Initiative Review Group I Progress Report April 30, 2001

Analyze needs of users and develop the services and technical infrastructure to ensure that needs are being met.

Members:

Diane Baker, Elaine Contant, Norma Johnson, Beth Juhl, Sandye McCraw, Terri McMillan, Kathy Riggle. Admin liaison: Alberta Bailey

The group has met four times in the past month. At our first meeting, we reviewed and discussed our charge with Alberta Bailey. A timeline for our work was established, with the following goals:

1. Methods to assess user needs

A. Review current in-house practices for collecting user input

B. Review current literature and practices in other libraries

2. Identify and prioritize current unmet user needs

A. Collect information from all departments

B. Suggest remedies: services, technologies, structures to be considered in the next phase of planning process

The following constituencies were established to ensure that all library departments would be able to provide input:

Sandye - Special Collections

Norma: Fine Arts and Branches

Kathy: Circulation, Course Reserves, Stacks, AV

Terri: "Internal user," Technical Services and DIRO

Diane: ILL/Doc Delivery/Microforms/Copiers and Imaging

Elaine: Technology and tech support; Home Page; InfoLinks

Beth: Reference Service and Instruction

Group members first drew together the reports on previous library-wide and some departmental user surveys. Our second task was to define the categories of library user, including distant education students, disabled users, or other groups that require different or more intensive services than traditional student patrons. Our third task was to brainstorm a long list of user needs; this list included both unmet or inadequately met user needs as well as those services the Libraries are doing a good job of providing. Special attention was given to identifying areas where the Libraries have responded to a user request with innovations in services or practices. The list of unmet needs are currently being formatted in five general areas: collections, services, environments, information and instruction, and technical infrastructure. We will also try to prioritize these lists to some extent.

Our work in May will be to Identify survey and needs assessment tools used in other libraries. We hope to be able to see some of the preliminary results of the recent LibQual survey, as well.

For our final report, we hope to be able to offer examples of assessment tools in the five areas mentioned above (collections, services, environments, instruction, technology) for the use of the implementation team. Finally, if time allows, we hope to be able to give examples or models of the ways other libraries incorporate user feedback into redesign of services and collections.

Respectfully submitted,

IRG #1