Improving Communication within the Digital Resource Purchase Process for the Humanities Department at the Michigan State

University Library
SI 501 Final Report, December 2012 School of Information, University of Michigan

Prepared by: Sarah Billiu Ellen Gustafson Marlon Phillips James Rampton Amy Scott Client Contact: James Rampton (rampton@umich.edu)

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3 Background .....................................................................................................................................4 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4 Key Findings & Recommendations.................................................................................................6 Finding 1: There is a lack of understanding regarding roles and contribution in the purchase of electronic resources.....................................................................................................................6 Recommendation: Update the Electronic Resource Order Form...........................................6 Finding 2: Subject Librarians are not being informed of available new resources.....................7 Recommendation: Increase communication down the chain of command............................7 Finding 3: Communication with faculty is insufficient..............................................................7 Recommendation: Create a faculty feedback template and encourage communication of best practices..........................................................................................................................8 Finding 4: There is an overall lack of clarity about the digital resource purchase process........8 Recommendation: Develop a tracking database or document ..............................................9 Recommendation: Conduct training.....................................................................................10 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................10 Appendix A: Graphic Diagram of the Communication within the Digital Resource Acquisition Process.......................................................................................11 Appendix B: Suggested Updates to the Electronic Resource Order Form................................................................................................................................12

Executive Summary
The Michigan State University Libraries provide access to resources for the academic and personal needs of its faculty, staff, students, and surrounding community. Central to this mission is the Collections Division of the MSU Libraries, consisting of Coordinators and Subject Liaison Librarians, who work to select and maintain this diverse collection of resources. In the fall of 2012, our team was tasked with examining the flow of information throughout the process of purchasing and acquiring digital resources within the Humanities Department of the MSU Libraries. Specifically, we explored the flow of information among Coordinators, Subject Librarians, and department faculty during the process of considering, purchasing, and acquiring digital resources in the Humanities at the MSU Library. To analyze and understand the purchase process, we interviewed seven library employees: four Subject Librarians and three Coordinators. Information gleaned from our interviews revealed several delays and failures in communication within the digital resource acquisition process. Specifically, we found that problems arose due to lack of understanding regarding individuals' roles in and contribution to the purchase of digital resources. In order to better inform Subject Librarians about their roles and responsibilities, we suggest updating the Electronic Resource Order Form to reflect individual responsibilities and conducting detailed training. After our initial investigation, it became apparent that Subject Librarians were not being informed of each new resource that had been acquired. To this end, we recommend the establishment of a set practice for the Subject Coordinator to report purchase decisions back to Subject Librarians. We also discovered that there was inconsistent communication among the various Subject Librarians and between Subject Librarians and faculty. Therefore, we recommend the creation of a faculty feedback questionnaire template to use as a resource so Subject Librarians can quickly elicit helpful feedback from faculty regarding resources under consideration. Additionally, in order to increase collaboration and communication among Subject Librarians, we suggest the mutual and frequent sharing of best practices for their communication with end users. We found an overall lack of clarity as to how the digital resource purchase process should work. Each Subject Librarian described a different method of investigating a resource and initiating its purchase, and they did not systematically communicate with one other about resources under consideration. We therefore recommend the creation and implementation of a database or spreadsheet to track resources throughout the purchase process. Central to the implementation of all our recommendations is the need for adequate training. A shared understanding of both the process and individuals' roles is essential to the efficiency of the digital resource acquisition process. Taken as a whole, we believe our recommendations will help streamline the process and enhance both work-flow and communication in the Humanities Collection Development Department of the Michigan State University Libraries. 3

Background
The Collection Division of the Humanities Department at the Michigan State University Libraries works to select and provide resources for personal and academic research within the Humanities. The purpose of our project and this paper is to examine the flow of information among Coordinators, Subject Librarians, and department faculty during the process of considering, purchasing, and acquiring digital resources. Specifically, we were concerned with how librarians initially hear about resources, communicate their requests to Coordinators, and later learn that a resource has been purchased and is available for use. Additionally, we focused on the Coordinators' roles in and understanding of the process, as well as on how a resource actually becomes available for use by librarians, faculty, and students. The sequence observed begins with a Subject Librarian who is interested in a particular digital resource. If the resource is desired, the Subject Librarian requests purchase of the resource by turning in a copy of the electronic resource order form to a first level supervisor, or Subject Coordinator. The Coordinator investigates the resource and, if it is found acceptable given established criteria, passes on the desired resource's information to a second level supervisor. That supervisor then decides if the resource will be purchased, and passes along any necessary information the Electronic Resource Coordinator, who makes arrangements with the resource vendor. Following purchase of the resource, it is then entered into the library's digital catalog and becomes available end users, namely faculty and students. We have provided a basic graphic depiction of the communication involved in this process as Appendix A. Although this diagram does not include any sense of chronology or sequence, it does give some indication of the steps and communication necessary to making this process run smoothly. Throughout the course of the project, our team examined and analyzed the overall process to determine any failures or delays in communication within the individual steps and the entirety of the process. Our major findings concern inconsistencies in individuals' understandings of the process as a whole and issues in communication among the stakeholders. By extension, our recommendations seek to validate the strengths of the current process while also offering suggestions for improving and streamlining it.

Methodology
In order to gain necessary information on the sequence of digital acquisition, we interviewed seven people. Four of the seven were Subject Librarians. Each Subject Librarian is responsible for one or more departments' subject-specific material within the library. Examples of subject specialty areas include British History, American Literature, or Music. Subject Librarians also act as liaisons between the library and the faculty of the department for instances such as gaining feedback on new or desired resources and offering assistance in research. The Subject Librarians are responsible for finding out about new resources that may be useful to their department, as well as for researching resources requested by faculty members. Furthermore, they are responsible for informing faculty of new resources in the system. Typically, the Subject Librarians initiate the acquisition process for digital resources. 4

Two of our seven interviews were with the Supervisors or Coordinators. Within the examined process, the Coordinators ensure that the desired digital resource fits the necessary criteria of the Michigan State University Libraries. They ensure that the resource has all required components, is compatible with the librarys electronic systems, has proper user agreements and licensing, and is within budgetary constraints. The Coordinators also rank the potential purchases, and from this ranking decide what will be bought. After the decision to purchase is made, the information then travels to the Electronic Resource Coordinator, who arranges pricing and copyright details with the resource vendor and puts the resource in the digital catalog. This Coordinator, who serves multiple departments within the Collections Division (not just the Humanities Department), was our final interviewee. To synthesize and interpret the information gleaned from the seven interviews, we created a variety of models and an affinity diagram. After each interview, our group met to decipher and process the information. While the two people who conducted the interview reviewed the information gained, another member of our group affinity notes. These notes were stand-alone pieces of information related to the digital acquisition process which were recorded from the interviewee's point of view. The purpose of the notes was eventually to construct an affinity wall, which will be discussed later. The remaining group members created models. The models acted as ways to visually interpret the data from the information collected, and each model dealt with a specific aspect. The different models included a physical model, a communication flow model, a sequence model, an artifact model, and a cultural model. Each model allowed for our group to map areas where the interviewee felt the process worked well or where they experienced delays. The models also helped us develop coherent understandings of the process according to the interviewee. After the final interview, we took all of the individual models and created consolidated models. These followed a similar format as the individual models, though the inclusion of multiple points of view illuminated places or situations where more than one interviewee identified a potential or perceived breakdown in communication or in the overall process. These consolidated models also allowed for visual comparison of each interviewee's take on the same process. These models acted as the first half of the tools used to generate the key findings of our analysis of the process. The second step in generating these findings and recommendations was the creation of the affinity diagram wall. For this diagram, we returned to the affinity notes generated during the post-interview meetings. We compared and compiled all of the notes, and organized them into groupings of similar themes or topics. In doing so, we were able to see where interviewees had similar things to say, or where they spoke about the same topic but with different perspectives. Through this diagramming process, we were able to compare contrasting points of view, as well as identify places where the process succeeded or failed. The information gained from the affinity wall, partnered with that from the models, acted as the basis of our findings and understandings about the process. Constructing the affinity diagram also served as the starting point for generating our recommendations for how to address some of the key findings and issues that we identified in the current process of digital resource acquisition.

Key Findings & Recommendations

Finding 1: There is a lack of understanding regarding roles and contribution in the purchase of electronic resources
Through the process of interviewing and synthesizing the information, we discovered that problems arise due to a general lack of understanding regarding individuals' roles and contribution in the purchase of electronic resources. Each interviewee explained the process and their role within it in slightly different ways. This was especially notable when comparing interview data regarding the roles of the Subject Librarianseach interviewee had a defined understanding, but these differed significantly among individuals. The use of the electronic resource form offered one instance where these differences became apparent. The form was sometimes left blank in areas that could be filled out by the Subject Librarian requesting the resource. This led to extra steps that had to be taken by Coordinators to get the required information to make a purchase decision. This not only increased time to get the item approved, but also increased workload for the Electronic Resource Coordinator. We also discovered that differences in use of this form resulted from different understandings of the individual roles and expectations, and not from anyone's unwillingness to fulfill their responsibilities. Recommendation: Update the Electronic Resource Order Form In order to better inform Subject Librarians about their roles and what contribution to the process, we suggest updating the current electronic resource order form. We have included a number of specific updates to this form in Appendix B. Everyone involved in the process contributes knowledge and information to the form. In order to make the form more straightforward and useful, we suggest adding space for specific requester information such as name and department. Additionally, designating which department or individuals ought to complete which section of the form will help clarify roles and eliminate confusion about what information to be entered by whom. This might be done through color coding or perhaps rearranging the form so that the front page contains all fields intended for completion by Subject Librarians. The back of the form could then provide space for contributions from the Electronic Resource Coordinator, as well as spaces for the signatures of the Coordinators. There are several other additions to this form which we believe will further enhance its usability.. We recommend adding a section that indicates the amount of money being contributed by each Subject Librarian. Through our interviews, we learned that this information often necessitates the creation and attachment of another form such as a spreadsheet or list. However, adding a field to the current form will help ease inclusion of this information and streamline the approval process. Finally, we suggest the addition of a section which indicates where the resource is in the purchase and acquisition process. This might be a checklist of individuals who have seen the form and approved the purchase, or it might be a list of necessary steps the resource must take prior to approval or acquisition. We hope that including this kind of information on the form will assist in keeping Subject Librarians up to date on the resources they have requested, and will allow Coordinators to easily reference a resource's progress in the process and inform Subject Librarians when requested to do so. 6

Finding 2: Subject Librarians are not being informed of available new resources
After the initial investigation, it became apparent that Subject Librarians were not always being informed of each new resource that was approved or acquired. After Subject Librarians requested a new resource, sometimes they remained unaware that it was purchased or available for use. We found that this prompted a wide variety of organizational mechanisms and strategies. Some Subject Librarians frequently asked where a resource was in the purchasing process, while some kept a personal log of their requests in order to check personally if the resource was available. Still others simply ended their engagement with a requested resource once they passed the form on to a supervisor. Although Coordinators made decisions regarding purchase and acquisition of requested resources, this information rarely reached Subject Librarians in a timely and efficient manner. As Subject Librarians were not always informed that a new resource was purchased and acquired, they often could not and did not inform end users that it was available, resulting in underutilized resources. Recommendation: Increase communication down the chain of command In order to better facilitate communication, it would be ideal to disseminate purchase decisions from the Coordinators' meetings to all Subject Librarians in a timely manner. An ideal scenario would be that each Subject Coordinator reports back to the Subject Librarians of the department via email or online post immediately following each meeting with an overview of all the purchase decisions made, regardless of individual affiliation with a specific purchase. When provided in an efficient, standardized way, this information can be used by Subject Librarians to monitor a resource's progress through the purchase process. Establishing a set of practices in which the Subject Coordinator informs Subject Librarians of purchase decisions would ensure that information flows directly back down the chain of command. This will allow Subject Librarians to know that new resources will soon be available and to inform end users.

Finding 3: Communication with faculty is insufficient

Our interview data indicated that there was insufficient communication between Subject Librarians and faculty. Several Subject Librarians explained to us that asking faculty for input on resources being considered was not useful. They said that when asking faculty whether they would want a particular new resource, the response was almost always yes because faculty did not have the same budget or need to exercise discretion and evaluation as did Subject Librarians. Therefore, faculty would nearly always advocate purchase of a potential resource. This led to Subject Librarians being discouraged from asking them to collaborate on evaluation, though faculty input could be very beneficial to this process. We found that there was also inconsistency in communication about new resources between Subject Librarians and end users. Some Subject Librarians provided materials to end users that included new content, and others maintained frequent email correspondence to do the same. However, not all indicated that this step was a regular recipient of their time and energy. Overall, not having consistent modes of communication with faculty and end users seemed to result in frustrated Subject Librarians, uninformed end users, and underutilized resources. 7

Recommendation: Create a faculty feedback template and encourage communication of best practices In order to help facilitate a deeper and more meaningful dialogue between faculty and Subject Librarians, we recommend the creation of a faculty feedback questionnaire or survey to be used when requesting input on potential resources. The questionnaire would provide fields for responses on elements such as potential uses, the frequency of use, and whether they would recommend a resource to students. This could help Subject Librarians solicit more detailed information, inform purchase decisions, and help faculty feel engaged in the purchase process. The questionnaire could be in the form of a customizable email template or online survey which would ideally would be available in the same place as the Electronic Resource Order Form, so it could easily be available for use and re-use. In order to increase communication of new purchases among Subject Librarians and end users we also suggest the sharing of best practices. We discovered through our interviews that each Subject Librarian had their own method to communicate new purchases to end-users. We suggest that during each monthly departmental meeting, one Subject Librarian could present their method of how they communicate with end users about new resources. This would allow Subject Librarians to see how others showcase new resources, foster a more collaborative and communicative environment, and encourage each Subject Librarian to develop a method that is best suited to their skills and the needs of their department(s).

Finding 4: There is an overall lack of clarity about the digital resource purchase process
The most significant problem we identified was the lack of clarity surrounding the digital resource purchase process itself. Each Subject Librarian described a different method of investigating a resource and initiating its purchase, and they did not systematically communicate with one another about resources under consideration. Such isolation led them collectively to consider duplicate resources, which the cataloging department must catch later in the process. Isolation also inhibited Subject Librarians from collaborating with others to fund purchases which might be more expensive but which may also benefit a greater number of faculty and students because of their broad application. Though sometimes Subject Librarians did collaborate on funding, they did so in an ad hoc manner when the librarian considering the purchase anticipated another's interest. Because Subject Librarians were most cognizant of their own subject area or areas, it is likely they overlooked potential application of a resource to another field. Furthermore, Subject Librarians were not aware of all the steps necessary to acquire digital resources. We received many vague answers in regard to how the Electronic Resource Coordinator works with the vendors to make the resource available. A major strength of the Electronic Resources Coordinator was that she was highly versed in the vendors and technology involved. However, her colleagues relied on her expertise so much that they had not needed to pay attention to the technical details involved in digital resource acquisition. While this did not prevent the Subject Librarians from fulfilling their roles directly, it explained their occasional frustration when they perceived a delay in setting up a new trial or resource. 8

Recommendation: Develop a tracking database or document Overall lack of clarity about the process leads us to our final recommendation: the creation and adoption of a database or spreadsheet to track all purchases from serious consideration until they are either abandoned or fully acquired and cataloged. We use the terms database and document hereafter interchangeably, as we believe this resource might be as straightforward as an electronic document or as sophisticated as a multifaceted database. Ideally, all major participants in the digital resource purchasing process would contribute their perspectives to the document's structure, but we suggest its developers consider using the following fields: The name of the resource The vendor Applicable subject areas Which budget(s) will fund the resource Price Whether or not it meets technical criteria such as MARC records URL for information about the resource The name of the librarian who initiated the process or an internal contact for questions The date the resource was placed on the document The date the item's status last changed Status of the consideration or purchase We stress that the purpose of this list is only to help generate ideas. This is a long-term recommendation because it requires all participants to consider which pieces of information are necessary for an adequate understanding of the status of each item. An overly-detailed database would be inefficient and probably fall into disuse, but a document which has too little information will be useless. We suggest this document or database be stored on an intranet, shared server, or other location where any participant in the process can read it and make necessary updates. Certainly this will necessitate extensive training to ensure everyone shares an understanding as to how it should be used. Those who develop it may desire to require a controlled vocabulary in some of the fields to help prevent misinterpretation. The database obviates the need for the wish list, which most Subject Librarians found antiquated and difficult to use. The database also transcends the scope of both the wish list and the current electronic resource order form by tracking the purchase through the entire process. We hope this extended purpose will cause Subject Librarians to consult it more oftenboth to enter their own requests, and to find out if those requests have been approved, purchased, or made available and that their frequent use will cause them to become more aware of other resources. Of all our recommendations, we understand this tracking database or spreadsheet to require the most effort to implement; nevertheless, we believe it also has the most potential to resolve the instances of miscommunication. In itself the document can function as a training tool, outlining parts of the process that may not be clear to all participants, such the need to ensure that a resource meets technical requirements. Subject Librarians can see what is under consideration or 9

has been purchased, so they do not need to request duplicate resources. Any staff member with access can check the document at any time to find out whether a resource has been requested, approved, purchased, or made available. Recommendation: Conduct training Central to the implementation of a tracking database or spreadsheetand indeed to all our recommendationsis the need for adequate training. If the Humanities Department finds itself unable to implement any of our other ideas, we encourage that Coordinators at least consider training everyone on the roles and expectations of each participant throughout the process. Ideally this would take place at a slower time of year, rather than the November through December period when staff members must focus on more time-sensitive purchase decisions. A major component of the training would be to standardize practices such as who fills out each section of the Electronic Resource Order Form and to whom this document should go following each step of the process. When each Subject Librarian understands what to enter on the form, the Electronic Resource Coordinator is less likely to find herself overburdened. Likewise, if Subject Librarians know how they will learn about a new resource acquisition, they won't have to guess when to check for its availability. A shared understanding of the process is essential to the efficient flow of information and consistency of communication.

Conclusions
Despite the aforementioned findings about the digital resource purchase process, we also discovered many strengths to draw from. Overall, we found the individuals involved in the process to be highly competent and informed. Subject Librarians explained numerous ways that they discovered and investigated new resources. They also expressed dedication to meeting the goals and needs of their department(s). Similarly, the various Coordinators appeared very knowledgeable about the process of and the practicalities involved in acquiring new digital resources. At every stage, we found that information was being generated and communicated to other individuals. Problems arose primarily in how and when that communication occurred. We discovered that individuals have a general lack of understanding of the roles, components, and procedure of the digital resource selection acquisition process. There are several places in the process where information does not reach the parties who need to know it. Our recommendations the modification of an existing form, the creation of several new documents, and the standardization of proceduresattempt to isolate and alleviate these breakdowns and inconsistencies for both short- and long-term gain. All of our recommendations, however, necessitate intentional thought and adequate training in order to create a shared understanding of the needs and goals of the digital resource purchase process. With a few modifications to streamline procedure, our team foresees seamless, informative, and effective communication among the individuals involved in the process of purchasing and acquiring digital resources within the Humanities Department of the Michigan State University Libraries.

10

Appendices Appendix A: Graphic Diagram of the Communication within the Digital Resource Acquisition Process within the Humanities Department of the MSU Library

Key F : Faculty SL : Subject Librarians (4 interviewed) C : Coordinators (3 interviewed) Arrows represent ideal communication about a digital resource among the various individuals involved in this process. This communication includes both in person, via telephone or email, and via artifacts such as the Electronic Resource Order Form.

Appendix B: Suggested Updates to the Electronic Resource Order Form

Front of Current Form:

Back of Current Form:

Note: We acknowledge that these are not the only changes that might be made to the form. However, we believe that rearranging and/or adding the highlighted elements will help clarify this form, specify roles and responsibilities, and alleviate stress for other individuals later in the process. For example, color coding (or notating in some other way) which sections are to be filled out by Subject Librarians and which sections are intended for the various Coordinators will designate roles and responsibilities for the various individuals involved in the process and providing an ordered checklist will ensure that the form reaches the appropriate individuals in an optimized order.