Proving your librarys value: how to conduct a review that aligns - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Proving your library’s value:

how to conduct a review that aligns with your academic programs

Hello from Marymount University!

Introduction

Overview of Marymount University

○ ○ ○ ○

Setting the scene

○ ○ ○

• ○

Overview of the review

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Project Timeline

January

• Form teams
• Create project plan
• Initial team meetings

February - April

• Work on background:

components 1-4

May

• Draft report sent to PIE
• Report sent to external reviewer
• External reviewer visit

June

• Receive External Reviewer

report

• Start developing the Action

Plan

• Action Plan completed

August

• Submit Final Report to APBP

October

• Feedback from APBP

COMPONENT 1:

Assessment & Effectiveness

Task 1: What are the library’s

• utcomes?

University goals Academic Affairs Library & Learning Services

Sample

• utcome

Spaces that support the needs

• f students

Space improvements on campus Library’s physical space

Task 2: How does the library assess achievement of these outcomes?

○ ○ ○

COMPONENT 2:

Resource Allocation and Use

Task 1: Personnel

○ ○ ○ ○

Task 2: Facilities

○ ○

Task 3: Budget

○

• ○

COMPONENT 3:

Benchmarking

Task 1: Determine universities for benchmarking

○ Using Marymount’s Benchmark Peer or Aspirational School Lists, identify at least three institutions with similar libraries ○ If there are accrediting and/or professional standards that guide the library’s operations, the library may use them as one of the comparisons

Who looked like us?

Benchmarked libraries needed to have MU’s similar: ○ Mission & Vision ○ Values ○ Goals Our Dean emphasized attributes such as: ○ belonging to a library consortium ○ proximity to a major city ○ librarians classified as faculty that she wanted our team to include in our analysis.

How did we chose libraries to benchmark against?

Thanks to our Office of Planning & Institutional Effectiveness: Step 1: Step 2:

Task 2: Benchmarking analysis

○ Conduct a benchmarking analysis of the identified institutions. ○ Use the benchmarking summary sheet to record your findings

IPEDS Data ACRL Metrics Data Step 3: Used 262 criteria items from ACRL Metrics to narrow down to 4 universities due to missing or not applicable survey data from the other

• libraries. Then we added IPEDS Data to the analysis.

Step 3a:

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Complete Benchmark Summary Sheet Part A

Briefly explain why the institution was chosen. Educational support by library faculty (only MU has library faculty status) Library Mission and Vision Statements List names of people interviewed, websites and any other information. Contact Info at chosen libraries Mission and scope of work (University mission statements) What similarities or differences exist between Marymount’s library

• perations and the

institution’s? Benchmarking Summary Report Part A Components

Benchmarking Summary Sheet Part B

Use the benchmarking summary sheet to record your findings. The purpose of the summary is to answer the following questions: 1. How do the library’s mission and scope of work compare to other schools? (Shown as Part A) 2. Is the library in sync with current trends and best practices in the field? 3. What is unique about Marymount’s library? 4. Based on the findings, what changes (additions or modifications) should the library consider? (This information was folded into a later section)

Task 2.2: Is the library in sync with current trends and best practices in the field?

○ % budget allocation for collections ○ Budget shift from print monographs to other ○ Collection budget shift from traditional to PDA ○ Collection budget purchases ○ Open Education Initiatives ○ Institutional Repository ○ Digitized institutional documents ○ Digitize print resources ○ Support for creating digital collections ○ Shared print collection

ACRL Trends Report Source: Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015). Summary Data Tables- ACRL

• 2015. Retrieved from http://www.acrlmetrics.com/main.php?page_id=13

We are doing GREAT!

Task 2.3: What is unique about MU’s library?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Marymount University

University C University B

U n i v e r s i t y A

COMPONENT 4:

Constituent input

MAYS Student MAYS Faculty Alumni

Task 1: Review data from institutional surveys University-wide surveys Library surveys

Graduating student Mystery shopper Student satisfaction Faculty satisfaction LI evaluations

Task 2: Gather input from students and/or

• ther

constituents

There was sufficient data from all patron groups. No additional data was required to assess the effectiveness of the library.

Task 3: Identify major themes

○

Identify major themes regarding library strengths and areas for improvement. ○ Themes should inform the external reviewers’ discussion with students and the programs action planning. ○ Are there things that our constituency group needs or wants that we’re not doing?

Major themes

○ ○ ○ ○

COMPONENT 5:

External reviewer

○ ○ ○ ○

Task 1: In consultation with the vice president, identify a candidate to serve as an external reviewer.

Dean’s responsibility ○ ○ ○

Task 2: Coordinate the reviewer’s documentation and site visit, if required.

○

Summary of external reviewer report

Placement in the institution Organization within LLS Collections Staffing Programs Space

Task 3: Response to external reviewer’s report

Response to external reviewer report

Placement in the institution Organization within LLS Collections Staffing Programs Space

Required more explanation Disagreed with the reasons for turn over

COMPONENT 6:

Developing an action plan

○

Task 1: Summarize the library’s engagement and contributions ○ ○

Task 2: Develop a five-year action plan

Task 2: Develop a five-year action plan

Submitting the report ○ ○

Next Steps

Lessons learned

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Thanks!