In making the recommendations contained in the body of this report, the Budget Group Plus relied not only on the “Principles for Decision-Making” noted in the Introduction, but also on considerable feedback from faculty, staff, students, and other users of the University Library. Members of the Budget Group Plus have met over a dozen times since the beginning of the academic year, and members of the group have also participated in each of the Town Hall meetings held to solicit input from across campus, as well as in discussions of the New Service Models process at meetings with each Library Division, the University Library Executive Committee, and faculty groups from multiple academic departments.
While it would be impossible to report the contents of each e-mail, letter, phone call, or face-to-face discussion held with Library users as part of this process, the Budget Group Plus presents the following synthesis of the discussions of each proposal contained in the Interim Report to provide a sense of the serious and deliberate manner in which the challenges and opportunities presented by each proposal were reviewed.
The proposals are ordered below in the same manner in which they were presented in the Interim Report.
Discussions of this proposal focused on the degree to which some access services have already been centralized and the significance of the acceptance last year of the “Access Services Report,” which resulted in the decision to merge Central Circulation & Book Stacks with Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery into Central Access Services. Early feedback on that merger has been largely positive, and progress is being made toward resolving several long-term issues in stacks management and customer service support. We have also seen very effective collaboration between Central Access Services and Content Access Management staff in pursuit of shared priorities over the past several months.
Discussions also focused on the opportunity that centralization of responsibilities for activities such as management of print reserve collections and call slip retrieval and processing might have for increasing flexibility in human resource allocation and enhancing the efficiency of daily Library operations. It was recognized that several of the New Service Models proposals depend precisely on that sort of flexibility and on the opportunity to reduce duplication of effort across multiple service points within the Main Library.
Given the recent change to Central Access Services operations and the potential impact on Access Services work flow not only of New Service Models projects, but also of enterprise-level projects such as our planned participation in the CIC – Google digitization program, the Budget Group Plus chose not to identify this as a specific proposal for implementation in the near term, but will ask all appropriate implementation teams to consider opportunities to move in this direction as part of their planning for new service programs.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section III of this report as Proposal No. 11: “Centralize Responsibility for Main Library Access Services.”
The development of a retrospective reference collection in the Main Library has been under discussion for years. The “Final Report of the Bookstacks Reorganization Task Force” (2005) proposed that we establish this collection, and several steps had already been taken to identify relevant selection criteria and to provide appropriate space within Stacks. Discussions of this proposal recognized the strong foundation already in place for implementing this proposal, as well as the fact that the opportunity to provide improved access to selected reference materials as part of this collection would facilitate other collection management decisions that will be required as part of other New Service Model proposals. The Budget Group Plus selected this proposal for immediate implementation based on widespread support for the proposal within the Library, lack of significant concern raised about this proposal among our user community, and the role that successful completion of this project will play in facilitating the success of future New Service Model projects.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section I of this report as Proposal No. 1: “Establish a Retrospective Reference Collection in the Main Library.”
Discussions of the proposal focused on the efforts that have been ongoing in this area for some time, as represented by the re-configuring of the Cataloging Department into Content Access Management in 2005, the establishment of cross-training and overlapping responsibilities for materials processing between CAM and Acquisitions in 2006, and the establishment of the Electronic Resources Management unit in 2007. Discussions of this proposal and how it might be implemented dovetailed with a separate proposal to merge the Undergraduate Library Information Processing and Management unit with CAM in order to provide enhanced support for electronic reserves programs, as well as to provide enhanced support for Library-wide materials processing and resource description programs – a proposal approved for implementation by the Library Executive Committee in early 2008. In addition to following a direction that has already proven successful on a number of fronts, our decision to endorse this proposal was rooted in a recognition that the Library could achieve greater economies of scale and flexibility in the use of skilled human resources through this service model change, as well as through a commitment to fostering the development of a community of staff and faculty specialists with similar (or complementary) responsibilities.
Public feedback on this proposal focused on the concerns raised by specific materials (e.g., materials published in languages using non-Roman scripts) and by the tradition still found in several units of integrating public and technical service responsibilities. With these concerns in mind, the Budget Group Plus sought input from colleagues at peer institutions in order to determine the impact that like changes have had on collection and service programs of similar breadth and depth. Given the unique concerns related to materials currently acquired and cataloged in departmental units, the Budget Group Plus chose to recommend that this proposal be identified as a long-term change that will need to be accomplished in phases.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section III of this report as Proposal No. 10: “Consolidate Responsibility for Acquisition and Cataloging of Library Materials within Central Technical Services Units.”
The decentralized nature of the University Library has left us with rare book and special collection materials scattered across campus. Some of these collections are relatively small and easily accessed through existing discovery tools, while others are large and essentially “hidden” from user view. Discussions of this proposal focused on the value these materials hold to students and scholars and the role they will play in the future of the 21 st-century research library. The importance of making this commitment was reinforced over the past few months by the attention paid to unprocessed special collection materials brought to the attention of the group as part of planning for New Service Models in the Labor & Industrial Relations Library and the City Planning & Landscape Architecture Library. In short, many of these materials represent rich cultural and scholarly resources, and most would benefit from increased attention to their security, access tools, and provisions for long-term preservation. In other cases, the items are easily accessible but lack a proper storage environment. In nearly all cases, the units housing these items lack staffing and facilities sufficient to serve these items.
Public feedback on this proposal has been largely limited to those directly involved in our rare book and special collections programs, and those whose “hidden” collections have been uncovered by ongoing programs. Given the fact that our existing rare book and special collection units cannot process or house all relevant materials within existing allocations of resources and space, the Budget Group Plus chose not to identify this as a specific proposal for implementation in the near term, but will ask all appropriate implementation teams to consider opportunities to move in this direction as part of their planning for new service programs. Given, further, the unique needs of these materials, dependent on format, as well as the degree to which some of these materials have been integrated into local teaching programs, the Budget Group Plus recognized that our approach to this long-term goal must be fashioned on a case-by-case basis, and must learn from the experience of collaborative approaches to enhancing control and access of special collections materials, as in the current collaboration between the Music Library and the Sousa Archive and Center for American Music.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section III of this report as Proposal No. 12: “Establish Central Curatorial Control of Rare Book and Special Collections Material.”
The need to better coordinate our efforts related to digital content lifecycle management (digital content creation, resource description, digital curation, etc.) has become increasingly apparent in recent years, and is related to our strategic commitments to invest both in a Library-wide preservation program (1999 – ), and in a Library-wide digital content creation program (2006 – ). Given the ongoing commitment of resources to these projects, and the recent approval of the CIC – Google Digitization Program, the Budget Group Plus selected this proposal for immediate implementation in order to provided the necessary infrastructure support and long-term vision needed to develop and support these essential Library service programs for the 21 st century.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section I of this report as Proposal No. 2: “Establish and Implement Appropriate Strategies for Digital Content Creation, Reformatting, Preservation, and Access.”
Discussions of this issue focused on the broadly-defined roles that the Library will be called upon to play in support for e-science and e-scholarship on campus, both as part of campus strategic initiatives (e.g., I 3), and in recognition of new approaches to scholarly inquiry that will be made possible by the tools provided through our Large-Scale Digitization and Scholarly Communications programs. Budget Group Plus discussions of this proposal were also influenced by the identification of e-science as the subject of the 2008 CIC Library Conference, and the national discussions of scholarly cyberinfrastructure and library support for e-science and e-scholarship facilitated by the Association of Research Libraries. While support for e-science was not identified as a strategic direction for the Library to pursue during its 2006 planning process, changes in the rapidly changing environment for science and scholarship since then make it clear that planning and budgeting for such support is critical to our ongoing excellence as a research library. Recognizing this, the Budget Group Plus identified this not as a specific project to pursue, but as a lens through which broader discussions of Library facilities, service programs, collections programs, hiring plans, and opportunities for collaboration with other campus units should be viewed.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section II of this report as Proposal No. 6: “Support E-Science and E-Scholarship as a Strategic Priority for the University Library.”& lt; /p>
As in the case of consolidating technical services programs, discussions of this proposal focused on the ongoing efforts in this area, as well as on the fact that scholarly communications programs have already been identified as part of the Library strategic plans.
While the Library has successfully established key infrastructure support pieces such as an institutional repository (IDEALS) and has recently established a Library-wide Scholarly Communications Committee, our efforts in this area remain decentralized and largely separate from the core service programs provided to faculty, staff, and students by liaison librarians. By reiterating our strategic commitment to Scholarly Communications Services, the Budget Group Plus aims to support broader discussions of budgeting, hiring plans, and opportunities for broader collaboration with campus units on scholarly communications issues.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section II of this report as Proposal No. 7: “Establish a Scholarly Communications Unit and Service Program.”
Discussions of this proposal focused primarily on its amorphous nature. Budget Group Plus members recognize that our current model for identifying liaison assignments, recruitment of Library professionals, and articulation of professional responsibilities for the development, delivery, and assessment of service programs may not be flexible enough to address changes in the way academic research and teaching programs are evolving. The group was likewise attentive to the strong sentiment among Library and campus communities regarding the critical role that traditional subject specialists continue to play in core Library services. Mindful both of traditional responsibilities, as well as emergent ones, the Budget Group Plus identified this proposal as one with great significance for our future, but one that requires further discussion across campus, as well as further study of emergent models in peer libraries.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section II of this report as Proposal No. 8: “Establish New Approaches to Library Services to Multi-Disciplinary Fields and Research Centers.”
There was limited discussion of this proposal, both within the Budget Group Plus, and as part of our programs for gathering input and user feedback. In general, the sense of the group was that the University Archives’ current mandate already encompasses the types of materials discussed in the proposal, and that the challenge faced by the Archives is not the scope of its mandate, but the range of its resources. As records management and enhancement of access to special collection materials becomes an increasingly important feature of the Library’s service program, attention must be paid not only to the physical facilities in which these materials are housed, but also to the identification of human resources appropriate to the full range of services expected from the University Archives.
As the result of the above discussions, this proposal does not appear in the Final Report.
Discussions of this proposal were substantial, driven not only by considerable feedback on the original proposal by members of the Library community and the public, but also by long-standing concerns regarding access to the rich collections of the Illinois History and Lincoln collections. Recognizing that the current IHLC service program is deeply valued by its core constituents, and that the Library must make a commitment to increase access to its collections in connection with the upcoming Lincoln Bicentennial, Budget Group Plus decided that the long-term goals of the Library would be best served by focusing on sustaining and enhancing access to these materials, and on developing a robust Web presence that will provide access to the full range of services and collections relevant to the study of Illinois History and Abraham Lincoln, including (but not limited to) those contained within the ILHC. The decision to pursue the creation of newly-defined public service units on the 3 rd floor of the Main Library provided an opportunity to re-locate the IHLC to a more convenient public service space, and to bring complementary rare book and manuscript materials expertise into closer physical proximity of one another.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 18: “Re-locate the Illinois History and Lincoln Collections to 324 Library.”
There was substantial discussion on the merits of the original proposal within the Budget Group Plus following feedback received largely from within the Library community. The most significant of the concerns raised during these discussions had to do with the ability of Government Documents librarians to successfully maintain the full scope of their service programs if integrated into a public service unit with a broader mandate. The Library is committed to its ongoing role as a government information provider and took these concerns seriously. A number of options were discussed, including the potential merits of integrating Government Documents collections and services with a unit other than Central Reference Services. Recognizing the merit of these concerns, and lacking consensus on the best approach to a short-term plan involving complete integration of Documents with another unit, the Budget Group Plus came to the conclusion that a more moderate approach to the meeting the goal of bringing government documents service programs into the mainstream of Library services was most appropriate during the three-year planning window represented by this report. The group articulated a plan that will allow for Documents operations to follow long-term operational strategies identified by the Budget Group Plus (e.g., consolidation of technical services operations), while allowing Documents faculty and staff and Reference faculty and staff to provide leadership for a coordinated approach to services that will retain the unique strengths of each while facilitating greater coordination and collaboration across units.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 13: “Integrate Government Documents Service Programs into Broader Service Programs.”
Discussions of this proposal focused on the place that the “Scholarly Commons” holds in our strategic plan, as well as on the strengths and weaknesses of two earlier attempts to make progress on this strategic initiative in 2006 and 2007. Taking the report of the “Integrative Research Services Task Force” (2007) as a starting point, noting the development since 2006 of “faculty commons” and “scholar services” programs at other ARL libraries, and noting the broad sentiment within the Library that progress on this initiative is essential to the future of Library services, the Budget Group selected this proposal for immediate implementation.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section I of this report as Proposal No. 4: “Establish a ‘Scholarly Commons’ Service Model and Service Point in 200 Library.”
There was limited discussion of this proposal, as members of the Budget Group Plus found the underlying rationale persuasive, and received little feedback expressing concern about proceeding from either our staff or our users. The consensus of the group is that there is strong support for the initial proposal. As part of broader discussions of collections and services in support of materials collected in languages other than English, and noting the close collaboration between faculty in the Modern Languages & Linguistics Library and the Latin American & Caribbean Library, the Budget Group revised the original proposal to bring appropriate materials published in Spanish, Portuguese, and other vernacular languages, and currently collected through the LACL, into its discussions of a “Languages and Linguistics Library.” The Budget Group Plus discussed this proposal, as well as the proposal to consolidate Area Studies service programs within a long-range view of integrating collections and service programs designed for students and scholars of the non-English-speaking world, as well as those designed for all who have an interest in the study of world languages, literatures, cultures, and societies, or in focused study of a particular region, its language, and people.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 16: “Create a ‘Languages and Linguistics Library’ to be located in 225 Library.”
Discussions of this proposal were substantial, but focused primarily on the most effective way to integrate the collections and services currently housed in the LIS Library with another unit. As one of the primary user groups for LIS collections and services, the Library faculty and staff are well aware of both the strengths and the limitations of the current arrangement. Budget Group Plus members were also mindful of the comments made by students and faculty in the Graduate School of Library & Information Science regarding the symbolic value of the LIS Library space, as well as the value of its on-site collections, as currently constituted, for direct support of GSLIS teaching, especially teaching related to pre-professional librarian education. Even those whose feedback focused on the need to retain the LIS Library as an independent unit, however, recognized the core arguments against that approach, e.g., the interdisciplinary nature of inquiry in LIS, the limitations of the current space to support the full range of inquiry in the field, and the documented evidence of limited use of the physical space. Budget Group Plus did recognize the concerns regarding integrating another social science discipline into the ESSL space, however, and parallel discussions regarding the future of the Communications Library provided an opportunity not found in the original proposal: to integrate the LIS Library and the Communications Library into a “ Media and Information Studies Library.” The revised proposal addresses the concerns identified in the original, but also provides an opportunity to bring complementary collections and services together in support of two disciplines soon to see an influx of new undergraduate students, and to provide more robust staffing to a Library unit outside of the Main Library.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 14: “Create a ‘Media and Information Studies Library’ to be located in 122 Gregory Hall.”
There have been several discussions of the Area Studies units in recent years, culminating in the “Area Studies Proposal” circulated in 2005-06. There were substantial discussions of this proposal within the Budget Group Plus, and it is safe to say that issues related to this proposal were among the most often discussed in the Town Hall meetings held in Spring 2008. The Budget Group Plus recognized the many concerns expressed regarding the need for specialized language expertise to support teaching and research in Area Studies programs, as well as the fundamental concern that this change might somehow result in diminished support for Library collections and services in these areas (and concomitant weakening our Title VI grant proposals that depend, in part, on evidence of strong Library services and collections). While the Budget Group Plus was unanimous in its commitment to maintaining support for Area Studies collections and service programs, it was clear that any change to the current Area Studies configuration in the Library would require ongoing communication and collaboration with faculty and students in various programs. At the same time, the underlying rationale behind the desire to consolidate these units remained unchanged: the model of narrowly-defined Library units was economically unsustainable, and the result was a fragmented program of Library service and support. There were also ongoing concerns about the need for coordinated and long-term approaches to issues related to the acquisition and timely processing of materials meant to support academic programs in the area studies. The Budget Group Plus came to the conclusion that a more moderate approach to meeting the goal of consolidating Area Studies service programs was most appropriate during the three-year planning window represented by this report. The group articulated a plan that will allow for Area Studies units to follow long-term operational strategies identified by the Budget Group Plus (e.g., consolidation of technical services operations) in a phased manner – allowing the appropriate time to review all relevant issues and to coordinate operations prior to a merger desired for the future. The decision to pursue the creation of the “Languages and Linguistics Library” and to house it in the 225 Library space currently occupied by the Slavic and East European Library provided an opportunity to bring a number of area studies units together in a physical space in close proximity to the Asian Library, thereby creating an Area Studies “hub,” rather than a single Area Studies Library. This approach also addressed the significant concerns regarding our ability to move the Asian Library collections, which are currently housed in a space adjacent to the Asian Library in the Main Library Book Stacks, and cataloged using a classification system incompatible with other Main Library collections.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 17: “Create an ‘Area and International Studies Library’ to be located in 321/325 Library.”
Discussion of the future of the CPLA Library began in 2006, and active discussions with members of the Department of Landscape Architecture and the Department of Urban & Regional Planning were already under way prior to the commencement of the New Service Models process. Owing to the preexisting program of discussion outside the Budget Group Plus, there was limited discussion of this proposal by the group. There was also strong consensus that the current service model for this library was untenable in the long term. The Budget Group Plus selected this proposal for immediate implementation based on widespread support for the proposal within the Library and interest in pursuing this proposal among our user community.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section I of this report as Proposal No. 3: “Combine the Collections and Services of the City Planning & Landscape Architecture (CPLA) Library with those of the Funk Family College of ACES Library.”
Discussions of the future of the Geology Library began in 2006 as part of campus planning for the future of the Natural History Building, and in light of the establishment of the School of Earth, Society, and the Environment. Owing to the preexisting program of discussion outside the Budget Group Plus, there was limited discussion of this proposal by the group. There was a strong sense that the proposal enjoyed support within the Library, and that it also enjoyed support from the academic leadership of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. There was little public discussion of this proposal, and limited input received from our user community. Given the wide array of facilities renovations and academic program reviews that are part of the broader programs initiated by LAS and SESE, the Budget Group Plus chose to recommend pursuit of this proposal, but to tie its support to the broader planning efforts by our LAS colleagues. Further discussion of the proposal among LAS faculty has highlighted the logic of re-integrating these collections and service programs (once housed together as part of the “Natural History Library”).
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 19: “Create an ‘Earth and Life Sciences Library’ in 101 Burrill Hall.”
There was significant discussion of this proposal within the Budget Group Plus, but, following a series of facilities reviews and discussions of the impact on existing first-floor service points, the final conclusion of the group was that it was not a project suitable for pursuit during the three-year planning window represented by this report.
As the result of the above discussions, this proposal does not appear in the Final Report, but is noted as a discussion point to be pursued as part of the Main Library/Undergraduate Library Feasibility Study (along with the broader issue of wayfinding in the Main Library).
There have been numerous studies of the Main Library suggesting that increasing access and improving the user service conditions in the Book Stacks should be a long-term goal for the Library. Discussions of this proposal focused both on the potential benefits of addressing this proposal, both in the short term, and as part of the long-term future of the facility to be outlined in the Main Library/Undergraduate Library Feasibility Study, and on concerns raised regarding the current organization of the Stacks and the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the security of an “open” Stacks collection. Following review of these concerns and recognizing that this will be a long-term project that will be implemented in phases, the Budget Group Plus selected this proposal for immediate implementation based on the role that even limited success in the short term will play in facilitating the success of other New Service Model projects.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section I of this report as Proposal No. 5: “Open and Improve User Services in the Main Library Book Stacks.” It is also is noted as a discussion point to be pursued as part of the Main Library/Undergraduate Library Feasibility Study.
There was limited discussion of this proposal within the Budget Group Plus, owing to the consensus among the group that the current Classics Library is unsuitable either as collections or public service space. The Budget Group Plus discussed feedback received from some users expressing concern about the size of any new collection space for Classics. The decision to pursue creation of the “Media and Information Studies Library” in Gregory Hall provided an opportunity to re-locate the Classics Library to a space both more convenient to its users, and more appropriate for the long-term preservation of its collections, to bring Classics into closer physical proximity to complementary collections held in the Rare Book & Manuscript Library, and to provide easier access for its users to appropriate instructional spaces.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section IV of this report as Proposal No. 15: “Re-locate the Classics Library to 306 Library.”
Discussion of this proposal focused on: 1) the scope of the current unit; and 2) the significant organizational and physical hurdles that pursuing this project in the near future would require us to clear. While some components of the original proposal may be pursued as part of other projects, e.g., a study of how best to provide support for GIS services in the Library, and while the Budget Group Plus remains convinced that the Map Collection must be re-located to a more suitable location, the final conclusion of the group was that it was not a project appropriate for pursuit during the three-year planning window represented by this report.
As the result of the above discussions, this proposal does not appear in the Final Report, but is noted as a discussion point to be pursued as part of the Main Library/Undergraduate Library Feasibility Study.
The Budget Group Plus received several proposals suggesting the need to review our Divisional structure, as well as various suggestions for specific changes that might be made. As an organizational issue internal to the University Library, the Budget Group Plus decided that this issue should be referred as soon as possible by the Library Executive Committee for action.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section V of this report as Proposal No. 21: “Review and Re-Align the Divisional Structure.”
The Budget Group Plus received several proposals, and broad feedback from within the Library community, regarding the need to review our decision-making structure and to clarify the role and scope of standing bodies such as Budget Group, Administrative Council, and Executive Committee. These comments complement extensive discussion of this issue as part of organizational development activities facilitated among the members of those standing bodies by members of the Renewal and Transformation Group (RTG) in 2007. As an organizational issue internal to the University Library, the Budget Group Plus decided that this issue should be taken up as soon as possible by an appropriate committee or task force and refers the matter to the University Librarian and Dean of Libraries for action.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section V of this report as Proposal No. 22: “Review and Re-Align Decision-Making Structures.”
The Budget Group Plus recognizes Library Assessment as a strategic priority of the University Library and, moreover, is aware of the significantly increased attention to the planning, implementation, and reporting of assessment activities now found across campus. The Budget Group Plus noted the substantive discussions that have taken place over the past several years regarding the importance of Library Assessment, as well as the 2007 establishment of the Library Assessment Working Group. As an organizational issue internal to the University Library, the Budget Group Plus recommends that future plans for the allocation of human resources by Executive Committee and other groups include focused attention to the need to support and enhance assessment activities at the unit and Library levels.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section II of this report as Proposal No. 9: “Establish a Library-Wide Program of Assessment of Library Collections and Services.”
Discussions of this proposal were brief and to the point: it is undoubtedly beneficial to the operations of the University Library to encourage and support broad participation by members of its staff on the committees, working groups, and task forces that conduct much of the operational and strategic planning of the organization. As an organizational issue internal to the University Library, the Budget Group Plus refers this proposal for action to Library Divisions, Budget Group, Administrative Council, Executive Committee, and other Library committees, working groups, and task forces for consideration as they plan and renew their memberships.
The final recommendation on this proposal can be found in Section V of this report as Proposal No. 20: “Include Library Staff Representatives on Appropriate Library Committees.”
Please take a moment to give us your feedback & comments on the New Service Models.