Professional Development - Transportation Libraries

1. Richard Huffine
former Library Director, U.S.Geological Survey
& fromer National Libraries Program
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 19, 2015

2.  We rarely get to pick the circumstances
within which we approach transformation
 But we can chose the language we use to talk
about libraries, librarians, and the
information needs of our institution
 I want to give you two examples from my
experience that I hope will give you some
strategies for talking about transportation
with your customers, leaders, and staff

3.  Perceived duplication (some real, some not)
 Funding decisions made at the local level
 Increasing budget pressure (due in part to rising
IT costs)
 Library was part of overhead (competing with fleet,
health, safety, etc.)
 Collaborations (Agency-wide e-subscriptions)
perceived as making the library redundant
 Disparate models for management of services
 Almost all staff were contracted but the key was
whether or not federal managers had backgrounds in
libraries or not

4.  National management cut library budget specifically
by $2.5 million from an estimated $8 million for 28
libraries ( 10 regionals, 14 labs, 4 hq)
 Local management made decisions based on reduced
funding. 3 regional libraries and 2 HQ libraries closed and
subscriptions in 2 main research libraries were cut in half
(the 2 centers worked together to maintain different titles
and invested in additional e-subscriptions)
 Library community and science advocates raised the alarm
and started asking questions. A few key legislators wrote
letters, held hearings, and asked the GAO to investigate

5.  Congress ultimately ended up earmarking a
restoration of funds and all locations were reopened
in some form.
 GAO struggled to understand the decisions that were
made and questioned some of the underlying assumptions
EPA started with.
 The reopened facilities were smaller and designed to
leverage national capabilities. EPA established clear
guidelines for library services and service centers for
some functions (ILL, cataloging, legal research)
 A user needs assessment was conducted to ensure
future changes address user requirements

6.  Interior Bureaus all operate their own library
services or utilize the Interior Library as needed.
 All Bureaus except Indian Affairs have librarians -
most have libraries but few offer a full suite of
research support today.
 Currently meet quarterly to coordinate and share
information
 Main interior provides some e-subscriptions to all
Interior (Ebsco, Hein, Jstor)
 Interior has consolidated services 3 times in 160
years. USGS was never consolidated into that
service.

7.  USGS is the research arm of the Dept of Interior.
Started with a single library in DC in 1882.
 Expanded to 4 branches in the 1950s and 60s
▪ Reston,VA; Denver, CO; Menlo Park, CA and Flagstaff,AZ
▪ Flagstaff is an astrogeology library built to support NASA training
of astronauts. NASA still funds 100 USGS staff in Flagstaff.
 In 1995, the branches were delegated to 3 separate
Regional Directors. At the same time, 12 biological
center libraries came to the Survey from FWS.
 Regional libraries were funded centrally and had national
acquisitions and central support for technical and digital
library services
 Funding for the Center libraries was consolidated but their
operation was not

8.  In 2010, the entire Bureau reorganized, eliminating the
previous regional structure entirely.
 The 4 branches were reunited and central funding for center
libraries was eliminated.
 A process began for center libraries to align their activities
with the national program.
 Some are closing, some are becoming branches with specific
roles for the Bureau as well as their local centers.
 On a parallel track, the USGS has developed a digital
library plan with e-subscriptions and digitization of public
domain literature being the main focus of
implementation.
 Next steps will require assessment of collection to reduce
duplication, lower rent costs, and improve value across the
enterprise

9.  Working together
 Staying informed
 Knowing each others strengths
 Leveraging your collective knowledge
 Increasing your buying power

10.  Creating co-dependencies
 Sacrificing control over everything to have
access to more
 Being smaller then before but potentially
improving your overall value (in a costs vs.
benefits way)

11.  A hybrid of the previous two
 You can retain control over your own destiny
but begin to benefit from a tighter fit
between the pieces of the team.

12.  Factors to consider individually
 Need for a library at all (research, policy, applied or
theoretical)
 Scope and focus - how broad do your users need to
reach and how deep do they dive into topic areas?
 How current does the material need to beAND how
much historical information do they use? Some
disciplines rarely use the historical literature
 These question should help you focus in on what
you need to do to support your users - then you
can decide what that means for collaborating
with others

13.  Does the whole equal more than the some of the parts?
 Do some libraries provide support corporately for all?
 Are their things you do rarely that you would prefer to
have done by someone that really knows how do do
them?
 Could you get more and better resources together than
you do alone?
▪ Note: in this scenario, it is okay to be a consumer of services/resources.
Not everyone needs to be a corporate provider of something.
The ultimate goal is to improve the service to your users.
Your bottom line is helping transportation libraries
achieve their mission.

14.  Richard Huffine
richardhuffine@gmail.com