{"id":615,"date":"2019-04-11T14:47:40","date_gmt":"2019-04-11T13:47:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/libstaff\/?p=615"},"modified":"2019-04-11T15:18:00","modified_gmt":"2019-04-11T14:18:00","slug":"we-were-hardcore-the-only-way-is-reference-only","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/libstaff\/archives\/615","title":{"rendered":"We Were Hardcore: The Only Way is Reference Only"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Rachel Bramley<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Last month I\nrealised that we\u2019d approached an important anniversary.  No, not the Beast from the East (thank you\nGoogle), but Reference Only books.  In\nthe spirit of good project practice, and customer service excellence, I thought\nit would be fun* to have a review of the outcomes, one year on.  But first, some background.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

* I don\u2019t get out as much as I used to.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Cores and Effect<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many\nUniversity libraries are having to balance a valuable and well-used physical\ncollection with increasing demands for study space, and we\u2019re no different.  As I\u2019m sure many of you remember, we decided\nto move our distinct Core collection from its separate room, and interfile it\nwith the general collection in the summer of 2017.  With all good intentions, we\u2019d wanted to\ncreate more study spaces for the autumn term. \nThere were consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"New
New study spaces notice on the Library’s plasma screens<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Once\ninterfiled, there were many documented examples of users facing confusion about\nwhat Core items were (the \u2018canon\u2019 or key texts for a subject?), which revealed\na lack of awareness about both the loan length (overnight) and circulation\nrules (1 renewal, no requests) of this collection AND the fines attached to it\n(\u00a33.00 p\/day).  Most of you will be very\nfamiliar with these issues and won\u2019t thank me for the painful reminder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The characteristics\nof Core items being Essential texts on reading lists meant that they were in\nhigh demand, attracting large fines if returned late.  However, losing their specific location meant\nthey no longer appeared as a \u2018distinct\u2019 collection.  You\u2019ll remember as well that during the\nprevious year we\u2019d introduced \u2018rolling renewal\u2019 with the then new Alma LMS, so users\nhad just learnt they could borrow from the general collection for extended\nperiods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of this perfect storm, there was a very unfortunate 400% rise in complaints and disputes with regard to Core books, in the first couple of months of term!  There had been many loans in error which resulted in poor user experience, and of course, a substantial amount of staff time was being spent resolving these issues.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Core loan statistics Autumn 2016 & Autumn 2017<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly,\nas the collection evolves and becomes progressively more digital, stock data\nshowed that fewer items had been added to Core that autumn than the previous\nyear, because Ebooks, electronic articles, digitisations and streaming video\nholdings increased.  Statistics also\nrevealed usage of Core increased overall since interfiling, but interestingly,\nit was in-house loans<\/strong> which actually\nrose.  In fact, since interfiling these\nitems with the general collection, the number of normal loans (ie the amount of\nborrowing) had decreased, but the number of in-house loans increased by 125%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Were people\nnot borrowing these items because they\u2019d become aware of the fines? Was there a\nnatural move towards using the resources purely as reference?  We wanted to find out what was going on &\nprovide the best solution for users to urgently reduce dissatisfaction. But\nonce the books had been interfiled, did we dare to change the Core collection\nagain, in an attempt to clarify its meaning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Project: Core<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Team Core\nwas set up by the Library\u2019s senior management, and was asked to look at the\nCore collection in terms of its purpose, usage and operation, and to come up\nwith recommendations for possible improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The project\naim was to make recommendations on the future development of the Core collection,\npaying specific attention to the questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  • Do we need a\nCore collection?<\/li>
  • What should it\nlook like and how should it operate?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Team Core \u2013\nor the \u2018Core Collection Working Group\u2019 – was made up of members of the Academic\n& Frontline Services departments, to cover issues of collection development\nand management, as well as circulation, customer service and liaison, and members\nof the Systems team were also consulted regarding impacts on and possibilities\nof the LMS and circulation equipment (and for many Alma reports).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Team
    Team Core<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    There were two\nmain areas of activity:  analytics &\nliaison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analytics:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Collection\nDevelopment team provided statistics on the size of Core\/number of items added\nto Core, and their borrowing\/usage data, revealing fewer items had been added,\nbut in-house loans had increased. \nFrontline Services provided statistics on fines collected\/waived and\nqueries about Core, both of which had risen steeply.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Liaison:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Internal\nliaison sought the views of both students and staff.  Student voice was drawn from a focus group,\nour Post-Graduate Collection Advisors and quick questionnaires at self-issue\nmachines, as items were being borrowed.  Library\nRep\/academic tutors\u2019 opinions about their perception of the Core collection were\ngleaned from the Library Consultative Group, interviews and email\nquestionnaires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Knowing this\nhad been done before, we sought out the experience of others via jiscmail\ngroups (LIS-LINK, LIS-COLLECTION-MGMT, LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE); queries were posted\nand archives were trawled.  Four similar\nqueries had been passed around the sector at roughly the same time, showing it\nto be a current and common concern. We searched other university library websites\nfor collection\/loan policies and made good use of any networking activities, by\nasking around and sending colleagues to find out what others did, at any visits\nor events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We took stock of all the evidence, anecdotes and indicators we could, and came up with four options:

    Stay the same \u2013 3 day \u2013 Ref only \u2013 bookable loans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There were\npros and cons to each, but Reference Only seemed by far the best option, on\nbalance.  This\nsatisfied our Reading List objective the best, in terms of providing access to\nEssential books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Core Outcomes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    On Monday\nFebruary 5th, 2018, we changed the loan policy of 6,453 items from overnight\nloan, to \u2018Not to be borrowed\u2019, and started the process of restickering all\nthose books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \""Improving
    “Improving Access to Essential Texts”: Core to Reference Only poster in the Library<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    We made a\nhuge effort to communicate the decision clearly, with a positive headline that\nsold the benefits (\u201cImproving Access to Essential Texts\u201d), and used \u2018Reference\nOnly\u2019 as the label, which had been offered by students as the clearest\nterminology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We also kept\nLibrary colleagues in the loop, via the working group and department meetings; we\ninformed managers and security staff and left flyers on everyone\u2019s desks.  Each academic we\u2019d interviewed or emailed was\ninformed of the outcome of the consultation and there was a \u2018news item\u2019 that\nmost departments put on their internal web pages.  We contacted our focus group participants and\nNUS reps and gave it as much visibility as we could in the Library: on flyers,\nposters and plasma screens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    After one\nterm it had been overwhelmingly positive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A few times\na week people asked if they could borrow these books, but they genuinely didn\u2019t\nseem to mind when they were told no.  (This\nis in comparison to people complaining loudly, 4 or 5 times a day, about fines.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Feedback
    Feedback postcard from a grateful student<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    One student said\nthat other, more solvent, students, would previously have just kept the Core\nbooks, because they could afford to pay the huge fines.  The student also said they didn\u2019t mind if the\nbook was in use when they came into the Library, because they knew that at\nleast it wasn\u2019t \u201cmissing for days\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A subsequent\nfocus group also gave pleasing feedback, with the majority of participants\nsaying: \u201cYes it\u2019s a good solution\u201d, and that \u201cCore didn\u2019t make it clear it was\n24-hr borrowing, so fines racked up.  \u2018Ref Only\u2019 is clearer.\u201d  One participant said \u201cStudents are quite\nhappy with the Core collection being changed into reference only and it will\nnow be available to more students\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Final SCore<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So how does it really look, one year later? Statistics show that the in-house loans of Core items have continued to rise year on year. 
    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    In-House Loans of Core Items: 2016-2019<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    To avoid\nmaking assumptions from this purely quantitative data, the Frontline Services\ndepartment were also surveyed for their experiences with students.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Results
    Results from survey carried out in Frontline Services meeting, March 26th 2019<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Over 80% of\nstaff members asked said that they thought the reference only books were being\nwell used, and 77% said that making them reference only has improved access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It was\nexpected that there\u2019d be occasions where students wanted to borrow books and\nwere unable to.  We were prepared for\nthere be some upset, but it transpires that this is rare occurrence, and the\nvast majority of students understand the meaning and purpose of \u2018Reference\nOnly\u2019 without further intervention. \nOverall, the results are better than we might have hoped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Some final words must go to our own Mike Smith, Frontline Services Supervisor, who sums this up nicely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n