• Fr Information

?

S-92-10

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

•

?

?

Office of

the Vice-President, Academic

?

Memorandum

To: ?

Senators, Deans, Chairs and Directors of Schools

Members of the Senate Library Committee

Departmental representatives on Faculty Library Users' Committees

From: ?

J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic

Subject: ?

University Library Review Committee Report

Date: ?

5 December, 1991

-- Attached is the Report of the University Library_eview Committee (including an

external review report as an appendix), together with the response of the Library

Management Group. These documents have been presented to the Senate

Committee on Academic Planning.

Because of what I believe to be wide general interest in the Report, I am proposing

to give it more extensive distribution than is typical for departmental reviews.

This includes:

1.

Copies for all Senators;

2.

Two copies for each department and school and for the departmental

representatives on Faculty Library Users' Committees; if there are faculty

members who would like an individual copy of the report, they should call

my office for a copy;

3.

Copies to all members of the Senate Library Committee.

I plan to establish a sub-committee of the Senate Library Committee to take

responsibility for evaluation of the Report's recommendations and to provide

advice on their implementation. This would serve two purposes. It would move

the process along and it would enhance the role of the Senate Library Committee

which is itself one of the Report's recommendations.

Any comments which you would like to provide the sub-committee about the

Report or the Library Management Response should be sent to me by 31 January

1991. ?

(,

J.M. Munro

Attachment

C.

?

W.R. Heath

---

I

I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

I

II

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Report of the University Library Review Committee

October 1991

Response to the Library Review Report by Library Management

November 1991

---

Report of the University Library Review Committee

Appendix A

Faculty Library User Survey

Summary of Results

Appendix B

Library Performance Tests

Summary of Results

Appendix C

External Report

Appendix D

Canadian Research Library

Expenditures, Staff and Collections

Appendix E

Selection of Suggestions made to

the TJLRC

Appendix F

Library Computer System Complaints

Table of Contents

Report of the University

Library Review Committee

Summary of Recommendations

I

I

I

I

I.

I

I

I

I

I,

1

I

Report of the University Library

Review Committee ?

and ?

Librar y

Management Response

1, 11

1-27

[I

Response by the Ubrarv Management Group

?

1-37

110

---

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY REVIEW COMMITTEE.?

October 1991

I

16

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

Richard Schwindt, Chair

Department of Economics &

Faculty of Business Administration

Paul Percival

Department of Chemistry

Mary Lynn Stewart

Department of History

LI

I

---

I

16

I

uuc-i

I..

I

-J.c1a

I

tp

g Tpm2oi suia:)uooiToqi pssith

I

pu 'sqsu puuuo!ltmjojm q sn ppIAoJd oq sdnoi2 UE snpppujQSOtp

IVAI

M(riqrj iiSiArnn

?

jo mji

?

q2 iii 2s1u poiq &123oJJ1

I

'AiSs1dmT s osuodsoi oqj (unuraio f4Ts1Aufl ?

tuOij ndtq ppjos

o

u! uItuo

J

aqj ssooid mouai quow-xs oql

&IunU

?

ruuuoJ po £niq ?

AIS1OArnfl oqj paqsilqviso rnupv '2upsJd-31A

Qq l

'1661

I!jdV UI

I'

1M1I%Ix1a'IAtONMDv

'D

'2pUMtg

I ?

t

---

It

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1 ?

RESOURCES

I

i.

?

?

The University Administration should take positive steps to achieve the

Library funding goal set out in the President's Strategic Plan.

I

?

2. ?

With appropriate accountability, the Library should have greater authority

for internal budget management.

3.

?

?

The University should give high priority to resolution of the space problems

confrontmg the Library.

I

4.

An information/reference desk should be installed at the entrance of the

Library.

1

5.

The SFU Library Administration and University Administration should

strongly promote cooperation between the province's university libraries.

1

6.

The resource demands imposed upon the Library by distance education

programs should be carefully and realistically calculated before initiation or

'

expansion of those programs.

7.

The Library Administration should acknowledge and make use of available

-

SFU exprtise in relevant areas.

I

THE

CONGRUENCE OF LIBRARY POLICY AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

8.

For each department or academic program a librarian should be designated

I

as the primary contact person for all aspects of library service to that

academic group.

I

9.

The Uniiersity Librarian should continue to report to the Vice-President

Academic.

I

10.

The Senate should review the mandate and operation of the Senate Library

I

Committee.

1

I

I

---

iqIPA

TP"

&I!p0JJE

sotqod

I

ioqo puE poud uoj olqj mQuiDi pjnoqs ooijTanuoDkmjqjj ouo otu

100d T''T'°ID

I

i's aqi

jo uou

.

ido put

,

duo

?

MO!AOi pnoqs £iiq LTJL

zz

SuuInDOp IUQUMOA02

JO

2UOWUEUI Q

qj PnMO

J

I

q:)r o.idd7a piJjun woui L

,

jo sujouoq iuood

?

oiojtho pnoqs (iiqq uj

irnn QUO oirn joq

l;;S

ol lq

2

noiq oq pjnoqs sfeiis puE sqdi2ouoj,s

ppp aq jou pnoqs onq

viv

p

I ?

DVd0

jo

1 dn-up puE loiluoo s

oi

uoq

l

nL

,

uu jo

uo

!

2

uuL

J

duI

J

?

61

tusAs 1ondmoD

I

QAT

IL'

un

i

lt

,

ut

,

oi uoiiru L

,

.ioj

uEId

Apipotmiii

pioqs £rniqrj oqj,

SNOLLVdO

I

Auoud Qioua uoA2 aq pjrtoqs sjo krnbo lu;

)

uiXoldma jo ?

L'[

?

-

s

i

s

L

qduiai

oi

w)B uoAt

g

Qq pjnoqs lu

o

uidol

o

A

a

p IUOISSJO1d

?

91

I

puu 2 unmuld w2ovuis uT

PAIOAU!

XII n

j

2

uqu

uo

ui oq pnoqs

JJ2s

£niq

?

ct

molvanfoAa ioj stsq oqj uuoj pjuoqs u pu

'

s

ol

l

qi

mo las pjnots 11 'ssooid oAi2JnsuO q

^

naiqj p

o

qs

T

.

1

q

ui

so aq pjnoqs

uoTduDsop smj uoiduzsp uoiusod 2u.un3 L

,

oq pjnoqs su uzqi

j ?

j

uunrnoddoi

I ?

02

ioud MIAJ oAnmInsuooJtUJOJ v qjjm sluouiluToddt

,

aual o

q pnoqs

?

AoqB puE

IaAoI uE .iqq 141sloArnfl ju

m

sTssV -aql it

,

s1uuUu!odd

liv ?

ci

I

srnsw uwiojiod puE 'SOA22Iq 'p lTld2no

!

A

.

I

S 'SM2S!2S uotpojo

u

o

mi

oj

u

?

uuu opnpu prioqs Su

i

iodoi

siqj -sail iAlm

,

s2

t

ijod

o

i XIluolsisuoa put

,

Ajsjn2i pjnoqs £rJq ?

qj ?

'j

qt

?

pu

I1uoq2nR

xnsuuuuo pu m juopunj ioj ?

c2qiqtsuodsol uomoutu ouq

2IM q3va 'suiiq IC2isJArna owpossV

1 ?

10

2usTssy uo posq oq pjnoqs o1irnius 2umouuI sAiiq OqJ

aDNV\TuOdu3d aN

y

JKawHDvmm

NoLLVZlNVqllo

I

---

I

?

1

lb ?

I. INTRODUCTION

I

The University Library Review Committee (ULRC) was established by the Vice-

President, Academic in April, 1991 as part of the normal cycle of departmental reviews.

The Library had last been reviewed in 1984.1

A. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

I

The mandate of the ULRC was to examine and report the current condition of the

WAC Bennett Library and the Belzberg Library and comment on opportunities for

I

improvement. The following aspects of the libraries were identified for review.

1. The adequcy of the collections in terms of the Library's mandate;

I

2. The design and implementation of collections policy;

3.

The level and accessibility of services for students in undergraduate and

I

graduate programs;

4.

The level and accessibility of services for faculty and staff;

I ?

5.

The effectiveness of Library systems, present and planned;

6. The size and distribution of the professional and support staff;

' ?

7. The adequacy of the financial resources provided to the Library;

8. The effectiveness of the administration of the Library;

I ?

9. The effectiveness of the Library in its relationships with other departments

within the University;

' ?

10. The effectiveness of the Library in communication and cooperative?

ventures with other libraries in the community.

1 ?

B. WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

Throughout the summer of 1991 the ULRC solicited information, opinions, and

I ?

suggestions with repect to the Library from both within and beyond the university

community. The Committee received input from the following sources.

1

?

1. The University Library provided extensive background material and

responded to numerous requests for additional information.

I

2. An open hearing was held on June 13, 1991.

3. The ULRC arranged for interviews by appointment. Thirty-five individuals,

I

?

including staff, students, administrators and faculty made presentations to

the Committee.

1

Report

of

the President's Advisory Committee on the University Library, (PACUL), August 1984.

I

---

' ?

3 xrpuddy in

ppid

oi si

SJ ?

TA1 uix

ip jo .iodi ijj

j

?

xipuddy in

pouosid we

s

ij nsi

jo £ituums g pur sisol osoxp jo uoiidpsop y

I

-

?

sns.i jo i(iuu.uns ic

.ioj V xipuddy

insm

o

i durrs

ou si aiaql osnq sso.Ipp ol 11MUp si qorcsi pu

?

jo 3loddns

I ?

UT

OjOl

S

li jjuj o &itpunj nbp sq

Aiiq oql joql-aqm jo uopsonb aqj

ja g png otfl Jo inbp'r .t

—

?

J2DUna

V

I

0.rn3

fl

J ojqsoioj

zql

in

2uipunj pownq qjjm amiado oi onupuo snm '11s1Arnfl

g qj pptq 'I(n1q

aqj 'Sn puiqq Si

S

0861 S I M

0q2 JO 2UIJ5OJ OJOAQS JO pouod zip qnoq uoto '1AA&OH

I

rnpmiJ jiqr Aq pownuome oq pjno s.I9sn £rRlqfl

puL,

jjs £I1q

i(riq Jo

SJiUOD

oqj jo AuEW inEJ3 sinosi jo uopojj

PUP ?

qejj ?

I

oqi OAJOAU! JCJ2OJIpUI 10 A[ooJip i(iiq oq

&ipuOIJuoD

surojqoid oqi jo

siaosai ii

ISi10!10d0 IcIEJqr 2ulAloAui sioRm ozEdspjo

ioqwnu i sossdmouo uoipos sj oqi pu uoiisruuupe Aiiqq

JO

SSOUOA!POJJO

Oqi

'

?

STOOP

uoipos piiqi oqj suopunj qoioso.x puE OuTq1val jo ioddns si(i.iq oqi jo onss

oioo oqi SOAJOAin

SuJJ

• siuioid

Draiopo

sjij o drqsuotrejai s(iEJqfl aqj sossoipp

uoos puoos ota -soajnosoi ns ioqo jo (IEJqq oqi iq osn oqi pu 'uo2nsU

I

ioqo o2 soouos jo uoistAold 'supJoq ju.

i

oi x

o uodn omopuodop 'ods

'ipnq

put ,

iüiqr

-

oqi o OETEAE somosoi jo conbop otp qpt sjop uouoos

Isig

oqj

I

P ?

"J'd PUR JUQMQ5VURW'UO

i E Z Tt r E

J

O

sU1E1201d

P1 1

0PV P '°TI°d ?

I

£IEJqq

Jo oouoTu&io

soainoso'j

:suo!pos

1oW inoj

OU!

poppp

ST

.iodoi

flIOdI 'LILL

dO LVNIOd D

I

iaqui g

idaS 1cji:o

in

2jodoi ioqi

sn2ny

rn

sndtuo aqj poisit Aoqj pouo aiom sioi Towma

ooJtU.

g

I. ?

ç1661

oUrli/AEJAI

rn

popod xoom .rnoj i JOAO palonpuoo wom sis

g i aouLuuojjad £iElqfl L

I£rElqfl qM

UO

T

PE

J

s2ES

UTP1EO1 iTflJ poAoA.rnS OOj

t Ut U

OD °'TL 9

I

pOAi091 OIOM 'clJTJ IOAO pilE POTI0S OJOM suosspuqns

UO

UT J

M

c

p

?

?

dnoi

UOWOEUJAI AxeiqT-j oqi Jo sioquioui qTM pOUEJJC OJOM S

M OP U O U

I j

I

---

3

-

?

of adequacy. However, some insights can be gleaned through comparisons with other

Canadian institutions. Detailed data collected by the Canadian Association of Research

Libraries (CARL) are provided in Appendix D. From these data a ranking according to

several commonly used ratios was constructed and the results are shown in the following

I

table (Table 1).

Table 1

?

Ranking of Canadian University Libraries

1

?

(1989/90)

I ?

Library as %

?

Library $

?

Students per

?

Volumes per

of Univ. budget ?

per Student ?

Library staff

?

Student

' ?

Toronto

?

8.45% ?

Toronto ?

826 ?

Toronto

?

60

?

N.Bruns.

?

306

Regina ?

8.37% ?

McMaster 823

?

Dalhousie ?

63

?

UVic

?

255

UVic ?

8.30% ?

McGill ?

810 ?

USC ?

65

?

UBC

?

241

McMaster ?

8.25% ?

TJBC ?

746 ?

McGill ?

67

?

Sask.

?

229

' ?

Carleton

?

7.66% ?

UVic ?

721 ?

UVic ?

70 ?

McMaster 221

Queen's ?

7.65% ?

Dalhousie

?

697 ?

McMaster ?

70 ?

Regina

?

210

W.Ontario

?

7.12% ?

Concordia ?

685 ?

Concordia ?

72 ?

Guelph ?

199

USC

?

7.12% ?

Montreal ?

684 ?

Alberta ?

75 ?

Toronto ?

188

N.Bruns.

?

6.92%

?

W.Ontario 678

?

Memorial

?

75 ?

Memorial ?

185

Memorial ?

6.89%

?

Memorial

?

673 ?

W.Ontario

?

76 ?

Alberta ?

184

I ?

Waterloo ?

6.88%

?

Alberta

?

664

?

Montreal

?

81 ?

Dalhousie ?

176

Sask. ?

6.88%

?

Sask. ?

663

?

Sask.

?

81 ?

Calgary ?

173

Montreal ?

6.80%

?

Regina

?

662

?

N.Bruns.

?

82 ?

W.Ontario 169

Alberta ?

6.61% ?

Waterloo ?

600

?

Calgary

?

84 ?

Queen's ?

162

I

?

SFU ?

6.45% ?

N.Bruns.

?

591

?

SFU

?

85 ?

McGill ?

154

Calgary ?

6.40% ?

Guelph

?

588

?

Queen's ?

85 ?

Windsor ?

147

Guelph ?

6.28% ?

Carleton ?

577

?

Waterloo

?

86 ?

Carleton

?

129

' ?

Windsor ?

5.94% ?

Queen's ?

572 ?

Guelph

?

87 ?

SFU ?

124

Concordia

?

5.76% ?

Calgary ?

549 ?

Regina

?

87 ?

Waterloo

?

120

Dalhousie ?

5.73% ?

SFU ?

546 ?

Carleton

?

88

?

Concordia

?

120

'

?

Manitoba ?

5.63% ?

Laval ?

526

?

Ottawa

?

102 ?

Manitoba

?

115

Ottawa ?

532% ?

Manitoba ?

483

?

Manitoba ?

102 ?

Ottawa

?

111

Laval ?

5.45% ?

Quebec ?

437

?

Laval

?

103 ?

Montreal

?

111

Quebec

?

5.28% ?

Sherbrooke 422

?

Quebec

?

120 ?

Sherbrooke 96

I ?

York

?

4.99% ?

Ottawa

?

420

?

Windsor

?

121 ?

York ?

95

Sherbrooke

?

4.40% :

?

Windsor ?

398

?

York ?

153 ?

Laval ?

91

McGill ?

4.33% ?

York

?

320

?

Sherbrooke

?

176 ?

Quebec

?

46

Average

?

650% ?

605

?

90 ?

158

I

The SFU Library does not do well in these comparisons. It is below average in all

four categories, and well below in two of them: library expenditure per student and

volumes per student. This is troubling because there are some scale economies in the

provision of library services. Some minimum collection is necessary to be credible, but the

I

---

I

CTd '(ii

1

8

LTen1q)

'uvjj 8iv4g sJu9pisa1J au '[OOZ aujtnrj

9

16/0661

'oj

Q R R

I

MR

l

Ou QJR

uIRP

oqj

c

I

I

S1EA Q

AIJ JXQU

I

n

.IAO iqimoj2 wouillojua jo ivqi oaL alt

,

-8 IL

,

pasuaJoul

aq

hIM

sisq juaprus iod r uo 2uipuTij suouisrnbE £IEJqrJ ()

I

'

2

°1

J

1S

t1WJId

U)12.IpUfl

q jouum qioso.i pu7a uotpn.nsm

jo

suii2od SX2ISJoArnfl

I

arp ui qioi 'td Aimiq!-j UI

qoi2 jusqns jnoqjjtA

J[ IC2S1ATUfl

Ul

onld

12U

si ol A.rniqrj oqj aiolsai

02 optui oq

Illm

uojjO LoAa puv oauLmolol

Jo

211UIJ aqj

ptpi

I

sq oupp

sua

SpAI tMOS

O2JJE

oAuq osIL ,

S2SOD

suorqsmb6z &nsu put sarnssaid onds !qlmoi2 2uujjoJu

jo

anj zip

atAppo2s UOffRJ sq '2upms md

S.IETTOP

iumsuoo U

I

pssztho uoqM

'1pnq

kmiql-j oqI 2E1 Ofl.I1

SS

I I J1.IOAOU

S! fl,

:uoimis Oqj Jo c2uAos Oqj pziuoai srnj UOIWijsrurEupV,

4 4jsioAiufl

OUJ

lUOprLlS

id aimipuadxa I cai JotAol

IQ2UJIU8IS

L ,

sum 'luods ijjop Ip .ioj iod 2uTsvqaind

I ?

pflpO1 Aq ?

'2Upn2S id samuputho

2uqMj

2upms

id somus

ponpi

UI poiInsai A

g

1j pJnOM

om!puodxo 2U1SU0 UAO Os 'pouod oql .IA0 iJ1u2sqns

pSOJUI SOIAiS Put , SJLI2UI

JO

51S0

S1IIop

JU UIOU UI poinsuom On snipudxo

I

SOI.J2 2tfl 10U 01 2U10dTLUT sI 1 U MOq JJM 01

?

q2 A

01 ?

wO.IJ

2UIO2 JJ1OA0 'poioai cjju.rd uoq2 put,

JJ2UE1SqUS

prnpp oI1J rus oq 'pouod

tJ2

Jo

250111 1A0 psiorn O1OA

UIpuJ

q1

°I! q

M irp

S!

LI

O2S oqj

QJO H

z

I

U!

IflO 1S Si pouod oures O1.J2 .ioj 2UPfl1S id

SoJnl!puodxo

A.riqj .ioJ oi

'tA

OI.MOA170 SLIM0R lidS °

I

TI 16/0661

uj

&

isnopdI j d

JpJ UOqI IX

I E

88/L861

II

I A

M ST I

S

11 popoxo '8ios2 urnpuj otp tAoloq

- pouod 01(1 uoq lidS '°J

o

!1 E1

ç06/6861 0198/9861 pouod 01(2 .IOJ UMOI.Js si souiqr[

I

1IISIOAIUr1 UTpU3 Jj .I0j 0'C10iVC OITj

- 16/0661 0 198

/

9

861

1!J po!iOd otp ioj 2opnq

c1Is1oArnfl

01(1 JO

2U010d le so jo2pnq £riq lltIS

01

1 2

2fl0 SIOS I

oin2ij 0

L W)0j)

J11(

1sd

0IJ2 IOAO PO2EI0UO2OP U01.J2 put poAoidm' OAE1( 02 smoddu uoilrnWs 01(2 'IOAOOJON

IThIS

iod 01011! 2uo1od ot, spuods

'lUOW

Ut12

fl OIUO 0

1

1

2 0OM2 t

1 2 !

M

'DHF1 lumomoosip s (in

pu OlUOIOj 'o) SUO!2fl2U5U

?

0112 it

, luopms iod oiiupuotho 1oqttJ qonat 01(2 'pupIl

U

! S U ! 2 1

1

2

TM pUESflOq1 UO2 .10 0M2 '0U0 jo Apoq IUOPIUS E Ic.JSI2S 1q2pI1 uotldlosqns Tuminof

oI&I!s E 'ojduIExo

10

d

•S2UOW

JJ

O.rU0 IUOPU2S t

fl! Ai

A

J

POI

! p

OS

R

a L)U

!

IOU POOU U0!P0flOO

I

---

7.00

6.90

6.80

6.70

6.60

6.40

6.30

6.20

6.10

6.00

1985/86 ?

1986/87

1987/88

?

1988/89 ?

1989/90

1990/91

SPU ?

Average

III.

?

FIGURE 1

?

5

Library Expenditure as Percent of University Expenditure

?

(SFU and Average of Canadian University Libraries)

I

I

I

I

I

N

I

A

I

?

Source: See Appendix D

I.

I

---

I

I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

I,

1

I

I

I

I

a

xrpuddy

s

:ino5

91A ?

IHS

06/6861 ?

68/8861 ?

881L861

?

L819861 ?

98/9861

-09P

08t'

-009

- ozc

099

osc

-0Z9

øøgsøøsø

(suiqrj

AISJOArnfl UTpU3 JO O1OAV puL, ads)

IP1US -'

a

d

ozn 4!P

udx

£riqq

Z aufloid

I

0

9

---

I

?

VA

II.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The University Administration should take positive steps to

achieve the Library funding goal set out in the President's

Strategic Plan.

U

I

I.

I

2. Allocation Of the Budget

The Library's allocation of its budget is roughly consistent with the pattern observed

at other university research libraries in Canada. In the 1990-91 fiscal period, salaries (for

both permanent and temporary staff) absorbed about

56

percent of the budget, serials

acquisitions accounted for 22 percent, monograph acquisitions for 11 percent and other

operating expenses for the remaining 11 percent. Since 1985-86 the proportion of the

budget going to salaries has fallen by about four percentage points, while serials

acquisitions have claimed a larger share (see Figure 3). The increased share going to

serials is explained in large measure by significant increases in journal subscription rates,

an issue of great concern to all research libraries.

In short, theie is nothing extraordinary about the allocation of the Library's budget

between major expenditure classes.

However, there is an ongoing concern regarding budgetary flexibility. The 1984

review recommended that the Library management should be granted greater flexibility in

the allocation of its budget. During the current inquiry, the external reviewers, without

encouragement, came to exactly the same conclusion. We endorse their proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

2:

With appropriate accountability, the Library should have

greater authority for internal budget management.

B.

SPACE7

The issues bunounding library space fall into two categories, quantity and use. Of

these, the most critical is quantity and this is reflected in the perceptions of students, faculty

and Library staff. Students complain of overcrowding in the public areas, and particularly

of the need for more study space.

8

The survey of faculty users showed that over 45 percent

of the respondents were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the availability of space.

Library staff pointed out that overcrowding not only degrades their work environment, but

also puts them in the position of mediating disputes between students over study carrels

7

This analysis applies only to the WAC Bennett Library.

8 Staff input to the SFU Libraries Strategic Plan;

General Satisfaction Survey Comments: Summary

of Main

Themes,

June 1991.

I

I

I

I

I

I

---

I

I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

SJOA SUOLA

'pn &miodo

AusJoArnfl Jos1J

uOw o.oS

0

0L

0Z

OC

=

-I

oc

09

OL

(sasuadxg OuntUado pur sqdiouop 'su 'sus)

?

sinpuodx £riq jo uoio1Jy

£ Mmoij

8

xdO

0

OUOJA 0 SCUO

16/0661 ?

06/6861

62/8861

88/L861

L819861

98/861

---

II

9

and enforcing space usage rules. Projections beyond the next five years suggest that the

available space will also be inadequate to house the collection.

9

The issues of appropriate

use of space are of lesser concern, with one notable exception, namely the possible

relocation of Reference Desk Service to the third floor (entry level).

1 ?

1. Overview of Space Utilization

Although the library building has seven floors, only six are used for library functions.

I

The collection is housed almost exclusively on the fourth, fifth and sixth floors. There is

some low-use material on the first floor, which is currently under renovation. Technical

I ?

operations (materials processing) are predominantly on the second floor, while the third

floor is used for service functions such as loans, reserves and OPAC terminals.

I ?

2. Space Audi

Table 2

WAC Bennett Library Space Allocation & COU Standards

I

(net assigned square feet)

Floor

?

Seating ?

Collection ?

Services ?

Subtotal ?

Non-Lib

1 ?

1 ?

600 ?

7940 ?

2940 ?

11480 ?

2000

2 ?

3160 ?

0 ?

10030 ?

13190 ?

3640

3 ?

6800

?

1970 ?

8720 ?

17490 ?

8670

4 ?

6470 ?

11340 ?

7600

?

25410 ?

0

5 ?

3520

?

18300 ?

4350 ?

26170 ?

0

6 ?

5620 ?

20070

?

2560 ?

28250 ?

0

1 ?

7 ?

0

?

0

?

0 ?

0

?

30000

Totals ?

26170a

?

59620 ?

36200 ?

121990 ?

44310

1 ?

COU

?

66800b ?

70490 ?

34320

?

171610

a

equivalent to 1300 sets

1 ?

beqthva.lent to

3340

seats

I

This table differs slightly from that given in the Library Space Audit document

10

in

that the second floor Wordstation, the third floor MTS terminals and the fourth floor

typing room are counted as study seating.

I

Inspection of the table shows that, according to the Council of Ontario University

(COU) standards, the Library is short of space for seating and collections, but has excess

I ?

space for staff and services (this latter finding is a reflection of the large open area on the

3rd floor). It is important to note that the overall shortage of space applies even after the

7th floor is taken over by the library (currently planned for 1994).

1.9

Space Needs Audit for WAG Bennett Library,

May

1991.

10 Ibid.

I

---

I

.

1661 ounf 'jiodaj uozsMzQ auazafa>j

1661 'L l

mgn

V

jzp

2uT A

X0

1A

*#66r

uz

CsvJq7

n auuaff

3VM iof uivjlojd uo

.

waou>j

puv

uoisuvdx

r

it

I£rmud Qqj jo UOTsutdxo qino

PIUOM

sunsi

upunj ?

o2

)a Aq

SL I M smj uoTpoJJoD ciEpu000s oq uo sisqdmo iooi2 oojd o sM

AoBns

poijop

I

oqj sosqp oqTsso iondmo3 q2nonp oqjs. jEo

u ?

m

'Ajrnsoioui pu 'suo

£IEiqiJ-1rn qnonp siiqj Jq2O wOlj OJJAE JIOm opnjoui pJtLOM qoM 'i(x1q

I ?

opisno iu Jj possdwoDno uojjoo i(npuozs OqJL -(sodm oTpn 'auoJoJiuJ

?

'o) ouppui jo pr oq qi"

poioithui

io (juoiu po2uJd ')

?

p' q

PTflOO qouM £riqrj ?

UUflIM psnotj

?

PPT°'i

UOOfløO i(rtupd uj uo1p911o0

?

I

£TpUOOS oq pu uoujjoo (r g

wud oq u wioq apRUI SWA

uopousp

y

UOOOffOO O

?

odsoi qiyA uijd

otois su JnO JOS uoiusmw1pv £iiqy oq2

S0861 iCir

?

ip

I

siariosi

'wtiaix'i

Luuqq aqj jo

aqj it ,

PIISU

aq pnoqs 31sap uaijai/uOprnuoju uy

:p NOLLvaNaISJJtJODa'a

ouiuo oq ailsoddo palls sm qqt

jSj uoEmioJuI ?

?

otp Sumouioi jo ds opii2oui oqj uooq sq o&rp ommuoa A1uo

?

nq 'MAOJ

fl

OOUIS sjc

O1p JOAO ?

sq iuiod sq uo

&!lod

c.IEJqfl

i°no

11miq

oq uuu uotp uos up isiij oq oq pjnoqs

jsp

oouoiji/uowioju pocooji

I

' ,

'iodo> uoTsIAIu uoijo'j oqj iuoij oonb oj iOOjj pjiql Otfl

Si 31sop

O3Uijoi

POZT

ioj uor0

J!JflU

?

uomoai jsiun isouijc s!

I

opus uiojo' poziiuj

Luuqq

aqj 2uijuojjuo;) swqoid ands

qj Jo

uo!1nIos1

o

uoud qiq

9A

pnoqs A3!S1aAç qj, :

urioid 2rnpjmq IcuS1AWfl U' spu crniqrj o Aioid qq

A!2

o2

uo1s!uIupV

c

uSloArnfl aqj Am M pU ?

utjd

uu uio-uo su inimiqr-1 orp omoou

c.IE1qfl tp .ioj ppu cjuin si ?

ds 910W

2q

9jA 3q siopu 3 :s3

19u3

o

piiur[ si jj'j oqj jo ooi oq 'ojckuoo joA jou si siq

?

pue uosudx9 ?

.ioj uEId v uo2u p

Iiom nooq sq dnol9 ?

Ili ?

3ods Otfl ol uoppp UJ 1

iCinuç in dno.wj

?

uumj ?

dii1-as puu m3jqo.Id 9ods &!O&IO oqj Jo

3IA%

si uouJisnunuIpv Lriqr ouj upopnq jdo sil Ul m3qo1d sq Jo UO2iiIO91

Qq1 uo Au.ioud qq 3jd icusloArnfl 0q2 Etfl 3U3U1UI0031 SM 1 pu 'M9A31 2SEIaqi

UT poznuooi sem QDvds Apius luopnis

iiijnoii.rd

'ooids jeuowpgoioj p9u 3Uj

I

I

I

I

I

I

01

---

I ?

'

, ?

collection and that much material would only be available through the secondary collection

(e.g., database creators would market access to the base, not the base itself).

This was, and remains, a rational, perhaps inevitable strategy. However, despite the

I

?

?

explosive expansion in computer accessible information, a major element of SFU's

"secondary collection" is the UBC Library's primary collection. This is understandable

given the superiority of the UBC collection. For example, as of March 1990, SFU

I

possessed less than a third of UBC's letterpress volumes (1,106,928 versus 3,653,208), less

than a quarter of thir microfilm reels, microfiche, cards and sheets, and less than five per

I

cent of their maps and sound recordings.

Data on the direction and volume of inter-library loans shows that SFU draws

I ?

heavily upon the UBC collection. Table 3 sets out SFU's inter-library loan balance sheet.

A little more than one half of SFU's borrowings come from the

BC

Net (i.e., post-

secondary BC institutions). The remainder comes mainly from out of province institutions

I

and the United States.

I

Table

: ?

SFU Inter-Library Borrowing and Lending

(1990/91)

I

BC ?

Other ?

Other

Net*

?

BC ?

Canada ?

US ?

Other

?

Total

1 ?

Borrowed ?

5027 ?

183 ?

3142 ?

1255

?

70 ?

9677

Lent ?

2766 ?

1787

?

5116 ?

543 ?

31 ?

10243

1 ?

(*BC Net includes BC post secondary institutions)

I

Of the borrowings from the

BC

Net, over 90 percent are drawn from UBC. Thus we

rely upon UBC for about 46 percent of our inter-library borrowings. We cannot, and do

not reciprocate.

UBC

accounts for 72 percent of the lending in the

BC

Net and only 6

1 ?

percent of the borrowing.

I

13. Strategic Plan

Update,

no. 2, May 1991.

I

---

9

d

'(1661

'

8

Lniq.j)

'uv/J ;v.ag s upsaq aqL 'rooz a

g ualIvyD I

fl

o

m

se

S o

uremm

ci

POSPoxe

1

1661

JO BuijdS Qql UI pflpIIO3 ?

?

sum

tpiq

'Aoms sisn £iiqr-

jç qi

jo siplsi

iII

L M

?

q

jpt

o!dO sup uo uoqwiojm ioj

j

oq ol si ssoan , mo jtqj &ITpuR1smpun tp tpm uotiruusm q1 .ioj upunj iodomd

I

01

Isamu!mo uT s 'pIM-omAoJd uolmonpa A.rpuos-1sod jo

UOTMVCIXO

oq

ol poiDotho

Si

fIt l lqTj

DE[fl

oql jj sLraiqij cus1Arun s3utAoJd

oq

uoq uouidooD

i1urL

01

u0!E11Sruuupy c2TsJArnfl mo

PUB uoT11smTwpy i1mqJ mo uodn luoquimul

I

s! 'spump psmrn jo A2qTqqo1d oip pu 'upuodop ?

mo

I

?

..

?

Sisfl Fujoixo oqi mo soi ?

&ipunj

oipjoqllo

Aq poirsuoduioa AJ2nbp

IOU

J! Xljulmllmd 'snoiouo2 ssj omooq uorrnnsm iss

?

mo

ji

&iisuthns Qq lou p1nom Ii susuInn ?

iopu ?

uoiJjoz su uo lnd oq jjr ?

I

spuRuiop psiuT 'pudxo puLImW

JMoI orp opisIno surEl2oid

ioto se

pu 'ooulAold

Oqj U

£riq pmosoi 1unotuid

o

rn

s

umuaoi 1j mis s suioqoid oomnosoi ours

I

0141 sluoijuoo puv '2urJ1soI Jo pouod OU1ES 0141

poou iodxo

sq

j]fl

'IOAOM0H

Uol30Ho0

3fl

0142 02 ssoon

,

U1U1IU 01

1U2iOdW1

A2uisoiorn

ow000q

I

JJIM il 'sm

g

j2omd ownptuS jo uoisudxo oqj iJJ noi2.nd 'om ose suop3ofoid 05014231

c I

•

ooOZ

rnoA 0141 cq suouromo uoprus onpii2 u osoJ3ui luoolod çj] t

,

put

,

suomjjomuo

o2npEIJopun in 0S0J0Ui luoomod

SE v

sosiuo ujd 001BJ1S

S2UOP!S0.Id

0tUJ 102P0J2

om000q

jjr Don

uo oouopuodop .Ino 'poztJaI si ais

IL , qlmoa popoloid ji

,1

soomnosoi £r1q' jç uo spumop 1uo1Jrti2is lnd suopius ns o2npzopim

I

puv ojvnpvB qoq juqj suoissuuqns ivapms puu

i(ijnoj

tuoij

MOU

Jfl

posn .IOAOU A0q2 1tj2 po2oTprn Iuoolod uol ueqj sso-j &.niqrj

Jqfl

oqi uo lurpAomos

10

Cj

AO14

1

oqu0 p01401 i0MflS iOSfl

JC

2I n0 j

014201 SIUOpUOdsOl 0141 JO JI14 IO A

O SOOIUOS

I

ioqio Aq p01p14EA Si Lmp tnoI &rIq14-io1u 0S0142 u po1jJ01 oouopuodop oqj

I

%9

?

%9

?

%91

1Uu cI

I'LE9T ?

19L ?

f'SOi ?

1Lt ?

86L11

11

%89

?

tL6 ?

6L1' ?

cc ?

1961 ?

699

Jaxpo

I61L

OE

?

99

%O ?

Ltoc ?

ii

?

OZE ? 969i

rus

tO1 ?

IZI ?

661 ?

I'lL

3911

I

JMOJ1O9

jumi0a ?

18101nlpo

?

3IAfl

?

flas ?

D&(1

1

(1661

14 )IE

I

A

J

02

066T

?

dy)

&iipuo'-j pu

p

SuvAouoq AmRIqfl-Jo1u SuO!Ifll!1SUI £IRpu0305 I

SO

d iRP1IPOJd

Izi

---

13

I

protected. It is also in our interest to strongly encourage inter-university harmonization of

information systems (e.g., ELN, the electronic library network).

RECOMMENDATION

5:

The SFU Library Administration and University

Administration should strongly promote cooperation

between the province's university libraries.

This

initiative would be made easier if the SFU Library were in a better position to

reciprocate. For example, the judicious acquisition of specific collections (e.g., databases,

special collections) of interest to, but not held by UBC could well facilitate cooperation.

There is of course a "flip side" to the issue of secondary collections and their use.

Returning to Table 3 it is seen that while SFU is in a "debit" situation with respect to the

BC Net, it is a "creditor" overall. We lend more than we borrow. Even within the BC Net

we are a net borrower from UBC and UVic, but run a surplus with other institutions. As

SFU expands its off-campus programs, and creates links with smaller, more remote post-

secondary institutions there will be increasing demands upon our Library to support these

initiatives.

There is ongoing concern that these off-campus programs put undo pressure on an

already overburdened Library. On the other hand, the ULRC has evidence that the

beneficiaries of these programs are extremely supportive of, and grateful for the efforts

made on their behalf by the WAC Bennett Library. This message has come through very

clearly in submissions and interviews.

I,

I

I

I

I

Ii

I

N

LI

1

RECOMMENDATION 6: The resource demands imposed upon the Library by

distance education programs should be carefully and

realistically calculated before initiation or expansion of

those programs.

D. INTERNAL RESOURCES

1

I

I

I

I.

Throughout this review the ULRC has repeatedly been apprised of resources within

the University which could usefully be employed at moderate cost to the Library." Indeed,

some would be available at no cost. These range from expertise in the creation of

performance measures and the use of sampling techniques to proficiency in computing and

16 The ULRC was also impressed by the number of thoughtful, constructive suggestions made by various

parties. A sample of these are contained in Appendix E.

I

---

I

lnoqE

ouioa

sq

uo!2mTs

luoum oqj tAoq pusiptrn oi iumioduIT

aiojiotfl ST

II - IuIDTuo st suiuoid aTmpuav

tp

Ajod cmq jO

UO

I

1U!

O1.Hj

dqsuotpJaI oqi jo

I

puo iij dn pjoq iou

Xnviouo2

OAT.J (ooUrwluoD £iiqrj ol- g

uos oqj PUL ,

soouiwo)

ciq j

i n

o; 'soAi11uosazdaI £rmxqij juouu.idop 'o) uoilmipi000 puu uo!o!unwtuoo

I

OE1JpJ 02 oojd

U

!

SOUO put

,

s2uo

oqj A.iiqq oq uo 2odtuj qoq .ioj prar ojw

001 tfltM UOf2 OI SO

At

2T2tUJ S1UOTTIIISUOD

AUUI

511

ql!M uosirnj UtR1U

t

tU 02 (riq O1 01

;)Iqt ,

lmA7a'sozinosai umnq Xljufmnmd 'soomosai oqI ponpoi aALq

S1

u B i 2S u O O

£rE1opna

I

i(riqq Qqj qjIm cjojos

ISOI lou soop suoo jo UJnj sq ioj

oql 'q1A

U0U!P100

I

pu 'iOj

UJOOUOO

ala

.

q

001

1IM

pol3onpoI

oxe SISOJOIm qiosoi

AIII1OEJ

pu

Si

UOtIDflO oDulsTp 'po1oD

or

sO2fllflSU

qozosoi 'pouopuq pu

pO112UO3

'popudxo

I

suroid

3uusao 'poonpo.nui am smi2oid mou 'po&rqo

Si

UIflIt1O11fl3

rnurmz,

o

IUOEOE

0111

JO

1501

01

1 2

PIlE

Anjq!-j 01 uaatuaq U0 U1p100) PILE Uo!1EZ)IIflWmo) Jo

OlflJiEJ Si 0101 iJ&rsE01ou]

OAIOS 01

P O

P UO IU!

S

!

11

sUrRl2old oTmopmt,

0q2 tuoij P0DE20P

omooq sEq £niqq 02 ICqI 'sioiotAoi TEUIO2XO O2 Aq po.ioddns 'uotuido mo si

II

U0

! POS

S!tjI Jo SflOOj Oql sJ

oflss!

sp ?

oqod

suo!poJJoo

siqrj

I

oqj 'uoipojjoo £ICtUUd ?

01

p odsom

?

'SOAIOAu! 0EJEAE oq

: M U0T1Ctfl.IOjtI!

jo uousonb

oqj ,popIAo1d oq

smat ,

JJM tAoq puE 'oJqtssoDDC oq ll

.

m U0 1 2CW 1 OJ U

! 2EqJ\

SOUSSI

?

oAu S0STC1 STIJJ uOtlEUUOJm 01 sso

?

u!AIddns icq 'suopunj O1C0S01 put, &IU!DCO2

?

I

I

?

olpIjoods

SIVffOId

'smRi2old

DI}\IaaVDV

oimopo

UNV

lloddns

ADIOd

0151

AIVMH1

£rC1q'j ;)ql

40

jo

aaNamoNoa

oioi

£1Cuipd oqj

mu .111

I

I

??

iui PilE

?

siI 3UUAj1

pinolls

m asdxa

uotju.iJstunup

flqS

alqulluAlujo

£uuqrj

asn

aqj, : NOIlVaJ\11410D01i

I

I'

sndur

U0 OSUIOd

X

O

JO

SO1IUOD

IOtflO tfltM

uoi2E1oqCJo)

0flU1 01 UOI1EPUOURU000I sup uopCo.Iq

pjnomotA lujindmoo oTm;)pt

,

:)lajo lioddns put

, suOi1CMUflmmOD0J02 moj ojqsuodsom

0SO2 UC £ICJqfl Oql uootmoq uotlCioqETIoo

OA!IDOJJO

si

0101

ICIJI

OlflSUO U0!1EIIS!U!UIPV

IcliSIoArnfl 02 2C2 popuotuiiiooi 0AC

SIO M O! A 01 IEU 1 02 X

0 01 'U!OA Sup UJ •S0)IflOS0I

osoqI OZIJTIU 02 uoilCllsmTtUPv A1CJq 01 omnouo pjno °M

?

U0!1EUUOJUT

I

---

Li

?

15

, ?

A. BACKGROUND

In the late 1970s the public service section of the Library was organized into three

divisions: Humanities, Social Sciences and Sciences. In turn, these divisions were

comprised of subject librarians who maintained close relationships with "their" respective

I

academic programs. A major function of these subject librarians was collections

development for their area(s) of expertise. This involved the selection of serials and

I

?

?

monographs. At the time the twelve subject librarians had discretion over a substantial

portion of the acquisitions budget.

I

In the early 1980s the discretionary acquisition budgets were severely reduced due

to a curbing of the total acquisitions budget, a growth in the share going to maintain serials

subscriptions, an increased reliance on approval plans to acquire current material and an

I

end to direct ordering of retrospective material. The subject librarians were left with very

small sums of money.

I

In 1984 the President's Advisory Committee on the University Library (PACUL)

reviewed the status ;of the Library. The PACUL report stated that the Library's first

I

?

?

responsibility was to serve the curriculum taught at the University, that the primary

collection would unlikely meet "even the principal research needs of many faculty", that

research material available at nearby research libraries should not be collected at SFU,

that collections policy should correspond to user habits (with specific reference to books in

languages other than English), and that subject librarians should reduce time spent on

I

?

?

primary collections building and increase their reference service, especially as it relates to

the secondary collection. The PACUL Report recommended a review and reduction of the

annual acquisition of serials. The report identified problems with maintaining three

I

?

?

divisions in the public service area. It also suggested (but did not recommend) that the

University would be best served by a two divisional structure, one for reference and

collections and the other for materials transactions.17

I

A forum held November 21, 1984, attended by thirty-five librarians, endorsed the

recommendation that collections policy continue to emphasize access to the secondary

I

?

?

collection. No position was taken on reorganization.

18

Several months later the "Library

Annual Report: 1984-85" announced that "a thorough analysis of our organizational

I

?

?

structure resulted in the formation of a Reference Division and a Collections Management

Office in place of our previous three Collections Divisions."

19

Acquisitions decisions had

been centralized in the Office of Collections Management.

I ?

17.

Report of

the President's Advisory Committee on the University Library,

(PACUL), August 1984,

p. 15.

18 "Library Forum held November 21, 1984, to discuss the report of the President's Advisory Committee on the

Library."

19

Library Annual Report: 1984-85,

p.

1.

---

UOISSrIUO

Jo SJO11O P!OAV 01 dq

hiM

srnj suoisip osotp oauanUuT

I

ol MOtJ pur 'pui

an

SUOiSiOp SUOt2OJJO tAoq MOU( '(ijnoj

?

am JJ1?Jqn

Eq2 aAmModUlT si 'sojnosi jo Lms tp UAI '1AMoH dnoi2 up

qj Ajss

Ajjrij

02 £iiqr 0q2 .roj jqissoduii si

11 I sisoialul qzmsx An3J

josiop aqj pu U!PUflJ

IuonnD si 'uoipojJOZ £IElqfl flaS

Otfl

Jo

OZIS

0q2 UOAT

Ivqj soz2Ooi

j'jiç

I'n;

oJ Xlolos spom u$nq iou jo ijod

g

sq £iiqq oqi isqi ozioj iou pip

ou i

os

ojs.un pomoos sioqio 'Apuooi sjumof mou moj pospznd sq £zRiq oT.ji iqi

I

iou siuopuodsono

IcITIiJ

omos opu

?

pozji3uo 003 si uot untuino puv 2urjuxu

-uospop iqi isons ouioS -,KqtA 'potuop ji puL , 'potuop io paldo3n

, uooq pq lsonbai

ioqioq woqi tuiojui oi ampj oqi qjyA pogsssp oi Aoqj spjoj ou MAjjpodso

I

'sjinx.rnof puu sqdiouom Surarolqo uT

.A

ip

or

jjp oqi inoq pouiduxo

iosn £riqq

i

ij n

j oqi uo suouimo in puv sMo

03rn

'suoissIuqns [T.uioj trj

I

uoim oWods

sisonboi pop popnpui j'iç oqi oi suossIuqns jo .ioqumu 'misololul--cojR.Hoqj

I

?

in

SUOTlaolloa qdiouom PUL

, juinof qjyA po'

.

gslirssip wom jcq 'po1oM £jod suopojo

oq inoqR ouioui jo oj oqi

rn

'pu poiuii

2

uooq pinj isonbai zoqi

ji

MøU iou pip

'sjiioiui ijiods aimbo l

a kmjq!-j oqi iqi poison

boi pq oqm osoqi Jo opuos

suji inoq ou iou pip icoqi iqi anRuuoi3sonb iioqi uo

poiuouuno

oulos pir 'sooq

pooiuu

'MOu pomis IOAOU iuoiod iqro-M.m

?

oAI23uoso1doJ cqj siruTl ioqi

I

?

ouru iou pjno iuoiod Xuuij

opjoid

uosinb

scoi ioqi uoos IOAOU pq iuoiod i's

'cOAlflS .iosn £riqq

A

3IrLj oqi ol siuopuodsoi oqi JO soidinxo impunqt , axe onqj

,

I

SflOUUO3 003

IJ

ST

£riq oqi pu A1nj u000q TM oqi

iqi

oouoppo oJqopsTJoD si oioqi jaA s.iodd

uuoi pu s&upoi parmboi mpnprn 'suowoimbai osino poumuoiop-Aijnoj woJJ

I

p . aAuap Ala

2

x

u

l anspoou iuopm qDlEosol uo iqi ioql.rnJ oi sopuos £rE1qj oinboi

A j n

oii ijflDEJ iq iponpu io cpoarrp uaAup si sopuos Xmiqq .ioj puwop ouj

ISJAI1'1HO&I

I

2' OP sioqio apqm luomaRcuuN

suoiPOH0D

ostp onupuoo omos AhluolEddy

ss000id

suoT3!sInb3

oqi

U

T T oI0 .i!oqi iEAt 03 SE SUiE1j 3s2uouIE 2uomooJESTp

Si o19uJ

iuopjo

pur £IEss000u

SE OAOW oqi puojop sioqi

suo!ponoo

OEW

I

?

03 cijuni.ioddo UE inoqi sEuo3Em oiEjldolddEui Jo uosnboE oqi put

, iuowdoJoAop

uotpoHoo ioj sjo o U

T

.Iol ! lo

qsJqE3s

o

01 ajnlm yu

oip

1cod oqi 03 poiqo jjis

oq osouj SuEuEJqq JEuoissoJoJd iuw jo AoJddEsrp oqi .IOAO ox gjo ouo u iuouidoloAop

,

?

SUO!13OJJO3 flE poiiiuoouo uEuEJqq icisiouç

-

oqi 'pODflpOl oq iq2mi SiSqEDods

jo .ioqmnu oqi iqi JJE3S

guoure

juauioaiSv pEo.iq pUL ,

dnoi

3UOWOEUEJ £IE.xqfl

oqi UT SflStIOSUOO SEM oioqi OjU1

J

t

ouEqD sqi papuolit,

lUotUOOJ2EsJp oqEiopsuo)

91

---

I

17

There is also evidence that lack of communication has led to errors of commission.

That is, there seems to be an imperfect mechanism to ensure that unwanted material is not

purchased. The experience with the serials review is illustrative.

I

Throughout the 1980s the Library faced a period of budget constraint. Concurrently

the price of academic journal subscriptions increased much more rapidly than the general

rate of inflation, and the number of journals proliferated. Faced with these threats, the

I

?

appropriate strategywould have been to swiftly audit the serials portfolio, and to determine

collectively with faculty which serials represented value for money, and to implement an

I ?

ongoing policy for serials review. This was not done. Serials reviews were delayed until the

late 1980s, by which time the Library had ceased acquiring new journals for existing

programs or existing journals for newly established programs. When the reviews were

I ?

conducted they were difficult, even traumatic, as departments were asked to severely cull

journal subscriptions.

I

Again, the responsibility for this delay cannot be attributed solely to the Library.

Limited staff and the pressure of increasing enrollments made it difficult to free resources

for the review process. In some instances faculty resisted the cuffing process and took a

I

parochial position toward "their" journals. Eventually, when it was understood that there

would be no new serial acquisitions unless some were discarded, the rationalization process

went through. In this process it was important to inform faculty of what material was

attributed to their area and the cost of each subscription. It is worth noting that in many

departments faculty were able to identify inconsequential (and often expensive) material

I ?

that all were willing to discard. Clearly, periodical subscriptions and the monograph

acquisition profile should be reviewed on an ongoing basis and not under crisis conditions.

I

The serials review process also brought to light the fact that the size of collections in

specific areas was a function of historical accident rather than current reality. Large, long

established programs had an inordinate volume of material relative to the more recently

I

established.

.

I

In summary, Library policy must be brought more into line with the development of

academic programs. This involves hard choices in the allocation of scarce resources.

However, competition for resources is a way of life in the University community. There is

I

active competitiori for appointments, space, research funding and the like, and in that

competition there are winners and losers. The allocation of Library resources must be

I ?

more sensitive to the direction that competition takes. For example, those who successfully

champion new programs must seriously consider the ramifications of their success in terms

of demand for Library services. This means consulting with the Library to accurately

I ?

quantify those demands and ensuring that resources will be available to satisfy those

demands. ?

-

1•

I

---

I

oqjjo,,2uipooA%

OU

op ol 2UOWURUOop-em

£iiqrq1 '9861

U

'oidtux io spun

rnnop ?

AtaodsJ jTolqi put,

suuiqijsqids pcu2isop uq uOiDrtTfluRUO3

uqu cq

?

oq

PIflOM

surei g

oid:)nuopun ,

oql woij

2ndui

Suumboi?

PIM

IUQUI;)

g

t'UL I

IU

SUOTID;)Iloa 2ulAloAui

qs-ol

ouopunmqjo JE1OAS '1tj11fld

1UUOUEW SUOUIO3 2M

Mop

IcJPJIp sioqu.irn cjno ?

rtpppu Aq1qM

p B1d

UUfl3

oqj o io.idns sums

suij uiiq sJpds pousop oq qT uoiE1oqJJo osop qnonp £od suopjio

JAO

3UflJU1

amOS oAaq pJflOM iCOq2 o3uTS 'SAt23UOSJd1 £iiq juoui.rcdp jo sms

0q2 oourquo oi o&ios osra p1nota pAi

?

uo poop -uo!13nnsul A.rB1q

POSL

I

OMUT

rn ojojiojvoi5

i

Ajd p1nom PUE SVQJR pu2isp noq o spn2 3iq&IoIjqq

&nnpoid .ioj icqiqisuodsoi

iEi o pjno

su uiqj isqul3odS -sLuiojd

3nUOPLM I TptM 9STIiodxo qw oi pamo2 oq pjnoqs suuiqj jo uuirnuai 2unbsqns

'iduixo .zoj UOi2puu1UIO1 sup jo uoudop oip moj ioJJ JITM

s013!

I

od

iqwj

-dnoj2 anuopum jrnp oj

?

Lnuqqjo

spadsB

lie .ioj uosiad 13tluo3 £n3uiud qj SB pusp aq

pnoqs

lo wBo1d mmapum juwptdp

q3ua io :g NOLLVaNaINIIODaU

ssoid suoiloalloo otp

tuoij f4jUnURUOD,4jS.IQAlUfj Oql jo

U011210ST

ULUT &iujnsoi 'uoip1p

g

ilsoddo g

ip ui iEJ oo

ums sq wnjnpud

oIp '1

A

O

M

OJ-J

spnq zjjioods JAO uopsp pq sumiq pofqns

I-enp!A!pui uqt istd aqj ol 2urainlai ou si ojoip jvqj oziu2oai oii 'A.riq

?

p uuptM onssi

snoiuuo si ptq 'uoujdoJAop

suot jo .ioj

?

ol 2ds1

'PM

UOUUISStp UO!EtU.IOJU1

pu 'uoiprusrn '2uuidoIAp suoi3oJ10 g seam

ipns

u

dnoj2 oqj Jo spou &qmtp Jo

umouui kmjqll 2ulmiojul pu 'uioip 2upozgu sus ponuuuosip io pjpom 'u

jo PUUOJUT am dnoB oqi jo s.zoqmom mqj Su! j

nsuo

I

dnoj2 oql tplm pposs (Ajnj

sdtpd pun) suprns ioj

u o ipn.

n sui

(r1q urpiAoid 'soAuusaId1 £rBlqfl 2uoui2Jdp

qjyA 2uqjooLu opnloui p1nom sipqsuods'>j AiB1qfl oqi ol dnoj2 oip luosaidai pu

I

dnoj2 oqj ol £niqq oqj juasoidoi pinotA UE1J usoip oqj osuos v uj dnoi2 tuop

ip pim kmiq!-j otp uoq uoTwJoJtr! ioj npuo

1

, aqj st lov p1nom imj.rE1qj p9Bu2S9p

uj uuidojAp suopjjo

u p n p u

'is imiq jo s

p

dsE jj .ioj un uopE

jvqj ol uosreq £rRuq.Id oql aq p1nom oqtA upiqj poaissm oq urni2oid 3pUOp3

puu luoumudop

qauo jr

qj SJOMOIAOI ju.ioix 42

?

£nuupd oqj iv

STOAOI MJOAQS I

l

e

POSSOJPPR

oq ima suu 2up.uwB1o1d anuoproL

,

pu

iczqr orp uoq uoum

nuuuoD

om-oquo 02 si stujqoid osqi ol

uopnios

OLJJ

SNOLLITIOS )

81

I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

---

I ?

19

collection until a procedure for consultation with the academic programs was in place.

Development of this procedure has awaited the recent arrival of the new collections

librarian; it is still not available. The problem of missing material, which will require

decisions on what should and what should not be replaced, also remains unresolved.

1

?

?

Communication must also be enhanced at higher levels. The previous Library

review recommended that all faculties establish library users committees and that the

I

?

?

standing of the Senate Library Committee (SLC) be enhanced by, among other things,

appointing the Vice-President Academic as

ex-officio

chairperson. To date not

all

faculties

have established users committees, and while the Vice-President Academic does now chair

the Senate Library Committee, its standing has not been appreciably enhanced.

I

Unfortunate ly, in the past seven years responsibility for the Library has been passed

from the Vice-President, Academic to the Vice-President, Research and Information

Systems, and back again. We favour the current situation, since it emphasizes the Library's

I

place in academic programming.

1

?

RECOMMENDATION 9: The University Librarian should continue to report to the

Vice-President Academic.

The standing of the Senate Library Committee remains an issue. If that committee

is to play a meaningful role as advocate for the Library in the Senate and in the wider

academic community, then it must be seen to exercise some influence over Library policy.

i

This has not been the case.

A review of the minutes of SLC meetings shows that questions, problems and

I

?

?

suggestions from the Arts and Science User Committees are considered, but that action on

points of friction is rare. Monitoring of the implementation of the 1984 PACUL

recommendations' which were accepted, and critical appraisal of the rationale for the

I

rejection of others, was inadequate. We suspect that these problems are explained in part

by the infrequency of meetings (often at 6 or 7 month intervals) and the high turnover of

' ?

user representatives.

20

Another factor is the ambiguous role of the Committee. According

to the University Act, "the academic governance of the university is vested in the senate

and it has the power ... to make rules for the management and conduct of the library."21

I

?

?

The Senate Library Committee is to advise the University Librarian in formulating policy

and allocating funds, and to report and make recommendations to Senate. In contrast to

I

?

this, the current committee sees itself as a "passive" committee, without executive function.

20

Over the past four years the Senate Library Committee has met only nine times. The Terms

of

Reference

set by Senate call for meeting at least once each semester.,

21 University Act,

Part 7, Section 36.

---

I

'sioirem uzop sopnpui

dnoiO

luouioRcuuW

£IEJqJ oqj

A

J2u nn

3

UO2EZ!tI1OJ

I

oql Aq ppono:) lou

STAN

Ii 'SJ

Slimo oip

UI

uijqoid v SM SSU2JJ

Iumtui sqdJ2ouo put

,

sj.i 'suo-j

'cflULrn3 pMOJjOJ IOU SM

UO!Spp

UO

poposuo q os.sus

I

O

! Ut

l

3

?

tn uopumIuoDa iij

id

'J AM

oH uoisp

I

us O2U pojjo

q ss

?

iuos jqnd tp uo puouuuoi sujnsuo u.iopc

ut , ql!m Q3uupj033e

rn

s ?

utp smJ uosp ?

uaJpJ J&IS

owi

SUOTSUTCF SU3p

pu p souop po 'swuuInH aqjjo uoTssoJdmo oqj pu 'uosod utu2guux

I ?

uoipjjo Jo uomom aqi oi pol cod

suop3alloa ul aihmqo Olu UOfligUO

juoqzmio uonn

tp inoqL, 2uuq 01 pornqino s1oJ jo iqmnu y

I

uII

qi 1OAOS oiow omoq o p3tp1d smtraolqoid

SItfl 'Ius1Arnfl q2

Ui

qoi oip UOA! pu 'ppuopc oo owooq pq jonuo jo uds

I

?

ouJ u.rJqfl IsiAufl oqj ol ipDJp

2ulliodoi wom, S1OUEW

iCimiu oo ?

tq IIIJII

001 SEM OIflPfliIS TUOU

ZI UJO

?

flUOD

OOWURUO3

MO

AOl

t'861 OQL

I

uulqj 141S1O

A

Uf1

otp oi

JCIPOI!P

p01.Iodal

sonuaS

2uomdTnb

put , uipjm Anjqr-I jo iouui oqi put ,

'soIiuos

oigjo

puu 2loddnS (niq jo ioum

0LJ1

'JOupJ003 SUOIS

Ic

'n ?

UUTd

put ,

o2pn otp 'uulq oEpossy oq

'(sqdlouoJ, 4 4 pu 'suo

'suo'

'soI2uruInH 'souoi 'suops

ios)

suoisIAIp xistql

o IOU pouod

9861-t861

oqj ui uoquznm2.ioaiiolbM le luoAuopun £rElqrJ oqj

IMOLLVZINVDIO

jjs

V

s uO2x0

I

iossoj R ol pup 'UOmOUEw s

l

oloqm v s crniqq oq ioj 2UOWOlflSEW

jo 3joj ia sT oioq 'puoo Lriqj oqj jo oinpius juouziulo oip jo ssouoidoidd

0q2 inoqt ,

posri suosonb uooq osq oioi.j 'si uiouo jo ?

urui 0M1

912

O1OUJ ?

I

onssi g ulo2uo uu uooq sqrniqq oq JO

uouisuiuup

otp jo

SS9UOAOOJJO

VIIOflLId UNY IM IOVNVI4I 'MOLLVZINVMIO*Al

39111WW0D £iiuqri aluuaS

aqj jo

uo!pudo puB

aluputw 33 AtaiAai

pnoqs

3UU uj, :()J M0LLvaII\I0DaM

UOUUOUB

SU ol lq2noiq siouai snoTios 110 OUOS oi 2.IodoJ iJonbopB soop iou tmpiq

AUSIOArnfl 91 OSIApB oi poou pinotA 11

UO!2BUUOJU

po1BlOp

9t[1 SO

A

!0901 ioq 011 2J

U

I

I

---

I

?

21

with duties ranging from collections to bookstore management, all reporting directly to the

University Librarian.

In the course of the review, the Committee was informed of numerous

organizational

problems

within the Library. However, allegations of inefficiencies in the

organization of work are difficult to evaluate in a multi-service facility, and the task is made

more difficult by the lack of quantitative efficiency monitoring. In any case, there was

repeated mention of flawed communication between staff and management. This came

from both management supporters and opponents. Commonly the comment was that there

was simply no response to questions, suggestions and ideas.

In our deliberations on the issue of organizational structure we have relied heavily

upon the input of the external reviewers who are very well versed in current library

management practice. They were explicitly instructed to carefully consider the extant

structure, and we discussed the issue at length with them. We accept the arguments set out

in their report and recommend organizational restructuring.22

The substance of the recommendation is the creation of a more hierarchical

structure. We discussed possible reorganizations to achieve this goal with the external

reviewers but following their advice we have not recommended a specific organization

plan. This does not reflect ambivalence about the need for significant reorganization.

Rather it is intended to allow the University Librarian and Vice-President Academic

latitude in developing the most appropriate structure consistent with the recommendation.

I

I

Li

I

I

I

1

I

RECOMMENDATION 11: The Library's management structure should be based on

Assistant or Associate University Librarians, each with line

management responsibility for a functional area and

commensurate authority and accountability.

I

1

?

B. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, IMPROVEMENT

AND ACCOUNTABILITY

1 ?

As has become abundantly clear in the process of this review, the evaluation of an

academic librar's performance is a formidable task. There are no simple measures of

I ?

library, or library personnel performance. Moreover, the accumulation and organization of

data bearing on, performance is an arduous chore, made more difficult when done

irregularly. The efforts of the Library in preparing for this review attest to this latter point.

22

External Review Committee,

Report to the University Library Review Committee

of

Simon Fraser University,

(August 1991),

pp. 6-7.

I

---

I

I.

I

q xTpuddV

rn ino jos ojm snsi oqi

pue

0-drlfl otp Aq pzfoldm2 ajom

sqi jo jrmoS

?

idws

ppptoidxpr

qm (6T 'siouqrj jo iuç

:QvJq7 .lnoA awn pa' oj juv no f1-

'isouw- ?

j) uoil

l enI g A g

Ajiqq uo Irm

p

n

p

uuis

l e

Jo Ado ql!m yfl

Qxp Jo iqwtu pea pqs.InJ

ueuiqr f4!sizArurl Qqj,

uemiojid

£rR.iqj Jo luzmams

p ow

oTp

tjVM

&iqp

s

JOq1L €z

I

I

?

?

SA3

S1! JO kTUflTIUUO3 ?

IcuS1Arnn Qqi ULIOJUT pua StiUS su oAoiduii £riqrj oql djq pinotA

uoiiauoju

ipns

JO

A

upqEJ I E A

UJ moilt

l

aollt ,

]L42 JO

5SOUOAI2ZOJJ T12 pUE 'S31flOSI asotp JO UOPDOJjE

I

otp 'smosoi kmjqr T jnoqv uomioju jo

A!Jnb

pue k1jumb oqj u uomoAo1duI

uL ,

aq pjnoqs olotp jvqj siomoTAoi uiox aqj

iu t

oi2

OAt 'A.rmwns uj

I

oouuuojiod puL,

suopojjo £iiq uo ip ol ssoaac

Apoi OAE

otp jo uoriiodo pur luomoReumi oq oujur.Ioop wiqi so

p

ijod oqi &qOOSIOAO

U!

OUO

I ?

jo jtjoq ? Aid oi

Si oounuuioj £rEJqq olvuoS ofl

3!

'AiPU!d •MOptOl

jo ssooid Ivnin otpuunp

ourn

snj oq ioj polonuo2 oq ol pouioos uotvuuoju ipnw

' J OA 0O J

0JAI

vp

uuuojiod jo

)Iovl oqj Aq poiodmq st oou

iuuuo

j

spu

toptoi m.io

I ?

-SUOI

.ioj PUL

I UOT2EflAO UULIoj.IOd uu02-:lloqs JoJ popoou

s!

DjM

UOT2tUi0jU!

OJqflJA

optAold

j siosn jo soA1ns pu oumiojiod jo

S2502

'suo!poTj0 Jo ssAJEuy

u o

ip

JsUEs

.iosn .iouuoui ol ssq .IEJn2ol t

,

uo popnpuoo

oq pjnoo sAouns qons 5 .ios Aiqrj jo luoumaidun 0q2 Isisse

JJj

?

t(M uoW.Ioju!

alq'enll

g A AbA POIRI gUOR oAtq sAo.ms osoqi

uoIu!do

mo

ui

siosn

A2JflDJ

pOiAJnS osp

oouluuuoj sq sAouns .iosn popnpuoo A.iiq- oq

?

oq jo uodp!2uuj

I

(sot

u Aip J

I

l12i1.IEd

1. OSiOAt

rn

mouoq utuo 'Amlqfl0q2 Jo 1uouodmoz mo 'Aiiq-j oqi si '01) oqssod am so.msom

mpio Jo 2.ios omos 17aql oAo pq ota'ajqLjmAv jou icjqqomd am soinsoui oAtunb

I

osioid

opu ?

(siosn o ITbom jo £IoAqop jo poods 'o) soouos ijnopid jo Aqnb

0q2 pii (JooqoJo2

g ulplAoid jo sisoo 1jun iod 'o) sooi.uos mjno!.rd jo lsoo *qj ST suuo

I

. ?

tpns

rn

oouimmojiod omnsow (jounOm ou soop £riq oq

opoitomimo 01

I

put,

o11flDo s! ns 02 2uW

p

jo.T TUOW Imp omnsuo 02 IJl13i21d UT PUL

,

mtp ojqmrdmoo

O1EJOU0 02 OflUflU0 01

'pprj

omnoouo kmiqr

- j mo Ivqj 2so2ns pjnoM o ('nIvD)

sou.iqq DIOSO)j JO UOilWosSy Tmrpu3 oqI JO c2ipqiSUodsO1 oqI s

?

qons Jo

I ?

Uo!2UTtUOss!P P"

u0

! 2E7b0 'UO !200 11

00 01

1.1

PEUD

U!

Suo!lm!lsu! AJpuo00s-2Sod Aq

souiqq no &npuods

OAI2B

IO1

O2 s s2mql pns no uopuuoju oisq

'021fl3D

Jo OOU05E

aqj jo osnooq InogJiP uooq sq sisAju mo pzom sup ut ouop oq uo atomuup

5

S

OJ02JO A

0U OAt 2U0UIO111SOU1 oDUTxuoJbod .ioj sOi2Si22s oidt.ms on axe O1O2 oJp2

2UOWO1flSEOJA O3UUU0J

1O

d 1

Izz

---

111

?

23

RECOMMENDATION 12: The Library should regularly and consistently report its

activities. This reporting should include financial

information, collections statistics, service output data,

initiatives, and performance measures.

I

I

2. Accountability

In the course of our review several concerns bearing upon accountability emerged.

I ?

These involved the line of reporting for the University Librarian, term appointments for

library administrators, and position descriptions setting out the responsibilities for all

librarians. The background, positions of the parties involved, and the implications of policy

I

change were discussed at length with the external reviewers. We concur with their analysis

and their recommendations.

It was repeatedly stated in interviews, submissions, and discussions that

accountability was inadequate at both the management and professional staff levels. The

Committee did not investigate specific claims and counter-claims as this was neither within

its mandate nor likely to be constructive. However, we have concluded that the perception

of a problem is so widely and strongly held that it compromises the effective operation of

the Library and therefore warrants attention. We believe that the situation can be

remedied by formalizing review procedures.

19

1

I

With respect to administrative positions, we have accepted the advice of the

external reviewers and recommend term appointments. This is a common practice in

North American academic libraries and is viewed by professionals as working well. We

have carefully considered the arguments for and against this practice. We have consulted

with other library administrators in Canada. On balance, we think the policy has merit and

recommend its adoption.

RECOMMENDATION 13: All appointments at the Assistant University Librarian level

and above should be term appointments with a formal

consultative review prior to reappointment.

1

I

I

1•

1

1

I

I

With respect to professional librarians, we believe that a more explicit statement of

responsibilities is called for. We recognize that some believe that detailed position

descriptions run counter to the academic nature of these appointments. However there is

now clearly too much personal interpretation of individual duties, and this has led to

difficulties in implementing policies and achieving goals.

I

---

I

I.

I

o/Eo6r - ro/000r

uv..j n8aw.ig sauvlql7 !s.zt!un iw.ig uowg t'z

- ?

uoud aiow

uaAi2 aq pjnoqs sluo2 SlInbauwoidw Jo uoBuw1dwI

:

LT

NOI1VaNEllT}\TODaU

inbo 3UOUIiOIdW0 pilE

A2

I

s

loAI p

JO SOflSSI

02

uO!2UO22E

I

JO £lE

?

0nb0pE 0q1 MAo1 02 uo puounuooi

o

s1

otsoj juiopco oqi os.iopuo OM 'aEld

f4inba 2uowiojdw sis1o

A

!un JOSEId uours jo so2 aqj 'pro ssai2oid

521•102ru0m

o

soinp000d JO 10

'OAO

! I

J

DE

02 2.IOJJO

JO

UOP!A0

OU

poptAOld £lElqfl 02 SE

IEJ

os uj

I

•ssqdwa iajvaj2 UaAT2 3q

PIflO11S

2UaUldOtAp

1 BUO

!

SS J 0J

d

:

91 M0uvaNaIs1II03aU

•

luomdoT

oAa

p juoissojoid uo

s!sEqdmo

iooi2 puouuu000i

OM suoissojoid

n

o

qi

JO

ooi

p

id oqj ui 0SE

HIM

RjM

souojjp ojqvj!A0Uj

0111

200W 02

IIE SJEO

pOIJT1UOP!

OAOIIpE 02 poddinbo orB JJE2S

pilE 1U0W0EUEtU 1E1

OIflSTIO

01

I

?

M3LA.1 pue 2uiuuuld

3

2

IU

2

S

iu P3AI0AW AllnJ2u!uBw aq pnoqs

JJB2S

£uuqi

:

sJ

MOIlvaNaIsiIsIoDaU

MOIAOI pilE uiuujd

0

I

O2E 1 1S

ui

UOT2EdP!2

l

Ed JJEIS IflJ2UTUEOU

I OIT1SUO

02 2U0W0EUJAI

£lRlqq 0EIflOU0 OM 'ICJU!p1003V 2U0m0EUEW

cq

POUI

EA

IOU

an

SEO

P!

1

! 01

12

l Ei

TI

JJE2S

JO

uodooiod pOq

Auouuuoo E mo.xj

StUO1S

wojqoid otp jo liEd ori

E

uoju!do mo uj M0A0i

mO

JO

OSJflOO 0q1 2ulmp U0)[B2

SEM

U0123E

Oil

00JM0TDf lflO 01

lflq

'SU.I0DUO)

0S01

SSOJppB

02 dn lOS

SEM dnoig

3

1

S

L

V

SS0O01d

u!uUEId O101E12S 0tJ2

JO

2OSl

fl

O

02 IL, pOIEI11OJP

oxrEuuoiIsonb E 02 sosuodsom JJEIS

J O

I

S

H

&IOj E sopnpui 3lljM '

uE

Id 0202E11S st(IE1qfl

02

J

O

UOUOOS

SISAIEUV U0t1E

1l

2 Oql

UI pOlUOiU fl OOp P T1 E

P0!J!2UOP!

sTtA

onsst

ot ?

iEiqfl

Qqj

ut

SUOtE

I

OJ

2uo1u0EuEw/jJE1s jo JE1O

OJOM

00I1UUU I

OD

02 02 suoIss1uqns

Jo

moqmnu

hUE

JS

E

2EI

T I

OIOU

02

g ullModd l esT p

ST

II

str

g

1d uodn

pooift

JO

UOUEIUOtUOIdUIT

01

JO

UOI1Efl

J EAO

Ot[2

U! PilE

&IJUUEJd

z)!2obElhs

UT

uo2Edp!2.IEd JJE2S

oiflSuo pjnoqs

2 U O W0 EU

EN 1(IE1q-j Auom.rEq

U!

on

SJEO JJEIS

puu 1UOUI0EUEtU

1 E

2 o.rnsuo

01

I

?

•

Uo!JBnIEA3 IoJ ssq aqj

UUOJ

pnoqs

puv

's2qqJsuods1

ino las pjnoqs 'ssazojd A!2B1nsuO

q2nojql pqsqsa aq pjnoqs uoJ1d1sap sp

uo1d1sp uO!1!sOd 2U.UflO v aAuqpnoqs suuiqq nv

:pj

Jyj4JJAJØJ3)J

I

I

I

I

I

I

17Z

---

1

?

25

V.

OPERATIONS

The ULRC does not have the appropriate expertise, and the external reviewers had

neither the time nor: the mandate to review library operations in detail. Nevertheless a

number of issues which warrant attention were raised during our dialogue with members of

the University community and by the external reviewers.

A. LIBRARY AUTOMATION

Numerous criticisms of the Library's computing system were registered during the

review process. These ranged from minor complaints to wholesale condemnation of the

decisions to install the GEAC system and to proceed with its subsequent upgrading. We

have studied the prformance of the system and must agree that there are problems.25

With hindsight it may be possible to argue that this acquisition was not the best possible,

however we are satisfied that the process by which the original decision was made was

sound.

The important fact is that the GEAC system will not be viable in the near future.

This is acknowledged by the vendor, and was reported to the Senate Library Committee as

early as last year. 26

Migration to another system is inevitable and therefore the Library

must immediately plan for that migration, and it must be provided with the funding

necessary to do that planning.

I

I

I

I

I

10

1

I

RECOMMENDATION 18: The Library should immediately plan for a migration to an

alternative computer system.

1

In

the interim, the Library should strive to correct as many of the current system

I

?

?

deficiencies as possible. One enhancement that is long overdue is implementation of an

authorities system for the on-line catalogue.

27

The

1985

"GEAC Implementation Report"

described a plan for loading the authorities database in

1986.28

This matter was again

1 ?

discussed in the 1989 Upgrade Plan.

29

This document recognized database clean-up and

implementation of an authorities subsystem as the top priority for the upgrade based on the

analysis of expressed user needs. To date, there has been no action, despite the allocation

I

of funds for this project in the budgets of several past years.

I ?

25

A list of complaints appears as Appendix F.

26

Minutes

of

the Senate Library Committee Meeting,

October 31,

1990.

27

Authorities control is a system for ensuring uniform records for authors, titles and keywords, and to cross-

' ?

reference alternatives. The idea is to avoid multiple entries such as occur for Sir Winston Churchill as

author (10 variations of title, family name, given names and dates).

?

-

28

Library GEAC Implementation Report

Part I, June

1985.

29

Planning for a Major Library System Upgrade/Replacement,

February

1989.

I

---

I

I.

I

LI

100d

IPID

PU1

I!'S

qj Jo uopuado put

,

iduo qj MA1 pnoqs

Liiuqy

qj,

:

zz

NoI1vuMawIro3a'u

3110MXoqlUIOqM

qtii jjs JEuoissJo1d aqj puL

, sioquioui s jo suoiirdo aqj

.ioj pjm g oj

onp 2uT

?

'pun

ST p jo uoiiodo pu 2duo tp /tI!1 o

?

£r1qJ m ?

i°°d I'o ?

puv juiS

otp Jo uoijdo otp ql!m smqoid jo oauaplAo piq 'Aguij

S;U3wfl30p

JU3WU1A0

JO

juatua g metu GqJ piumol ipioiddt pijwn

aiow u jo sjpuaq p3!Juajod aqj axoldxa pnoqs

£nuq'j

aqj, ?

NOLLvuIIIoDa1

-3u!jaqjtS UOT2EULIOJUI ittO

&iunp pOSTEI IOU SRM

onssi oqj juqj o2polmomlat ,

Put 'iicru

sup no uowsod

ssardx on

cq

M

•suu.rnoop

2UIUUA0 JO

&rqpucq OI1

1AO

womoo pssitho osjc snmomoi jcu.Ixo oqjL

J!Ufl

UO

owt

iqjo; lq2noiq aq pnoqs sjj.ias puu sqdiuouojtj

:

oz NOLLvaNaII,s[ODaI

S1MtA1

Teunixo Oqi

jo uorcpuouuuoi ap Id000ic 'JoJ31oq •

suospp osaql jo uopcicd3s

oip iioddns ol opcm sctt juoumlw 2uT

dmo on o2poltAoMf

sno oj uoisip sc.is

wn?ds c jo sctrApc otp puosnb 11odi

-MDVj

t861

OqjL • suosAp Om4

OsQql

JO

uopczucio jcps2oj oqj uj suioqoid jo posuddc uq pcq

jj'iç oqjL quouamdop ouo

out smn sqdci2ouom puc sjcus otfl Jo &TuquIo ql puuuuooi 1(0t12 '2SJU UO!2tIUc

OtUSp IPLM ujamoo JO SL

I

M

OM pIJr1upi OA' g q S1MIA1

JtLIO2XO

oqjL

NOLLVZIt1VO'dOI 'WNOUJMfH 11

p

I ap

aq lou pnoqs asqp

DYdO

aqj

Jo dn-uup pun iOJUOZ, sailljoqlnu uv

JO

uOpI2uawduq J NoIIivuNaImToDau

LI

I

1

1

I

I

9Z

---

Ii

?

27

C. LOANS

Finally, we note that the external reviewers raised concerns about material

availability. They argue that heavy demand for specific material can be accommodated by

purchasing additional copies, shortening the loan period, or both. The question of multiple

copies and the loan period was raised in other submissions. Also, our survey shows that

while the majority of faculty approve of the current semester-long loan period, forty-two

percent would prefer a shorter period. Several respondents commented that a shorter, or a

variable-length period might be better. We urge the Senate Library Committee to act upon

the 1984 PACUL recommendation to review the loan period. This review should also

consider other factors affecting material availability such as acquisition of multiple copies

and replacement of missing material.

I,

I

I

I

I

I

RECOMMENDATION 23: The Senate Library Committee should review the loan

period and other policies affecting material availability.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Over the last decade the Library has confronted both threats and opportunities. Its

effectiveness was threatened by the fiscal restraint which characterized funding of the

public sector of British Columbia throughout most of the period. At the same time

opportunities, primarily in the area of technological advances, emerged. Exploiting those

opportunities while constrained by limited resources was a formidable task. In the process

the links between the Library and the academic programs became attenuated. The intent

of many of the Committee's recommendations is to reverse this process and thereby

enhance the Library's capacity to serve the University's teaching and research functions.

I

In closing, the Committee notes that a number of the issues raised and

recommendations made are not novel. Many are reflected in the PACUL Report of 1984,

and some go back further than that. Hopefully the conclusions and the recommendations

I

contained herein will not have to be reiterated in the future.

1

I

I

1•

I

---

II

?

1

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

1

APPENDIX A

FACULTY LIBRARY USER SURVEY?

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

---

I

I.

I

uzpunoJ oz anp

OOr

°i

wns iou (vw a2vjuazzaj suodai ou

wp u

!

YIN :qjQ

I

I

I

I

sid polsonjul o

?

3q

ULvi puL , £tiqrj

oip ol ppuoid

oqMM 'suomtuo jo uojduio put, 'sMns1

jo

S

! SI(UE pO

I Op

Q.IOW AAiflS

siq I

jo sjnsi oqj jo £ruauns

L ,

s

%j7

1iiipcoidd Jo

?

)

'SOfl

JO ?

''

sXoA

j

ns gLg

i(jWiXOiddV 1661

i

nr ul

pAMflS

io'

(siJruooi

puL ,

siorusm £io1oqRJ

rnpnpui)

?

nv

I

I

I

---

3

FACULTY LIBRARY USER SURVEY RESULTS

1.

Please indicate your faculty.?

?

Faculty of Arts

?

47%

?

Faculty of Business Administration

?

8%

?

Faculty of Science

?

24%

?

Faculty of Education

?

6%

?

Faculty of Applied Sciences

?

15%

2. To which age group do you belong?

[25-34] 12% ?

[35-44]

31% ?

[45-54136%

?

[55-65115%

?

[65+] 2% ?

[N/R] 5%

3.

How often do you use the SFU library to

—At least once a—

day ?

week semester year ?

never

?

N/A

Borrow or renew library material ?

1%

36%

56%

4%

1%

Use journals in the library ?

1%

48%

45%

5%

<10/c

Use print material in the library ?

1%

27%

38%

8%

14%

Use non-print media in the library ?

1%

7% 22% 21%

34%

Scan current journals ?

2%

39% 47% 7%

3%

Scan new (uncatalogued) books

?

0%

9% 25% 16%

38%

Consult a librarian

?

<1% 11%

49%

25°4 10%

Use printed reference material (e.g., indexes)

?

1%

16%

49%

19%

10%

Use computerized references (e.g., CD-ROM)

?

1%

15%

26%

16%

33%

Browse in the collection ?

1% 21%

44%

16%

12%

Use photocopy services

?

<1%

31% 47%

8%

10%

Use inter-library loans

?

1%

14%

47% 24%

11%

4. To what extent do you rely upon the following information sources?

heavily somewhat

rarely

never

SFU Library

61%

32%

7%

1%

UBC Library

16%

38%

33%

9%

Own (or department's) journal subscriptions

51%

26%

10%

10%

Own (or department's) monograph collection

40%

17%

17%

20%

Municipal public libraries

4%

22%

39%

31%

On-line data bases (other than SFU)

7%

18%

26%

42%

Other academic libraries

8%

18%

43%

25%

Other sources

15%

27%

28%

14%

1

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

1

2%

1%

12%

16%

2%

11%

5%

6%

9%

7%

5%

3%

N/R

<1%

4%

2%

7%

5%

6%

5%

16%

---

I.

I.

I

Qfl

le

S96e!AUd A

1

n3

flIS

(suo!!s!nb3e 'sa3!lues MeU 'se)

AJeiq

eql moqe Uo!WJOpJ o uo!Eu!wess!a

us &ieiqfl WOJJ aoues!ssv

I

I

1

I

I

I

%C

%

%9jv

%9

%Z

%L

%LZ

%68

%9

%II.

%

%S

%09

%3Z

%89

%L

%L

%81.

%I.

%69

%L

%171

%I

%I.>

%09

%17

%6l

%I.

%17

%LI

%CC

%SC

%

%I

%L

%8C

%LC

%

%O

%1'

%t'L

%9

%D-P

%C

%6

%Ot'

%17

%t'

%9

%ZI.

%09

%6

%6

%

%6

%Z9

%LI

%171.

%9

%I9

%6

%LL

%I.

%61.

%617

%9

%6

%gI.

%C

MC

%

%j7j7

%9

%9I.

%81.

%t'

%Z

%L17

%8

%LI.

%

%LI.

%t'S

%9l.

%ZI

%

%ZS

%6

%S

%>

%Z

%CP

%617

uoiuido

PGJS!WSS!P

pOIjS!S

ON

cJOA

peL4s!ess!p

PO!JS!S

IcJ3A

L, ejv iflOA

U!

uo!pe

u o

o

WJOOJ3V

inoA U! UO!P8IIO3 juawnoop AO9

mm , mbA

U!

UO!3eIjO3 esB9 eea

eme mnoA

Ui

uoipe000 4deJ6ouovj

eam mbA

U!

UOR3HOO iwnor

ipew

10

(uoezu6io "ei) 6u!A849

I!

JW

P9JOS JO IAe146

wesAs iieoa

uo

wasAs SOM8S9J

(emniadwa '6U!q!J) luewuojiAUe )IJOM

eods jo

Ar ?

AV

(smepeem

'

.

b

.

e)

Se!!I!oeJ

WJOJOJ3!J

S6flO1O

eU

!I-

UO

JO Aoemflo3y

sen6oieeo

eu!l-uo

jo esn jo ese

seo,ues Ad0000q

6uiuedo jo SJflOH

,6U!MoIIo4 eqj

L

1

!M

flOA eme

Pe!JS!ES

MOH

III

%V' li/N

?

%OC

OU

%19

seA

,uo!3euuoo )jiOM8U e ol sseooe lueivaAuo3 eeq nbA oa

9

% I. li/N %SZ ou

%CL

seA wepow e q!M memdwoo ieuosmed e o sseooe ue!ueAuoo e,¼eq noA

OQ g

,t7

---

16

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

I

5

8.

Have you ever seen the "acquisition profile" which applies to your subject area?

yes

16%

no 84%

9. In the past year did you request that the Ubrary acquire any material?

?

yes

64%

no

36%.

If you did make a request,was it filled?

yes

38%

no

30%

do not know

32%

10.

Without inquiring, could you name your unit's library representative?

yes

68%

no

30%

not applicable

3%

11.

For material which is allowed to circulate, what loan period do you prefer?

semester ?

4 weeks ?

2 weeks ?

no opinion

53%

?

19% ?

23% ?

5%

12.

In your opinion how have the following changed over the past five years?

?

improved

?

about ?

deteriorated ?

no

the same ?

opinion

5%

24%

14%

57%

5%

32%

38%

24%

4%

33%

28%

35%

4%

26%

34%

36%

4%

11%

7%

78%

6%

28%

7%

59%

5%

30%

16%

48%

Specialized reference services

?

Journal collection in your area

?

Reerence collection in your area

?

Monbgraph collection in your area

?

Other non-print material in your area

?

Access to off-site material

?

Faculty input to the acquisition process

---

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

I

1

APPENDIX

B

LIBRARY PERFORMANCE TESTS

?

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

---

I

cdo3o2oqd

?

I

P!2' olvaol

01

olqLun kmjql-j

?

89

?

Xdoo1oqd

?

6Z

I

AdoDoloqd

Jfi

woxj Adoo1oqd

?

AdoDoloqd

?

ill

I ?

ari

moj Adoo1oqd ?

El

?

Adoo1oqd

?

zl

?

JRfi

moJ cdoDo1oqd

?

01

I

Jflfl wOJ AdoDoloqd

?

Dan W01J Adooioqd ?

01

' ?

Adoo1oqd

?

6

?

D[11

uTOij 3looq

?

9

?

DHf1 UJO.ij looq ?

9

?

I

L,IiaqlV Ti UiO1J

ooq ?

9

?

DHfl

TflOIj looq

?

9

3fl moij looq

?

I

(onoui uoiiD

I

vuluo

)

lidS IL, PUUOd ?

Z

(puoui uo

?

pupo) niis ve PU

U

0d ?

z

?

(ssti Uld

Am

fl

UM 01 i

00) uvol JOJ agoliVA l e

30U ?

I

Shp

osuods'>j

u

o'i 1c1E1qfl-12u

:sojoj sL

, ojam snsi pule sotm2

I

suodsi aq

.

L sTsonbi (Tn) uoj

?

qiJ-iow st puuqns put , popoos

anm OZ '(oq 'y is-al) ntis

?

oq ol punoj

S)1OM

polp oqj Jo

I

NOLL39I1OD AIVUNODS - AiHHVT[IVAV LNLJ"IfiDOU

jOAOj

03U0P T J UO3

0

1696 °' .

P it

, o/ o c

02

0121mm

,

Si

jqejpe

%IL

LL

(°TL) t

,

99 ?

LidS it

, ojq

t

jmAt,

Sifl0S

I

86L M

OMS

SUO21p jo

JQqumu

jgoj

:sojjoj sL

, am S2Tl

S1

ouLL mis

?

S)OM

I ?

p2iD OtTI JO DtJM oumualop

01 p)pIp Uj1

SM

(DVdCJ)

?

u-

.q ota

pdtuoz

s7em suouu Jo

isipue

'juinof

q

jo onssi 1UO1 v mo.Jj wopui

it ,

UoSOtp

sRM ojoiljE try

A2ISIOArnn

oqj ssoi souijdpsip jo Ic2o1A

ppt

I

SDifl0S OJ1UEJ2tJ iofm

Ai

11

UOS1dOI sL,

p2S

axam sjuinof

/

?

NOUJTflOD KdW[flId - AJITIIIVTI1VAV 1NIT'ff1DOU V

2

---

I

?

3

C. KNOWN ITEM SEARCH

I

Items were chosen at random from the list of call numbers in OPAC. Non-

circulating items were excluded. Those items not marked as on loan were searched

I

?

?

for in the location listed in OPAC. Repeat searches were conducted at least 2 times

over a 10-day period for those items not found on the first search. For those items

found in the stacks, a note was made of the date last circulated, and the results

I

added to the Monograph Usage test described below.

I

.

The results of the Known Item test are as follows:

Total items checked

?

317

I

On loan ?

29 ?

(9%)

Listed as missing in OPAC ?

22 ?

(7%)

I

Not found ?

6 ?

(2%)

Total lost items ?

27 ?

(9%)

(One of the items listed as missing was actually in the stacks.)

D. MONOGRAPH USAGE

Books

were chosen randomly from the stacks or via the Known Item Search

I

described above The recall date stamp was used to determine when the book had

last been circulated. The total number checked was 812 (excluding new books

which had not been circulated). The results are presented as cumulated totals for

I

circulation within given periods.

I

loaned

loanedthin past 6 months

?

176 ?

(22%)

within past

1.5

years ?

331 ?

(41%)

loaned within past

3.5

years ?

473 ?

(58%)

I

loaned at least once since acquisition

?

708

?

(87%)

never loaned ?

104 ?

(13%)

I

Note that the above results are biased by restricting the sample to items

found in the stacks. One can correct for current loans by using the 9% estimate

I

from the Known Items Search. The adjusted percentages are set out below.

loaned within past 6 months

?

28%

I ?

loaned within past

1.5

years ?

46%

loaned within past

3.5

years

?

62%

loaned at least once since acquisition

?

88%

never loaned ?

12%

1

---

APPENDIX C

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

---

I

I

I.

sojjoj iodi IIq.J

1661 '9 Put'

I

c

'

t,

jsanV

uo snduma Qtp psp Ajuonbsqns pu

l

e Anjq!-1

fjjS oqj jo uoiido

oqj uodn 2uLmoq uouuoumop aAisualxo qllm ppIAo1d aIM ioqj suE1q1

jo

uOi2nJAoQqjTfl

Qmo p

odxa oALq s1Jdxo Fuiowo oolup

?

siodd oauQiajuoa puv solagn poiji S

flO1UIfl

N ?

:suopflqn

?

I(

Ooum S Aiiqr) JA 'rnsuODsi JO

11S

1 O AU

fl ?

UORtDflP

?

AusJArnfl 110A

'uleLmiq!-j I(ITS1AI

U fl ?

:uowso ?

UUIJJOH UOH

sjuno1 Arnjoqs puL

,

juoissjoid UI spui

I ?

Øg JAO jo .ioqn 'sjooq j1s jo .ioipo io ioipn'

?

:suopEMJqnd

uoiiossy (i.iq

qsil!jq aqj jo MOJJ{ 'dujsuiiiqqjo jooq ?

uTJ

?

:uoznp

OUSO1j 2E 41s1o

A rnfl P2S 1ru10JqJ

'i(trqq uppEJ, I(ruH 'supS £rEJq jo uo

?

:uosoj

I

URUIIO9

'I

(191 :

E861 'EZ

'dqsui1q ?

.ioj uounp

?

jo ju.rnoç) dusuuiqq jo

SOOiJ3S JO

A

IJ

flD

J

TI j,

2u0umioqjnv pop Ajpoq isoui

I

q2.rnoj sL

,

po3[uvi!saj3gn pijai pue sooq

S fl O 1 U Ifl

N ?

SUO2qfl

(diiiq

put siScTuV tuiouoz)ffqd 'A SJAUfl PT!JJ°'TS

?

:uouznp

I

uoIJsruTu.Ipy ptM-wSA

?

°jrpo

JO

A2!SIOAWf1

'SpqOj

puL ,

STIJ £riqi

?

iOj UP!SOJd-3A

URSISSV AJJOUUOJ 'f13I1

?

tUiOJTJ JO AIsJoArnfl

I

g

soopuoS

u

ou uuoj u j

2s'

i(rElqfl JO

TOOt(OS

'IOSSOJOJd

?

IOT2SOd

p'pp'a

MOAI otp

U

!

2S

!

SS

01 S1.IOthO

I

O1qT

POUT

jai

U!UIU1O3

MA)J

£Iiqfl

A.T

!SIOA ! U

fl

91111661 OUflf UI

I.

I

---

I

'S

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

1O

I

I

I

I

1

OF?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY?

by

frtJa

eQ

&

Michael Buckland, Chair

Michael Gorman

6EL ?

'1L

Ellen Hoffmann

REPORT TO THE

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY REVIEW COMMITTEE

1

?

August 1991

I.

I

---

I

e

?

tu ?

•(i#) ?

2c1om uo

pu uoiounj

I

uo sisqd ?

ii2 g ipp

2uuI2Jdp uo oui puiqu10 q pnoqs

S2IUfl

slu!iaS

puL , sqdiouoy ?

i#) poAoldtui q pnoo 2! tAoq jo puL ,

sjiui £z1q

Jo f4jjjqLjtLAL,

jo Apnis L , oq pnoqs ?

(zt#) suuinop ju g

uiujoAo g ol qowiddu prJrun

oioui

L

, oq

PI flOI T

S oi. u..

(ii#) jotoid sla uoos s ?

utu

Qqj IL ,

posu ?

I

i°ci

uoauojuj uV -uoiluollu oAjosop soidol i g qlo 1E1AS

(oi#) ornipoy '1 U p ! Sa i

d 93 1A O T 0 1

All:)Qjl

I2.iodal 02 onuiluoo pnoqs uEuElqq c2LS1AIUfl ?

(6#)

2 uw 2 u

!

odd1 02

lo!.id

?

Ap1IflSUO3 JuuoJ

L , qiyA s2u

g

rnuLodd au

g j Qq pnoqs oAoqL, puE uuiqrj I4is1Atufl

Iuopo

unj s2uui1u!oddE liv

(8#) ?

pu X2uoq2n ?

insuturuoo pu

?

i ?

.ioj Aqiqisuodsi

juomoftweui ouil

qjyA qo pg

'suu1qq 4is1ALufl apossy ?

10 juLIsissV uo psq oq pinoqs aznonis urnouai sAiiqq oqL

• ( L#)

jjs

I

c.zE1qIJ Jo

simatuBos

IlL ,

Aq

uoi2Edioi2lEd

g ALOE S

fl

O

fl

U2UO3 QAjoAui pnoqs

UE

!d

?

12s ?

jo 2uuidoAp oiLL () uoL2duosp uorlisod p-o1-dn uu oAuq pjnoqs

?

I

ooXo1duio £iicii £IA

• (c#)

niuioid oaupo ?

ioj

ooLuos kiL , .iqll

JO

slo3dsE

Ilu

ioj uosid jouluoo i(iuiud oqj su pu2isop uBuE.iq! E q pnoqs oiip gi.uInE1o1d

oguogeou qoo Jot!

(t#)

p

I

dno3

SlllqSil

oiotu oq pnoqs Ouiuuuld £riqq pup

utuujd

O L

U1pEoV SOO1fl0S1 JO jQAQj UOAl2 XUR

IL

,

AflUJi1d0 puL

, x1 gAilo p go poidp

I

am oldood

Xu

a

ioodsopu 'ods 'u1punJ ILql ainsu 02 AJ2S 02 PU oqj S

#) su1qr

1q20

qllm

uot21oqEoo juiogouoq

A

n2 n

tu uo psq oq pnoqs SuTuuLld £iiqrj (z#)

utuu1d

s

M isiiu n

rn jo

liEd ILBziui UB SE UtUtEtU puE 'pdopE 'pJEdaid oq

pinoiis ud omds cJEJqi v uiqoid ooEds L ,

sq i(IElqq oqL (i# U0!2EpUU1Tfl03>J)

S12IS1A!Un urnpEuEj jo urnpui t[2

2S1

IE 02 posrei oq pnoqs A.IElqfl Ic1SJAUc

J0J lloddns

£iE2op

n ?

oI Aj&usithns si faL , .iqj-jaqjioj lloddns 121sJAiun sainosj

I

iquinoj Llsilug Ut iopL ,, al olqlstA

J SE J

d

UOUJI

S )JEW OSIE 'iEMicUE ppu

9

5IELI2EUI OTUOIIOQIQ 02 SSO3E UT 2UtU2SAUJ

utuuEJd faLlq!l

1

41! M

utuuEId oituopun Jo 3uqdnoo olunbopum Qqj puu LLjql-j Qqj .ioj

I

UIpUnJ IOUOJUI JO ioqod IsEd

sil

ssoippu 02 5U U0!2EIISIURUPE AILSIOALUfl

l gdEd U0

02 SE JM SE

AHEO

I

UOJIOOjO

POJO2S IEUOIEUI

02 SO3E siinbi Mou oopuos £IElqfl uoe

om ,

sinp000id £IEJqtJ JO U01E

I O2 fl

V UI0U0O UEI[1 1q2EJ SuJ1.UEJo1d upo

I

SA2!SJAIUfl 'T2 1tM diqsJoullEd At2oJJ zsEiJdu10 02 spou £IEJqfl 12!SIOA!Ufl

1 SE1

d UO

T f l i

S :pUEqo MOU sEq )JSE.1. UJ p

g p g i QALq 02 JEddE ssuo kiUlo2pnq

1AOS g

qj pUE

pqsqqE2s-JM

S ciEJqq c2Si

g

AUfl IJJ 1UUIAqOE JO JOOi E 2tM

I

uotlnlusrn qEzis E si'l

?

puE flEUJS 1U0I OU

S!

A2!S1AUfl

1SEJ

d

U0L.Ug

A'dVIAIIAIflS 31A1flDX

I

I.

?

Z

? 1661 '6Z &V liodj

9QUIUMIOD

Mg>J

IBLUOIX3

:&JEJqrj

fj

I

---

SFU Librar

y

: External Review Committee Report. Aug 29, 1991 ?

3

The Library needs to make a major investment in access to electronic resources.

Leadership in this area could easily transform Simon Fraser's relationship with the

University of British Columbia and other institutions from player to leader and from

parasite to partner in a way that would not be feasible with materials on paper. We

recommend leadership in access to electronic sources of information (#15). The

University administrative should ensure that there is effective collaboration between the

Library and those responsible for telecommunications and support of academic

computing (#16). There should be immediate consideration of the nature and timing of

the replacement of ihe present GEAC system (#17). Management reports, library

service output meas

p

res, and management information need improvement (#18). With

appropriate accountability, the Library should have greater authority for internal budget

management (#19). There should be a performance appraisal for all library employees

at least annually (#20). There should be more attention to staff development (#21).

There should be a broader, more extensive programme of library instruction (#22). The

adequacy of attention to issues of diversity and employment equity should be reviewed

(#23). The recruitment of librarians should match the academic programmes of the

University (#24). There should be a study of the adequacy of library support for courses

offered at a distance

(#25).

These recommendations would bring the Library closer to what is generally

regarded as good administrative practice among North American university libraries.

Implementation should enable Simon Fraser University Library to cope more effectively

with its present role in the changed situation of its second quarter century.

---

•

??

st1,LSJAUfl UEPEUE3 jo UELpUI aqj Isuolol psii oq pnoqs AlElqfl

?

I

.xojioddns

XIU

, 152 -

png j uoputuuIo3J iou

ki 7

a.iqll ioj lioddns ur SL!S1OA!UII

uvipuuuD Jo

olgimb jsQtAoj Qqj

Ui

oq

ol

isij uom

ju oiod 4iS1Atufl uruiai p pno

?

i(psloAiufl

iSE1

uoufls soop uEq ous LiEiqq

ioj juQpnjs iod oioua

%

ç IAO l

gg

pnq qoq rnqmno3 qs!.I Jo f4jslOApJfl

I

BilojolA JO ALS1MUfl UJ -mol iutstidins Si Aniqrj

?

ioj lioddns

SEIDIMOSHU

-

-souujqjj

1q2o

qpt puE LS1AUfl

I

oi.j jo Isgi gql qjyA uoi1oqEoo gAi l oogja Qjoua puL, jjs kiLjqq

Suoum,

3[jotetuauol

.i sop 2uidol

g A g p 01 UOUE IUUOgMSIS js;)Aui

ol

Spu £iElqfl

siC

eis

pcu

OT41

lOd

UOtEflPS Buiftuqo E Ut OS 2uTmuiai puu AJJO Buigq SE luogam000 5moq UO

I

1[OfltU OS 20U olullug

OUO3

ol

spu lc3tjOd £IEJqfloEq

su3 osoi p

jJoi ol

spou £rElqrJ

1!S1A!ufl jmua

UOUIIS

?

'1nU Jo1Enb puOoS sp jo uoLns pouq

I

pss1ppE oq ol SEtI

puu pAu.xE seq £IElqrj c

4 is1oAu fl

oq IOJ 31SE mou iumiodun uy idEd uo

sluuoma

o

SSOOOL

,

uLql luuljodum ssol guu A

ll ugioqul su pprnoi q jou pnoqs puL

, IEuodo jou sl

I

?

soinosi oiuojlo;)Io oi ss000E BmIjoddnS -xadud UO peuQJULU 01 SE flM SE AflEZtUOJOI

pios 1EUEffl

ol

ssg

oE jo uo!s!AoJd sirnbi MOU QwAios AlElqfl TxuoJolo!Iu

UE 1dEd Ut IE!JEtU oi UOLpppE Ut UUOJ O!UOJ12 Ut SOJflOSJ

UOUEULIO

J

U!

JO O&IEI

UISE g Ioui IcIptdEi

Mou Qqj ol

SS33E JO uotstoid

SAIOAU!

' 1 1(IE1qj o

p ailozia oql,, SE O

paiijoi Somtmos 'osEl.Jd xou oqj uo!Eu1onE faLjqll qt ssi2oid juiluu1sqns gpum

suq £IEiqfl A!S1A!Ufl .

I OSE I

d

UOIU

!S

sjg

A.IEJQJI-UOU puL

, sol

.

2XO 'JEUOd '&I!pnLou!

c

solg oldillnui ol SS3OE

Iuu1

oI&r!s ioj s!sEq oqj sptoid 1.pqM inos1cs

£IElqq oui

Ruo

g

Aisuqa1dmoo E Out PE1 02 SpU

n8OJE2E3

ouiJUO oqj, flOjE1E3 i(IE1qJ

UIUO UE jo UOrE2uUxjdun pun sisn c1EiqJ uo 1oEdtIq op I1AI1Ej1 sEq 'sornp3o.Id

IEU12Ui s,faujqjj aqi loJ sninduaw JO OSfl oqi Allunu

g m '

1 UOI1EaI

O2 fl

E £tEJqfl

O

A4 4

Ut 2uuin000 SE p

g

tAQtAoq UE3 AOIOUTIO2 MU JO 1OEdtli oqj Ai.iqq E .ioj

I

(rEJqfls1

A2iArufl oill

MU

IT1 UO

SflOOJ SUO!2EPUUKUO3O1

.rnQ

SSUAP3JJO S2! OZ!1.UPCeUI 02

souiqq

iq10

I

qiyA puu suJuIE1o1d OUUE3E sA2tsJAIUfl O2 qiyA d!qS1u21Ed UE UO2E

1OEO3

U!

o2u2ua

ol

spou AiElqq pqsqqE2so-fl

M

y :2u1JJp Mou Si SE UJ ppoo1 QAIBq O

1EddE PM0IIOJ qoiqAt SSU3

c

1E1p

n

q

amos

OqJ SEd Si 'suEiq pqSqqE2SO-JUoL

I

uo ooupuodp AISSEUI PM AUE!21U1

'i(IElqq

A3ISIO A

! U n

MU

A112U

UE U!SE2SO

)JSE ?

JO

1.

UEO

I UOIO

H

qJ AJEJqJ

S1!

JO tU Si UIES qJ UUJAp4OE JO piooi pqsqis

UE 2t uotnpsu ?

E St 21 'UtpUflOJ sp

J1

JE

1c1fl2UO E JO

1

2 1Eflb

y jps

qsi quiso ?

I

o2 &ttpu

UOUfl21SU

ou

'HEWS

E iuO OU s! A2!s1A!Ufl IOSEJJ UOIItg

NOIiJfKIOLLMI

I

P ?

1661 '6Z 2n V I JOdg ll

21!1rn.uoD MIAO)J JEU11X :AiEiqfl fUS

I

---

I

I.

?

SFU Librar

y

: External Review Committee Report. Aug 29, 1991

?

5

I

The Library has a space problem. We understand that the space currently

occupied by the Boqkstore and other non-library units in the building are scheduled to

revert to the Library in

1995

and that plans for building additional space are under

I

?

consideration. The use of existing space should be reviewed at intervals.

Recommendation 2: A librar

y

space plan should be prepared, adopted, and maintained

I ?

as an integral part of the Universit

y

's planning activity.

It is always the case that some library users will have to use more than one library

to satisfy their needs. In the early years it was inevitable that Simon Fraser faculty and

I

graduate students would need to make use of other Vancouver area libraries, notably at

the University of British Columbia. However, Simon Fraser has a percentage of graduate

I ?

students that is not untypical for Canadian universities, it claims academic excellence in a

number of areas, and its Library is not (and should not be) simply an undergraduate

library. Library planning should be based on a conscious effort at collaboration and

I

mutual benefit rathçr than dependency in relationships with other libraries and especially

with the University of British Columbia Libraries. The need at Simon Fraser to develop

extensive access to electronic resources provides one path in which self-interest could be

I ?

combined with benfits for other at relatively low marginal cost. Recommendation 3:

Librar y

planning should be based on mutually beneficial collaboration with other

libraries.

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

I

Quite apart from the importance of additional resources, there is the need to

strive to ensure that funding, space, and especially people are deployed effectively and

I

?

optimally at any given level of resources.

Closer linking of academic planning and library planning. The purpose of the Library is

to support the academic programmes of the University. Different programmes have

' ?

different library needs. It follows that effective library planning depends on a tight

linking of library planning with academic planning. It is not only a matter of the

existence of programmes, especially instruction offered at a distance from Burnaby

I ?

Mountain, but also lknowing the priorities among them. The Library cannot be strong in

all areas. How is the Library to determine where it should place its priorities and when

and how it should change them? We received a strong impression that academic

planning should pay more attention to library considerations and that library planning

should be more responsive to changes in academic plans. Recommendation 4:

I

Academic planning and library planning should be more tightly coupled.

Closer partnership with faculty and students. There were several indications that

' ?

communication between academic departments (and faculty generally) and the Library

has been weak and inadequate. Improvement will depend on effort and effectiveness on

S ?

both sides. Academic departments and the Academic Senate can support a stronger and

more effective library service only if they are well-informed about the Library. The

I

---

:suon ,

il3ns oojql on oioql '1coidkj

?

oiv juouounj lofBm u .ioj A.ijtqsuodsai Quq qJIM?

iqn g

'suu1qrJ 11s1oALufl ojutoossV io juejsissV on

,

QiQqjXjRjqr isiun uoumy

IOJ oinjongs

?

oiql uj innis juoui g nuutu Aiiiq

jjs

g

luiq!j jo suouros ii

uotdtid 5XI15L , snonutuoo

9ALoAui

pjnoqs UEId

52

s

sAiiqq 5qj jo luouidoloAgp

qj

:

L

uoLpuuIuxoJ pdoAp am suIqsuodso1 puiss pu suqpp

sAipIqo orjpds st ,

ijpds 'ssooid siql ui

POAIOAU!

Asnonuuoo

puL ,

'

iflrnusqns

'

A

l

o

Ame z

q prtoqs jjs Ahiqjj Jo

SUOWS

j Anuqrj oqj ioj

UId

wSoluji S u

jo

udoIAp aqj ioj ss,oid &nuujd OALp tIE

S O ?

gjg

M

uLuuEId

uoiduosp

uoiusod Ep-o-dn tIE QAUq pnoqs 5co1dw

g

nL

, . iqll A1A3

:9 UOL pUOUIUI03J 0p

UEO

suRpE1.0 juqtA 2utop oq

ol

cpoq&uE ioj put 'op UEO spop juqtA

g

uiop q

ol

suEt3!u1T3

1OJ

'op uuo suvi:)m

-

qooj poumij juqtA 2urop oq ol stEuo!ssJo1d .IoJ luzi3gotH st u

idoid

UOp

pu uop utq St )[IOM jq2u

.

Qqj

juqj

g

uunsuo

ol

jnjosn oq OSE

uuo jjs

Ile ioJ smauojjunuue qjVA puqmo3

suo

!

d

! iosop

uoU!sod josos.ai

in2>j

UO1Efl1

t S

2uiuEq3 E

U!

SLO1 &qAOAO uo puE

s

U! Joud

uo snsusuoo u 2uidojoAop

.ioJ stsEq Injosn

T

a uuoj uo puu iiojp QAijujoqvUoo u Qq pnoqs suod.Iosp UOi!SOd jo

si jEn g 1 PUE UOi3 g

14J Aç3us1 SpAomu Qq jou pu suoildposop

UO!ISOd

suoiduosp uot sod ou g

u;)2 uo posq aq pnoqs suoiidsp

uoiisod

IEnppu!

I suvilaiqll omonjai

Suom , sE

'lEnpiAlpui

uo uEq aiom iCq ouop

S!

j.IOM 1EtUS

uop uq sEq 1eqj iliomJo tioijenjRAO oT41 ioj

pue

ouop oq pnoqs

)JIOM

qoq jo suoto g th g

.roj stsEq oq uuoj pnoqs qotq uotdu3sp

uontsod

oEp-o-dn

UE

QAUq

pnoqs 'uEuElqq

fa;)Ao

rnpnpuI '(odui Aiiqq £IA suoL2duosp

UOtflSOd

g uJuIE1o1d !wPE3Ejuqj.ioj

ous £IElqq jo sodsE Ile ioj Oslod

puoo £IEurnd oqj SE PEu!SoP uUf.IUiqjj E 5q pnoqs 5j5qj oulaiamold 3WPE3E

qoE ioj :ç UOtpUWUI03j Spu

luonno o oAtSuOdSi am ,

sows

£IEiqj 2Et ?

ainsuo ol 2ur5[Q;)s puE

1

poAjoAuj swTLuEJo1d ;)ql Inoqu

&Iq 'qoE1no

AI3E Suipnjoui SE Oi siql moiA

ol

pptho

q pjnoqs uEuEiqJ oqL iuwdopAp

UO!OflOO

&uPnIou!

'us £IEiqq Jo sodsE

flE

loj owLuo1d io luotuiludop juqj

Ut

OA1S g

soqlioj uOStEq £IEurnd ?

SE poEu2tsp q pnoqs uELIE1q E ourmi2oid

PUE 2uUI1Edp OpIIOPEOE qOEO ioj poz!uE10

ionq

Qq ol spou

11 Inq 'IEJqj'j

oqj puoAq

Ino qoEi ol

JJE25

AiEiqfl ?

Jo IfflqE ?

Uo!3Sflb jou op o

1

I fl0E

tI

PUE ojuuoS 2UEAL1

UO OiUOS

pjnoqs SUELIE1fl spu ISEd jou juguno

?

p g JJ g I SIEML2 pjnoqs IuuJdO1o

A p U01P0fl03 pue 'jijoid uEId jeAolddE

g

qj 'SUOIdi3SqflS

?

jeuinof 'sduiex snotqo sy IEJqfl Qqj

oi

amoo oqtA asoqjjo

Aluo IOU puU --

pos

?

q

OI

;)soql

JO

swomoo PUE spu 5u2UEqO oqj

Inoqe

Pm1oJu!-HoM st 21

siun

gopjgs?

poo icueoi QpjAojd

2OUUEO

CIEJqfl

oqjL -Allumo

g

supns pUE

J

21

fl EJoqj

aIoiJ PUE

?

4

02EUS O!mPEOV g qj woJJ

'sIuuII.IEdp

3tUOEE tuoij 2ioddns

g Ailoog g

spou £zElqfl

9 ?

1661 '6Z

nVIiod>J

ogMuIuIOD MOtAJ

tEuI ?

:MElcIgj

fltIS

---

I

16

SFU Librar

y

: External Review Committee Report. Aug 29, 1991

?

7

'

?

?

public services (reference, selection, library instruction, specialized libraries and

collections); processing (acquisitions, cataloguing, binding, labelling, and circulation); and

administrative services (accounting, budgeting, development, building and support

I

?

?

services, personnel and staff development). Managers of some specialized functions such

as personnel, systems, and coordination of collection development sometimes report

directly to the University Librarian. The details vary but the general pattern is fairly

I

?

?

consistent. The use of Assistant or Associate University Librarians in staff roles has been

widely abandoned.

At any level of budget it is important to develop and to use staff, including

professional staff, in ways that enable them to be as effective as possible. Automated

procedures should lead to a closer integration of activities than with paper-based

I

?

?

procedures. Both considerations argue for flexibility, collaboration, and effective

leadership within and between broader functionally related areas each headed by an

Assistant or Associate University Librarian expected to ensure effectiveness, teamwork,

1 ?

efficiency, and constant adaptation to changing conditions.

I

The present flat organization structure with twelve very varied positions reporting

directly to the University Librarian, including an Associate University Library in a staff

position, should be changed into the more usual pattern based on a few Assistant or

N ?

Associate University Librarians each with line responsibility for a functional area. If

need be, this could be achieved by redeploying existing positions. Recommendation 8:

The Librar

y

's management structure should be based on Assistant or Associate

I

?

?

University Librarians, each with line management responsibility for a functional area and

commensurate authority and accountability.

I ?

Term appointments for administration. The University should change its personnel

policies so that all

appointments as Assistant University Librarian, Associate University

Librarian, and University Librarian become term appointments with a substantial,

I

?

?

consultative review after not more than five years. Reappointment would be subject to

the same time limit; and review. Term appointments for administrative roles can be

combined with security of employment as a librarian or in some other role. This

I ?

recommendation applies only to the administrative assignment and treats library

administrators more like other academic administrators. Recommendation 9: All

1 ?

with a formal consultative review prior to reappointment.

Each of the recommendations concerning organization and management should

help Simon Fraser University Library cope more effectively with its present role. Also,

each of them would bring the Library closer to what is generally regarded as good

I

administrative practice among North American university libraries.

•

?

?

We recommend that the University Librarian continue to report directly to the

Vice President, Academic. Even though the Vice President, Academic may well choose

---

I* ?

otuoiioglo

oi

SSOOE ioj sud o1qj

Isonjul

qjIm poou ?

soornosai 3iU6115515 51 ssoov

I

AIur uo pu

uoiounj uo sLsBqduI 1x U

qjjW luouilludop ouo ou puqwo3

q pnoqs stu s[L'U g s PUL ,

sqdiouo

:171

uopuuuooj iuum

Slouall

aiom

Iu Ut soAlotIs oqj ol su

g tu ?

'snql 'pun opJoEq uin2o

?

ipuoin xis jugsoid

oonpoi ol paip!suoo

g

q pnoqs 'sEqEEp

D'flO

oqj jo g sn SE qons 'soinpooid puq)

-luuuoj uq ioi

q uorpunj uo sisEqdr.uo oiom qjIm 2uIxu1Edop pE1OU OIOLU puE

IQjq!xoLT 0,0111 I

nliul ouo olul pouqmoo oq pnoqs suotu.rdop sjiog puE sqdE12ouoy

I

°q.L SSOUOAIPOJJO UE couoioijjo

Ji00

iooq

ol

puol

ol

popodxo oq UEO JJE5 &IOIIIE

3IIOMUJEO4 JOSOID UO25S polumolnu Oqi U0 poI0U

g o AkOjJ

po 2ou ijoSoio

01011! E IILIOJ

ol uorounj cq poz1u1oo1 oq pjnoqs sjEuoEw jo &rtss000id oqj

•

SooIEuos 2UISS000Jd

I

poAoldun oq pjnoo

11 tAoq

Jo

puv sJ.IoEu1

Muiqll jo AjjjjqqjUAu oql Jo cpns E oq pnoqs oJoqj :j uoLEpuotuui000>j

?

EEAE

Jo IQAOI MOI E st QjQqj

'iinsol

E SE 'juqj pUE 'uoioidnp ormoisXs °tni si ojoql wq

I

oi u spouod

UEOI oq

?

Si

&qpuEs10pun '

n

o PO2UE M

OlE Aoq UOITM sjooq

U!PUTJ

JO icUIqEqoId oqj jo

smio

U!

oot&ios jo pipus iood

E iO

UE1UO

U!

solill.Ioj Isual

I

'spouod

9JU souxoono

uvol jo

OOflfl

&r.iuoioqs

iUO

pUEWOp

pumop

IcAEOq

ui soi

JO

jo

oinssoid

soidoo juuoilippu

iopun

Si

UOI3O003

jo UO!SinbOE

E 1OA0UOq

:ojqssod

•MO1

1oA!EIo1 si moqj imm AQql uQqtA juumbqjsjooq Qql &npug si

g

sn jo cqEqoid oq

173ql posons poAi000l OM

oouopso

£1E2uo

uI E 1

J

OUJ,

?

nLjqll Jo

?

JIRAV

suouinoop juaUMA65

51 qoEolddE poijiun oiow E oq pnoqs oJoqj :j uoLpuou1u1000'j qoEo1ddE poijiun

I

oiotu L,

puouuu000i om ILmolum suj2 Jo O1EU xoiduioo pue poziJEoods oqj

JO

suouxIEdop £riqq .InoJ u000q ponqusip oq ol slEoddE swoainoop Uo1nu1oAO

ioj

ooiuos oouoiojoi puu '&iiss000,d

'uoioo1os

ioj Aipqrsuodsoi luosaid iv

si

pozgEoods

IpuE jjno y jjjp E 5! ua;)ql

&i

! sn

nq

l uoilumiojul juLIjoduii jo qo

IEU011E1I.10U!

UE

UL01OJ 'JElOpOJ 'jEiOUtAOld I

EIOI

JJO swouInoop jUQEaUJQAOD

II013E1d

SE 0OUE1U0 ULEUI 5qj 2E P

0

II E5uf

oq pjnoqs

)ISOU

UOtEUUOJUJ

SE

UlçI

:

11 uopuomm000'a

I

. IL ,;)Pl uqi ssof slEoddE .Io0J piuj oq U0 U0 EZIII2fl OOEdS sop UO2E

UL1

0J UI LO

A

OL UEJ

uoiwonE

op ,oj

poi

Arun..ioddo uoioijjnSin prnj OM qotqM .ioj inq oiqEisop polEoddE

I

?

o&IEqo oioqtAsoidoi ioqo IE1OAOS poou

OM

UOtUO2EUEUJ puu U0EZ!UE1O

Jo

suo!3sonb

?

U0

UOUUOE

.iflO

JO

qonw POEJUOOU0O OM PUE

OAtsuOU!

pilE joiq SEM jjsjAinO

I

01UJOPEOV

U0Pts01d

°°'A

oip 0

1 /4o011p iodoi ol onuiuoo pjnoqs uEuEJqr ALS10AIUfl

I ?

oqj

:01

U0IEpU0WUI000'J UoiUo12E sq 2upuosop £iiq ;)ql

U!

S0UE1p luuogpals o?

PEOL ITP' MO1AOI luouno ;)ql 11eqj oodxo OM 'JJEs Sq

ol

siotu &JEJqq oinos OEOIOP o

S ?

1661 '6Z 2n V

1

.I069

11

OOUU

RU O3

MOiA0J

LEUi0P :/uEIqfl nis

---

I

SFU Librar

y

: External Review Committee Report. Aug 29, 1991

?

9

I

?

?

resources as part of the Electronic Library Network (ELN). This is an exciting

development, but perhaps not central enough to the Library's plans. Except for the

Belzberg Library, the Simon Fraser University Library is currently somewhat behind

I

?

?

general practice in providing access to electronic resources (e.g. CD-ROM equipment).

Providing access is necessary, urgent, and important for the Library's clientele. The

Library needs to make a major investment in this area with or without collaboration with

I

other institutions in the province. Leadership in this area could easily transform Simon

Fraser's relationship with the University of British Columbia and other institutions from

player to leader and from parasite to partner. The development of access to electronic

I

?

?

resources could benefit greatly from cooperative provincial developments, but is too

important to Simon Fraser faculty and students to be allowed to be dependent on and

paced by provincial developments. In this area Simon Fraser University could benefit

I

itself and others by 'leadership in a way that would not be feasible with materials on

paper. Recommendation

15:

We recommend leadership in access to electronic sources

I

of information.

Telecommunications and academic computing infrastructure. Effective progress with

I

?

?

library automation and access to electronic resources will depend on effective

collaboration between the Library and those with campus responsibilities for

telecommunications and support of academic computing. Recommendation 16: The

University administrative should ensure that there is effective collaboration between the

Librar

y

and those responsible for telecommunications and support of academic

computing.

I

Library automation The vendor has announced that the current GEAC system is

doomed. The only questions are which system should the Library change to and when

I

?

?

the change should be made. Recommendation 17: There should be immediate

consideration of the nature and timing of the replacement of the present GEAC system.

I ?

Management information. On the basis of our brief visit the quantity, quality, and

intelligibility of reports on Library activities appears to need considerable improvement.

For each area and for the Library as a whole there should be concise annual reports with

'

?

?

clear summaries of expenditures, activities, goals, performance, and future plans. There

should be a continuing programme of quantitative and qualitative evaluation of all library

units. Recommendation 18: Management reports, library service output measures, and

1 ?

management information need improvement.

Budgetary flexibiliti. In addition to increased budget support from the University, the

I

Library should undertake internal reallocation of funds to support high priority activities

as identified by the Strategic Plan. Some new programmes will be funded by "old" rather

I ?

than "new" money. It was our sense that the Library has little flexibility to retain

savings,to reallocate among major budget lines, or to generate revenue and, as a result,

•

?

?

budget management is reactive rather than active. Recommendation 19: With

appropriate accountability, the Library should have greater authority for internal budget

Li

---

I

. ?

urunoyt iqEu1n iuoiJ oou

ti

sip e le I

qSnLl

sosinoo

iosLjq uoaus ioj 2ioddns CJ1qJ

I

jo £IALp tp

InoqL

, jp juoB u piq o

?

u03n.I2su

usp

Jo

2ioddns iiqq

21S1AIUfl Qqj JO swwEJo1d

oimopuou 5qj qou pjnoqs suuuuiqll JO

ivauLnii Uj :VZ uotpuoiuuioo'>j

I1OM Aq2 sL ,

21tu00.i 02 2JnogJip su tAou jou am l

olduauxQ ioj 'si2p

tjjpA suuiq

?

s1uT.u21dp oruiopo

2tM uosr puL

,

'uoPrU2su

Ai1qJ 'opus

?

I

3UIJ1 '2uuidoIoAp uotpoflo3 s

qons sqtAioE Aziq u

i1IEpodso

'puS &nq

souiu.iioid oimopo

oq

qow pnoqs suuiqq Suouau osuiodxo 2o1qns Jo o guui

osuiodxo 2oofqns oinos

puu a spiadxo I

u0

! ss0 J o1d

&niq suiiq ?

sioth 2o[qn

I

oq pnoqs iinb g

20UIi5IdW g

puE

A3isl5AIp jo sonssr ol uo

il

uoiju Jo AoEnbpE

ouj

I ?

:z

uoIpuouuu000'j sdnoi2 1 Eloods puu

'i(1Ouq2o

I iQpua2 JO sonssi IM p2E!OOSsB

qoaqno

pu

'2uowdoLoAop JJEs

'2U0U 1

2

1fl.I 3O J

JO SOflSSI 02 uoquoll

p

JO O3UOA OUI

AIOA jo ojumv otuooq g M 1 1siAi

n

o &runc

suoLJopisuoo

Jrn2InoL1JnuI

puu ALSJAtJ

Isouuumzomd SAISJAtUfl ?

&ipp U

spunom2.13q 200 çqns qjVA suimqq

2IM pornqwoo puL, oioqtosp popuoinm000m si juqj

s2uour1idop

ormop

v

ov ol qooino

I ?

oiwoscs Qqj Jo liEd oq pnoqs stqj

uoL23n11su AJLjqll JO 0UJiUE.101d

0A!SU0X0

OIOUJ

^Jopuojq -e

oq pnoqs omouJ

:

zz

uoLpuou.uu000'a -ss

g :)o p op4dEioqjq Jo ixoidumoo

UtSE010U OqI pUE

1UOUI

L

O1UO IUOPIIIS

01EflPE1 JO OSU Ot[1 ITUAt 102E01 SI pOOU 0t1J

•

osn ic.ieiqt j

oiqopoiouj si osn fuElqq

0A130JJ

?

sUE1EJq cq

S1UO

PUIS

01 SUO!IEIUOSOId

IE1o!SEo0o PUE SIflOI UO12EIUOUO JO 1 4jUqujpAu 01T2 JO PJ01 01OM PUE lUOlII2lEdoa

I

oouomojaj:

01 III S10JE0L IEU01E11U0JU! poo OUJOS POIOU OM

U

01O t

U1SU /LIEJQfl

2uowdooAop

JJEIS 02 UO2U011E

OJOUT oq pnoqs

0101T.J

:

Iz

UOIIEPUOUIIUO30>J E

i O2 O

!A Jo

I

21S1o A

LUfl oqI pUE 'EqurnO3

I

qswig jo lclrsmoAtufl oqj 'losaiJ

uoms

jo soiiqq Qqj (q poiosuods Xlluiof oq

souxmEl2old luomdoJoAop JJEIS 0

1.uo

qsimnoJJ 02 SI 00 OS iciElqIJ

J luomdopAop JJEIS U

I ?

1UOUI2SOAU! PUE 01 UOI1UOI1E iojeajS E dcq

ptoddns oq

02

?

luosold SI

2'T2

UOIIEOIPOP

puE IUOLEI oqjdIqsuEuElqq opxiopEoE

Jo wEOm1suEm

O1T2 TLUOIJ

P O I E

I 0S !

1EMOUIOS

oal000q -oAutl 01 siEoddE JJEIS £IEiqfl Oql '1Oq21n

JJEIS

AlEIqfl OqI 1OJ S0U0flE3

I

1UEOU!S

;)sod Ilu pumua000i

;)m saSuvqo Qqj PUE

?

jUi ?

UOI1EIILIOJUI MOU JO

osn

POPUO2XO 010111 O2 POIUOS

sdnoi2 oql

01 qooino

oioui i p j poou oqj os op

02 OflUIUOO

HI M

1IE s1Eoc

0q1

'° po&IEqo

OAEIT £IE1qJ

oqI

U!OEJ

S(SE1 OI

LL

iuOI.iJdoJOAOp

JJE1S

IjJEflUUE ISEOL IE soo

ic

oidwo

£zEiqij IIL , .ioj JEslEiddE oouEauoJlod E oq

o1oUJ

:Oz

UOI1EPUOWUJ030J 2UOtUOEUELU poUUOJUi-floM pu 'sooi(oiduio

IOJ )joEqpooJ

I

c

sjuo2 poo1E jo uotuiqnioo OAIIOOJJO UE 1OJ ssq E sOpAo1d 'SUO!ld!iOSOp UO!2!Sod

UOI I

UM olEp-ol-dn q

jIm

pouqwoo

'SILL

AflERUUE ISEOT 1E 0MOiO1 oouEauoJiod jmo

i p aqj oALq pnoqs Si g EUEt.0 £IElqqrnpflIoui ooicoidumo £IE1q

£IOA OOUEIILIOJJOd JJE1S

I

01 ?

1661 '6Z &y imodo>j

09

1U UIUI

OJ

MOIAoj j g

u19p :AmElqfl ntis

---

I

1

I

?

SFU Librar

y

: External Review Committee Report. Aug 29, 1991 ?

11

?

?

The problem is a difficult one but the options are well-understood: one can provide a

branch library (as at Belzberg); one can contract with a library in the locality to provide

service to Simon Fraser students; or one can design labor-intensive

utelebook?t

service.

I

?

?

Each solution costs money. The University administration and the Faculty Senate should

be actively concerned that any courses being taught as Simon Fraser courses without

adequate library support are a disservice to the students and undermine the Simon

I ?

Fraser's academic reputation and credibility. Recommendation

25:

There should be a ?

study of the adequav of library support for courses offered at a distance.

I

SUMMARY

The second quarter-century of library service at Simon Fraser poses different

I

requirements from those of the first quarter-century. The University and its Library are

substantial in size and well-established. For the Library, the automation of library

I

?

?

procedures are well-along. New challenges in terms of access to resources in electronic

form and the longer term effects of working in the more integrated manner associated

with computer-based rather than paper-based procedures.

I

The Library has become rather isolated from the academic programmes and from

the mainstream of academic library practice. A continued emphasis on service needs to

I, ?

be combined with an emphasis on outreach to, and a much closer linkage with, the

University's programmes. Since resources will always be more or less constrained, library

operations will need to be characterized by greater flexibility, accountability,

I

?

?

collaboration, staff development, and a continuous dialogue about the most effective

deployment of people, space, and funds.

I

The University administration needs to address its past policy of inferior funding

for the Library, the inadequate coupling of academic planning with library planning, and

the serious possibility that judicious investment in access to electronic materials, needed

I

?

?

anyway, could transform Simon Fraser University from being a follower to being visibly a

leader in British Columbia. Further, the library administration and the library staff will

need attention and support if the results of the present review are to be effectively

I

translated into the improved library service that all of us wish to see.

I

I

I

---

•1

?

1

I.

I

I

APPENDIX D

I

I

CANADIAN RESEARCH LIBRARY EXPENDITURES, STAFF

AND COLLECTIONS

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I.

I

---

II.

I

'suoujoJ puv

ffrn

g

'sainnpuathg -

sausurng

?

zsJ jo uouossv uepuj :mos

I

%09

?

%zC9

?

%089

?

%18'9

?

%W9

I ?

%69

?

%Zi'9 ?

%6VL ?

%LL ?

tIOtupJ

%tLc ?