Library Committee Handbook

Executive Committee

AUL Annual Reports

Committee Charge and Membership

Innovation Fund

2017-2018 Meeting Information

Previous Documents 

Position Table
Position Request Form

Standing Policies

CPS Division SWOT Analysis

November 2006



§         Leaders (nationally known, as well as leaders in innovative ideas)

§         Many young, energetic, creative librarians

§         Combination of technologically savvy folks and those with traditional skills and extensive experience

§         Willingness to innovate (Spear-headed chat and IM in the library)

§         High use of services, facilities, collections (chat/IM, mail option, UGL for study, e-reserves, etc.)

§         Focus on users

§         Focus on Library as a whole, not just parts of it.

§         Broad outreach to disciplines (we are not discipline-focused, but strive to meet all users’ information needs.)

§         Library-wide leadership in services (CPS involvement in library-wide committees like the ORR, Voyager, etc.)

§         Instruction

§         Most extensive print holdings in the Library system are held within CPS units.




§         Out of date facilities (Facilities don’t keep pace with user needs; unattractive to users; inadequate and unattractive staff workspaces)

§         Lack of teaching faculty involvement (need to make more connections and even “adopt” programs)

§         Hampered by the Library’s overall sluggish and overly bureaucratic administrative structure

§         Poor online accessibility (online environment isn’t very user friendly and hampers online research – takes an inordinate amount of time to explain to our users how the pages work or how to find something, – also need more online instruction)

§         Lack of diversity among librarians (library faculty don’t reflect the diversity of our population—ethnic, racial)

§         Heavy reliance on GAs, necessitating a sharp learning curve and continual hiring/training

§         Lack of a coordinated, coherent instructional program (this is a library-wide issue)

§         Dispersed locations for central services (reserves in UGL; IRRC on 1st floor; etc.)

§         Poor facilities

§         Suffers from Library’s generally poor image among students

§         Aging, brittle collection in the Bookstacks

§         Lack of opportunities for upward faculty mobility

§         Lack of funding





§         Learning Commons (collaborative efforts of many areas to create aone-stop shop for students to find and use information andinformation technology

§         New communication technologies

§         Online presence (providing a more robust/up-to-date dynamic web presence, including more online instruction and patron driven information)

§         Consolidation, centralization to build efficiency

§         Cooperative ventures within and without the library

§         Scholarly Commons

§         Improvements to Bookstacks arrangement

§         Entrepreneurial ventures

§         The most exciting technology developments in libraries these days are all about services (e.g., see all of the writing about Library 2.0 on technology blogs currently about interactive ways of connecting with users)

§         Oak Street

§         Involvement in freshman level programs

§         New communication technologies



§       Lack of collegiality (how perceived by otherunits/departments/divisions)

§       Complexity of facilities and library services

§       Difficult to stay current; keep up with trends due to uncertainties

§       Limitations of Voyager/UB

§       Users don’t know what we have, can do

§         Without clear priorities and methods of collaboration within the division, efforts to capitalize on Library 2.0 and related developments will be too diluted and dissipated within the division to make a difference in connecting with users who will then seek other environments (e.g. Google and Wikipedia) that offer these features

§         Students think they don’t need the library

§         Complexity of facilities and library services (too decentralized and unduly complicated for users to find what they need.)

§         Erosion of service quality due to understaffing  (we have already reached the point of minimal staffing.  Need to staff more strategically and not spread ourselves so thin.)

§         New teaching faculty not using library (As older faculty retire, new faculty replacing them have different views of the library.  They may be more inclined to do research in their office using Google and other alternatives to the library.  Need to be more proactive with the younger faculty or they will not teach their students to use the library as their predecessors did.)

§         Google/