Bradford Lee Eden, Ph.D.Bradford Lee Eden, Ph.D.Associate University Librarian for Technical Services &

Scholarly CommunicationUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

Advances in Librarianship (v. 33, 2011)Special issue on Librarianship in Times of Crisis

The University of California Libraries (UCL) and the Next Generation Technical Services (NGTS) Initiative:

Transformative Change During Extreme Budget Reductions

UC Libraries’ Bibliographic Services Task Force (BSTF) Final Report(December 2005)

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf

Library of Congress “The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools”(March 2006)

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf

Indiana University “White Paper on the Future of Cataloging at Indiana University” ( 2006)(January 2006)

https://sharepoint.lib.utexas.edu/texasdigitallibrary/Shared%20Documents/Metadata%20Working%20Group%20Docs/Reading%20Materials/Future_of_Cataloging_White_Paper.pdf

Berkeley (UCB) Los Angeles (UCLA) San Diego (UCSD) Riverside (UCR) Irvine (UCI) Santa Barbara (UCSB) Davis (UCD) Santa Cruz (UCSC) San Francisco (UCSF) Merced (UCM) California Digital Library (CDL)

CoUL (Council of University Librarians)( y ) SOPAG (System-wide Operations and Planning

Advisory Group) HOTS (Heads of Technical Services) HOTS (Heads of Technical Services) HOPS (Heads of Public Services) CAMCIG (Cataloging and Metadata Common

I t t G )( d HOTS)Interest Group)(under HOTS) CDC (Collection Development Committee) SCO (Scholarly Communication Officers)(under SCO (Scholarly Communication Officers)(under

CDC) RSC (Resource Sharing Committee) LTAG (Library Technology Advisory Group) LTAG (Library Technology Advisory Group)

Four major recommendations:j

1. Enhancing Search and Retrieval g2. Re-architecting the OPAC 3. Adopting New Cataloging Practices4. Supporting Continuous Improvement

#1 and #2 were acted upon immediately in 2006 through the Next Generation Melvyl initiative, incorporating WorldCat Local as a pilot project. This phase has recently moved from pilot phase to implementationimplementation.

Memo related to Launching Next Generation Technical Services (NGTS)Date: Friday, August 29, 2008To: University LibrariansFrom: Lorelei Tanji, Chair, SOPAGSubject: Adopting UC-wide Collaborative Approaches to Technical Services Operations

As you’ll recall, in December 2005, the UC BSTF report “Rethinking How we Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California” offered recommendations in 4 categories:

Enhancing Search and RetrievalRe-architecting the OPACAdopting New Cataloging PracticesSupporting Continuous Improvement

These recommendations were discussed and reviewed by campuses over the course of 2006 and in early 2007 the UC Libraries entered into a strategic partnership with OCLC to address recommendations I and II.

Now that this partnership is well underway and a decision to go/no go into production with Next-Generation Melvyl is not far off, SOPAG is wondering if it might not be time to start work on recommendation III, i.e.:

III. Adopting New Cataloging Practices

There certainly is a great deal of interest in this topic within SOPAG, CDC, and HOTS. Members of HOTS have in fact been discussing this topic for a while now and are keen for UC to make similar progress on the ‘backend’ as is being made on the ‘frontend’. Many HOTS members were engaged in national discussions on this topic at ALA, Anaheim this past June. Lee Leighton discussed the topic at the Technical Services Big Heads meeting and John Riemer and Linda Barnhart made a presentation called “A California Adventure: WorldCat Local and Next-Generation Cataloging Operations” which played to an overflowing crowd. The potential benefits of ‘Adopting New Cataloging Practices’ on a Systemwide basis are significant and were aptly summarized in this presentation to include the following:

Major Benefits to Transforming Cataloging OperationsMaximizing efficiency: all working in one file and eliminating redundant effortsg y g gReducing (or eliminating?) the many copies of records that become out-of-date

More time freed up for original record creationBetter understanding of non-MARC metadata formats

Given the shrinking UC budget environment, the known redundancies among UC libraries for technical service operations, and the need to adjust acquisitions and cataloging processes in response to the Shared Print initiatives as well as address the long-term implications of the SCP budget reduction, the timing to pursue this agenda may be appropriate now. Moving this agenda forward now will also leverage the work currently underway by a HOTS subgroup working on a response to the University Librarians request for “planning for long term SCP staffing levels and funding models to handle workload” (4/4/08 email from Tom Leonard tothe University Librarians request for planning for long-term SCP staffing levels and funding models to handle workload (4/4/08 email from Tom Leonard to Linda Barnhart).

Much of the research and investigations necessary to move ahead on this front could be integrated within existing ACG activity. The missing elements for making substantive progress in this area include positioning the work within the broader framework of technical services operations; a clear mandate from the University Librarians; and system-wide coordination of the efforts.

SOPAG is willing to provide the system-wide coordination and make this topic a system-wide priority for the 2008/09 academic year and engage all relevant ACGs in the discussion.

Also, SOPAG believes that significant savings and efficiencies may be reached by broadening the mandate to include all aspects of technical services, including acquisitions and cataloging Nationally OCLC and the Library of Congress are poised to launch strategic initiatives aimed at changing the technical servicesacquisitions and cataloging. Nationally, OCLC and the Library of Congress are poised to launch strategic initiatives aimed at changing the technical services workflow, especially cataloging at the “network” level. UC is uniquely positioned to participate in these national efforts as well plan for a UC collaborative.

Attached is a SOPAG discussion paper outlining the major issues that served as fodder for earlier SOPAG discussions.SOPAG looks forward to your feedback regarding whether the timing is right to move ahead and whether we have your support to coordinate a system wide effort

regarding the adoption of UC-wide collaborative approaches to technical services operations.Thank you.

January 2009htt //lib i i it f lif i d / b t/ l / t /i d ht lhttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/index.htmlhttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTS_charge_22Jan2009.pdfhttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTS_scope_10april2009.pdf

SOPAG “Adopting UC-Wide Collaborative Approaches to Technical Services”p g pphttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTS_charge_appendix_08Dec2008.pdf

Executive Team and a Steering Team By this time, the full brunt of the economic collapse on the state of

California became apparent in fiscal year 2008/2009 Many of the UC California became apparent in fiscal year 2008/2009. Many of the UC Libraries (UCL) took substantial budget cuts to personnel, collections, and services, significant enough to necessitate the closure and/or combine the services of their branch libraries, along with cuts to collections budgets. The effects of voluntary separation options and

l f l b d ll d d b hg y p p

retirements left many library operations drastically reduced in both personnel and overall productivity. In UCL technical services operations alone, almost 60 FTE were lost system-wide in less than six months. This only fueled the necessity and importance of implementing NGTS recommendations as it became apparent that future budget years would recommendations, as it became apparent that future budget years would contain worse reductions and cuts, and status quo library operations would no longer be feasible.

Four task groups:Task Group 1: Commonly Held Content in Roman Languages

This group was charged with documenting and providing strategic directions for the following resources in Roman languages: licensed resources, print publications, reformatted content (digitized, mass-digitized, microfilmed), audio-visual materials, images, and born-digital publications visual materials, images, and born digital publications.

Task Group 2: Commonly Held Content in non-Roman LanguagesThis group was charged with documenting and providing strategic directions for the

following resources in non-Roman languages: licensed resources, print g g g , ppublications, reformatted content (digitized, mass-digitized, microfilmed), audio-visual materials, images, and born-digital publications.

Task Group 3: UC Unique CollectionsThi h d ith d ti d idi t t i di ti f th This group was charged with documenting and providing strategic directions for the

following resources: Special Collections, archives, theses and dissertations, UC scholarship, and images.

Task Group 4: 21st Century Emerging ResourcesTask Group 4: 21 Century Emerging ResourcesThis group was charged with documenting and providing strategic directions for the

following resources: harvested websites and resources, scholarly websites, blogs and other integrating resources, maps, GIS, and datasets. (I was a member of this task force)

Each task force had the following verbiage as part of their charge:

The [name of task force] is charged to develop 1-3 model lifecycle model(s). The task force is encouraged to suggest a name for each proposed model, although this is not required.

Address processes for selection, acquisition, cataloging, and preservation or reformatting (as needed), including possibilities for t i ll t thi d ti outsourcing some or all to third parties

Incorporate these Values and Guiding Principles: Speed processing throughout all technical services functions Eliminate redundant work Free up resources in order to focus on unique resources Start with existing basic metadata from all available sources Allow for continuous improvements to basic metadata including from the world beyond the UC Libraries: our users, expert

communities, vendors, and other libraries View technical services as a single system-wide enterprise Make the UC Collections easy to find and use Define success in terms of the user’s ability to easily find relevant content

ll f d h h d f d h b h d d d hAllow for experimentation and innovation in approach to the widest variety of discovery pathways both inside and outside the “catalog” environment

Allow for Interoperability of metadata across content, formats, and systems Be flexibly designed with the expectation that it will be exposed in multiple ways and open to enhancement by user tagging

and expert communities Eliminate duplication of effort across the UC system and local variation in practice Achieve system wide cost savings and rebalance expenditures as necessary to embrace the format and service requirements Achieve system-wide cost-savings and rebalance expenditures as necessary to embrace the format and service requirements Leverage national and international standards and strategically position UC Libraries to be an earlier adopter of emerging

standardsAddress options for system-wide organization of Technical Services

The task force is encouraged to suggest a name for each proposed model, although this is not required. Expectations for each model: Expectations for each model: Phase 1: Research existing best practices and current initiatives within UC and beyond a. Interview stakeholders and experts b. Identify organizational structures c. Collect evidence for proposed solutions, including throughput and discovery statistics d D ib h ll b ti h t t h i l i ht t b id d/ t id d d. Describe when collaborative approaches to technical services ought to be considered/not considered e. Describe when/if a collaborative technical services approach depends upon a shared UC collections approach f. Consider vendor or other contracting solutions when appropriate

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/ngts_phase1.html

Review of NGTS Phase 1 Final Reports by CoUL and SOPAGhttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTSNextSteps100216rev100224.pdf

Two major task forces between NGTS Phase 1 and NGTS Phase 2:1. HOTS System-wide Shelf-Ready Task Force (I chaired this task force)2. HOTS Non-Roman Materials Backlog Task Force (Armanda Barone UCB g (

was chair)

These two task forces worked from February to June 2010 to compile detailed cost analyses, current personnel and cost models, and accurate figures regarding challenges of these two issues.

Charge (English language purchased print materials only): Building on the existing HOTS survey of shelf ready services, prepare a proposal for

shelf ready services for UC Libraries. The proposal should address service standards, prices, workflows and HR requirements. Define a uniform service level(s) to be applied p q ( ) ppsystemwide and identify whether the level(s) should be applied on a per vendor basis, for a category of vendors, or other approach. Identify benefits, barriers to adoption and ways to mitigate those barriers.

Coordinate the Shelf Ready Service proposal with the CDL Shared Print Steering Task Force and Shared Print Manager HOTS may wish to focus its proposal on the material Force and Shared Print Manager. HOTS may wish to focus its proposal on the material not typically supplied by a primary monograph vendor and to coordinate with the SPSTF as it develops shelf ready service standards for shared print material supplied by a primary monograph vendor. (The SPSTF is currently working on a proposal for a shared approval plan with a primary monograph vendor. Part of the SPSTF’s charge is t d fi Bibli hi S i St d d d A i iti S i St d d f Sh d to define Bibliographic Service Standards and Acquisitions Service Standards for Shared Print Monographs. These will include shelf ready services for monographs acquired on the shared approval plan but will not include services for local campus approvals with the same vendor. HOTS may consider whether to include in its proposal shelf ready services for local campus approval plans with a primary monograph vendor and/or p pp p p y g p /whether to align those services with Shared Print.)

Estimate/project systemwide costs, number of books, and human resource efficiencies gained annually for the next two years.

Draft a proposed implementation plan. Metrics to keep, post implementation. Please design a template for all campuses to use

to capture these metrics such that all campuses are collecting the same data.

The task force, from January 2010 to the issuance of its final report in May 2010, gathered a number of metrics for each of the ten UC campuses for the 2008/2009 fiscal year: number of books supplied shelf-ready, cost of shelf-ready services, human resources dedicated to shelf-ready processing shelf-ready cost collection human resources dedicated to shelf-ready processing, shelf-ready cost collection, ratio of human resources and service cost to collection cost for shelf ready, human resources dedicated to non-shelf ready book processing, in-house processed collection cost, ratio of human resources cost to collection cost for in-house processing, and human resource deployed/workflows augmented. With all of this detailed and confidential information the task force was able to make the detailed and confidential information, the task force was able to make the following recommendations to the NGTS Executive and Steering Teams:

Pursue shelf ready processing (MARC‐based cataloging and physical processing) for all new acquisitions.

Develop a fund or funding policy to support shelf ready implementation and i UC idexpansion UC‐wide.

Negotiate a consortial discount with vendors for shelf ready processing or initiate an RFP for a system-wide contract for shelf ready services.

Perform a more in‐depth analysis of individual campus shelf ready workflows and procedures and develop best practice recommendations for efficient workflowsprocedures and develop best practice recommendations for efficient workflows.

Create and maintain a website to monitor, document, and share information about UC library shelf ready processing.

Complete the metrics annually for monographs and as a baseline before implementing shelf ready processing for any additional categories of materials.

Conduct annual throughput studies.

Suffice it to say, that the final report was able to provide a very detailed analysis of technical services operations with the UCL. Given the detailed nature of the technical services operations with the UCL. Given the detailed nature of the information, the author is not able to share or post the details gathered by this report. It can be shared, however, that four of the ten UC campuses currently do not do shelf ready. If all ten campuses could be moved to have all English-language purchased print arrive shelf ready, the initial investment for the UCL would be $1.5 million, while the cost savings from personnel and resources devoted to English language print purchases f fi l f ll i h i ld b $4 5 illi i ifi for every fiscal year following that investment would be $4.5 million, a significant cost savings for the UCL.

What must be kept in mind when viewing this information, is the overall strategic direction by the UCL to not only find significant cost savings where possible, but also to position itself away from technical services operations that focus on processes and

l d t d t i t t i l d iti d t l th t f personnel devoted to print materials, and reposition and retool them to focus on processes and procedures related to digital objects. The savings of having shelf ready materials is in the personnel themselves not touching or handling purchased print materials, so that the UCL can then begin to focus on what to do with unique print, digitized, and born-digital materials currently ignored, without access, and with no personnel dedicated to their organization and description at a crucial time when these personnel dedicated to their organization and description, at a crucial time when these resources are actually the future of the UCL.

The Non-Roman Backlog Task Force compiled a number of similar statistics system-wide, and they are enumerated in the NGTS Phase 2 Enterprise-Level Collection Management Services Task Force reportManagement Services Task Force report.

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTSNextSteps100216rev100224.pdf

This document charged 3 new task forces to move forward on the NGTS Phase 1 recommendations:

NGTS Fi i l I f t t t k f1. NGTS Financial Infrastructure task force2. NGTS Enterprise-Level Collections Management Services task force (I chaired this

task force)3. NGTS New Modes for Access task force

Task forces had from June-September 2010 (4 months) to produce their final reports.

A 4th group consisted of a Coordination task force that examined coordination among g p gCDC, NGTS, and SOPAG for re-visioning collection development for the 21st

century.

***The mandate from CoUL and NGTS Executive Team was to be transformative in our recommendations, and to focus upon maximum cost-efficient/cost savings models.

Charge:You are charged to develop scenarios for enterprise-level collection management services that would

support collaborative life‐cycle management services for the collective information resources of the UC Lib i Th f i i iti f i f ti i ll f d th i t d UC Libraries. The focus is on acquisition of information resources in all forms and the associated organization of meta-information that enables access by the end user. However, be sure to maintain a broad and holistic perspective that recognizes the role of these services is support of overall collection services including selection, management, archiving, and preservation.

Propose new approaches to technical services processes: that support total life-cycle curation for all materials in all UC library collections including special pp y y g p

collections and digital materials that build upon existing successful systemwide collaborations and that use those successes as models

for new collaborations that increase access to more materials and that that eliminate backlogs and hidden collections that provide timely and effective access for the end user

h l h that cost less than existing processes Compare multiple strategies such as: decentralized—essentially what we have now but with changes to significantly reduce costs and

increase outputs centralized—all processing done in a single location

i li d i d t t l ti i th th i th th regionalized—processing done at two locations, one in the north an one in the south hybrid—some tasks at a single location, e.g., additional operations similar to the Shared Cataloging

Program Compare the costs and outputs of each strategy with those for the existing UC technical services

operations, including: benefits benefits obstacles (technical , legal, financial, logistical, service, and HR) cost analysis including savings, transition costs impact on end user Recommend which strategy or multiple strategies should be implemented and for what reason.

How does the vision and scope of the University of California Library Collection statement impact technical services processes?

If we were starting from scratch to build a support system for the full range of materials in the If we were starting from scratch to build a support system for the full range of materials in the 21st century UC Collections, what would it look like?

Would a single systemwide integrated library system provide significant efficiencies? Would it be worth the resources and capital that would be required to build it and put it in place?

What does “integrated library system” mean in the context of the UC system in 2010? g y y y Would a single systemwide integrated library system be significantly less expensive than the

ten systems that are now in place? Do the shortcomings of ten separate integrated library systems outweigh the successes? Is there an alternative to the classic integrated library system that would provide comparable g y y p p

management functionality at less cost? What functions comprise enterprise-level collections services? Could enterprise-level technical services be developed in a distributed, platform-independent

mode that isn't dependent on a single software system? Can enterprise-level technical services be defined by a single dataset of bibliographic

information that is interactively used and shared throughout the UC libraries? Can we move selected processes to the enterprise level so that it is unnecessary to duplicate

that work on each campus? What processes must be local to each campus and why? How can we usefully expose the content of the collection to the end user at the earliest

moment? How can we expand and better use existing collaborative programs within UC such as the

Shared Cataloging Program?

One of the first topics brought up. 7 campuses use III, 2 campuses use Exlibris, 1 campus uses Voyager. In addition, Classic

Melvyl (UC union catalog) used Exlibris. Open source marketplace was examined for various solutions. In the end it was decided that it would be better to approach processes and tasks within In the end, it was decided that it would be better to approach processes and tasks within

enterprise-level collections management services overall, rather than just focus the attention of the task force on one major issue (even though it blanketed almost every topic within this area). Political and economic realities beyond the scope of the task force drove this decisionthis decision.

Given the previous slides above indicating the charge and additional verbiage, the task force had approximately 3 months to do its job.

Aside: the two other task forces in NGTS Phase 2 were just as important and detailed in their charge and assignments; however, due to the time limitations and limited knowledge of this presenter related to the work of the other two task forces, only the work of the ELCMS task force will be illuminated here.

Full report:http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTS2_Enterprise_CS_Final_Report.pdf

Executive summary:Executive summary:http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/NGTS2_Enterprise_CS_ExeSumm.pdf

Five categories of 12 recommendations:

Provide new tools for enterprise level collection services Provide new tools for enterprise-level collection services Cloud-based systemwide ILS Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS) Database of Record

Transform collection development practices Systemwide and multi-campus collection development activities

Transform cataloging practices Systemwide Shelf-Ready “Good enough” record standard for all of UC

Transform organizational structures Transform organizational structures Systemwide Collection Services Centers Shared Cataloging Program Systemwide historical federal government documents repository Non-Roman Backlogs

i l Serials Management Transform human resources

System-wide Model for Collection Services Staffing and Expertise

Cloud-based Systemwide Integrated Library System (ILS) System-wide Shelf-Ready Electronic Resources Management System (ERMS)

Short-term: Implementation of the Non-Roman Backlogs, the System-wide Shelf-Ready, and the “Good Enough” Record Standard for all of UC recommendations. These three grecommendations provide guidelines for moving forward in the short-term.

Medium-term: Implementation of the System-wide Collection Services Centersrecommendation. There are a number of “pilot” projects attached to this recommendation, encompassing a few of the other task forces’ recommendations. Once the Non-Roman b kl l d ll d l h ld b l d f h

p gbacklogs are completed, a Collection Services Center model should be implemented for these resources. In the short term, the Serials Management, System-wide Federal Government Documents, and Shared Cataloging Program recommendations should be implemented immediately under this model, and NGTS should reference the results of the Shared Monographs Planning Group during planning stages. In tandem with the above implementations, the System-wide and Multi-Campus Collection Development Activitiesimplementations, the y p pand the System-wide model for collection services staffing and expertise recommendations should begin planning for medium-term implementation.

Medium- to Long-Term: Finally, both the Cloud-based System-wide IntegratedLibrary System (ILS) and the Electronic Resources Management System (ERMS) y y ( ) g y ( )recommendations are somewhat intertwined. The UC Libraries also need a single“Database of Record” to move away from duplicative local databases, so that we can move towards a system-wide integrated library system in the near future. Such a system could become our ERMS as well, with some added functionality, but in the short term, there needs to be some coordination for all UC Libraries being able to see and share there needs to be some coordination for all UC Libraries being able to see and share information related to their electronic resources.

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/docs/CoUL_Priorities_Cover_2010.pdf

SOPAG implementation plan for CoUL priorities/recommendations (April 2011)h //lib i i i f lif i d / /http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/

SOPAG: NGTS Implementation Frameworkh //lib i i i f lif i d / / f k h lhttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/ngtsframework.html

Library Planning Task Force (August 2010-May 2011)y g ( g y )Charged to look at UC Libraries from the Office of the President perspective

Interim Report issued May 2011http://libraries universityofcalifornia edu/planning/taskforce/interim report packagehttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/planning/taskforce/interim_report_package_

2011-05-09.pdf Projected $52 million decrease to UC Libraries in next six years (see charts on p.

8-10)) Print stack capacity for all 10 campuses (including two Regional Storage

Facilities) will be reached by 2016-17. Need to reach 0% growth rate within 5 years.

California’s new governor Jerry Brown has recently announced his plan to bring fiscal accountability and solvency to California’s huge budget deficit, saddling the UC and the California community college systems with cutting back $500 million each f h i b d b f h fi l A h $500 from their budgets before the next fiscal year. Another $500 million may be applied if tax revenue extensions are not granted by the California Legislature

http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/25150

See “Getting out or breaking up is hard to do” by David Banush. Technicalities (v. 31, no. 2, March/April 2011) on getting out of copy cataloging, retooling staff from the analog to the digital environment (digitization of unique and special collections, scanning, non-MARC metadata, etc.)metadata, etc.)

Eden, Bradford Lee. “The new user environment: the end of technical services?” Information Technology and Libraries (June 2010).

Recent special issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly (v. 48, no. 6/7, 2010) titled 21st Century Metadata Operations: Challenges, Opportunities, Directions.

Eden, Bradford Lee. “Ending the Status Quo.” American Libraries; Mar 2008 (39:3) pg. 38.

Eden, Bradford Lee. Information Organization Future for Libraries (Library technology reports, vol. 43, no. 6, November/December 2007).See “Reinventing the OPAC” section of this document for many papers/presentations on new

roles for technical services staff.

http://nela.camp9.org/netsl/conference

Main points: maintaining perspective, a positive attitude, and a willingness to experiment and adapt are personal traits that are keys to success in this new information universe.

Maintaining a sense of PERSPECTIVE

CHANGING YOUR MIND -- GETTING RID OF LIMITING HABITS AND BELIEFS THAT SLOW YOU DOWN

"I used to think that my success was based on 95% processes and techniques, and about 5% on my mindset. As I have moved through life, I eventually found that this formula was all wrong. 95% of your success is based on your mindset and attitude, and only 5% on learning processes and techniques.”processes and techniques.

When you are interested, you do what is convenient. When you are committed, you do whatever is necessary. Once you are utterly committed to the "what," the "how" appears, often in unexpected and serendipitous ways. But developing commitment, a no-

d t i ti t f d t d h i l it d fexcuses determination to move forward toward change, requires clarity and focus.

I t i f Lib i b i fi f f lt d d i i t t titl d Th l f In a recent issue of Library issues: briefings for faculty and administrators titled The role of campus administration as libraries face the latest economic downturn (v. 31, no. 2, November 2010), some strong statements of truth become readily apparent that support the drastic measures currently being considered by academic libraries:

…Academic libraries have been caught in the “cost-plus” paradigm for a longwhile, and this mode of operation is based on what is increasingly clearly anerroneous assumption: that lean times like this are just an interruption to be endureduntil the fat times recur. If the fat times do not recur, however, our present mode ofuntil the fat times recur. If the fat times do not recur, however, our present mode ofoperation is not ultimately sustainable. Like every other area within the institution,libraries need to rethink everyday operations with an eye towards streamlining, and awillingness to jettison those things which are dear to one’s heart but not necessarilycost-effective (emphasis mine) In a serious reexamination of priorities there can be cost-effective (emphasis mine)… In a serious reexamination of priorities, there can be little room for sacred cows, or things which we see as desirable but know in our heart of hearts are not very effective or central to the core mission.