1. Merging Traffic: Planning for and implementing a combined reference and access services desk Tom Burns, Research & Instruction Librarian, UMKC burnstg@umkc.edu Melanie Church, Graduate Student Assistant, UMKC mjc4gb@mail.mizzou.edu Fu Zhuo, Research & Instruction Librarian, UMKC zhuof@umkc.edu October 6, 2011

2. Introduction & Literature Review Planning Process Merging Desks Outcomes Issues & Challenges Merging Traffic: Planning for and implementing a combined reference and access services desk

3.  UMKC Library renovation  Declining reference statistics (Carlson 25-30)  One point of service in libraries (Fitzpatrick 231-38)  Reference desk staffing had already transitioned from 2 to 1  Merging two desks in academic libraries (Massey-Burzio 276-86, Flanagan 329-38, Meldrem 305-11) Introduction and Literature Review

4. Reference - Statistics  Survey Monkey is used to monitor reference transactions. In 2010, there were 10,846 total questions, including non-reference questions. In 2011, there have been approximately 5,800 total questions to date.  In 2010, 49% of the questions answered by Reference were reference questions.  In 2011, 53% of the questions answered by Reference were reference questions.  In 2010, Access Services answered 2.6% of the reference questions.  In 2011, Access Services answered 19.8% of the reference questions.

5.  Began in December 2009 with a planning committee and a “Final” version was approved January 2011  Document categories  Quick Reference Questions  “On call” referral  Telephone, Text-a-Librarian, & Email questions  Technical Assistance  Evening & weekend service  Cross training  Librarians  Staff Planning Process

6.  When the traffic merged November, 2010 – February, 2011 (transitional phase)  Moved to the new desk in February 2011 – present Merging Desks

7. Former Information Commons

8. Former Reference Desk

9. Former Access Services Desk

10. Transitional Reference/Access Services Desk

11. First Floor Layout

12. The New Service Desk

14.  The transition has been mostly smooth.  The one combined service desk has created a new service model.  The change is a win, win situation for library patrons, library staff, and librarians.  The new model successfully addresses the new reality of library services. Positive General Outcomes

15.  For library patrons specifically:  Alleviates frustration and tears down service walls.  Avoids multiple referrals and creates one point of need assistance.  Receive “all” services at one point and no need to walk to another desk to ask the question again.  It is now the responsibility of the staff to figure out who is the right person to answer a question. Patron Outcomes

16.  For library staff and student assistants specifically:  Provides an opportunity for them to learn some reference knowledge and skills in order to serve their patrons better.  Gain some reference experience as some of them are library school students.  More people are available to solve technical problems and cover guest log ins.  Brings reference team and Access Service team closer, literally and figuratively.  Builds a closer relationship as each team can do part of the other’s job and gain professional experience. Circulation Staff Outcomes

17.  For librarians specifically:  More time for professional development activities.  More focus on research questions or consultations.  More availability to host library programs, e.g. diversity, instruction, and other cultural programs in the library.  More opportunities for outreach and marketing in departments to engage faculty and students.  More occasions to learn the automation system and help patrons in another way. Librarian Outcomes

18.  How has cross-training actually worked?  Is it appropriate for Access Service Staff to answer some reference questions, such as how to find peer- reviewed journal articles?  Is it appropriate for RIS staff to handle some Access Services functions? For example, fines.  What happens when there are lines at the desk?  Should we be doing more to evaluate service at the desk as a whole? Challenges and Opportunities

19.  Will RIS librarians and Access Services staff have two jobs? Will that jeopardize anybody’s job security?  Who is more responsible for more complex technical questions?  Who should student assistants call for help when the scheduled reference staff is busy helping a patron, their supervisor or backup librarian?  How do both teams communicate with each other? Challenges and Opportunities Continued

20.  Where do we go from here?  Is this a good balance between visibility and formality?  Have any of your libraries had similar or vastly different experiences at your service desks? Discussion

21. Thanks!  Special thanks to Cindy Thompson, Mary Anderson, and Diane Hunter for their contributions to this project.

22.  Bugg, Kimberley L., and Rosaline Y. Odom. "Extreme Makeover Reference Edition: Restructuring Reference Services at the Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center." Reference Librarian 50.2 (2009): 193-204. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 4 May 2011.  Carlson, Scott. “Are Reference Desks Dying Out? Librarians Struggle to Redefine—and in Some Cases Eliminate—the Venerable Institution.” The Reference Librarian 48.2 (2008): 25-30. Web. 4 May 2011.  Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth B., Anne C. Moore, and Beth W. Lang. "Reference Librarians at the Reference Desk in a Learning Commons: A Mixed Methods Evaluation." The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.3 (2008): 231-38. Education Full Text. Web. 12 May 2011.  Flanagan, Pat and Lisa Horowitz. “Exploring New Service Models: Can Consolidating Public Service Points Improve Response to Customer Needs.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26.5 (2000): 329- 38. Web. 11 May 2011.  Kolowich, Steve. “What Students Don't Know.” Inside Higher Ed 22 Aug. 2011. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.  Lubker, Irene, Margaret Henderson, Catherine Canevari, and Barbara Wright. "Refocusing Reference Services Outside the Library Building: One Library's Experience." Medical Reference Services Quarterly 29.3 (2010): 218-228. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 4 May 2011.  Massey-Burzio, Virginia. “Reference Encounters of a Different Kind: A Symposium.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 18.5 (1992): 276-80. Web. 12 May 2011.  Meldrem, Joyce, Lori Mardis, and Carolyn Johnson. “Redesign Your Reference Desk: Get Rid of It!” ACRL Twelfth National Conference. Association of College & Research Libraries. Minneapolis, MN. 7 Apr. 2005. Web. 11 May 2011.  Ryan, Susan M. “Reference Transactions Analysis: The Cost-Effectiveness of Staffing a Traditional Academic Reference Desk.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.5 (2008): 389-399. Web. 4 May 2011. Works Cited and Consulted