Development of user- oriented library services: a troika model John Gilbert, Peter Niesten & Trudy Meijers Universiteit Maastricht 5 April 2004

Contents  Introduction  ‘Troika’: a Russian carriage drawn by three “horses”: –Library (technology push) –User (market pull) –Faculty (financing)  Service development  Example of document delivery  Managing the three “horses”

Introduction  Universiteit Maastricht (UM)  University library of UM  Financing of library services  Service contracts  Importance of user focus  Faculty users and faculty management: not the same!  Three forces: library, users, faculty  Forces (“horses”) pulling in the same direction?

Library development  Application of new technology  Co-operation with other libraries; shared services  (Shared) cataloguing  Interlibrary lending, document supply  Digital resources: co-operative bargaining  Hybrid libraries: merging services  Efficient work processes

User needs  Know the user! Understand their needs  Distinguish between user groups: per discipline and per “role”  Role: student - staff, teacher - researcher  User input: –Day-to-day observation, feedback –Questionnaires, site for complaints, suggestions –User forums –Library committees

Faculty management  Faculty pay the bill: library as cost factor?  Who or what is faculty management? Who pulls the strings (key players)?  Not only costs: but also benefits  Clear overview of products and services  Back up product overview with user demands and use statistics  Key players in library committees

Service development in perspective  70’s and 80’s: technology push; automation and networking; library systems, union catalogues  90’s: digital resources; hybrid libraries; concern about rising costs  : integration of library services in user environment; accent on “added value”

Interlibrary Lending (ILL)  Development of national system on basis of central system  Books and journals; all types of libraries  Standard solutions, standard software, standard tariffs  However increasing pressure to adapt system: –Different libraries have different wishes –Library users have different expectations –Impact of e-journals

Local ILL issues  Library as both supplier and requester (balance between ‘import’ and ‘export’)  Direct ordering for researchers via campus network  Students: (un)limited ILL?, payment?, direct ordering?  What about e-journals? How to avoid ILL for journals “on line” to UM staff and students?  Integral costs of ILL?

ILL solutions  2003: Consultant report on national ILL system  Tariff differentiation, e-journals also in database  UM: focus on direct ordering, staff and students  Merging of “ILL” service and e- journal worlds with library portal (MetaLib/sfx)  Splitting costs of ILL-export (central funding) and ILL-import (faculties)  Each faculty determines ILL budget

Service development  What are the lessons? Service development requires: –Co-operation between libraries! –Good technical infrastructure –Good contacts with faculties –Respondent library organisation (UM has matrix of departments and faculty librarians) –Awareness of user needs and user environment –Insight in costs –Good PR and communication

Service development (2)  Library personnel are key factor  Attitude and skills: –Library skills –Communication skills –Business skills –Awareness of role of library in research and education  “Binding force”: library strategy as part of university strategy

A model for service development  Make optimum use of library know-how and technology; co- operate where appropriate  Keep in touch with your users and their research and education environment; enable the user  Communicate with faculty; try to establish “partnership”  In brief: manage the “Troika”