefits and value of libraries. Sweden: Elsevier; 2011. Available from: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/an-evaluation-of-the-benefits-and-value-of-libraries/nystrom/978-1-84334-686-9
8. Grigoroudis E, Orfanoudaki E, Zopounidis C. Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: a multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega. 2012;40(1):104-19. DOI: [DOI:10.1016/j.omega.2011.04.001]
9. Liu S, Liu J, Feng Y, Rong G. Performance assessment of decentralized control systems: an iterative approach. Control Engineering Practice. 2014;22:252-63. DOI: [DOI:10.1016/j.conengprac.2012.10.003]
10. Adio G, Akewukereke AM, Ibitoye SO. The effect of medical libraries on medical education: evidence from Osun State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2007;9(2):45-58. Available from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2472903
11. Capdarest-Arest N, Gray JM. Health sciences library leadership skills in an interprofessional landscape: a review and textual analysis. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2020;108(4):547. DOI: [DOI:10.5195/jmla.2020.917]
12. Lloyd S. Building library success using the balanced scorecard. The Library Quarterly. 2006;76(3):352-61. DOI: [DOI:10.1086/511138]
13. Pienaar H, Penzhorn C. Using the balanced scorecard to facilitate strategic management at an academic information service. Library. 2000;50:202-209. DOI: [DOI:10.1515/LIBR.2000.202]
14. De La Mano M, Creaser C. The impact of the balanced scorecard in libraries: from performance measurement to strategic management. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2016;48(2):191-208. DOI: [DOI:10.1177/0961000614558078]
15. Jamanbalayeva S, Abdiraiymova G, Maulsharif M. Performance assessment of teaching staff by colleagues in the structure of diagnostics of university corporate culture. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;82:426-31. DOI: [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.287]
16. Kim DS. Using the balanced scorecard for strategic operation of the cataloging department. Twenty-first Century Metadata Operations. 2012. Routledge.
17. Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. 2005;83(7):172. Available from: https://hbr.org/2005/07/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-performance
18. Self J. From values to metrics: implementation of the balanced scorecard at a university library. Performance Measurement and Metrics. 2003;4 (2): 57-63.DOI: [DOI:10.1108/14678040310486891]
19. Corrall S. Capturing the contribution of subject librarians: applying strategy maps and balanced scorecards to liaison work. Library Management. 2015;36(3):223-234. [DOI:10.1108/LM-09-2014-0101]
20. Baptista Melo L, Pires C, Taveira A. Recognizing best practice in Portuguese higher education libraries. IFLA Journal. 2008;34(1):34-54. DOI: [DOI:10.1177/0340035208088574]
21. Krarup K. Balanced scorecard at the royal library, Copenhagen. Liber Quarterly. 2004;14(1). [DOI:10.18352/lq.7756]
22. Hunter D. Development of strategic performance information at the National Library of Scotland. Performance Measurement and Metrics. 2009. 10(2):142-50.DOI: [DOI:10.1108/14678040911005446]
23. Cribb G, Hogan C. Balanced scorecard: linking strategic planning to measurement and communication. 2003. Available from: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1617&context=iatul
24. Babaie M, Mokhtari H. Performance evaluation of Iran's province of Golestan public libraries, by balanced score card. Research on Information Science and Public Libraries. 2016;22(3):335-53.[in Persian] DOI: https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.26455730.1395.22.3.2.7
25. Nabizadeh-Kivi S, Momeni E, Khanipour R., Maleki R. Performance appraisal of the information services department of the national library of Iran using balanced score card methodology. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies, 2014; 24(4): 6-23.[in Persian] Available from: https://nastinfo.nlai.ir/article_49.html?lang=en
26. Hariri N, Sarafpour S. Introducing measurement indicators of Iranian special libraries within balanced scorecard approach. Journal of Epistemology (Library and Information Science and Information Technology). 2015;7(27):31-42.[in Persian] Available from: https://www.sid.ir/paper/193283/en
27. Zaboli S, Solimaninejad A, Zaboli R. Performance assessment of faculty libraries affiliated with Kerman University of Medical Sciences using balanced scorecard model. 2015;1(1):47-59.[in Persian]. Available from: http://hbrj.kmu.ac.ir/article-1-36-en.html
28. Hassanzadeh Dizaji E., Osareh F, Khosravi F. Proposing performance indicators for the national library of Iran (NLI) based on BSC perspectives. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies (Journal of National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization)[Internet]. 2021;32(1 (125) ):31-46.[in Persian] Available from:https://sid.ir/paper/956307/en
29. Zarei Mahmoudabadi M. Balanced and comprehensive performance evaluation of public libraries using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and balanced scorecard (BSC) (case study: Yazd province). Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 2022; 14(3) .[in Persian] doi: [DOI:10.22055/slis.2021.31582.1666]
30. Kumar J, Neha, Baker H. Balanced scorecard: a systematic literature review and future research issues. FIIB Business Review. 2021;11:231971452110496. DOI: [DOI:10.1177/23197145211049625]
31. Gusnardi G, Muda I. Educational institution performance measurement based on Miles and Huberman models using balanced scorecard approach. Quality Access to Success. 2019;20(170):32-41. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333249520_Educational_institution_performance_measurement_based_on_miles_and_huberman_models_using_balanced_scorecard_approach
32. Moradi M, Vaisee K, Bahrami Nia S. Evaluation of library performance in Razi university using the balanced scorecard model (BSC). Academic Librarianship and Information Research. 2019;53(2):32-51.[in Persian]. DOI: [DOI:10.22059/jlib.2019.252983.1305]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Site Keywords
Health, Administration, Scientific Article, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
