July 02, 2009

Article draft

*Note:  this is my first draft (and the conclusion is not actually done) of a proposed article on web 2.0 practice in real collection development/acquisitions work.  Comments and feedback are welcome!


Integrating Web 2.0 into Collection Development Practice: 
Using LibraryThing as a gift management tool

Introduction
The library profession is inundated by articles, websites and blogs which remind librarians to incorporate more Web 2.0 tools and techniques in order to attract and keep users.  Library instruction, reference, and web services departments have been writing about and trying to put web 2.0 principles into practice for several years.  But what about collection development and acquisitions work?  Steven R. Harris at The University of New Mexico writes a blog “Collections 2.0” and he articulates the idea of “collecting or collections 2.0” principles into practice in collection development work:

“Collecting:   Obviously, the manner in which library materials are acquired. This may seem like old wine in new bottles, but my primary notion here is that the collections are patron driven. But more than just that, the patron … can get what they want in the most unmediated way. It happens quickly and without a lot of rigmarole.   Not even filling out requests.  Just “click”…got it…
Collections:  Main idea here is that collections behave in a 2.0 way. Reuse, repackage, mashup, user-centric, save, manipulate, interactive. And that patrons … can talk back to the collection (and to the library/librarian) and talk with other patrons … about their experiences and interests.
Two things there about the collections 2.0 mantra, but they have very different implications.”

Our library struggles with this dilemma of actually putting the principles into practice.  It is one thing to offer patrons web 2.0 tools on our websites and in our services, but how do we do it in our acquisitions and collection development work?  What are practical and useful ways to update our traditional services?  How do we actually do either collecting or collections 2.0 work?  This articles attempts to identify and explain how we put Collections 2.0 principles into practice in our library.

One of the most challenging and time consuming services we provide in collection development and acquisitions is the gifts and donations program.  Some libraries view it as a curse; others see it as a boon to stretch inadequate resources.  All libraries can agree that a gifts program is a lot of work.  SUNY Geneseo’s Milne Library is no different.  A public liberal arts college which is part of the State University system in the Genesee Valley region of upstate New York, Geneseo struggles with flat or decreasing budgets, fluctuating serials and database costs and cuts to its monograph allocations.  Faced with a rapidly aging collection, decrease in spending on recent publications, weeding of the collection is at an all-time high.  Seeing the need for a different approach, our solicitation and acceptance of gifts and donations is increasing as well.   How do we use gifts and donations to enhance our collection and our budget, while putting collections 2.0 principles into practice?

The Old Way   (How we used to do it)
Libraries have struggled for years with the management of their gifts and donations programs.  The old way of entering each title, author, publisher and date into a spreadsheet, writing an acknowledgment, making decisions about keeping or discarding is cumbersome and time consuming.  Manually entering all the book title information is labor-intensive.   Depending upon the amount of materials and staff involved, many libraries choose to only work with their gifts and donations during “slow” times of the year.  Many libraries turn away gifts, or actively discourage donations to their collections.  Dependent upon subject specialists’ expertise, many gifts sit waiting on shelves, waiting until the librarians can find time to get around to inspecting the materials for addition to the collection.  At Geneseo, gifts and donations were never actively solicited, but accepted with the understanding that it might be some time before the materials actually made their way into the collections.  Patrons who generously donated materials received an acknowledgment, but their participation ended there, never knowing what became of the materials they donated to our library.

The New Way (how we are doing it now)
So, how do we streamline the gifts management process and incorporate web 2.0 tools to increase our visibility and participation from community?  Enter LibraryThing.  Remember, collections 2.0 is not just about the tools, but how users can participate in and actively contribute to the remaking of the library collection.  LibraryThing, founded in 2005 by Tim Spalding is a social cataloging web application, designed to create and share library catalogs with other users on the web.   Used by individuals and organizations to catalog their books and share tags with other users, it is a unique community of users designed around sharing and editing metadata about books.   It is also an example of one way we implemented web 2.0 principles into collection development practice at SUNY Geneseo, so as to increase awareness of our gifts and donations.   

LibraryThing helps:

1.        Many of the books can already be found in LibraryThing because bibliographic data is imported from Amazon and Library of Congress.  No need to add each individual title unless it is not already in the catalog.

2.       Tagging each gift book with a unique identifier to identify the gift should be done with confidentiality provisions in mind, but allows for the donation to be identified by the name if they so desire.

3.       Users can participate – making the gift collection available to the general public can be done as easy as creating an RSS feed for the catalog.  Subject specialists can then look “virtually” at each gift title and tag books they want to keep or get rid of.

4.       Our library patrons can become involved as well – again, using the same principles as above, the community can be invited to participate and comment on books, by adding reviews, tags and editing the content.

5.       Using the new feature of “Collections” in LibraryThing, libraries can differentiate gift materials from anonymous donations, special collections, or added to the collection.  Its all up to the librarian, the users and the public.

6.       LibraryThing allows you to print your catalog – an easy way to create lists of materials for users who want documentation of their library gift. 

The benefits to this practice are enormous.  Clerical staff and student workers can be easily trained to enter materials into the LibraryThing web interface, which is extremely intuitive.  A simple search box serves as the first step for entering title, author or simply the ISBN.  Automatically, LibraryThing searches your preferred source of data.  For our library, we choose to use Amazon as our default data source but users can choose from over 690 other sources all over the world.  Once a book is entered and selected, the user can tag the book.  At our library, we choose to tag the items with a unique identifier that indicates to our staff how we obtained the book, whether it was anonymous or by a particular user.  One thing to keep in mind is the confidentiality of your patron.  Always ask upfront if the patron wants his or her name attached to the collection and that information made public.  We tag the donated items with the patron’s initials and put them into a collection folder available in LibraryThing.  For anonymously donated items, they go into two collections:  Donated and Anonymous.  Items which go into our library collection are ultimately labeled “Milne Library Circulating Collection”.  Before adding to the collection, we will be notifying subject librarians of collections and titles of interest to the collection and asking for decisions to be made via LibraryThing, such as tagging items “keep” or “send to BWB” to indicate removal to Better World Books.

The Future Way? (conclusion, or how we will do it in the future)
So how will our library meet the future challenges of putting web 2.0 principles into practice?  By thinking about it in the terms of web 2.0 principles rather than the tools.  Tim O’Reilly wrote about web 2.0 “core competencies” in a 2005 article:

1.        The web as platform.

2.       Harnessing collective intelligence.

3.       Data is the next Intel Inside. 

4.       End of the software release cycle.

5.       Lightweight programming models.

6.       Software above the level of a single device.

7.       Rich user experiences.

So how do libraries use these principles in practice?                       

Works Cited

Harris, Steven R. Collecting & Collections 2.0. December 11, 2008. http://collections2point0.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/collecting-collections-20/ (accessed June 2009).

LibraryThing | Catalog your books online. August 29, 2005. http://www.librarything.com/ (accessed July 2, 2009).

O'Reilly, Tim. What is Web 2.0? September 30, 2005. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (accessed July 2, 2009).

Wikipedia. LibraryThing. June 9, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibraryThing (accessed July 2, 2009).

June 18, 2009

Missing griff

I miss my son.  Its only for two and a half days, but I'm really starting to miss him. I'm at a conference in Syracuse, only 2 hours actually from home, but I really feel the separation today. 

Especially when I get the following email from my husband:

Griffin was really tired when he got home from "the other kid's house" - he didn't notice you were missing until he woke up the next morning. He said, "Drive in Grandpa's car? Grandma here?" We said you were in Hershey and he said "Go there?" :) Kate is at a conference - its just me and Griffin here at home. He asked again this morning.

G: Grandma here? Grandpa Here?
J: No - they're in Hershey.
G: Mommy here?
J: No - Mommy's on a trip.

Then he added

G: Easter Bunny here?
J: No. The Easter bunny comes in the spring when the baby flowers come out.

G: Santa here?
J: No. Santa comes when it gets cold and snows.

G: Snowy outside? (nowy outside)
J: Not yet. After the leaves fall off the trees.

G: Gnome here?
J: "Yes - there are garden gnomes somewhere around here"

G: Watch Owl. Watch Choo Choo?

And that's what we did.

I can't wait until tomorrow, even though I am learning lots of cool tools, sharing ideas and meeting and re-meeting colleagues from around the state.

June 12, 2009

Griffin's new focus

I think I may have to rethink the focus of my blog -- trying to just write about professional topics and work is well, frankly, boring.  I will work on this.
In the meantime, I have to write about Griffin's new focus.  This month it is bugs.  Bugs, bugs, bugs, and more bugs. 
This morning he woke me up by coming up to the bed and saying "Mommy, Mommy.  Ant bug.  Here" and held out his cupped hand to my face.  It was a piece of fur.  A piece of our dog's fur.  Go figure. 
So his other focus is jellybeans.  Jellybeans and M's (aka M&M's).  He loves to run around the house yelling "Jellybeans, jellybeans.  Mommy jellybeans"  and then he holds his cupped hand out to you with (surprise!) nothing in them.  Ah ha!  He THINKS there are jellybeans, yes, pretend jellybeans in there! 
It is wonderful to see his imagination start to take off -- I just love it!

May 28, 2009

Back in the writing business

I need to get back into the writing business.  Since I am taking a writing class again this summer, I need to write, and write more.  About what doesn't matter -- just do it.  It seems like the day-to-day business of librarianship consumes so much time and effort, that I don't slow down enough reflect on what I've done or accomplished.  Lately, I've been stressed and self-critical about how much I have or have not finished, what projects need to get started, who needs to be in the loop, who doesn't, and its all overwhelming.  Time management will always be a issue for me (and, really, what parent doesn't have that issue?  Some are just better than others at organizing or using their time) and what I'm beginning to realize is that I don't have to get it all done in a year, or 2 years, or even 3 years.  That much of what I am trying to do is a long-term project and it will take much longer to realize those plans. 
This is really hard to visualize for someone who is very task-oriented and feels much more comfortable with those "quantifiable" milestones and deliverables than with hazy future goals. 
So, even with this realization, I do realize that I want to write an article this summer; I have a lot of ideas but I'm not sure what will be "readable" or not.  I'd like to write an article about how we are re-doing the gifts management program and using LibraryThing to do it more effectively; I've got some ideas for an article about our new purchase request workflow, ideas about collection development but no firm article in sight.  I guess for now I will just practice the writing and let it go from there.

November 07, 2008

Collection assessment session

Collection Analysis and Assessment: finding the best and worst in the library collection
Jennifer Arnold
Director, Central Piedmont Community College Library
cpcc.edu/library -- Look for Policies information

First of all, we are in a tiny, tiny room in the Francis Marion Hotel; whomever did the room assignments really got this mixed up!  More likely, though, its just a reflection of the overall high conference attendance.  Every session I has been overcrowded, people sitting on the floor, people standing, people standing in the doorway, people standing out in the hall...

On to Jennifer's presentation
Overview:
Project Scope/planning
Data
Tool selection
Staffing
Outcomes
Tips

Snapshot of CPCC
-largest CC in NC
-curriculum FTE ~11,000
-6 campuses in Mecklenburg Cty
-7 libraries
-RAPID enrollment growth and online environment

Origins of Project
-SACS recommending eliminated older materials in its collection
-bulk weeding, but wasn't appreciated by some academic departments

A New Approach
"The Big Picture"
-collection strengths and weaknesses
-support for programs and subject areas
-improving perceptions about the collection
-telling the story of the collection
-embracing change

Getting started
Planning:
-what did we need/want to assess about the collection?
-What did we mean by 'collection'?

What did we want to know?
What did we need & want to know about the collection?
-age
-circ, usage
-relative strengths & weaknesses

What data?
-circ stats, ILS
-usage stats, ILS & journal finder
-age of the collection, ILS
user perception, surveys
relative strengths & weaknesses, ?
overall quality, ?

Tools
-Bowker Book Analysis
-WorldCat Collection Analysis

Chose to use Bowker's Book Analysis
-lower-division undergraduates
-initial concerns about comparing our collection with other libraries
-look at overall quality by how many RCL items were held
-ability to compare against the core RCL collection

Staffing issues
-Tech Services
-Reference
-Circulation
-Systems

Action Plans
What to do with this data?
-weed based on the data
-change our CD focus
-update policies & procedures
-change/improve services
-communicate!
  *tell the story of the collection
  *involve the college community
  *make the funding arguments

The Assessment: collection age
ILS data
0-5 yrs 6%
6-10yrs 10%
11-20 yrs 22%
21+ yrs 58%

Subject area details

The Assessment: Circ States
What wasn't circulating?
-in past decade
-problems with new materials
  *lower circ than wanted to see
  *relationship b/tw the two?

The Assessment: Quality
-used Bowker
-only had 6% of RCL core titles
-subject areas varied widely
-highest % were in subjects with accredited programs (allied health & paralegal)

The Assessment: Core titles
core title subject detail


The Assessment: User perception
-students need more resources-
-lots of outdated books
-below-average materials
-not enough up-to-date books

The Print Collection
What did we learn?
-its outdated
-some subjects better shape than others
-titles for weedings
-way to frame the story of the collection

Serials
Primary Concerns:
-Accreditation
-Support for programs
-Appropriateness
-Cost

Serials: procedures
-consultation with faculty
-physical examination
  *appropriateness
-determine database availablity
-look for lower-cost alternatives

Serials results
-cut 23 titles and saved $7800
-added 8 titles at a total cost of $1100
-savings of $6700
-beyond savings, a better collection
  *cut titles; changed focus, programs eliminated, etc.
  *again, more than just weeding!

Databases
primary concern:
-usage vs. cost-database we purchase (vs. receive through NC Live)
-looked at usage statistics

Databases: the results
-lowest usage & highest usage were both high enough that no databases were cut

Overall findings:
Electronic resources
-high usage, no weeding necessary
Serials
-needed minor adjustments
Print
-needed weeding
-needed collection development focus changed

General outcomes
-could quantify what we knew anecdotally
-begin telling the story
-knew now the areas where we needed improvement

Specific outcomes
-RCL titles held percentages increased
-removed/weeded 2500 books from oldest collection

What did we do?
-revised collection development and weeding policies to
include references to RCL, percentages to weed, etc.
Established a communication plan
-admin support
-faculty support
-student support

What did we do?
-developed a new procedure for weeding
-changed collection development focus
  *Adding RCL titles
  *Identifying weak areas to focus on

Weeding our process
-develop a collection evaluation slip
  *outdated
  *usage (lack of circ)
  *physical condition
  *duplicate copy
  *curriculum changes
  *no longer under accreditation requirements
  *superseded

Weeding:
Librarians assigned call number ranges
flagged materials with slips
faculty review
flagged materials pulled to TS
checked/withdrawn/replaced

What did we do???
Wrote a grant
-LSTA Grant : strengthening academic library collections
-focused on math and science
-weakness in collection
-received $10,000

Collection Assessment Tips:
Planning/scope
-What can you do in a reasonable timeframe
TheTools
-automate the tools
-find the tools that works for your collection or library
Staffing
-if possible, hire par-time help
-re-assign existing staff time

Get the DATA!!!!!!
always Assess in Context
expect the unexpected
 -- found preview records?!
prepare for the impact on services
 --reserves
Be willing to change accepted practices
 -- got rid of oversize
Communication
--upfront
--consistent
Find project management tools
--software, timelines, deadlines, etc.
Assess regularly and consistently


Great presentation -- Jennifer knew her stuff and did a fantastic job talking about the steps her library took to plan and conduct the assessment and weeding project.

Trends & themes at Charleston

I'm in my second full day at the Charleston Conference and am floored by the intensity and overwhelming amount of information and presentation.  So many good presentations to choose from, so little time!  I only wish there was more time to see more sessions.  Within each concurrent session time slot, there are at least 4 or 5 sessions I'm interested in attending.  Its proving to be a tough choice. 
Today, Tim Spalding from LibraryThing was supposed to give a talk on social cataloging; however, Tim's flight was delayed and he was stuck in Cleveland (poor guy!).  Another talk was given by Andrew Pace on "webscale workflow", emphasizing the need for discontinuation of our independent silos and a more cost-effective and efficient streamlined networked library management systems he calls the webscale workflow.  Here is just a sampling of some the trends & themes I'm encountering here at Charleston:

- Creation of a peer review watermark and/or symbol to indicate trustworthiness of documents and webpages on the web (a la Creative Commons symbol for copyright)

- RDA (Resource Description & Access) -- what is it, will it succeed, will it die?  This is a new one to me, not being familiar with the ins and outs of cataloging, but this will have implications for us with regards to metadata and cataloging our digital content

- OCLC's WorldCat Selection to streamline ordering and acquisitions of materials via one system without having to go to multiple vendors and/or publishers and/or jobbers

- Change in Technical Services operations; reorganizing and changing workflows of Technical Services operations as our organizations change in response to new and different services and priorities

- Scholarly communication -- what does it mean for libraries, how does it impact libraries and our workflows, what do we do with Institutional repositories, scholarly content created on our campuses and digitization of this material?

- Google and the settlement with the publishers/authors -- sounds like a really complicated settlement, but it might mean the way to increased access to material all over the U.S.

- EBooks, eBooks, EBOOKs!


October 16, 2008

Generation gap conversation

Today I am at the Upstate New York Library Assistants Conference.  I gave a presentation this morning on using blogs and wikis in the library and in our personal lives.  As always, I get a brief shot of adrenaline before the presentation which carries me through.  Then, after its over, there is a period of euphoria and a let-down a few hours later.  Now I am in the afternoon break-out session on the generational gap and the challenge of working with people of different generations. 
I'm a Gen Xer, so I'm a bit skeptical (as my generational profile indicates) about the "differences" which exist.  I think these generational differences do reflect changes in society as a whole, but I hate being categorized and lumped in with people who happened to be born in the same 10- or 20-year time bracket.  I see so many Boomer librarians who embrace and encourage change, while some younger people may be rigidly stuck in inflexible modes of thinking. 
Its troubling to lump our problems at communicating with each other into, "Oh, he's a Boomer, so he doesn't get it" or "She's a Millenial, so obviously she knows about technology".  I do understand that these are just patterns and generalizations, but it still bothers me.  I'm an Xer, but I can be loyal, conservative (ye gods!) and traditional, but thats because I have a certain learning style and it reflects my dominant personality traits ( I am SOOO ISFJ).   I like working cooperatively, I like getting consensus, I want to lead change, I want to understand the big picture and how I fit into that vision.  So, if it helps my supervisor understand me more, I think its necessary that the communication be one-on-one, relate to how I work and how I learn, then let me do my job.

Come to think of it, that is a Gen Xer characteristic.  So maybe there's something to it after all?

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter