Tuesday, April 28, 2009

NJLA Conference

I'm at the New Jersey Library Association (NJLA) Annual Conference and attending the Technology Innovation Forum Presentations. I am told the presentations will be available online soon so won't go into much detail here about them. I will provide a summary though:


Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, April 23, 2009

News and Humor

This will probably be one of my shortest blog posts, but I had to pose the question, "what is news?" I've asked my friends this question a lot over the years and have received responses too numerous to mention.

After posting a recent story to facebook about Bacon Salt, a friend commented that she, too, saw the story on the ABC Evening News. I replied that I seem not to be able to watch the news without having my laptop close by because there will inevitably be something I want to share with friends and colleagues. But is this news? I have always been curious about how the producers select the stories that will air - either on radio or television. Some items are, in fact, newsworthy (to me) and others are just laughable. I've asked time and time again, who cares about Britney Spears' latest exploit, or I suppose today it would be Lindsey Lohan? Let the tabloid "news shows" cover those stories and have the morning and evening news programs cover other topics.

Of course this is a biased view based on what I want to hear and I will often just tune out (or share the ones I think are funny (funny - ha ha, and funny - peculiar). I just have a difficult time accepting the fact that most of the time the "news" is more entertaining than it is informative.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Ivies+ Access Symposium, part 5

Breakout group: Cross-Training: Developing Staff & Student Positions
Facilitator: Johnny Weyand (Harvard)

Benefits of cross training?
How do you match skills to job?
dealing with reluctance and resistance?
Is there organizational buy-in?
What is the method of training delivery?
What resources are devoted?
How do you justify cross-training?

Benefits from the staff point of view or of the management point of view or from the user's point of view?
  • users are better served
  • opportunity for staff to learn, perhaps for promotional opportunity
  • allows better coverage for some services
  • can fulfill (or keep) job interest
  • can eliminate silos
Is it necessary to use different benefits when justifying to staff or to management? It is necessary to be open to staff. You don't want to lose trust.

Have you done across the board cross training or is it only a select group of staff (those who volunteer)? Cross training doesn't have to be across units; it can be within the same unit as well.

It is important to have all procedures documented. Have the staff write the procedures. They will have the opportunity to clarify the procedures and also the ability to question any of the procedures. There needs to be fairly robust training at the start for each employee. But the follow-up training and documentation is also essential.

Mass training is not always effective. Individualized training is often better.

How do we define cross-training? Is this so we can help-out and cover when needed, or is it to develop and enhance some skills of the person and therefore of the department? Both are valid definitions.

Provides an opportunity for others to look at the workflow and can ask questions about the process.

Who gets cross-trained?
Penn: Access Services staff will also staff the information desk.

How do you match skills? You should look for people that have the skill sets that are needed, rather than seeking volunteers. Skills training/skill acquisition is equally important.

Documentation is always important!
Share/Save/Bookmark

Ivies+ Access Symposium, part 4

All Group Discussion: Ways Access Services staff are being affected by and responding to budget reduction initiatives at our institutions.

Broad discussion about change and dealing with change.

Taiga forum: 4 of their provocative statements (see also the Darien Statements)
Within the next five years:
  • ...Collection development as we know will cease to exist and will become patron initiated.
    Not well received by the group. Faculty and grad students should not drive acquisitions. At Penn State, ILL requests that meet certain criteria will be routed to acquisitions for purchasing. Penn has a fast-track missing replacement policy. Patron-initiated is a part of collection development. Special collections will be what makes us special. We need more collaboration.
  • ...Libraries will provide no in-person services; all will be supported by technology.
    Why are we building more group study rooms? Self-check, as an example is not perfect and users like to turn to a human when there is a problem.
  • ...Libraries will have abandoned the hybrid model to focus on electronic collections.
    Statistics, so far, have shown that people are still using the libraries despite the increase in electronic resources. We will also need to continue building storage facilities for our print material.
  • ...Library buildings will no longer house collections and will become campus community centers.

General sentiment: these are probably all true, but not within the next five years.

What competencies are needed? What leadership is needed within Access Services to address the changes coming ahead? Is it enough to react to the changes, or do we need to be more active in presenting the opportunities?

IT component moved from preferred to required, as are degrees. But the "legacy staff" do not have these skills or competencies and so there is a gap in skill level. So, the position descriptions need to be an accurate reflection of the work. How do we then re-purpose the legacy staff so that they remain full contributors to the library and the services we provide. Does library education provide the appropriate level of skills training. Higher skill sets also serves to provide greater coverage in the library. There is a need for negotiation with staff for them to learn these new skills.

Rutgers, thinking about getting out of the course reserves business. Faculty are going directly to course management systems anyway. Staff in this area could be used for some digital projects. Service models are changing.

Widener will no longer check-in periodicals and is considering not binding them either. What are the long-term effects of this decision.

Yale: Library Information Access Technical Integration position (new position)

What is the required technology that folks should know? Is there a standard set of knowledge that is expected? The lost art of supervision article mentioned. Have we moved away from supervision.

How do we define the areas of expertise and the necessary skill sets.

Penn State: Create a job ladder within Access Services. Folks can become the expert in an area without necessarily becoming a supervisor. They are specialists in particular areas but will also often work at public service desks.

Phipps/Sullivan Change Leadership Institute.
Even within the financially constrained times, our mission remains the same. How we get there may a bit different.
Applegate B. & Kloth C. (2004) “Inter-Organization Collaboration & Partnerships: A Critical Analysis,” Ohio Coalition on Sexual Assault Exchange newsletter. [Read Article, PDF file]

Discussion on collaborative efforts:
Brown has been working with outside-the-library campus organizations.
Temple working with IT department to train students on some basic IT functions in the library.
Rutgers working with IT to expand student computing lab services.
Penn has two collaborative spaces: Wiegle Information Commons (Schools of Arts and Sciences, the Office of the Provost and the Libraries) provides a host of services. The Film Studies Center a jointly funded project because there was need for space and programmatic support.
Yale's Social Science and Science Libraries and Academic Systems folks will move into the same physical space. Meetings have begun to advance this move. Also leveraging staff with expertise to share resources for e-reserves processing.
Dartmouth is beginning to identify areas across campus where duplicate work is being done and have been asking the question how can we reduce the redundancy? This is as a result of the budget crisis. The work will be ongoing. Even within our libraries, or within Access Services, what work is being done redundantly and are these necessary?
Penn State: ILL staff and Circ staff would do stack retrieval for different functions, but they now have the same supervisor. The other supervisor has been reassigned to other tasks.
How can we, in Access Services, have the types of collaborative services such as joint collection development as is being discussed among the Borrow Direct partners? This is often difficult within the same institution, can we make this work across institutions?

What product can we deliver as a result of the Ivies+ Access Services Symposium? Notes from the meeting are fine, but how can we define some areas for collaboration or places for documentation?
Can we move away from the idiosynchratic ways of doing business so that we can have "plug-n-play" model? What are our best practices? How can we share these in an easy way?

Cheryl has created a Google Group for the Ivies+ group and some documents have been added.

Questions to ask about change?
What would happen if the change is implemented?
What would happen if it is not implemented?
What would happen if change is only partially implemented?
Share/Save/Bookmark

Ivies+ Access Symposium, part 3

Breakout session: Social Networking/Web 2.0: Role in Services and Marketing
facilitated by Emily Batista (UPenn)

Is there some resistance in libraries to social networking? Some sites (such as Facebook) are considered a "time suck." These are good ways to connect with colleagues or others with whom you have things in common. ALA and some libraries are also using social networking tools like second life.

How is the library using social networking sites? Most people in the room have an account on Facebook. How do you separate the personal from the professional? How can you use these resources to market library resources and services.

However, we should be aware of what the students and our users are using and figure out how to reach them.

Rutgers has a page that reaches out to their population quite often. There needs to be some regular activity from the library page that will bring people to the site or, ideally, to the library - either physically or virtually. But how much is too much?

Second Life at Penn is mostly for student projects. Participation there is a much smaller universe. How is this communicated to the students? The information commons does promotion for the site to faculty and students who might be interested in using it.

ALA, Drexel and SJSU have second life presences. What started as a research and collaborative tool is now being used for other purposes. There is a high tech-barrier and a high learning curve if you are not accustomed to video-game culture. Some subjects lend themselves to use of second life.

The many ways of communicating within facebook allows for reaching out in differnet ways. Use as a portal for chatting. How can chat be embedded within facebook without being associated with an individual user's account?

Abilene Christian University is giving iPhones to all students.

We can't dismiss the fact that our users are here. How do we keep our staff up to speed on these new technologies. We need to help our colleagues learn about these new tools. "It used to be this way with email." We need to get our staff on board with these technologies.

Twitter can give instant feedback on bibliographic instruction sessions. A faculty member at (?) allows his students to use twitter in class to provide instant feedback.

These tools are good for communication.

[Electronic document delivery and discovery platform implementation going on at Harvard - at the same time as layoffs where staff with expertise are going to leave.]

Do we have the "with it" librarians and those who aren't?
Share/Save/Bookmark

Ivies+ Access Symposium, part 2

Panel Session:
  • Emily Batista, "ILL Eden: A Vision of the Ideal System"

  • David Larsen, "Beyond the Horizon: Rethinking ILS Options"

  • Sarah Scully, "Next-Gen Systems, Next-Gen Jobs?"

David Larsen: Examples from the University of Chicago. They are struggling with some of the issues discussed in the keynote.

Assessment is important; we need to let our users' expectations drive what we do and help us make decisions about what we do. Just completed the virtual wayfinding study to complement the earlier physical wayfinding study.
Results: users went to the library web page to find basic information, but to other external sources for "research" questions. A new beta web page has been created, but staff are unwilling to release it because it is not yet "perfect."
Using Aquabrowser as a font-end and are adding information about non-owned resources. But all the resources that are being added to the "database" aren't "cataloged" in the same way so they may not be retrieved using the discovery tools.
Chicago watching open source ILS; watching OLE
Using: Horizon, Aquabrowser, ILLIAD, Ares, III Acquisitions module; have a test installation of Evergreen and seeing the level of effort involved.

Emily Batista: What is wrong with our current systems?
patron requests items for things that are owned. They don't understand our catalogs or electronic resources. Discovery systems are not working.
We can't own everything and therefore resource sharing is important.
How much duplicate effort are we putting into finding sources that users request through us? Do we annotate the requests once filled? Did we find what you asked for; was this helpful? The Amazon reviews are very helpful; can we have a similar model? How inconvenient do we make it for users? We get the items, but they don't pick them up. Can we deliver the items to them? How inconvenient do we make it for our users?
We don't want to pass costs on to the users, but we also want to be good stewards of the resources.

Sarah Scully: How do these new tools affect our work and interactions with the patrons?
- job descriptions and performance reviews still focus on physical interactions (charge/discharge, create cards, recall, shelve, etc.)
- users expectations: rapid change, customized services, etc. Library offers a comfortable, inviting space. Want both physical and online services.
- stacks are going away and being replaced by study spaces. Transforming our spaces to meet users' needs.
- have to learn, explain, and trouble-shoot the new e-services.
- Research and Computing help (in the library). Is this where we need to be?
- What will our new job descriptions look like?


back to part 1
Share/Save/Bookmark

Ivies+ Access Symposium, part 1

I'm attending the annual Ivies+ Access Services Symposium at Dartmouth College today.
The next few posts will be about the sessions I attended.

We were greeted by Jeffrey Horrell, College Librarian, who noted that Dartmouth has moved from a collection-centric model to a user-services model.

Keynote Address by: David Seaman, Associate Librarian for Information Management
Library Services in an Age of Superabundant Information

What systems and services do we need in libraries and how can these help us understand our users?

Faculty in different disciplines work very differently.
Students work much differently now than they did 5 years ago.
Presents challenges for libraries

There is a "constant state of partial attention" (Lee Rainie, uncredited)
"Good enough" information is now good enough.
Frustration at the complex information landscape.

Do you have a "systems architecture map"? How complex are your systems and can your users navigate it easily?

What were the major needs identified by the group?
  • One search box for all (Google-like)
    - filtering results is needed and often complex (WebFeat, for eg); how do we find relevant information
    - we must integrate our resources and move away from silos IN ORDER TO help the users get access to information. Would we shelve by publisher?
    - Serials Solutions' Summon (beta testing with Dartmouth); works on a principle similar to Google in indexing and delivering data.
  • More is not always more
    - specificity, selectivity and convenience are higher in rank.
    - customized feeds of information would help. Take advantage of the expertise that is available in the library (subject expertise, for eg. using Libguides is one way).
    - users can add reviews, etc. see Library of Congress Flickr experiment.
  • Convenience rules
    - users will take the path of least resistance
    - do we take the same path? When? Why?
    - we make our users work too hard. take the services to where they are
    - web pages are not destinations. Why leave the catalog to go to an ILL form, for example? Develop widgets or use APIs to embed services where users want them to be. Blackboard, Facebook, wherever.
  • Access trumps ownership
    - question from users become, "when can I get it?"
    - current library systems are inventory control systems. We need to move beyond this model and build something that allows access to more resources.
  • Anonymity is so web 1.0
    - users trust us to make good use of data
    - personalization is not threatening as long as the users have the options
    - can we use this knowledge of our users to personalize services? Using class year, course information, courses in which you are enrolled or are teaching, books your checked out previously? The Amazon model.
Where do we go from here, knowing the information above?
  • Remember the scholarly primitive.
    - discover, gather, create, share is a good model.
    - how can we help the process
    - we've been good at the discover piece
    A multi-dimensional framework for academic support (University of Minnesota: PDF file.) See list of reports and appendices.
  • Embrace the churn
    - we need to have quick, agile, ongoing and iterative processes
    - open up beta testing
    - when IS good enough good enough? Release early and release often. Google model.
    (look at Joyce's Ulysses with map on Google Books; map points to Waterloo, but in Canada; is this good enough for our users to have it released, or should we work on making it perfect before making it available?)
  • Transform, tailor, embed
    - library system needs to be nimble, personalized, relevant and convenient.
    - embed services where users are: both places and devices
  • Select, excite, act
    - access, discover, select, filter: we focus on the first two; not so much the second two.
    - how do we limit information to that which is relevant

go to part 2
Share/Save/Bookmark

Monday, April 6, 2009

Princeton and finances, revisited

Back in February, I wrote about the steps Princeton was taking to weather the current economic storm. While the picture wasn't very rosy, it wasn't necessarily gloomy either. This morning, all employees received the letter below from President Tilghman.

The economic prospects for Princeton have become a bit gloomier than they were just over a month ago and as a result more drastic measures will have to be taken. I am pleased that staff members (presumably those in the "higher tax bracket") are willing to pass on salary increases so that those in the lower salary bracket can be given increases. I'm not so sure however, if it is still such a wise decision for the University to move ahead with the planned increase in the student body while at the same time cutting staff that will be on campus to provide services to the students. Yes, we must make tough choices in these difficult times, but we must also think holistically about these choices. I will certainly be paying close attention to the areas from which these cuts will come and the impact these will have on life at the University.

The complete text of President Tilghman's message:

From: Shirley M. Tilghman
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:57 AM
To: All Employees
Subject: Update on Princeton's Response to the Economic Downturn

April 6, 2009

Dear members of the Princeton University community,

I am writing to provide you with an update on the continued impact of the economic downturn on the University. Since I wrote to you in January, I have been greatly heartened by the thoughtful response of the community to the goal we set for ourselves: protecting those commitments that are most central to our mission. These include maintaining our historic leadership in financial aid for undergraduates and fellowship support for graduate students; preserving, and whenever possible, enhancing the quality of the faculty; and sustaining the quality of our dedicated staff. We have sought to preserve our human capital by achieving vacancy savings on both the academic and administrative sides and by identifying categories of spending where we could conserve or do without. Because of your willingness to make hard but strategic choices, we can say with confidence that we have been able to reduce our spending without compromising the quality of the education we provide or the research and scholarship we conduct. We also continue to benefit from a long tradition of prudent management of the University’s resources, which puts us in a relatively strong position to weather the economic storm. Finally, the loyalty and generosity of our alumni/ae, parents and friends remain a source of great strength. As I have traveled around the country over the last three months, I have been continually struck by the larger than expected turnouts at Princeton events, and the interest in and concern for the impact of the downturn on the University expressed by everyone I meet.

Unhappily, the news from the financial markets has not improved since January. Indeed the markets have continued to decline in value, and Andrew Golden, the President of the Princeton University Investment Company, has now advised us that we should be planning for a 30% decrease in the value of the endowment on June 30, 2009, the end of our fiscal year, rather than the 25% we have been using in our budget projections for next year. This is, of course, a “best guess,” but it is one that we must take seriously.

As we respond to this more pessimistic outlook for endowment earnings, we have been forced to revisit the FY2010 budget that was approved by the Board of Trustees in January to identify additional savings. That budget, you may recall, contained a very modest salary increase pool that directed the largest percentage increases to the University’s untenured faculty and lower-paid staff, and capped all increases at $2,000. In a variety of settings over the last few months, we have heard from both faculty and staff that they would be willing to forego their increases to minimize the number of lay-offs that might affect their co-workers. Given the new estimate of reduced endowment income, Provost Chris Eisgruber sought the advice of the members of both the Priorities Committee and the Committee on Appointments and Advancements (the Committee of Three) on a proposal to eliminate raises for tenured faculty and for staff with salaries exceeding $75,000, while continuing to provide increases for most untenured faculty and for staff with salaries under $75,000. These representatives of the community who participate in setting salaries each year encouraged us to take this step, which will result in savings of approximately $4 million next year, and the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees accepted this recommendation last weekend. I deeply regret that this action will add to the financial challenges that many of you face.

It is also essential that we begin to plan beyond the coming academic year. Over the last two months Provost Eisgruber and Executive Vice President Mark Burstein have described in a variety of campus meetings the impact of the market downturn on the financial status of the University, emphasizing that it will take multiple years to restore a decline of 25% in endowment value. With the prospect of a 30% decline in value by June 30, 2009, followed by the likelihood that next year will see no rebound in earnings, we must begin detailed planning for that multi-year budget reduction process now. Even with the substantial savings we anticipate in the 2009-10 academic year, we will be spending 6.7% of the endowment’s value next year, well outside our target range of 4-5.75%. If we are to preserve the spending power of the endowment for future generations, we must begin to bring our spending closer to the policy that governs how much of the endowment we may prudently spend each year.

For the coming academic year each department has already been asked to prepare for a 5% reduction in its non-personnel administrative budget and an 8% decrease in its income from restricted endowment accounts. These savings, when combined with actions taken centrally, will result in an overall reduction of $88 million in the FY2010 budget. This represents a reduction in the operating budget of 6.8%, based on this year’s $1.3 billion budget. We are now certain that a reduction of similar magnitude will be required in the 2010-11 academic year, which means another 8% cut in endowment spending on top of this year’s reduction. Even with this further belt-tightening, we will not be in compliance with our policy for at least another year after that.
In the near future department managers will be receiving from the Provost a two-year savings target to be achieved by FY2011, which will include the savings they have already planned for in the coming year. There is no question that this overall two-year target of $170 million in savings will be difficult to achieve, as the first round of cuts eliminated the majority of things that were relatively easy to forego. The steady growth in both faculty and staff that we have enjoyed over the last 10 years will end, and the University will have to contract in size. However, if we do this carefully and responsibly it is my conviction that the University will come through this difficult period stronger than ever. This is a time that calls for us to be as thoughtful as possible about what is most important to the success of Princeton, and to preserve those qualities aggressively.

The revised estimate for the endowment’s performance will also affect the 10-year capital plan. The slowdown in all new projects, which we put in place in January, remains in effect, and any decision to go forward with a renovation or new construction project will be made on a case-by-case basis, contingent on having 100% of the funding in hand. The stimulus package that was just passed by the Congress contains some funding for infrastructure, and Dean for Research Stew Smith is actively seeking to attract some of those resources to Princeton. In the meantime we will continue to move forward with designs and approvals for the highest priorities in the plan: the new home for the Lewis Center for the Arts, the Neuroscience Institute and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. It is our intention to be “shovel ready” at the moment when funding becomes available.

Let me conclude by thanking Provost Eisgruber, Executive Vice President Burstein, Dean of the Faculty David Dobkin, Vice President for Finance Carolyn Ainslie and Vice President for Human Resources Lianne Sullivan-Crowley, as well as the many members of their staffs, who have worked so tirelessly over the last several months to implement these painful but necessary budget cuts. And I thank all members of the Princeton community who have worked in partnership with them, without complaint and with both inventiveness and determination, to execute the plan. I am truly grateful that the sense of community we celebrate in good times is in such clear evidence when times get tough.

Sincerely,

Shirley M. Tilghman
Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, April 3, 2009

Rutgers, the saga (and an era) ends

At their meeting on 02 April 2009, the Rutgers University Board of Governors voted to accept the recommendation of the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies to change their name to the School of Communication and Information. Read their press release. See also my earlier posts on the subject.

After the vote, Renee Swartz, Chair of the Rutgers SCILS Program Associates (an advisory group) issued the following statement:

Today the the Rutgers University Board of Governors heard as an agenda item the issue of the name change for the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies. Following a presentation by Dean Schement, speakers presented their opinions in the public session. Speaking for keeping Library Studies as part of the name were myself, Betty Turock, Mary K. Chelton, Mitch Friedman, and Pat Tumulty. After these comments there was further discussion and then a vote of the Board. The new name of the school will be the School of Communication and Information.

Those addressing the library point of view made a strong statement for keeping Library Studies in the name and did an admirable job in presenting their views. This was a noble effort, and all involved should be congratulated for standing up for what they believed to be a valid and substantial contribution for the library community. I was pleased to be an active participant.

Let us hope the new name will bring the same luster and national recognition to Rutgers University as did SCILS in the twenty-five years it was a vibrant and vital member of that community.

c. The following are my personal observations

I believe those who spoke against the name change did so because of a deep commitment to this program. I was very troubled when one of the board members ( at least I assume he was a board member and not part of the Rutgers Administration) characterized us as “external forces ( or a term very similar to that.) I do not know how you can call former faculty members, noted alumni, a representative of the largest library association in the state and, most importantly, students as external. We are stakeholders in this school and this program. But perhaps he was right. We all have been “external” to this decision from the very beginning.

I came away today, however, hopeful. The two co-presidents of LISSA ( the student association at Rutgers) Mary Fran Daley and Laurie Feistammel, were present at the meeting. Mary Fran presented a resolution on behalf of the students opposing the name change. I do not know what the future holds for the Rutgers library program but I believe our profession will be well served in the future with leaders like these.

In conclusion, let me again quote President McCormick “This change will help the residents of New Jersey and the nation’s academic community better understand the strengths at Rutgers’ School of Communication and Information.” Well, maybe they have already been proven wrong. This afternoon I received an email from a colleague who I know professionally from serving on the board of another statewide organization. I have never spoken to this person regarding the situation at Rutgers. Here is what they requested of me. “Some day you'll maybe explain to me the reasoning behind the name change and the removal of "library" from the name of the program? Weird...”

I guess the reason for the name change is not that obvious to those outside of academia.

I wish I could explain it. Yes, my friend, weird- indeed.

--end of statement--

Thank you, Renee, for your continued leadership in NJ.
Share/Save/Bookmark