Stacks
Services
Planning
Team
Report
Membership:
Alvan
Bregman,
Mary
Burkee,
Karen
Hogenboom,
Larry
Miller,
Chris
Quinn,
Diane
Schmidt,
Thomas
Teper
(Chair)
Introduction
As
charged
by
the
Library’s
Executive
Committee,
the
Stacks
Services
Working
Group
was
asked
to
examine
the
Main
Stacks
in
support
of
the
recommendations
of
the
report
Library
Services
for
the
21st
Century
at
the
University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana‐Champaign:
Final
Report
of
the
Budget
Plus
Group.
This
report
recommended
that
the
Library
“Open
and
Improve
User
Services
in
the
Main
Stacks.”i
As
part
of
its
nine‐point
charge
(see
Appendix
1),
the
Stacks
Services
Working
Group
was
asked
to
examine
service
improvements
in
the
Stacks
that
could
be
implemented
in
the
next
three
to
five
years
and
that
would
enhance
the
user
environment,
improve
the
management
of
our
physical
collections,
and
augment
user
spaces
within
the
Stacks.
This
document
contains
the
recommendations
of
the
Stacks
Services
Working
Group.
During
the
working
group’s
meetings,
we
determined
that
there
were
three
types
of
projects
involved
in
the
charge
–
staff/operational
projects,
collection
management‐related
projects,
and
improvements
to
the
user
environment.
As
the
Main
Stacks
were
primarily
designed
and
primarily
serve
the
purpose
of
housing
collections,
we
believe
that
prior
to
considering
the
three
types
of
projects
above,
the
Library
must
consider
the
nature
of
the
physical
collection
being
created
and
any
recommendations
about
how
it
should
be
managed.
Nature
of
the
Physical
Collection
Perhaps
the
most
challenging
aspect
of
defining
the
service
levels
to
be
supported
in
the
Main
Stacks
centers
on
examining
the
nature
of
the
Stacks’
physical
collections.
With
the
opening
of
the
Oak
Street
Storage
Facility,
the
University
Library
reached
a
turning
point
that
many
of
its
peer
libraries
passed
years
before.
Yet,
Illinois
finds
itself
in
good
company
in
that
many
of
its
peer
institutions
have
not
taken
a
holistic
view
of
collection
management
that
incorporates
the
management
of
three
distinct
types
of
collections.
In
that
regard,
we
believe
that
any
discussion
about
the
organization
and
management
of
collections
must
be
considered
across
the
University
Library.
To
that
end,
library
storage
falls
into
four
broad
categories,
three
of
which
are
present
at
UIUC:
• Decentralized,
Directly‐Accessible
–
Characterized
by
open
shelving
such
as
that
found
in
most
unit
libraries.
Provides
maximum
patron
accessibility
(depending
upon
hours
of
operation
of
the
particular
library);
consequently,
it
would
be
well
suited
for
items
where
access
is
a
premium
such
as
reference
materials.
Requires
a
high
cost
in
space
(approx.
2.6
Linear
Feet
per
Square
Foot
of
Floor
Space),
a
high
maintenance
cost,
preservation
liabilities,
and
inventory
liabilities.
• Centralized
Directly‐Accessible
–
Characterized
by
open
shelving
in
the
east
stacks
and
compact
shelving
in
the
west
stacks.
Provides
for
acceptable
patron
access,
and
has
a
good
shelf
to
space
ration
(reaching
approx.
5.9
LF
per
SF).
The
cost
of
shelving
is
higher
in
the
west
stacks,
where
browsing
is
limited
to
one
open
aisle
in
each
section
of
compact
shelving.
Direct
patron
access
results
in
higher
maintenance
costs,
preservation
liabilities,
and
inventory
liabilities.
Ideally,
this
would
be
most
well‐suited
for
“secondary”
volumes
(i.e.,
non‐reference‐type
materials),
but
given
that
our
larger
unit
libraries
function
as
primary
shelving
for
general
collections,
Main
Stacks
does
not
include
all
general
collections
and
cannot
accommodate
them
all.
•
•
High‐Density,
Indirectly
Accessible
–
Characterized
as
“the
Harvard
Model”,
this
shelving
achieves
a
high‐density
through
two
means
–
shelving
by
size
and
elevated
storage
(reaching
40’
in
height,
the
shelving
density
approaching
30+LF
per
SF).
There
are
minimal
shelving
costs.
This
is
off‐set
by
poor
direct
access
for
patrons.
Ultra‐High
Density,
Indirectly
Accessible
–
Characterized
by
Automated
Storage
and
Retrieval
(ASR)
systems
currently
being
brought
online
at
institutions
such
as
the
University
of
Chicago,
such
shelving
results
in
lower
retrieval
costs
and
higher
storage
capacity
but
requires
a
substantially
higher
initial
investment
in
equipment.
Typically,
items
are
shelved
in
call
number
order
and
delivered
to
patrons
in
trays,
providing
for
a
higher
level
of
patron
access.
There
is
no
equivalent
shelving
system
at
UIUC.
While
individual
subject
specialists
have
looked
at
the
relationship
between
the
unit
libraries
they
manage,
the
Stacks,
and
Oak
St,
the
University
Library
has
not
taken
the
opportunity
to
examine
the
institution’s
operations
prior
to
Oak
Street’s
opening
and
reflect
upon
how
the
institution’s
collection
management
practices
should
change.
Managing
the
University
Library’s
Physical
Collections
Prior
to
Oak
St:
Prior
to
Oak
St’s
opening,
the
University
Library’s
physical
collections
included
the
holdings
of
many
unit
libraries
(including
the
Undergraduate
Library)
and
the
Stacks.
The
Main
Stacks
were,
for
most
unit
libraries,
remote
storage.
While
directly‐accessible
to
patrons,
they
were
necessarily
limited
in
their
utility
by
deficiencies
in
bibliographic
access,
overcrowding
(exceeding
120%
in
some
areas),
and
the
absence
of
an
environment
that
could
be
considered
moderately
appropriate
for
on‐site
use.
Because
there
was
no
attempt
at
a
consistent
collection
development
or
management
policy
for
the
Main
Stacks,
the
holdings
could
be
best
described
as
being
heterogeneous,
meaning
that
the
collection
contained
items
from
all
disciplines,
both
relevant
and
irrelevant
to
current
scholarly
needs
as
well
as
being
scholarly
and
popular.
The
serials
included
current
receipts,
older
bound
volumes,
and
runs
that
had
been
superseded
by
backfiles.
The
unit
served
as
both
the
high‐density,
remote
storage
of
its
day
and
the
primary
repository
for
current
receipts
depending
upon
the
foot‐print
of
the
unit
library
in
question.
In
short,
the
Main
Stacks
served
a
multitude
of
purposes,
but
primarily
served
as
an
unmanaged
repository
as
little
thought
was
given
to
the
overall
type
of
collection
being
created
in
that
unit.
Such
oversight
was
not
necessarily
feasible
or
constructive
at
the
time.
However,
that
time
has
passed.
Managing
the
University
Library’s
Physical
Collections
After
Oak
St:
The
University
Library’s
physical
collections
include
the
holdings
of
many
unit
libraries
(including
the
Undergraduate
Library),
the
Stacks,
and
the
Oak
Street
Storage
Facility.
These
collections
can
neither
be
considered
in
isolation
from
one
another
nor
from
the
Library’s
significant
investment
in
electronic
resources,
especially
when
it
comes
to
cost
effectively
managing
the
collection.
While
similarities
exist
between
the
holdings
in
each
of
these
unit‐types,
there
are
differences
that
are
largely
defined
by
the
constituents
they
are
intended
to
serve.
These
are
differences
that
the
University
Library
must
be
attuned
to
on
an
institutional
level.
They
are
differences
that
we
must
be
prepared
to
exploit
in
order
to
maximize
our
resources
in
the
coming
years.
No
longer
can
we
consider
the
collections
of
the
Undergraduate
Library
to
be
isolated
from
those
held
by
the
rest
of
the
University
Library.
The
presence
of
a
high
density
storage
facility
on
campus
provides
the
institution
with
a
unique
opportunity
to
shape
the
collections
that
we
hold
within
the
Main
Stacks
relative
to
our
holdings
in
other
locations.
Previously,
the
Stacks
served
as
a
central
repository
for
lesser‐used
content
in
many
disciplines
and
as
a
restricted
but
directly‐accessible
location.
They
also
held
a
heterogeneous
collection.
In
all
likelihood,
the
Main
Stacks
will
continue
to
hold
a
heterogeneous
collection,
although
the
emphasis
may
shift
toward
those
disciplines
with
a
heavy
emphasis
on
retrospective
holdings,
image‐heavy
content,
or
limited
digital
surrogates.
As
a
consequence,
direct
access
to
a
collection
of
this
size
and
breadth
will
also
continue
to
be
an
imperfect
mechanism
for
discovery.
However,
direct
access
continues
to
play
an
important
part
in
the
research
and
intellectual
exploration
of
some
materials.
As
a
consequence,
direct
access
to
a
collection
of
this
size
and
breadth
will
also
continue
to
be
an
imperfect,
although
important,
mechanism.
That
being
the
case,
what
physical
collection,
or
collections,
should
occupy
the
space
currently
designated
as
the
Main
Stacks?
Unless
the
University
Library
chooses
to
make
a
radical
departure
from
past
practice
and
create
nearly
comprehensive
collections
in
particular
collecting
areas
(thereby
relegating
large
portions
of
the
collections
to
a
departmental
library/Oak
St.
collection
management
model),
the
Library
should
concentrate
on
retaining
within
the
Main
Stacks
those
items
that
require
physical
access
without
compromising
their
security.
The
following
table
outlines
criteria
applied
to
define
each
of
the
broad
collection
categories
and
maps
them
to
their
existing
storage
models
at
UIUC.
Type
of
Decentralized,
Directly
Centralized,
Directly
High‐density,
Indirectly
Storage
Accessible
Accessible
Accessible
Location
Unit
Libraries
(multiple
Main
Stacks
Oak
Street
locations)
Collection
• Low
density
• Medium
density
• High
density
Characteristics
• Physical
access
• Physical
access
• Mediated
physical
access
• High
direct
access
need
• Material
expected
to
• Materials
expected
to
• Monographs
have
higher
access
have
low
circulation
• Unbound
serials
needs
• Monographs
and
serials
• Low
theft
risk
• Monographs
with
good
digital
access
• Directed
at
user
groups
• Bound
serials
with
no
• Items
with
good
• Collections
with
pre‐
digital
surrogate
cataloging
and/or
existing
cataloging/
• Low
theft
risk
indexing
location
needs).
• Low
preservation
• Items
meeting
RBML
need
criteria
(mediated
• Limited
duplication
circulation)
• Items
with
defined
preservation
problems
(mediated
circulation)
• Items
in
need
of
protection
from
theft
(mediated
circulation)
Recommendations
for
Management
of
Collections
• Implement
Professional
Management
Practices:
Identify
an
internal
candidate
to
serve
as
a
Collection
Maintenance
Librarian
or
AP.
Alternately,
identify
funding
for
this
need
from
•
•
•
•
retirements
of
existing
personnel.
This
individual
would
be
responsible
for
overall
supervision
and
proactive
management
of
all
Central
Access
Services
Collection
Management
functions
in
the
Main
Stacks
and
at
Oak
Street.
Protect
Special
Collections:
Because
access
to
the
Main
Stacks
was
restricted,
material
could
be
housed
there
that
would
be
otherwise
protected
at
our
peer
institutions.
Following
best
practices
widely
accepted
throughout
our
profession,
the
University
Library
should
remove
items
that
are
rare,
fragile
or
at
risk
from
theft
or
vandalism
from
this
location;
it
is
the
University
Library’s
curatorial
responsibility
to
ensure
that
those
items
deemed
rare,
fragile
or
particularly
susceptible
to
theft
should
be
located
in
an
environment
that
will
provide
them
maximum
protection.
Consequently,
we
recommend
that
the
University
Library
uniformly
apply
its
existing
policies
for
such
content.
These
include
the
CDC‐approved
Oak
Street
Selection
Policy
(12/2007)
and
the
existing
Guidelines
for
Transfer
to
the
Rare
Book
and
Manuscript
Library.
Under
these
policies,
all
publications
dated
1820
or
earlier
should
be
sent
to
RBOS
(Rare
Book
Oak
Street)
or
RBML
as
determined
by
the
Library’s
Curator
of
Rare
Books.
Additionally,
material
of
high
monetary
or
artifactual
value
should
be
identified
and
sent
to
RBX
or
RBOS.
Examples
of
such
material
could
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
Nineteenth‐century
illustrated
books
(esp.
folios
and
quartos),
e.g.
American
county
atlases,
travel
and
exploration
books;
Nineteenth‐century
periodicals,
especially
illustrated
journals,
e.g.
Punch,
Scientific
American,
etc.;
Nineteenth‐century
literary
magazines,
especially
those
that
published
original
fiction,
e.g.
Cornhill,
London
Journal,
etc.;
Nineteenth‐century
English
“triple‐decker”
novels
(Dewey
823);
Nineteenth‐century
books
with
notable
decorated
bindings
still
in
good
condition.
Limit
Numbers
of
Holdings:
A
cap
should
be
placed
on
the
number
of
copies
of
particular
titles
held
within
the
Stacks.
Ideally,
no
more
than
two,
and
certainly
no
more
than
three,
copies
of
any
particular
edition
should
be
held
within
the
Stacks.
Make
Use
a
Defining
Criterion:
The
remaining
holdings
in
the
Main
Stacks
should
be
expected
to
receive
at
least
moderate
use,
meaning
that
the
institution
should
aggressively
relocate
items
with
surrogate
access,
those
serving
exceedingly
limited
populations
on
campus,
and
backlogs
of
limited
projected
use.
Monographs
and
serials
that
are
not
digitized
to
a
yet‐to‐be‐determined
standard
or
are
poorly
indexed
should
be
included
within
the
Stacks.1
However,
that
also
means
that
any
serials
located
in
the
Main
Stacks
that
are
available
locally
though
commercially
delivered
or
locally
created
backfiles
should
be
moved
to
Oak
St.
as
soon
as
appropriate
bibliographic
access
can
be
provided.
The
same
applies
to
monographs
superseded
by
e‐book
editions
and
large
runs
of
text
heavy
serials
for
which
complete
surrogate
holdings
exist
in
microfilm
or
digital
surrogates.
Government
Documents:
The
Library’s
SuDoc‐classified
Government
Documents
(post‐1978)
were
recently
relocated
in
keeping
with
the
recommendations
of
the
Bookstacks
Reorganization
Task
Force
(2005).
It
is
our
recommendation
that
these
items
be
left
in
place
but
that
the
Library
actively
monitor
developing
professional
discussions
about
the
management
of
government
documents
libraries
nation‐wide
and
evaluate
their
implementation
as
appropriate.
Those
items
1
CDC
will
develop
guidelines
based
upon
standard
criteria
that
will
be
applied
by
Central
Access
Services
personnel
in
consultation
with
subject
specialists
as
appropriate.
cataloged
and
shelved
with
the
Dewey
holdings
should
be
treated
according
to
aforementioned
criteria
for
the
management
of
the
general
collections
housed
within
the
Main
Stacks.
•
•
•
•
•
Asian
Library:
The
Asian
Library’s
holdings
are
managed
separately
from
the
Main
Stacks.
It
is
our
recommendation
that
these
items
be
considered
separately
from
this
assessment
of
the
Main
Stacks.
However,
given
the
severe
limitations
on
shelving
space
within
the
remaining
Main
Stacks
space,
this
body
does
not
recommend
that
any
additional
shelving
space
be
allocated
to
the
storage
of
Asian
Library
collections
within
the
Main
Stacks.
Folios
and
Minis:
The
University
Library
must
address
the
needs
of
folio
materials
shelved
within
the
Main
Stacks.
Over
the
past
several
years,
the
Preservation
and
Conservation
Program
invested
significant
resources
in
providing
protective
enclosures
for
these
materials
in
preparation
for
the
move
proposed
by
the
Book
Stacks
Reorganization
TF.
The
University
Library
must
provide
shelving
and
service
accommodations
that
improve
upon
the
free‐standing
folio
shelving
currently
employed
along
the
perimeter
of
the
Main
Stacks.
We
recommend
that
the
Library
charge
a
TF
with
completing
an
evaluation
of
all
folios
currently
housed
in
the
Main
Stacks
to
determine
appropriate
shelving
location,
that
the
Main
Stacks
work
with
this
group
to
develop
the
planned
folio
shelving
area
and
dispose
of
the
free‐standing
units
that
obstruct
traffic
along
the
Main
Stacks’
exterior
aisles,
and
that
all
bottom
shelving
in
the
second
addition
of
Oak
St.
not
occupied
by
flat
storage
be
reserved
for
additional
map
or
folio
storage
needs.
Lastly,
for
preservation
reasons,
folios
should
be
restricted
to
in‐building
circulation
only.
In
addition
to
the
folios,
miniature
volumes
are
shelved
within
the
Main
Stacks.
These
should
be
assessed
for
quantity
and
appropriateness
of
management
as
RBX/RBOS
items.
Record
Cleanup:
The
clean‐up
of
200,000
serials
holding
records
in
the
Stacks
is
the
bottleneck
to
progress
on
virtually
all
of
the
larger
collection
management
improvements
identified
by
this
working
group.
Cooperative
work
has
begun
between
the
CAS
and
CAM,
and
a
grant
application
has
been
submitted
by
CAS
and
CAM
to
provide
some
funding
for
this
project.
But,
current
internal
resources
are
maxed
out
between
those
two
units.
The
resolution
of
this
problem
is
impeding
the
shift,
the
development
of
the
retrospective
reference
collection,
and
the
movement
of
significant
numbers
of
volumes
to
Oak
St.
It
is
also
severely
impacting
the
access
that
the
University
Library
provides
to
both
our
own
patrons
and
those
we
serve
though
ILL/DD
services.
The
record
cleanup
has
been
repeatedly
cited
in
funding
requests
as
the
highest
priority
item
for
Central
Access
Services,
and
it
must
be
considered
a
priority
–
even
at
the
expense
of
funding
other
requests.
Retrospective
Reference:
The
Retrospective
Reference
Working
Group
(RRWG)
is
moving
ahead
with
their
planning,
but
the
progress
of
this
working
group
in
both
planning
and
implementation
is
constrained
by
needed
resolution
to
many
of
the
projects
outlined
as
part
of
the
charge
of
the
Stacks
Services
Working
Group.
The
plans
of
the
RRWG
will
be
outlined
in
that
Implementation
Team’s
report,
but
center
on
a
phased
approach.
The
most
important
issue
of
note
in
this
group’s
report
is
that
phase
two
of
the
Retrospective
Reference
Collection’s
construction
requires
resolution
of
issues
with
the
Serials
Display.
Serials
in
the
Stacks:
The
only
serials
to
remain
in
the
Main
Stacks
should
be
bound
volumes.
The
Serials
Display
has
been
an
unsatisfactory
operation
for
many
years.
The
display
does
not
•
encourage
use.
The
display
does
not
support
efficient
management
of
the
materials
displayed,
nor
does
it
efficiently
store
the
materials
awaiting
binding.
And,
perhaps
most
importantly,
the
serials
display
does
not
encourage
the
type
of
curatorial
management
required
to
ensure
that
the
materials
selected
and
acquired
by
the
University
Library
are
appropriate
to
the
academic
needs
of
the
University
community.
While
there
are
unique
titles
in
that
location,
the
display
tends
to
fall
into
the
‘out
of
sight/out
of
mind’
category
of
collection
development.
Moreover,
it
only
composes
a
portion
of
the
serials
received
in
the
Stacks.
A
number
of
titles
are
received
in
the
Stacks
and
placed,
unbound
among
the
rest
of
the
collection.
In
the
case
of
both
these
items
and
those
shelved
in
the
Stacks,
acquisitions
are
not
always
managed
with
an
eye
to
developing
a
valuable
research
collection,
and
the
collection
itself
is
neglected.
It
is
the
recommendation
of
this
body
that
the
University
Library
close
the
Stacks
Serials
Display,
identify
those
items
received
in
the
Stacks,
and
redirect
both
to
appropriate
units
or
a
central
serials
location
for
management
of
the
current
holdings,
and
refine
the
Stacks
collection
profile
to
focus
on
the
management
of
bound
serials.
We
believe
that
the
CDC
should
charge
a
Task
Force
to
review
the
current
receipts
in
the
display,
review
the
current
receipts
in
the
general
stacks,
identify
appropriate
units
to
house
the
current
receipts
whenever
possible,
and
work
with
the
Acquisitions
unit
to
centrally
check
in
those
items
and
direct
them
to
the
appropriate
units
within
the
Library.
The
space
currently
housing
the
Stacks
Serials
Display
is
required
for
the
Retrospective
Reference
Collection
by
May
2009.
Shift:
The
Stacks
Shift
is
required
for
progress
on
several
initiatives
underway.
The
development
of
a
folio
shelving
location
and
removal
of
the
free‐standing
‘folio’
shelving
that
crowds
aisles
requires
progress
on
the
shift.
The
aforementioned
relocation
of
the
Stacks
sorting
space,
consolidation
of
our
Q‐shelving,
and
development
of
the
Retrospective
Reference
Collection
all
depend
upon
the
shift’s
completion.
Staff/Operational
Improvements
Throughout
our
discussions,
the
group
determined
that
most
of
the
staff
and
operational
improvements
were
the
purview
of
Central
Access
Services.
We
did
consider
previous
recommendations
to
relocate
the
staff
workspaces
to
other
locations
within
the
Main
Stacks,
but
deferred
to
the
revised
staffing
and
operational
plans
currently
being
implemented
by
Central
Access
Services.
Recommendations
for
Staff/Operational
Improvements
• Sort:
In
keeping
with
current
Central
Access
Services
plans,
the
sort
area
and
other
staff
work
areas
will
remain
in
the
first
addition
of
Deck
5
East
to
allow
for
better
communication
and
work
flow
for
staff.
This
also
allows
for
more
cross
training
potential
and
better
staff
coverage
at
all
times,
and
ultimately
provision
of
higher
levels
of
service
to
our
patrons.
User
Environment
One
of
the
topics
that
the
Working
Group
wrestled
with
was
the
notion
of
what
it
meant
to
“open
the
stacks”.
Does
this
mean
that
we
should
examine
the
provision
of
free
and
unfettered
access
to
the
Main
Stacks
as
we
would
any
public
location
within
the
University
Library?
Or,
was
the
concept
of
opening
the
stacks
something
more
limited?
Given
the
inherent
difficulties
of
providing
attentive
service
within
the
Main
Stacks,
the
unwelcoming
environment
provided,
the
uncertain
long‐term
use
of
the
Main
Stacks
given
the
changing
nature
of
information
use,
and
the
near
impossibility
of
providing
appropriate
security
in
such
a
space,
the
working
group
focused
its
examination
by
adding
one
caveat
to
the
discussion
–
“Opening
the
Stacks”,
if
implemented,
would
be
limited
to
UIUC‐
affiliated
users
(faculty,
staff,
and
students)
and
patrons
who
are
eligible
for
a
stacks
pass
according
to
established
guidelines.
Recommendations
for
Improving
the
User
Environment
• Accessing
the
Main
Stacks:
The
main
service
point
dissuades
users
from
self‐service
and
is
a
significant
cost
center
–
requiring
the
staffing
of
three
service
points
(turnstile,
Stacks
circulation
desk,
and
Main
Circulation
Desk)
within
a
thirty
foot
radius.
The
University
Library
must
rethink
operations
and
reconfigure
the
desk/entrance.
Central
Access
Services
personnel
believe
that
a
new
desk
would
allow
the
University
Library
to
consolidate
the
operations
of
these
four
service
point
and
provide
for
more
comprehensive
coverage
during
the
Library’s
operating
hours.
By
reconfiguring
the
desk,
the
University
Library
could
provide
a
more
welcoming
entrance,
economize
on
personnel,
and
provide
better
wayfinding
services
to
those
entering
the
Main
Stacks.
• Implementing
Security
Procedures:
The
University
Library
must
institute
proper
security
procedures
at
the
Stacks
entrance–
both
for
the
safety
of
its
collections
and
for
the
safety
of
its
patrons.
This
includes
providing
a
locker
area
for
all
coats
and
bags,
maintaining
the
requirement
that
identification
be
shown
at
the
entrance,
and
that
all
material
be
checked
upon
exiting.
• Protecting
Our
Assets:
While
addressing
the
environmental
needs
of
the
Main
Stacks
within
the
three
–
five
year
timeline
outlined
in
our
charge
might
be
unrealistic,
this
body
considered
any
move
to
ignore
the
environmental
conditions
in
the
Main
Stacks
a
grievous
omission.
The
environmental
conditions
within
the
Main
Stacks
are
among
the
most
significant
impediments
to
creating
an
environment
welcoming
to
users.
We
cannot
afford
to
put
aside
the
importance
of
providing
appropriate
climate
control
as
a
means
of
prolonging
the
collection’s
life
and
the
health
and
well
being
of
patrons
and
staff
working
in
the
Main
Stacks.
While
the
installation
of
fire
suppression,
the
installation
of
signage
and
temporary
wayfinding
devices
in
the
event
of
an
emergency,
and
the
increased
attention
to
security
in
the
Main
Stacks
do
indicate
progress
on
addressing
life‐safety
needs,
significant
deficiencies
still
exist
that
require
the
attention
of
campus‐level
bodies.
Emergency
lighting
and
permanent
signage
addressing
life‐safety
needs
are
lacking.
Passive
security
within
the
Main
Stacks
remains
minimal.
For
example,
no
cameras
exist
within
the
space
–
not
even
covering
the
entrance.
Additionally,
communications
are
poor
at
best
with
poor
cell
reception
and
few
publicly
accessible
phones
for
emergency
use.
• Lighting
the
Stacks:
Another
significant
deficit
in
the
Main
Stacks
remains
the
lighting
in
the
third
addition.
Incandescent
bulbs
in
that
addition
continue
casting
poor
light,
generating
excess
heat,
and
driving
up
utility
costs.
However,
the
lighting
is
also
required
in
order
to
provide
adequate
security
for
users.
Lights
should
remain
on
in
5
East
when
the
Library
is
open.
But,
we
should
replace
incandescent
bulbs
in
East
Stacks
with
LED
or
compact
fluorescent
lighting
and
hanging
light
fixtures
with
shallower
fixtures
that
will
be
less
likely
to
interfere
with
patron
use
of
the
space.
• Providing
Patron
Seating:
In
the
working
group’s
consideration
of
seating
needs,
we
realized
that
significant
overlap
existed
between
our
charge
and
that
of
the
Retrospective
Reference
Working
Group.
Our
recommendations
do
not
overlap
with
the
space
covered
by
that
group.
Our
recommendations,
therefore,
focus
on
the
6th
addition,
non‐RRWG
addressed
portions
of
the
earlier
editions,
and
the
carrels.
Additionally,
the
likelihood
of
making
the
Main
Stacks
a
welcoming
user
environment
without
the
addition
of
proper
climate
control
is
remote.
So,
our
ability
to
develop
a
welcoming
environment
may
be
hamstrung
as
much
by
improvements
beyond
our
immediate
control
than
by
those
that
we
can
influence.
We
do,
however,
recommend
the
following
seating
configuration
be
considered
for
the
non‐RRC
areas:
In
the
west
stacks
(6th
addition),
we
recommend
retaining
the
current
model
of
providing
minimal
seating
and
a
copier
on
each
level.
In
the
east
stacks
(3rd
addition),
we
recommend
providing
the
following
resources
on
each
level
near
the
old
paging
stations:
one
or
two
networked
computers,
a
printer,
and
a
scanner.
A
fixed
tripod
or
camera
stand
for
patron
use
may
also
be
useful
in
one
location,
most
likely
near
the
folio
shelving
or
other
materials
ill‐served
by
traditional
copiers.
In
addition,
we
recommend
that
the
University
Library
re‐examine
the
assignment
and
management
of
carrels.
The
Library
should
(a)
review
carrel
use
according
to
records
kept
in
the
Circulation
Office
(b)
consolidate
assigned
carrels
to
as
few
decks
as
possible
and
remove
doors
on
remaining
carrels;
(c)
replace
hard
chairs
with
comfortable
seating
and
install
cool
task
lighting
in
all
carrels
(which
carries
the
added
benefit
of
reducing
fire
risk
from
patron
supplied
equipment),
and
(d)
establish
a
$15/semester
rental
fee
in
keeping
with
practices
at
other
institutions.
This
fee
would
generate
some
income
for
maintenance
and
upkeep
of
the
assigned
carrels.
No
carrels
should
be
used
for
the
storage
of
backlogs,
unprocessed
collections,
office
records,
or
other
such
materials.
•
Wayfinding
and
Signage:
Another
impediment
to
effective
use
of
the
Main
Stacks
by
patrons
(regardless
of
their
familiarity
with
Dewey
Classification)
remains
the
lack
of
consistent,
effective,
and
up‐to‐date
signage
and
wayfinding
aids.
In
terms
of
providing
effective
signage,
the
Working
Group
recommends
that
signs
be
substantial
–
meant
to
last
five
to
ten
years
–
and
colorful
to
attract
attention.
The
University
Library
needs
to
complete
a
plan
for
signing
the
Library
as
a
whole,
but
the
need
is
particularly
acute
if
there
is
intent
to
encourage
more
use
of
the
Main
Stacks.
In
addition
to
requiring
signs
that
better
address
life
safety
needs,
the
minimal
signage
needs
include:
(a)
a
large
sign
visible
when
you
first
step
off
each
elevator
listing
the
location
and
materials
located
in
the
immediate
vicinity;
(b)
call
numbers
in
that
location
with
arrows
for
which
direction
to
walk
for
each
call
no.
range;
and
(c)
"you
are
here
"
maps.
There
should
be
signs
on
both
sides
of
doors
between
East
and
West
Stacks
indicating
direction.
For
example,
"this
way
to
7
East
".
Lastly,
all
signs
should
include
the
following
text
at
the
bottom:
"Exit
the
Stacks
at
Level
5
East".
In
addition
to
improved
signs,
the
University
Library
must
invest
in
the
improvement
of
browsing
aides
for
patrons.
(This
is
a
service
issue
which
has
already
been
discussed,
but
is
a
work
in
progress
that
will
take
a
bit
longer
to
perfect)Once
patrons
are
past
the
main
entrance,
patrons
can
then
rely
upon
a
more
fully
developed
suite
of
browsing
aides
that
include
an
updated
and
expanded
permanent
display
of
Stacks
maps,
a
FAQ
outlining
topics
pertinent
to
accessing
collections
within
the
Main
Stacks,
and
labeled
areas
with
floor
maps
just
outside
each
elevator.
Appendix
A:
Charge
and
Membership
of
the
Stacks
Services
Working
Group
Charge
The
Stacks
Services
Planning
Team
will
provide
leadership
for
the
implementation
of
improvements
to
user
service
environment
in
the
Main
Library
Book
Stacks
that
can
be
accomplished
within
a
three
to
five
year
timeline.
Building
upon
existing
recommendations
to
open
the
Stacks
to
undergrads
(2000)
and
reorganize
the
Stacks
(2005)
and
taking
into
account
Shepley‐Bulfinch’s
Conceptual
Framework
Report
(2006)
and
the
progress
of
the
Main/Undergrad
Library
Feasibility
Study,
the
planning
team
will:
1) Identify
those
remaining
activities
in
the
Final
Report
of
the
Bookstacks
Reorganization
Task
Force
Report
that
should
be
implemented
in
order
to
develop
an
environment
conducive
to
the
maintenance
of
a
“browsing
collection”;
2) Develop
detailed
cost
estimates
for
projects
that
can
be
completed
within
a
three‐year
timeline;
3) Develop
implementation
plans
for
short‐term
projects
scoped
to
fit
within
a
twelve
to
eighteen
month
timeline,
medium‐term
projects
that
will
fit
within
a
three
to
five
year
timeline
and
longer‐term
projects
that
dovetail
with
the
directions
outlined
by
the
Main/Undergrad
Feasibility
Study;
4) Define
a
detailed
collection
profile
for
the
Main
Library
Book
Stacks
with
the
Office
of
Collections
and
members
of
the
library
faculty
with
collection
development
responsibilities
that
accounts
for
the
needs
of
semi‐rare
items
currently
housed
in
the
Main
Stacks
as
well
as
any
items
that
may
require
transfer
to
more
secure
storage;
5) Identify
and
develop
projects
related
to
improving
user
services
in
the
Book
Stacks;
6) Examine
the
security
and
life‐safety
issues
requiring
resolution
before
offering
broader
access;
7) Examine
the
existing
user
criteria
for
the
Stacks
and
either
reaffirm
or
revise
the
profile
for
access;
8) Reexamine
the
Stacks
entrance
and
develop
detailed
implementation
plans
for
a
reconceptualized
entrance
and
service
model.
9) Determine
the
most
appropriate
process
for
implementing
the
recommended
changes,
finalize
budgets
for
recommended
sub‐projects,
develop
an
implementation
timeline,
and
recommend
an
implementation
team.
Membership:
Alvan
Bregman,
Mary
Burkee,
Karen
Hogenboom,
Larry
Miller,
Chris
Quinn,
Diane
Schmidt,
Thomas
Teper
(Chair)
Appendix
B:
Summary
Table
of
Recommendations
of
the
Stacks
Services
Working
Group
Category
Recommendation
Collection
Management
Implement
Prof.
Mgmt.
Practices:
Appoint
Collection
Management
Librarian
or
Academic
Professional
Protect
Special
Collections:
Remove
rare,
fragile,
or
at
risk
items
from
Main
Stacks
to
Rare
Books
Oak
Street
or
other
units
with
mediated
service
points
Limit
Number
of
Holdings:
Cap
number
of
copies
of
titles
to
be
held
in
Stacks
Implementation
Phase
Phase
One
Write
job
description;
get
EC
approval
Phase
One
Phase
Two
(after
processing
of
previously
selected
serials
to
OS
and
Special
Collections
needs
addressed).
Policy
development
is
relatively
immediate,
but
should
limit
to
post‐
1945
titles
to
ensure
bibliographic
variants
are
not
inadvertently
transferred
Make
Use
a
Defining
Criterion:
Phase
Two
send
items
to
Oak
Street
that
Fold
into
transfer
of
have
less
than
moderate
use
materials
to
new
or
that
have
adequate
digital
Oak
Street
module
surrogates
Government
Documents:
NA
Monitor
Professional
Developments
Asian
Library:
Limit
to
Existing
Policy
Space
Folios
and
Minis:
CDC
appoint
Phase
Two
task
force
to
evaluate
folios
housed
in
the
Main
Stacks
and
to
consolidate
folios
into
a
single
folio
shelving
area
in
the
Cost
$50,000
(recurring)
if
new
hire;
less
if
transfer/
reassignment
Additional
resources
may
be
needed
for
large
project
(unable
to
complete
with
current
resources);
may
be
manageable
in
smaller
projects
Operational
costs
of
transfer
to
Oak
St.
(Additional
resources
may
be
needed)
Additional
resources
may
be
needed
NA
No
additional
cost
Additional
resources
will
be
needed
based
upon
project‐specific
staff
costs
Main
Stacks
Record
Clean‐up:
Clean
up
serials
records
for
serials
identified
for
transfer
to
Oak
Street
Retrospective
Reference:
Requires
resolution
to
Serials
Display
Serials
in
the
Stacks:
CDC
appoint
a
task
force
to
evaluate
serials
received
directly
in
the
Main
Stacks
and
recommend
transfer
to
appropriate
departmental
libraries
or
smaller
serials
display
area
in
a
more
accessible
public
space;
Close
the
Stacks
Serials
Display.
Shift:
Complete
shift
of
collection
in
Main
Stacks
Staff/Operational
Improvements
User
Environment
Sort:
No
change
recommended
Accessing
the
Stacks:
Reconfigure
circulation
desk
and
entrance
to
Main
Stacks
Implement
Security
Procedures:
Bag
lockers/check
and
Identification
User
Environment:
Install
emergency
lighting
and
signage
addressing
life
safety
needs
User
Environment:
Work
with
CITES
to
improve
cell
coverage
above
current
minimal
service
provided
by
existing
Verizon
repeater
FIRST
PRIORITY
(some
work
currently
in
progress;
large‐scale
project
in
planning
stages)
Phase
Two;
high
priority
for
phasing
Retro
Ref.
Additional
resources
or
contract
catalogers
will
be
needed
based
upon
specific
staff
costs
Staff
costs
based
upon
project
proposals;
Binding
costs
(operational)
Staff
costs
based
upon
project‐specific
recommendations
Phase
One;
Dependent
upon
processing
previously
selected
serials
for
OS;
See
Record
Clean‐up
Above
NA
Operational
costs:
Additional
resources
will
be
needed
Phase
Two
Project
cost
(estimated
at
$100,000
Ongoing
(in
progress)
None
additional
Phase
One
Library
should
explore
resources
external
to
Library
operating
budgets
Phase
One
NA
User
Environment:
Provide
Appropriate
Environment
for
Users
(HVAC)
Lighting
the
Stacks:
Replace
Incandescent
Bulbs
Begin
as
funding
available
Phase
One
Phase
Two
Phase
Two
Computing
is
largely
present.
Missing
computers
can
be
relocated
from
low‐use
locations.
Printers
can
be
relocated
from
offices
given
networked
printers.
$3,000
(est.)
Phase
Two
Project
dependent
Priority
Two
–
following
Main
Library
Feasibility
Phase
Two
$10,000+
for
plan,
plus
costs
for
signage
and
mounting
$3,000
(est.)
Phase
Two
Minimal
Phase
Two
Patron
Seating:
On
each
level
of
the
east
stacks
near
the
green
elevator,
provide
1‐2
networked
computers,
a
printer
and
a
scanner
Patron
Seating:
Provide
a
fixed
tripod
near
the
folio
shelving
Patron
Seating:
review
carrel
use
and
consolidate
carrels;
take
doors
off
vacated
carrels
and
install
cool
task
lighting
and
comfortable
chairs
Wayfinding/Signage:
Complete
signage
plan
for
University
Library
Wayfinding/Signage:
User
Environment:
Large,
sturdy
sign
across
from
each
elevator
Wayfinding/Signage:
develop
and
keep
updated
a
“you
are
here”
map
for
each
floor
to
be
posted
near
elevators
Wayfinding/Signage:
create
permanent
display
of
FAQs
and
stacks
maps
for
Deck
5East;
create
flyer
with
basic
information
about
how
to
find
a
book
in
the
Main
Stacks
Requires
resources
external
to
Library
operating
budgets
Project
dependent
Appendix
C:
Sample
Main
Stacks
FAQs
While
the
maps
are
valuable
as
part
of
the
permanent
display
as
one
enters
the
Main
Stacks,
their
content
must
be
improved
to
include
some
additional
information
useful
to
patrons.
For
example,
topics
that
address
the
following
issues
should
be
required:
1. 5W
1st
addition,
including
lots
of
bullet
points
and
graphics.
Possible
content:
a. I
have
a
call
number—now
what?
b. What
are
Q
and
F
call
numbers?
Other
prefixes?
c. How
are
the
Stacks
arranged
in
general?
d. How
can
I
get
help
finding
books?
e. What
is
in
the
Stacks
vs.
Oak
Street
or
a
departmental
library?
f. How
does
the
Dewey
call
number
system
work?
(AKA
where
can
I
browse
books
about
Russian
history?)
g. Why
are
most
of
the
lights
off
in
the
Stacks?
i
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/committee/budgetplus/nsmfinal/contents/proposals.html#a5