Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Library Review Repor..
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Library Review Repor..

547
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
547
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. University of Tasmania LIBRARY REVIEW 2004 Report of the Review Panel Ms Janice Rickards (Chair) Professor Frank Bullen Ms Linda O’Brien Professor Judi Walker September 2004
  • 2. Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................3 Commendations......................................................................................................................3 Affirmations............................................................................................................................3 Recommendations..................................................................................................................4 Report......................................................................................................................................6 1. The Library's Self Assessment....................................................................................................................6 2. Alignment with the University's planning processes and implementation plans.............................................6 3. Commendations in relation to identified strengths and recommendations for action to improve the effectiveness of operations within existing resources......................................................................................................6 3.1 Information Services.......................................................................................................................7 3.2 Lending, Item Request and Reserve Services.............................................................................7 3.3 Flexible Library Service...................................................................................................................7 3.4 Document Delivery.........................................................................................................................7 3.5 Service Desk......................................................................................................................................8 4. Recommendations for action if additional resources were available.................................................................8 5. Quality of the Library’s organisational structure, management and leadership..............................................9 6. Capacity to meet future challenges................................................................................................................9 7. Appropriateness of human and financial resources and physical infrastructure, including collections............10 7.1 Human Resources..........................................................................................................................10 7.2 Financial resources.........................................................................................................................11 7.3 Physical Infrastructure..................................................................................................................11 7.4 Electronic Infrastructure..............................................................................................................12 7.5 Collections and access to information resources......................................................................12 8. Relationship with key University bodies and staff and students..................................................................14 9. Relationship with external bodies, particularly the State Library of Tasmania...........................................14 Appendix 1: Terms of Reference..........................................................................................16 Appendix 2: Submissions.....................................................................................................17 Appendix 3: Interviews........................................................................................................18
  • 3. Executive Summary The University of Tasmania Library faces considerable challenges arising from digital library trends, the need to integrate resources and services with virtual learning environments and, closer to home, demands that will be placed on it through the EDGE agenda. The Library has a number of strengths that provide a foundation for the future, including a commitment to quality customer service and the ready adoption of electronic resources and services. The Library’s vision as a “vibrant learning hub” is a good fit with the views of many stakeholders about what the Library should be. However, the vision needs to be more explicitly articulated and promoted throughout the University to ensure it is understood and supported. It also requires strategic resourcing if it is to be achieved. Specific recommendations in relation to capital plans for libraries and learning hubs are made together with recommendations for resourcing acquisitions and document delivery. Other recommendations address specific issues with IT support, the Service Desk and process improvement. Commendations 1. The Library is commended for the frankness and openness of its self-assessment. 2. The Library is commended for the quality of its customer service which was noted by all stakeholders. 3. The Library is commended for its leadership in developing the Information Literacy Policy. 4. Feedback on the quality of the Document Delivery Service is universally positive. 5. The Library is commended for progress made in providing electronic access to information resources. 6. The recent inclusion of the University Librarian as a member of Senate is commended, as is the inclusion of a Library representative on each Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. Affirmations The following priorities and actions, identified in the Library’s Self Review Report, are affirmed: 1. The establishment of a more robust approach to measurement of outcomes. 2. The intent of the Information Literacy Policy, to embed information literacy in the curriculum within the context of graduate attributes, and to emphasise training for academic staff. 3. The further development and improvement of the Library’s matrix structure. Page 3 of 19
  • 4. 4. The development of a capital master plan for library and learning hub spaces. 5. The negotiation of a Service Level Definition between the Library and ITR. 6. A review of the acquisition formula. 7. The development of a formal Collection Development Policy that articulates strategy for both print and electronic collections. 8. Consideration of the inclusion of a Library representative on the University Teaching and Learning Committee and the Research College Board. 9. The reconstitution of the University’s ICT Committee as a forum for ICT strategic planning. Recommendations It is recommended that:- 1. The Library’s vision for the future is more explicitly affirmed and articulated in the University’s Strategic Plan, the Teaching and Learning Development Plan and the Research Management Plan. 2. An alternative approach to “rationing” Document Delivery services is considered e.g., a nominal charge for all requests rather than a quota. 3. The Library, ITR and FEU work together to identify actions needed to improve current operation of the Service Desk, including streamlining the tiered approach, and to develop a greater sense of partnership in delivering this service. 4. Priority is given to further developing the leadership capacity of senior Library staff. 5. The Library more systematically measures organisational climate e.g., through the regular use of a survey of staff. 6. The University seeks to develop a schedule for collaborative library service delivery as part of the State University Partnership Agreement. 7. The Cradle Coast Campus model of a learning hub with an effective mix of electronic and people support, is used at locations such as Inveresk. 8. Library services are included in quality assurance processes for offshore operations. 9. The Library develops a workforce plan based on future requirements and addressing any classification relativity issues identified through further research. 10. The University rationalises branch libraries wherever possible, starting with the integration of the Science Library into the Morris Miller Library, with the space released being refurbished as a Learning Hub. Combining the Art and Music Libraries is also recommended in the longer term should the opportunity present itself e.g., by a move to co-locate the Centre for the Arts and the Conservatorium. Page 4 of 19
  • 5. 11. Early attention is given to the full refurbishment of the Launceston Library. 12. The Library uses the CAUL Availability Survey instrument to establish a measure of collection adequacy. 13. An immediate injection of $500,000 to the acquisition budget is made to address deficiencies in the monograph collection. 14. The acquisition budget is indexed for both inflation and growth in student and staff numbers. 15. Any revised acquisition formula allocates funds at a broader disciplinary level (rather than School level) and gives weight to thematic areas of strategy priority already identified by the University. Recognition of future growth in student numbers should also be factored into any formula i.e., funding should anticipate growth rather than follow it. 16. The serials cap is retained but applied to the budget as a whole, rather than at a school or discipline level. Page 5 of 19
  • 6. Report 1. The Library's Self Assessment The Panel commends the Library for the frankness and openness of its self-assessment. Generally speaking, the Library's assessment was seen by stakeholders to be an accurate reflection of the strengths and weaknesses of current services, facilities, processes and structures. The self assessment process itself was an inclusive one, which was appreciated by Library staff. However, it is the Panel's view that the Self Review Report does not sufficiently address the Library's vision, goals and objectives and how these relate and contribute to those of the University. This lack of strategic focus was echoed by comments from a number of people interviewed by the Panel, comments which suggested that the Library's vision and major strategies are not well known by many stakeholders, both within and external to the Library. There is in fact a good fit between the Library's vision as described in its Strategic Plan and the views of many stakeholders about what the Library should be. This vision captures the need to move from a traditional model which emphases collections and physical access to one that is, in the words of the Vice-Chancellor, "more attuned to the post-digital scholar". The Library as a physical place is being reconceptualised as a "vibrant Learning hub", a place where students in particular can enjoy enhanced learning experiences. The Panel endorses this vision and encourages the Library to more actively promote it. It is also recommended that the University's Strategic Plan, the Teaching and Learning Development Plan and the Research Management Plan affirm and articulate the vision for the University Library more explicitly. 2. Alignment with the University's planning processes and implementation plans Given that the Library's Strategic Plan follows the key priorities and strategies set out in the University's Plan, it aligns well with that Plan. There is likewise a good alignment of Operational Plans with the Library Strategic Plan and there is evidence of further cascading of the former into individual performance plans. The planning process itself appears to be an inclusive one and there is evidence that progress against plans is regularly reviewed. 3. Commendations in relation to identified strengths and recommendations for action to improve the effectiveness of operations within existing resources The Library itself identified a strong customer focus as one of its strengths in its Self Review Report. This view was reinforced by all the stakeholders the Panel met and the Library is to be commended for the quality of its customer service. The Library has identified a need to develop a quality assurance program, with performance indicators for its major activities. The Panel affirms the need for the establishment of a more robust approach to measurement of outcomes. Strengths and recommendations for improvement for particular services are as follows:- Page 6 of 19
  • 7. 3.1 Information Services The Liaison Program is viewed positively by academic staff who appreciate the dedication and commitment shown by liaison librarians and the excellence of the services they provide. As noted in the Self Review Report, information skills teaching and training is a major focus of information services. The Panel received considerable positive feedback on the information literacy work of the Library and commends the Library for its leadership in developing the Information Literacy Policy. However, concern was expressed by a number of stakeholders about the sustainability of existing information literacy programs, particularly with growth in student numbers. While the Policy seeks to establish “a model for embedding information literacy into the academic curriculum of the University”, the Panel considers that current ad hoc and irregularly funded practice, with a significant amount of teaching by Library staff in some courses, is unsustainable. The Panel affirms the approach outlined in the Policy, including the emphasis on the embedding of information literacy into the curriculum within the context of graduate attributes and on training for academic staff. 3.2 Lending, Item Request and Reserve Services The Library’s Lending Services appear to be working well. A minor concern with inconsistency in the application of fines between branches was raised, as well as the need for improved processes for requesting items. The Panel affirms the actions underway by the Library to address both these concerns, the former through a policy review, the latter through an upgrade to Horizon, the Library system. 3.3 Flexible Library Service The Flexible Library Service supports distance students, including those at Cradle Coast Campus. It is a well regarded service, aspects of which will become increasingly important as the number of students using learning hubs remote from the Sandy Bay and Launceston Campuses grows. 3.4 Document Delivery One of the services most frequently mentioned by the academic staff that the Panel met was the Document Delivery Service. Feedback on the service itself is universally positive and the Library is to be commended for quality of this service, the importance of which is underscored by comparison with G8 libraries (Attachment 1). However, there is widespread unhappiness with the quota system that operates, with many academic staff feeling disadvantaged by it. This does present the Library with a dilemma, as it can only afford to fund a certain level of activity from its own resources. This challenge is to find a way to meet legitimate needs while controlling demand. The Panel recommends that the Library consider an alternative approach where a nominal charge is imposed for every request, but no quota is used. This is likely to require additional funding. Page 7 of 19
  • 8. 3.5 Service Desk The Service Desk is the first port of call for all IT desktop issues for both staff and students. The Library’s Self Review Report indicates that there is room for significant improvement with this service, a view reinforced by many of the Library staff and the ITR staff who met with the Panel. Interestingly, the Service Desk was not identified as a major concern by academic staff and students, but it may be that they do not see it as a Library service. Herein may lie some of the problems with this service. The Service Desk does not appear to be owned wholeheartedly by those areas for which it is their frontline i.e. the Library, ITR and EFU. In addition, resourcing issues, less than optimal supporting technology and lack of timely communication of information to the Service Desk all contribute to a sense of frustration with a service that is not working as well as it should. Hours of operation, staff skills and knowledge, the efficacy of the service desk tool used and the complications arising from having two Service Desk Managers are all issues that need to be addressed. Likewise, accountabilities for assistance and fault resolution need to be clarified and articulated. The Panel understands that ITR is using the ITIL framework to improve the quality of its processes. ITIL Incident Management and Problem Management cover the work of the Service Desk and it is assumed that any ITIL implementation will embrace this service. The Panel considers that the current Service Desk model is worth pursuing, particularly in the context of the emerging mix of libraries and learning hubs. It is therefore recommended that the Library, ITR and FEU work together to identify action necessary to improve the current operation, including streamlining the tiered approach. Some improvement should be possible within current resources, but additional resources will be required to expand hours of operation. The Panel also suggests that a much greater sense of partnership is needed between the Library, ITR and FEU if the Service Desk is to succeed. Current resource limitations within the Library need to be recognised and assistance provided to improve the level of staff expertise and the functioning of the service desk tool in particular. Formalisation of processes through ITIL implementation and the development of service level agreements will help, but shared ownership is also necessary. 4. Recommendations for action if additional resources were available The Panel considers that the priority for any additional resources is clearly the collection and the complementary document delivery service. These are covered in Sections 3.4 and 7. It will be important to get the balance between collections and document delivery right as undergraduate student needs cannot be met through the latter. The other major area that will require additional resources is that of a capital development plan for libraries and learning hubs. This is also covered in Section 7. While improvements to the Service Desk are possible now, further resources will be necessary before the hours of operation of this service can be extended. . Page 8 of 19
  • 9. 5. Quality of the Library’s organisational structure, management and leadership Shortly after her appointment in May 2003, the University Librarian introduced a matrix model for library-wide management of a number of portfolios. The Panel agrees with the view expressed in the Self-Review Report that there is scope for further development and improvement of this matrix structure and recommends that priority be given to further developing leadership capacity particularly insenior staff. Clients expressed considerable confidence in the management of the Library. From the perspective of Library staff, there were positive comments about the inclusiveness of planning processes and opportunities to comment on policies and developments. Generally speaking morale was good, although not universally so. The Panel considers that there is a need to more systematically measure the organisational climate and recommends that Library consider a regular survey of staff. Other structural issues raised with the Panel included:- (a) the location of the Library in the Teaching and Learning Portfolio. For some this does not acknowledge the role played by the Library in supporting research. (b) the relationship between the Library, the Flexible Education Unit and ITR. Concerns were expressed that while the Library and FEU are in the same portfolio, full benefits of synergy between the two are not yet being realised. There is evidence of good working relationships between some staff in the Library and the FEU, particularly senior staff, but there is a lack of role clarity for users of their services. The Panel encountered some support for an organisational model that encourages greater integration between the Library and ITR and notes that the manner in which ICT infrastructure and systems are planned and managed is impacting negatively on the Library’s ability to deliver ICT dependant services in a timely way. This is of particular concern given plans for more flexible service delivery. A structural response to this issue will not necessarily solve the problem. Whatever the structure, processes are needed to ensure that Library priorities can be addressed at both strategic and operational levels. 6. Capacity to meet future challenges The Library's capacity to support the University's growth agenda, including growth at the Cradle Coast Campus, at centres off the main campuses and off-shore, will depend on how successfully it adopts a new service delivery model which combines access to resources anytime, any place, well equipped spaces for study, and extended support when needed. It is the Panel's view that the Library's strategies do embrace such a model and that many stakeholders believe such an approach will meet their needs. The existing Flexible Library Service, which supports distance students already, contains features of the service envisaged. Success will depend on going digital wherever possible and using web-enabled processes and systems that promote user independence, but backing these with easily accessible support from Library staff, in an increasingly virtual mode. Success will also require continuous efficiency gains and moves to self-help and self-service to cater for growth in student numbers. Such a model could see the rationalisation of the number of traditional libraries with large collections and a growth in the number of learning hubs. Page 9 of 19
  • 10. Implementing such a model is necessarily long term, particularly for those components of the model that require space reconfiguration. However, the University does have the opportunity to build on this model at the Cradle Coast Campus and at Inveresk and the Panel recommends that Learning Hubs rather than traditional libraries be developed at both locations. Further specific comment on physical infrastructure can be found in Section 7.3, but at this point the Panel affirms the University Librarian's view that a capital master plan is required for library and learning hub spaces. Further recommendations to enhance the Library's capacity to meet future challenges are as follows: a. Growth The impact of growth in student numbers on the Library must be recognised. While reconceptualizing how the Library delivers services is a necessary pre-requisite to meeting future challenges, the Library cannot support growth of the magnitude envisaged in the EDGE agenda without more resources. Funding the capital plan referred to above is an obvious call on resources; the inevitable growth in support requirements and need for increases in collection and information resources must also be recognised. The latter is addressed in recommendations in 7.5 . b. Cradle Coast Campus The Panel endorses the approach described by both the University Librarian and the Director of the Cradle Coast Campus to develop a learning hub with an effective mix of electronic and people support, as an integral part of the Academic Development Project. The Panel also recommends that the University seek to develop a schedule for collaborative library service delivery as part of the State University Partnership Agreement. Potential exists for working with the State Library and TAFE to enhance service provision at the Cradle Coast Campus in particular. c. Academic Centres on the Main Campuses The Panel recommends that the same model as is used for the Cradle Coast Campus is used at locations such as Inveresk. d. Offshore operations The Panel notes that the University is developing quality assurance processes for its offshore operation and recommends that these processes include library services. 7. Appropriateness of human and financial resources and physical infrastructure, including collections 7.1 Human Resources The Self Review Report notes Library staff concern regarding classification levels of Library positions at the University of Tasmania. Compared with other Australian university libraries, it does appear that jobs are classified at lower levels in Tasmania. More research is needed to Page 10 of 19
  • 11. determine whether classification levels for all general staff are lower at the University of Tasmania compared with mainland universities and whether there are significant disparities with the State Library of Tasmania. It is recommended that the Library develop a workforce plan based on future requirements and that any significant relativity issues identified are addressed in that plan. 7.2 Financial resources Comparative budget data for G8 libraries is included in the Self Review Report and there is no doubt that library expenditure per population is lower for the University of Tasmania than for any of the G8 libraries. However, the University as a whole does not have a G8 budget and the Library’s budget as a percentage of the total University budget is actually better than any G8 library. That said, the multi site nature of the University, the comprehensive range of disciplines taught and supporting broad research strengths do pose challenges for the Library, as does the EDGE agenda. Priorities should additional funding be made available are identified in 4 above, with a specific recommendation for acquisitions funding in 7.5 below. 7.3 Physical Infrastructure When benchmarked against other Australian university libraries, the University of Tasmania Library performs above the median in all areas except for facilities and equipment where it is placed at the bottom of the sample (Rodski Survey results for 2001). The University is well aware of the need to upgrade facilities, with planning for learning hubs in both the Morris Miller and Launceston Libraries well advanced. However this action alone will not address all the issues. In line with the views expressed in section 6, it is recommended that the University rationalise branch libraries wherever possible. Considerable support already exists for the integration of the Science collections into the Morris Miller Library, with the space released being refurbished as a learning hub. Such a change could happen relatively quickly if funding was available. Combining the Art and Music Libraries is also recommended in the longer term should the opportunity present itself e.g. by a move to co-locate the Centre for the Arts and the Conservatorium. It is recommended that a master plan for all libraries and learning hubs be developed as part of the University’s Capital Plan. This would be valuable not only for planning purposes to ensure that the Library can meet future challenges, but also for promoting the concept of the reconceptualised library. It is also recommended that early attention be given to the full refurbishment of the Launceston Library. Page 11 of 19
  • 12. 7.4 Electronic Infrastructure Concerns with the extent to which the current planning and management of ICT infrastructure supports Library operations have already been noted in section 5. A particular example cited is the delay in getting a test environment for work on fixes for the Horizon system, which is a critical tool within the Library and one that requires immediate action. The Panel recognises the resource constraints that ITR is working within and notes that a Service Level Definition is being developed. The Panel affirms the need for such a Definition to clarify responsibilities and service expectations. 7.5 Collections and access to information resources Collection inadequacy was a universal theme in the discussions the panel had with staff and students of the University. As with every Australian university library, the University of Tasmania Library faces rising costs for information resources, together with increases in the number of resources available for purchase. The impact of publishers' policies in aggregating electronic serials and trends in electronic publishing were among the issues raised with the panel. These difficulties are compounded for the University of Tasmania which, as the only University in the state, has a broad range of academic programs and no significant research collections nearby in other universities. User perceptions of collection inadequacy are supported by benchmarking data presented in the Self Review Report. Certainly, in terms of funding for acquisitions, the University of Tasmania spends considerably less per EFTSU than any member of the G8. This is true for both the overall acquisitions expenditure (based on a comparison of CAUL statistics) and for expenditure at the discipline level (based on a more detailed benchmarking exercise using a number of comparator institutions). However, it could be argued that an input measure such a funding/EFTSU is fairly crude and that more meaningful data is required before simply concluding that more money should be spent. There are many other factors that influence how well needs are met, including internal distribution of funds, policies, etc. CAUL statistics themselves can provide further perspectives on collections and information provision. For example, data on numbers of monograph items and titles and on the number of serial titles acquired per EFTSU (Attachment 1) place the University of Tasmania quite favourably, compared with the G8 (ranking of 4th, 3rd and 2nd respectively). On the other hand, the University's reliance on document delivery as measured by the number of loans per academic staff FTE and research student EFTSU, is significantly higher than any other G8 University, although this may reflect the lack of personal access to other research collections, more than the underlying collection adequacy. Given the need to treat such statistical comparisons with caution, it is the Panel's view that the Library should collect quantitative data on how well its collections meet user needs, to complement the wealth of qualitative data available. It is therefore recommended that the Library use the CAUL Availability Survey instrument to establish a measure of collection adequacy for both comparison against other institutions and to provide a baseline against which to measure future performance. Page 12 of 19
  • 13. It is the Panel's view that while it is up to the University to determine the level to which it aspires when it comes to the quantum of funding for library acquisitions, there is a need for an immediate injection of funding for monographs. It is recommended that the Acquisition budget is increased by at least $500,000 immediately with further increases being determined when Material Availability Survey results are produced. Whatever the acquisition base determined by the University, the Panel recommends that the acquisitions budget is indexed for both inflation and growth in student and staff numbers. Apart from the issue of collection adequacy, the Panel also received considerable feedback on the efficacy of the acquisition formula. The Panel affirms the need to review this formula, as already flagged in the Self Review Report. Concerns raised regarding the existing method of allocation of funds were that there is little discretionary capacity to meet strategic needs, and that it does not easily accommodate the increasing proportion of aggregated electronic resources. Allocating at the school level is seen to result in too much fragmentation of resources and the one-size-fits-all approach to the serials cap does not recognise disciplinary differences. The identification by the University of thematic areas for research concentration provides an opportunity to consider a similar concentration of at least a proportion of acquisitions funds for resources to support research that the University considers of strategic importance. It is recommended that in developing a revised approach to the allocation of the acquisition budget, the University considers a broader disciplinary approach rather than allocating at the School level and that some weighting be given to thematic areas of strategic priority already identified. Recognition of future growth in student numbers should also be factored into any formula, i.e. funding should anticipate growth rather than follow it. The Panel supports the use of a serials cap as a mechanism to protect funding for other resources, but recommends that this cap be applied to the budget as a whole, rather than each area. This would allow the cap to be exceeded in some areas where there is heavy reliance on serials, while being offset by expenditure below the cap in other areas where monographs are more important. Collection Development Policy The Panel affirms the need for a formal Collection Development Policy that articulates strategy for both print and electronic collections, including duplication. While there will be areas where print resources continue to be important, the Panel encountered widespread preference for electronic access and commends the Library for progress already made in improving such access. The Panel would also encourage the Library to assume greater responsibility for collection development through Liaison Librarians becoming more proactive in the acquisition process. Liaison librarians have only recently become involved in the selection process and there is scope for extending this involvement. In line with the Library's own identified need to develop performance indicators for all services, the Panel recommends that the Library consider ways of determining whether the "right" material is being selected for purchase. Regular analysis of use of particular parts of the collection and of document delivery requests may be useful in this regard. Better monitoring of and reporting on the acquisitions budget would also be welcome in some academic areas. Page 13 of 19
  • 14. 8. Relationship with key University bodies and staff and students The Library has a particularly effective mechanism for interacting with academic staff in the form of the liaison librarians and the Library Liaison Officer network. Some branches also have established user groups and the University Librarian has indicated that further user groups will be encouraged. The Panel supports this move and suggests that the formation of a Library Committee, reporting to the Senate, also be considered. The Panel also endorses the inclusion of the Library in the Student Services Advisory body that is to be formed. In relation to key university bodies, the Panel commends the recent inclusion of the University Librarian as a member of Senate and the inclusion of a Library representative on each Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. The panel also affirms the need to consider membership of a Library representative on the University Teaching and Learning Committee and the Research College Board, as flagged in the Self Review Report. The Panel also affirms the need for the reconstitution of the IT Committee [need to check title] as a forum for IT strategic planning. Information and communication technologies are crucial for successful implementation of the Library's vision and the opportunity to influence IT strategy is required. 9. Relationship with external bodies, particularly the State Library of Tasmania The Panel met with representatives from TAFE, ALIA and the State Library of Tasmania. All spoke highly of the professionalism of the staff University of Tasmania Library and the collaborative relationships that exist with their respective organisations. Formalisation of the relationships with TAFE and the State Library of Tasmania is recommended in 6 (b) in the form of a schedule to the State University Partnership Agreement to cover library services. Page 14 of 19
  • 15. Attachment 1 Non-Serials Serials University Library Items Required Titles Acquired Current Titles No. No. per No. No. per No. No. per EFTSU EFTSU EFTSU Adelaide 14 841 .99 14 442 .96 37 295 2.49 ANU 18 779 1.54 NA NA 46 015 3.77 Melbourne 42 983 1.17 35 176 .96 68 763 1.8 Monash 51 465 1.22 31 756 .75 70 239 1.66 NSW 20 202 .60 16 113 .47 30 486 .90 Queensland 36 301 1.08 24 604 .73 58 591 1.74 Sydney 47 003 1.22 32 613 .84 66 276 1.71 WA 12 161 .78 9 748 .63 17 829 1.15 U Tas 14 530 1.17 10 962 .88 33 753 2.72 Numbers of serials and non-serials acquired compared with G8 2002 [Based on CAUL statistics 2002] University Items Academic Higher Total Items Library Borrowed Staff Degree Population Borrowed / Students FFE/EFTSU Adelaide 6 708 929 2 106 3 035 2.2 ANU 4 892 1 160 2 288 3 448 1.4 Melbourne 10 658 2 243 7 333 9 576 1.1 Monash 23 359 2 269 7 581 9 850 2.4 NSW 13 677 1 759 7 677 9 436 1.5 Queensland 28 201 1 941 5 457 7 398 3.8 Sydney 34 859 2 030 5 916 7 946 4.4 WA 17 257 1 063 2 285 3 348 5.2 Tasmania 26 089 645 1 061 1 706 15.3 Document delivery – items borrowed compared with G8 2002 Page 15 of 19
  • 16. Appendix 1: Terms of Reference Review and comment on: 1. The Library’s self-assessment 2. The alignment of the Library’s goals, objectives and planning processes with the University’s plan, and the implementation of its operational plans 3. Commendations in relation to identified strengths and recommendations for action that may be taken to improve the effectiveness of operations within existing resources. 4. Recommendations for action that may be taken to improve the effectiveness of operations if additional resources were available. 5. The quality of the Library’s organisational structure, management and leadership 6. The capacity of the Library to meet likely future challenges related to its functions, especially with respect to: a. Growth in student numbers b. Provision of support at the Cradle Coast campus c. Continuing growth in academic centres off the main campuses d. Future growth in off shore numbers 7. The appropriateness of the human and financial resources and physical infrastructure, particularly in relation to the collection and client needs, with consideration of relevant benchmarks. 8. The relationship with key university bodies, and with staff and students both on campus and off campus 9. The relationship with external bodies, and in particular the State Library of Tasmania Page 16 of 19
  • 17. Appendix 2: Submissions List of submissions received - July 2004 • Ross Brooker, Faculty of Education • Tony Ryan, Morris Miller Library • Christine Goodacre, Flexible Education Unit • Marcus Haward, School of Government • Linda Mihaich, Newstead College • Jay Burleigh, School of Architecture • Jane Jeppson, Australian Library and Information Association • Siobhan Gaskell, State Library of Tasmania • Alan Carmichael, School of Medicine • Bernardo A Leon de la Barra, School of Engineering Page 17 of 19
  • 18. Appendix 3: Interviews Name Position Prof Daryl Le Grew Vice-Chancellor Prof Sue Johnston Pro Vice-Chancellor (T&L) Prof Andrew Glenn Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) Prof Jim Reid Dean, Science, Engineering & Tech Prof Peter Carroll Dean, Commerce Prof Don Chalmers Dean, Law Prof Jan Pakulski Dean, Arts Mrs Linda Luther University Librarian Professor Douglas Knehans Head, Conservatorium of Music Professor Noel Frankham Head, School of Art Professor Chris Carter Head, School of Aquaculture Professor Roger Fay Head, School of Architecture Mr John Parry Director, Information Technology Resources Mr Colin Broadbent Team Leader Service Desk Debbie Wright Branch Librarian - Law Chris Evans Branch Librarian - Science Ian Barton Branch Librarian - Clinical School Paul Reynolds Branch Librarian - Art/Music Richard Dearden Senior Library Manager Lana Wall Senior Library Manager Di Worth Senior Library Manager Dr Gail Ridley Co-ordinator Library Programs UTas Leonie Atkins Co-ordinator Lib and Music Technology Ins of TAFE Jane Jeppson Aust Library & Info Assoc (ALIA) Local Liaison Officer Cathy Doe Senior Manager Public Library Services Dr Kate Crowley Acting Dean of Graduate Studies Mr Chris Carstens Academic Registrar Sue Mulcahy Flexible Education Unit Mr Tony Payne Manager, Student Services Mrs Megan Cavanagh Russell Director Cradle Coast Campus Mrs Lorraine Hamilton Support Officer Cradle Coast Campus Mrs Robyn Phillips Manager, International Offshore Programs Mr Adrian Dillon IT Resources Dr Lewellyn Negrin Head Art & Design Theory, School of Art Mitchell Rolls Riawunna Dr Leon Barmuta School of Zoology Dr Stefan Petrow School of History & Classics Mr Peter Davson-Galle Faculty of Education Mr Peter Dixon School of Management Dr Waheed Hugrass School of Computing Dr Brian Yates School of Chemistry Bernado Leon De La Barra School of Engineering Assoc Prof David Johns School of Medicine Assoc Prof Stuart McLean School of Pharmacy Page 18 of 19
  • 19. Name Position Mr James Chase School of Philosophy Mr Marshall Clark School of Asian Lang & Studies Dr Daphne Habibis School of Sociology & Social Work Tracy Douglas School of Human Life Sciences Mark Bryne Library Staff, Launceston Janet Hallam Cherie Holmes Jill Wells Sandra Livingstone Prue Senior Arthur Dabrowski Library Staff, Hobart Roger Carter Debra Wilson Beth Chalmers Robyn Jones Helen Jackson Hobart students approximately 8 students Page 19 of 19