Taking a step back

423 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
423
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • How many people have space you consider unappealing? How many have remodeled space to increase appeal?
  • Weeding is more possible due to e-book and e-journals – much more so that when last edition of Slote was published
  • Taking a step back

    1. 1. Charleston Conference 2010 Stephen Dew Collections and Scholarly Resources Coordinator Mike Crumpton Assistant Dean for Administrative Services The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Taking a Step Back, To Move Forward
    2. 2. Library Space is Limited  No longer collection storage only!  New models have emerged for collection management  More electronic resources  Off site storage and collaborative options  Quantitative volume counts less important  Learning assessment based on student outcomes  Collection space shared with “Users”  Building additions, expansions and remodels competing with other projects in a tough economy
    3. 3. Library as Place  Space attributes being assessed, i.e. LibQUAL+  Space that inspires study and learning  Comfortable and inviting  Quiet space for individual contemplation  Community space for group and collaborative learning, study and related activities  Space that serves as a gateway and accessibility for study, learning, research and related resources  Third place space  Fosters community spirit and involvement  Encourages creative and collaborative thinking
    4. 4. Aged Space is Unappealing Basement Stacks Government Documents
    5. 5. Creating appealing space
    6. 6. Changing User Needs Collections Based User/Learner Focused ▫ All materials warehoused and available quickly ▫ Collection selected and endorsed by faculty as extension of classroom resources ▫ Collection built to support research with primary sources ▫ Significant financial investment made to process, deliver and maintain collection ▫ Dedicated space to support learning needs ▫ Technology driven attributes to access needed resources ▫ Group space to meet and work collaboratively with classmates ▫ Individual study with tools/conveniences to support technology ▫ Financial resources stretched to cover larger breadth of collaborative/technologic al needs
    7. 7. The Price of Space • Maintaining print collections ▫ Processing ▫ Access/delivery ▫ Shelving and repair • Storage and retrieval costs • New technologies • Infrastructure needs • Updated furnishing “Limited funding forces libraries to make financial choices”
    8. 8. How Space is Used Usable floor space Sq. Ft How space is used Sq. Ft Tower stacks 55,980 Book Shelving 57680 Tower Lobbies 4,116 Staff/offices 16500 Main – B,1 and 2 77592 Specialty areas* 46632 Main – 3rd Floor 8772 SCUA 11000 Total usable space 146,460 Common user spaces 14648 Total 146,460 *this includes reference, reading room, Jarrell Hall, Gov Docs
    9. 9. What Students Want  Small group work spaces  Access to tutors, experts, and faculty in the learning space  Table space for a variety of tools  Integrated lab facilities  IT highly integrated into all aspects of learning spaces  Availability of labs, equipment, and access to primary resources  Accessible facilities  Shared screens (either projector or LCD); availability of printing  Workgroup facilitation Learning Spaces Educause 2006
    10. 10. Campus Priorities and Plans Library Addition UNCG has identified the expansion of Jackson Library as one of its top priorities. The proposed design:  Expanding the tower for book stacks.  Create a new center of academic and student life.  Secondary transit hub will be adjacent to Jackson Library addition reinforcing the critical role of the building to the life of the campus.  Public spaces of the library should be located in conjunction with the transit hub.
    11. 11. Proposed Library Addition Existing Main and Tower
    12. 12. Weeding Justifications  Volume count is a less important metric in ranking (not part of strategic plan)  Space for collections is becoming a lower priority on campus  Electronic resources are improving access to same or similar materials  Continuation of same strategy has a finite end so alternatives must be considered now.
    13. 13. Slote principles  Reasons to weed  Increases book usage  Increases user satisfaction  Saves staff time  Makes room for new technologies  Resistance to weeding stems from:  Emphasis on numbers - “bigger is better”  Professional work pressure - “not enough time”  Fear of public displeasure - “letters to the editor”  Sacredness of collection -  Conflicting criteria
    14. 14. Impact of E-books and E-journals– increased and flexible access  Reference – moving from “building use only” to available at home 24/7  Technology and other subjects that date quickly  Test manuals  Strong user preference for e-journals over print Space savings for all
    15. 15. Bang for the buck Individual monograph weeding Serials weeding  Labor intensive for decisions  Labor intensive for record modification  Hard to gain enough space  Unlikely to have electronic back up  Book sale and recycling  One decision can cover multiple volumes  One record change covers multiple volumes  Gains more space more quickly  Biggest gains from print/electronic duplication  Limited options for discards
    16. 16. Low hanging fruit  Duplicate formats and copies  Outdated editions  Obvious solutions to some – aren’t obvious to all  Disciplinary differences
    17. 17. Impact and Assessing Situations  ASERL unique monograph list  Binding investment  Economy on politics  Economy on buying (growth projection)  Remote collections  Receiving gifts
    18. 18. Cautionary Tales  Level of detail for weeding varies by person doing the weeding, i.e. reference librarian looks holistically vs. tech service personnel looking at call numbers and item numbers  Personal biases can play a role  Groups need to be unified by common goal  Communication constantly maintained to establish procedures and resolve problems  Entire operation needs to be transparent
    19. 19. Collaborations  Large scale serials weeding procedures  Bigger is better?  Judgment factor?
    20. 20. Space Gainers  Special Collections and Archives  Unique signature to institution  Undergrads with technology  Technical enhancements for collaborative devices is part of learning environment  Undergrads without technology  Old fashion need for privacy and quiet  All Users  Community center focused space
    21. 21. UNCG Groups to consider  Space Planning Committee – oversight group, including wide representation  Collection Management Committee – Subject Liaisons  Technical Services Staff  Access Services Staff  University Groups  Teaching Faculty  Students!
    22. 22. Green Weeding  Library and campus are committed to sustainability  Recycling and Reusing accomplished by:  Connections with Recycling Office  Better World Books AVOID THE DUMPSTER
    23. 23. UNCG Solutions  Identified duplication  Monographs  Journals owned electronically and in print  Identified low use monographs  Weeding with specific goals  ID target call number ranges  Partnered with departmental liaisons  Prioritized storage availability  Compact shelving pros and cons
    24. 24. Journal De-Duplication Project 2007
    25. 25. Reasons to De-Duplicate Journal Subscriptions  Annual price increases for journals have significantly exceeded inflation Need to keep journal budget under control and not take from other resources  The vast majority of users want and expect electronic copies - why pay for a duplicate print copy that nobody uses  With e-only, there is no longer a need for processing, claiming, binding, etc., so there will be additional monetary savings and staff time will be freed for other tasks  With e-only, shelving space is freed for other use
    26. 26. Other Institutions Going to Electronic Journal Subscriptions in 2007  University of South Carolina  Appalachian State University  East Carolina University  Drexel  UC Davis  UNC Charlotte  American University  Binghamton University  University of Maryland  Central Michigan (moving 70% to online by 2008)  Kansas State University  College of Charleston
    27. 27. Logistics of the De-Duplication Project  Coordinated by Collection Management Committee-- AD for Collections, librarians who are department liaisons, and the heads of cataloging, acquisitions, and access services.  Developed a spreadsheet of 850 journals for which the Libraries subscribed to both the print & electronic versions and the journals offered an e-only subscription option  At UNCG, most journal subscriptions are assigned to a particular academic department, and the spreadsheet was sorted by department (3 letter code)
    28. 28. Logistics of the De-Duplication Project  A template letter that explained why print subscriptions should be dropped in favor of e- only subscriptions was prepared and shared with liaisons  Some liaisons revised the template for their own style, but everyone provided essentially the same message  During first week of March 2007, liaisons sent letters and spreadsheets to department chairs and representatives for their review and comment
    29. 29. Results from De-duplication Project  For 813 journals, print subscriptions were cancelled and an e-only subscriptions maintained Savings on subscription cost Shelf space freed in Current Periodicals area Shelf space freed in Stacks No Processing Costs No Claiming Costs No Binding Costs  We lose no content, remove duplication, & still provide what our users want most: Electronic access to the information
    30. 30. Journal Cancellation & Budget Reduction Project 2009
    31. 31. North Carolina State Budget Crisis 2010  Due to a significant shortfall in tax revenues, on April 6, 2009, the state ordered all agencies to freeze purchasing  As of that date, the Libraries lost whatever collection funds it had remaining for the fiscal year and could not make anymore purchases or pay any incoming invoices  The Libraries had to prepare for a possible 15-to- 20 percent budget cut for fiscal 2009-10
    32. 32. Logistics of the Journal Cancellation & Budget Reduction Project  Coordinated by Collection Management Committee  Developed a spreadsheet of 1,750 journals  Libraries had a direct subscription (not a package deal)  The current issues of the journal were available in PDF in a protected aggregator database  The spreadsheet was sorted by department and reviewed by liaisons, who made recommendations on cancelling/keeping  Departments & faculty were notified about recommendations
    33. 33. Protected Aggregator Databases
    34. 34. Results from the Journal Cancellation and Budget Reduction Project  700 journal subscriptions cancelled  $175,000 reduced from the serials budget of $1.52 million  We lose no content, remove duplication, & still provide what our users want most: Electronic access to the information (do lose ownership)
    35. 35. Weeding & Space Repurposing Project 2008 to Date
    36. 36. Space Based on Print Collections  All materials warehoused in building (shelves/cabinets)  Significant financial investment made to process, deliver, & maintain collection  Library prestige & ranking dependent upon physical size, total volumes, etc.  Print collection takes more & more space, taking away from student study, collaborative space, and other uses
    37. 37. Print Replaced by Electronic  Frees space to support a more conducive learning environment--more individual study space, more group study space, more computers, etc.  Frees financial resources for other needs  Library prestige more dependent on electronic resources provided and the building’s learning environment
    38. 38. Coordination of the Weeding & Space Re-Purposing Project  Space Planning Committee (July 2008) --the oversight group responsible for planning renovation of space, setting priorities, and scheduling when certain call-number ranges of the collection would be reviewed for weeding  Collection Management Committee – responsible for reviewing the journals, making recommendations, communicating with departments and faculty, and coordinating the actual weeding and transfer
    39. 39. We Are Not a Museum  We cannot afford to become a museum for printed journals that are available electronically.  We cannot afford to become a museum for old books that are duplicates, out-of-date, or out-of- scope.  Our current patrons do not use them  We can expect the same behavior from our future patrons.
    40. 40. Weeding Totals for Journals  7,000 linear feet of bound journals weeded from Jackson Library  1,500 linear feet of bound journals weeded from Storage  1,000 linear feet of bound journals removed from Jackson to Storage
    41. 41. Weeding Totals for Books & Microforms  700 linear feet of books weeded from Jackson Library  2,500 linear feet of books weeded from Storage (review still in progress)  50 linear feet of microforms weeded from Jackson  25 microform cabinets removed from Jackson to Storage
    42. 42. Goal = 50% increase in User Space Proposed use of space Sq. Ft Book Shelving 43680 All materials in tower Staff/offices 16500 Specialty areas* 37860 SCUA 18000 Acquire 3rd floor main Common user spaces 30420 User service pts in basement including Gov docs and larger CITI lab Total 146,460 *this includes reference, reading room, Jarrell Hall,
    43. 43. Selected Sources Dubicki, Eleonora. “Weeding : Facing the Fears.” Collection Building 27, no. 4 (2008): 132-135. Lugg, Rick and Ruth Fischer. “Future Tense – The Disapproval Plan: Rules-Based Weeding & Storage Decisions.” Against the Grain 20, no. 6 (2008-2009): 74-78. Metz, Paul and Caryl Gray. “Public Relations and Library Weeding.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 3 (2005): 273-279. Oblinger, Diana G, ed. Learning Spaces. Educause, 2006. http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces Penniman, Sarah and Lisa McColl. “Green Weeding: Promoting Ecofriendly Options for Library Discards.” Library Journal 133, no. 15 (2008): 32-33. Schonfeld, Roger C. and Housewright, Ross. “What to Withdraw? Print Collection Management in the Wake of the Digital Age, ITHAKA S+R, September 2009 Slote, Stanley. Weeding Library Collections, 4th ed. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1999. Wakaruk, Amanda. “Dissecting the Disconnect : Thinking about Public Space in Academic Libraries.” College and Research Libraries News 70, no. 1 (2009) 16- 18.

    ×