Welcome!

Welcome to the Wesleyan R2 wiki, where we can share our thoughts on the recommendations of the R2 consultants. Here's a link to the report:

:library:may_29_-_wesleyan_report.pdf

Here's a link to the presentation R2 gave back in April: :library:wesleyan_kickoff.ppt

We'll be setting up working groups to review the recommendations soon.

Thank you all for your participation!

Pat

We already use a minimal number of bookplates.

We already use a minimal number of bookplates.

Wesleyan's library is not called “great” because of the number of computers we have. It is great because of its balanced, comprehensive collections and its service oriented staff.

• Eliminate use of bookplates — in coordination with the development office if necessary
• Change YBP ordering to GobiExport/Voyager EDI
• Choose rapid delivery over ownership
• Differentiate Collection Development from Acquisitions functions
• Eliminate redundant paper files
• Implement a FastCat process at point of receipt for the non-YBP stream
• Implement electronic invoicing for the YBP mainstream
• Merge Monographs Acquisitions and Cataloging
• Reduce the number of print standing orders
• Reduce the number of slips supplied by YBP; convert a subset to books
• Revisit and implement Voyager/FRS interface
• Segregate Bookkeeping from Acquisitions
• Use student labor more fully

Through an oversight, this category was not discussed separately at the retreat.

• Would it be redundant to have 2 administrators in one area, if the 2 acq units merged? -Not initially. -The current Acq Administrator (Monographs) will retire in 5 years, a good opportunity to revisit the administrator positions. -The positions might evolve to, for example only, print admin and electronic admin.
• If monographic acquisitions no longer reports to the Collection Development Librarian, for whatever reason– -Merge Mono Acq with Serials. -The Mono Acq Admin and the Serials Admin both would report to the Serials/Acquisitions/Elec Resources Librarian. -The 2 units already work closely together. This merger would allow more coopoeration, streamlined workflow, sharing of expertise re electronic products, etc.
• Increase efficiency by leaving acquisitions-related bookkeeping in acquisitions, but move all other bookkeeping activities out of Acquisitions and into the Library Office.
• Can the current Library Office staff handle the non-acquisitions bookkeeping? If so, the bookkeeper position (empty slot) could be used for a full time staff person in –Preservation? –Cataloging?
• Hire a 1/2 time person to do bookkeeping. Use the other half position to increase to full time the part time cataloging position and the “part-time” Serials Administrator.
• Hire a 1/2 time person to do bookkeeping. Hire a 1/2 time person where most needed: -Preservation? -Cataloging for Special Collections?

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about changes in this area.

• Align selection responsibilities more closely with the liaison program
• Ask Head of Reference to reshape the Liaison Program, liaise with the new CTW Librarian
• Balance the incoming flow of specialized content with library's capacity for managing it
• Choose a platform for e-monographs
• Don't allow donors to drive the library's priorities
• Draft a new collection development policy for Wesleyan University Libraries, across all subjects. Include media, gifts, special collections, reference and digital collections
• Expand the definition of Collection Development
• Integrate selection for the institutional repository into existing Collection Development responsibilities
• Promote electronic selection
• Redefine the relationship between collections and discovery
• Schedule GOBI training
• Substantially reduce print reference collection
• Try purchase-on-demand for some publishers
• Use the CTW position for Collection Development rather than Systems

• How likely is it that CTW will go for it [i.e., turning the CTW Systems position into a Collaborative Collection Development position]? Trinity likely to be in favor.
• Prefer that CD Librarian remain a Wesleyan position.
• What is the future of CTW? It is looking up.
• This is an opportunity to work more closely with Conn and Trinity.
• It is importanta the the circulation policies of the three schools are coordinated if we are collecting collaboratively.
• Better communication needed between the three schools.
• Trinity now restricts access to its library - what is its policy on Wesleyan access?
• At Wesleyan, distribute collection development duties among liaisons, and review liaison assignments to ensure that some librarians are not overburdened.
• Collection development at Wesleyan necessary. How will this work practically? Need a strong Wesleyan collection development program. Need to have local collection development presence. Must have a clear description of duties. Strong negotiation and communication skills needed.
• Liaisons - must look at each person's responsibilities and redistribute.
• Who will coordinate the CD function at Wes and oversee the budget?
• Important to differentiate between Acquisitions and Collection Development.
• The current CD Librarian position evolved from the Acquisitions Librarian.
• Couldn't the CD Librarian be a Wesleyan position and Systems be CTW?
• The Tri-Colleges method of cooperative CD is not practical for CTW.
• Do we want to make this switch between CTW CD and Systems?
• Should not abandon Wes CD to CTW. Someone needs to be in charge of Wes CD.
• Should this someone be the Serials/EResources Librarian?

• Include scholarly communication as part of collection development.
• Will a joint CTW CD Librarian be able to give enough attention to each individual campus?
• One person overseeing the acquisitions budgets for all thre libraries?? How would the University financial officers react to that idea?
• Factor in that Dick Ross is highly experienced in CD. So is Doris Kammeradt, Trinity's CD Head.
• We will have the Mellon Grant person addressing shared CTW CD for the next 3 years. Redundant to have a CTW CD Librarian also?
• How would the faculty at all 3 schools react to a shared CD Librarian?
• Wouldn't it be more logical to maintain individual CD at the 3 schools, with a mandate that the librarians must pursue joint CD? The CTW position could revert to being a systems-only position, with emphasis on helping with local tech issues, if all department heads re-established, or maintained now functioning, lines of communication with their counterparts.
• Dissolve the CTW position. Each school saves its share of salary/benefits. Hire 1/2 time bookkeeper. Use our savings from both positions (1/2 of bookkeeper, 1/3 of CTW) to fund a Wesleyan systems librarian–possibly only enough for part-time, but that's better than nothing. (Note: Excellent idea!)
• Wes needs someone in charge of its “complete” collection. Our 150% circulation increase is a testament to Ed Allen's 40 year oversight.

In FY07 it was cost effective to have YBP bind paperback books. Average YBP per book cost FY06 $52.34. Projected FY07 $53.91 (3% inflation) Actual average per book cost INCLUDING binding FY07 $50.98, a savings of 5.6%. This was achieved by going to paperback preferred plus binding. YBP binding costs in FY07 were approx. $8.80 vs. approx. $13.00 when we send books to Acme. If we include library staff time for processing of materials going to the bindery the per unit binding cost is closer to $20.00. Large paper bound books, i.e. over 400 pages, etc. are the type of books particularly vulnerable to damage if not bound prior to circulation. I know some are concerned that the YBP shipments appear dull because they tend to use only one binding color per shipment but we could counter that by retaining bookjackets on all hardbacks. We would need to pay an additional $.35 for a dust jacket call number label but given all the other reasons for retaining dust jackets it would be worth it!

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about changes in these areas.

I think it makes sense to move binding to Preservation. Not just the responsibility but also some staff support, too.

• New books with more than 400 pages are pulled from the mainstream and sent to preservation for binding. This should only happen if they circulate.
• Stop having YBP bind paperbacks — bind only after there are signs of wear
• Absorb bindery operation into preservation
• Choose between SFX and Serials Solutions (get to one knowledge base)
• Consolidate fully with EBSCO or implement EDI serials invoicing for HARRASSOWITZ
• Continue to reduce print subscriptions
• Disperse e-resources responsibility more fully within Technical Services
• Implement a commercial ERMS
• Increase record maintenance capacity for serials
• Reduce binding
• Reduce check-in of print periodicals

• Cutting back binding - concerned about faculty not being able to check out bound volumes.
• Electronic access may ease this problem for some disciplines.
• Illustrations missing from some eresources.
• Microfilm has a similar issue with illustrations.
• We will continue to bind some titles.
• Portico/CLOCKSS - electronic preservation of ejournals is important.
• Access to ejournals limited - CALEA is an example - especially for non-Wesleyan users.
• Articles are not always reliably available in eresources.
• Choosing between SFX and Serials Solutions for a serials knowledge base - needs to be considered carefully, including Public Services in the conversation. A decision does need to be made.
• There are some errors in the R2 report - confusion between Helen and Liz's positions.
• It will be important to implement an ERM.
• The recommendation to move the binding function to Preservation will need to be considered carefully.
• Ebooks may often/always be a continuing resource, not a one-time purchase.
• There are lots of variables with eresource management.
• The recommendation to match the percentage of staff time with the percentage of the budget used for eresources is not necessarily valid. More a guideline than a strict rule.

• Serials: paper v. ejournals

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about changes in this area.

Dramatic changes are occurring in the world of docs. The GPO is engaged in digitization, cataloging, and preservation projects that many of us need to know about. I would like the Government Documents Librarian and/or others to stay on top of these efforts and to communicate regularly with the rest of us so that we can make good decisions about collection development, space planning, and cataloging.

A critical resource is GPO's Digitization and Preservation Initiatives webpage at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/legacy/. It states: “One of the strategic goals of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) is to digitize a complete legacy collection of tangible U.S. Government publications to make sure that these materials are available, in the public domain, for permanent public access. The conversion of tangible materials will begin with printed publications, and will eventually include microfiche and other formats.”

As they do many other information resources, users will almost always prefer an e-doc to a paper doc. Certainly it’s easier to discover e-doc information as it’s fully searchable. I suggest that we determine formally whether or not to exclude e-docs from Voyager. Then, we need to consider what to do about print. Current print docs are cataloged, of course, but older ones are actively being reconned. If recon is to continue it needs to be planned. Not every doc needs to be reconned, especially when there are large recon backlogs elsewhere in the library.

Within the above-mentioned page are these links of particular interest:

Priorities For Digitization Of Legacy Collection (Final version, Sept. 15, 2005) “This initial priority list below was developed based on review of a number of recommendations and resources conveyed to GPO by librarians in the Federal Depository Library Program and greater information community.”

We might want to review the titles in the list and decide which ones we will keep in paper. The rest, which will eventually be electronic, need not be cataloged. It may be that we’ve cataloged everything on this list already. The point is that someone needs to track what’s happening with legacy paper documents–not just those on this list–so we can decide what to catalog.

Registry of U.S. Government Publication Digitization Projects “The Registry is brought to the Web by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and all Registry contributors. The Registry: Serves as a locator tool for publicly accessible collections of digitized U.S. Government publications; Increases awareness of U.S. Government publication digitization projects that are planned, in progress, or completed; Fosters collaboration for digitization projects; and Provides models for future digitization projects.”

Breakdown by project name, institution name, project status.

Others, I'm sure, know more about this than I do!

• Move to e-only formats for new Government Documents
• Stop loading shipping records for Government Documents

• Gov Docs / Microforms areas - can we consolidate to gain space?
• How many of the older documents are online?
• Going through the federally-mandated weeding process is still very time-intensive.
• Have procedures changed for offering/weeding documents?
• Cataloging older documents - what happens to uncataloged items? They are essentially hidden collections.
• If we follow R2 recommendations, will we still be a depository library?
• If documents are uncataloged, they are marginalized if there is no easy way to find them. Patrons may not know that a document is what they are searching for, and will not do a special search for documents.
• Need to build ways to access docs seamlessly for users.
• Drop edocuments from catalog, with some exceptions (e.g. data sets).
• If we are collecting items, they should be cataloged.
• Should we revisit the decision to be a depository library?
• How can documents be found and how to maximize findability?
• Federated search system - needs to be robust and reliable.
• Older documents (i.e., pre-1976) are used by patrons.
• Cataloging increases the use of older materials.
• If studentsare looking and not finding older documents that we have but have not cataloged, it may mean an increase in ILL.
• Federated searching - the Systems/Discovery person could do development to make searching robust.

• Do not marginalize Gov Docs. Create Visibility!
• Keep what's not online; get rid of anything that's available online to free up space we so desperately need.

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about changes in this area.

The Wesleyan Virtual Library is just as important as the physical library. For this reason we need someone with systems and Web 2.0 skills.

• Create a new Librarian position for Systems/Discovery
• Explore other MetaSearch tools
• Implement a URL checker
• Maximize Google hits via OCLC’s Open WorldCat

• Defining the position.
• How does this fit with Mike Roy's position? Would there be a formal link between Mike's position and Systems?
• How to make library interfaces work/look better.
• Coordination of metadata +
• Support for things library staff want to do - dedicated to the library.
• Not just cutting-edge (e.g., (Maria Molinar and Ruskin TIFF)
• Data set discovery
• Would simplify, concentrate library systems efforts.
• Working with ITS on their data organization projects (e.g., portfolio).
• Bridging the gap with other units on projects we can help with.
• BUT, the challenge would be that we would have no CD Librarian.
• Must be library, not just systems oriented.

• Having a systems person dedicated to Wesleyan is a plus!
• Would be ideal having a WU Systems/Discover Librarian, so sorely lacking now. This person will contribute significantly to our future directions & success, in ways we can't even imagine yet.
• Our failure to so far fill Alan's position should not be a factor in whether we revamp/switch positions. –Especially since the job as posted was a combination of systems and non-systems tasks!
• Advertise the systems job for CTW, as strictly systems, with extra responsibility for Wesleyan's non-CTW tech functions. Keep the Collection Development position in Wesleyan, but require that position (and our other professional department librarians) to develop strong lines of communication with their C & T counterparts.

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about changes in this area.

• Adopt an e-only policy for student theses
• Maintain momentum and coherence on Content Management Initiatives

• Staff need time to learn new things - especially public services folks.
• Lack of redundancies lead to backlogs - cross-training helps flexibility (to fill in for vacancies, vacations, etc.)
• Too many expectations of new hires (as saviors?)
• Staff don't understand how students relate to eresources, systems, media, etc. They have different expectations, rapidly evolving over time (e.g., “email is so over …”)
• More brown bag, workshops on Web 2.0, other new technologies.
• Examples of how departments are using 2.0 applications.
• How do these applications relate to our jobs?
• Not everyone is into cutting-edge technology.
• More students should be involved in evaluating, making recommendations about services. Better to track changes in expectations as well.
• Report on ethnography needed. What are the results of the study?
• More digital initiatives coming from library. What would we like to do?
• Student Advisory Committee - currently exists. Perhaps grow it?
• Need opportunities for staff to do hands-on work on digital initiatives - brainstorming.
• Content management (CM) - pick a few projects to show faculty, students what is possible. (e.g., institutional repository of post-prints). Concrete examples needed.
• Students could be enticed to comment on projects with pizza, lunches, etc.
• Library projects would allow staff to get experience with technologies.
• Where to bring student comments? What to do with these? Where to relay them? (blog, wiki, etc.)
• How are faculty, students using the content we are providing? Rapidly changing. How to revive faculty conversations with librarians and ITS staff?
• Set of library blogs (how to integrate into work processes)?

• How are people going to become educated about metadata, digital platforms, etc.?
• Let us encourage support staff who are interested to get more involved with some of these Web 2.0 products.
• Perhaps working via WSA, have student groups come to library and talk with staff about what they're doing, then have staff try to think of ways (digital or otherwise) to support that work–basically, I guess, really expand on the work with the Advisory student group.

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about changes in this area.

I think our biggest challenge and the most important thing we can do over the next few years is increase access to archival collections as they are truly unique. If you need convincing see http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/libraries_and_culture/v037/37.1hirtle.html

Special Collections material is also important but not necessarily unique or as difficult to catalog; it does need regular attention.

Other than these, we should make headway with recon. Most of it is simply copy cataloging. I assume we will barcode as we go along, but we should discuss how an inventory will (or will not) come into play.

Where will the staff time come from? We are adding a half-time cataloging assistant. Perhaps some Technical Services staff who are not now doing cataloging might be interested in cataloging part-time; their expertise with Voyager and library practices provides ideal grounding. If money is available we can utilize students to do initial searching of OCLC. Efforts to catalog currently-received material will diminish due to changes in collection development (including more e-resources) and streamlining cataloging workflow.

But won't other things consume cataloger time? Conceivably catalogers will engage with non-MARC metadata for e-resources, MetaLib being a concrete example. Also digitized collections within and perhaps outside of the library.

• Analyze Voyager search logs
• Catalog to the level needed
• Complete the retrospective cataloging
• Create a rush policy for cataloging and marking
• Develop policies for archiving and describing free web sites, pdf's political blogs, listservs and other unlicensed scholarly electronic resources
• Further enrich OPAC records
• Realign staff: prioritize work on econtent and unique resources
• Reconsider Authority Control
• Resolve concerns about mail sorting and delivery
• Simplify cataloging for local concert recordings
• Take fuller advantage of student workers

• SC&A cataloging missing from the recommendations. What to do about the backlog of unique resources? Forbid Shari to retire? We can't.
• At the least, we shouldn't lose Shari's position.
• There should be more working across departmental lines within Tech Services and between Tech and Public Services. It makes the work more satisfying to look at things from a different perspective.
• How do SC&A and Cataloging work together?
• Importance of working cooperatively to access hidden collections.
• Retrocon is now being done.
• Metadata - a little unclear in report, but will be dealt with on a project-by-project basis.
• How to reconfigure Shari's position?
• RUSH cataloging/processing - what to change?
• Merge acquisitions and cataloging - or should it be serials?
• Making assumptions re time savings due to Gobi changes–it is not a given that we can realize these savings.
• Tech Services - possible split - Acquisitions (all formats) / Creating Access (all formats). Report too simplistic about this.
• Review needed of all Tech Services processes - what works now, what could be done better - more cooperation.
• Looking at future vacancies - need multi-year plan for changes.
• How to distribute eresource management throughout Tech Services. Serials sees the workflow from beginning to end.
• Three departments - now time to chagne.
• Shouldn't be necessary to implement all recommendations.
• Using students more in Tech Services. Lots that students can do, with oversight.
• Need to look at budgetary and space requirements.
• Student budget cuts (with increases in minimum wage).
• Training, filling in for student workers - time, efforts needed. Each year there are new student workers.
• Scores & Recordings graduate students bring subject expertise. Budget realignment necessary.
• Caution about students doing union-level work!
• Student work must be more frequently checked.
• How to maintain level of service? What not to do?
• Need place to keep track of decisions on cost-benefit analyses, statistics, results, etc.
• Union work should not be given to students. Also, ultimately more efficient to bring in staff.
• It is a good idea to check student work through sampling.
• Is adding staff feasible?
• How to integrate student-level work into our workflows to gain efficiency? Minimize staff doing student work.
• Putting 'fun facts' on the library Web page–library statistics, advertising library services.
• 'Just in time' intriguing - saving on books that do not get used.
• BUT, sometimes 'just im time' is too late.
• Getting more people in Tech Services able to do lots of tasks.

• Great to devote more time to cataloging unique collections!
• Cat fewer eresources - freeing up staff time/$ for recon. If we're going to have material on the shelf that's not accessible, why keep it?

Use this space to post your ideas/comments/concerns/questions about other changes.

• Don't apply date due slips until book circulates.
• Stop keeping manual statistics that can be retrieved programmatically
• Circulation staff are editing faculty instruction sheets, and entering enrollment updates for the University
• Consider delivery of CTW books to faculty
• Consider purchase on demand instead of ILL borrowing
• Consolidate reserve and circulation desks
• Control quality via sampling
• Improve timeliness of routine maintenance
• Maintain a high profile on campus
• Prioritize a physical inventory
• Reconsider necessity of gate numbers
• Reduce the capture of student recitals
• Stop double-discharging in Circulation
• Stop separating music CDs from parent book
• Technical Services needs to meet regularly as a group
• Use R2 audit methodology for Public Services
• Weed all microforms that are also available online
• Where to house the Art Collection?
• Where to house the Media Collection?

• Inventory, shifting needed.
• Weeding needed.
• Do shifting after JSTOR storage, print reference weeding complete?
• Shifting badly needed!
• PDA - coming proposal for staff to have at discount.
• 'Office management' for SC&A, Scores & Recordings.
• Some reference to be moved to stacks, but no room.
• Unreliability of student workers.
• Separate media from books - need to temper report recommendation with experience.
• In the report SC&A and WMA are sometimes conflated.
• Grant-writing not mentioned, but important.
• Double-discharging - often students make mistakes; also keeps students occupied at the public desks. Students make mistakes because often interrupted, or items put by patrons directly on cards, etc. Double discharging helps to find books.
• Report simplistic on binding.
• Binding should not be moved to Preservation without more staff.
• The New Book Shelf is very popular, brings in faculty.
• Shelf-reading important.
• At another library, all staff are given shelf-reading responsibilities.
• We could close the library and do weeding or inventory.
• Bookkeeper position needs attention as soon as possible.
• Paper ledger provides more timely information than FRS. (The new University financial system announced at the retreat may alleviate the time lag.)
• What statistics should we keep? Why? Keeping statistics for the annual report.
• Watch how shorter summer hours, PAC door closing affects library use; patron comments.
• Staff problems with locking the door at 5pm.
• Binding paperbacks - how many circulate? Sampling methods would be good here. How many are damaged after 2 years?

• Set up a formal post-MLS internship of some kind. Benefits us, benefits the profession. Does ALA have $ for this? Could be CTW-wide.
• Olin is out of space. Shelves are so tight books are being damaged. They will expand over the summer (hydroscopy) and be even tighter. SciLi has lots of floor space-how about moving all Music and Art books (M and Ns) to SciLi.
• Weeding the Ref Collection too heavily is not user friendly. There is a great convenience factor in the print ref collection.
• E-books. Currently if own an e-book if needed for Reserve, a hard copy is ordered. What should be the policy? Can e-books be placed on reserve - not really? Do we continue to have a hard copy purchased?
• Student workers: Students fain great benefit - they get great on the job experience for their future.
• Needs more cowbell! Ditto on the cowbell! Megaditto.