A draft report on the implementation of the General Board’s
Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services with specific
reference to a framework for the working relationship between the
University Library and the Libraries of the Faculty, Department and
Other Institutions
Commissioned by Implementation Steering Group
October 2009
Dr Alan F MacDougall JP, MA, PhD, FRSA
MacDougall Consulting Ltd
xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
02075887520
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
4
SUMMARY
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
5
1.
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND
8
1.1 The General Board’s Review of Teaching and Learning
8
Support Services
1.2 Implementation Steering Group and the present study
8
1.3
The
terms
of
reference
9
2. CONTEXT
9
3. METHODOLOGY
10
3.1
Meetings
10
3.1.1 University Library staff and dependant Library staff
10
3.1.2 School of Humanities (Librarians within the study)
10
3.1.3 School of Humanities and Social Sciences (Officers)
10
3.1.4 Chairman of Review Committee
10
3.1.5 Librarians from other Libraries
10
4.
CRITICAL
SUCCESS
FACTORS
10
4.1 Student experience, expectation and need
11
4.2 One size does not fit all
11
4.3 Framework clarity and transparency
11
4.4 Protect availability and accessibility
11
4.5 Embedded in the Faculty, Department and Institute structures
11
4.6
Equality
of
treatment
11
4.7 Overcoming the building-centric mindset
11
4.8 Transparent collections and services information
11
4.9
Inclusivity
12
4.10
Trust
and
honesty 12
4.11
Scalability
12
5. THE CONSIDERATIONS AND WAY FORWARD
12
5.1
Terminology
12
5.2 Governance, management and reporting considerations
13
5.3 Collections/materials regardless of format, accessibility,
14
availability, location and organisation 5.4 General staffing considerations and benefits
16
5.5
Finance
and
related
transfers
16
5.6 Publicity, promotion and logo
19
5.7 Working parties and ad hoc working groups
19
5.8
Timescale
19
5.8.1
Affiliates
19
5.8.2
College
Libraries
20
6. THE WAY FORWARD
20
Appendix
A:
List
of
interviewees
22
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contribution of all those who spared valuable time to see the Consultant is
acknowledged with thanks. The three Librarians of the Faculties of History,
Economics and Institute of Criminology who offered advice and counsel are
especially thanked.
The Report, however, is the sole view of the Consultant and might, or might not,
necessarily be the views of those three Librarians or any of the staff interviewed.
Grateful thanks are also due to the University Library Secretariat, in particular
Charlotte Ross and Anna Maria Ercolani, who made sure that everything went to plan
and to time.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The remit of this study was:
To explore and consider the most apposite framework/ model and the steps
required to implement the requirements of The General Board’s Review in
which, amongst other things, de facto Director of Library Services and the
University Library should become responsible for the provision and
dissemination of materials for teaching and learning across the University.
In doing so, to carry out appropriate discussion and research so as to:
-indentify the critical success factors
-provide a framework in which the implementation could be delivered
-bear in mind the scalability beyond the initial three libraries
-make recommendations and suggest a timescale
In carrying out the study the Consultant was mindful that agreement had already been
reached that the three Librarians of The Faculties of History and Economics and the
Institute of Criminology, all in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, would be
involved in initial discussions about their Libraries becoming part of a federal library
service for the University of Cambridge.
The Consultant, in addition to the discussion with the three Librarians, interviewed a
further 16 members of the University staff who could either be involved in any
realignment of service, or, might be able to offer some insight.
Arising out of this discussion, desk research and analysis of best practice and
experience the study identified some 25 recommendations which would help the
University to move towards The General Board’s wish that:
“de facto Director of Library Services and the UL should be become
responsible for the provision and dissemination of materials for teaching and
learning across the University”; that “The Librarian will need to work with the
library staff in the faculties and departments to ensure faculty and
departmental libraries can deliver e-learning support to their users.” And in
doing so should bear in mind the “different methods of delivery, working
environments and a closer managerial relationship with the UL”.
The recommendations referred particularly to the three Libraries but were shaped with
scalability to the fore since there was the potential for another 43 Libraries to become
part of the new federal arrangement.
The study recommended that the three Libraries should be known as Affiliate Libraries
and would be part of a newly aligned Library service with a wider term than University
Library; the University Librarian, to be known also as Director of Library Services; the
Director to assume responsibility for the Affiliate Libraries; the Director in turn would
report to Library Syndicate (or what ever term is decreed for the new body
recommended by General Board); the necessary current funding including Trust,
Donations and internal trading accounts, be transferred to the Director of Library
Services and that the University authorities consider the new affiliate relationship in
the Planning Round for 2009. Safety-net provision should also be put in place. It would
be important that the Affiliate Librarians remained embedded in the Faculty and
Institute structures. Overall, the Director of Library Services would recognise one size
does not fit all in any federal arrangement and would look for a flexible and light touch.
A range of recommendations were also made about the need for there to be a change
of mindset from an building-centric approach to one of provision of services for
teaching and learning across the University and the Affiliate Libraries. This would be
carried through by potential restructuring; a new approach to subject specialisation;
rethinking about the technical services provision; the potential for staffing continuity;
succession planning and the significant opportunity for the Affiliate Libraries, together
with the University Library staff, to contribute and influence the strategic and
operational service across the University Libraries.
The report emphasises the key importance of protecting the future services to the
student and staff and ensuring the accessibility and availability including opening
hours, appropriate selection, organisation and deployment of materials.
As noted by The General Board, the significant potential for effecting long term
efficiencies and economy might require short or medium term injection of additional
funds; reference is made to that need as well.
4
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
That the Economic, History and Institute of Criminology Libraries be designated
“Affiliate Libraries” and that this title should be used for all subsequent Libraries that
become part of the proposed federal Library arrangement. Further, that the University
Librarian (henceforth known as Director of Library Services as recommended by the
General Board) considers a change of terminology for the presently titled “dependent
libraries” since there may be little reason to differentiate between the new designated
Affiliate Libraries and the dependent libraries.
Recommendation 2
That the Director of Library Services may wish to reflect upon the new relationship with
Affiliated Libraries by adopting an inclusive over-arching title to reflect the new wider
Library service
Recommendation 3
That the overall responsibility for the governance will be assumed by the new
Syndicate ( NB the recommendation of the General Board Review was that the present
University Library Syndicate should be merged with the General Board’s Committee on
Libraries) through the Director of Library Services. The Chair of Faculty would
therefore no longer have the responsibility for a Faculty, Department or Institute
Library.
Recommendation 4
That the Faculty, Department or Institute be encouraged to retain the Affiliate
Librarians within the existing School structures/committees
Recommendation 5
The Affiliate Librarians should report through an appropriate senior Library officer to
the Director of Library Services
Recommendation 6
That the opportunity afforded by the incorporation of Affiliate Libraries be used to
encourage a new culture of thinking and purpose across the libraries
Recommendation 7
That the Director of Library Services considers the potential for a subject approach
which would embrace the Affiliate Libraries as well as the University Library
Recommendation 8
That the potential for placing appropriate legal deposit items within the Affiliate
Libraries be considered
Recommendation 9
That the Director of Library Services should, at an early stage, consider setting up a
working group, including representation from the Affiliate Libraries, University Library,
and others of relevance, and with appropriate terms of reference, to make
recommendations on a more effective redeployment of materials and resource for the
pursuit of better accessibility and availability to the student and staff community
across Cambridge University
Recommendation 10
That, in any review and restructuring, the potential for creation of posts as Heads of
area which take into account subject groupings be considered
5
Recommendation 11
That the effective and efficient redistribution of materials to provide an improved
coordinated coverage, accessibility and availability, be accompanied by appropriate
additional resource
Recommendation 12
That the Director of Library Services explore the potential with the University Library
and Affiliate Libraries for agreed optimum opening hours which would protect the
accessibility and availability of material within cost effective resource provision.
Recommendation 13
That the Director of Library Services, in any subsequent strategic review, which would
include affiliate representation, should bear in mind the potential for a realignment of
front-of-house and back- of- house across the new library service arrangement (that is
including the Affiliate Libraries)
Recommendation 14
That the Director of Library Services be mindful of the specialist expertise that the
University Library staff and Affiliate Library staff would bring to the new service, the
potential for promotion, training and development opportunities and the enrichment of
service to the staff and students of the University by involvement in the planning of the
future service and the benefit for continuity of service and succession planning
Recommendation 15
That attention will need to be given to the provision of additional resource for human
resources and financial administrative support as the number of Affiliate Libraries
increase
Recommendation 16
That the funds presently granted to the Faculty, Department and Other Institutions
(calculated over the average expenditure over the past 5 years) be transferred to the
Director of Library Services for the financial year 2010 -2011 onwards. The sum should
include provision for the finance given from Trust Funds, Donation Funds and internal
trading accounts
Recommendation 17
That the Director of Library Services should receive safety-net funding to protect
against the shortfall of funding for the University Library and Affiliate Libraries should
a reduction or 0% increase be applied to its budget in the coming years
Recommendation 18
That where appropriate service level agreements concerning heating, lighting,
cleaning, maintenance of the building, fixtures and fittings, furnishing be identified and
future funding agreed with the Faculty, Departments and Other Institutions and that
whatever arrangements made to ensure that the University Library would not be able to
take on such commitments without guaranteed recurrent funding
Recommendation 19 That the type and cost of IT equipment, associated maintenance and computing
support be identified and agreement reached with the Faculties, Departments and
Other Institutions. The University Library would not be able to take on this additional
cost without recurrent financial subvention
Recommendation 20
That the Director of Library Services consider the desirability of providing clear and
transparent on-going information about the new services following the addition of the
affiliate libraries.
6
Recommendation 21
That the Director of Library Services may wish to consider the desirability of a new
logo being commissioned which more accurately reflects the new service provision
Recommendation 22
That, with regard to the detailed arrangements required for the new relationship, the
Director of Library Services draws upon the expertise from the University Library staff
and the Affiliate Library staff through the medium of working parties and ad hoc
working groups with appropriate terms of reference
Recommendations 23
The Economics, History and the Institute of Criminology Libraries assume Affiliate
status in August 2010 and that the time before then be used to progress the detailed
requirements to ensure a smooth transition
Recommendation 24
That the University authorities be requested to consider the three Affiliate Libraries, in
conjunction with the University Library, for the 2009 Planning Round (referring to the
year 2010-2011)
Recommendation 25 That the new Library Board give consideration to the closer working relationship
between the newly formed wider Library Service and the College Libraries
7
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 The General Board’s Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services
The General Board’s Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services examined
the University’s provision for the support of teaching and learning and made
recommendations for the future which included: the provision of high quality and cost
effective pedagogic support services. The July 2008 report covered the UL, the UCS,
the Language Centre and CARET as well as the coordination of pedagogic support.
One specific area of the review was the development of the University Library
system. The Report stated that “The UL has traditionally supported the research
needs of postgraduate students and academics whilst the Faculty and Departmental
Libraries have primarily supported undergraduate teaching”. The point was made that
this distinction had been breaking down especially with regard to electronic books,
journals and online access to some teaching materials.
The Report observed “the current structure of independently run Faculty and
Departmental Libraries does not permit the delivery of a coherent strategy, and those
libraries are often keen to maintain their independence. They have considerable
resource, including staff resource, which could be redirected in response to changing
needs if necessary; similar skills in organising information were thought to be required
in an electronic environment”
The Review, inter alia, reported that it considered:
(i)
The role of the University Librarian should be rapidly developed to become a
de facto Director of Library Services and the UL should be become
responsible for the provision and dissemination of materials for teaching and
learning across the University.
(ii)
Consideration should be given to merging the work of the UL Syndicate and
the General Board’s Committee on Libraries into a single Syndicate which is
able to work with, and develop with the University Librarian, a strategic vision
which will ensure, amongst other things, that the UL can deliver the e-
information and e-learning support for the University’s institutions.
(iii)
The Librarian will need to work with the Library staff in the Faculties and
Departments to ensure Faculty and Departmental Libraries can deliver e-
learning support to their users. Different methods of delivery, working
environments and a closer managerial relationship with the UL should be
considered.
`
There were also a number of other recommendations more geared towards UCS,
CARET and the Language Centre.
The Review also recognised that economies of scale would be possible and that it
was likely there would be a need to provide some funding to enable restructuring in
the short and possibly the medium term.
Recommendation 5 stated:
The UL should be given a more pro-active role in the organisation of Faculty and
Departmental libraries and liaising with College Libraries with the aim of providing
cost-effective, high quality delivery of Library and e-information services through the
Librarian acting as Director of Library Services.
1.2 Implementation Steering Group and the present study
The Implementation Steering Group was then to translate the General Board’s
Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services in to a practical reality. It
identified, in light of the fact that the Council of the School of Humanities and Social
Sciences was already considering ways of coordinating Library resources, that this
was an opportune moment to examine models for working together. Consequently,
the Librarians from the Faculties of Economics and History and the Institute of
Criminology agreed to begin work on proposed models for working with the University
Library.
8
Taking into account the background above, MacDougall Consulting Ltd, which has
previously carried out three reviews of sections within the University Library, and had
acted as a facilitator to the strategic planning exercise, was asked to undertake a
study
This present study concentrates on the aspects above and does not deal with matters
related to UCS, CARET, or The Language Centre which are the subject of separate
consideration.
1.3 The terms of reference
The terms of reference required for this report were as follows:
To explore and consider the most apposite framework/ model and the
steps required to implement the requirements of The General Board’s
Review in which, amongst other things, de facto Director of Library
Services and the University Library should become responsible for the
provision and dissemination of materials for teaching and learning
across the University.
In doing so, to carry out appropriate discussion and research so as to:
-indentify the critical success factors
-provide a framework in which the implementation could be
delivered
-bear in mind the scalability beyond the initial three libraries
-make recommendations and suggest a timescale
The report is to be submitted to the University Librarian by the end of
the first week in October 2009.
.
2. CONTEXT
The total Library direct expenditure in the University and Colleges is presently over £20
million p.a. Within the University Libraries about 75% of the £18.5 expended (2007/08) and
75% of the 440 FTE staff are in the University Library and its four dependent Libraries.
Outside the University Library and its dependents, 46 Faculties, Departments and other
institutions have their own Libraries. The College Libraries form their own constituency.
The comprehensive fulfilment of the implementation of the General Board’s report would
involve potentially 46 Libraries. It would be a large undertaking which would be difficult to
achieve in one step; the initial smaller grouping of three Libraries, identified by the
Implementation Steering Group, is a sensible first step. Matters of potential scalability could
also then be taken into account.
Accordingly, this study, carried out between June 2009 and September 2009, concentrated
on a framework for integrated and joined-up thinking covering three Faculty, Departmental
and Institute Libraries in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences. All three Libraries are
geographically close to the University Library being located on the Sedgwick site. The
Libraries mentioned above
viz: the Libraries of the Faculties of History and Economics and
Institute of Criminology were identified and agreement was given to be part of the study.
Detailed financial profiles are listed the table in Section 5.5 below. The Libraries offer a blend
and range of services to research and undergraduate communities; a combination of online
digital and traditional print material; collections which have patterns of intensive and quiet
periods of use over the year and all have professionally qualified Heads of Libraries. In the
School of Humanities and Social Sciences there are presently thirteen Libraries: in addition to
the three Libraries in the review a further three have professionally qualified Librarians at their
head and a further seven are overseen by unqualified staff. The seven Libraries could include
part time and/or casual members and may offer a more limited range of services. All thirteen
Libraries in the School are individually striving to offer the best service possible within the
constraints of the financial resource base.
9
3. METHODOLOGY
The consultant carried out desk research, gathering together relevant documents and
information. This was followed by meetings with a range of interested parties and key
stakeholders within the constraints of time available to undertake the study. Finally, time was
allocated to review and report writing.
3.1 Meetings
The meetings are summarized as follows:
3.1.1 University Library staff and dependent Library staff
In the first instance, meetings were held with the University Librarian and the
Acting Deputy Librarian. During the study, six separate meetings were also
held with University Library staff who were either already involved, or, were
likely to be involved, in close collaboration and cooperation with the libraries
of the faculties and departments. In addition, interviews were held with two
staff from the dependent Libraries of the University.
3.1.2 School of Humanities (Librarians within the study)
The General Board had already obtained the agreement of the three out of
the thirteen Libraries in the School. Accordingly, MacDougall Consulting Ltd
worked closely with these Librarians from Faculty of History, Faculty of
Economics and the Institute of Criminology. The extremely helpful discussion,
advice and support during the span of the research from the three Librarians
should not be inferred as anything but the Librarians acting in the highest
professional manner looking to ensure that there would be a balance,
informed and considered report. This Report, however, is the considered
view of the Consultant and might, or might not, necessarily reflect the
opinions of the three Librarians.
3.1.3 School of Humanities and Social Sciences (Officers)
Meetings were also held with other key people who could inform the process:
these included the present and incoming Chair of the School of Humanities
and Social Sciences and the Secretary of the School. Invitations to
discussion were passed through the Librarians of Economics, History and
Criminology to the Chairs of the Faculty and Institute. The Librarians reported
back that their Heads would be content for the discussion to continue to take
place between Librarian and consultant during the compilation of the Report.
3.1.4 Chairman of Review Committee
A meeting was held with the Chairman of the General Board’s Teaching and
Learning Support Services Review
3.1.5 Librarians from other Libraries
In addition, those with useful experience were also met, for example, the
Librarian of the School of Education
and the Librarian of the Business School
who had also been the Faculty Librarian in Oxford and thus added knowledge
of the Oxford experience of assimilation of schools and faculties within a
realigned Library service.
In all some 19 members of the staff of Cambridge University were interviewed at least once
during the course of this study.
(
See Appendix A for a list of names).
4. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
The terms of reference for the study required the detailing of critical success factors. Without
understanding or recognition of the critical success factors the implementation process might
be somewhat hindered but if accepted would help to smooth the way to a successful
integration of the various Libraries.
Notwithstanding, it emphasises that in the final instance any implementation plan would
require of only the buy-in and commitment of the School and the Heads of Faculty,
Departments and Other Institutions but also the Library staff involved in the process. It is
these staff who can make and break any arrangement, however well crafted and detailed.
The need to register the Library staff aspirations and motivations within the overall demands
of the staff and student community is therefore borne in mind when compiling the critical
success factors detailed below.
10
The critical success factors were derived from the detailed discussion with staff and the
experience of best (and worse) experience elsewhere.
4.1 Student experience, expectation and need
Above all, there must be recognition that the delivery of a seamless and integrated
teaching and learning service, under the aegis of a Director of Library Services, has
to be driven by the students’ experience, expectation and need within a realistic
financial framework
4.2 One size does not fit all
There has to be a transparent recognition and declaration that, in any process of
seamless integration, a one size solution cannot fit all circumstances. In other words
there is a requirement to recognise local day-to-day operation and the need to have
an agreed level of local autonomy within a wider framework of a Library service for
the University. The presently named “dependent Libraries “ offer some insight into the
way that the procedure works at present, Clearly, there will need to be core standards
but the light touch from the Director of Library Services will continue to be required
along with need to capture and retain valued informality and flexibility.
4.3 Framework clarity and transparency
Notwithstanding, there will need to be clarity and transparency within an overall
framework of governance and operational processes; a framework which is clear,
both to the benefit of the potential user, and to the Library staff supplying that need. It
would need to be teased out and promulgated.
4.4 Protect availability and accessibility
There needs to be recognition of the reality of economic constraints; stagnation is not
an option, and the risk of the consequences of “death by a 1000 cuts”. It will be
necessary to act proactively to protect the availability and accessibility to a
comprehensively maintained range of services and materials thus ensuring the
continuance Cambridge University’s world-class status. This prioritisation will best
serve to ensure that community’s needs are protected.
4.5 Embedded in the Faculty, Department and Institutes structure
There will be a continuing need to ensure those Libraries which become part of the
integrated service remain embedded in the structure of the Departments, Faculties
and other Institutions within which they are located.
4.6 Equality of treatment
All of the Library staff regardless of their affiliation (University Library, Faculty,
Department and Other Institutions) are of equal status in the provision of the service
and share the role in satisfying the need of the University’s community. All Library
staff in Cambridge will need to rethink their audience
viz thinking inclusively about the
needs of a unified Cambridge rather than exclusively about one specific area.
4.7 Overcoming the building-centric mindset
The understandable present building-centric perception/mindset of service by Library
staff has to be overcome in favour of a coordinated University-wide access and
availability to comprehensive information /materials (and differing structures). The
days of attempting to provide comprehensive access and availability of resource
within one building is over, notwithstanding the benefits offered by electronic
provision. There will need to have some recognition that, on occasions, the user will
have to travel to more than one Library for their service.
4.8 Transparent collections and services information
A recognition that there is a continuing blurring of research and undergraduate
collections and that it is no longer possible to segregate collections and materials
along these lines but, notwithstanding, there is a need to provide a clear and
transparent collection and information resource policy, namely the availability and
accessibility of the material so that the community have a clear understanding of
where collections, regardless of format, are located.
11
4.9 Inclusivity
That Library staff, becoming part of an integrated University-wide service provision,
will all have the potential to be part of the strategic and operational development of
the entire service and are thus part of the strategic and operational planning and
development process.
4.10 Trust and honesty
The success of any such affiliation has to be based on trust, honesty of intention and
confidence.
4.11 Scalability
Any model or framework for the introduction of the implementation will need to be
scalable and relevant to the Libraries beyond the initial three Libraries.
These critical success factors would have to be recognised and accepted if there were to be
any real progress of implementation of The General Board’s Review in Cambridge. The way
forward and recommendations flow directly from these critical success factors.
5. THE CONSIDERATIONS AND WAY FORWARD
The first consideration is the relationship between the University Library and the Faculty,
Departmental and Other Institution Libraries in any new arrangement recommended by The
General Board.
The critical success factors highlight the importance of a framework, equality of treatment, the
need to consider beyond the building-centric mentality and the requirement to rethink
fundamentally the mindset concerning the availability and accessibility of comprehensive
materials regardless of format and levels of service.
The objective would be to ensure that students and staff of the University will be entitled to a
shared Libraries resource which offer a transparent and coordinated service delivered to
relevant standards. Users will be demanding access to available material and services at the
appropriate time and not barriers to access and success. The recommendations identified
below go someway to meet that aspiration. An aspiration which will require new thinking, a
radical shift, strengthening of availability, selection, acquisition , storage, accessibility of
service and elimination of unnecessary duplication. This is all within the context of the
potential for local services which still retain levels of agreed autonomy of action, flexibility and
individuality of service. This presents the opportunity for proactive action both locally and
across the new service rather than the risk of fragmented uncoordinated service divorced
from consideration of cost benefit.
An impression may be created that the present deployment of resources between the
University Library and the rest of the Libraries is fragmented. However, this is only partially
accurate since there is an important degree of underlying infra-structural support provided by
the University Library to the 46 Libraries and beyond. At the present time members of the
staff of the University Library, at some cost, support the Departmental, Faculty and Other
Institutional Libraries, for example, in respect of Voyager Library Management system and
related activities.
Any new federal arrangement should be accompanied by appropriate titles and terminology,
hence the first two recommendations.
5.1 Terminology
The University Library has to reflect on its new relationship with the intended libraries.
It may wish to consider the term “Affiliate Libraries” as a more relevant and
expressive term reflecting the new relationship. Further, this term might be extended
to the presented named “dependent libraries”. In doing so the University should also
consider a more inclusive and comprehensive overarching title for the new
arrangement; a term such as “Cambridge University’s Library Services” or perhaps
“University of Cambridge Library Services” might be considered but the decision
should be left for the Director of Library Services to determine.
12
Recommendation 1
That the Economic, History and Institute of Criminology Libraries be
designated “Affiliate Libraries” and that this title should be used for all
subsequent Libraries that become part of the proposed federal Library
arrangement. Further, that the University Librarian (henceforth known
as Director of Library Services as recommended by the General Board)
considers a change of terminology for the presently titled “dependent
libraries” since there may be little reason to differentiate between the
new designated Affiliate Libraries and the dependent libraries
Recommendation 2
That the Director of Library Services may wish to reflect upon the new
relationship with Affiliated Libraries by adopting an inclusive over-
arching title to reflect the new wider Library service
5.2 Governance, management and reporting considerations
The existing Library governance arrangements in Faculties, Departments and
Institutes (see below) embed the Librarians in the relevant structures and
committees. As such there are no specific Library committees but Library matters are
considered in the appropriate committees on which the Librarian is either a member
or in attendance. The Librarians are embedded in the life and work as members of
the appropriate Board or committee, for example, management, academic, teaching
and learning, research, strategic, resource, communications, student :staff
committees. This had proved to be an excellent arrangement, and in any new
integrated Library service, where the Director of Library Services would be the
reporting officer with responsibility, it would be very important that committee
attendance by the Affiliate Librarians would continue within the Faculties,
Departments and Other Institutions structures so that valuable feed back and
comment could continue to be guaranteed. This model should be used as the
recommended starting point for other Libraries joining as an Affiliate Library.
Recommendation 3
That the overall responsibility for the governance will be assumed by
the new Syndicate (NB the recommendation of the General Board
Review was that the present University Library Syndicate should be
merged with the General Board’s Committee on Libraries) through the
Director of Library Services. The Chair of Faculty would therefore no
longer have the responsibility for a Faculty, Department or Institute
Library
Recommendation 4
That the Faculty, Department or Institute be encouraged to retain the
Affiliate Librarians within the existing School structures/committees
It would not be practical, or indeed sensible, in management terms, to have up to 46
Affiliate Librarians of varying levels and responsibilities reporting directly to the
Director of Library Services but a measure of coordinated and efficient reporting
procedures will be required
The present University Library would need to analyse its operational efficiency within
this new structure. It would need to embrace the possibilities within any strategic and
operational review. In this event it would be important to ensure that the reporting
structures are managerial effective and efficient. The reporting arrangements for the
Affiliate Librarians would need to be developed taking into account new structures
and the appropriate knowledge and skills base. Should the Director of Library
Services opt for a new subject arrangement for staffing then this would influence the
type of reporting and job possibilities (see section 5.3 below) but in any event it would
prudent for the Affiliate Librarian to be reporting through a senior Library officer to the
Director of Library Services. Similarly, it would not be appropriate for 46 Library staff
to attend the Senior Management Team (SMT). Much will depend on the new
13
structure adopted by the Director of Library Services and it is not therefore
appropriate to recommend any framework regarding SMT at this early stage.
Recommendation 5
The Affiliate Librarians should report through an appropriate senior
Library officer to the Director of Library Services
5.3 Collections/materials regardless of format, accessibility, availability,
location and organisation
The realignment of Libraries on becoming affiliates offer the University, its staff and
students real potential of obtaining coordinated collections, better availability and
accessibility of service provision. Succinctly, where appropriate, the Librarians of the
Affiliated libraries and the University Library would become part of a coordinated
Library service for the University rather than disaggregated collection of libraries with
separately occupied discrete buildings and discrete collections.
More specifically:
The new Affiliate arrangement will permit the fostering of a new culture of thinking
where all the Library staff, in the Affiliated Libraries, and all the staff in the University
Library, would be regarded as being equal contributors in and to a unified service. As
such all would be part of the fundamental thinking for any new operational and
strategic plan
The newly integrated service would offer the potential, where appropriate skills and
knowledge exist, for the new service to move towards a subject orientated approach,
regardless of format, across the University Library and Affiliate Libraries. More
specifically, Affiliated Librarians could be considered for a subject-wide responsibility
across the Libraries. At this time the University Library does not cater for this
approach. It relies on language specialists who might also have a vital role in any
subject review. This would be particularly beneficial at a time when the division
between teaching/learning and research is becoming increasing blurred in library
materials terms (print and electronic). Also one might bear in mind that “teaching is
research led”. There could be grounds, in certain circumstances, for appropriate legal
deposit material to be placed in the Affiliate Libraries. Collection development policies
exist in the more established Faculty, Departmental and Others Institutional Libraries.
These policies could be reviewed and blended in with the existing University Library
collection development to form a new dynamic policy.
Recommendation 6
That the opportunity afforded by the incorporation of Affiliate Libraries
be used to encourage a new culture of thinking and purpose across the
libraries
Recommendation 7
That the Director of Library Services considers the potential for a
subject approach which would embrace the Affiliate Libraries as well as
the University Library
Recommendation
8
That the potential for placing appropriate legal deposit items within the
Affiliate Libraries be considered
This new service would allow the potential scope for the collections to be re-
examined across the Libraries with a view to providing comprehensive and
appropriate coverage in times of diminishing resource. The case for a working
Party, with appropriate terms of reference, could be made to facilitate this process. It
would also offer the opportunity to reduce unnecessary duplication, save space,
reallocate space and materials and create space to allow additional faculty Library
collections to be accommodated, or placed in close proximity, to other collections.
This rationalisation would assist in the relevant accessibility and availability of
collections to the University community. The opportunity provided by the addition of
three Affiliate libraries would immediately offer the potential for a review of materials
between the University Library and the Sedgwick site Libraries, and for other
collections, if so deemed by the University authorities. In a report of this type the
14
detail could not be defined but the Affiliate Librarians could be to the fore in shaping
the future shape of the collection development. Nonetheless, there may be a case for
the creation of posts as Heads of areas which take into account subject groupings.
Any fundamental review of this kind will inevitably involve the expenditure of resource
both to restructure at a senior level and to obtain suitable help at lower levels, for
example, to analyse use, transfer of materials and re-catalogue/change records. The
General Board made reference to the possible additional expenditure of resource to
effect short term and possible medium term changes; this area would be a prime
candidate for financial subvention.
Recommendation 9
That the Director of Library Services should, at an early stage, consider
setting up a working group, including representation from the Affiliate
Libraries, University Library, and others of relevance, and with
appropriate terms of reference, to make recommendations on a more
effective redeployment of materials and resource for the pursuit of
better accessibility and availability to the student and staff community
across Cambridge University
Recommendation 10
That, in any review and restructuring, the potential for creation of posts
as Heads of area which take into account subject groupings be
considered
Recommendation 11
That the effective and efficient redistribution of materials to provide an
improved coordinated coverage, accessibility and availability, be
accompanied by appropriate additional resource
In conjunction with the better redeployment of materials there would also be the
opportunity to review and protect the services to the student community by ensuring
coordinated opening hours between the University Library and the Affiliate Libraries.
At present there is an uncoordinated approach to the provision of opening hours.
The Affiliate status and reporting procedures could be used to good purpose so that a
coordinated provision could protect and guarantee opening on an apposite and
systematic basis. This has more relevance as more Libraries obtain the same online
facility while there is some evidence to suggest that students wants quiet study space
and not always specific material during the evening hours.
More specifically the University Library and the three Affiliate Libraries on the
Sedgwick site could agree and source opening hours which would ensure agreed
levels of availability and accessibility within optimum resource costs.
Recommendation 12
That the Director of Library Services explore the potential with the
University Library and Affiliate Libraries for agreed optimum opening
hours which would protect the accessibility and availability of material
within cost effective resource provision
There would also be the potential to explore how the Affiliate Libraries could protect
the front-of-house service support and explore the potential to reduce workloads that
might be done more efficiently (economies of scale) by a technical support team
employing appropriate technology within the overall new service. The potential for
such matters as ordering, cataloguing, classification, standard of cataloguing
records, standards in general, shelf-ready material as well as many other areas
could be determined by this new grouping. In any such arrangement it would be
necessary to ensure that Affiliate/subject material was not held up in backlogs and
identified for fast tracking. It would also be hoped that the realignment of back-of-
house services would allow a more targeted efficiency and might give an added
impetus to increased standardization of cataloguing records and the possibility of a
faster turn round time (a study would be needed).
15
Recommendation 13 That the Director of Library Services, in any subsequent strategic
review, which would include affiliate representation, should bear in
mind the potential for a realignment of front-of-house and back- of-
house across the new library service arrangement (that is including the
Affiliate Libraries)
5.4 General staffing considerations and benefits
The staff in the model being advanced should be afforded equal treatment whether in
the University Library or affiliate libraries. It thus follows that the Affiliate staff who
retain their contractual rights and conditions of service would also benefit from being
afforded clearer and more obvious opportunities for promotion and, where
appropriate, be able to be considered for transfer to other jobs to provide more
rounded career opportunities and development. This should assist the service in
underpinning the potential for continuity of staffing and succession planning. The
University will therefore benefit from retaining and developing a wider pool of staff
drawn from the University Library and Affiliate Libraries
The Affiliate Library staff would also be able to avail themselves of the support in the
areas of human resources and administrative support. As more Affiliates join there
will be a need to explore additional human resource and financial administrative
support.
It would also be an excellent opportunity for staff in the University Library to acquire
and share specialist information and advice from the Affiliate Library staff and vice
versa.
The new service model will also offer Affiliate Library staff wider training and
development opportunities and permit them to enrich the process by offering their
expertise too.
Further, the new model with the inclusion of Affiliate Libraries will also enrich the
strategic planning process for the new library services of the University.
Recommendation 14
That the Director of Library Services be mindful of the specialist
expertise that the University Library staff and Affiliate Library staff
would bring to the new service, the potential for promotion, training and
development opportunities and the enrichment of service to the staff
and students of the University by involvement in the planning of the
future service and the benefit for continuity of service and succession
planning
Recommendation 15
That attention will need to be given to the provision of additional
resource for human resources and financial administrative support as
the number of Affiliate Libraries increase
5.5 Finance and related transfers
The predicated new model and opportunities proposed above is not only dependant
on the need for a Director of Library Services but also on there being a guaranteed
and protected stream of revenue with which the Director can administer support to
the new Library service.
The University Library would not have sufficient funds within its own remit to support
the newly designated Affiliate Libraries.
The thirteen Libraries of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences Libraries have
had an allocation of the order of approximately £1.5 million annually and of that
approaching £200,000 is ring fenced for the Journal Coordination Scheme,
£1,200,000 for staffing, and the remaining allocated to other headings including
materials. In addition funds are also allocated from Trust, Donations Funds and
Internal
trading
accounts.
16
The 2008/2009 actual expenditure as provided by the School of Humanities and
Social Sciences for the three Libraries (Economics, History and Institute of
Criminology) is presented below in the table.
HSS 2008/09 actual
Economics Library
Budgets
Expenditure
Stipends ABAA
90,490.00
89,454.00
Wages ACAA
70,748.00
78,539.00
Other Costs AAAA
57,115.00
60,061.00
Income
Marshall Library Fund AAAA
-21,384.00
Other Costs Credits AAAA
-16,994.00
History Library
Expenditure
Stipends ABAA
56,093.00
55,776.00
Wages ACAA
87,657.00
99,500.00
Other Costs AAAA
35,244.00
44,330.00
Income
Seeley Fund AiA
-4,342.00
Criminology Library
Expenditure
Stipends ABAA
37,516.00
41,216.00
(CS5
Wages ACAA
39,642.00
65,599.00
Vacancy)
Other Costs AAAA
4,891.00
4,431.00
Income
Trading GAAA
-153.00
An analysis of the three budgets would indicate that the overwhelming portion of the
budget is absorbed by staffing. With the recent decision to deduct a sum for the
Journal Coordination Scheme, which is administered by the University Library, a
relatively small amount is left for purchase of other materials. Trust funds, donations
funds and internal trading accounts are increasingly being used to support core
material and balance the budget.
It is, therefore, of paramount importance that the necessary funds be transferred from
the Faculties, Departments and Other Institutions to allow the effective and efficient
running of the integrated service by the Director of Library Services. The allocation to
be transferred must be fair and equitable. It should be based on an average allocation
given over the last five years rather than the last year. Information from the School
secretariat will need to be sought.
It will also be important to ensure that the necessary Trust funds, Donation accounts,
and internal trading accounts are also transferred. It is recognised that Trust fund
clauses need to be explored and honoured.
The University Library can only work with the money it is allocated. It has no spare
funds to supplement the desirable new service proposal. Its major advantage will be
that it can pool funds and service to make a more coherent cost effective service.
17
However, caution is required. Should an actual reduction, or, a 0% increase in the
University Library budget for the coming years be equally applied to the new Affiliate
Libraries then, in effect, there will be a double hit applied to the Director of Library
Services who would then also be required to cover for any shortfall in funding
particularly arising from the Affiliate staff budget. It is recommended that a safety-net
provision be applied to increase costs caused by the addition of the Affiliate Libraries.
Recommendation 16
That the funds presently granted to the Faculty, Department and Other
Institutions (calculated over the average expenditure over the past 5
years) be transferred to the Director of Library Services for the financial
year 2010 -2011 onwards. The sum should include provision for the
finance given from Trust Funds, Donation Funds and internal trading
accounts.
Recommendation 17
That the Director of Library Services should receive safety-net funding
to protect against the shortfall of funding for the University Library and
Affiliate Libraries should a reduction or 0% increase be applied to its
budget in the coming years
There are additionally two areas in this model which will require further discussion,
clarification and resolution between the Library service and the Faculties,
Departments and the Other Institutions.
Firstly, as part of the transfer of the Library service there may be a need to draw up a
service level agreement together with appropriate payment/arrangements covering
how the defined library service space will be paid for in terms of heating, lighting,
maintenance, cleaning, fixtures and fittings and the fabric. Various arrangements both
formal and informal exist at present within the Faculties and Departments and Other
Institutions. It may be appropriate to decide on a one-to-one basis for the best way
forward through a flexible solution which ensures recurrent funding. It is understood
that minor works and structural matters are dealt with through Estates but it may be
important to be assured of this arrangement before transfer. There would be no
possibility of the University Library paying for the above from its existing funds
Recommendation 18
That where appropriate service level agreements concerning heating,
lighting, cleaning, maintenance of the building, fixtures and fittings,
furnishing be identified and future funding agreed with the Faculty,
Departments and Other Institutions and that whatever arrangements
made to ensure that the University Library would not be able to take on
such commitments without guaranteed recurrent funding
Secondly, there will also need to be a resolution about the responsibility for delivering
and financing, through recurrent subvention, IT equipment, staffing support and IT
maintenance, the networks and equipment. Again, the University Library would not be
able to pay for this additional cost from its own present budget. It might be wise to be
mindful that local site service support is normally preferable to meet the needs of the
staff and students.
Recommendation 19
That the type and cost of IT equipment, associated maintenance and
computing support be identified and agreement reached with the
Faculties, Departments and Other Institutions. The University Library
would not be able to take on this additional cost without recurrent
financial subvention
18
5.6 Publicity, promotion and logo
The model which combines the University Library with the Affiliate Libraries would
require for there to be much clearer and transparent information about the availability
and accessibility of the collections and service levels. The whole student and staff
community would be entitled to know of the services available across the libraries.
It would be incumbent on the Library service to promote and publicise the types and
levels of service to be enjoyed by the community.
In order to signal the equality of opportunity and equality of service it may be timely
for the University Library, as well as deciding on a new title to describe the service, to
consider the commissioning of a new logo which more accurately represents the
Library service rather than sustain the building-centric perception.
Recommendation 20
That the Director of Library Services consider the desirability of
providing clear and transparent on-going information about the new
services following the addition of the affiliate libraries.
Recommendation 21
That the Director of Library Services may wish to consider the
desirability of a new logo being commissioned which more accurately
reflects the new service provision
5.7 Working parties and ad hoc working groups
Once the framework for a new federal model for Library services of the University is
agreed between the University Library and Affiliate Libraries, there will be a need to
get down to a level of complexity concerning the detailed implementation ( beyond
the scope of this report).
However, it is important to recognise that the extent of the success of this new
working arrangement will be dependent on this detailed examination of each of the
areas. The Faculty and Departmental and Other Institutional Library staff, together
their Heads, and the staff of the University Library, share the onus to deliver
solutions. The Library staff will be the key to the identifying and proposing of such
solution. No one solution will necessarily suit all. It is therefore imperative that a range
of working parties and ad hoc groups, with appropriate terms of refernce, be
established to address the work programmes and resolve details, standards, rules,
regulations and make further informed recommendations and decisions.
.
Empirical evidence will be required and such information can be derived from user
surveys and use data, for example, the Arcadia Studies at Cambridge University
Library or individual use studies such as that of Faculty of Economics Library which
measured number of uses of collections.
Recommendation 22
That, with regard to the detailed arrangements required for the new
relationship, the Director of Library Services draws upon the expertise
from the University Library staff and the Affiliate Library staff through
the medium of working parties and ad hoc working groups with
appropriate terms of reference
5.8 Timescale
5.8.1 Affiliates The sections above provides a framework which demonstrate the potential
and benefits to be derived for the staff and students of the University and for
the Library staff, from the creation of a new service consisting of University
Library and Affiliate Libraries. The time is now right to offer an integrated and
seamless service and work towards its delivery. The alternative is a reactive
approach with the risk of stagnation and death by a thousand cuts.
The genuinely proactive approach advocated in this Report pools the
resources to protect the collections, availability and accessibility to the
Cambridge community. The student is not interested in who offers the service
but rather that his or her needs are readily available and accessible at the
right time and will support their teaching and learning endeavour (research is
19
not the subject of this report).The Report demonstrates that there is sufficient
symbiosis to offer services of quality in a time of diminishing resource. This is
not the moment for inward looking service provision but rather a time to
ensure that there is a joined-up service.
However, to achieve this will require a change of culture in which the wider
service demands across the University are foremost rather than specific
building-centric approach. It has to be a type of thinking which recognises
that no building can be self-sufficient. The only sustainable way forward is to
share and coordinate resource and utilise the existing staff experience across
the University, reduce unnecessary duplication and protect the student
learning and teaching experience.
Accordingly, it is now time to act. Officers of the University should be alerted
to the desirability of the three Affiliate Libraries being included with the
University Library in the 2009 Planning Round (for 2010-2011). Further that
these three Libraries assume Affiliate status in August 2010.
During, and following the smooth transition of the first tranche of Affiliate
Libraries, it is envisaged that there would be a timely, coordinated and
systematic programme, in conjunction with the Schools and their
Departments, Faculties and other Institutions, to increase the number of
Affiliate libraries. Early and prioritised admission to the new arrangement
might be desirable at it could increase the potential for the Affiliate Librarians
to contribute to the future operational and strategic direction.
This process is likely to be time consuming and the Director of Library
Services, although not expressed as a recommendation, might wish to give
some detailed consideration as to the staffing required to ensure the process
is overseen and achieved in a seamless and timely manner.
Recommendation 23
The Economics, History and the Institute of Criminology Libraries
assume Affiliate status in August 2010 and that the time before then be
used to progress the detailed requirements to ensure a smooth
transition
Recommendation 24
That the University authorities be requested to consider the three
Affiliate Libraries, in conjunction with the University Library, for the
2009 Planning Round (referring to the year 2010-2011)
5.8.2
College
Libraries
It will be important for the newly configured university-wide Library service to
enter into even closer liaison with the College Libraries over the extent of
provision and availability of resources between the two groupings. (Colleges
were not part of this study). It is recommended that the new Board which
replaces The General Board Committee on Libraries and the Library
Syndicate will deliberate on this matter and provide some guidance.
Recommendation 25 That the new Library Board give consideration to the closer working
relationship between the newly formed wider Library Service and the
College Libraries
6. THE WAY FORWARD
It is suggested that, at the appropriate time, this Report be circulated,
inter alia, to all
appropriate authorities and to the Library staff of the University Library and the Library staff of
the three Faculty, Departmental and Institute Libraries.
The staff in those three Affiliate Libraries can be involved in influencing the strategic and
operational developments and any restructuring requirements. Subsequently, more Affiliates
will join on a coordinated and consistently agreed basis with the Schools.
20
The framework in this Report has been proposed which offers an incremental and
coordinated approach. It is one that ensures a proactive approach will be taken and the
service protected for the good of the entire University of Cambridge community. It is not
designed to protect only one group but offer economies of scale and a pooled resource to all
the staff and students of the University.
Finally, in view of the express need to keep the staff fully informed, it may be appropriate for a
facilitated session to be convened to discuss the Report in the event that such a demand
becomes apparent.
7 October 2009 AFM /JJM
21
Appendix A
List of those interviewed one or more times for this study
[name redacted]
Past Chair, Council of the School of
Humanities and Social Sciences
[name redacted]
Chair, Council of the School of Humanities
and Social Sciences
[name
redacted] PVC,
Human
Resources
and
Chairman Review of T and L Support
Services
[name redacted]
Research Skills and Development Librarian,
University Library
[name redacted]
Librarian, Faculty of Education
[name redacted]
Secretary of School of Humanities and
Social Sciences
[name redacted]
Librarian, Institute of Criminology
[name redacted]
Head of Reader Services, University Library
[name
redacted] University
Librarian
[name redacted]
Systems Support Librarian, University
Library
[name redacted]
Head of Electronic Services and Systems,
University Library
[name redacted]
Head of European Collection and
Cataloguing, University Library
[name redacted]
Acting Deputy University Librarian
[name redacted]
Librarian Central Science Library
[name
redacted] Librarian,
Judge
Business
School
[name redacted]
Head of Collection Development and
Description, University Library
[name
redacted] Librarian,
Economics
Faculty
[name
redacted] Librarian,
History
Faculty
[name
redacted] Librarian,
Law
School
22
