Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Texas Libraries]On: 28 October 2014, At: 14:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Access ServicesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjas20
Using Data to Assess Staffing andServices: University of Iowa Main LibraryAmy R. Paulusa
a University of Iowa Libraries, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPublished online: 07 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Amy R. Paulus (2014) Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services: University ofIowa Main Library, Journal of Access Services, 11:3, 189-205, DOI: 10.1080/15367967.2014.914424
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2014.914424
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Access Services, 11:189–205, 2014Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1536-7967 print / 1536-7975 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15367967.2014.914424
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services:University of Iowa Main Library
AMY R. PAULUSUniversity of Iowa Libraries, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
The Main Library Service Desk is a one-stop academic help centerlocated between a newly renovated student-focused space calledthe Learning Commons and the library collections. Services beganwith the first day of classes, August 26, 2013, and assessment hasbeen ongoing, in part due to the availability of data. Staffing levels,staffing hours, and roving services were all analyzed and changedto better meet the needs of our users.
KEYWORDS Assessment, Learning Commons, Suma, accessservices, staffing, roving, consolidated service point, user services
INTRODUCTION
The University of Iowa Libraries system consists of the Main Library; HardinLibrary for the Health Sciences; five branch libraries; and the Law Library,which is administered separately. Together, these libraries hold over 5 mil-lion volumes, and the library system is the largest in the state of Iowa. TheLibraries system is a member of the Committee on Institutional Coopera-tion (CIC), the State Regents Libraries, the Association for Research Libraries(ARL), the Center for Research Libraries, and the Coalition for NetworkedInformation. The Main Library was built in the 1950s, with additions con-structed in the 1960s and 1970s. The building consists of five stories, plus abasement. The Main Library employs over 125 staff.
Staffing and services in the Main Library have undergone major changesin recent history, due to the preparation for and construction of a LearningCommons. The Learning Commons concept is not new to libraries, and they
© Amy R. PaulusAddress correspondence to Amy R. Paulus, Head, Access Services, University of Iowa
Libraries, University of Iowa, 100 Main Library (LIB), Iowa City, IA 52242-1420. E-mail: [email protected]
189
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
190 A. R. Paulus
are appearing across the globe, varying in size, location, administration, andfunding. In planning for a Learning Commons, the Libraries system sought tonot only support student success on campus but remodel a portion of the firstfloor of the Main Library. With backing from the Libraries system, InformationTechnology Services (ITS), and the Provost’s Office, construction began in2012 of a Learning Commons on the east half of the first floor. Along withthis new student-focused facility, we were given the opportunity to design asingle service point. With a single service point, our users would go to onedesk to ask any question and be assisted on the spot or be referred to anexpert who could help them. This trend to consolidate library services hasbeen occurring, with MIT publishing their experience in the article entitled“Exploring new service models” but the UI Libraries sought to take things onestep further—this single service point was advertised as a one-stop academicstop in the Learning Commons (Flanagan, 2000). We would not only providetraditional library services, but be a place to answer (or refer) any academicquestion.
Some background is necessary at this point to explain how we had of-fered services. Prior to July 2012, the Main Library had four service points—anorth circulation desk staffed only by students that was open anytime thebuilding was open, a south circulation desk (that also contained the full-timestaff in circulation/reserve) that was open fewer hours, a central informationdesk that was staffed by research and library instruction (RLI) staff, and areference desk that served as a laptop checkout desk. Construction closuresallowed us to combine three of those four areas into one before the Learn-ing Commons opened—south circulation, information, and laptop. Physi-cally, services were all located together, and the staff from both circulationand RLI were together as well, which included many hours of cross-trainingahead of time. We were able to practice at a single service point for almosta year, until the Learning Commons Service Desk opened, which replacedall of the existing service points.
Assessment was incorporated into the planning process for the LearningCommons and the Service Desk. Because we were creating a fully consol-idated Service Desk and one that was promoted as offering more than justtraditional library services, we did not know what to expect. We wanted tomake sure that our staffing level was appropriate—would we continue toneed reference librarians at the desk? Do we have a good balance with stu-dent workers and staff? We also wanted to make sure the number of peopleworking at the Service Desk was appropriate—did we have too few, toomany, or just enough? Training was another category of concern—wouldwe be overwhelmed with questions related to technology or other campusservices that library staff were less familiar with? David Larsen states thathaving data on library use is one method to assess what services are offered,how and when to staff, what the hours need to be for the space, and whatspace needs are apparent (Larsen, 2013).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 191
Evaluation of how the space was being used was also a priority. Sincethe Learning Commons was a brand new facility, we wanted to know howthe LC was being ulitized, as well as the space on the rest of the first floorand the second floor. Would the second floor computer lab, the busiest oneon campus, be forgotten with the addition of 90 desktop computers in theLearning Commons and the availability of 100 lap-tops to check-out? Wouldwe find users in the overnight hours sleeping rather than using the spacefor study? Would users embrace the collaborative nature of the space andfind other buildings as well as other space in the Main Library for quietspace?
With a 37,000 square foot Learning Commons contained in a buildingcomprising five floors, providing opportunities for our users to ask questionsaway from the Service Desk also needed to be assessed. Is it worthwhile tocommit a student worker to roam the first and second floors in the hopesto be asked a question? Would they be overwhelmed with questions and ifso, what would these questions be about? We want to make sure the rovingservice was necessary, not only to make sure our users were being servedwell, but to make sure we were using the student workers effectively.
In order to evaluate services and staffing, we knew that we would needdata and numbers that were not previously available. Katherine Furlong andDavid McCaslin emphasize the importance of having a tracking system ata service desk located within learning commons (Furlong, 2013) in orderto provide proper staffing. To accomplish this, we decided to purchase orimplement a tool or method to collect data about our services.
Many products and methods were available and investigated, the Li-braries chose North Carolina State University’s (NCSU) open-source productcalled Suma and worked with NCSU and local technical staff to implementit. While the possibilities were endless, we decided to use Suma to trackquestions asked at the Service Desk, to count user activity on the first andsecond floors of the building, and to count questions asked while studentworkers were roving the first and second floors.
In order to get a reasonably accurate picture of the activity at the ServiceDesk, we wanted to keep Suma as simple as possible. After a transaction,staff and student workers were asked to record in Suma three pieces ofinformation: the type of question, the medium, and the time it took toanswer. While the type of question category could be limitless, we went withsimplicity and chose five options: campus partners, circulation, directional,reference, and technology. Campus partner questions are nonlibrary ques-tions that are related to student success. Some examples include “This mathstuff is hard; do you know of any tutors?” or “I have this FAFSA form to fillout; where can I find help?” Circulation questions are related to activities inAccess Services (not including checkouts in circulation or interlibrary loan).Some examples include “I can’t find something on the shelf; can you help?”or “How do I place an Interlibrary Loan request?” Directional questions are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
192 A. R. Paulus
related to wayfinding in the University Libraries. Some examples include“Where is SHAM (a large classroom located in the Main Library)?” or “Whereare the bathrooms?” Reference questions are related to research and findingmaterials. Some examples include “I need three books and three articleson this topic” or “I was told to use Academic Search Elite but never havebefore.” Technology questions are related to computers, software, andhardware in the University Libraries (not including laptop checkouts). Someexamples are “I cannot connect to eduroam (wireless)” or “The printerjammed.” The second category of information collected was the medium,and two choices were offered: in person (the person you are helping is atthe Service Desk) or phone (the person you are helping is on the phone).The third category was the length of the transaction, and five choices weregiven: a few seconds; less than five minutes; five to 10 minutes; long:more than 10 minutes; and referred: a question that is immediately oreventually referred to other staff, whether that is library staff, ITS, or campuspartners.
Suma was also used to record the number of students and how theywere using the facility, based on observation. Student workers would carryiPads to record the activity of users on the first and second floors. Desktopcomputers are available on the first and second floors but are not availablefor users on the third, fourth, and fifth floors. User space is minimal aswell on the upper floors, so it was decided not to spend time countingthese users. The student workers also distinguished between the LearningCommons (open 24 hours/five days a week), the rest of the first floor, andthe second floor. The activities being tracked were studying, computing,collaborating, eating, and sleeping. A person studying was defined as beingprimarily alone and reading a text of some sort or writing on paper. Aperson computing was defined as using an ITS-provided desktop computer,ITS-provided laptop, or a personal laptop or device, not including phones.A person collaborating was defined as actively talking or interacting withat least one other person. Eating and sleeping were pretty obvious. Afterone day of counting users, it became apparent there was a need for twoadditional categories: phoning and waiting. There were many users usingtheir smart phones only. They did not appear to be studying and were notsitting in front of a computer. Phoning was the category given so that theiractivity could be more accurately reflected. The Main Library contains alarge auditorium-style classroom as well as other classrooms, and there weremany people simply waiting to get into these rooms. Waiting was the termadded to account for these users. To eliminate duplicate numbers, studentworkers were asked only to record one activity per user and to use theirbest judgment. So if a person was sitting in the Food for Thought Cafe areaeating but also had their phone out, they could be marked as eating. If agroup of people were sitting at the same table but working independently,they could be counted as studying.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 193
Roving got a later start in the semester, beginning on September 26,2013. Student workers were asked to wear a bright yellow tag identifyingthem as staff, take an iPad, and walk around the first and second floors.The idea was for them to be approached by users with questions in order toprovide more immediate problem resolution. While roving, they could checkthe printers, to hopefully signal that they were there to help—particularlysince a lot of problems happened with or near the printers. The rovingstudent workers were asked to record in Suma the category of question theywere asked, similar to the method used at the Service Desk. Additionally, thelocation of the interaction was noted as well as how much time they spenthelping a user. Roving was to be done continuously, but minimally once anhour, every hour the building was open.
Automated Reports
Because we wanted to automate the data collection process as much aspossible, the Library Information Technology (LIT) staff were able to createa new report that would count checkouts at the Service Desk and breakthem down by the hour. These checkouts were for anything loaned viaour circulation system, Aleph, and could include a DVD, microfilm, book,journal, laptop charger, or a course reserve book. ILLiad, the interlibrary loanmanagement system, was configured to run a report that would produce acount of interlibrary loan checkouts, again broken down by the hour. Thiswas not set up until October 14, 2013. University Information TechnologyServices (ITS) configured a new hourly report to count the number of laptopsbeing checked out at the Service Desk. This was not set up until October21, 2013. Along with information recorded by student and staff working theService Desk in Suma, all of these data are compiled daily. Not only did thisprovide information on how much we were doing, but when we were doingit, how long it was taking, and what the general topic was about.
People Counter
Cameras were installed at each location a user could enter into a specificarea. They were installed at each entrance into the building (north, south,and Madison Street) as well as the entrance to the library collections, whichwas the secured entrance by the Service Desk in the middle of the first floorthat led to the non-24 hour space and upper floors. These cameras usedthe People Counter software to count people. Daily, weekly, and monthlyreports are emailed that contain hourly information about the number ofpeople entering and exiting our building. We are still working on obtainingan occupancy report, which would further help us identify when our buildingis being used the most.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
194 A. R. Paulus
DATA
Service Desk
Collection of these data began with the first day of classes, August 26, 2013.Since then, the Service Desk has checked out 28,182 items via Aleph; an-swered 5,501 questions about circulation/access services; answered 4,743questions about directions; checked out 2,862 interlibrary loan items (sinceOctober 14); answered 2,351 technology questions; answered 1,784 referencequestions; checked out 1,333 laptops (since October 21); and answered 404questions about campus services (see Figure 1).
Using only information from Suma and not the automated reports, themajority of questions were brief in nature: 8,330 took only a few seconds toanswer; 5,799 took less than five minutes, 702 took five to 10 minutes; 114were longer than 10 minutes; and 409 were referred to another person ordepartment (see Figure 2).
Cumulatively, the Service Desk was busiest in the 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.hour, with a total of 5,531 transactions (this was also the busiest timefor reference and circulation activities and questions). The least-busyhour was between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., with only 19 total transactions.
FIGURE 1 Service desk transactions by category, August 2013–January 2014.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 195
FIGURE 2 Service desk transactions by duration, August 2013–January 2014.
Directional questions peaked between the 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. hour, buttechnology questions peaked earlier, from noon to 1:00 p.m. Campuspartner questions were most frequent between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m.(seeFigure 3).
FIGURE 3 Service desk transactions by hour, August 2013–January 2014.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
196 A. R. Paulus
FIGURE 4 User activity, August 2013–January 2014.
User Activity
People on the first and second floors of the Main Library were counted,when possible, every hour that the facility was open. Their activity andlocation were noted. Not surprisingly, we counted 190,221 computing orusing an ITS-provided desktop computer, ITS-provided laptop, or a per-sonal laptop or device, not including phones; 132,811 people were study-ing alone; 57,356 people were actively working in groups; 12,686 wereusing smartphones; 6,673 people were waiting; 3,731 were eating; and2,274 were sleeping. Wednesday afternoons appeared to be a populartime to nap, which was viewed positively since there were initial con-cerns about people using the facility to sleep during the overnight hours(see Figure 4), a concern shared by more than just the UI Libraries asevidenced in the article by Peg Lawrence and Lynne Weber when theylooked at what happens in their library from midnight to 2:00am (Lawrence,2012).
The location of the user was divided into three general areas: theLearning Commons (24-hour space on half of the first floor), the rest of thefirst floor, and the second floor. Again, not surprisingly, there were 246,849users counted in the Learning Commons; 130,846 on the second floor; and27,615 on the rest of the first floor (see Figure 5). The busiest hour wasbetween 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., while the least-busy hour was between 6:00and 7:00 a.m. (see Figure 6).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 197
FIGURE 5 User location, August 2013–January 2014.
FIGURE 6 Users by hour, August 2013–January 2014.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
198 A. R. Paulus
Roving
In roughly four months of roving, statistics indicated our student workerswere answering questions away from the desk, but not a significant amountof them. Directional questions led the category, with 42 being asked. Sincestudent workers were specifically asked to hang out by the printers, it wasnot a surprise to see that 36 questions were related to technology. Referencequestions totaled 22, circulation 10, and campus partners three (see Figure 7).
The afternoon was also a time that most questions were encountered.This trend follows the pattern encountered at the Service Desk as well (seeFigure 8).
The location of the questions asked of our roving students was var-ied. The North Lobby area encountered the most with 22, followed by 20by or in the group rooms, 17 on the second-floor computer lab, 16 by theLC computers, 12 in the South Lobby area, and 26 encountered in other
FIGURE 7 Roving transactions by category, September–December 2013.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 199
FIGURE 8 Roving transactions by hour, September–December 2013.
locations. Of the 113 roving transactions, 83 were encountered in the Learn-ing Commons, 25 on the second floor, and five on the first floor, non-Learning Commons. This traffic follows the usage pattern of our users, asindicated in the user location chart (Figure 9).
Building Counts
The People Counter software did not fully function at the South and Madi-son Street entrances until midsemester. The North entrance was under con-struction as well and did not open until midsemester, so there were nousers to count entering this way. However, even with this gap in data, thePeople Counter software has provided useful information. In December 2013,there was an increase of 46% of people entering the Main Library, comparedwith December 2012, and a 24% increase compared with December 2011.Construction of the new entrance on the east side, called the Madison Streetentrance, has been completely justified. In December 2013, over 70,000 peo-ple entered through Madison Street, compared with 23,801 through the Southentrance and 18,985 through the North entrance. Entrance counts confirmthe busy times—there were close to 11,000 people entering between 1:00and 2:00 p.m. in December and only 164 people entering between 4:00 and5:00 a.m. The entrance counts of the overnight hours also confirm that therewas indeed a need for a 24-hour space on campus. Looking at a week’s
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
200 A. R. Paulus
FIGURE 9 Roving transactions by location, September–December 2013.
worth of counts in each month, September through December, there was anaverage of 57 people entering the building between midnight and 1:00 a.m.;22 between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m.; 14 between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m.; 11 between3:00 and 4:00 a.m.; eight between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m.; and 15 between 5:00and 6:00 a.m. This does not take into account people who are already in thebuilding and that the software was not fully working during two of the fourmonths as well. While an average of eight people entering the building in anhour may seem low, it can also be viewed as high, considering the hour thisoccurs—between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m.! The entrance counts into the LearningCommons during one week in December is illustrated in the Figure 10.
ASSESSMENT
Armed with this data, we were able to make some changes to both thestaffing and our services. It became clear that adding interlibrary loan staff to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 201
FIGURE 10 Entrance counts, December 2013.
the Service Desk would be a positive enhancement for our users. InterlibraryLoan (ILL) checkouts alone were accounting for 6% of the activity happeningat the service desk. Given the familiarity with Aleph to check out UI materials,accounting for 60% of the service desk transactions, and the fact that theInterlibrary Loan/Document Delivery department was fully staffed after atime of shortage, the decision to add five additional staff to the Service Deskschedule was fairly easy to make. Training and job shadowing began in theFall 2013 semester, and ILL staff began their first official shifts in the firstweek of January 2014, working four to six hours each week.
Adding ILL staff to the Service Desk and analyzing what category ofquestions being answered also confirmed the need to remove librariansfrom the Service Desk schedule. The Research and Instruction (RLI) depart-ment librarians are fully trained to work the desk and did so, particularlyduring the year when our services were merged before the Learning Com-mons opened. Because 69% of the transactions were checkouts in somefashion (either a Library book, an ILL book, or a laptop), the consensus wasthat librarians would be able to use their time more effectively if they werenot scheduled at the desk. Gradually they were phased from the schedule,although could be (and are) called upon to help out during staff shortagesor unexpected absences. Research Consultation spaces were also creatednext to the Service Desk that allowed RLI librarians to hold sessions withusers, either by appointment or drop-in. This close proximity to the Ser-vice Desk further helped the referral process for users needing in-depth or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
202 A. R. Paulus
problematic research help. RLI librarians were still responsible for monitoringthe chat service and many chose to perform this duty at one of the ResearchConsultations spaces so that they could be more visible and more readilyavailable to help.
The Main Library’s hours before the Learning Commons were generous,staying open until 2:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. Students were re-sponsible for security and services in the building between the hours of 9:00p.m. and 2:00 a.m. The Learning Commons was constructed to allow thatspace to be secured from the rest of the building, which would allow us toremain open 24 hours a day, five days a week. However, concerns with se-curity justified the hiring of a full-time library assistant to work the overnighthours. A person was hired to work 11:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., Sunday nightthrough Friday morning. This would ensure a full-time staff member’s pres-ence during the overnight hours. However, the individual resigned after fourmonths. This allowed us the opportunity to look at the usage of the build-ing to help determine how the position should be re-advertised. Betweenthe hours of 3:00 and 8:00 a.m., we had the fewest users entering and inthe building. Likewise, questions at the service desk were minimal betweenthe hours of 2:00 and 7:00 a.m. Given these data, it seemed a positive de-cision to shift the overnight position to a 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. work time.We are in the process of hiring a replacement and are hoping this change inhours will have a positive effect on our services since student workers wereonly available between 9:00 and 11:30 p.m. previously.
After a full semester, changes were made to the morning schedule. From9:00 to 10:00 a.m., transactions at the service desk were minimal, particularlywhen compared to the afternoon and early evening hours. To best use ourresources and staff time, we made the decision to eliminate one staff memberfrom the schedule, Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. We would stillhave two student workers and one full-time staff member, with a fourthstaff member on call, and this seemed sufficient to handle the amount ofquestions being asked at the Service Desk during this time.
Training for staff is on-going and consistent—being offered every Tues-day at 2:00pm. Since campus partner questions were minimal—only 1% ofthe total transactions encountered at the Service Desk, we knew that wedid not need to focus solely on training staff on these resources. Instead,we could highlight those throughout the semester—such as bringing in stafffrom financial aid and Study, Workshops, and Tutoring (SWAT). There werealso concerns about the number of questions asked relating to the software,hardware, printers, and other technologically related items. Again, the num-bers from Suma confirmed that while we were getting asked questions ofthis nature, they were not overwhelming and represented 5% of the total.We did make an effort to include many training sessions with a technol-ogy focus, however, and they ranged from learning about specific softwaresuch as the VLC Media Player to learning how to issue guest passes for thecomputers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 203
Suma was used to gain a sense of how UI students were using the Learn-ing Commons, although no formal assessment was conducted and changeswere not made based on the data that was collected. However, a study doneon library use and undergraduate academic success at the University of Min-nesota, indicate the computer usage in a library contributes to academicachievement (Soria, 2013). Considering that almost half of library users onthe first and second floors are using lap-tops or desktop computers withinthe library, the hope is that these students are higher achieving and thus areindicating attainment of the mission of the Learning Commons to supportstudent success!
The future of the second floor computer lab was questioned duringthe planning process for the Learning Commons. We were able to use thenumbers collected via Suma to confidently recommend that the retentionof the second floor computer lab was necessary and that computers shouldnot be removed. Another surprise was the number of users on the firstand second floors working together in groups. We were hoping for highernumbers of collaboration—currently 14% of the users are working in groups.While the Learning Commons was designed with groups in mind and therewas definitely a need for group space on campus and in the Main Library,there remains a need for computers and quiet space.
Feedback from the student workers indicated that roving was not a pre-ferred activity and questions encountered were minimal. This was backed upby the data. We felt having a presence away from the Service Desk was veryimportant and decided a hybrid approach would be worth trying. Studentworkers will be stationed in strategic locations, determined by the variousdata, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The People Counter software indi-cates high traffic at the Madison Street entrance, and placing student workersnear this location would help with directional questions, which were highin the roving done earlier. Technology questions were also encounteredby the rovers. To better position the student workers for these types ofquestions, they will be stationed near the printers at the north or the southend of the Learning Commons, which is also in the line of sight of thoseentrances—hopefully allowing for users to approach with both directionaland technology questions. The times for technology and directional ques-tions recorded at the Service Desk were also taken into consideration. Noonto 2:00 p.m. were times when both technology and directional questionswere highest. Student workers would be stationed near the south printers,which is also near the South entrance or the Madison Street entrance, whichis near the east printers, to, we hope, catch both types of questions.
CONCLUSION
Suma has proven to be an essential tool for data collection to help assessand make decisions about staffing and services in the Learning Commons.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
204 A. R. Paulus
Information gathered helped us make appropriate adjustments to the ServiceDesk staffing by adding interlibrary loan staff and removing RLI librarians;reducing the number of staff working during the morning hours; and adjust-ing the hours of the overnight staff member. We fully intend to continue touse Suma to monitor and evaluate services and staffing, particularly since wenow have baseline data after a full semester.
Obtaining information about what users are doing in the space has beenvaluable in justifying retention of the second floor computer lab and the needfor overnight hours to be used for purposes other than sleeping. While theintention of the Learning Commons was to be a collaborative and not aquiet space, we have received informal feedback that our users expect quietin all floors of the Main Library. 33% of the users on the first and secondfloors, which are not designated as quiet, are using this as a quiet studyarea to work alone. Further evaluation and assessment of our space needsto occur to make sure the facility is meeting the needs of our users and theirexpectations—a challenge recognized by Nora Dethloff and Paul Sharpe intheir book chapter on the success of an academic library (Dethloff & Sharpe,2013). University of Connecticut Regional Campus Libraries also discoveredthe need for quiet study space in their assessment of their regional campuslearning commons (Dryden, 2013).
Roving services is another area we feel needs to be further evaluated.Reducing it from a true roving service to one in which student workers arestationed throughout the facility needs further assessment and the numbersfrom Suma will help greatly in determining if any additional adjustmentsneed to be made. We have been able to determine that this service is notoverwhelming our student workers and that the questions encountered arethe expected ones related to directions and technology.
We also hope to obtain more qualitative data to assess user needs.Surveys, advisory groups, and focus groups are all suggested methods fromDavid Larsen to obtain this information (Larsen, 2013). Within the LearningCommons, suggestion boxes have been set up in the group study rooms.Focus groups are being explored to learn more about expectations andexperiences of our users as well as to obtain information about what ismissing from services and the space. Additionally, we were able to askseveral questions in a campus-wide survey distributed to undergraduates. Aswe obtain information from users, we should be able to make improvementsto both the space and services and we are particularly interested in what userneeds are unmet, something very difficult to ascertain from data alone.
Suma has much potential. We hope to expand its use by tracking re-search consultation sessions, attendance at events in the LC, by doing headcounts of the entire building three times a year, and to fully track transactionsthroughout the Main Library during the reference sampling weeks. Havingthese numbers will help us further assess the use of the space and the typesand numbers of questions we are getting asked.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Using Data to Assess Staffing and Services 205
Our new academic one-stop Service Desk and Learning Commons spacehas changed how the Main Library offers services. In planning for the ServiceDesk and the new facility, the planning group developed best practices togive us a starting point on many things—such as how to staff the ServiceDesk. We knew adjustments would need to be made along the way. Withoutdata from Suma, the automated system reports, and the People Counters, wewould not be as confident making these changes to staffing and services.
REFERENCES
Dethloff, N., & Sharpe, P. (2013). Access services and the success of the academiclibrary. In M. J. Krasulski and Trevor A. Dawes (Eds.), Twenty-first-century ac-cess services: On the front line of academic librarianship (pp.169–189). Chicago,IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Dryden, N. H., & Goldstein, S. (2013). Regional campus learning commons: assessingto meet student needs. Journal of Library Administration, 53 (5-6), 293–322.
Flanagan, P., & Horowitz, L. R. (September 2000). Exploring new service models:Can consolidating public service points improve response to customer needs?The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26 (5), 329–338.
Furlong, K., & McCaslin, D. Emerging technologies and spaces in access services. InM. J. Krasulski and T. A. Dawes (Eds.), Twenty-first-century access services: Onthe front line of academic librarianship (pp.99–116). Chicago, IL: Associationof College and Research Libraries.
Larsen, D. K. (2013). Assessing and benchmarking access services. In M. J. Krasulskiand T. A. Dawes (Eds.), Twenty-first-century access services: On the front line ofacademic librarianship (pp.191–216). Chicago, IL: Association of College andResearch Libraries.
Lawrence, P., & Weber, L. (2012). Midnight -2.00 a.m.: What goes on at the library?New Library World, 113 (11/12), 528–548.
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (April 2013). Library use and undergraduatestudent outcomes: New evidence for students’ retention and academic success.Libraries and the Academy, 13 (2), 147–164.
Stoffle, C. J., & Cuillier, C. (2010). Student-centered service and support: A case studyof the University of Arizona Libraries’ information commons. Journal of LibraryAdministration, 50 (2), 117–134.
Whitchurch, M. J. (2009). Evaluating group use of the information commons. Collegeand Undergraduate Libraries, 16 (1), 71–82.
Whitchurch, M. J. (2010). Planning an information commons. Journal of LibraryAdministration, 50 (1), 39–50.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:18
28
Oct
ober
201
4
