For thing 2 I looked at a handful of blogs from the list of participants on Delicious. How did I choose which blogs from the many to go to? Well, it’s all in the name for me. I did however try not to go to too many UK blogs, as I see the global reach of this programme a great benefit. I also tried not to pick too many academic librarians.

Of the 20 or so blogs I looked at I commented on four and I will be subscribing to their RSS feeds to follow their progress through the programme. They are:

• Info Glut
• Lib Gloss
• Miss Scarlet in the Library
• Odd Librarian Out

And finally, I will leave you with a picture that sums up exactly how I feel about comments:

by miss miah

Over the next few months I will be participating in the CPD23 programme, 23 Things for Professional Development. Whilst the tasks that I complete as part of this will form the bulk of content on this blog over the summer I will also try to post additional stuff too. I did consider setting up a separate blog but as I use this blog as a reflection tool for my CPD already it seemed foolish to separate the two.

This is the third time I will be taking part in a 23 things programme, but this time there are some key differences…

by  familymwr

Firstly, I am in no way involved in running it. Which is great! My two previous experiences of the programme have been as a member of the team delivering the programme so I’m really looking forward to taking part solely as a participant.

Secondly, the content and themes covered in this programme have a different focus. Both Ox23 and UoW23 were about introducing the participants to social media sites, showing their relevance to libraries and how they can be used by librarians. While CPD23 covers some of those topics, blogging and current awareness for example, it goes broader than that. It also looks at creating a personal brand, networking offline (as well as on), opportunities for training, and advocacy.

So that’s me and thing 1 done.

Last week I attended, and spoke at, an exchange of experience seminar on Information Skills for Undergraduates organised by and for library staff at the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford. Below is my summary of the event.

First to speak was Hazel Rothera, Senior Subject Librarian for Education at Oxford Brookes. Her talk was on the development of a virtual tour and online induction for Harcourt Hill Library. The focus was on producing online content with little or no knowledge of web design. Of particular interest to me was the shift towards an online induction. One project I am working on at the moment is to review our department’s offering at induction. The logistics of booking tours and taking students round the library physically is always a challenge. Part of the induction at Hazel’s library was a treasure hunt type exercise which aimed to engage students with the physical library without the need for organised tours. This in conjunction with the virtual tour provided students a full induction to the basic workings and services of the library.

My presentation came next. I chose to talk about the central information skills workshops that the library offers. As we are currently developing these I chose to go on a journey through the evolution of the programme. We started off delivering a series of Beyond Google workshops on the Warwick Skills Portfolio Award. The content of this duplicated much that was already done within subject specific training and therefore take-up was poor.

Last year we withdrew our offering on this programme to focus on finding out what our users’ really wanted from information skills training. This was done through a series of focus groups and trial information handling sessions. The key findings from these were that students wanted training at point of need and that they had different priorities at different times of the year. In term 1 the focus was on managing information, in term 2 they were most concerned about subject specific research skills, and in term 3 it was all about jobs and internships. They also identified certain databases and software that was of particular interest. So, we decided to focus on one of these and run a series of stand alone workshops on EndNote Web. These were open to all, but the take-up was largely from 2nd and 3rd year undergraduates and students on taught postgraduate courses.

Thinking about the future, and following on from the success of the EndNote workshops, I would like to develop a series of information skills seminars. Using the key themes that came out of the focus groups, or specific databases that were identified, such as Factiva, to drive the content.

After a short break for tea and cake Kate Jackson, Legal Research Librarian at the Bodleian Law Library took the floor to tell us about the Legal Research and Mooting Skills Programme. This is an information skills programme run jointly by the library and the department. One thing that came out of our focus groups at Warwick was that students are more likely to attend and see the importance of information skills and library training if their lecturers promote it to them. A programme like this that is embedded within the undergraduate courses in law and has an element of assessment included that goes towards the final course mark is the perfect way to deliver the necessary information skills.

The remainder of the morning was taken up with a workshop on developing learning pathways, facilitated by Louise Clarke, Bodleian Social Science Librarian. We identified four stages within an undergraduate course where there was an opporuntity to deliver information skills training. These were; pre-arrival, induction, on specific modules and tied to an extended essay or dissertation. We split into four groups, each taking one stage and discussed:

• the range of information skills that could usefully be developed at this point
• what methods of delivery would be most appropriate
• any current best practice

My group looked at the pre-arrival stage. We first discussed the range of information we might want to provide about the library at this point. The main focus was to convey the difference between research at school and at university and the range of services and resources that were available through the library. We also considered the idea of developing an understanding of how to search effectively, evaluate results and the difference between searching the Internet and subscription resources. In terms of delivery, we considered the idea of producing an online guide, using the LibGuides software, that could act as a central hub for a variety of content. There would need to be some textual information, but could also be videos and a quiz to provide some interactivity. This could be promoted through the welcome packs sent out by colleges and departments and via Facebook and/or Twitter.

Rounding off the day was Kerry Webb, Deputy Librarian at the English Faculty Library at Oxford, speaking about effective marketing strategies for training programmes. She highlighted Kotler’s revision of the 4 P’s principle which picks out these key elements of promoting a product or service:

1. Customer value
2. Convenience
3. Cost
4. Communication

This was yet another extremely interesting and useful event. It really was an exchange of experience and I’ve come away with lots of ideas for how to develop and promote our services at Warwick.

Last week I attended a symposium on Personalised Library Services in Higher Education. It was run by Andy Priestner (Library and Information Centre Manager, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge) and Libby Tilley (Librarian, Faculty of English, University of Cambridge).

Andy and Libby had an article, Boutique libraries at your service, published in CILIP Update last year and were subsequently commissioned by Ashgate to edit a book on the same topic. The purpose of the symposium was to explore the boutique model which had been set out in the article and develop ideas around the themes of each chapter.

The presentations from the day can be found on the Symposium page of the Personalised Libraries in HE blog and there is also a document of the tweets from the #pls11 tag. Below are my notes from the event. If you’ve read my previous post on making visual notes you will know that I am experimenting with a new note-taking technique. This was my first attempt at it and I’m a convert.

And so, on to my reflection of the event. In the first presentation of the day Andy and Libby introduced the model they had created and explained that there should be a balance in every library service between the following elements:

• Boutique or personalised services
• Collaborative activities
• Centrally managed activities

Their model also has the user as part of the mix and there was much discussion about where they are placed in the diagram. Many suggested that the user should be at the centre but, there was disagreement about how much the user is aware or affected by the internal workings of the library, their interaction is through the service provided.

Two questions I have found myself returning to after the event are

1. how we assess our users’ needs
2. how do we define and group our users

In her presentation Jane Secker highlighted the fact that surveys only go so far to assess user needs. Speaking specifically about researchers she said that to truly understand librarians need to become researchers themselves and experience life from the other side. At Warwick in the past we have run focus groups with students and I really feel it is only through conversations, not the one-way traffic of surveys, that we can really come anywhere close to understanding what our users want.

When talking about building relationships Chris Powis covered some of the ways we define and group our users. Whether it is by location, course, department or method of study we hit upon the age old problem of classification – many people will fit in to more than one group.

To provide a personalised service we have to do a certain amount of generalisation by group because it is simply not possible to meet everyone’s individual needs. I think what I’m looking for is a way to make our response and service flexible, perhaps the start of this is simply to undersdstand that our users approaches to work and study are changing. In my job I support many groups of MBA students and my default position has largely been to define them by their method of study; full-time, part-time or by distance. Now that we are all becoming more connected, more reliant on the Internet and used to the ease of access to information I think these boundaries are blurring; the full-time students are now just as likely to want, or expect, electronic access to materials as the distance learners for who this is the only means of finding information.

In my role as a subject (or liaison) librarian I think the main thing that I’ve taken away from the symposium is some new ideas for engaging staff and students and building relationships with them. This is then the starting point for developing a service that is tailored to meet their needs.

Last week I presented at the CILIP UC&R West Midlands event Lean and Mean Library Machine. More on that coming soon… for now here are my notes from the rest of the event.

First up was Dave Parkes from Staffordshire University. He presented some ideas for how library services as a whole can and will need to adapt in the face of large scale cuts and the changing educational climate. As librarians have always had to deal with change he thinks we are uniquely placed to cope with the cuts ahead.

How we do this is by upgrading our skills mix – according to Parkes we don’t need to be tech junkies (although some of us might like to be) but we need to have an awareness of new technologies and how they can be applied in libraries and more broadly in education. He sees that for libraries to survive we need to be active in every aspect of the university’s work.

At Staffordshire University the library is about to be rebuilt, and rebranded as the Knowledge Hub. This will place the library at the heart of the university. The focus here is on the user – or as Dave prefers, Member. All members have a stake in the library and the services provided need to be driven by the stakeholders. At Staffordshire this has been manifested in a change in collection development policy where the inter-library loan service has been cancelled and replaced by user-driven purchases.

Next to speak was Stuart Hunt, a colleague of mine from the University of Warwick. His focus was on process improvement and the use of Processfix Rapid Improvement Workshops. The aim of these workshops is to identify one area of the library’s service e.g. acquisitions, or enquiries and to eliminate waste in this area in order to improve efficiency. Waste is defined as anything that does not add value to a process, or anything a customer is not prepared to pay for. The principle behind this comes from the lean manufacturing system first implemented by Taiichi Ohno at Toyota.

I followed Stuart and after my presentation came Richard Wallis from Talis talking about what technology can do for the Lean Mean Library Machine. He has shared his slides on Slideshare:

His points are summed up nicely on the penultimate slide:

• We are all already using technology to help us improve our services
• Innovation in this area is constant and as technologies evolve so do our services.
• Although setup costs are often substantial, implementing new technologies can help us save in the future
• The benefits are felt across organisations – within our own and through partnerships with others

In the final session of the day we worked in small groups looking at the challenges that academic libraries might face as a result of funding cuts. My group looked at the following scenario:

You are an academic librarian delivering a full induction and training programme to four departments. As a result of a library restructure you take on four more departments, how do you ensure that the quality of training is maintained across all subject areas?

In an ideal world there would have been a proper hand over with colleagues who had previously worked to support the additional four departments. This would have included a handover of materials used for training. We realise however that this almost never happens and so suggested some alternatives for if you were starting from scratch.

• To ensure consistency of content a generic session could be designed that could easily be adapted with examples relevant to the different subject areas.
• Detailed teaching plans could be written so that the sessions could be handed on and delivered by another member of staff in future.
• All materials for the sessions should be saved on shared drives.
• An online tutorial could be used to support the face-to-face sessions.
• Sessions could be run for multiple departments at once to reduce duplication and pressures on staff time.

This was my first UC&R event and I’m really glad I had the opportunity to be involved. The presentations were thought provoking and the opportunity to share ideas through the scenario work invaluable.