Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index
11 May 1998
RWA Notes
1. Summer Operations Committee. Susan Currie is the Library's representative on the SOC, which includes members from all units throughout the University that could be affected in any way by summer programs. The committee has received a list of construction projects and conferences scheduled for this summer. Susan said she would see that copies of this list are distributed to all Library units.
2. Databases. I distributed a copy of the latest draft of the "core" databases that will be centrally funded for 1998/99. (A copy will be mounted soon on the Task Force Web site; when that happens, we will announce it on CU-LIB.) I explained that, because of budget pressures and some major increases in database costs, our main aim for 1998/99 will be to retain the most significant databases--although we have made some additions and deletions. We will now send this list out for quotes from other aggregators, to find out what they might offer for selected databases.
At the same time, everybody is aware of the "stability factor"--that there is an interest in retaining the services and interface we have now as much as possible. If we do change aggregators, that would need to take place this month. Once we have the input from the aggregators, or even while that is being obtained, input from IRPC on whether this list of databases is acceptable would be helpful.
Fred asked about the status of the Wilson databases. DRTF did indeed remove some of those from the current list; in the past those had been essential, but they do not all seem to be as high a priority as they have been--but again, if there are strong feelings about this, those views should be made clear either to the IRPC representatives on DRTF (Barbara Prior and Michael Engle) or to me. The Wilson Select full text materials are also not included.
Marty asked whether it would be possible to obtain a list of databases now received (funded centrally) that are not included on the core list for 1998/99. I will ask Patricia O'Neill whether she has the time to produce such a list.
Nancy and Suzy cautioned that the same databases from different vendors exist in different forms and in different states of completeness. We need therefore to be sure that we are acquiring access to such databases (e.g., PCI, Sociological Abstracts) in the form we want.
Stewart made the point that Law and ILR now have available a number of CD-ROMs on a variety of subjects that would be useful campuswide (e.g., information on environmental law). The vendors are willing to allow us to make that information available beyond those two libraries, but this would require programming to network CD-ROMs. We have not in the past been able to identify the resources to do that work.
3. Annex. Pat Schafer provided a report on the current state of the expanded Annex. She said that the construction is now largely complete, and tours will soon be offered to staff. In approximately one week, the move will begin; the first step will be the shifting of archival boxes from the old Annex to the new one. This work will need to be interrupted in order to do a special job for Engineering; some 20,000 of the volumes Engineering will be moving to the Annex need to be moved early, in order to make space for the computer facility that will be created in the Engineering Library.
Pat said it is estimated the new facility will be able to hold 1.4 million volume equivalents; we expect to move 1 million of those during the two year moving project.
We have purchased an inventory control system. It was created by a company called GFA, located in Maine, and is the same system now in use by Harvard. Yale is also considering it. -- While the construction budget is currently supporting some operations, that will obviously only continue during the move.
The Library is still working on how operations will be regularly funded. There are currently 1.5 FTE to operate the present Annex, and it is clear that more will be needed for the expanded facility. OKU has made the decision to take an open band-b line from Access Services to begin to support the operation of the Annex. Jethro Gaede will also be leaving (to go back to graduate school--University of Oklahoma), so his position will also need to be filled. Care is being taken to keep the project staff and the circulation staff separate.
There is hope of purchasing a second order picker, which will make for a much more efficient operation.
Hours, during which users may visit the Annex, are now 9:00-1:00. These will be expanded to 9:00-4:00 in late June, and there are hopes that this can be increased still further, to 8:00 -5:00, in the fall. These hours are Monday-Friday only, and apply to both the old and the new Annex, which will now be managed as a single facility. Users will be encouraged to phone ahead, to let Annex staff know in advance which materials they will want to see.
Susan Morse will be in charge of delivery, and she is expecting to add a .5 FTE line to her staff for this purpose.
We are expecting, Pat said, for the new Annex to be full by ca. 2005, at which time we will need to add another module.
Susan Currie explained that users will no longer need to go to the circulation desk to request an item from the Annex. Instead there will be a Web form available. Users can make use of this form to request materials directly from the Annex, rather than going through circulation. As part of this process, the user can decide which library unit he or she wants the item delivered to. Users can also make an appointment through the Web form to visit the Annex. It is expected that at least one computer at each circulation desk will have a copy of this Web form, so that circulation staff can assist users in completing the form if necessary. ASPC and IRPC will be consulted on the use of the form.
Because the inventory control system is not connected to the LMS, the job of finding material will be labor-intensive for circulation staff. Upon receiving a request, the item must first be searched in NOTIS; then the bar code number must be found in the inventory control system; and if it not found, then the accessions list will need to be checked for the old Annex, in the event the item is located there.
Brendan made the point that many of the materials slated for transfer from Engineering are likely to be of some use in the future; he is finding this in his own research. This could increase the circulation rate, and thus the cost of operating the Annex, substantially. Pat said that there is a plan to notify selectors about any item that circulates a certain number of times--probably three. At that point, the selector will need to decide whether to transfer the item back to central campus.
4. Services to the Disabled. At the recommendation of IRPC Steering, PSEC has created a task force to review CUL policies on library services to the disabled. Stewart Basefsky is chairing the Task Force, which includes Carmen Blankenship, Janet Gillespie, Nan Hyland, and Katie Margolis. Stewart explained that the objective of the group is to write general guidelines that would be appropriate for all units. The task force will contact Joan Fisher at OEO early in the review process.
Stewart said that the task force plans to query all units about whether they have unit policies, or whether their schools or colleges have policies concerning services to the disabled. Some libraries have special facilities for the disabled, and the task force will do an inventory of such services. The Library can respond to the standard disabilities, but more special disabilities pose other difficulties. People with disabilities are expected by the University to identify themselves, but at the same time the University must protect their privacy. The Library, Stewart said, need not necessarily know who has what disability; but we do need to know what special disabilities in a given year we should prepare for.
New York State laws are apparently more stringent than federal laws; and according to OEO, all of the campus is expected to adhere to the State regulations. The Task Force intends to have its work completed by 1 September. Input and suggestions from staff on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated.
5. Gateway Staff Training and User Support. The Task Force on Library Gateway Staff Training and User Support has completed its work, and has submitted its final report. Marty Schlabach chaired this group, which included Lance Heidig, Susan Markowitz, Holly Mistlebauer, Steve Rockey, Nancy Skipper, Brendan Wyly, and Joel Zumoff. The Task Force provided a series of staff training sessions, and has now produced a final report which recommends a process for continued support for staff assistance to users. I am assuming that IRPC will discuss the Task Force recommendations, and will submit to PSEC a recommendation on implementation.
Marty distributed a copy of the Task Force report (less appendices), and noted that the entire report is available on the StaffWeb (at www.library.cornell.edu/staffweb/GateTrain/gw.html ). He also distributed a one page summary of the current support procedures. In order to mainstream these procedures, the Task Force is recommending, among other things, that training now be integrated into the Library's regular training program.
Informal training should also be encouraged through the use of IRPC-L. Holly Mistlebauer will be monitoring LIBGATEWAY-L and LIBIT-L, and will forward items of general interest to IRPC-L. So far, Marty said, relatively few questions have been sent to the listservs, leading the Task Force to assume that most questions are being answered by front line staff. The Task Force has also recommended that consistency of services be achieved throughout the CUL system by ensuring that all desk staff are aware of the support structure and know how to use it when they need it. In addition, there should be one staff member in each unit who is more knowledgeable of Gateway processes and should be able to do some troubleshooting. All units, the Task Force report recommends, should view the Gateway in the same way they would view an information resource selected by their unit.
Jill Powell said that she finds the FAQ's invaluable; it is hard to remember all of the details, but if they are in the FAQ's, they can be rapidly found. She said she hoped the FAQ's could be expanded. She also said that she finds it very inconvenient to be compelled to send two messages--one to the user with the question, and one to the listserv. It was decided, therefore, that she would try blind copying the listserv, to see how that would work.
Marty said that the Gateway Committee, once it is established, will do an evaluation in six months or so of the support process, with the assistance of IRPC Steering. The methods of that evaluation will be worked out later, but they will certainly involve surveying front line staff, as well as a representation of users. Nancy noted that it would be helpful if reference staff could keep some general statistics on Gateway questions--how many received, how many answered, how many forwarded on to the listservs; this kind of information would be very helpful for the evaluation.
We acknowledged that this Task Force has done an outstanding job--and that the smooth transition to the Gateway was helped enormously by the considerable energy and time invested by the members of this group.
6. Gateway Mainstreaming. I asked for input on the broader plan to mainstream Gateway management, as outlined in the report by Gateway Steering on the StaffWeb (at www.library.cornell.edu/staffweb/Maincover.html ). The Gateway is our current, online public face, and needs therefore to be a priority for public services. While it is indeed a temporary contrivance, it does represent the kind of service we want to provide (only better) through a new LMS. The service concepts created for the Gateway, therefore, are not temporary--and there may even be some aspects of the Gateway that we will need to maintain in its current form, depending upon the nature and capacity of the LMS. The recommendation by Gateway Steering will replace the Gateway Steering Committee itself, as well as the Public Services Design Committee, and the Technical Services Implementation Committee, with a single CUL Gateway Committee. This is an acknowledgement of the shift from implementation to production.
There were no comments or questions about the report by Gateway Steering or the recommends the report contains. The recommendations seem reasonable, and it may be that staff are tired of talking about process and want simply now to move on with this. Nancy noted that there were many good suggestions sent to the Design Committee for enhancements; some of these could not be implemented--but that list of suggestions still exists, and decisions will likely be made to effect some of those enhancements in future.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index
rev. 5/12/98 peo