Moving Technical Services Forward
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•103 vistas
This document summarizes the changing landscape of technical services at Morris Library at Southern Illinois University, which has faced budget cuts and loss of staff over the past decade. It outlines how staffing in cataloging, acquisitions, and preservation has been reduced. It also discusses how a consultant's report provided recommendations to improve efficiency, such as expanding cross-training and investigating demand-driven acquisitions, though continued budget uncertainty poses challenges to implementation.
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (9)
Similar a Moving Technical Services Forward
Similar a Moving Technical Services Forward (20)
Último
Último (20)
Moving Technical Services Forward
- 1. Moving Technical Services Forward: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Role of Uncertainty in a State Without a Budget Elizabeth J. Cox Coordinator of Cataloging & Metadata LLAMA Systems and Services section, Technical Services and Systems Committee ALA Annual 2016
- 2. Who we are Cherie Watson Acquisitions Librarian Patrick Brown Preservation Librarian
- 3. Quick facts about Southern Illinois University » Established 1869 » 2010 Carnegie Classification – High Research Activity » Student Enrollment Fall 2014 – Undergraduate = 13,461 – Graduate = 3,893 » 11 Colleges – Over 5,000 faculty; FTE Student/FTE Faculty ratio = 14.82/1 – Degree Programs • 96 Bachelor of Arts/Sciences • 79 Master of Arts/Sciences • 34 Doctorate/Medicine/Law
- 4. Quick facts about Morris Library » Budget = $9,989,946 – Materials only = $5,643,436 » Collections (as of June 30, 2015) – Total Volumes: 2,974,585 – Special Collections: 83,000 rare books; 19,500 linear feet manuscripts and archives
- 5. Technical Services: Then and Now Photos courtesy of the Special Collections Research Center, Morris Library, Southern Illinois University
- 6. Total Faculty/Staff vs. IRM Faculty/Staff 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 May 1984 March 1993 April 2006 June 2016 Total Morris Library Faculty & Staff Total Faculty Total Staff 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 May 1984 March 1993 April 2006 June 2016 Total IRM Faculty & Staff IRM Faculty IRM Staff
- 7. Staffing Changes in IRM 2005 » Cataloging: – 3 faculty – 7 staff » Acquisitions: – 1 faculty – 5 staff » Preservation: – 3 staff » Electronic Resources: – 1 faculty » PLUS 1 head of IRM (fac.) 2016 » Cataloging: – 1.5 faculty – 5 staff » Acquisitions: – 1 faculty – 3 staff » Preservation: – 0 faculty or staff » Electronic Resources: – 1 faculty
- 8. Reconstructing institutional memory » In the last 10 years: – Library dean left; New dean hired and left (position currently open) – 2 special collections catalogers hired & left (currently have .5 faculty) – Head of IRM left (position lost due to budget cuts) – Head of Cataloging with 20 years experience left (position lost due to budget cuts) – Acquisitions librarian with 15+ years experience left (position filled) – Preservation staff person with 20+ years experience left; Preservation librarian hired and left (position filled, but leaving at end of June) – 2 collection development librarians left (positions lost due to budget cuts)
- 9. Culture of IRM » Uncertainty and fewer people has led to – More collaboration – Cross-training » But has also led to… – Still some silo-ing – Negative reactions to change • Shelf-ready exploration • Attrition • Trust
- 10. Technology Changes » Electronic resources increasing » Automated ordering process » Shelf-ready monographs » Label printer program » New ILS???
- 11. Budget uncertainty affects: » Consortium » Library and University administration » Faculty and staff roles & responsibilities
- 12. Consultants visit and report » May 2015: Consultants visit for 1.5 days » June 2015: Final report received – Answered these questions: • How can technical services best be positioned for the future? • Are there things we are not doing that we should be doing and how can we do those with existing staff? • Do you have organizational recommendations that will help us meet our goals and improve efficiency and effectiveness? – Our instincts are good – But…there are obstacles
- 13. Consultants’ recommendations » Implemented/Completed – Purchase in lieu of ILL plan – Increase report creation knowledge – Stop claiming print serials – OCLC reclamation project – GovDocs selection and workflow – Review decision about binding print serials
- 14. Consultants’ recommendations, cont. » In process – Collections assessment plan – Comprehensive review of reference collection – Investigate demand driven acquisitions for print – Cross-train students and staff » Not done…yet? – Adding table of contents – Shelf-ready processing
- 15. Conclusion » Patrick’s departure » Continued budget uncertainty
- 16. Resources » Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI): https://www.carli.illinois.edu/ » Morris Library: http://www.lib.siu.edu/ » Special Collections Research Center: http://www.lib.siu.edu/scrc » Southern Illinois University Carbondale Fact Book 2004-2005: http://www.irs.siu.edu/quickfacts/pdf_factbooks/factbook05. pdf » Southern Illinois University Carbondale Factbook 2014-2015: http://www.irs.siu.edu/quickfacts/pdf_factbooks/factbook15. pdf
- 17. Thank you! Beth Cox, Coordinator of Cataloging & Metadata Morris Library, Southern Illinois University Carbondale E-mail: bcox@lib.siu.edu
Notas del editor
- My name is Beth Cox and I am the Coordinator of Cataloging & Metadata at Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s Morris Library. I am a tenured faculty member, the head of our cataloging department, and I supervise 5 civil service staff. My talk today is called, “Moving Technical Services Forward: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Role of Uncertainty in a State Without a Budget.”
- This presentation was co-written with my colleagues Cherie Watson, our Acquisitions Librarian, and Patrick Brown, our Preservation Librarian.
- To give you a brief background of our university, it was established in 1869 as Southern Illinois Normal University. We hold a Carnegie Classification of High Research Activity. Although I won’t be discussing the challenges of our financial situation on the university as a whole, I will mention that, since 2004, our enrollment has dropped from 16,872 undergrads and 4,036 grads to 13,461 undergrads and 3,893 grads. Our student to faculty ratio is approximately 15 to 1. In addition to the numbers of degree programs listed here, we also have undergraduate certificates, associate degrees, and post-baccalaureate programs.
- Some quick facts about the library. Our total budget for FY16 is just under 10 million, with materials taking up about 56%. As of June 2015, we hold just under 3 million volumes.
- Technical services at Morris Library has never held that title, as far as I can tell from my research. Before the early 2000s, the Cataloging, Order, Serials, and Conservation or Preservation departments were individual but co-located. In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, there was a significant separate between Cataloging and Acquisitions. Literally a line on the floor between the two, with different colored carpeting. The photo on the left is Acquisitions and Orders from 1966; the photo on the right is Cataloging from 1975. At this point, both departments had over 8 faculty EACH and over 20 staff EACH. In 2004, Information Resources Management (IRM) was created. In addition to a new Head of IRM, between 2004 and 2008, 7 new faculty were hired (3 were for existing faculty positions; 2 replaced what were previously staff positions; and 2 were newly created positions). Also, in 2007, we hired 3 collection development librarians. Although they are not a part of IRM, they work closely with all depts.
- One of the primary ongoing challenges that we have had in the library is our staffing. These charts show the decrease in faculty and staff every ten years or so from 1984-2016, in the library as a whole AND IRM. May 1984 - Total: 56 faculty, 86 staff (includes Learning Resources Services & Grant Assoc.) March 1993 - Total: 37 faculty, 78 staff April 2006 - Total: 24 faculty, 73 staff (includes ISS and Grant Assoc.) June 2016 - Total: 21 faculty, 49 staff (includes University Press) IRM staff May 1984 - IRM: 16 faculty, 41 staff [40% of total] March 1993 - IRM: 11 faculty, 29 staff [35% of total] April 2006 - IRM: 6 faculty, 15 staff [22% of total] June 2016 - IRM: 3 faculty, 8 staff [16% of total; does not include administration – 1 assoc. dean]
- This shows you a bit more detail about IRM. Just in the last 11 years (since I’ve been at SIU), you can see the significant change in number of people in IRM. In that same period of time, our budget has increased from $5.45 million to $5.64 million which, in budgetary terms for materials ordering, means we’ve really seen a decrease. In FY2005, 15% of total materials budget was spent on monographs and 74% on serials/contractuals. In FY2015, 10% of total materials budget was monographs; 82% on serials/contractuals.
- In the last 10 years, we have lost multiple positions due to budget cuts, both faculty and staff. In addition to the loss of institutional memory, some documentation was not left behind for the remaining faculty and staff. There are some areas/tasks that have had to be re-created. With some of the faculty positions that we were allowed to fill, such as the Acquisitions and Preservation faculty positions, we were only allowed to hire entry-level, non-tenure-track faculty with annual contracts. There are positives and drawbacks to hiring NTTs. Within our institution, as I’m sure it is with others, everyone has a different opinion, and I could fill a separate presentation just on that topic. If you happen to be interested, contact me after the conference.
- The culture of IRM represents both the opportunities and the challenges that we have. In the past 5 years, the library and the university have seen a lot of change, particularly in the past year. This has led to a great deal of uncertainty. On the good side, this has almost forced us to collaborate more, not only within IRM but within the library. During down times in acquisitions, their staff are now trained to work in preservation, the map library, and Records Management. With only 1 permanent full-time cataloger, the cataloging staff have begun working directly with the map library and special collections to manage workflow and projects. Student workers are being trained in all three areas, as well as in Marking (formerly a staff position). As of the end of June, we will no longer have any faculty or staff working in our Preservation department. We have spent the last month planning how to proceed, i.e. who will supervise the student workers (who are thankfully already trained), who will take on additional duties, and what tasks will not be done. The library administration has been supportive of our decisions. Not surprisingly, the staff do not react well to change. Some specific examples that we have experienced over the last few years are testing the implementation of shelf-ready processing, handling attrition, and trust. There is a long-standing culture of mistrust between the civil service staff and almost everyone else in the library and university. Historically, many of the faculty and administration have looked down on the staff and been less than forthcoming with information, to say the least. I think that things have improved, but only a bit. As one of my colleagues jokes, the “C” in SIUC doesn’t stand for communication.
- Librarians are always dealing with changes in technology. Some of it is good; some not so much. More and more Electronic resources are being handled by one eResources librarian. ACQ looking at automated ordering processes through our primary monographs vendor that are already available but not yet subscribed to (selectors send orders through and YBP creates POs for Voyager, cutting out traditional buyers) and some shelf-ready monographs (minus monos with special cutters). I’ll address these more later. We had two consecutive staff in Marking that were not amenable to change. After the 2nd left, we installed a label creation program and purchased a new printer. The program took a LOT of time to set up but has now significantly streamlined process. Member of CARLI, the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois. They manage our ILS. Current plan is to purchase and implement a new ILS by Summer 2018. Locally, every time an idea is proposed that involves the ILS, we have to consider whether or not it’s worth our time to implement it, knowing that we may have to re-do the process in 2 years.
- The state of Illinois has now been without a budget since the beginning of fiscal year 2016. And things don’t look much better for FY2017. This type of budget uncertainty has had a significant effect on numerous groups. Our consortium, CARLI, is affected by the same budgetary issues as we are. Although they receive income from member dues, they operate as a unit of the University of Illinois’ University Office for Academic Affairs. We want/need to know if they will have the funds to purchase a new ILS. If not, how will that affect us moving forward? Will they have enough staff to support us as well as a new ILS? When Cherie and Patrick and I began working on this presentation last Fall, the CARLI director had announced her retirement as of the end of July. Their new director is the current director of the state library and will start at CARLI July 1. She is familiar with the state and it’s quirks and will have a month of overlap with the current director. SIUC Library Affairs has been without a dean since May 2015. Our first dean search failed and will re-start in the fall. In addition, the university has a new chancellor & provost, both as interim. This instability in our leadership affects how people work and how stable they feel in their work environment. Over the last five years, as people have come and gone (mostly gone), every department in the library has had to re-evaluate priorities and the roles and responsibilities of those remaining. In IRM with two of the four faculty being new, we were open to ideas of how to best work together to get our work done effectively and efficiently. To facilitate this process, our then-dean decided to bring in some consultants to work with us.
- In May of 2015, we had two nationally-known and highly respected technical services librarians came to SIU to evaluate IRM and provide us with a report of what we were doing right and what could be improved. Lisa German is now the Dean of Libraries at University of Houston, and Carol Pitts Diedrichs is the Director Emeritus at the Ohio State University Libraries. They gathered information about IRM, the library, and the university in advance. In addition to meeting with faculty and staff within IRM, they also met with what they called our “stakeholders,” others throughout the library with whom we worked closely, such as the reference librarians, the systems staff, and our collection development librarian. We received their final report one month later. They provided an extensive, 12-page report that included general insights about the library and recommendations not only for IRM but for some of our constituents as well. There were three questions that our dean wanted answered: In general, the consultants felt that our instincts are good regarding how we have dealt with issues and feel that we’re on the right track to be as efficient and effective as possible with the resources available. An interesting example relates our experience with that of a former SIUC librarian who is now at another university library. At Morris, we have a long-term, on-going focus on objectives of service, despite the decrease in staffing and funding. Our former colleague has more than enough resources to do lots for their students but has had significant difficulties getting other librarians involved in determining their objectives for service AND implementing them. But there have been and still are obstacles. We have been operating with work-arounds not only within IRM but with other library departments as well.
- We have implemented or completed a number of the recommendations provided by the consultants. These are just a few examples. We already had a purchase instead of ILL plan in place, but Cherie, our new Access Services librarian, and ILL staff reviewed it. I had already been teaching myself to run Access reports on our Voyager server, and our consortium provides a TON of documentation on their website. Between the two, I was able to train one of our Acq staff and a few others the basics. Although we didn’t stop claiming print serials entirely, we significantly cut back on the process. This was as much to do with the departure of an ACQ staff person as the recommendation. In addition to doing the reclamation project, I have been following up with using OCLC’s Collection Manager to upgrade records in our ILS that have been updated in OCLC. The departure of our only staff person in GovDocs prompted us to move on the recommendation regarding selection and workflow. Patrick reviewed the serial titles that were being bound and made recommendations to Library Admin that not only saved time, but also cut the bindery budget by 80%.
- Items in process: One of our liaison librarians is using down time this summer to do a collections assessment plan for her areas. Our Head of Reference and Instruction is working on a review of our reference collection. Cherie has started looking into DDA. Depending on how the budget works out, if our monographs budget is significantly cut, DDA will be extremely important. We have done significant cross-training of our student workers within IRM and, as I mentioned earlier, some of our staff are trained in other IRM departments as well as elsewhere in the library. We continue to discuss further training. Not done: Consultants recommended that we discontinue adding table of contents to bib records, because the value does not warrant the time involved. We decided to continue. It is a very low priority for our student worker, only done when all other tasks or projects are complete. They also mentioned that we re-investigate shelf-ready processing of our new acquisitions. That has been tabled mostly due to budget.
- We are lucky (I guess that’s how to describe it) that we have the skills to plan for Patrick’s departure, partly because we had already started cross-training. But we have a lot of experience now with people leaving and positions going unfilled, and we are also willing to suspend some tasks until we hire someone new in Preservation, staff or faculty. We are at the end of an entire fiscal year without a state budget and minimal state funding – and no resolution in sight. The university is currently borrowing money from our sister campuses to pay the bills. One unforeseen consequence of the budget crisis is that the contracts for our five non-tenure track faculty expire on June 30. Our co-interim deans call the university admin daily to ask for updates. We would lose our Acquisitions and Access Services libns and 3 reference/instruction/liaison librarians. I didn’t want to end my presentation on such a sad note. While I am by no means a Pollyanna, I’m also not a Debbie Downer. I can share that a group of library faculty have created a task force “to develop a visioning statement with clear presuppositions and principles that can guide decision making through the bad times so that we are prepared to grow when things get better. For example, we can presuppose that the university will continue to be a Carnegie R2: Doctoral University. We can say what the library of such a university should look like, what capabilities it should have now and in the medium term, and what in our current configuration we need to protect through the bad times in order to insure we can do what we need to in better times.” They have named themselves the Phoenix task force, representing that we are rising from the ashes … and giving everyone the bird.
- A couple of the resources that I used to put together this presentation. I will be linking this document to this event on the ALA Scheduler.
- As a cataloger, I felt that I had to conclude with a cataloging joke. Thank you all for your attention.