Today I came to the sad realization that November 15th would have been Sharon Thomas' 16th anniversary at Bobst. Since March I have been sending anniversary cards to celebrate the hire date of all of our colleagues in Access Services. I don't get to send one to Sharon. If I did, I'd thank her for her years of service and commitment to doing an excellent job. I'd also thank her for her continual interest in learning, and specifically for her interest in the Service Excellence Initiative. Service Excellence was a lot of work, and there were times that thinking about Sharon's level of engagement in the program gave me the energy to keep moving forward.
At Sharon's funeral I learned that my understanding of Sharon was pretty much shared by everyone she met: she was a genuinely positive person who cared about other people. I certainly saw this in every encounter I had with Sharon and it made me happy to learn that this is simply how she was--in all aspects of her life. In her eulogy, Sharon's minister talked about how it's easy to be nice to people you like and a whole lot more challenging to be nice to people you dislike. Sharon was nice to everyone. Being nice to everyone doesn't always come naturally but since Sharon's funeral I certainly keep it mind more than I used to. I guess you could say that Sharon is still challenging me to be a better person.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Some problems are NOT here to stay!
This semester, we've seen more patrons loaded into Aleph, patron barcodes being loaded into Aleph, and single sign-on for ILL accounts. These three things may seem small, especially to our users, but for us, they've had a big impact.
Here in ILL, we used to get maybe 20 users a day who needed to have accounts created, updated, or corrected. In the few weeks since Sydney and I sat down with Barnaby Alter (Web Developer), David Perry (Database Administrator), and Scot Dalton (Systems), our routine patrons login problems have disappeared. Another great thing to come out of this was David's load of Medical, Dental, or Law status into a specific field in Aleph, allowing the ILL staff to determine whether the patron has ILL with us or with another library.
It was amazing to work with this group of people toward a common goal: to get things to work correctly. The work was collaborative, we all brought our own skills to the table, and relayed each others' concerns in a way that was exemplary teamwork.
This experience has encouraged me to reach out to others outside of Access Services more often, to look for opportunities to work with others, even if it's just a 2 minute phone call. I've noticed, also, that when I reach out to them, it opens a door for them to reach out to me. They've been calling me with questions, questions that were not asked before probably because they didn't know I existed or what I did, or if I was the correct person to ask.
For all those who are looking to build bridges between Access Services and other departments of the library, I encourage you to start building by actively seeking opportunities to communicate. Communicating is the only way to put our names and jobs and skills on the map for other people, the only way for them to know that we are the right people to ask and that we have the answer they are looking for.
Here in ILL, we used to get maybe 20 users a day who needed to have accounts created, updated, or corrected. In the few weeks since Sydney and I sat down with Barnaby Alter (Web Developer), David Perry (Database Administrator), and Scot Dalton (Systems), our routine patrons login problems have disappeared. Another great thing to come out of this was David's load of Medical, Dental, or Law status into a specific field in Aleph, allowing the ILL staff to determine whether the patron has ILL with us or with another library.
It was amazing to work with this group of people toward a common goal: to get things to work correctly. The work was collaborative, we all brought our own skills to the table, and relayed each others' concerns in a way that was exemplary teamwork.
This experience has encouraged me to reach out to others outside of Access Services more often, to look for opportunities to work with others, even if it's just a 2 minute phone call. I've noticed, also, that when I reach out to them, it opens a door for them to reach out to me. They've been calling me with questions, questions that were not asked before probably because they didn't know I existed or what I did, or if I was the correct person to ask.
For all those who are looking to build bridges between Access Services and other departments of the library, I encourage you to start building by actively seeking opportunities to communicate. Communicating is the only way to put our names and jobs and skills on the map for other people, the only way for them to know that we are the right people to ask and that we have the answer they are looking for.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Communication, Transparency, and Holistic Service
As supervisor of Offsite Storage, a department that works regularly with so many different part of the library, I’ve always had to do a lot of communicating across the divides. Since becoming a part of Access Services, this aspect of my job has become even more pronounced.
I think this is largely due to Offsite Storage becoming more high-profile during the planning of the 2010 Renovation and its resultant need to coordinate related workflows with a larger number of faculty and staff members than ever before.
But I have also come to see it as part of a larger context: the push toward a new “Holistic Service Model” as discussed at the last Division of Libraries meeting a few months ago.
One of the themes that comes up a lot when discussing the “Holistic Service Model” - and which also came up a lot during Access Services' year-long Service Excellence Initiative - is transparency.
Personally, I find that good communication goes hand-in-hand with transparency. Good communication should be as clear as possible in its aims and in the information it is providing. However, this is much easier said than done!
What seems clear to one person might be totally confusing to another. It can be hard to step outside yourself and your own experience, especially when you’re deeply entrenched in the nitty-gritty. This is something that most of us have probably struggled with at one point or another, either at work, at home or in the outside world. It's also something that can always be improved upon. Sometimes all it takes is just that little extra bit of self-awareness and kindness.
Also, making it known that information is out there for all to find - on the Wiki, for example - is easier... done than done? What I mean is, no matter how well-organized and accurate a Wiki page may be, you can never be sure that its intended audience will take the time to consult it. Sometimes this sort of knowledge-gap can be fixed by a simple private e-mail or phone call, too.
I guess I'm taking the long way 'round to saying this:
The “Holistic Service Model” isn't just about making things better for library users, but for ourselves as well. I like to think of Offsite Storage as a good testing ground for this philosophy, since we don't usually deal directly with users but are nonetheless always interested in ways to provide better service - via coordination, communication, transparecy, and plain old friendliness! - to coworkers and colleagues. And I like to think that by doing so, we are indirectly improving upon service to all users anyway!
Now if only I could succeed in setting up simple and transparent mini-workflows during my upcoming maternity leave... :)
I think this is largely due to Offsite Storage becoming more high-profile during the planning of the 2010 Renovation and its resultant need to coordinate related workflows with a larger number of faculty and staff members than ever before.
But I have also come to see it as part of a larger context: the push toward a new “Holistic Service Model” as discussed at the last Division of Libraries meeting a few months ago.
One of the themes that comes up a lot when discussing the “Holistic Service Model” - and which also came up a lot during Access Services' year-long Service Excellence Initiative - is transparency.
Personally, I find that good communication goes hand-in-hand with transparency. Good communication should be as clear as possible in its aims and in the information it is providing. However, this is much easier said than done!
What seems clear to one person might be totally confusing to another. It can be hard to step outside yourself and your own experience, especially when you’re deeply entrenched in the nitty-gritty. This is something that most of us have probably struggled with at one point or another, either at work, at home or in the outside world. It's also something that can always be improved upon. Sometimes all it takes is just that little extra bit of self-awareness and kindness.
Also, making it known that information is out there for all to find - on the Wiki, for example - is easier... done than done? What I mean is, no matter how well-organized and accurate a Wiki page may be, you can never be sure that its intended audience will take the time to consult it. Sometimes this sort of knowledge-gap can be fixed by a simple private e-mail or phone call, too.
I guess I'm taking the long way 'round to saying this:
The “Holistic Service Model” isn't just about making things better for library users, but for ourselves as well. I like to think of Offsite Storage as a good testing ground for this philosophy, since we don't usually deal directly with users but are nonetheless always interested in ways to provide better service - via coordination, communication, transparecy, and plain old friendliness! - to coworkers and colleagues. And I like to think that by doing so, we are indirectly improving upon service to all users anyway!
Now if only I could succeed in setting up simple and transparent mini-workflows during my upcoming maternity leave... :)
Monday, August 9, 2010
Stats
I recently posted to my Facebook page that I was working on the fun part of stats. Immediately a friend replied that she wasn't aware that there was a fun part. Another friend suggested the fun part was when you are done. He was right (although he later confirmed my suspicion that he was talking about the beer you drink when you are done). The data tabulation is a necessary evil: the fun part for me is looking for patterns once all the data is there.
This year's "annual report" is a little different from previous years: the deadline is moved up so it's really an 11 month report (Sept 2009-July 2010). And it's needed urgently so I'll work on the full stats for comparison with last year later. But, I have identified a couple of cool things I'd like to share with you.
Quick Checks:
Our self service check-out machines have been very popular. The account for about 23% of the 326,291 loans we charged out over the past 11 months.
Email Reference:
The Access Sups answered 501 Ask-A-Librarian (email reference) questions on Access Services topics, or about 14% of the total traffic on AAL.
Offsite:
We discarded over 50,000 duplicate volumes (including print journals we have electronically) and sent 253,218 low-use titles offsite. We now have about a million items at our Clancy-Cullen managed facility in Patterson, New York. This year users requested 21,667 items. Although still a reasonable 2% recall rate, this number is three times what it was last year.
Recalls:
28,898 recalls were placed on materials charged out by other users. This means that 9% of all check-outs are recalled. While certainly staggering, this number isn't all that surprising: recalls jumped when we rolled out Aleph, presumably because the request button is more prominent.
Stacks:
Our Stacks staff shelved 532,879 bound volumes and 7,078 current periodicals and newspapers. Last year's numbers appear to be an anomaly, but if you look over the past two years in-house use is down 15% while general reshelving is up 6%.
Microforms:
Microform use is down 18% but is still over 8,000 uses for the year.
Entrances:
I'm still waiting for final numbers on swipes into Bobst (usually they are over a million) but we issues 2,210 collection passes, 14,905 general passes and 9,838 visitor passes for a grand total of almost 27,000 passes, many of which allow multiple entries.
Quick Search:
The number of Quick Searches placed is down about 15% to 2,772. Percentages found on the three searches remains just about the same (58%).
Interlibrary Lending:
We filled 13,444 of the 24,333 requests we received or 55%. Common reasons we are unable to fill requests are that we lack the volume requested (27%), the item is in use or in processing (18%), the item is non-circulating (18%) or the item is not on the shelf (12%).
Interlibrary Borrowing:
We obtained 30,281 of the 40,005 items requested by our users. By far the most common reason we cancel borrowing requests is because we own the item (42%). Other reasons include not being able to fill the request by the user's deadline (13%), or the item is not available from all possible lenders (17%). The number of returnable (book) ILL requests is on the rise: this year 61% of our requests were for returnables.
Reserve:
We processed 1,158 course lists, 4% less than last year. We also created 1012 durable links for professors in 146 courses (that they can then add to their blackboard courses). This number is also down compared with last year.
There is still a lot more to do for our annual report before I get that beer, but I wanted to share some of what I had found out with you.
This year's "annual report" is a little different from previous years: the deadline is moved up so it's really an 11 month report (Sept 2009-July 2010). And it's needed urgently so I'll work on the full stats for comparison with last year later. But, I have identified a couple of cool things I'd like to share with you.
Quick Checks:
Our self service check-out machines have been very popular. The account for about 23% of the 326,291 loans we charged out over the past 11 months.
Email Reference:
The Access Sups answered 501 Ask-A-Librarian (email reference) questions on Access Services topics, or about 14% of the total traffic on AAL.
Offsite:
We discarded over 50,000 duplicate volumes (including print journals we have electronically) and sent 253,218 low-use titles offsite. We now have about a million items at our Clancy-Cullen managed facility in Patterson, New York. This year users requested 21,667 items. Although still a reasonable 2% recall rate, this number is three times what it was last year.
Recalls:
28,898 recalls were placed on materials charged out by other users. This means that 9% of all check-outs are recalled. While certainly staggering, this number isn't all that surprising: recalls jumped when we rolled out Aleph, presumably because the request button is more prominent.
Stacks:
Our Stacks staff shelved 532,879 bound volumes and 7,078 current periodicals and newspapers. Last year's numbers appear to be an anomaly, but if you look over the past two years in-house use is down 15% while general reshelving is up 6%.
Microforms:
Microform use is down 18% but is still over 8,000 uses for the year.
Entrances:
I'm still waiting for final numbers on swipes into Bobst (usually they are over a million) but we issues 2,210 collection passes, 14,905 general passes and 9,838 visitor passes for a grand total of almost 27,000 passes, many of which allow multiple entries.
Quick Search:
The number of Quick Searches placed is down about 15% to 2,772. Percentages found on the three searches remains just about the same (58%).
Interlibrary Lending:
We filled 13,444 of the 24,333 requests we received or 55%. Common reasons we are unable to fill requests are that we lack the volume requested (27%), the item is in use or in processing (18%), the item is non-circulating (18%) or the item is not on the shelf (12%).
Interlibrary Borrowing:
We obtained 30,281 of the 40,005 items requested by our users. By far the most common reason we cancel borrowing requests is because we own the item (42%). Other reasons include not being able to fill the request by the user's deadline (13%), or the item is not available from all possible lenders (17%). The number of returnable (book) ILL requests is on the rise: this year 61% of our requests were for returnables.
Reserve:
We processed 1,158 course lists, 4% less than last year. We also created 1012 durable links for professors in 146 courses (that they can then add to their blackboard courses). This number is also down compared with last year.
There is still a lot more to do for our annual report before I get that beer, but I wanted to share some of what I had found out with you.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Empathy
I can't get Justin's comment from the last, last Access Services meeting out of my mind. When we were talking about the Service Excellence experiences, he mentioned the role of empathy in the service interaction. This is what I was writing about as we kicked off Service Excellence, although I didn't put the eloquent label on it that Justin did.
Just what is empathy and how does it relate to positive interactions? We have too many Star Trek: The Next Generation fans in Access Services to leave out an analogy to Deanna Troi, the empathic counselor who can sense people's emotions. Although Commander Troi is "empathic" as opposed to "empathetic" (she can actually feel the emotions of the people around her) she still serves as a relatable example.
Empathy is the ability to understand the world from another person’s viewpoint and the motivation to treat another kindly based on that understanding. Excellent service isn't about bending rules, waiving fines or smiling (although all of these may be the result of empathy). First and foremost it's about putting yourself in the other person's shoes.
When I think about the most positive service interactions I've had over the years (especially the times when I've been able to turn around a negative interaction) it's always been when I've channeled my inner Troi.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Librarian Stereotype... on the Big Screen and Beyond
I've been thinking a lot, as I often do, about the topics that Jen raised in her last post, on Librarians, Stereotypes, Professionalism, and Pop Culture.
Then earlier today, I came across a new piece on a feminist blog and magazine to which I subscribe:
From the Library: The Librarian Stereotype on the Big Screen
Here, librarian and blogger Ashley McAllister looks at librarian characters in a few famous films through the ages (with clips!), and concludes: "When we see librarians in the movies, they are usually fulfilling the role of a very narrow stereotype."
In my professional experience, the Real World Workplace of the large university library has not had a majority of female staff-members, but has been pretty evenly split. However, most popular stereotypes about librarians and library workers tend to portray them first and foremost as women.
As a well-read feminist, it is hard for me not to get deep into the long and complex history of why that may be the case, or of the general history of Women in Libraries, but I will say that I believe it is very important to debunk these kinds of stereotypes.
How to go about doing so?
That's a whole different story: the story at the heart of Jen's post.
However, where Jen mentions the argument made by some people that "librarians shouldn't complain 'about the deprofessionalization of librarianship... and then do things like this [funny video] and still expect to be taken seriously'", I can't help but point out that in our culture it is most often women who have trouble being taken seriously as professionals in general, and that most of the library professionals in that video also happen to be women.
For me, questions about library work, stereotypes, professionalism, and pop culture are always bound up in questions about gender and sexism. And of course this effects everybody, not just women!
I don't have any answers. Just more food for thought.
Then earlier today, I came across a new piece on a feminist blog and magazine to which I subscribe:
From the Library: The Librarian Stereotype on the Big Screen
Here, librarian and blogger Ashley McAllister looks at librarian characters in a few famous films through the ages (with clips!), and concludes: "When we see librarians in the movies, they are usually fulfilling the role of a very narrow stereotype."
In my professional experience, the Real World Workplace of the large university library has not had a majority of female staff-members, but has been pretty evenly split. However, most popular stereotypes about librarians and library workers tend to portray them first and foremost as women.
As a well-read feminist, it is hard for me not to get deep into the long and complex history of why that may be the case, or of the general history of Women in Libraries, but I will say that I believe it is very important to debunk these kinds of stereotypes.
How to go about doing so?
That's a whole different story: the story at the heart of Jen's post.
However, where Jen mentions the argument made by some people that "librarians shouldn't complain 'about the deprofessionalization of librarianship... and then do things like this [funny video] and still expect to be taken seriously'", I can't help but point out that in our culture it is most often women who have trouble being taken seriously as professionals in general, and that most of the library professionals in that video also happen to be women.
For me, questions about library work, stereotypes, professionalism, and pop culture are always bound up in questions about gender and sexism. And of course this effects everybody, not just women!
I don't have any answers. Just more food for thought.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Librarians, Stereotypes, Professionalism, and Pop Culture
A little bird (one of the students working in ILL) recently sent me a link to a YouTube video featuring students and faculty at the University of Washington's Information School (teaching Library and information Science) doing their rendition of Lady Gaga's "Poker Face." Less than a week later, I saw the link to this video posted on one of our library's internal list servs (lib-all, I think).
In the video, the students and faculty librarians at UWash changed the lyrics to relate to libraries; the chorus lets the world know that they "can use my, can use my, you can use my catalog (don't forget the databases)."
The video is certainly entertaining and good for a laugh. What I found interesting were a couple of comments posted on New York Magazine's website in reaction to the video.
One comment says that librarians shouldn't complain "about the deprofessionalization of librarianship (i.e. people who don't have a library science degree doing 'professional' library jobs) and then do things like this and still expect to be taken seriously."
A self-identified library student then replied to this comment, stating that there's difference between professionalism and having a sense of humor.
In my library school classes, we talk a lot about the level of professionalism in the field of librarianship. There is a drive to publish scholarly articles and make the profession comparable to other professional occupations in law (lawyers), medicine (doctors), etc. I think, though, that the professionalism of librarianship need not confine itself to the standards set by other long-established professional occupations.
Librarians work with a whole host of people in the library, not just "professionals" with Master's degrees. It is the total group, consisting of library student assistants, staff, administrators, professionals and faculty, that projects whatever level of professionalism they wish for their library. We do so by helping patrons and giving them a sense of how we do business, how we treat them, and how we demonstrate to them that we have specialized knowledge that will help them use the library.
What do you think of this video? What do you think patrons at this library would think of this video? What would they think about their library after seeing this video?
Also, should we make a video?
In the video, the students and faculty librarians at UWash changed the lyrics to relate to libraries; the chorus lets the world know that they "can use my, can use my, you can use my catalog (don't forget the databases)."
The video is certainly entertaining and good for a laugh. What I found interesting were a couple of comments posted on New York Magazine's website in reaction to the video.
One comment says that librarians shouldn't complain "about the deprofessionalization of librarianship (i.e. people who don't have a library science degree doing 'professional' library jobs) and then do things like this and still expect to be taken seriously."
A self-identified library student then replied to this comment, stating that there's difference between professionalism and having a sense of humor.
In my library school classes, we talk a lot about the level of professionalism in the field of librarianship. There is a drive to publish scholarly articles and make the profession comparable to other professional occupations in law (lawyers), medicine (doctors), etc. I think, though, that the professionalism of librarianship need not confine itself to the standards set by other long-established professional occupations.
Librarians work with a whole host of people in the library, not just "professionals" with Master's degrees. It is the total group, consisting of library student assistants, staff, administrators, professionals and faculty, that projects whatever level of professionalism they wish for their library. We do so by helping patrons and giving them a sense of how we do business, how we treat them, and how we demonstrate to them that we have specialized knowledge that will help them use the library.
What do you think of this video? What do you think patrons at this library would think of this video? What would they think about their library after seeing this video?
Also, should we make a video?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)