Well, I'm a little behind on my posts for ALA, but I've been trying to catch up after conference and then the 4th of July. While I'm all into the Web 2.0 applications, I don't really have the opportunity to do much of anything with it. So, while a lot of folks had a lot to choose from, honestly, I struggled to find a couple of sessions that apply to what I do... electronic resources and collection development, heavy on the collection development.
I did find two really good sessions, though. The first session I attended was "We have the data, now what? Putting your collection assessment to work." It was a panel disscussion sponsored by RUSA. Since I had just finished evaluating the effectiveness of our collection development efforts for the previous fiscal year, I was interested to see what this session would offer up. The first speaker was Shirley Baker, Director of Washington University (St. Louis) Library. The really interesting thing I took from her session was the use of what is being digitized by the Google Nine (it was Five when she did it) to help weed your collection, either for permanent removal or removal to off-site storage. Like everyone else, I keep hearing about who's joined the Google digitization effort, but here's a library actually putting that product to their use. These are public domain titles prior to 1923. With the increase in copyright to 75 years, it will be harder and harder to do this, but pre-1923 can be a pretty big chunk for a lot of libraries. Naturally, they used WorldCat Collection Analysis for their comparisons. Now, I don't really care for WCCA (see previous postings), but his was a pretty cool use of a pre-defined group in WCCA.
The second presenter was Karen Neurohr, Assessment Librarian at Oklahoma State University. She did a measurement space study, then actively used what was available electronically in JSTOR to determine what journals could be moved off-site. The third presenter was Betty Gailbraith of Washington State University. They are using journal statistics to make collection development decisions. It sounds basic, but they are incorporating using statistics not generally used - titles cited by faculty and titles that faculty publish in, how did faculty use the title (online or in the library), and is it a core title. Having something in numerical format also helps faculty understand decisions.
Now, in retrospect, the second and third presenters didn't really come up with anything new, but in my previous position, it wasn't something I thought of when determining a game plan for our weeding project. Admittedly, I was working with monographs, but now I wonder what criteria was being used for journals. We moved a set of journals off-site thinking they would never be used only to find out that the Theatre Arts department used the ads in back issues to help with costumes. We wound up bring them back to the library.
The second session I attended was Technical Services 2.0 (guess I did get a 2.0 session in). It was presented by the ALCTS Technology Committee and was also a panel presentation. Matt Barnes pretty much gave an general overview of Web 2.0. Beth P. Camden spoke about Penn Taggs, which is a social bookmarking system for University of Pennsylvania library resources. In addition to uses for the students, library staff have used it to train new staff members. I'm completely fascinated by the use of social bookmarking in the academic setting, so I particularly enjoyed seeing a model in action. Elizabeth Winters spoke about Georgia Tech's use of Web 2.0 technology within the department. They use Wikis's for sharing processes and managing serials, Google applications (spreadsheets) for sharing documents, and instant messaging (IM) for internal communication. In my previous job, we had no share drive. After hearing about their use of Google apps, I had a "duh" moment and wondered why I didn't think about it. I'm a total believer that IM is not only good for reference but for internal communication as well - cut down on some of those e-mails. I first learned to use IM not for personal reason, but in a job setting. I worked for a software company doing in-depth customer support as part of a larger team. None of us where in the same office; in fact we ranged from East to West Coast, literally. We used IM to communicate with other members of the team; we all had "specializations" and it was generally more efficient to pop off a quick IM than to talk on the phone. Later the company purchased an IM system and went company wide with it.
All in all, I enjoyed both sessions and came away with something new.
I was a little disappointed in the vendor fair. It didn't seem to be as alive as it was in New Orleans. Some of the vendors evened seemed like they would rather have been somewhere else. Having said that, I did speak with those I wanted to and got to do a little exploring.
July 16, 2007
June 04, 2007
Collection Development effectiveness...
A couple of weeks ago, we (the librarians in my department) were tasked with running reports that would show how many books we ordered in the previous fiscal year, the lag time till checkout, the number of times the title circulated, and the number of times the title was placed on reserve. Then, we were told to go figure usage statistices. We weren't given any specifics, just to go figure what we thought was reasonable and bring it to the librarian's meeting in two weeks.
I love Excel and am fascinated with statistics. So, another librarian and I sat down and did some quick stats. What we chose to look at were the the total items circulated, total circulations, average lag time for an item to circulate, percent of items ordered that circulated, and the number/percent of items that circulated in 30, 90, 120 and more than 120 days. We also looked at the number of video recordings that were ordered and that circulated (number and percentage). For music, we also looked at the number of sound recordings that were ordered and circulated. The numbers were looked at by department and for the last fiscal year.
The results were interesting. In all cases, the circulation numbers were higher than the the total of the items circulated. What this told us was that while a certain percentage circulates (average was about 30% of items ordered circulated), those items generally circulated more than once. In some departments, 50% of the items that circulated circulated more than once. And where videos were ordered, in most cases a high percentage of the videos circulated; 100% circulation in some cases and in one case 0% of the videos ordered circulated. Our highest three departments circulated 67% and 61% of the ordered items. Our lowest circulation for a department was 11%. Overall, 35.41% of what was ordered circulated; 25 out of 42 departments circulated more than 30% of items ordered, three departments circulated more than 50% of ordered items. The average lag time for an item to circulate is about five months. 58.07% of circulated items circulated in 120 days or less. 51.78% of videos ordered circulated - videos accounted for 1.39% of materials ordered, but 2.03% of materials circulated.
I am fascinated by these results and a little heartened. I had stepped up the number of vidoes and multi-media for some of the collections I develop. The numbers show me that the videos that have been ordered in the past are circulating, so ordering more is probably a good thing. What I'm not sure of is if these numbers are good. I did pull the ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004). At a glance they don't give any numbers for circulation, but rather suggest looking at "Ratio of circulation (excluding reserve) to combined student and faculty FTE," and "Ratio of volumes added per year to combined student and faculty FTE." Again, nothing is given as to what would consitute a good number here, but at least it's a guideline. Unfortunately, I don't have the faculty and student numbers for last year, but I'm thinking that it wouldn't be bad to see how those ratios look against what we've already done.
I love Excel and am fascinated with statistics. So, another librarian and I sat down and did some quick stats. What we chose to look at were the the total items circulated, total circulations, average lag time for an item to circulate, percent of items ordered that circulated, and the number/percent of items that circulated in 30, 90, 120 and more than 120 days. We also looked at the number of video recordings that were ordered and that circulated (number and percentage). For music, we also looked at the number of sound recordings that were ordered and circulated. The numbers were looked at by department and for the last fiscal year.
The results were interesting. In all cases, the circulation numbers were higher than the the total of the items circulated. What this told us was that while a certain percentage circulates (average was about 30% of items ordered circulated), those items generally circulated more than once. In some departments, 50% of the items that circulated circulated more than once. And where videos were ordered, in most cases a high percentage of the videos circulated; 100% circulation in some cases and in one case 0% of the videos ordered circulated. Our highest three departments circulated 67% and 61% of the ordered items. Our lowest circulation for a department was 11%. Overall, 35.41% of what was ordered circulated; 25 out of 42 departments circulated more than 30% of items ordered, three departments circulated more than 50% of ordered items. The average lag time for an item to circulate is about five months. 58.07% of circulated items circulated in 120 days or less. 51.78% of videos ordered circulated - videos accounted for 1.39% of materials ordered, but 2.03% of materials circulated.
I am fascinated by these results and a little heartened. I had stepped up the number of vidoes and multi-media for some of the collections I develop. The numbers show me that the videos that have been ordered in the past are circulating, so ordering more is probably a good thing. What I'm not sure of is if these numbers are good. I did pull the ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004). At a glance they don't give any numbers for circulation, but rather suggest looking at "Ratio of circulation (excluding reserve) to combined student and faculty FTE," and "Ratio of volumes added per year to combined student and faculty FTE." Again, nothing is given as to what would consitute a good number here, but at least it's a guideline. Unfortunately, I don't have the faculty and student numbers for last year, but I'm thinking that it wouldn't be bad to see how those ratios look against what we've already done.
May 24, 2007
Another world of Librarianship
Within the past three months, I have entered the world of State Librarianship. Prior to my current position, I was vastly unfamiliar with what the State Library actually might do within a state.
Our State Library encompasses:
Our State Library encompasses:
- Federal grant funding for Systems (regional service centers) and Libraries directly
- Talking Book Program
- State-wide access to subscription databases and resource sharing initiatives
- State Archives, Genealogy Room, Reference Services, Library Science Collection
- Consulting and Continuing Education on all topics related to Librarianship
May 14, 2007
Tools for moving...
As a fairly recent MLS graduate and having also moved for both of my professional positions, I'm not only familiar with the job search, but also with gathering information on potential cities. I don't like to apply for positions unless I'm fairly certain it's a place I'm willing to relocate to. Thanks to a blog I frequently read, I've discovered a new resource to help with moving, neighboroo. It's a very cool site, providing information on housing, demographics, cost of living, schools, safety, health, climate and a couple of other statistics in a map format. And, you can get the information down to the zip code level. I checked out my current zip (having just moved here) and found the information interesting. So, check it out if you get a chance.
A couple of other sites that I like are: epodunk.com for city information, Find Your Spot, provides really nice city profiles and recommended cities based on a profile you complete, and the Move Salary Calculator, for finding out just how far your salary will go in potential future city.
A couple of other sites that I like are: epodunk.com for city information, Find Your Spot, provides really nice city profiles and recommended cities based on a profile you complete, and the Move Salary Calculator, for finding out just how far your salary will go in potential future city.
May 10, 2007
Do you know your Mission?
As mentioned previously, I started a new position in January. This week I had my new job "orientation." Naturally, I did the univeristy's orientation shortly after I started. My current library also has a new employee orientation. Sounds hokey and in a way, it is. On the other hand, it was good. Basically, it's spread over 2 days for about 2 1/2 hours each day. The first day, the Dean and Assc Director meet with us and give basic information. We also hear from the Staff Assocation (this library has about 120 employees) and visit the other libraries (Science & Engineering and Architecture & Fine Arts). Day two involves visits to and overviews from each of the different library departments. I had a lot to do, so was I bit stressed about losing a couple hours for a tour of my workplace (especially since on day two when I lost my whole morning just trying to get onto our network due to issues related to the latest storm). However, it was a good thing. I know what departments there are, but it completes the picture to hear from them what they do.
One of the most interesting aspects for me though was on the first day, when the Dean of the Library went over the Library's Mission Statement. I'm pretty sure I saw the Mission Statement for the library I worked at previously, but I can't tell you anything about it. The one here is one sentence. Short and to the point followed by statements for supporting the mission. One of the ways they support the mission is to "hire and develop knowledgable staff." This spoke to me. I'm sure other mission statements do this, but it was cool to see staff development as a way to support the mission. It seems basic, but I think a lot of places tend to overlook this. You can offer everything under the sun, but if the staff can't support it or isn't knowledgable about it, what good is it?
The Mission Statement naturally led to the Values Statement. Again, one item stood out. "Respect - an understanding and appreciation of the individual skills, abilities, opinions, and diversity of our users and staff." Too often, respect is no where to be found. I once had someone say to me "she'll just have to do it the new way" in regards to someone I supervised and our transition to a new system. My theory about this was whatever works for her. I can't ignore a new system and must use what the university uses (so must she), however, if adapting includes something someone else might not do or might seem odd to someone else, who am I to say she shouldn't as long as the job gets done (and she did it very well). It might not be the way I would do it, but then I'm not the one doing the job. My dad once told me I was washing the dishes wrong. I can't see how one can do that wrong as long as they come out clean, but the big lesson I learned from that was everyone does things differently and no method or way is wrong as long as it accomplishes the job. So, to see "Respect" in a Value Statement really jumped out at me. I've not been here long enough to say "yes, they practice this," but I haven't seen anything that says they don't either.
One of the most interesting aspects for me though was on the first day, when the Dean of the Library went over the Library's Mission Statement. I'm pretty sure I saw the Mission Statement for the library I worked at previously, but I can't tell you anything about it. The one here is one sentence. Short and to the point followed by statements for supporting the mission. One of the ways they support the mission is to "hire and develop knowledgable staff." This spoke to me. I'm sure other mission statements do this, but it was cool to see staff development as a way to support the mission. It seems basic, but I think a lot of places tend to overlook this. You can offer everything under the sun, but if the staff can't support it or isn't knowledgable about it, what good is it?
The Mission Statement naturally led to the Values Statement. Again, one item stood out. "Respect - an understanding and appreciation of the individual skills, abilities, opinions, and diversity of our users and staff." Too often, respect is no where to be found. I once had someone say to me "she'll just have to do it the new way" in regards to someone I supervised and our transition to a new system. My theory about this was whatever works for her. I can't ignore a new system and must use what the university uses (so must she), however, if adapting includes something someone else might not do or might seem odd to someone else, who am I to say she shouldn't as long as the job gets done (and she did it very well). It might not be the way I would do it, but then I'm not the one doing the job. My dad once told me I was washing the dishes wrong. I can't see how one can do that wrong as long as they come out clean, but the big lesson I learned from that was everyone does things differently and no method or way is wrong as long as it accomplishes the job. So, to see "Respect" in a Value Statement really jumped out at me. I've not been here long enough to say "yes, they practice this," but I haven't seen anything that says they don't either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)