 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Library newsletter |
|
State of the Library
January 9, 2003 Jennifer A. Younger Edward H. Arnold Director of University Libraries
Today, I have organized my remarks about the state of the library under three headings. Where are we today? What are we doing and where are we going? And, last, what are we going to do next year in the face of a budget cut? Section 1: Where are we today? In April 2002, I wrote to the Notre Dame faculty describing the problem and informing them we would have to be more selective in our purchase of books and journals, that we had to plan our commitments for purchasing books and journals so as to stay within the library collection budget. Again in October 2002, I wrote to the Notre Dame faculty informing them of the immediate cancellation of 891 print versions of journals that we receive electronically through many of our publisher digital journal packages, again as a means of reducing our budget commitments. Our many working relationships with Notre Dame faculty are in good shape and we have been fortunate in engaging their cooperation as we have tackled these issues. Several among you have projected the costs of current commitments for books
and serials for all subject areas as a whole or for specific subject areas such
as chemistry and physics. In the latter two, the upward spiral in prices reveals
that in two or three years, without compensatory action, there will be a need
to choose between acquiring e-journal packages of major commercial publishers
and the journals of professional societies. We face another round of cuts this
spring bringing that unfortunate choice one step closer to being a reality.
Returning, then, to where we are on dimensions beyond library purchasing power
for library collections and information resources, we have amassed this year
a considerable body of evidence on which to evaluate ourselves. I n describing
where we are, I will draw on much of that evidence in my remarks, including
performance recognition awards, benchmarking, focus groups, student evaluations,
a library consultant, the addition of a slide library to the University Libraries,
our self study, the self study review committee, and the LibQUAL+ findings.
Library performance recognition awards honor individuals and teams who exhibit the best qualities of all of us -- problem solving, thoughtful analysis, grace under fire, creating new services, developing new skills, and even whistling while working. Though we don't often think of them as such, performance recognition awards are a measure of how we are doing; every year we have no trouble finding individuals who have done an outstanding job and who we identify as exemplars, as indicators of how we are doing. A recent article in Serial Review highlights the importance of people. Laura Sill, Pam Nicholas and Lisa Stienbarger wrote on the work flow adaptations we made in implementing the Aleph 500 system. Their conclusion was that regular review and revision of work flows is a good thing with many payoffs in improving the quality of service to library users because outstanding service is dependent on effective behind-the-scenes work flows. While I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusion, my point here is to emphasize that it is individuals and teams who make good work flows happen, and performance recognition awards are a good indicator of the many good things happening in the library. Benchmarking with peer libraries Several benchmarking activities reveal that Notre Dame has invested considerable
new financial resources in the library over the last six years. The following
are taken from library reports and will also appear in the University report
now being written for the current accreditation review. Faculty-student focus groups Student evaluations of library instruction workshops Student evaluations are collected on a regular basis. Recently, as reported
in our strategic planning documentation, we have learned that "they report
positively on sessions held in the library lab where each student can work through
the problems, though a physical orientation to library services is still appreciated
by some, and point out a feeling on the part of some of being overwhelmed at
the abundance and complexity of library resources." This feedback affirms
our own sense of the usefulness and importance of teaching students how to find
information. The consultant surveyed five existing art and architecture image collections on campus for content, use and related technology and interviewed ninety-seven individuals involved in image use and delivery on campus. Her report provided compelling evidence that our collaborative pursuit of building a logically integrated digital visual resources collection (DVRC) would be welcomed by many. We will continue our work with the Art, Art History and Design Department, the School of Architecture, Kaneb Center, Snite Museum of Art, Medieval Institute, the Program of Liberal Studies and OIT. A slide library in the University Libraries In July 2002, about one year after the initial discussions began, we assumed responsibility for directing the slide library of the Art, Art History and Design Department from the College of Arts and Letters. We were fortunate that Denise Massa is returning, after some years away, to the University Libraries. We welcome her talent and commitment once again. Self Study 2001 It almost seems ancient history, so much has happened since we completed our work for the self study on October 11, 2001. We received the report of the Review Committee on November 26, 2001 and sent our response to the Provost on April 15, 2002 with some revisions of that response on July 10, 2002. In my state of the library address a year ago, on January 15, 2002, I described some of what we gained from this self study. We learned that our financial resources almost doubled in the last ten years and that we have made great progress in improving collections and services. We outlined eleven significant issues that comprised a set of selected, important and specific problems that challenge us at this point in time and created for ourselves good descriptions of our current major programs: collections and collection services; user services; and information systems and digital access services. This was our assessment and while we didn't give ourselves an overall rating in our self study, we certainly did recognize the enormous progress we have made. Self Study Review Committee And, as part of the self study, we received good advice from the distinguished review committee comprised of the deans/directors of libraries at Columbia, Vanderbilt, and Washington (St. Louis) and a Notre Dame theology professor. They recommended over 75 specific actions, which they grouped into ten categories of recommendations. Overall these can be further summarized under four headings: develop library holdings, cultivate a greater role in development of teaching and learning, renovate library space, and develop an experimental program with faculty in the area of scholarly communication . 1) Collaboration is essential. The Review Committee's broad focus on issues, inclusive of but not restricted
to the information presented in our self-study, complemented well the approach
we took in identifying library goals and contributions to student and faculty
learning, teaching and research. In comparing their recommendations and the
significant issues we identified, we noted substantial categorical overlap,
which is helpful both in confirming the direction and in providing specific
recommendations for action. There were three areas not listed in our identification
of significant issues but which are useful additions to the Committee's list
of recommendations: 7) exploit the new digital media to the advantage of both
the teaching and research process on campus, 8) deal with several organizational
issues to improve library effectiveness, and 9) understand that a sound campus
and library technical infrastructure is critical for library success. We have a treasure chest of data from the survey done last spring. This is a very valuable data set for several reasons. It was developed by Texas A&M with national testing and validation. It is grounded in the gap theory of service quality, which measures the difference between users' perceived and minimum scores to determine performance adequacy. That means, Notre Dame respondents were evaluating how we are doing based on what they want in the way of library collections and services. Third, LibQUAL+ is a multi-dimensional measure of user satisfaction which allows good discrimination among reasons why respondents might or might not find the quality of service acceptable. Last, the response rate was, in comparison with national average, good. The overall response rate was 21% and came from 183 ND faculty, 308 undergraduate students, and 255 graduate students. The heart of the survey was a set of 25 questions relating to four different aspects of perceived library service quality: • Access to information focuses on collection breadth and scope, interlibrary
loan services and hours of operation As reported on by Sherri Edwards in LibQUAL+: Listening to Users, the results showed high levels of satisfaction with the library's "customer service (affect of service)" dimension, with superior scores in areas such as willingness to help users, consistently courteous and caring staff, and dependability in handling user's service problems. Our lowest scores were in the personal control and access to information dimension. Undergraduates are the most satisfied. Faculty are the least satisfied and unlike undergraduate and graduate students, faculty assessed the library as below their minimum expectations on access to information, the library as place and personal control. Graduate students are less satisfied than undergraduates but more satisfied than faculty on those three dimensions Dr. Walvoord, who is coordinating the University report to our accrediting agency, the Higher Commission on Learning, the accrediting arm for universities of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, made several key observations from the LibQUAL+ data. Together these observations capture the essence of what library users said about the library. * The dimension of personal control is most important to all library users. They appreciate the services and information resources accessible via the library catalog and web site, but want easier to use access tools and more desk-top delivery of full-text information resources. * Library users believe the library is not yet a research library because the library collections and information resources do not adequately support their teaching or research. * Library users perceive library staff to be helpful and service oriented, though service on weekends and evenings is not always as knowledgeable as on week days. * Despite the desirable and real presence of the virtual library, the physical library has not gone out of style. Library users like to study and teach in the library, and want an appropriate mix of quiet and noisy, comfortable space for working. Overall, then, how are we doing? As mentioned above, the question of how we are doing is being reported on in the current University accreditation report due in December 2003. In the 1994 accreditation, there were significant concerns expressed about the adequacy of library collections and services. With the infusion of additional resources, we are doing much better and the library section of this accreditation report will base the evaluation of progress on the evidence mentioned above. Library users rated us better than the national averages. Most of our evidence, including the recommendations of the Self Study Review Committee and the LibQUAL+ data, point to areas where improvement is needed. While some of the improvement is readily under our control, I must introduce a note of caution simply because some of the necessary improvements can only be made with significant additional resources. For Dr. Walvoord, I wrote the following: "Though the library responded seriously to the concerns expressed in the last accreditation review, the University's aspirations to be a great Catholic teaching and research university will only increase the demands on the library to support teaching, learning and research. Despite the significant achievement of the pat seven years and the many competing demands for university resources, the library must continue to be a high priority for new resources. The results of the LibQUAL+ survey conducted in Spring 2002 brought out that teaching and research faculty believe strengthening library collections and access to information resources is still a critical concern." (Communication of October 15, 2002, to Barbara Walvoord). Section 2: What are we doing and where are we going? We have taken action on two fronts: immediate steps to improve current services and strategic planning to guide us over the next 3-5 years. Responding to professional advice from the Self Study Review Committee The Committee recommended over seventy-five discrete actions. Some of these we were already pursuing, such as investigating the advantages and disadvantages of a shared catalog for the four MALC (Michiana Academic Library Consortium) libraries, and enhanced resource sharing among Indiana academic libraries. Both of these investigations have produced preliminary reports and initial discussions reveal interest on the part of participants as well as issues yet to be resolved. Both will come forward for action only in the coming year. Some of the recommended actions were actions we had considered but rejected, but with this second airing, we gave them a second review. In at least one case, sharing 50/50 with A&L the cost of photocopying for A&L faculty, we implemented the recommendation. In other cases, we used the report as a catalyst to put a desired investigation into motion and are now looking forward to the conclusion of the work of a task force reviewing the arrangement of and access to our extensive microform holdings. Responding to customer input: putting the LibQUAL+ data to work As already noted, LibQUAL+ is a tool for evaluating service effectiveness from the customer's perspective. It is a tool for listening to users though not a blueprint for action. We have, however, used the data as support for our own observations of what we want to improve. Much of what I will mention below was in progress prior to the survey, but the LibQUAL+ data supported and accelerated our efforts. I have pulled selected examples, representative of newly implemented or about to be services, from the report of Sherri Edwards and Doug Archer. * Clioweb is a a new web-based service where users can track the status of their interlibrary loan requests. * Find Text is a new service that allows users of certain library databases
to connect directly from the bibliographic citation to the full text of the
article, check library holdings, or request the article through Interlibrary
Loan. * Just in time acquisitions-books on demand is an experiment begun in the Resources Delivery Department to purchase books and dissertations for ILL requests that are difficult to fill or meet other specific criteria. * OCLC Direct Request allows users who when searching WorldCat can now send directly to other libraries to borrow books via interlibrary loan. * Enhancements to the library catalog.
In 2002, we made two rounds of cuts in our commitments to buying books and journals. We continued our partnership with the academic departments and subject librarians/liaisons consulted them extensively for deciding how to reduce book and journal commitments in April 2002. In the fall, in consultation with Gay Dannelly, I determined we would cut 891 copies of print journals in favor of retaining the electronic versions only. Though not a welcome action, we kept their need for direct access to as much content as possible in clear focus in determining how to once again reduce our standing commitments. Library strategic plan Our process actively solicited input from many sources, including focus groups with library staff, interviews with college department chairs, the self study, and the LibQUAL+ data. All of this was carefully summarized by individual committee members and then reviewed in detail by the SPSC as a whole. From all of this discussion, the SPSC crafted a strategic plan, which was again put out for discussion within the library and then finalized only as of January 10, 2003. "Finalized" is a bit of a misnomer, as the plan will be reviewed annually and updated as needed. Starting this winter, library departments and committees are asked to tie their goals to the strategic plan. That will serve both to focus our attention on where we want to go and to provide input on the strategic plan itself. Are there major gaps? Does it provide sufficient guidance for us? Our strategic plan states four areas of responsibilities within which we identify strategic directions and initiatives. Please refer to the plan itself for more information but let me also mention here the four areas which speak to the library as a: • Facilitator of learning and teaching As I reported to the Provosts Advisory Committee (PAC) yesterday, we face four strategic challenges. They are: • achieving excellence in meeting information needs across all disciplines
and in providing services to all campus constituencies Environmental scan; vision, mission, values and culture We still have two pieces of our strategic planning to complete: an environmental scan and a statement of our vision, mission, values and culture. Regarding the environmental scan, we did a quick scan of peer library web sites. That was very informative, but we wish to do a more comprehensive scan to assess trends and events happening around us, then determine the implications on what we do, and change as we need to do to be relevant in the future. I looked briefly at a new report from the Council of Library and Information Resources (CLIR). Wendy Lougee's listing of Emerging Roles for Research Libraries, I am pleased to note, contains many activities that we are already doing, or are planning on doing, though some are described differently. She includes the following: • working with instructional technologists to create online curricular
resources Jo Bessler will lead the crafting of a new statement of vision, mission, values and culture. Our existing statements are a decade old and in need of revision and reaffirmation. Section 3: How will we go about cutting the budget for next year? Right now, in January and February 2003, we are paying close attention to the
budget on two fronts, which is the usual state of affairs in January and February.
We are halfway through the current fiscal year, and this is the time when we
do budget projections to see whether we need to accelerate or slow down our
rate of spending. This year, we are ahead in our overall spending in the general
operating budget and so we are taking steps to slow down our rate of spending.
I spoke in some detail yesterday at the Library Administrators and Managers
Group (LAM) meeting; my remarks are (or will be shortly) posted in the minutes,
and so here, I will focus primarily on what we are doing in regard to library
staff and faculty positions because while one reason for slowing down hiring
is to generate some additional salary savings for fiscal year 02/03, we are
also slowing down hiring to provide time to evaluate needs and priorities for
next fiscal year. Our hiring now is the foundation for next year's budget and
because we believe we will be taking about a 5% cut in our budget, we need now
to evaluate vacancies and decide now, while a position is vacant, if the position
can be cut. Let me make clear we are not overstaffed, nor do we have any shortage
of good ideas for new activities we could do with positions, but to generate
sufficient dollars - about $650K - for a budget cut, we are likely to need money
from the salary budget. Alternatively, that is, alternatively to posting vacancies for application by any and all interested internal candidates, we will identify areas from which staff can be reassigned, and as positions in areas of more critical activities open, we will reassign staff and/or faculty We have done this before; we mentioned it in the report on budget planning distributed at LAM on December 10, 2002. If you are wondering who is the ubiquitous "we," it is department heads and associate directors who will work together in identifying where and how people can be reassigned. We also recognize the need for finding the appropriate balance between management
decisions on reassignments and individual aspirations. We think it is necessary
(and here the we is the Library Executive Committee, LEC) to advertise, to post
opportunities for internal candidates, and so we will use both strategies -
posting vacancies as well as reassigning. We do have plans for tackling next year's budget that start with the important job of setting priorities for tough times. These action priorities are: • Honor commitment to library staff and faculty for jobs, recognition,
salaries I doubt there is time to review in detail all of these action priorities, so I have selected several, beginning with: Honor commitment to library staff and faculty for jobs, recognition, salaries The old cliche is true -- people are our most valuable resources and we are committed to providing the best organizational environment that we can for library staff and faculty. This translates into several basic steps -- cut only vacant positions, keep recognition programs, and provide salary increases to the fullest extent possible. Preserve opportunities for new initiatives This is a critical step. Carrying out our strategic plan is absolutely dependent on both existing and new initiatives. We take new initiatives for granted once they are implemented. Wireless laptops for library instruction, membership in SPARC, e-journals, and the implementation of Find Text are examples of things that were once new opportunities; we find them today to be "old news." Closely related, invest in job training for new skills and knowledge We have an active Training and Development Committee. I expect to strengthen its role in identifying new skills and knowledge needed by all library staff, as well as identifying new skills and knowledge needed for particular purposes. Of course, will need help in the form of ideas from the rest of us, as they craft an even better continuing education agenda for the library. New skills and knowledge though will be among our most critical investments as we move forward. Target efforts in seeking new endowments, gifts and grants to library priorities There are two efforts to mention. We have submitted our Report to the Provost, November 7, 2002 which identified strategic directions and major funding priorities to the University as part of the University strategic planning and definition of the next capital campaign. Table 3 summarizes our funding needs. It is a staggering amount: we are requesting over $80 million be pursued in new endowments and over $40 million in capital expendables. I meet with the provost tomorrow on prioritizing and defining funding cases that are both University priorities and compelling to benefactors. Kathy Blackstead and Erica Stamper are writing a brochure on the library. We need much in way of marketing for library services, perhaps most particularly a coordinated, overall strategy to make the most use of the many brochures and advertisements coming from library departments and branch libraries. I anticipate Nigel will assist in this. The focus of the current brochure is on presenting the library to an external audience, including current and potential donors. Also, we need to develop an internal means for discussing, reviewing and prioritizing new case studies for endowments so that, as clearly as we can, we develop proposals that speak to our highest priorities. We of course want to keep the door open for opportunities, but we have to be clear about priorities. That means making choices -- always the most difficult part of a job -- in conjunction with University and college priorities, and our own priorities and goals. In regard to new income from endowments or gifts, as this income comes into the library, we (LEC) will assess program needs and current funding. Because we want to accept new income no matter whether a priority or "an opportunity," we will then evaluate the program needs and current funding in the process of assigning the new income to a fund manager for spending. For example, we have a new spending account for an endowment for our Shakespeare collection. This is a relatively well funded area for acquisitions already, and so we will, beginning in '03/'04, redirect an amount of about half of the annual income from the Shakespeare endowment from the existing University funding for English into some other program. I am using the term program here in its broadest sense to mean what we are doing in a particular subject area, where of course the subject is the targeted focus of an endowment. Thus our "Shakespeare program" includes Laura Fuderer's expertise, books, serials, shelving, student hours, etc., but quite likely much of the program will focus on acquisitions. We have the support of the Provost in assessing library-wide needs and making the best use of new funds in context of all library priorities. We also have the support of Development in doing this with their suggestions for how to inform donors of how we are putting their money to work in maintaining spending levels for whatever that area is, in this example, informing the benefactor that we are using the funds to maintain spending for our Shakespeare collection. For the future, we will be working with the University and Development to the extent possible to shape benefactions for our most important priorities, a move beyond the "whatever you want to give for, we will gladly and most appreciatively take." That was a most appropriate stance particularly in the library where our needs were both extensive and comprehensive in nature. Concluding remarks We are doing well. We are a talented, creative, enthusiastic, knowledgeable body of individuals, working together to deliver the best library collections and services for Notre Dame. The Gershwin song has a phrase: who could ask for anything more? We could, that is we can and will seek more funding, but as far as we go, we're a great group of library staff and faculty, a great destination for learning and research. Thanks for coming today, the floor is open for questions.
Appendix 1: LibQUAL+: Listening to Users, December 20, 2002. Compiled by Sherri Edwards with assistance from Doug Archer. http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/libqual.htm Appendix 2: 2002-2003 Strategic Plan for the University Libraries, January
14, 2003. Appendix 3: Report [to Provost] on the University Libraries Strategic Planning, November 7, 2002. http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/strategic/ReportNov.htm Appendix 4: Excerpt from minutes: Library Administrators and Managers Group, January 8, 2003. http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/dol/lam/8jan03.htm Appendix 5: Report on Budget Planning to LAM (Library Administrators and Managers Group), December 10, 2002. The University Libraries: Report to the Academic Council, March 27, 2002. Jennifer
Younger in Notre Dame Report, volume 32, number 5, agenda item #5, pp 146-150 Annual Report to the Academic Council, September 19, 2002. University Committee on Libraries; Harvey Bender and Jennifer Younger Diffuse Libraries: Emergent Roles for the Research Library in the Digital Age, August 2002. Wendy Pradt Lougee. CLIR Publications and Resources, pub 108, ISBN 1-887334-93-9. Available at www.clir.org; also as summarized in CLIRinghouse, number 12, September/October 2002 Serials Workflow Adaptation and the New ILS: a Case for Continuous Process Improvement." Pamela Nicholas, Laura Sill, and Lisa Stienbarger. In Serials Review, volume 28, number 4 (2002) pp 298-315 University Libraries Self Study, October 11, 2001 http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/2001selfstudy/selfstudy2001.htm Response to the Report of University Libraries Self-Study Review Committee, April 15, 2002; revised July 10, 2002. http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/2001selfstudy/ssresponse.htm State of the Library, January 15, 2002. Jennifer Younger. http://libstaff.library.nd.edu/reports_pub/state_library/2002.shtml
|
 |
|
|
Need something to be placed on the staff intranet? Please contact: Intranet Team About UL@ND |
 |
Copyright
©2004 University of Notre Dame |