The report examines academic library use of analytics platforms, inlcuding dashboards, reporting frequency, analytics use in budget planning, interdepartmental sharing, confidence in data interpretation, and emerging gaps in library technology analytics.
The report finds that academic libraries rely on a varied analytics environment. Alma Analytics and Google Analytics are the most widely used listed platforms, selected by 45.45% and 42.42% of respondents, respectively. 36.36% use custom dashboards, while no respondent reports using Matomo.
Satisfaction with available analytics is generally favorable: 6.06% are very satisfied and 60.61% satisfied, for a combined positive rating of 66.67%. Reporting, however, is often reactive rather than scheduled. 51.52% produce IT analytics reports only as needed, while 12.12% report monthly, 21.21% quarterly, and 12.12% annually.
Dashboards are present but uneven. 30.30% maintain internal dashboards for library leadership, another 30.30% do so partially, and 39.39% do not. The most valued analytics sources are ILS/LSP data and discovery usage: 63.63% rank ILS/LSP analytics first or second, while 60.60% rank discovery usage first or second.
Generative-AI analytics are almost absent. Only 3.03% report receiving analytics or use statistics from a generative AI application. By contrast, analytics already play a role in planning: 33.33% use analytics data to guide long-term budget planning, and another 48.48% do so sometimes. The report points to demand for better dashboards, user-journey analytics, automated reporting, and stronger cross-system data integration.