UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
LIBRARY SPACE REORGANISATION: TASK AND FINISH GROUP
A meeting of the Library Space Reorganisation: Task And Finish Group was held on 22 January 2008
at 3pm in the XFi Lecture Theatre.
PRESENT:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor M Overton (Chair)
Prof Jonathan Barry
Prof Cathie Holden
Dr Adeline Johns-Putra
Mr Martin Myhill
Prof Stephen Neale
Ms Ashley Petrons
Ms Michele Shoebridge
Ms Lee Snook (Convenor)
APOLOGIES:
1
Dr Stewart Barr, Mr Paul Gibbs, Dr John Love, Prof Stephen Mitchell
Minutes of the last meeting
The minutes of the meeting held on 18th December 2007 were amended as follows. Section
5 Stakeholder Groups (paragraph 5, first sentence) reads “Dr Johns-Putra noted that one to
one meetings with Marketing Representatives had proved an effective communication
medium for departments on the Cornwall campus and that this medium could prove similarly
effective for communications between the Library and Schools/Departments”.
2
Site Libraries update and communications with stakeholders (MIS)
Law
MIS had met with Professor John Usher to discuss the amended Law Library proposals that
were agreed at the last meeting. The Law School was very happy with the recommendation
that the Law Library should remain in Amory, with some relocation of stock to create flexible
study space for all Amory Users. Further discussions would take place with the Law School
and other Amory Schools regarding the revised floor plan, the creation of flexible study space
and refurbishment costs. This proposal had also been disseminated to Law students and the
wider community via Exeposé.
Arabic Collection
MIS had met with Professor Rasheed El-Enany to discuss the Group’s recommendation. IAIS
welcomed the proposal that the collection should move into an extended AWDU, within the IAIS
building, should funds be made available for this purpose. It was acceptable to IAIS for the
collection to move to another location within the Old Library as an interim measure (pending a
move to an extended AWDU) or as a permanent measure in the event that the planned extension
fails to materialise. It is not possible to designate a space for the collection at present as a number
of outstanding space issues relating to the Old Library remain to be resolved. However, a
guarantee has been provided that the collection will not be housed on the basement level (two
floors below the entrance level) on rolling storage.
Harrison
MIS had met with Dr Lee Bridger to discuss the draft plans for a remodelled Harrison Library.
SECaM were very keen to relocate and for the space to be remodelled into flexible study
space. However, the school had no funds set aside for refurbishment of this area in their
current business plan and did not wish to move and leave an undeveloped area. The group
recommended that the move should take place in summer 2008 and that SECaM should be
advised to investigate the possibility of calling on funds outside their business plan in order to
fund the developments. MIS noted that it might also be possible to pull some funds allocated
to learning space development from the infrastructure fund, and would investigate further.
Discussions would continue between the Library and SECaM regarding this issue.
Prof Jonathan Barry queried whether any issues remained to be resolved regarding the
MoveCorp proposals for the audiovisual collections. Ms Petrons advised that Steve Vinall
(Academic Services Marketing and Communications Manager) had met with Film Studies
students in order to address these issues in detail. It was agreed that these issues were
2 of 4
being satisfactorily handled at an operational level and did not warrant further discussion by
this Group.
3
Stakeholder Groups (MM)
MM presented the ‘Stakeholder Representation’ paper which had been formulated in light of
the Group’s discussions at the last meeting and was mindful of its potential impact on the
future of communication in other areas of Academic Services and other Services.
Professor Jonathan Barry advised that the dual governance references in the paper should
be amended to indicate that the Director of Academic Services reports to SPaRC and not
direct to Council.
In place of scheduled user groups the paper proposed a new tiered model which would
facilitate proactive communication throughout Academic Services at both operational and
strategic levels. Professor Cathie Holden very much welcomed the recommendation to move
away from a reactive user/focus group approach
At the operational level, complaints, feedback and suggestions would be channelled through
the Customer Service Division and would become more visible and accountable. Academic
Support Consultants would operate as the main means of contact between Schools and
library management and would use a variety of communication methods to make
communication as frequent and as effective as possible. A balanced scorecard system
covering key performance indicators would be used to monitor service provision.
At the strategic level, significant policy issues would be considered through University wide
Task and Finish Groups which would be convened by the Director of Academic Services.
In addition under the dual-assurance governance, the Director of Academic Services is
currently responsible to SPaRC and also reports interim issues to VCEG. Furthermore,
Library related matters may also be brought before Senate for consideration.
The group agreed that this tiered approach represented the best means of assuring that the
appropriate people deal with appropriate issues in the appropriate fora and that the
recommendation should be passed to VCEG and Senate.
Professor Jonathan Barry welcomed the clarity of making the Academic Subject Consultants
the main means of contact between Academic Schools but noted his concern that this could
prove unmanageable for some depending on their School portfolio, especially when it came
to attendance at key staff meetings. It was envisaged that the Academic Support Consultants
would manage this appropriately, for example by scheduling their own reports for the start or
end of meetings and by scrutinising meeting agendas in order to selectively focus their
attendance and input to other relevant agenda items.
Professor Barry also requested a clear indication of exactly which sorts of queries should be
passed where, in order to provide clarity for School Staff. It was not thought appropriate to
include this level of detail in the Group’s report but Michele Shoebridge advised that
Academic Services was in the process of producing a leaflet which would outline the key
contacts in AS and give an idea of ‘who to go to for what’.
Dr Adeline Johns-Putra queried communication processes between AS counterparts across
the Exeter and Tremough campuses and how staff and students could have input into
Streatham related issues. Michele Shoebridge advised that strategic communication was
managed through regular meetings with Anne George, Doreen Pinfold and through Keith
Zimmerman’s line management of the Academic Support Unit. There was also regular
contact between the Academic Support Consultants regarding Exeter run courses. Dr JohnsPutra advised that Anne George attended the Lead Academics Group on the Tremough
campus which facilitated the discussion of Library related issues. It was recognised that as
staff and students on Exeter courses could raise issues directly with library staff on either
campus, it was vital to publicise information about the best route to channel queries in order
to ensure queries were dealt with in the most efficient way.
3 of 4
4
Research Strategy and E-resources (MM)
The group considered MM’s Research Strategy and E-resources paper which outlined a
strategy to deliver ‘Top 10’ library research provision by addressing a number of key areas;
personal research support, development or e-resources, realignment of print collections,
digitisation of Special Collections, provision of a Virtual Research Portal, financial provision
and the research environment.
The group was pleased to see that Exeter currently out performed other ‘Top 10’ institutions
on a number of key library metrics, used for rankings by the Times Higher Educational
Supplement. However, MM advised that all institutions were working to a similar agenda and
were looking to catch up on these key metrics. There was a danger that Exeter would be
caught and overtaken if strategies were not put in place to progress the library research
agenda at Exeter. For example, by taking out a subscription to a new journal bundle an
institution could very quickly inflate its metrics. Michele Shoebridge also advised that Exeter
spent less than other institutions in some areas, but fared well in the metrics as they were
calculated per FTE and Exeter has a middle range student population.
Whilst appreciating the positive metrics, the Group recognised the need for a sound strategy
to plan and deliver library research provision and it considered the recommendations outlined
in the report.
Professor Jonathan Barry suggested re-ordering the paper to align the strategic summary
points with the substantive sections of the report. He welcomed the suggestion that a Task
and Finish Group should be established to debate an improved mechanism for the purchase
of core resources such as online journal collections and other major online sources.
Professor Barry was concerned that the realignment of print collections outlined in section 3
might give rise to an impression that the Main Library was an undergraduate teaching library
and the Old Library was a postgraduate research library and that this would not support the
dual use of some resources as teaching and research material. Martin Myhill confirmed that
there was no intention to designate the libraries in this way, since this would negate research
led teaching and lead to unwelcome arbitrary decisions about the purpose of some
collections. This section would be amended to make this issue clear and to indicate that the
aim was to overhaul the Old Library environment and services to support a research culture.
Decisions relating to the collections in each library would be guided by the previously agreed
Collection Development Policy and Traffic Lights which had been tailored to the teaching and
research needs of each School.
Professor Stephen Neale welcomed the focus on digitisation and the virtual research
environment but stressed the importance of providing continued effective access to non digital
resources. He requested that the Library consider providing microfiche/microfilm reader/
printer facilities in close proximity to the microfiche/microfilm collections. Martin Myhill noted
that reader/printer facilities were currently available in AWDU and via the Guild Print Unit and
that items could be borrowed from the library in order to facilitate printing at these locations.
Professor Neale suggested that this service would be greatly improved if Academic Services
were to house both the microfiche/microfilm collections and the reader/printer together in the
same location, such as within the proposed refurbished Old Library.
A brief mention was made in the report of Academic Services aspiration to join CURL. A
comparison of information expenditure per FTE student at Exeter compared to the top flight
CURL group of libraries revealed that expenditure levels at Exeter are nearly 30% lower than
the CURL group average. Michele Shoebridge outlined the networking and funding benefits
of belonging to CURL and noted that, whilst membership was not open to Exeter at present,
Academic Services was working on an action plan to ensure Exeter was in a position to take
up membership in the future. The Group agreed the significance of achieving CURL status in
view of the Universities ‘Top 10’ aspirations and requested that MM incorporate the CURL
aspiration into the Research Strategy and E-resources paper, together with background
information about CURL and relevant comparator statistics.
4 of 4
5
Final Report
The Group agreed that it had addressed all issues arising from its remit, as agreed in the first
meeting, and was now in a position to produce an advisory report for VCEG and Senate.
Lee Snook would produce the draft report and pass this to Professor Overton. The report
would then be distributed to the Group for approval ahead of submission to VCEG and
Senate, in time for the next Senate Meeting in March.