Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16

S.99-23

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC

From: ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

Subject:

University Library External Review

(SCAP Reference: SCAP 99-2)

Date: ?

the Executive Summary of the Report of the External Review

of the University Library

• ?

response to the Report

• ?

draft three-year plan for the University Library

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

SCAP 99-2

OFFICE OF

THE

VICE-PRESIDENT, RESEARCH

Memorandum

.

TO:

Senate Committee for Academic Planning

FROM:

Bruce P. Clayman

Vice-President, ReseàIM

SUBJECT:

Library External Review

DATE:

January 16, 1999

I am pleased to enclose copies of the Executive Summary of the Report of the External Review

of the SFU Library (see: http://www.sfu.ca/vp-research/LibramReview/SFUREV2.htmi for the

entire report text) and the written response of the Library to the Report (see:

http ://dodona. lib. sfu. calkiosk/review98/revresp. htm).

The recommendations contained in the Report and the responses of the Library - both written

and oral - were discussed at three meetings of the Senate Library Committee (SLC) over the last

month and a half. The recommendations and their rationales were considered

ad seriatim

by the

SLC and four significant steps with long-term implications - in addition to the steps described in

the

•

Library's

The Library

written

will

response

develop

were

collections

taken as

policy

a result:

and allocation policy in full consultation with

departmental representatives and the SLC;

• The SLC has recommended for approval by Senate that its membership be modified through

the additions of a graduate student member elected by Senate and one member from the Li-

brary staff and one from among the Librarians;

• Library hours have been expanded, effective January 31;

• A project is well under way to reduce the cataloguing backlog.

The SLC is pleased with the response of the Library to the review and the very positive changes

that will result. The reports are provided to SCAP for information and transmittal to Senate. Uni-

versity Librarian Lynn Copeland and I will be pleased to discuss these matters with members of

SCAR

enclosures

c_.^e 0-49^ 

.

C:\BPCDoc\mjI ?

194m99

Report of the Simon Fraser University Library External Review Committee

May, 1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the 1991 review, the Library has undertaken a series of initiatives relating to collections,

systems, interlibrary loan, reference services and liaison with academic departments, fund

raising, immediate and long-range space planning, and management. In a number of cases these

initiatives have resulted in positive and in some cases innovative achievements. However,

positive gains achieved by these initiatives are at risk due to lack of awareness of them within the

University community, or misunderstanding of them, or opposition to them, or a combination of

these problems. As a result, there is widespread and deeply felt frustration, mistrust, and anger

with how the Library manages and proceeds with planning, policy making, and priority setting as

well as the implementing of change.

The Library must establish communication and consultative processes that incorporate

University-wide participation in planning, priority, and policy processes. (Recommendations 1-

3). Furthermore, the Library needs to proceed immediately with a three-year strategic planning

process, a review of its organizational structure, and an energetic labour/management initiative.

(Recommendations 4-14)

The amount and allocation of funds for library materials are issues of great concern among

Library staff and faculty. Among the latter there is little understanding of the implications of the

primary/secondary collections model adopted in the 1980s. The Library must undertake a

number of initiatives to address these issues. (Recommendations 15-19)

A back-log of uncatalogued new material, first addressed in the 1991 review, remains a serious

problem. The Library should give the elimination of this back-log a high priority.

(Recommendation 20)

In terms of facilities, there is little support for the Book Robot. Expansion of academic programs

on the Harbour Centre Campus raises a concern about long-range space needs of the Belzberg

Library. A long-term space plan is required. (Recommendation 21) More immediately, following

on the successful moving of Reference services to the main floor, reference staff should be

consolidated in more efficient office space. (Recommendation 22)

The SFU Library has relatively short hours of opening compared to other Canadian university

libraries. Not surprisingly, students have expressed a need for longer hours. The Committee

agrees that this is an issue that requires immediate attention. (Recommendation 23)

RECOMMENDATION 1: The University Librarian and the Senate Library Committee

develop consultation and communication processes to promote greater user input to and

understanding of proposed changes in Library policy. These processes should include links

with relevant groups and individuals at the University such as faculty user groups, student

associations, teaching associations, departmental representatives, the Canadian Centre for

Studies in Publishing, and so forth.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The position of University Librarian be restored to the Vice-

Presidents/Deans Group.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The Senate Library Committee should include elected Library

and student representatives (undergraduate and graduate) elected by their peers.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The Senate Library Committee should undertake a renewal

program to develop a shared mandate, an agreed upon multi-year agenda with a regular

schedule of meetings, an ability to provide advice on substantive issues, and good

community consultation mechanisms.

RECOMMENDATION 5: A three-year strategic planning process be started immediately.

The process should ensure meaningful participation by staff and the resultant plan should

include a clearly articulated vision, priorities for action, and a staff succession plan.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The Library should undertake an in-depth review of its

organizational structure. Any reorganization should establish a more flexible, less

hierarchical organization which effectively involves library staff in planning, policy, and

decision making.

RECOMMENDATION 7: Integrate RDL with the Map Library under the supervision of

the Head of Reference and explore possible partnerships between this unit and the

Department of Geography.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Given Interlibrary Loans (ILL) strategic importance to the

Library and its importance to resource sharing initiatives, the unit should report directly to

the University Librarian and the ILL Head should be a member of LMG or any successor

management body.

RECOMMENDATION 9: The Library should establish a Labour/Management Committee

which meets on a regular basis to discuss and resolve issues relating to organizational and

technological change.

RECOMMENDATION 10: More staff should be assigned to reference, instruction, and

liaison services.

RECOMMENDATION 11: At least two of the librarians in Collection Management should

be shifted to Reference Services.

RECOMMENDATION 12: Liaison librarians should have full responsibility for their

material funds. Their effectiveness in managing these funds should be monitored by the

Head of Collections Management and be a part of their normal performance evaluations.

RECOMMENDATION 13: Liaison librarians should be given authority to make decisions

on the selection of material and be held responsible for the quality of the collection in

meeting the needs of the University.

RECOMMENDATION 14: Faculties consider having the appropriate liaison librarians as

members of Faculty committees for planning and communication purposes.

. ?

RECOMMENDATION 15: The Library should develop and implement a strategy to

justify new funding that advances university priorities.

RECOMMENDATION 16: The primary/secondary collection model should be

reformulated to reflect the current academic, technical and funding environment.

RECOMMENDATION 17: With the advice of the Senate Library Committee, the Library

should prepare for the Vice President, Research, a three year plan for the materials budget

that integrates Library collection expenditures with current academic programs and

budget reality.

RECOMMENDATION 18: The Vice President, Research, should seek advice regarding

the contribution of Senate motion 2.93-11 to "the integration of Library policy with

academic programs" and propose amended legislation if necessary.

RECOMMENDATION 19: The Library should develop and implement a format and

forum for annual reporting of the Library operating, endowment, and contract budgets.

RECOMMENDATION 20: Design and implement a project to reduce the processing queue

to the equivalent of two months of new acquisitions.

RECOMMENDATION 21: The University Librarian should prepare a report on the long

term space needs of the Library on both campuses that includes various alternatives

including the Book Robot. This report should be a significant part of the Library's plan

and communication strategy.

RECOMMENDATION 22: Reference services staff be consolidated into one office area,

preferably near the reference service area.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The Library should consult with student organizations, the

Senate Library Committee, and other appropriate bodies to arrive at library hours of

opening that more effectively meet the needs of users.

Rec

I ?

http://dodona.Iib.sfu.caJkioskfteview98/revresp.hti

• ?

iiI\Ti1

Mun

Print/email

Catalogue F

edbck HlpiInd

Simon Fraser University Library

Library Review 1998

Response to

Review Report

INTRODUCTION

The

Report of

the Library External Review Committee is the result

the study of a large quantity of

written material and many meetings during an intensive three day on-site visit. We appreciate the efforts of

the Committee in consulting widely with the SFU administration; the Senate Library Committee; members

of the SFU community (faculty, students, and CUPE and APSA staff); and Library management,

•

librarians, and staff. The TSSU was unable to meet with the Committee; the University Librarian (Pro

Tern) will meet with them shortly after the release of the

Report

and

Response

in order to ensure their

views are understood.

The overriding message in the

Report is

the need for the Library to communicate and consult with the SFU

community and Library staff as it develops Library policies and procedures. It reinforces for us that

communication with, and listening to, our users is key. Everyone needs to be aware of the Library's

mission and goals; and of the environment, both inside and outside the University, which affects our

ability to achieve those goals. In setting the Library's priorities and goals, the Library needs to understand

the SFU community's needs and priorities, particularly in the current environment of change.

As the

Report

notes, some changes such as the Library's success at fundraising, collaboration with other

libraries and consortia, and technological development, provide opportunities for improved services.

Others, such as the increase in the cost of academic publications, the significantly devalued Canadian

dollar (a new factor since the

Report),

and decreased University funding, present real challenges in

providing effective Library services to the SFU community.

The

Report

notes many successes achieved by the Library since the last review in 1991. These include the

faculty liaison program; development of online requesting software; installation of a new integrated library

system, and other technological innovations; access to a wide variety of online services; more effective

reference facilities on the entrance level; the impressive physical appearance and maintenance of the

Library; integrated service points (ILL pick-up, loans, fines, reserves); successful fundraising; and

. inclusion in the University's capital plan of a robotic storage unit.

It is of great concern to us that the

Report

suggests that programs we see as achievements, even those

recognized externally, may not be understood or recognized within the SFU community.

kof 8

21/01/1999 10:59 A

Rec I

http://dodona.lib.sfu.caJkjoskJrevjew98/revresp.htn

We appreciate the University's support for the Library's collection budget over the years since the 1991

Review, and note that our 74% increase has been at a time when other Libraries have been forced to cancel

as much as $900,000 in journals. As the

Report

notes, this has placed us in a relatively healthy position as

far as current acquisitions go, but the Maclean's surve

y demonstrates that we remain deficient in historical

depth. (see Appendix A, Tables A-C and Appendix B)

In preparation for responding to the

Report,

the University Librarian (Pro Tern) met with all available

Library staff. Notes from these meetings formed part of the discussion as the Library Management Group

drafted the

Response.

Staff were also asked to comment on a draft

Response

prepared by the Library

Management Group. A number of internal issues, which arose during these meetings, are also being

addressed. It is the intention of the University Librarian (Pro Tern) to meet widely with the University

community to discuss the

Report

and

Response

once they are released.

The

Report

emphasizes the very positive feeling in the SFU community about its relationship with

individual Library staff and liaison librarians. Nevertheless, many staff felt that comments in the

Report

were critical of their performance. We want to stress our appreciation for staff dedication in contributing to

the success of Library services. It was heartening to hear so much enthusiasm from staff for the new

direction set out in the

Report,

and to recognize their heartfelt concern for the SFU community and its need

for services such as effective opening hours and information services. One liaison librarian commented:

"The beauty of liaison work is that once you make a productive contact with an individual faculty member or graduate student, you

begin to build a relationship. Most people who have contacted me about a library issue repeat the contact and refer colleagues and

students to me. I make a point of introducing myself to students and faculty in my liaison areas, whether at the reference desk,

workshops, lectures or social events. One of my continuing interests is to develop strategies to increase these personal contacts. ... My

desire to work at the best university library in Canada motivates me to find ways to improve service delivery."

The comments and recommendations in the

Report

relate to the Library's need to communicate, plan, and

set priorities for Library services. Actions stemming from recommendations in the

Report will

take a

variety of forms, some direct and immediate, and others requiring a longer time frame. For example, a plan

to reduce the cataloguing backlog is in place.

In order to ensure an effective working relationship with the Senate Library Committee, we intend to seek

its advice as major policy changes are planned; to ask it to advise us on the collection allocations and the

collection assessment program; to revisit the rationale behind the robotic storage as a means for space

allocation; and, more immediately, to review the

Report

and

Response.

In addition, we expect to consult

more widely with the University community on many issues such as Library hours and collection

allocations.

RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1:

The University Librarian and the Senate Library Committee develop

consultation and communication processes to promote greater user input to and understanding of

proposed changes in Library policy. These processes should include links with relevant groups and

individuals at the University such as faculty user groups, student associations, teaching associations,

departmental representatives, the Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing [CCSP], and so forth.

We agree about the importance of consultation and communication noted in the

Report

and intend to

2 of 8

21/01/1999

lç14

Rec I

hup://dodona.Iib.sfu.ca/kiosk/review98/revresp.hti

pursue this vigorously.

It should be noted that the

gifts

librarian is an Adjunct Professor in the CCSP and that the collections staff

were sources of information used in the efforts of the CCSP to publicize the scholarly journal crisis. The

liaison and collections librarians hold annual orientation meetings for library faculty representatives as part

of their commitment to communication. Nevertheless, more direct participation in these activities by the

University Librarian (Pro Tern) is crucial.

Communication with the university community at every level is essential in order that we provide the most

effective library service.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

The position of University Librarian be restored to the

Vice-Presidents/Deans Group.

We are pleased that the University Librarian (Pro Tern) is now a member of the Vice-Presidents and Deans

Committee.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

The Senate Library Committee should include elected Library and student

representatives (undergraduate and graduate) elected by their peers.

The Senate Library Committee (SLC) includes a student and student alternate elected by Senate. We

concur with the recommendation that librarians and library staff should also be represented, but leave it to

the SLC to consider this along with other recommendations for change in its structure.

RECOMMENDATION

4: The Senate Library Committee should undertake a renewal program to

develop a shared mandate, an agreed upon multi-year agenda with a regular schedule

meetings, an

ability to provide advice on substantive issues, and good community consultation mechanisms.

The Library is committed to seeking meaningful input from the SLC on appropriate issues; to involving

the SLC early on in discussions about such matters; and to providing information regularly to the SLC

about current academic library issues. Consultation should also involve faculty library representatives

when library collection issues are addressed; and issues such as library hours should be reviewed with

student organizations.

RECOMMENDATION

5: A three-year strategic planning process be started immediately. The process

should ensure meaningful participation by staff and the resultant plan should include a clearly

articulated vision, priorities for action, and a staff succession plan.

The Library's intention has been to prepare its three-year Strategic Plan subsequent to the Library Review;

it is anticipated that the Plan will be complete in early 1999. We are developing a process for preparing the

Strategic Plan that will involve staff in a meaningful way. As a first step to identifying priorities for action,

we have instituted a project management structure.

The Library's vision will be clearly articulated in the Plan; it will include the identification of service

priorities as a means of establishing staff replacement priorities. We intend to use tools such as

benchmarking against peer institutions (see for example Appendix A) and the results of our student and

• faculty surveys from 1997 in the strategic planning process.

RECOMMENDATION 6:

The Library should undertake an in-depth review

its organizational

structure. Any reorganization should establish a more flexible, less hierarchical organization which

21/01/1999 10:9

http://dodona.Iib.sfucaJl

(joskJrevjew98/revresp.htrn

effectively involves library staff in planning, policy, and decision making.

We agree that a review of the Library's organizational structure is due; the last comprehensive

re-organization took place some fifteen years ago. There have also been significant changes in services,

particularly in the areas of collections, reference, liaison and information services.

Although the reorganization will involve a review of all functions, the primary goals will be:

• to provide a more flexible less hierarchical structure, one which ensures mechanisms for

cross-departmental consultation at the line staff level and involves library staff in planning, policy

development, and decision making;

• to ensure that the new organization most effectively matches current service requirements; and

• to consider the organization of library collections, reference, liaison, and information services.

It is anticipated that re-organization will be achieved in mid-1999.

Some steps are being taken toward involving library staff more in planning, policy development, and

decision-making. The project planning process which was recently established provides that appropriate

staff from all affected departments be involved in project planning. The University Librarian (Pro Tern)

will meet on a semesterly basis with staff to discuss library priorities and other issues.

RECOMMENDATION

7: Integrate RDL with the Map Library under the supervision of the Head of

Reference and explore possible partnerships between this unit and the Department

Geography.

We agree in principle that the Research Data Library and Map Library should be amalgamated. An

implementation task group will be struck to plan for this change. The retirement of the current Maps

Librarian in August 1998 provides an opportunity to consider such a reorganization. Consultation with

appropriate academic disciplines (such as Geography, Earth Sciences, Economics, Business, and Resource

and Environmental Management) will be undertaken as part of this process. The reporting structure for the

new unit will be finalized as part of the re-organization plan (see Recommendation 6). The assignment of

collection responsibilities for print maps needs to be considered as well as electronic materials.

RECOMMENDATION 8:

Given Interlibrary Loans (ILL) strategic importance to the Library and its

importance to resource sharing initiatives, the unit should report directly to the University Librarian

and the ILL Head should be a member of

LMG or any successor management body.

The Interlibrary Loansfl'elebook unit now reports to the University Librarian (Pro Tern). The Interlibrary

Loans/Telebook Librarian is now a member of the Library Management Group. As part of the

re-organization planning process, the review of the composition of subsequent management level

committees will consider the inclusion of the Interlibrary Loans/Telebook Librarian.

RECOMMENDATION

9: The Library should establish a Labour/Management Committee which

meets on a regular basis to discuss and resolve issues relating to organizational and technological

change.

We agree it would be beneficial to have a committee of library staff and management meeting regularly to

discuss issues relating to organizational and technological change. Such a structure can be initiated only

after consultation with appropriate employee groups. It cannot be a replacement for all or part of any

employee agreement. To be successful, such a committee must have a significant role. SFU's

Labour/Management Committee already exists as a campus-wide committee with explicit responsibilities;

4of8 ?

2I/O1/I999

Rcc I

hup://dodona.Iib.sfu.ca/kiosk/review98/revresp.ht

the envisioned Library committee will need to be differently named in order to avoid confusion. During

meetings, some staff suggested that issues such as snow closure procedures and vacation policies would be

suitable for discussion by such a group.

RECOMMENDATION 10:

More staff should be assigned to reference, instruction, and liaison

services.

The re-organization envisioned in Recommendation 6 will address the requirement that reference,

instruction, and liaison services be staffed at appropriate levels. Also included must be any expansion of

reference/information services in light of the recommended expansion of library hours, and concerns

expressed by Loans staff that people needing help using the Library are not supported during early

morning, late evening, and weekend hours. Staff further expressed concern about users needing help at the

beginning of term, and in the stacks. These issues will also be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION 11:

At least two of

the librarians in Collections Management should be shifted

to Reference Services.

The re-organization envisioned in Recommendation 6 will determine the allocation of staff in the

established units.

RECOMMENDATION 12:

Liaison librarians should have full responsibility for their materialfunds.

Their effectiveness in managing these funds should be monitored by the Head

of Collections

Management and be a part

their normal performance evaluations.

Again, this will inform part of the discussion around the re-organization envisioned in Recommendation 6.

The liaison librarians and processing staff were unanimous in supporting the importance of one individual

co-ordinating orders, tracking collection expenditures throughout the year, and providing liaison librarians

with appropriate timely information and interpretation about commitments and expenditures.

RECOMMENDATION 13:

Liaison librarians should be given authority to make decisions on the

selection of

material and be held responsible for the quality

the collection in meeting the needs of

the

University.

The roles of the collections and liaison librarians will be clarified as part of the implementation of

Recommendation 6.

RECOMMENDATION 14:

Faculties consider having the appropriate liaison librarians as members

Faculty committees for planning and communication purposes.

We strongly support this recommendation. The University Librarian (Pro Tern) will pursue this issue with

individual faculties and departments.

RECOMMENDATION 15:

The Library should develop and implement a strategy to justify new

funding that advances university priorities.

We agree.

The Library has benefitted from several Innovation Funds and other initiatives in the past few years; these

htrp://dodonaiib.sfu.ca/kjoslcjreview98/revresp.htrn

have enabled us to provide access to fulltext business journals, to provide the infrastructure for our Library

Web Kiosk, and to develop a prototype online library instruction unit.

We hope to continue to participate in these initiatives to benefit the University community.

RECOMMENDATION 16:

The pnmary/secondary collection model should be reformulated to reflect

the current academic, technical and funding environment.

The benchmarks in Appendix A demonstrate that we are in the mid-range so far as net volumes added in

1996/97 for the top five comprehensive Canadian universities. This is as a result of the support which the

Library's collection budget has experienced from the University since the last review. The benchmarks

also show that our collection as a whole ranks low, and that we have somewhat fewer serials subscriptions

than the other benchmark institutions. These differences illustrate the reason that the Library ranks low in

the Maclean's survey (Appendix B), which measures the whole collection rather than current acquisitions.

Nevertheless, it is important that we provide access to the depth of materials available to students and

faculty at other institutions in order that we serve our current users and also attract 'the best and brightest'.

It is for this reason that the SFU Library has emphasized the importance of easy-to-use online catalogues

and databases, holdings, and requesting mechanisms, and of online fulltext.

This is the concept of Primary/Secondary collection referred to in the review. Whatever the goal of this

model in the 1980's, its major role now, as stated in the self-study, is to provide access to as broad a range

of materials as possible. We are aware of the risk in relying on a single source such as UBC, and our plans

include the expansion of requesting services from our Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries

(COPPUL) partners. The Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI) is a major

source for scientific material, and it has explicitly stated it will continue to be a strong source of journals

needed by the Canadian scientific academic community.

The Primary/Secondary concept easily extends to the online environment, since the Library still funds its

Primary online materials, and provides access to other Secondary materials on a one-off basis.

Nevertheless, the SFU Library has for some time preferred a more modern, and therefore more complex,

model and vocabulary which recognize the distinction between physically held and 'virtual' library

materials; and the value of both 'just in case' library physical collections and 'just in time' library

requesting. Our model also must take into account the complexity of providing these services to Distance

Education students, for whom there is no onsite physical collection.

RECOMMENDATION 17:

With the advice of

the Senate Library Committee, the Library should

prepare for the Vice President, Research, a three year plan for the materials budget that integrates

Library collection expenditures with current academic programs and budget reality.

We support this recommendation and look forward to working with the Senate Library Committee on this

process. After the 1991 Library Review a SLC subcommittee was struck to look at this issue; we suggest

that the VP Research re-establish such a committee.

RECOMMENDATION 18:

The Vice President, Research, should seek advice regarding the

contribution of Senate motion 2.93-11 to "the integration of Library policy with academic programs"

and propose amended legislation if necessary.

Senate motion 2.93-11 was intended to address the need for Library collections and services to support

new programmes to the same level as existing programmes. We recognize that improvements could be

made in the process. We will examine our internal procedures to ensure that they allow as much flexibility

6of8 ?

21/01/1999 ? AIN

Rec I

http://dodona.Iib.sfu.ca/kiosklreview98/revresp.htr

as possible. We anticipate that earlier involvement by liaison and collection librarians in the process of

establishing new programmes (for example on curriculum development committees) will provide earlier

VP ?

for identifying alternate funding for new programme collections. We would encourage the

VP Research and SLC to examine alternative means of supporting new programme collections in pursuing

this recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 19:

The Library should develop and implement a format and forum for

annual reporting of

the Library operating, endowment, and contract budgets.

We believe that the University community expects the Library to allocate its budget to provide the most

effective service possible, and the non-salary operating budget is allocated to achieve that goal. With the

increase in technology as means to provide solutions to library access problems, success in this has been

achieved over the past seven years, in part by reallocating operating resources to Library Systems.

The Library reports its budget and expenditures to the VP Research on an annual basis. We will consider

including a budget summary in the Library's Annual Report, which will be revised in 1998/99. It should be

noted that SFU is unusual in that continuing salaries are centrally managed. In many universities they are

part of the departments' (including the Library's) budgets. The benchmark figures in Appendix A confirm

the Maclean's conclusion (Appendix B) that SFU's Library budget is relatively stronger on the collection

side than the operating side.

RECOMMENDATION 20:

Design and implement a project to reduce the processing queue to the

equivalent of

two months of

new acquisitions.

A project to reduce the backlog will begin in September. It should be noted that many libraries count only

their backlog of current print materials. SFU has operated on a 'first in/first out 'basis which ensures that

all materials are processed in a timely manner. We will review these priorities and current staffing levels.

RECOMMENDATION 21:

The University Librarian should prepare a report on the long term space

needs of

the Library on both campuses that includes various alternatives including the Book Robot.

This report should be a significant part

the Library's plan and communication strategy.

The robotic storage unit became part of the University's Capital Plan after consultation with the Senate

Library Committee, Faculty of Arts Library Users Committee, Science Library Users Committee and

others. Although the limitations of such a facility were recognized, on balance it was felt to be the most

user-friendly, cost-effective alternative, with traditional stack expansion costs being four times as high, and

off-site storage providing at best 24-hour turnaround. The Library still believes this is the best alternative.

We wish, however, to ensure that there is campus support for such an initiative, and will review the

options with the Senate Library Committee and Library users groups, after re-assessing our stack

requirements over the next ten years (journal cancellations, gifts acquisitions, and decreased buying power

will have led to changed requirements).

The Belzberg Library long term space needs are dependent on the expansion of programmes at Harbour

Centre. We agree that as the Harbour Centre campus grows, we must examine Belzberg Library's space

needs, as well as its staff and collections resources. The space plan will be developed in consultation with

the Harbour Centre campus as expansion proceeds.

RECOMMENDATION 22:

Reference services

staff

be consolidated into one office area, preferably

near the reference service area.

7(118 ?

21/flh/1999IO:59

kec I

hup://dodona.Iib.sfu.ca/kjoskJreview98/revresp.htrn

The possible advantages of consolidating Reference staff into one office met with mixed reactions from

affected staff. An appropriate balance between the benefits of privacy and of informal contact must be met

in any such change. At a minimum, private space must be provided in any new office area. Such a change

should happen only after the anticipated re-organization has taken place. Meanwhile, Reference staff will

examine alternative short-term options to improve informal communication and to address problems of

having staff offices located adjacent to student study areas.

RECOMMENDATION 23:

The Library should consult with student organizations, the Senate Library

Committee, and other appropriate bodies to arrive at library hours

of opening that more effectively meet

the needs of users.

We agree in principle that expansion of library hours, at least to the median/average of 89 hours per week

for Canadian research libraries, would improve library service. A committee of library staff will review

this issue, identifying possible alternatives and anticipated costs. The Senate Library Committee and

Simon Fraser University Student Society will be consulted. Library staff will be included in the planning

for this change.

The Library and University Information Technology:

Although no recommendation was made in this area, we wish to emphasize the reviewers' comments

about the 'highly complex integrated systems [that] have been developed for libraries, and that 'the

distributive nature of information technology has reinforced this tendency toward specialization in library

systems development', and to reiterate its emphasis on the critical importance of including the Library in

any discussions involving the administrative reorganization of information technology at SFU.

CONCLUSION

We look forward to working with the SFU community as we proceed in the direction charted in the

Print/email Catalogue Feedback Help/Index

9 o'8

21/01/1999 10:59 AM

T]?I

iT1,11hhi.11

iIiui•

kvills.11,1111

IIi1

Catalogue Feedback Help/index

Mission Statement?

As the heart of the University, the SFU Libra

ry is dedicated to providing access to collections, services and facilities of the highest possible quality in support of the

teaching, learning and research goals of the Simon Fraser University community.

Send suggestions about the three year plan

**** DRAFT ****

SFU Library Three Year Plan (1999-2001)

INTRODUCTION

The Simon Fraser University Library was reviewed in 1998. The Three Year Plan is in part a response to issues raised in the review. Many of the goals

identified in this Plan are well under way, as it was deemed most effective to proceed where possible with important activities rather than await

agreement over the complete contents of this Plan. Therefore we would propose that the end date of the Plan be December 31, 2001. The Plan will be

made available for comment to the SFU University community during February 1999 and finalized by March 31, 1999.

GOALS

The SFU Library's community is characterized by its diversity. While sharing much in common, it is quite evident from the Library's 1997 User

surveys[l] that the information needs and priorities of faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates are quite different. These competing needs must

,e kept in mind as the Library makes its plans. The Library's goals for the period 1999-2001 are grouped into three equally important areas:

• Communications;

• Collections

development;

• Customer service.

We also discuss the resources required to support these goals.

Communications

The Library Review

Report

emphasized the need for improved communication between the Library and the University community; this will be a

very high priority over the next three years. SFU Library staff support the importance of this communication and consultation. The following goals

identify specific means by which we intend to meet our objectives.

a. External to the Library

Senate Library Committee

• In response to concerns in the Review Report, the Senate Library Committee will begin in summer semester 1999 meeting according to a

predetermined schedule.

• The membership of the Senate Library Committee has been reviewed and proposals are being forwarded to expand it to include

undergraduate, graduate, librarian, and staff representatives.

• Increased consultation is taking place, particularly in relation to collection issues, and there is an effort to form more positive bonds with the

SLC. For example, there is a proposal for the Senate Library Committee to sponsor a workshop on how researchers in different disciplines use

information resources.

Liaison Librarians and Departmental Representatives

• The liaison relationship with SFU faculty is a successful model which we wish to enhance. This also involves strengthening the role of the

liaison librarian. In particular, we will be involving departmental reps and liaison librarians in allocation of the library collection budget

within their subject area.

General communications to faculty and students

• We will increase the frequency of meetings between the University Librarian and groups such as the SFSS, TSSU, and SFUFA

• The Library's Web resource, the Kiosk, is a primary source of information about the Library. We will improve its organization and conten

simplify access to the Library's resources.

10,

• The University Librarian (Pro Tern) has an open door policy and welcomes visits and discussion with all members of the SFU community.

b. Internal

It is important to improve commununications within the Library in order that our services be most effective. We plan to:

• Establish cross-divisional communication channels within the Library to ensure that library activities are carried out most effectively,

given available resources.

• Establish planning mechanisms which involve appropriate staff to ensure that

all

perspectives are addressed.

• Improve orientation and training for library staff to ensure that we provide the best possible level of service to the community.

• Establish a staff newsletter.

In addition, the Senate Library Committee has recommended that a librarian and a non-librarian staff member be added to its membership, along

with additional student representation.

2. Collections development

Library journal and book collections were identified in the

1997

User surveys as most important to both faculty and students. We will be seeking to

make the most effective use of available collection funds.

Scholarly publication is changing dramatically with the advent of electronic journals and alternatives to traditional publishing mechanisms,

particularly in the pure and applied sciences. The Library must be an active participant through its participation in organizations such as CARL

(Canadian Association of Research Libraries), COPPUL (Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries) and SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and

Academic Resources Coalition). We must be proactive in our collection activities to respond to the changes in the industry.

At the same time, limitations in the SFU Library collections budget require us to supplement our collections with the best possible Interlibrary Loan

ervice. This has been achieved by expanding access to and direct requesting from online catalogues and databases. There is still improvement to b

made in this area. The challenge must be met particularly with the expansion of Distance Education and other online programmes.

Specific steps the Library will take include:

• Prepare a written collections policy and communicate it to the university community; and

• Re-examine collection allocations in relation to current SFU programmes:

• Identify criteria to be used to determine equitable allocations;

• Examine present allocations to determine if they are equitable; and

• Identify mechanisms to address any inequities

• Adjust the Library's profiles to conform with changes; and rework them to take advantage of new vendor technologies

• Identify electronic alternatives to print in order to achieve cheaper and better access to collections; and

• Cooperate with other libraries in collection development, acquisition of electronic text, and document delivery.

• Ensure/improve access to the collection through improving internal processes:

• Provide electronic reserves materials where feasible; it should be noted that copyright restrictions limit our options at present;

• Provide more timely access to electronic resources as we regularize procedures for acquisition, financing and provision of electronic

texts;

• Reduce the processing backlog (through the project currently under way) and establish procedures and staffing levels to ensure

materials are available as quickly as possible.

• Ensure/improve security for the collection:

• Provide screens for windows on floors 4-6 which open

• Examine ways of increasing Reserve materials security

• Identify funding for more shelf space when the current space is exhausted (2002 for compact shelving on Floor 1; 2005 for regular stacks).

Realistic options after fl.1 compact shelving is full include an onsite automated book retrieval facility, or offsite warehouse space.

• Establish an Electronic Text Centre for the University. This facility would provide support for making available electronic materials which

are unique to SFU; these would be converted from print materials when an academic purpose could be served by doing so. Examples are

Anna Jamieson letters, and other materials of interest to the Print Culture Programme. Alternatively materials could be developed only

electronic form.

• Identify collection budget expenditures which are low priority or could be reduced or changed to effect savings (e.g. binding). These

expenditures might be used to improve budgets for identified underfunded areas.

3. Customer Service

s the Review

Report

recognised, the services provided by Library staff are essential to support the best possible access for the SFU community to

information. We want to make the Library easier to use, more convenient, and more responsive to user needs.

• In response to users requests, we are expanding Bennett Library hours effective January 31, 1999. We have been able to do so by reallocating

the existing budget.

• We are developing prototype online tutorial as a model for other Library tutorials. We will use the MOST (Modular Online Self-paced

Tutorial) software to produce other online tutorials, where they are identified as being most effective.

• In co-operation with Operations and Technical Services, we plan to provide a variety of electronically wired carrels, which will enable

students and faculty to plug their laptops into the campus network and library's online resources.

Also being explored:

• We will identify services which are low priority or could be reduced or changed to effect savings (such as discontinuing the collection of

paper telephone books, and university calendars, both of which have been supplanted by online resources).

• In order to improve service, the Library is considering creating a Help desk on floor six which would be open longer hours.

• We are exploring ways of providing improved access to materials in the Fine Arts Room.

4. Resources

According to the Maclean's annual survey and to our benchmarked libraries, SFU Library's current collections funding level is intermediate. The

resources contributed by the university toward staff and other operating expenses is relatively low. While we recognize the financial restrictions of

the SFU University as a whole, we will continue to articulate the Library's particular financial needs, in order that we provide the most effective

service to the SFU community.

• In the current funding climate, we will work with the University's Advancement Office to identify funding sources to augment the Library's

budget:

• Set fundraising priorities to support library collections, and technology and facilities;

• Substantially increase the Library endowments; and

Investigate the potential for sale/licencing of SFU Library software.

• Changes we envision can be achieved by reallocating staff judiciously, in particular to support: liaison/reference librarians; copy

cataloguing; Interlibrary Loans/Telebook; proposed 'help desk' support.

• Additional funding is required to make changes to the physical environment; these changes will improve the environment for staff in order

that they function more effectively. We wish to:

• Identify ways of improving the checkout counter area layout; and

• Make changes to the sorting room discharge facility as identified in a recent ergonomic report.

[1]Simon Fraser

University, SFU Library in Review, Fall, 1997: Results from a Survey of SFU Students

and

Results from a Survey of SFU Faculty.

Send suggestions about the three year plan

Top of page Home

Print/email Catalogue Feedback Help /Index