Ejournal Forum Column: DRAFT FIVE/FINAL DRAFT Staffing for Electronic Resource Management: t e Results of a Sur!

e"

Intro#uction

While most libraries are still spending significant portions of their budgets on print resources, there is no doubt that library collections of electronic resources have grown dramatically in the last five years. Indeed, the authors of this installment of The E-Journal Forum both find ourselves deeply immersed in the purchase and maintenance of electronic resources every wor day and have witnessed this ama!ing growth firsthand. "ne of us holds a position with the title of #igital $esources %c&uisitions 'ibrarian( the other is head of )ollection *anagement +ervices but spends well over ,- percent of her time wor ing with e-resources.

"ur perception, not only based on our own e.periences but on the e.changes we see on a variety of discussion lists, on articles in the published literature, on the number of relevant sessions at professional meetings and on personal communications with our peers across the country, is that the problem of staffing for eresources has reached a crisis level in our profession that demands data, attention, and action. In this column, we offer the results of an informal survey intended to gauge eresource staffing trends. "ur e.pectation is that librarians in

all ind of libraries can benefit by access to information about what other institutions are doing to handle the wor load created by eresources.

When we conceived the survey, our goal was to investigate whether the amount of staff allocated to eresources in academic libraries is ade&uate to meet the demands created by e.plosive growth in eresource collections. While we gathered relevant staffing data from /001 and 2--2, we found that in every case the amount of staff devoted to the activities we as ed about has grown in this period, but not as significantly as the collection has grown. "ur analysis concentrates on the picture provided for 2--2.

T e Sur!e": Met o#olog"

The survey we prepared was intended to identify how prevalent the crisis in staffing is. +ince neither of us has the time to fill out surveys, we decided from the outset that ours would be as brief as possible 3 we would not attempt to offer a statistically representative sample for full statistical analysis. In other words, we simply wanted to gather enough information to tease out trends. We sent the survey to appro.imately thirty colleagues in academic libraries around the 4nited +tates( we ended up with fifteen responses, including our own. +i. of the fifteen respondents provided information for all of the units in a decentrali!ed library system( another two responded for selected units in a decentrali!ed system. The

other seven respondents all indicated that they were providing information for a centrali!ed or single library.

We elected not to as about selecting, mar eting or teaching patrons how to use e-resources, or gathering usage statistics5/6, and we did not define or restrict the term 7electronic resources.8 What we wanted was information about how libraries are staffing for activities involving the ac&uisition and maintenance of e-resources and access to them, i.e. the behind the scenes activities. We told those to whom we sent the survey that they could provide an estimate if they were not certain of a precise number of people involved in any given activity, and that they should feel free to include percentages of one FTE9person when that person is involved in multiple tas s.

We included the following functional areas related to e-resource ac&uisition in the survey: %c&uisition9;urchase ;rocess 'icensing +etting up %ccess Invoicing9;ayment ;roblem +olving )ataloging9";%) wor $ecord *anagement9*aintenance of <on-";%) systems ;ro.y +erver *anagement

4nion 'isting Troubleshooting %ccess ;roblems +ystems +upport +ite *onitoring +etting up9maintaining lin s to e=ournals from I>% databases

%ll respondents were guaranteed anonymity to encourage an open and honest response to the survey and to avoid any possibility of negative repercussions for the respondents at their home institutions. The sample included large and medium si!ed academic libraries and a mi. of public and private institutions.

$e" Fin#ings: Staff %ro&t Versus Collection %ro&t

"ur impressions that staffing for e-resources is largely inade&uate were confirmed by the survey responses. The si. institutions that responded to a &uestion as ing them to estimate overall e-collection growth in the five years from /001 to 2--2 provided answers ranging from a low of /-- percent to a high of /2?- percent. The average e-collection growth during these five years was an astounding //-- percent.

*eanwhile, the staff growth reported by the fourteen respondents to this &uestion in this same five-year time period averaged ?/@ percent, with a range from 1percent to @0-- percent increase in FTE. This average growth in FTE is not

particularly meaningful, given the wide range of reported staff growth. *ore meaningful is the fact that eight of fourteen respondents reported staff growth for e-resource support hovering around the /---2-- percent range. Four respondents reported growth more than doubling, and no respondent indicated staff growth of less than 1-A. "verall, then, we can conclude that for this group of libraries, staff at least doubled B/-- percent increaseC, but collections grew at least ten times larger in the same period B/--- percentC.

)learly, then, while libraries have been adding staff in response to needs for eresource support, they have not been adding staff in a way that comes close to being in proportion to collection growth. While one would not e.pect or even need staff and collection to have to grown in e.act proportion to each other, the fact that staff and collection growth are an order of magnitude apart does strongly suggest that more staff needs to be deployed in e-collection support.

This conclusion is supported by the respondentsD answers to &uestions about whether various aspects of e-resource management were ade&uately staffed. "f the nine areas for which this &uestion was as ed, only two, invoicing Bseven of eight reporting ade&uate staffC and systems support Beleven of thirteen reporting ade&uate staffC were clearly ade&uately staffed in all respondentsD institutions. There were si. areas in which staff was consistently reported as inade&uate Bby half or more responding to the &uestionC, including: licensing( cataloging( non";%) record management( troubleshooting access problems( site monitoring

for content changes( and setting up lin s between I>% databases and fullte.t. "ne area, the ac&uisition9purchase process, presented a mi.ed set of responses, with four institutions believing it was an area that was ade&uately staffed and three institutions believing it was not.

$espondentsD comments support these observations. "ne librarian offered the following: 7I do not thin my answers reflect how understaffed we are for dealing with digital resources. Eecause we have added only one staff position to assist with the proliferation of electronic materials, we are as ing e.isting librarians and staff to continually do additional wor while the e.isting wor as not decreased.8

This same librarian ma es the important point that not only is more staff needed to deal with digital resources, which have been added on top of other duties, but that the demands electronic resources place on staff are &ualitatively different than the demands of print, in that 7BtCechnology has raised e.pectations and has also added a layer of comple.ity in the delivery of information that re&uires greater e.pertise among staff.8

)ertainly we have noticed this trend both in the *IT and 4niversity at Euffalo 'ibraries, where we find few if any FroutineD tas s related to digital resource management, but many, many comple. and interdependent tas s that re&uire a

broad nowledge of library systems, the campus networ , and our pro.y server, as well as broad and deep nowledge of the particular products we have purchased.

*ost of the libraries responding to our survey have, as noted above, added significantly to staff wor ing on electronic resources, but most have done so by distributing the wor among many additional players, rather than hiring staff to handle the particular demands of digital resources. "ne library, for e.ample, reports that 7We have approached the staffing to meet the demands created by new electronic resources through a distributed approach with only two positions having very specific and substantial functions related to the process.8 Two other librarians reinforce this theme. "ne comments: 7#ue to enormous growth of eresources, staffing sort of FhappenedD to accommodate. In many cases, the growth in staffing was more an FabsorptionD of tas s rather than getting new staff.8 %nother notes that: 7We have the process spread out over many depart5ments6.8 This library does not believe this distribution is very effective. In the long run, however, a distributed model may indeed be the best model, as it allows all of the staff to wor with the resources that are becoming the most significant and predominant in libraries today. The ey to ma ing a distributed system wor would seem to be creating a team approach to pull together distributed functions, rather than relying on the ind of fragmented system with many players and no well-developed communication channels that can emerge organically in response to the pressure of new tas s related to eresources.

Eelow we review each of these functional areas for e-resource management to provide a more in-depth review of what the respondents reported.

'(ser!e# Tren#s

Electronic Resource Ac)uisitions %ll fifteen libraries responding to the survey indicated that they are actively involved in the ac&uisition of electronic resources. +even said that they have one or more positions with responsibilities dedicated to ac&uiring electronic resources. In every case, the level of the staff member responsible for ac&uiring e-resources was that of a librarian, although nine libraries said that they have support staff, often 7high level8 support staff, involved as well. "nly four sites indicated that they had hired a new or additional librarian to handle e-resource ac&uisition( the remaining institutions reported that the individuals handling eresource ac&uisitions had been reassigned from other tas s or had simply had the duties added to e.isting wor loads. %s noted above, respondents from four out of seven institutions indicated that they believe that they have sufficient staff to ade&uately handle eresource ac&uisition( three believe staff to be insufficient in this area.

Licensing Electronic Resources In the olden days of yore, when library resources were purchased on paper, in microform, or on an audio or video medium, the library staff seldom needed to have anyone review a license agreement before cran ing out a purchase order. With the introduction of computer files, things began to change, and with the introduction of licensed Internet resources, having someone on staff to review licenses and perhaps to consult with legal advisors became a fact of life. %ll fifteen of the responding libraries are involved with licensing agreements, and more than half 3 eight 3 have someone on staff who is specifically assigned to handle them. In every case, the person in &uestion is a librarian, though support staff or even student assistants were sometimes said to be involved in controlling the associated paperwor . "nce again, three sites indicated that a new librarian was involved in handling this activity. "nly four sites reported having sufficient staff to ade&uately review and negotiate license agreements.

Setting *+ Access 'ibraries need to have staff to handle the registration of e-resources, to provide information about I; address ranges or passwords, and to actually set up access to e-resources. "nce again, all fifteen libraries have someone who does this activity, si. having one or more dedicated positions 3 the range was from appro.imately ./- FTE to two staff members. Ten libraries have librarians handling registration, but in this case more high level support staff are stepping up to the plate. Three libraries had new positions added to ta e responsibility for

the tas ( others have been handling eresource registration through reassignments or adding new duties to someoneDs =ob description.

In!oicing/,a"ment ,ro(lem Sol!ing +ince all fifteen of the libraries surveyed indicated that they were purchasing eresources, naturally all fifteen reported being involved in paying and resolving problems with invoices for these products. Four of the institutions responding to the survey indicated that they have dedicated some percentage of a staff member to specifically wor with eresource invoices and problems. In 2--2, the percentage of that staff memberDs time dedicated to eresources ranged from .-, to .,- FTE. The remaining institutions reported between ./- to .2, FTEs involved in fund management for eresource invoices. Eleven of the fifteen libraries reported having a librarian handling or to some e.tent involved with invoice payment and problem resolution for eresources. In only two cases were new staff lines added to help with this new wor load, but seven institutions indicated that they believe that they have ade&uate staff to meet these needs.

Cataloging/',AC -or. Fourteen of the fifteen libraries responding to the survey indicated that they have staff involved in cataloging eresources or in otherwise representing the presence of these materials in their online catalogs. "f the fourteen, four indicated that their institutions have dedicated anywhere from .1, to 2., librarian and support staff lines to eresource cataloging and ";%) wor . "ne respondent stated that

10

their institution 7would li e a new digital resources catalog librarian.8 In all but one case, the potentially highly labor intensive wor of representing e-resources in ";%)s has been handled through reassignment and9or the addition of duties to current wor loads. "nly one institution firmly indicated that they believe they are ade&uately staffed to handle the eresource cataloging wor load.

Recor# Management/Maintenance of Non/',AC S"stems We indicated on our survey that this category should include 7Web design for delivery of e-resources and adding resources to Web pages.8 That is, we intended for this &uestion to address access to eresources through library websites rather than, or perhaps in addition to, access through the ";%). Fourteen of the fifteen librarians responding to the survey indicated that their institutions are actively involved in providing and maintaining this ind of access to eresources. Eight institutions said that they currently have staff dedicated to this activity, ranging in total from ./- to G FTE and generally said to be either librarians or systems9computer support staff. +i. respondents said that their institution has devoted some percentage of a new FTE to dealing with non-";%) access to eresources. The respondent from one of the institutions which had added a new staff position to help deal with this new wor load said that they were ade&uately staffed for it. % second said 7Hes 5we are ade&uately staffed for this need6, until aggregator titles are added.8 Ten institutions believe they are inade&uately staffed to provide access to eresources through websites. We

11

wonder how outsourcing solutions such as those offered by +erials +olutions and T#<et will affect this area in the future.

,ro0" Ser!er Management Fourteen of the fifteen institutions responding to the survey have pro.y servers, and the fifteenth is in the process of creating one. Five institutions have staff dedicated to handling the pro.y server, with the amount of time ranging from .-? to 2 FTE. Ten sites specifically mention systems or computing professionals or technology support staff( in the remainder of cases, the tas falls to librarians. "nly three institutions indicated that they had hired new staff to, at least in part, help with pro.y server management. In other cases, e.isting staff have had to absorb this new wor load. +i. institutions said that they are ade&uately staffed to handle the activity.

*nion Listing Eleven out of our fifteen responding institutions indicate that they are actively involved in union listing. Iowever, our survey form failed to clearly as whether they union list eresources. The results lead us to surmise that they do not, since not one of those responding 3 including ourselves -- indicated that we have a position dedicated to handling the union listing of eformats.

Trou(les ooting Access ,ro(lems

12

If your library offers eresources, then without a doubt it needs staff to troubleshoot inevitable access problems. %ll fifteen respondents indicated that they are involved with this activity( si. indicate that they have dedicated anywhere from ./- to .,- FTE to troubleshooting. Eoth librarians and support staff are reported as regularly involved, and in only three cases were new staff members hired to help. Five institutions said that they believe that they have ade&uate staff available for troubleshooting, while eight believed that they did not have ade&uate staff. "ne institution indicated that until they added titles from aggregator databases that they had been in good shape, but that they need to get additional staff involved.

S"stems Su++ort "n the survey, this heading included a parenthetical remar e.plaining that by systems support we meant to include such activities as writing scripts to encode passwords for access( pro.y server management is considered separately. Two of the fifteen institutions said that they are not involved in systems activities such as writing scripts to encode passwords, but the remainder indicated that they are. Five institutions reported having FTE dedicated to systems support, although the amount of time involved is very small, ranging from .-, to .2,. The level of staff involved included librarians, systems, or systems support staff, and some support staff. The respondent from one institution indicated that her institution actively discourages purchasing or establishing access to eresources that re&uire encoded passwords. Three institutions had new hires involved in systems

13

support( only one institution indicated that it had insufficient staff to meet this need.

Site Monitoring There are many reasons why libraries need to monitor the lin s that they set up for eresources. Eresources can disappear altogether( their 4$'+ can and do change( their scopes and titles can change( and access to full te.t can be interrupted, sometimes because a new pricing model has been adopted by the publisher or provider and the library has either not paid the new fee or signed a newly re&uired license agreement. We as ed respondents to tell us not only whether they actively monitor access to their eresources, but whether they do so manually or with the assistance of a software program. <ine libraries answered that they engage in site monitoring, two said that they did not and four left the &uestion blan or indicated that they had not understood the &uestion. Two institutions said that they have only automated lin chec ing( si. said that they did both automated lin chec ing and manual site monitoring. "ne site that said that it monitored its eresources failed to say how it chec ed. <ine institutions said that they have FTEs dedicated to site monitoring. *ost respondents did not estimate the staff time devoted to this activity, but of the five sites that did provide an answer, the responses ranged from ./- to 2 FTE and included not only librarians, computer professionals, and support staff, but in two cases student assistants. E.isting staff oversee this wor load, e.cept for two institutions which are incorporating new FTEs. "f the nine institutions monitoring eresources, four

14

indicated that they are ade&uately staffed for the tas while five said that they are not.

Setting *+/Maintaining Lin.s to E1ournals from I2A Data(ases "ur final &uestion dealt with the concept of software that allows libraries to create lin s from bibliographic databases to e.ternal full te.t articles stored on other Web-based systems. E.amples include "vidDs "pen'in s, ;ub*edDs 'in "ut, I+IDs 'in s, and +FJ. Thirteen respondents indicated that they are involved to some e.tent in this activity in 2--2, but only one was said to be so in /001. Five of the thirteen have a dedicated position, though the amount of staff time devoted is low, ranging from ./- to .,- FTE. 'ibrarians, computer staff, support staff and in one case student assistants help with this activity. Two institutions reported having new staff lines to deal with lin s from I>% databases to available full te.t, and only two 3 the same two 3 reported having sufficient staff to handle the wor load. We e.pect this area will demand even more staff in the future as more libraries implement +FJ or other similar lin ing schemes.

Conclusion

"ur survey confirmed the sense that we had from our own institutions and those of our peers that academic libraries are in dire need of more staff to support the ac&uisition and ongoing management of digital resources. $espondents were clear that staff growth, while not insignificant, has not been sufficient to eep up with collection growth. The most critical problems reported were in the functional areas of licensing( cataloging( record management for non-";%) systems( troubleshooting access problems( site monitoring for content and access changes( and setting up lin s to fullte.t.

15

In closing, it seems relevant to provide e.amples of relevant staffing changes from the authorsD institutions. %t the time of this writing at the close of fiscal year 2--2, the *IT 'ibraries have devoted a full one-third, or GG percent, of its total serial dollars to electronic resources. In this same fiscal year 2--2, the *IT 'ibraries spent K1 percent of the total new serial funds on electronic resources. This strong emphasis on collecting electronic resources demands a comparable commitment of staff.

%t *IT, in response to the pressures of this growth, the 'ibraries have =ust completed a reorgani!ation that shifts responsibility for ac&uiring and maintaining this collection from one service unit to three, and from two part-time positions amounting to a total of /.2, FTEs in 2--/, to parts of si. different positions for the latter part of 2--2, adding roughly one full FTE to eresource ac&uisition and support.

The 4niversity at Euffalo 'ibraries are decentrali!ed and have not effected an overall reorgani!ation to ta e eresource ac&uisition and management into account. Iowever, in response to the enormous growth in the number and range of eresources offered since /001, The 'ibraries have created lines for an %ssistant %c&uisitions 'ibrarian for Electronic $esources and for a Lirtual 'ibrary +upport 'ibrarian. "ther new positions, those of a )oordinator of Electronic )ollections, a )oordinator of 'ibraries Web #evelopment and +ervices, and a Iead of Electronic Information and %ccess +ervices in the 'aw 'ibrary, involve

16

reassignments. In addition, a number of staff in )entral Technical +ervices, the Iealth +ciences 'ibraryDs )ollection *anagement +ervices, the 'aw 'ibraryDs Technical +ervices, and the 4niversity 'ibraryDs +ystems "ffice have absorbed sometimes very significant wor loads that involve either the purchase, licensing, and trac ing of e-resources or the provision and maintenance of access. *any staff in the 'ibraries continuously and actively monitor the information environment for new ways to efficiently and effectively manage eresources. We are creating local reports that will help us improve control and monitor access, and we are beginning to incorporate outsourcing solutions into our overall eresource management scheme.

This effort at both the 4niversity at Euffalo and *IT to reorgani!e and9or reassign duties to accommodate growth in eresource collections reflects a recognition of the need seen across this survey to focus more staff on the labor-intensive =obs of ac&uiring and maintaining electronic resources. %s discussed above, one could debate whether a centrali!ed staff to support such resources or an integrated, mainstreamed approach is better. Eut the bottom line that emerges from our survey is that in academic libraries today, more staff is needed to support ecollections growing rapidly in si!e and significance. 'ibraries have clearly made fairly significant efforts to reallocate staff or redefine positions, but if this group of libraries is at all representative, these efforts have not been ade&uate to meet the rather astonishing level of demand created by the volume

17

and comple.ity of digital collections. +hould we say that this is fertile ground for more in-depth researchMN

Endnote: /We did not as about these areas of electronic resource support since they seemed to fall beyond standard ac&uisition and maintenance channels, which are the focus of this study. Iowever, it is important to note that selecting, mar eting, and instruction related to eresources also present serious demands on staff time and in many cases present issues more comple. than those raised for comparable print collections. In particular, the need to gather effective use statistics represents another labor-intensive process that re&uires a significant commitment of fairly high-level staff time and is increasingly essential to every libraryDs mission. The recent wor by the %ssociation of $esearch 'ibraries to provide a standard for gathering and reporting usage statistics as part of their E*etrics pro=ect is an important step to bring libraries together on this important issue. 5see http:99www.arl.org9stats9newmeas9emetrics9contract----/.html6.

18