Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report
The Library
University College Dublin
April 2003
1. The Library
1.1 Location of the Library
The main Library is located on the Belfield campus, with branch libraries in Earlsfort
Terrace, Carysfort, Richview, Ballsbridge and the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine.
Planned improvements include a refurbished building for the business library in
Carysfort. The new Health Sciences Faculty in Belfield may also contain library
services (replacing the current Earlsfort Terrace facility). The Ballsbridge branch is a
temporary location for Nursing Studies which will be consolidated with the main
Library/Health Sciences facilities when completed.
While the original plans were for one central library in Belfield, the branch structure
is now well established, popular with users, and likely to be retained. Within the main
Library are four specialist sub-libraries: Special Collections, Law and Official
Publications, Development Studies, and Medieval Studies. While the need for further
research library facilities is recognised, no final decision about an appropriate location
- either within the main Library or as a separate service has been made.
1.2 Staff
Total staffing complement amounts to 140 full-time equivalents (from 183 members
of staff). There are 103 full-time permanent staff positions, consisting of:
Librarian
Deputy Librarian
2 Associate Librarians
4 Sub-librarians
25.5 Assistant Librarians
1 Library Services Officer
13 Senior Library Assistants
2 Senior Executive Assistants
44.5 Library Assistants
9 Library Attendants
There are a further 80 contract staff positions. Some of these are full-time posts in
projects or externally-funded services, or substituting for short-term leave, but the
majority are part-time positions assigned to shelving, evening services and similar
duties. Some Assistant Librarian and Library Assistant posts are job-shared. In
addition, a number of Library Assistants work in two departments, half-time in each.
2
1.3 Product/Processes
The Library Strategic Plan 1992 -1996, identifies its primary function as:
“... serving the information needs of the College and providing access to recorded
knowledge for the benefit of its teaching and research functions”.
The major areas of activity identified in the Self Assessment Report are:

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING OF INFORMATION RESOURCES

LENDING SERVICES

STOCK MANAGEMENT

PHOTOCOPIERS AND PRINTERS

INFORMATION SERVICES

ACCESS FOR NON-REGISTERED USERS

DOCUMENTATION AND MANUALS
The Library also provides study spaces which may be directly related to use of library
resources, or for general study purposes. Increasingly it also provides electronic
resources and non-campus based services through its growing web initiatives.
3
2. Self-Assessment Report (SAR)
2.1 The Co-ordinating Committee
The membership of the Library co-ordination committee was as follows:
Chair:
Sean Phillips, Librarian
Representative members:
Michelle Agar, Library Assistant, (Special Collections)
Julia Barrett, Assistant Librarian, (Architecture and Planning Library)
Patrick Brennan, (Library Services Officer)
Anne Conway, Assistant Librarian, (Reader Services, from October 2002)
Peter Hickey, Assistant Librarian, (Reader Services, to September 2002;
Undergraduate Nursing Library, from October 2002)
Celia Kenny, Senior Library Assistant, (Levels 3/4 Main Library)
Valerie McKernan, Assistant Librarian, (Electronic Services/Systems)
Joe Nankivell, Library Assistant, (Level 2, Main Library)
Carmel O'Sullivan, Associate Librarian, (Library Administration)
Mary Riordan, Assistant Librarian (Earlsfort Terrace Libraries)
John Steele, Assistant Librarian, (Blackrock Campus Library)
Fiona Tipple, Sub-librarian, (Bibliographic Services)
Bernadette Tobin, Library Assistant, (Floor Services)
Deirdre Uí Bhrógáin, Library Assistant, (Veterinary Medicine Library)
Co-opted members:
Mary Flynn, Assistant Librarian, (Levels 3/4, Main Library)
Martina Walsh, Library Assistant, (Periodicals, Main Library) - from September 2002
Ben Wynne, Sub-librarian, (Electronic Services/Systems, Main Library) - to August
2002
4
2.2 Methodology Adopted
As described in the Library self-assessment report, the committee met on 35
occasions between 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2003.
The methodology adopted was as follows:
1. A survey of student Library users, carried out in February 2002.
2. A survey of academic staff users, carried out in June and July 2002.
3. A consideration of how the guidelines as to the content of the Self-Assessment
Report might best be applied to the Library. For this purpose the group split
into five working groups, one for each of the five key chapters, to identify the
major issues to be addressed and the critical questions to be answered. The
results of these analyses were discussed at our meeting on 8 May 2002, and
were revised in the light of that discussion to provide an outline for each
chapter of the Report.
4. Two plenary meetings of Library staff, held in June and July 2002, to discuss
the chapter outlines (distributed in advance) and to identify any key topics
which might have been omitted.
5. The writing of the Report in the light of the outcomes from the plenary
meetings and the results of the student and academic staff surveys. For this
purpose each of the five working groups took responsibility for writing the key
chapter which they had analysed.
6. A confidential survey of Library staff in relation to staffing and personnel
issues, arranged by the Chapter 5 group. The group also consulted with the
Senior Management Team, the University Personnel Office, and trade unions
in this regard.
7. A survey of Library staff in relation to Library buildings and their physical
environment, conducted by the Chapter 6 group.
8. The proceedings of the Co-ordinating Committee and other relevant
documentation were communicated to Library staff via the staff intranet
section of the Library website.
5
3. The Site Visit
3.1 Site Visit Programme and Methodology
The Review Group site visit commenced on Sunday, 9th February and concluded on
Wednesday, 12th February with an exit presentation to staff in the Library.
The following groups and individuals were met by the Review Group:
 Librarian
 Library Co-ordination Group
 Library Senior management team
 Library staff not on the co-ordinating committee
 Library users – students, full time and part-time
 Library users – staff
 Library committee representatives
 Branch librarians
 Branch library staff
 Individual library staff meetings, as requested
The Review Group conducted site visits to both the main Library and the majority of
the branch libraries (Earlsfort Terrace, Richview, Carysfort, Veterinary Medicine).
The overall timetable was heavy, but given the extent of the library service the
Review Group considered the number of visits and meetings to be necessary.
3.2 Overview of the Site Visit
The Review Group was impressed with the very high quality of the self-assessment
report and the openness and enthusiasm of library staff in the Quality Assurance
process. Detailed information was available from user surveys, which in the main
commented positively on the services. The Review Group meetings with users were
consistent with the findings of the library survey – i.e. focused on the need for more
materials, research journals and greater access. Branch library users expressed strong
satisfaction with their local services.
6
4. The Review
4.1 The Review Group
The Review Group consisted of:
Professor Michael Monaghan
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
University College Dublin
Chair
Ms. Mary Crowe
Director, Computing Services,
University College Dublin
Rapporteur
Professor Fergus D’Arcy
Dean, Faculty of Arts,
University College Dublin
Cognate
Mr. Murray Shepherd
University Librarian,
University of Waterloo
Extern
Ms. Deborah Shorley
Librarian,
University of Sussex
Extern
4.2 Methodology
The Review Group based its report on the initial self-assessment report prepared by
the Library, together with evidence from the site visit. The report was prepared
during the course of the visit, and an exit presentation containing the main findings
was given to Library staff.
4.3 Review Group's view of the Self-assessment Report
The self-assessment report was very thorough and well prepared. The Library itself
identified key areas for improvement and an overall programme for action. Structures
and planning were a consistent theme in discussions, and Library staff members were
very willing to listen and participate in plans for improvement.
7
5. Findings of the Review Group
The findings of the Review Group, together with commentary and recommendations
are set out under the following major headings:

Background and Context (5.1)

Management and Organisation of the Library (5.2)

Environment of the Library (5.3)

Library Services and Information Resources (5.4)

Budget (5.5)
The Library self-assessment report, identified the main issues and made many
valuable recommendations. The Review Group endorses these recommendations and
has concentrated on prioritising issues for action. This is reflected in the
recommendations in this section of the report, which draw on evidence from the SAR,
and from meetings with customers and staff. We have also taken into consideration
the environment in which the Library operates, and the priorities and changes at UCD
and externally.
5.1 Background and Context
5.1.1 UCD Context
The Library service operates in the overall context of UCD, its changing requirements
and pattern of use. The strategic direction of the University, as set out in the UCD
Research and Teaching/Learning Policy documents impacts materially on the Library,
as do individual Faculty Plans and aspirations.
The principal influences are:

Increased emphasis on research.

Commitment to increased use of electronic materials in teaching.

Changing demographic patterns and falling undergraduate numbers.

Targets for growth in post-graduate numbers.

Research collaboration – both multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional.

Demand for electronic research materials and wider access.

Physical growth of the University and site relocations.
The Library is under pressure to respond to increasing demands and changing
requirements, while continuing to sustain existing services.
8
5.1.2 Library Sector Context
All University Libraries operate in an increasingly global environment.
“The shift is away from the management of physical resources towards exploitation
support and the creation of pathways and links to support our core mission of
learning, research and innovation.”
The SCONUL1 Vision for 2005 spells this out:
We see web portals developing significantly in the context of managed information
environments and formal partnerships underpinning cross-sectoral and multinational consortia. Both learning and research support will have to be organised
on a distributed model to reflect student and staff modes of working, but will need
to be delivered as a seamless system, integrating local, regional, national and
global resources. As boundaries between functions become increasingly fluid, we
can expect staff roles to evolve and expand – or contract – according to
institutional circumstances. There will be opportunities to act as rights managers,
learning advisers and cross-disciplinary brokers for those who can demonstrate
their competence to do so. The ‘Library’ will retain its importance as a physical
place and will be able to consolidate its position by bringing related services into
its space.
5.1.3 The Higher Education sector in Ireland
In Ireland the Higher Education (HE) sector is subject to particular trends which will
impact on all HE Library services.
Learning and teaching

increased student numbers

changing student profile – different skills

more independent and active learning

expansion of e-learning

increased expectations

student as customer

conflicting demands on users’ time

different study patterns e.g. modular students, distance learning
1
Society of College, National and University Libraries. Its members are the universities and national
libraries of the UK and Ireland, and many of the UK's higher education colleges. SCONUL exists to
promote and advance the science and practice of librarianship, and to improve the standards of its
member libraries.
9
Research

Irish Government’s ambitious research agenda

pressure to produce high quality research fast

trend towards partnership projects in all disciplines

need to attract external funding for research
Library and information sector

evolution of hybrid library model i.e. shifting balance between printed and
electronic information sources

increasing emphasis on providing access to global information rather than
on physical collections available in the Library itself

cross-sectoral partnership approaches to the provision of information

new trends in scholarly publishing driven by the digital environment
5.2 Management and Organisation of the Library
5.2.1 Planning in the Library
Findings
There is awareness of recent developments in the broader educational, economic and
information environments.
“Within the Library there is no formal, all embracing methodology or process for
planning library services” (SAR p23).
A vision statement was produced in May 2000 along with a series of objectives to
monitor and drive this vision; the document is known to, but not necessarily owned by
Library staff (SAR p23).
Effective planning within the Library anticipates environmental changes and adjusts
services and facilities accordingly.
Planning services within the Library are not particularly well co-ordinated or
articulated (SAR p24).
Planning at departmental or unit level is (where it exists) not explicitly linked to
overall Library planning (SAR p24).
Commentary on the Findings
The Library is aware that it must plan effectively to meet its objectives of developing
and improving Library services systematically. While the Library is, at one level,
10
aware of the importance of planning, its planning exercises to date have been
characterised by:

inadequate participation

poor ownership by those who will have to implement the plans

inadequate or absence of planning in operational units

poor implementation of plans which have been completed
Recommendations
The Library must build on its awareness of the need for effective planning.
The Library and its operational units need to recognise the essential elements of the
planning process:
Strategic Plans
3-5 years
Tactical Planning
Annually
Operational Planning
Daily
The Library should commission an experienced consultant to initiate the next stage of
the planning process. Likely stages in the preparation of the next plan will include:

A brain-storming session at an off-site location with appropriate staff (not
just the senior management team)

Development of draft mission and vision statements to reflect engagement
with stakeholders and key drivers in the external environment
These documents should be widely circulated or made available on the intranet for
comment. Similar processes might be used in the development of objectives and
targets under a variety of headings. (The UCD planning template provides suggested
headings). Implementation methods and targets should be clearly identified, as should
the member(s) of staff responsible.
All Objectives should be ambitious but achievable. Methods for measuring their
achievement at agreed intervals should be included in the plan. The plan should
include agreed reporting intervals when all operational units (and the Library itself)
would report on progress as measured against the agreed targets and objectives. This
information would provide the basis for annual tactical planning.
5.2.2 Organisation & Structure
Findings
The University Library is generally well regarded throughout the University although
there is a widespread perception that it is no longer able to provide adequate support
for the University’s learning, teaching and research. Library staff members at all
levels are conscientious, committed and loyal to the Library, and take pride in its
11
service to users. But in recent years the level and quality of service they provide has
been compromised by a number of factors, most notably:

Lack of formal planning (as identified in the previous section)

Lack of a coherent organisational structure, resulting in unclear reporting
lines

Lack of a coherent staff development policy

Dysfunctional decision-making processes

Shrinking resources resulting in ad hoc application of staffing cuts

Lack of responsiveness to users’ changing needs
Commentary on the Findings
The protracted restructuring exercise initiated over 10 years ago has still not been
completed. For the past decade there has been no coherent staff structure. This is a
serious source of frustration to many Library staff, and militates against the
constructive teamwork which should prevail in any University library.
The lack of up-to-date job descriptions for most staff has led to excessive and
inappropriate demarcation of jobs and a tendency to build posts (and possibly grades)
round the post-holders, rather than ensuring that the right people are doing the right
jobs at the right grades. There is clear unwillingness to change long-established
practices, and a certain reluctance in some quarters to look outside UCD to take
account of new developments or to find solutions to problems.
In addition, a long-standing lack of clear policy regarding staff development has
prevented staff at all levels from realising their full potential in the rapidly changing
library and information sector.
A number of key issues must be addressed urgently

responsibility for staffing issues confused

very low turnover among professional staff

high turnover in other grades

very few job descriptions – jobs built round people rather than people
appointed to posts if suitable

widespread grading anomalies

unclear reporting lines

lack of management skills among professional staff

occasionally uneasy relationship between Library faculty and clerical staff
12

lack of flexibility in deployment of staff
Recommendations
The Library needs a radical new structure which will enable it to focus clearly on
users. This structure must enable the Library to exploit its resources to ensure that:

Library services are efficient, flexible and able to respond promptly and
effectively to users’ needs

The Library plays a key role in the academic team charged with delivering
the University’s learning, teaching and research
In particular it should:

expand the management role of senior posts

provide clear reporting lines

concentrate resources to provide highest possible service to users

enable professional Library staff to manage teams to deliver services

encourage the professional Library staff to build constructive relationships
with users

ensure that the Library Systems infrastructure supports all library
operations

facilitate the development of the hybrid Library for the University

be receptive to changing needs of users e.g. new curriculum, new ways of
learning and teaching, collaborating with other institutions

allow complex procedures in all areas to be reviewed and simplified

allow for flexible responses to changing demands

foster a team-based approach

encourage innovation
Above all the new structure should empower all Library staff to adopt a user-focused
approach.
5.2.3 Human Resource Management
The Library’s self-assessment report made several important recommendations with
respect to human resources issues; specifically – recruitment, training and
development, participation, career progression, problem resolution, performance
13
appraisal and equity. The Review Group believes that there are three key methods of
addressing these issues:
A.
the clear articulation of an organisational design and development plan,
B.
complete and thorough position descriptions for every unique position
in the Library,
C.
regular formal performance reviews.
A) The Library Organisation Plan
The Library must demonstrate the vertical reporting and horizontal process
relationships. The appropriate vertical structure ensures that responsibilities are clear,
reporting relationships are sensible, career paths are possible, and job succession
works. The right horizontal processes ensure effective co-ordination across library
functions of critical tasks required to support the information needs of the academic
community.
The approach to planning should be based on good practice and library benchmarks.
The plan should articulate detailed divisional structures, the families of work and
individual jobs needed to support the Library’s objectives.
Organisational development is essential to ensure flexibility and momentum. A
number of elements of strategy implementation require continuing attention to ensure
success. Developing policies, training of missing skills and knowledge, building
performance management systems and designing strategy-driven incentives
programmes can be essential for sustained performance.
B) Job Evaluation and Description
The Library needs a common platform to evaluate responsibilities and
accountabilities. Library jobs (not people) should be ranked by level of accountability
they carry in setting and achieving organisational goals and objectives. Work content
should be evaluated against several related factors:
Know-how – job knowledge, skills and competencies required to in a job to
realise its accountabilities and to perform the job in an acceptable manner.
Problem Solving – the level of the thinking process which a job requires, in
terms of initiative and level of complexity, in order to get the job done.
Accountability – the measurable effect of the job on end results. This includes
an understanding and expression of the freedom to act, the scope and financial
impact of the job. A clear representation of reporting relationships is
necessary.
C) Performance Reviews
Department Heads or supervisors should conduct regular written performance reviews
of every library position, at least once a year. Important areas to be measured are:
General Work Performance Factors – for example
Client Service provided to internal/external clients
14
Working Relationships – functions as a team player, flexibility, maintains
constructive relationships with employees/peers/manager
Communication – conveys/shares information with co-workers, supervisors,
etc.
Job Knowledge and Application – quality, effectiveness, thoroughness,
accuracy, productivity, flexibility
Taking the Initiative to make things better – creativity, development and
receptivity to new ideas, making suggestions to make things better, looks for
opportunities to improve the workplace, encourages others to contribute and
communicate their ideas, willingness to accept change
Individual Work Performance Factors – for example
Achievement of goals and objectives – accepts responsibility willingly,
demonstrates sound judgement, initiative and tenacity
Coaching of others – encourages creative approach, risk-taking when
appropriate, allows mistakes and uses as opportunity for development,
provides continuous constructive feedback
Managing Change – contributes ideas
Problem solving – focuses on the issue not the person
Special projects within/across departments
Specialised and technical service
Team management and development
Team participation
Time management
Agreed goals and objectives – for example
Discussion of last year’s goals and objectives
Development of specific skills to enhance performances
Challenges
Staff training and development
An overall assessment or rating – for example
Overall exceptional performance in all areas of the job is recognised
throughout the Library
Performance significantly surpasses the requirements of the job
Fully satisfactory in all key areas
Need for recognisable improvement in one or more key areas
Significantly below job requirements
Working Environment
Staff members need an opportunity to provide feedback to their manager about
adequacy of tools available to do the job, ergonomics of the workplace, training and
15
development opportunities, workload issues, level of communication and feedback
provided by the manager and any other interests or concerns.
5.3 Environment of the Library
5.3.1 Multiple Locations
Findings
The existence of multiple site libraries locations is seen by the Senior Management as
demanding/expensive in terms of human resources to manage.
There is apparently no system of rotation of staff across the library network.
While staff-rotation options across the network are seen by some as useful, others
hold that the specialist expertise in the Branches would be lost. Others believe that
there is a right of fixity of tenure in a particular location and appear to regard any
proposal to transfer as an infringement of rights. Within this category are some staff
members who object that there has been no consultation with them when a proposal to
transfer came forward from Main Library management.
A strong degree of territoriality is expressed by senior staff in the branches, side by
side with contradictory expressions of valuing the local autonomy on the one hand,
with expressed feelings of isolation and neglect on the other. This is not unique to
UCD.
Specifically, there is frustration that physical, structural and systems’ problems can
take a long time to resolve, and that the Branch Librarians do not feel empowered to
take initiatives themselves, with central University services.
A single library for the whole University, however, is not seen as a practical option
given the multiple locations of the teaching and research activities of the University.
Some Branches report special problems with security, access and recruitment. Among
the main problems reported here are:

No security staff to prevent unauthorised access and use of Library
facilities, specifically in Earlsfort Terrace which is said to be used by nonUCD students;

No adequate transport in the evenings to get temporary staff to and from
the Blackrock Campus Library;

No personal security for lone staff at off-peak periods in Blackrock,
Earlsfort Terrace and Richview;

No fire safety practices carried out in Earlsfort Terrace Library for five or
six years. None carried out in Blackrock Campus Library in twelve years;

Strongly expressed feeling reported of absence of regular library visits or
meetings from members of Senior Library Management Team.
16
Commentary on the Findings
There is tension between the Branch Library staff’s sense of autonomy coupled with
expressions of frustration at isolation and perceived neglect. It is difficult to
challenge the view that visits from central management have been few and irregular.
There is no reason to suppose that concerns about security, unauthorised access and
use, lack or inadequate frequency of fire safety drills, and issues of health and safety
are unfounded. On the difficulty of temporary staff recruitment, notably but not
exclusively at Blackrock, due to transport difficulties and payment rates, it is not clear
to the Review Group that recruitment of graduate student temporary staff is out of the
question.
Recommendations:

Fire drills, health and safety issues must be addressed immediately.

Personal security issues at Richview and Earlsfort Terrace should be
investigated by the University authorities with a view to speedy
recommendations to the Librarian, Head of Services and Buildings
Committee.

The Library Management should visit the branches and have recorded
formal meetings with the Branch librarians.

Branch library managers and supervisors should be encouraged to meet
together regularly at the branches and main campus in rotation to talk
about and make positive constructive recommendations to the University
Librarian.

They should also share success stories, best practices and consider ways of
allowing staff members to take turns at other branches and the main
campus, if they chose. Incentives for job exchanges should be considered.

Consideration should be given to the recruitment of suitable graduate
research students for temporary Library duties, given their extensive use in
other important areas of University administrative and service areas.
5.3.2 Infrastructure and Technology Support:
The Library is by definition a provider of information and increasingly a partner in
training, as well as a physically and geographically complex entity, good
communication is vital to the service it provides and to its credibility and reputation.
Central to this concern is its electronic information network and service provision.
Findings
Website: In its relations with the rest of the University and the wider world the
Library website is a major tool. Library staff regard its development over the last
three years as one of the more important and positive Library developments. At the
same time there is concern that it needs to be managed by a full-time member of staff.
17
Electronic Resources: Staff members see electronic resources as vital, though
expensive. There is a strong commitment to the expansion of electronic journal
acquisition and access, while retaining some paper journals, especially back issues.
IT Training and Awareness: Important developments have occurred in IT Training
Facilities in Main Library and in provision of specialist IT area for Humanities and
Social Science research students and staff.
Some staff members have shown admirable initiative in developing useful data bases.
Staff members want to see more training in computer skills.
Among students there is still not much awareness of on-line resources. There is a
demand for more material (lecture notes/reading lists) on-line or linked to library
system.
Branch Library Issues: In the various branch libraries there is serious concern at:

repeated breakdown of electronic systems

delays in getting repair support

Limited internet access for new computers in Richview
Infrastructure: Unreliability of the network infrastructure in the Library is a major
concern, particularly as electronic materials become more important.
Systems Support: General level of dissatisfaction from Assistant Librarians
concerning support internally in the Library and externally from Computer Services.
Commentary on the Findings
There is a high level of satisfaction among Library staff. At the same time there is
extensive dissatisfaction with the effective levels of trouble-shooting support,
especially in the Branches. The need for a quality technology infrastructure for future
developments was cited by staff and users alike.
Recommendations:
The provision of a University-wide reliable network infrastructure is critical to
Library services and should be raised urgently with the appropriate University
funding bodies.
The Library and Computing Services should investigate the identified technology
issues and make specific recommendations for improvement.
The Library should consider the appointment of a web design team with members
from several areas of reader services led by a full-time web designer. This is an area
of no less importance to the user community than cataloguing or reference service.
The move to electronic materials should be accelerated, in line with the stated
preference of users.
The Library should develop, in consultation with relevant UCD services, a systematic,
consultative and consistent approach to information systems and technology training
for its staff. The training programme must be, and be seen to be, designed to support
stated Library objectives and linked to the Library’s Strategic Plan.
18
5.3.3 Space and Facilities
Findings
There is an absence of a UCD plan for Library building development.
Wide changes at UCD (such as the increase in student numbers, and a new emphasis
on research) have taken place without the Library’s involvement.
There is a problem with storage facilities.
There is a need for a structured refurbishment and upgrading plan for existing
buildings.
The original concept of a centralised library has been abandoned for the moment.
The unimpressive (and virtually invisible) entrance to the library which is spoiled by
the presence of a fast food outlet and other commercial activities.
Branch library design compromised by competing demands of other departments.
Layout of the main Library does not reflect current patterns of use.
The library accommodation in Earlsfort Terrace is execrable and unsafe.
Comments on the findings
There is wide variance in the quality of accommodation in the Library.
The issue of storage needs to be addressed.
Recommendations
The entrance to the Library should reflect its central role in the life of the University.
The strategic planning process will identify accommodation needs (including new
buildings and refurbishment) and the likely costs.
Development of strategic alliances with other libraries concerning storage space.
An overall refurbishment plan for library facilities should be established.
Specifics in relation to individual buildings
Main Library:
The entrance to the Library, the entry signage and entry environment is
unacceptable.
There is a need for additional seating space at certain times of the year. There
is a growing critical need for more dedicated computer-access space and for
group-work space.
The storage needs of the main Library need to be audited. Additional storage
space, on the Phillips site, may provide the extra user spaces needed.
Special Collections Library: problems with ventilation and capacity.
No dedicated space for a Research Library.
No printing facilities.
19
Students perceive that there are insufficient photocopiers.
Earlsfort Terrace:
Facilities here for staff in particular and readers in general are extremely poor
and in some cases hazardous.
Blackrock Library:
The lighting and ventilation of the Library are deemed by staff to be
inadequate.
The office and desk working space of the Library staff deemed by staff to be
totally inadequate.
There is no training space for students.
Proposals for moving from its current site to a refurbished church building
would cost up to €4 million but would meet current storage, training,
administration and reading space needs.
Richview:
Conditions for readers extremely cramped in the original Library building.
Facilities in the Urban Institute limited but good.
Serious problems of shelf space creating difficulties for shelvers and therefore
for readers. Need for more shelf and storage space.
Apparently no internet access from Library PCs.
Commentary on individual building findings
The Review Group agrees there are urgent space needs in the Main and Branch
Libraries. The entrance area to the main Library is inadequate. There are health and
safety concerns at Earlsfort Terrace, Blackrock and Richview.
Recommendations:
The storage possibilities of the Phillips site should be maximised.
The 5th Floor of the Library should be restored in substantial part to the Library for
specialised study and training purposes and to meet the needs arising from any closure
or substantial redeployment of materials and services from Earlsfort Terrace.
The Library Entrance should be professionally redesigned as a matter of urgency.
Consideration should be given to the possibility of making the upper floor into a
University graduate/research Library facility.
The Development Office should be asked to seek funding for these projects.
Immediate assistance to be sought from the Buildings Office to resolve the physical
problems in the Branch Libraries.
20
5.4 Services & Information Resources
5.4.1 Services Provided by the Library
Findings
Student view
Students are broadly satisfied with the Library service, although they make the
predictable complaints about shortages of core texts, insufficiently long opening hours
and unsatisfactory photocopying facilities. It should however be remembered that
students currently have relatively low expectations. There is clear evidence that they
are currently not able to exploit electronic resources to the full extent, primarily owing
to practical problems such as a lack of printing facilities etc.
Staff view
University staff express widespread dissatisfaction with the level of library stock
(both electronic and paper-based), particularly to support UCD’s ambitious research
mission. They are seriously concerned that the University’s position is seriously
compromised by its paucity of library resources which they have seen decline badly
over the past decade. There is a predictable difference between the demands of
science researchers whose need is for desktop access to electronic journals and
humanities scholars who decry the diminishing book-stocks.
Among academic staff there is concern at the unavailability of certain key on-line data
bases which are expensive to procure.
Recommendations
The self-assessment report recognises that the Library’s service to its users is
compromised for a number of disparate reasons (p 144). These individual factors
should however not be addressed piecemeal.
Rather there is a clear need to:

undertake a review of all services currently provided in the light of
changing needs and expectations

realign the suite of services provided to accommodate new demands (e.g.
changed opening hours, web based enquiry services etc)

build a flexible infrastructure capable of responding nimbly to changing
needs

establish strong channels of communication with all types of users i.e.
robust communications with faculties

implement robust performance monitoring procedures and modify service
provision as appropriate
Establishing a stronger role for the Library Committee, developing liaison between
library and faculty representatives and implementing real or e-forum for topics of
common interest, would assist in achieving these goals.
21
5.4.2 Information Resources
Findings
The UCD Library contributes to the achievement of the goals of UCD by providing
dynamic and innovative resources access and service that supports the learning
teaching and research needs of the academic community. The broad knowledge and
skill of staff teams support university educational and research activities. The quality
of information services is enhanced through partnerships within and outside
University College Dublin.
Commentary
The Library must have a clearly written, publicly accessible plan for the design,
implementation, analysis and evaluation of information resources management and
development programmes. The plan should includes but not be limited to:

The long-term management and development objectives of UCD Library’s
information resources in all formats

The design, development and expenditure of the Library’s materials and
information access budget

The development of information resource policies and practices, including
consistent collection development and management policies for each
discipline and sub-disciplines (departments/centres)

The co-ordination of such activities as relegation to storage, de-accessioning,
serials review and cancellation.

Defined strategies, principles and guidelines for acquiring and/accessing, and
assessing electronic resources and digital collections

Ensuring that course and programme changes are reflected in collection
management policy and practice

Defined collaborative information resource initiatives, especially new projects
with other universities in Ireland
Recommendations
Two areas of information resource policy and practice require early attention:
1) Constructive Library/University liaison to ensure that the Library is able to
plan for proper support of teaching, learning and research initiatives. Plans
will highlight the feasibility and specific difficulties in satisfying teaching and
research objectives.
2) Collaboration between and among Irish academic institutions for the
consideration and planning of a national site licence for electronic journals.
Investigation of this needs to be initiated and sponsored at the highest possible
level.
22
5.5 Funding and Budget of the Library
Findings
Total Budget
The Library is funded directly by the University and its budget in 2000/01 was 3.9%
of total University expenditure. The information resource budget is 39% of the
Library’s total budget.
Information Resource Budget
Overall feedback from users of the Library (both staff and students) is that insufficient
funding is allocated to information resources. Faculty Library committees are
informed of the budget and take account of it when they prioritise journals and
materials to be purchased or withdrawn. (This budget is based on staff and student
numbers).
While some faculties are reasonably satisfied with the level of materials provided, the
majority feel that there is insufficient funding for purchases, and that this is having an
adverse effect on both research and students.
Undergraduate Materials – Texts
Providing texts for student on short loan is expensive – particularly in areas where
there are frequent revisions to texts/editions.
Research Materials and Information
There is contention between the purchase of books for undergraduate studies and the
supply of journals and books for research purposes. The priority given by UCD in
recent years to the establishment of top class research facilities has not been reflected
in additional resources for the Library. Some new research institutes have provided
space/resources for research collections (e.g. Urban Institute in conjunction with the
Richview Branch Library).
Electronic Materials
Balancing the funding of electronic and print materials (primarily journals) creates a
further tension in the budget. The needs and appropriate media vary across faculties:
– The Science Faculty would favour electronic journals and drop print copy
(subject to effective and reliable access)
– The Graduate School of Business estimates 75% of their material is already
electronic and are very satisfied with this approach
– The Arts Faculty requires much more print material due to unavailability of
resources in electronic format
Funding of Branch Libraries
UCD’s Library is distributed – with the central library and 5 branch libraries.
Branches are funded on the basis of a formula, with funding allocated for purchase of
23
materials. Building up initial stock has been problematic for some libraries, and has
been assisted by faculty fundraising.
Pay versus non-pay Budget
The percentage of the budget allocated to salaries is rising. Concern was expressed
by users that this would further limit the supply of materials and make the Library’s
position more difficult.
Stock
The overall impression from users and Library staff is that the stock (quantity/quality)
is declining. This is attributed to a lack of funding and increasing range of demands
for material requirements – i.e. more research materials, electronic materials etc..
Commentary on the findings
While the Library’s budget is average within the country and close to UK norms, the
issues described above mean that there is significant contention for resources. The
Library has established a very effective service for undergraduate students, and
traditionally devoted resources to this area. Recent changes in focus at UCD and in
the general environment are now placing significant additional demands on resources.
Prioritisation is handled within faculties, based on a declining materials budget, after
pay and other fixed costs are removed. This is resulting in a thinly spread materials
budget and an overall decline in the quality and quantity of stock.
Based on the report and the input from library users, the following cost drivers and
cost management options have been identified:
Cost Drivers

The branch library structure is more costly than a single library (however
user satisfaction with this model is very high and in all but one instance,
physical distance makes library centralisation impracticable)

Increase in research activity and focus at UCD is placing additional
demands on the Library

Extent of service provided to undergraduate students – text books – limits
opportunities for expenditure for research materials

Staff costs are rising disproportionately and compromising the materials
budget
Cost Management Options

Collaboration with other libraries in access to, and purchasing of, materials
– i.e. by specialising in certain areas

Substitution of electronic for print in certain areas
24

Creation of consortial models to secure national deals – particularly of
electronic resources

Review of current priorities e.g. emphasis on provision of texts for
undergraduate students

Use of photo-copied course packs to reduce demand on short loans, within
the constraints imposed by copyright law
Recommendations
Agree priorities at University level, as input to budget allocation.
The University should give high priority to developing collaboration with other
universities and libraries to share resources and spread costs.
The University and Library should continue to expand collective negotiation for
electronic materials.
The University should seek national level input to funding for research information
resources.
25
6. Recommendations and Priorities for Improvement
The detailed findings and recommendations of the Review Group are contained in
Section 5 of this report. These include commentaries on the findings and analysis of
areas of strength/weakness.
The Review Group believes that the most important issue for the Library is to
prioritise areas for immediate action and to create an overall plan which will have the
support of the University and its users.
This section concentrates on identifying priorities and suggests an approach to ensure
the development of an agreed plan of action. The recommendations are summarised
under each of the major areas and identify the priorities for improvement.
6.1 Context

The role of the Library in UCD needs to be clearly agreed, in light of
changing University strategic priorities i.e. its balance and contribution to
both Research and Teaching/Learning objectives.

External collaboration in the provision of materials and access should play
a greater role in the future direction of the Library.
6.2 Management and Organisation of the Library
Planning

The Library should initiate a planning process and enlist external
assistance in preparing its next plan. This should set ambitious, but
achievable, goals.
Organisation & Structure

The Library urgently needs a coherent and agreed organisation structure
which will allow services to respond promptly and efficiently to user
requirements.

This structure should be implemented within 6 months and should
establish clear reporting lines and communication mechanisms.
Human Resource Management
Following from the organisation structure and planning process the Library should:

Establish complete and thorough position descriptions for all posts.

Initiate regular and meaningful performance reviews for all staff.
26
6.3 Environment of the Library
Multiple Locations
The branch library structure is well regarded by users and appropriate to their needs:

The Library must establish clear communications and management roles
which will ensure branch services are fully integrated and supported from
the centre.
Infrastructure and Technical Support
Electronic resources and electronic communication are essential to the Library in
fulfilling its role in the University. The strongly held view of users was that research
journals should be provided electronically – but that the current network infrastructure
was inadequate for this purpose.

The provision of a university-wide reliable network infrastructure is
critical to Library services and should be raised urgently with the
Computing Services Board and appropriate University funding bodies.

The Library should consider the appointment of a web design team with
members from several areas of reader services led by a full-time web
designer. This is an area of no less importance to the user community than
cataloguing or reference service.

The move to electronic materials should be accelerated, in-line with the
stated preference of users.

A more systematic approach to staff IT training within the Library would
address gaps in knowledge and support for existing and future services.
Space and Facilities

The central Library, its entrance and layout, should reflect its role in the
University, i.e. both research and teaching/learning support. It should be
attractive, prominent and accessible to users.

A commitment to move to electronic journals, combined with a planned
storage strategy and collaboration with other libraries should be
established.

Specific issues in relation to individual buildings should be addressed
urgently – particularly those that impact on health and safety.
6.4 Library Services and Information Resources
Services provided by the Library
The current Library services do not adequately reflect the changing UCD strategy and
its increasing emphasis on research. This should be addressed by:
27

Undertaking a review of all services in the light of changing needs and
realigning the services to accommodate new requirements and priorities.
Information Resources

The Library should create a long-term plan for management and
development of UCD’s information resources in all formats. This should
include information resource policies for acquisition, access, development,
storage etc. for each discipline.

A collaborative approach to site licensing of digital material and electronic
journals should be established among Irish academic institutions.
6.5 Funding and Budget

The Library planning process should be used to establish priorities at
university level which will form the basis of its budgeting approach.

A concerted approach with other libraries should be initiated to share
resources and spread costs. e.g. collaboration on licensing of electronic
materials,

agreement on acquisition strategies for specific disciplines.
28
7.
Response of the Library QA/QI Co-ordinating Committee to
the Review Group Report
1.
We would like to acknowledge the efforts which the Review Group put into its
evaluation of the Self-Assessment Report, and its consideration of the views
and concerns which were brought to its attention during the site visit.
2.
We particularly welcome the positive and supportive view of our approach to
the QA/QI Review and the broad endorsement of the Self-Assessment Report
and its conclusions (sections 3.2 and 4.3).
However, a more explicit and emphatic indication of the Review Group’s
opinion of our assessment of the critical issues affecting the future
development of the Library, and of the priority accorded to them, would have
been helpful.
In this response, our main concern is to draw attention to a number of points to
clarify or amplify aspects of the Review Group Report. These comments are
intended to facilitate the ongoing QA/QI process in the University and in the
Library, and to ensure a smooth transition to the quality improvement phase of
the process.
3.
Our first comments concern the site visit. While we appreciate the difficulties
of engaging internal and external reviewers for several consecutive days, we
believe that the three-day period was completely inadequate for an
organisation as complex, as large (180 staff), and as distributed (6 sites) as the
library. We understand that the Review Group must have been working under
very considerable pressure, but it was unfortunate that its visit to the Main
Library was somewhat perfunctory, fitted in at the end of a working day when
most library staff had gone home. As a result, the Review Group had an
incomplete view of the Library’s physical organisation, and of the Main
Library’s dual function in providing central services for the library system as a
whole as well as services to its specific clientele. There was, moreover, little
or no discussion with Main Library staff at their workplaces. We understand
also that many users who met the Review Group during the site visit were
branch library users. We are concerned that these points should be borne in
mind in interpreting the Report’s comment (section 3.2) that “Branch library
users expressed strong satisfaction with their local services”. It should not be
inferred from this comment that Main Library users are not equally satisfied.
The results of the user survey clearly indicate that this is so.
4.
The Report’s comments on student numbers seem to be contradictory, citing
“falling undergraduate numbers” as an influence on changing patterns of use
(section 5.1.1) and “increased student numbers” as a trend which will affect
support for learning and teaching in higher education libraries (section 5.1.3).
29
There needs to be greater clarity about predicted trends in student numbers, in
view of the implications for planning an appropriate balance in the library’s
provision of resources and services to meet the needs of undergraduates and
postgraduates.
5.
We are very surprised to find “lack of a coherent staff development policy”
identified (section 5.2.2) as having an adverse effect on the level and quality
of library service. This was especially strange in view of the extensive and
well-developed staff training and development programme, and the high
degree of satisfaction with it, as expressed in the library staff survey.
We are disappointed to note that while shrinking resources were correctly
identified as contributing to ad hoc staffing cutbacks, there was no reference to
their equally harmful effects on the Library’s acquisitions and information
resources.
6.
We are puzzled by the recommendation (section 5.3.2) that “the Library
should consider the appointment of a web design team with members drawn
from several areas of reader services led by a full-time web designer” in view
of the existence of the Web Development Working Group, with membership
drawn from different Library areas.
In our view, the provision of adequate IT support for the underpinning of all
library services should have a higher priority than web design.
7.
We are disappointed that the Report did not explicitly identify information
skills training as a means of enhancing learner support, in the light of the
proliferation, variety, and complexity of information resources, and the
development of more independent and interactive modes of learning referred
to in section 5.1.
We are pleased at the Report’s general endorsement of the role of library
services in contributing to the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and research
in the university, and its recognition of the role played by library staff in
supporting university educational and research activities (section 5.4.2).
A number of the Report’s comments in respect of the funding and budget of
the Library (section 5.5) may be misinterpreted unless considered in context.
The statement that “while the Library’s budget is average within the country
and close to the UK norms” is true, but only in some respects. For example,
our budget for acquisitions is about 80% of that of an equivalent-sized UK
university library, but our staffing budget is about 60% of the UK equivalent.
Comparisons with the UK need to be interpreted with care, since similarly
sized universities are funded at a level about 60% higher than their Irish
counterparts. The cost base, too, differs in that, for example, Irish university
libraries pay 13.5% VAT on periodicals, compared with the zero rate in the
UK.
30
The identification of “collaboration with other libraries in access to, and
purchasing of, materials” as a cost management option (section 5.5) should,
for the sake of accuracy, have been accompanied by the comment that such
collaboration is already well established, and is the basis on which all
periodicals and the major electronic resources are purchased. Collaboration
does not need to be developed from scratch; what is needed is further
development of existing practice.
We are not convinced by the statement in the Report that “providing texts for
students on short loan is expensive”. On the contrary, our experience is that
short loan provision, while not negligible, accounts for less than 5% of our
total acquisitions and information resources expenditure. For this reason, we
do not agree that “extent of service provided to undergraduate students – text
books – limits opportunities for expenditure for research materials” to any
appreciable extent. Nor are we convinced that the provision of photocopied
course packs, proposed in the Report as a partial alternative to short loans,
would represent a significant cost reduction, given the costs of staff time and
copyright clearance.
In relation to the comment that “the percentage of the budget allocated to
salaries is rising”, we wish to point out the rate at which salaries increase is
less than the rate of increase in the costs of acquisitions and information
resources. In addition, at least some of the increase is due to additional branch
libraries, longer opening hours, and the requirement for systems and IT
support.
9.
With regard to the recommendations and priorities for improvement (section
6), we would have wished the Report to specify the interest groups or
stakeholders between whom “the role of the Library should be agreed”
(section 6.1). In our view such agreement needs to include the Library (as
service provider) the university (as resource provider) and the user
communities.
We would also have welcomed greater clarity as to why “the establishment of
position descriptions” and “regular and meaningful performance reviews”
were chosen as the Review Group’s priorities in human resource management
(section 6.2). It is not evident to us why these aspects of human resource
management should be regarded as more important than the numerous others
which were identified in the Self-Assessment Report.
12 August 2003
31