圖書館承載著前人的智慧，幾世代的累積，隨著大環境的改變，圖書館所要面對的挑戰越趨增多，無論是資源、經費預算、服務類型等，為了使得圖書館能跟上科技的腳步，不斷地尋求自我提升的方法，此時，了解圖書館的服務就相當重要，圖書館可以利用績效評估，了解自身的業務、服務、資源的情況，調整資源的配置，服務及業務不足的補強，讓圖書館持續進步。
本研究主要目的為了解大學圖書館績效評估指標之可行性，研析出重要性及應用性較高之大學圖書館績效評估指標，並了解影響大學圖書館執行績效評估之阻礙因素，以供大學圖書館實踐績效評估的參考。本研究以全國大學圖書館為研究對象，利用王怡璇、劉宜臻、柯皓仁（2012）所歸納之大學圖書館績效評估指標，進行問卷調查，以了解大學圖書館績效評估指標理想重要性與實際執行度，共放發162份問卷，回收109份有效問卷，回收率達67%，問卷分析後進行個別訪談，深入了解理想重要性與實際執行度之差異。
本研究結果總結如下：(1)關於館藏資源可取性、資源使用率、經費預算收支等指標理想重要程度較高；(2)需花費較多人力及仰賴圖書館以外之單位收集資料、需計算人事與經費成本等計算方式較複雜或資料取得不易之指標實際執行度較低；(3)人力資源的不足為國內大學圖書館實踐績效評估的主要阻礙；本研究依據研究結果提出以下建議：(1) 加強推動大學圖書館績效評估；(2) 大學圖書館應將益於績效評估執行之輔助工具納入考量；(3) 提供績效評估研習與交流活動。

Now is the knowledge economic era. Facing a new century of highly competitiveness and challenges, commercial companies and non-commercial organizations have to pursue distinguished products and service quality, and libraries are no exception. Through the establishment and operation of performance measurement, libraries can continuously self-examine the pros and cons of administration and service quality; furthermore, libraries can present their achievements to their patrons, parent institutions, and funding institutions.
In order to achieve outstanding quality, it is a must to have a performance measurement mechanism to evaluate whether a library conducts her professional works under the guidance of her missions and goals. Performance measurement collects library statistics and other relevant data (i.e. performance indicators), and then analyzes the performance of a library by comparing those indicators with her missions and goals.
It is essential to have a standardized and universal guideline for the practical implementation of performance evaluation. In view of this, this study aims at analyzing and developing a set of feasible performance indicators for academic libraries, and comprehending performance assessment obstacles. Wang, Liu & Ke (2012) integrated existing library performance measurement standards (like ISO 11620) and related projects (like BIX), and proposed a total of 59 performance indicators. This study is a follow-up research of their study and comprises two stages. Using a questionnaire survey, the first stage collected the opinions of academic libraries in Taiwan about the ideal and feasible performance indicators. A total of 162 copies of questionnaire were distributed and 109 copies were returned, the returned rate of the questionnaire was 67%. The second stage employed the in-depth interview to obtain detailed opinions about the implementation of performance measurement in Taiwanese academic libraries. 14 interviewees participated in the interview.
The research results areshown as follows. First, the performance indicators about the availability of collections, collections use rate and budget were more important than others. Second, indicators of less feasibility possessed features such as high computation cost, and difficult to obtain data. Third, lack of human resource was the main obstacle to realize performance measurement.
Suggestions for academic libraries were made, based on the conclusion of this study. First, the performance evaluation for academic libraries should be promoted further. Second, academic libraries could use tools which benefit the implementation of performance evaluation. Third, more activities for staffs to learn about performance evaluation could be conducted.
It is hoped that this study can provide suggestions and references for carrying out performance measurement in academic libraries, and it may also be a significant reference for future research.

Alabi, G. A., & Alegbeleye, G. O. (1984). Performance measures in an academic library: The case of the Ibadan University library. Nigerian Journal of Library and Information Studies, 2(2), 9-18.
BIX (2010). Der bibliotheksindex. Retrieved from http://www.bix-bibliotheksindex.de./
Brophy, P. (2004).The quality of libraries, in Die effekitive Bibliothethek, Roswitha Poll zum 65.Geburtstag, Saur, Munchen, pp.30-46.
Cullen R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49(4), 662-686.
Caporaso, J. A. (2009). Is there a quantitative-qualitative divide in comparative polities? The case of process trancing. In Todd Landman & Neil Robinson(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of comparative polities (pp. 67-83). Los Angeles: Sage.
COUNTER (2012). Retrieved from http://www.projectcounter.org/
Cronin, M. J. (1985). Performance measurement for public services in academic and research libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
Horowotz, L. R. (2009). Assessing library services: A Practical guide for the Nonexert. Library Leadership and Management, 23(4), 193-203.
International Organization for Standardization (1998). ISO 11620 Information and documentation: Library performance indicators.
International Organization for Standardization (2008). ISO 11620 Information and documentation: Library performance indicators.
Kantor, P. B. (1984). Objective performance measures for academic and research libraries. Washington, DC: American Research Library.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Laeven, H., & Smit, A. (2003). A project to benchmark university libraries in the Netherlands. Library Management, 24(6/7), 291-304.
Lancaster F. W. (1977). The measurement and evaluation of library services. Washington, DC: Information Press.
McClure, C. R. (1986). A view from the trenches: Costing and reference measures for academic library public services. College and Research Libraries, 47, 323-336.
Nitecki D. A, Hernon, P. (2000). Measuring service quality at Yale University's libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(4), 259-273.
Pall, R. & Boekhorst, P. te (1996). Measuring quality: International guidelines for performance measurement in academic libraries. Munchen, Germany: K.G. Saur.
Poll, R. & Boekhorst, P. te (2007). Measuring quality: International guidelines for performance measurement in libraries (2nd Rev. ed.). Munchen, Germany: K.G. Saur. (IFLA publications, 127)
Poll, R. (2007). Benchmarking with quality indicators: National projects. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 8(1), 41-53.
Poll, R. (2008). Benchmarking in the form of performance indicators and balanced scorecard. In M. Heaney (Eds.), Library Statistics for the 21st Century World (pp. 61-70). Munchen, Germany: K.G. Saur.
Teddlie, C. B., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundation of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.
Zhang, H. (2005). A Review on the statistics and performance evaluation indicators system of the electronic library services. Journal of Academic Libraries, 2005-06.

王怡璇、劉宜臻、柯皓仁（2012）。大學圖書館績效評估指標之研究，圖書館學與資訊科學，38(1)，43-64。
王碧霞（2003）。全面品質管理對大學校院行政服務品質影響之探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立東華大學公共行政研究所，花蓮縣。
王麗蕉、鄭雅靜（2006）。大學圖書館評鑑之探討，國家圖書館館刊，95(1)，35-58。
吳明德（2003）。圖書館評鑑。成功大學圖書館館刊，11。取自：http://www.lib.ncku.edu.tw/journal/11/1.htm
吳嘉苓（2012）。訪談法。載於瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞（主編），社會及行為科學研究方法（33-60頁）。台北市：東華書局。
侯雲卿（2003）。國立成功大學圖書館自我評鑑經驗分享。成功大學圖書館館刊，11。取自：http://www.lib.ncku.edu.tw/journal/11/3_1.htm
洪世昌（2001）。標竿分析與ISO 11620於圖書館績效評估之運用。國立臺灣師範大學圖書館通訊，48，2-6。取自：http://www.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/jory/j48/48context.htm
洪郁棠（2008）。大學圖書館數位參考諮詢服務評估指標之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中興大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺中市。
胡述兆等（1995）。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。臺北市：漢美。
徐華鍈（譯）（2000）。問卷調查應用入門（原作者：內田治、醍醐朝美）。臺北市：小知堂。
高翠霜（譯）（2000）。績效評估（原作者：P. F. Drucker）。臺北市：天下遠見出版。
國家圖書館輔導組（2011）。99年中華民國圖書館年鑑。臺北市：國家圖書館。
張芳全（2008）。問卷就是要這樣編。臺北市：心理出版社。
張裕鳳（2010）。平衡計分卡運用於公共圖書館績效評估之研究--以臺北市立圖書館為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系在職進修碩士班，臺北市。
教育部（2001）。大學教育政策白皮書。取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0039/90.07%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf
教育部統計處（2011）。大專校院學校數及學生數。取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview02.xls
教育部統計處（2011）。各級學校名錄。取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/u1_new.xls
莊尚志、邱妍禎（2008）。平衡計分卡與績效管理。彰銀資料，57(7)，4-17。取自：http://www.chb.com.tw/wps/wcm/connect/web/resources/file/eb21280e816812f/57702.pdf
陳育含（譯）（2010）。訪談研究法（原作者：Steinar Kvake）。永和市：韋伯。
陳雪華（2009）。大專校院圖書館評鑑工作小組執行成果報告。取自：http://www.ilca.org.tw/sites/all/doc/20090717_final.pdf
傅榆萍（2010）。以平衡計分卡探討績效衡量指標—以大學圖書館為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學會計學系，彰化縣。
曾淑賢（2010）。公共圖書館TQM導入程序及實務分享。在圖書館創新經營與永續發展（國立臺中圖書館編，頁55-70）（公共圖書館人才培訓教材，8）。臺中市：國立臺中圖書館。
曾嬿容（2010）。國際圖書館績效評估指標（ISO11620）運用在大學圖書館的研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所在職進修碩士班，臺北市。
楊錦洲（2002）。服務業品質管理。臺北市：品質學會發行。
詹昭雄（2010）。服務品質與顧客滿意：TQM之架構與根本作法。在圖書館創新經營與永續發展（國立臺中圖書館編，頁55-70）（公共圖書館人才培訓教材，8）。臺中市：國立臺中圖書館。
樊孝薇（2000）。大眾運輸系統的績效評估-從平衡計分卡的觀點作探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北大學財政學系，新北市。
鄭如婷（2010）。大學圖書館流通服務品質評量指標之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。中興大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺中市。
盧秀菊（1999）。學術圖書館之績效評估。大學圖書館，3(4)，23-42。
盧秀菊（2003）。圖書館之績效評估。中國圖書館學會會報，71，1-19。
戴智啟（2007）。行政機關國會聯絡人工作績效評估指標建構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學學校行政碩士在職專班，臺北市。
總統府（2001）。圖書館法。總統府公報，6377，27-29。
羅思嘉、梁伶君（1998）。大學圖書館績效評估模式之研究。成功大學圖書館館刊，1。取自：http://www.lib.ncku.edu.tw/journal/1/4_1.htm
龔彥融（2010）。大學圖書館智慧資本衡量指標之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學資訊學院碩士在職專班數位圖書資訊組，新竹市。