1. Technical Services Assessment in Pennsylvania Academic Libraries Rebecca L. Mugridge Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania Library Association September 30, 2012

2.  2011 PaLA CRD Spring Workshop with Megan Oakleaf as keynote speaker  The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2010)  There are 22 recommendations for next steps for librarians who wish to demonstrate value Why this topic?

3.  Communicating assessment needs and results to library stakeholders  Using evidence-based decision making  Creating confidence in library assessment efforts  Dedicating assessment personnel and training Recommendation: Mobilize library administrators (1)

4.  Fostering environments that encourage creativity and risk taking  Integrating library assessment within library planning, budget, and reward structures  Ensuring that assessment efforts have requisite resources Recommendation: Mobilize library administrators (2)

5.  Survey the academic libraries in Pennsylvania to determine:  Whether they conducted assessment of technical services  How they conducted assessment  How shared the results of their assessment activities  What actions they took based on their assessment activities Survey proposal

6.  Technical services staff equal 20% of our total staff  Very little published on technical services assessment  Most articles that do address assessment in technical services have to do with assessing specific processes  Interested in a broader approach to technical services assessment Why a focus on Technical Services?

7. For the purposes of the survey, technical services is defined as units responsible for:  Cataloging/Metadata  Acquisitions  Electronic resources management  Preservation/Bindery/Physical processing Technical Services

8.  It’s a large group (over 120 libraries) and I thought it would provide useful, generalizable results  These libraries might be inherently interested in the results, and therefore likely to participate Why Pennsylvania academic libraries?

9. Downloaded a list of academic libraries from this Pennsylvania Department of Education website: http://www.libdir.ed.state.pa.us/screens/wfDownload.a spx Included names of institution, library, director, and phone numbers. It did not include email addresses! Academic libraries in Pennsylvania

10.  Organized alphabetically  Deleted duplicates and those without “college” or “university” in name of institution  Updated director names (list was not completely up- to-date)  Added email addresses (with help)  Resulted in 129 academic libraries, but couldn’t find email addresses for nine of them  End result: 120 libraries were survey candidates Academic libraries in Pennsylvania, cont’d

11.  63 responding libraries (53% response rate)  16 Public (25%)  47 Private (75%)  Average total employees: 13 librarians, 17 staff  Average total technical services employees: 2 librarians, 4 staff Demographics

12.  Original responses:  Yes: 36 libraries (60%)  No: 24 libraries (40%)  Adjusted responses based on answers to following question:  Yes: 57 libraries (90%)  No: 6 libraries (10%) Does your library conduct assessment of technical services?

13.  Gather statistics (84%)  Gather usage data (49%)  Gather input from non-technical services librarians (44%)  Collect anecdotes or feedback from customers (30%)  Conduct customer service surveys (25%) Specific assessment methods

14.  Benchmark with other institutions (19%)  Anonymous suggestion box (13%)  Conduct focus groups (10%)  Others included:  ROI studies of specific Technical Services functions  Time studies  Baldrige Assessment Process/360 Review  LibQUAL Specific assessment methods, cont’d

15.  Improve or streamline processes (68%)  Improve services (63%)  Make better decisions (62%)  Inform strategic planning activities (55%)  Explore offering new services (40%)  Reallocate staff or other services (30%)  Compare with other institutions (22%) Goals of technical services assessment

16.  Other:  Build better collections  Identifying activities or services that could be eliminated  Establish best practices based on national standards  Demonstrate value of technical services to the university and libraries  Demonstrate value to scholarship and research of original cataloging Goals of technical services assessment, cont’d

17.  Cataloging/Metadata (56%)  Acquisitions (56%)  Electronic resources management (45%)  Preservation/Bindery/Physical processing (26%) Technical Services units assessed within the past five years

18.  Library director/Dean/University librarian (38%)  Division head (20%)  Department head(s) (14%)  Unit head(s) (7%)  Committee (5%)  Single librarian (4%) Primary responsibility for conducting assessment

19.  Other:  Department responsible for assessment, but is also done at division, department, and unit level  Department and unit heads  Director, associate director, and staff  Library administrative team  Director and committee Primary responsibility for conducting assessment

20.  Annual report (61%)  Informational report to library administration (52%)  Mass email to library employees (11%)  Library newsletter article (8%)  Presentations (8%)  Web site (5%)  Campus newsletter article (2%) How do you report the results of technical services assessment?

21.  Other:  Assessment report  5-year audit report  Department outcome assessment reports  Report to Provost  Internal discussions  Performance evaluations How do you report the results of technical services assessment?

22.  35 responses  Themes:  Streamlining processes  Staff reallocation  Changed vendors/Changed vendor services  Collection decisions  Training  Communication  New services  Changed ILSs Outcomes reported

23. Example: a.In past several years, implemented several staff reorganizations, job reassessments or upgrades, and adjustments to workflow. b.Streamlined work processes & procedures, developed training manuals and adapted policies to achieve financial and personnel efficiencies. c.Added several new services for faculty, such as new publications email notification, new book display shelves, and improved book order/request system Outcomes reported, cont’d

24. Assessment in Practice: A Penn State Cataloging and Metadata Services Case Study

25.  Improve effectiveness  Identify areas for improvement  Communicate with customers  Communicate with administration  Lower costs  Help with decision making Why do Assessment?

26.  Workflow analysis and assessment with an outside facilitator  360 degree review  Customer surveys  Interviews or focus groups  Internal evaluation, assessment, or reviews Assessment activities

27.  Use facilitator  When useful:  Multiple units  Complex workflow  Workflow has been in place for a long time  Differences of opinion exist about how to address workflow changes Workflow analysis and assessment

28.  Include all stakeholders in process  Make an effort to understand the current process  Identify problem areas  Map new process and report back to sponsors  Follow up assessment How it works

29.  Video processing for Media Tech  Cataloging, Acquisitions, Media Tech  Government documents processing  Cataloging, Acquisitions, Social Sciences Library  Results of both efforts  Streamlined process with fewer hand-offs  Greater efficiencies  Faster turn-around times (Acquisition to Shelf) Two examples

30.  Digital Initiatives Steering Committee  Interviews with all stakeholders, team/committee members  What’s working? What’s not working? Suggestions for improvement? Communication?  Record themes that emerge from interviews  Ex.: communication issues, confusion about roles and responsibilities 360 degree review

31.  Applicable to operational departments as well as to some committees, working groups, etc.  Cataloging and Metadata Services (2011)  Queried subject and campus libraries  Not anonymous  One survey response per library Customer service survey

32.  At which branch, subject, or campus library do you work?  What services do we provide to your unit?  How happy are you with the following aspects of this service:  Speed of services  Quality of services  Speed of response to reported problems  If you wish, describe specific service experiences in detail.  Do you feel that you know to whom to talk about service issues as they arise? [Y/N] Survey questions

33.  How comfortable do you feel with the process of asking for help?  Not comfortable  Somewhat comfortable  Very comfortable  Are you able to find information or documentation on the Cataloging and Metadata Services website? [Y/N]  Describe your process for asking questions about cataloging services.  If you could see one new service provided to your library by Cataloging and Metadata Services, what would it be?  Do you have any additional comments? Survey questions, cont’d

34.  Can be done as part of a formal review process (e.g., 360 degree review)  Informally as part of a periodic “checking in” with customers  Example: Biannual meetings with subject library staff  Results: clarified policies and procedures; communicated upcoming changes in cataloging rules; answered assortment of questions Interviews or focus groups

35.  Annual cataloging reviews  Each cataloging team conducts own review  Develop own process  Write report  What was the process?  Training needs identified?  Policy issues identified?  Overall assessment of the process itself? Internal assessment

36.  Some of our efforts prove to be more effective than others  Did the assessment effort give you the information you need to move forward?  If not, you may choose another approach or refine your current approach Assess the assessment

37. Contact information: Rebecca L. Mugridge Head, Cataloging and Metadata Services 126 Paterno Library University Park, PA 16802 rlm31@psu.edu 814-865-1850 Questions?