Download Strategic Planning Report As A Word Document

Download Strategic Planning Report Appendices As A Word Document


APPENDICES



TEXAS STATEWIDE RESOURCE SHARING STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION

20-21 January 2004


Summary Report

By Ann Joslin


April 2004

Return To Top

APPENDIX A


AGENDA

Purpose:


To bring representatives of all stakeholder groups together to discuss future programming that will ensure the continuity and growth of TexShare and its services in the context of statewide resource sharing.

Desired outcomes:


· Affirmation of the TexShare principles


· Recommendations on the structure of the statewide database services & partnerships


· Recommendations on changes in TexShare programs


· Recommendations on potential new TexShare programs


· Recommendations on TexShare priorities through 2008


· Recommendations on next steps in legislation & communication

AGENDA

TUESDAY, JANUARY 20

10:00 Welcome


Sandra J. Pickett, TSLAC Chair


Peggy D. Rudd, State Librarian

10:15 Meeting set-up

10:30 Introductions

11:30 Summary of TexShare programs

11:55 TexShare principles


Critical Question: Can we affirm the TexShare principles?

12:15 Lunch

1:00 Statewide databases with limited budget


Critical Question: How should we structure statewide database services and


partnerships to best meet statewide resource sharing needs?


Background


Small group work

2:45 Break

3:05 Small group reports

4:45 Wrap-up

5:00 Adjourn

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21

8:00 New directions for membership and programming


Critical Question: How should TexShare programs move forward?


Small group work

10:00 Break

10:20 Small group reports

12:00 Lunch

12:45 Priorities and implementation steps


Critical Question: What are the priorities for statewide resource sharing and TexShare over the next five years? Where should we put our resources?


Critical Question: What legislative action is needed to achieve these priorities?

2:00 Review TexShare Principles

2:20 Meeting wrap-up


Critical Question: How will I help communicate this information?


Next steps


Meeting evaluation

3:00 Adjourn


Return To Top

APPENDIX B


PARTICIPATION LIST

NAME              LIBRARY OR TITLE            INSTITUTION

Anderson, Nancy- Walker Memorial Library, Howard Payne University


Bishop, Barry- Administrator for Library Information Services, Spring Branch ISD


Branch, Brenda- Library Director, Austin Public Library


Braudaway, Willie- Assistant County Librarian, Val Verde County Library


Cage, Alvin- Ralph W. Steen Library, Stephen F. Austin State University


Dade, Lucile- Library Director, Carrollton Public Library


Dowdey, Don- Bryan Wildenthal Memorial Library, Sul Ross State University


Garza, Noemi -Library Director, Brownsville Public Library


Goldberg, Rhoda- Assistant County Librarian, Harris County Public Library


Graves, Diane- Elizabeth M. Coates Library, Trinity University


Hardesty, Larry -Abell Library, Austin College


Hartman, Cathy- Head, Digital Projects Dept., University of North Texas Libraries


Hawkins, Jo Anne -The General Libraries, University of Texas at Austin


Hilyer, Lee- Manager, PC/ILL Dept., Houston Academy of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Library


Hoffman, Kathy -Research Medical Library, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center


Juergens, Bonnie- Executive Director, Amigos Library Services


Kelly, Melody- Associate Dean, University of North Texas Libraries


Kienzle, Caroline- Irving ISD Instructional Center


Lankford, Mary - Consultant


Loranc, Lisa - Director of Technical Services, Pasadena Public Library


Lowman, Sara- Fondren Library, Rice University


McAnna, Suzanne -The General Libraries, University of Texas at Austin


McDonald, Carol- President, Independent Colleges & Universities of Texas


Meraz, Gloria -Director of Communications, Texas Library Association


Moore, JoAnne -Consultant, Education Service Center Region 13


Phillips, Sue -The General Libraries, University of Texas at Austin


Pickett, Sandra J. -Chair, Texas State Library & Archives Commission


Rooks, Dana- Dean of Libraries, University of Houston


Rosofsky, Natasha- LBB Analys,t Robert E. Johnson Building


Safley, Ellen- Associate Library Director, University of Texas at Dallas


Smith, Patricia- Executive Director, Texas Library Association


Sturtz, Kathryn- Alamo Area Library System, San Antonio Public Library


Tandy, Martha- Library Director, Weatherford College


Tocker, Darryl- Executive Director, Tocker Foundation


Todaro, Julie- Library Director, Austin Community College


Wells, Elaine -Watson W. Wise Medical Research Center, University of Texas Health Center at Tyler


Westmoreland, Tracey- Library Director, Lee College


Zerkow, Syma - Coordinator - Materials Selection, Houston Public Library





TSLAC Staff:


Peggy D. Rudd- Director and Librarian


Ed Seidenberg- Assistant State Librarian


Beverley Shirley- Library Resource Sharing Division Director


Deborah Littrell- Library Development Division Director


Ann Mason -TexShare Coordinator


Russlene Waukechon- TexShare Database Coordinator


Kevin Marsh- Network Services Developer


Marilyn Johnson- Continuing Education & Consulting Manager


Ted Wanner- Continuing Education Consultant


Margaret Whitehead- Library Systems Administrator


Erica McKewen- Public Information Officer


Mike Avila- Public Information Specialist


Dave Hardy- Administrative Support Specialist





Facilitator:


Ann Joslin- Associate State Librarian, Idaho State Library


Return To Top

APPENDIX C


INTRODUCTIONS

“One thing I’d like to see from this meeting”

· Optimism, enthusiasm

· Thinking outside the box, new ways of thinking

· Other directions, new programs

· Clear, consistent message about the value of these resources, and how to communicate it

· Unify and simplify (the program names, the TexShare message)

· Understand how all the relevant groups work together

· How other State Library programs fit with TexShare

· An integrated program

· School libraries part of TexShare

· Include schools – some have resources to contribute

· Serve all Texans, all types of libraries

· TexShare is for every Texan, and everyone knows about it

· A way to tell small and rural libraries why TexShare is useful

· Practical, doable legislative program for 2005

· Direction, practical ideas for legislative platform

· Specific, concrete recommendations for budget – sustainable, legislatable

· Creative and practical ideas, consider both vision and resources (the practical)

· Vision and practical ideas, clear direction

· Fleet – redefine ourselves just in time

· Good time to reassess

· Share information about technical resources we have available

· Participants here dedicate ourselves to TexShare’s success

· Have support of all participants when we leave here

· Identify ways to build consensus in the library community on whatever we decide here

· Keep TexShare together as we improve it

· People don’t know what we saved this year

· Stabilize funding

· TexShare databases are a lifeline, must increase resources to keep them

· Include digital libraries, archiving issues – need collaboration

· “Ask Texas” virtual reference for all types of libraries – public service face of TexShare

· Break down barriers, support each other

· Identify CE/training needs

· Support the TexShare principles


Return To Top

APPENDIX D


TEXSHARE PRINCIPLES

Critical question: Can we affirm the TexShare principles?

Principles derived from the 2000 TexShare vision:

o Serve all Texans, regardless of geographical location, age, education, or financial status,


o A partnership of libraries to offer a seamless continuum of service,


o Empower Texans to access and use information to achieve educational, economic, and personal goals,


o Efficiently and cost effectively deliver information; cost management.

Discussion on Principles

· Edit 2nd principle to say “Establish a partnership of all libraries….”


· Should we specify “all Texas libraries”?


· Some individual libraries may have connections to outside consortia etc. – may be broader than just Texas libraries.


· Would adding “all” to 2nd principle imply opening participation beyond current statutory eligibility requirements?


· In 2nd principle, consider use of verb “foster” as opposed to “establish” since TexShare already exists.


· Or “Build a partnership of libraries to offer . . . .”


· Edit 2nd principle to say “Offer a seamless continuum of service through a partnership of libraries.”


· Change of word order in “Offer …” affects emphasis – is the partnership or the continuum of service the focus?


· Vision is for partnership to be more inclusive, but current reality is different.


· Seamless continuum of service can cover ILL or other sharing, despite overall limited mission statement of a particular library.


· TexShare vision statement uses “This partnership will . . . .”


· Truncate 3rd principle to end after “. . . use information.” Shouldn’t get into why or how people use information.


· It can be helpful to legislators to have specifics of how information is to be used, but advocates will be able to describe their specific needs and uses.


· Edit 4th principle to say “Deliver information efficiently and cost effectively.” Cut “cost management.”


· Start each with a verb.


· This can also be a set of principles for all libraries collectively.


· The mission of each library in Texas is not consistent with all of these principles. The principles will work for Texas libraries collectively.


· Could be used as principles for Library of Texas as an umbrella organization.


· TexShare was not created for individual institutions, but as a collective.


· Rely on use of TexShare as a known and branded name with recognition.


· Use an introductory phrase to the principles: “Through participation in TexShare, Texas libraries can . . . .”


· Use “A perfect TexShare will . . . .” to introduce principles.


· TexShare is intended to serve all Texas residents, but participation in specific programs by libraries is voluntary.


· These principles are still appropriate.


· Any changes will need to be approved by the TexShare Advisory Board.


· Libraries serve patrons at various stages.


· These principles come from the vision statement of TexShare.


· Are these principles compatible with potential growth of TexShare, such as including K-12 school libraries?




Edited TexShare Principles

There was substantial agreement on the following wording if there is a need to use the defining principles of TexShare rather than the full vision statement:

o Serve all Texans, regardless of geographical location, age, education, or financial status,


o Offer a seamless continuum of service through a partnership of libraries,


o Empower Texans to access and use information to achieve educational, economic, and personal goals,


o Deliver information efficiently and cost effectively.


Return To Top

APPENDIX E


DATABASE PROGRAM - SMALL GROUP REPORTS

Critical question: How should we structure statewide database services and partnerships to best meet needs?

Group 1

Needs being met by current process:


1. Allied health has access to many more resources @UT Health Centers


2. Fees Task Force was fair and equitable


3. OCLC WorldCat has facilitated ILL


4. Just over 50% of searches at Sul Ross U are answered by databases


5. Academic libraries have access to more peripheral databases


6. Having access to PL databases is valuable to academic libraries


7. Access to academic databases is valuable to public libraries esp. rural/ small libraries & distance libraries


8. Unanticipated needs are met


9. Space & cost of shelving hard copies are eliminated

Needs not being met by current process:


1. Gave up TExpress to pay db fees at UT Tyler


2. How do you volunteer to be on a WG (working group)


3. What is process for adding libraries to LoT search page


4. Training for small public libraries, lack adequate staff/time to train patrons in using databases. Staff don’t have time to learn how to use db


5. Need to market to people so they’ll want to know about TexShare


6. We need advertising


7. Small/rural libraries experience lack of tech support


8. Support by Library Systems needs to exist esp. for small/rural libraries


9. Printing costs/time limit on public terminals


10. Library staff (all staff) need to buy into db


11. Name recognition needs to happen


12. If schools are added they can help w/ training


13. PL will not give/facilitate remote access


14. School students cannot use db in school *Legislature says schools are not eligible * Cap on how much we can raise in fees due to rules of Legislature


15. Academic medical institutions find resources valuable but not robust


16. Easier licensing for shared resources via different intuitions (i.e. hospitals should have access to TexShare databases or multi-institutional access by professionals i.e. professors/physicians)

Recommendations for changes to database program that have substantial agreement (some groups listed all suggestions):


#1 Get a census of what databases outside of TexShare are being bought by Texas libraries; diverse databases being licensed by TexShare members cost our membership too much. Money could be saved by more databases being centrally purchased. Work through TexShare to form subsets of databases for licensing.


#2 Training in person for library staff. Identify best mode of training for library staff and patrons. Training online/virtual tutorials. Train the trainer model within Systems offices or libraries. Utilize school labs for training.

Additional recommendations:


#3 It could cost less for consortia license for a database vs. individual libraries


#4 Legislate school libraries can be part of TexShare. Funding for db access.


#5 School libraries get no funding for library resources. School taxes fund library resources


#6 Clearly identify how school libraries will participate if they are legislated in.


#7 Pursue test cases of school/TexShare partnerships


#8 Look at library visits as reported for library annual report. Do increased visits reflect loss of TLC databases?

Group 2

Needs being met by current process:


· Tracking usage. Stats point to needs being filled. What is available is being used


· All 700 libraries are using at least some of the databases; finding value in using the databases


· Provides full-text journals over a multi-disciplinary arena. It is ready and clickable, for library and user


· Provides libraries access to materials that are peripheral rather than core


· Provides access to materials libraries or users would not have


· Meets core needs for up to basic undergraduate student


· Continuity of titles or products


· Gale available through public libraries. Meets needs of school libraries by being available through public libraries


· EBSCO available through public and school libraries

Needs not being met by current process:


· Telling people how obtain and use their statistics (Use may not show need.) Look at doing training in different ways. Training on using databases – for both staff and users


· Current suite of databases may not meet the core needs of every type of library in TexShare


· Core types of databases needed by different types of libraries -specialized


· Are differences in needs by libraries of a type


· When you buy a package you lose flexibility. At the mercy of the vendor aggregators- can’t choose what is in the package


· Legal info lacking, other areas such as chemistry also lacking


· Threat of discontinuing some databases; changing or losing them


· More marketing needed for staff and public


· Continual assessment of training needs needed and then that training provided and at different levels needed


· Analyze/pinpoint why public library usage is low

Recommendations for changes to database program that have substantial agreement (some groups listed all suggestions):


#1 Ask the different constituencies (type and size of library) of TexShare to develop list of core databases and consider a “cafeteria plan”


#2 Looking at how to add school libraries

Additional recommendations:


· Other ways to do training. Develop a Clearinghouse of trainers from different libraries. All types of formats (online, etc.). Training different types of libraries together may be good.


· Develop Web site to promote usage by smaller, more isolated libraries.


· Analyze/pinpoint why public library usage is low. Answer question why use is low and if that is related to content.

Group 3

Needs being met by current process:


1. Strong universal core


2. The core ties in with periodical holdings (EBSCO)


3. Cost effective


4. Leveling the playing field; closing the digital divide


5. Provides seamless continuous service


6. Information literacy


7. Outreach to the needs of rural Texas


8. Equalization of resources and access


9. Slows the rural migration through workforce and economic development opportunities through equitable digital resources

Needs not being met by current process:


1. TexSelect is an underused tool


2. Need to look at the field of science (they are very expensive)


3. Does not support for K-12 needs


4. Core databases don’t meet all the needs of all users: ex, clinical medicine, science, K-12

Recommendations for changes to database program that have substantial agreement (some groups listed all suggestions):


1. Moving database purchases from capital budget to operating budget


2. Identify ways to bring K-12 into TexShare; ex: through TexSelect and change enabling legislation to increase funding to include K-12


3. Enhance the TexSelect list of databases and encourage libraries to order through TexSelect

Additional recommendations:


· Market to the all librarians (especially rural through training, one-on-one, etc.)


· Look at Ohio model


· Identifying our constituents outside the library and market the resource to them


· Leverage everybody’s buying power


· Charge them and let them in

Group 4

Needs being met by current process:


1. Significant amount of full text content available


2. Levels playing field for small libraries – availability of information to their users


3. Serves needs of medium and large public libraries & academic undergrads


4. Remote access to databases and e-books


5. Good selection of subject matter for general needs/audience


6. Track record of libraries (very large and very small) working together successfully


7. Negotiating/leveraging due to large-scale purchasing power

Needs not being met by current process:


1. Need for small (and other) libraries to understand the value of the databases and know how to use them


2. Stable, reliable funding – confidence in the continuity and sustainability of the databases over time


3. K-12


4. Specific needs of medical libraries


5. Research needs of research universities


6. Databases for specialized needs of library uses (e.g. car repair, investment, Heritage Quest)


7. Usage statistics and anecdotal information reported to and used by libraries in an effective way

Recommendations for changes to database program that have substantial agreement (some groups listed all suggestions):


#1 Capture other partners funding, such as K-12, hospitals, and health care providers, to bring their libraries into the program


#2 Develop alternative purchasing group structures to allow subgroups of libraries to benefit from group purchasing

Additional recommendations:


· Get genealogists involved in upcoming Legislative session


· Usage statistics reported in a meaningful way, including local data, to librarians, local supporters, governing bodies, Legislature


· Expanding community of users – more accurate way of targeting end user stakeholder groups in selection process


· Develop alternative funding mechanisms


· Negotiate more flexibility in licenses to capture savings to these smaller subgroups (e.g. no remote access, simultaneous user limits, etc.)


· Take on role of database quality review for libraries purchasing their own databases


· Quality training delivered virtually


· Template gateway to training and databases


· Collect data on what libraries have remote access and what are not (academic and public libraries) – offer incentive as part of the public library standards


· Use matching funds with K-12 or other communities of database users and TexShare in the 05-06 fiscal years to maintain a standard of service for all

Group 5

Noted that schools are not represented in our group.

Needs being met by current process:


1. Broad range of access and full-text materials


2. Resources have become crucial


3. When people are no longer able to get the academic resources, I can still direct them to the public resources: TexShare


4. TexShare has replaced many paper resources


5. Cost sharing


6. After school needs (when the school library is closed)


7. Very popular with students


8. Equalizing libraries…small libraries are not left out of the mix…meaningful access for libraries and communities that could never afford it


9. Library of Texas, Resource Dis. Service is helping people to search TexShare more effectively

Needs not being met by current process:


1. School library needs, K-12 access


2. Need more information and education. State Library starts programs and we don’t get the information in the field


3. Need to be able to break down usage stats by database statewide…in general, need better statistics…comprehensive use statistics


4. Different goals for different subsets of libraries in terms of resources needed. . . . need a continued assessment of content needs for different constituencies


5. Need more flexibility, a plan for flexibility


6. Need Core + (maybe more than one core)


7. For program survival, we need to select databases based on interest group first, general second. (funding strategy). Don’t cancel anything without consulting members about alternatives


8. The more money we come up with, the less the legislature is going to give us


9. We need to keep in mind the admin. requirements as we expand


10. Amigos should be utilized more…we should look at every major player and maximize our strengths


11. More flexibility at the state level to allow libraries to be more creative in how they pool money for databases - funding options. Libraries should have a voice about how state money is used…e.g. publics want to use Loan Star or system funds for databases


12. More research databases, like Compendex


13. Need simpler interface for users…fewer clicks, fewer interfaces, etc... We have to compete with Google. People don’t want to look at the catalogs, they want a Web site

Recommendations for changes to database program that have substantial agreement (some groups listed all suggestions):


#1 More Flexibility: targeted databases; more flexibility in content, payment, and administration options, participation. Above, when we talk about participation, we also mean K-12.


RE: K-12 access…we want K-12 access, but not without more money. School librarians do want into TexShare, but we don’t want to diminish the resources available to all.


#2 Better Statistics: break down usage stats by database—statewide. Gain comprehensive use statistics.

Additional recommendations:


· Recognize TexShare as the way to address the information needs of Texans…Keep TexShare brand and core concept.


· Simplify access


· Deliver more information and education to TexShare member libraries and librarians/staff

Discussion about administration options:


· Concern about programs being cherrypicked…and we end up having constituent groups not being served. If Amigos were to take on some aspects of administration, what does that mean?


· Amigos aren’t under the same restrictions as TSLAC…budgetary restraints. The umbrella would still be in place…can be used to keep us together rather than break us up.


· Why then wouldn’t Amigos want to just do it all? Will the legislature look on this negatively? I.e. privatization of services


· If TSLAC doesn’t address some of these concerns, some libraries and smaller consortia will indeed go to Amigos or some other source in order to get the resources.


· BIN: passwords…giving them out to K-12?


Return To Top

APPENDIX F


OTHER TEXSHARE PROGRAMS - SMALL GROUP REPORTS

Critical question: How should TexShare programs move forward?

Group 1

Assigned TexShare program: TExpress

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Restore/Increase in TexShare’s subsidy for TExpress participants (perhaps create a more flexible scale) for participants


#2 Encourage non-participating libraries to use service, promote/publicize shared use of stop locations

Additional recommendations:


For TexShare and TExpress working group


· Improve efficiency of system (i.e. statistical reporting, routing)


· When K-12 institutions are brought into TexShare they can bring in their ESC courier service to aid delivery of materials to schools, explore methods for connecting to this service


· When K-12 institutions join TexShare each school/district must agree to participate in ILL activities by lending materials


Comment: TExpress is a common good per Joe McCord

Selected TexShare program: TexShare Card

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Aggressively market the TexShare card program


· to the public


· non-participating libraries


· increase visibility of each TexShare card participants lending/borrowing policies

New TexShare program: Multimedia Marketing Program

Purpose: To increase awareness of TexShare’s programs





Basic description:


· Have a celebrity spokesperson. Willie Nelson needs to write a song and perform it for us


· TV spots


· Billboards


· Magazine ads


· Saturate market

Group 2

Assigned TexShare program: TexTreasures

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Restore funding for program and increase funding to make proportional to # of libraries in TexShare.


#2 More publicity of outcome of grant awards including info on how grant projects are completed successfully, including training on how to complete project successfully.

Additional recommendations:


· Working group not fully populated – needs appointments


· Consider program requirements (funding levels, award criteria, etc.) to make sure needs of all types and sizes of libraries have equal opportunity.

Selected TexShare program: Education

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Look at different training models (such as in person, online, one-on-one, etc.) to increase knowledge and participation in TexShare Programs.


#2 Continual needs assessment, evaluation, needed to ensure that future training/follow-up to see if training is effective.

Additional recommendations:


· Highlight resources for grant writing.


· Offer Web site giving tips, etc. on databases.


· Clearinghouse for training from all providers.


· New programs, services, need training announced at same time.


· Follow-up is part of training – including additional training and materials for librarians to use that reinforce topic learned.

New TexShare program: Texas Digitization Program

Purpose: To allow for regional digitization labs, plan for long-term preservation of digital files.

Basic description: Digitization Plan (Centers) - a state plan (libraries, museums, others). A collaboration for standards for digitization projects – to ensure quality, to allow cross searching etc.

Group 3

Assigned TexShare program: Card Program

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Develop marketing package for those libraries who don’t participate – give them tools to present to their admin (stats on benefits, stats on loss, etc.) to increase participation


#2 Bring K-12 into card program (work out the details in WG)

Additional recommendations:


· Needs integrated patron database & systems that talk to each other

Selected TexShare program: Education Services

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Education in the broadest sense, not just database training


#2 Outreach to all libraries:


· Establish partnerships that consist of academic, public/school libraries


· Mentor those in geographical area (between libraries)


· Cooperative hosting between academic, public & school libraries


· Develop presentations/toolkits that include cost benefits for the various TexShare programs that are web accessible and assist librarians in educating their communities, their leaders, their patrons about the services and benefits of TexShare programs

Additional recommendations:


· Steep learning curve for K-12 in the beginning, but after initial time, they could help train (train the trainer)


· Need for clearinghouse of training and trainers


· Make use of the whole variety of forms of learning

Selected TexShare program: Communication & Marketing

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


· Tool kit that can be used as a link from a library’s web page – showcase information and PR materials

New TexShare program: “AskTexas”

Purpose: Statewide collaborative virtual public service element to build on the Library of Texas

Basic description: Start with a region (or county) to develop a working model/pilot – maybe with a grant. Then take the learnings and see what happens.

BIN: the issue of digital archiving

Group 4

Assigned TexShare program: Education


Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:



#1 Work with regional library systems, ESCs (if K-12 involved), and other CE providers to develop and schedule one-on-one type training on databases based on need.


#2 Centrally-developed training customized by type of library, need, and/or audience and made available in a distributed manner.


#3 Expand training to include information on collecting and using statistics – of ALL kinds (not just databases)

Additional recommendations:


· Use blogs to assist in transition to virtual training


· Ongoing train the trainer program


· Establish designated trainers in geographic areas (e.g. contracted person)


· Centrally-developed tutorial for use in distributed manner


· Capitalize on Tall Texans institute to identify


· Use TLA Preconferences for training


· Training on TexShare as a consortium.


· Create centralized, customizable curriculum on a variety of topics


· Gather together existing, quality training programs/materials and redistribute.

Selected TexShare program: Communications/Marketing

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Provide and encourage use of uniform template to identify services provided by TexShare to member libraries (Web page template, logo or other identifying marks) or require recognition of TexShare databases on integrated library resource pages (e.g. use of TexShare logo)


#2 Refine the brief (30 sec) message to be delivered identifying TexShare and its importance.

Additional recommendations:


· Clearly identify Library of Texas as part of TexShare, following the naming conventions for TexShare programs.


· Talk to organizations (such as TMA, genealogists, professional organizations, TML, K-12 administrators, etc.) about working with libraries to secure funding

New TexShare program: TEXANswers

Purpose: Virtual Reference Service

Basic description: Gather information on existing programs, evaluate them, determine what can be done to expand and/or combine these. Create network of existing programs to provide statewide coverage.

Group 5

Assigned TexShare program: Communications and Marketing


Needs to be better

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Create a Communications/Marketing formal working group. The group could focus on the different audiences we want to communicate to…legislature, libraries, patrons


#2 We need an umbrella term that simplifies/unifies all the resource sharing names, programs

Additional recommendations:


· If you want it to be seamless, it’s difficult to call attention to “TexShare”…Seamless vs. Marketing? Libraries have additional databases which are not TexShare.


· We need to make it look more interesting than Google. Use the term “value-added” when talking about TexShare. Emphasize that concept when talking about TexShare vs. Google… “deep Web”


· Come up with consistent names…Library of Texas vs. TexShare vs. Resource Sharing, etc. Get one message and speak with one voice . . . we need a 30 second sound byte. One comment: don’t like Library of Texas as a marketing term. We need a term with more pizzazz… “library” doesn’t do it these days. Another comment: “TexShare” is the best term to use.


· We should run some public TV spots, PSAs…direct statewide advertising (it was noted TSLAC cannot spend state funds for advertising)


· We need to market to librarians. Maybe funnel the information through the county systems. Librarians need education about why TexShare is a valuable resource. Librarians need to take a personal “buy-in” for the program. Education as marketing.


· Academics could train public library staff, maybe K-12

Selected TexShare program: TexShare Card

Discussion:


Some members in the group mentioned they do not participate in the program. There is a problem with lost materials. Can we put more “teeth” into the program so that it’s more effective? But you can set Card program restrictions if you have problems. There are barriers that are keeping key players out. If we’re a private institution, how can we balance out open access with the needs of our paying students?

Recommendations for changes that have substantial agreement:


#1 Encourage broader participation through a focus group of non-participating libraries to study some of the barriers of non-participation.

Additional recommendations:


· The card program WG should strengthen the program to address the lost materials issue and the needs/issues of privately-owned institutions.


· Make changes to facilitate more participation in the program.


· Changes that would protect institutions from “virtual institutions”


· For public libraries, the regional systems are already supporting their member libraries. The systems could help secure losses due to TexShare Card checkouts.


· Provide more education to librarians about the particulars of the program.





New TexShare program: None

The group consensus is that there are already too many programs that we’re trying to do. We are already scattering our resources thin. Let’s focus on our existing programs (at this time).


Brainstorming:


· Border borrowing program


· Ask Texas (maybe under the Library of Texas)


Return To Top

APPENDIX G


TOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL PROGRAMS

Databases

· Identify best mode of training for library staff and patrons. Training in person for library staff. Online/virtual tutorials. Train the trainer model within Systems offices or libraries. Utilize school labs for training. (Group 1)


· Bring K-12 into TexShare. (Gives K-12 access to all TexShare programs, requires change in legislation, requires funding, until legislation and funding is accomplished, hold current members harmless and work to offer databases to K-12 in other ways) (Combined from Groups 2 & 3)


· Increase flexibility in choice of databases (reassess core, make as broad as possible, offer cafeteria choice of non-core databases). (Combined from Groups 1, 2, 3, & 4)


· Capture other partners’ funding, such as K-12, hospitals, and health care providers, to bring their libraries into the program. (Group 4)


· More flexibility in funding, and administration options, participation (including K-12, with more money); targeted databases. (Edited from Group 5)


· Better statistics - Break down usage stats by database statewide. Gain comprehensive use statistics. (Group 5)

TExpress

· Restore/Increase in TexShare’s subsidy for TExpress participants (perhaps create a more flexible scale) for participants. (Group 1)


· Encourage non-participating libraries to use service, Promote/publicize shared use of stop locations. (Group 1)

TexTreasures

· Restore funding for program and increase funding to make proportional to # of libraries in TexShare. (Group 2)


· More publicity of outcome of grant awards including info on how grant projects are completed successfully, including training on how to complete project successfully. (Group 2)

Card program

· Aggressively market the TexShare card program to:


· non-participating libraries / Develop marketing package for those libraries who don’t participate – give them tools to present to their admin (stats on benefits, stats on loss, etc.) to increase participation,


· increase visibility of each TexShare card participants’ lending/borrowing policies,


· the public. (Groups 1 & 3)


· Bring K-12 into card program (work out the details in WG). (Group 3)


· Encourage broader participation through a focus group of non-participating libraries to study some of the barriers of non-participation. (Group 5)

Education

· Look at different training models (such as in person, online, one-on-one, etc.) to increase knowledge and participation in TexShare Programs. (Group 2)


· Continual needs assessment, evaluation, needed to ensure that future training/follow-up to see if training is effective. (Group 2)


· Education in the broadest sense, not just database training. (Group 3)


· Outreach to all libraries:


· Establish partnerships that consist of academic, public/school libraries,


· Mentor those in geographical area (between libraries),


· Cooperative hosting between academic, public & school libraries,


· Develop presentations/toolkits that include cost benefits for the various TexShare programs that are web accessible and assist librarians in educating their communities, their leaders, their patrons about the services and benefits of TexShare programs. (Group 3)


· Tool kit that can be used as a link from a library’s web page – showcase information and PR materials / Centrally-developed training customized by type of library, need, and/or audience and made available in a distributed manner. (Group 4 – Education, Group 3 – Comm & Marketing)


· Work with regional library systems, ESCs (if K-12 involved), and other CE providers to develop and schedule one-on-one type training on databases based on need. (Group 4)


· Expand training to include information on collecting and using statistics – of ALL kinds (not just databases). (Group 4)

Communications & Marketing

· Tool kit that can be used as a link from a library’s web page – showcase information and PR materials / Centrally-developed training customized by type of library, need, and/or audience and made available in a distributed manner. (Group 3 – Comm & Marketing, Group 4 – Education)


· Provide and encourage use of uniform template to identify services provided by TexShare to member libraries (Web page template, logo or other identifying marks) or require recognition of TexShare databases on integrated library resource pages (e.g. use of TexShare logo). (Group 4)


· Refine the brief (30 sec) message to be delivered identifying TexShare and its importance. (Group 4)


· Create a Communications/Marketing formal working group. The group could focus on the different audiences we want to communicate to…legislature, libraries, patrons. (Group 5)


· We need an umbrella term that simplifies/unifies all the resource sharing names, programs. (Group 5)

New programs

· Multimedia Marketing Program: To increase awareness of TexShare’s programs. (Group 1)


· Texas Digitization Program: To allow for regional digitization labs, plan for long-term preservation of digital files. (Group 2)


· “Ask Texas”/TEXANswers: Statewide collaborative virtual public service element to build on the Library of Texas/Virtual Reference Service. (Groups 3 & 4)


· No new programs, improve existing ones. (Group 5)


Return To Top

APPENDIX H


RECOMMENDATIONS IN N/3 ORDER

RECOMMENDATION       PROGRAM        DOTS

More flexibility in funding and administration options, participation (including K-12, with more money); targeted databases. (Group 5) Databases 36

Outreach to all libraries:· Establish partnerships that consist of academic, public/school libraries,· Mentor those in geographical area (between libraries),· Cooperative hosting between academic, public & school libraries,· Develop presentations/toolkits that include cost benefits for the various TexShare programs that are web accessible and assist librarians in educating their communities, their leaders, their patrons about the services and benefits of TexShare programs. (Group 3) Education 26

Bring K-12 into TexShare. (Gives K-12 access to all TexShare programs, requires change in legislation, requires funding, until legislation and funding is accomplished, hold current members harmless and work to offer databases to K-12 in other ways) (Groups 2 & 3) Databases 24

Create a Communications/Marketing formal working group. The group could focus on the different audiences we want to communicate to…legislature, libraries, patrons. (Group 5) Comm & Marketing 23





Increase flexibility in choice of databases (reassess core, make as broad as possible, offer cafeteria choice of non-core databases). (Groups 1, 2, 3, & 4) Databases 16

Texas Digitization Program: To allow for regional digitization labs, plan for long-term preservation of digital files. (Group 2) New 16

We need an umbrella term that simplifies/unifies all the resource sharing names, programs. (Group 5) Comm & Marketing 16

Better statistics - break down usage stats by database statewide. Gain comprehensive use statistics. (Group 5) Databases 15





No new programs, improve existing ones. (Group 5) New 12

Restore funding for TexTreasures and increase funding to make proportional to # of libraries in TexShare.


(Group 2) TexTreasures 12

Ask Texas/TEXANswers: Statewide collaborative virtual public service element to build on the Library of Texas/Virtual Reference Service. (Groups 3 & 4) New 11

Encourage broader participation through a focus group of non-participating libraries to study some of the barriers of non-participation. (Group 5) Card 11

Aggressively market the TexShare card program to:· non-participating libraries / Develop marketing package for those libraries who don’t participate – give them tools to present to their admin (stats on benefits, stats on loss, etc.) to increase participation,· increase visibility of each TexShare card participants’ lending/borrowing policies,· the public. (Groups 1 & 3) Card 9

Bring K-12 into card program (work out the details in WG). (Group 3) Card 9





Tool kit that can be used as a link from a library’s web page – showcase information and PR materials / Centrally-developed training customized by type of library, need, and/or audience and made available in a distributed manner. (Groups 3 & 4) Comm & Marketing, Education 9

Refine the brief (30 sec) message to be delivered identifying TexShare and its importance. (Group 4) Comm & Marketing 8

Restore/Increase in TexShare’s subsidy for TExpress participants (perhaps create a more flexible scale) for participants. (Group 1) TExpress 8

Capture other partners’ funding, such as K-12, hospitals, and health care providers, to bring their libraries into the program. (Group 4) Databases 5

Multimedia Marketing Program: To increase awareness of TexShare’s programs. (Group 1) New 5





Expand training to include information on collecting and using statistics – of ALL kinds (not just databases). (Group 4) Education 3

Look at different training models (such as in person, online, one-on-one, etc.) to increase knowledge and participation in TexShare programs. (Group 2) Education 3

Work with regional library systems, ESCs (if K-12 involved), and other CE providers to develop and schedule one-on-one type training on databases based on need. (Group 4) Education 2

Continual needs assessment, evaluation, needed to ensure that future training/follow-up to see if training is effective. (Group 2) Education 1

Encourage non-participating libraries to use TExpress, Promote/publicize shared use of stop locations. (Group 1) TExpress 1

Identify best mode of training for library staff and patrons. Training in person for library staff. Online/virtual tutorials. Train the trainer model within Systems offices or libraries. Utilize school labs for training. (Group 1) Databases 1

Provide and encourage use of uniform template to identify services provided by TexShare to member libraries (Web page template, logo or other identifying marks) or require recognition of TexShare databases on integrated library resource pages (e.g. use of TexShare logo). (Group 4) Comm & Marketing 1

More publicity of outcome of grant awards including info on how grant projects are completed successfully, including training on how to complete project successfully. (Group 2) TexTreasures 0

Education in the broadest sense, not just database training. (Group 3) Education 0





TOTAL DOTS: 283


NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 31.4


Return To Top

APPENDIX I


RECOMMENDATIONS IN N/3 ORDER BY PRORAM

RECOMMENDATION       PROGRAM        DOTS

More flexibility in funding and administration options, participation (including K-12, with more money); targeted databases (Group 5) Databases 36

Bring K-12 into TexShare. (Gives K-12 access to all TexShare programs, requires change in legislation, requires funding, until legislation and funding is accomplished, hold current members harmless and work to offer databases to K-12 in other ways) (Groups 2 & 3) Databases 24

Increase flexibility in choice of databases (reassess core, make as broad as possible, offer cafeteria choice of non-core databases) (Groups 1, 2, 3, & 4) Databases 16

Better statistics - Break down usage stats by database statewide. Gain comprehensive use statistics (Group 5) Databases 15

Capture other partners’ funding, such as K-12, hospitals, and health care providers, to bring their libraries into the program (Group 4) Databases 5

Identify best mode of training for library staff and patrons. Training in person for library staff. Online/virtual tutorials. Train the trainer model within Systems offices or libraries. Utilize school labs for training. (Group 1) Databases 1

Total Dots for Databases (All groups): 97

Create a Communications/Marketing formal working group. The group could focus on the different audiences we want to communicate to…legislature, libraries, patrons (Group 5) Comm & Marketing 23

We need an umbrella term that simplifies/unifies all the resource sharing names, programs (Group 5) Comm & Marketing 16

Refine the brief (30 sec) message to be delivered identifying TexShare and its importance (Group 4) Comm & Marketing 8

Tool kit that can be used as a link from a library’s web page – showcase information and PR materials / Centrally-developed training customized by type of library, need, and/or audience and made available in a distributed manner (Groups 3 & 4) (duplicated in Education) Comm & Marketing 9

Provide and encourage use of uniform template to identify services provided by TexShare to member libraries (Web page template, logo or other identifying marks) or require recognition of TexShare databases on integrated library resource pages (e.g. use of TexShare logo) (Group 4) Comm & Marketing 1

Total Dots for Communications & Marketing (3 groups) 57

Outreach to all libraries:· Establish partnerships that consist of academic, public/school libraries,· Mentor those in geographical area (between libraries),· Cooperative hosting between academic, public & school libraries,· Develop presentations/toolkits that include cost benefits for the various TexShare programs that are web accessible and assist librarians in educating their communities, their leaders, their patrons about the services and benefits of TexShare programs. (Group 3) Education 26





Tool kit that can be used as a link from a library’s web page – showcase information and PR materials / Centrally-developed training customized by type of library, need, and/or audience and made available in a distributed manner (Groups 3 & 4) (duplicated in Comm & Marketing) Education 9

Expand training to include information on collecting and using statistics – of ALL kinds (not just databases) (Group 4) Education 3

Look at different training models (such as in person, online, one-on-one, etc.) to increase knowledge and participation in TexShare Programs (Group 2) Education 3

Work with regional library systems, ESCs (if K-12 involved), and other CE providers to develop and schedule one-on-one type training on databases based on need (Group 4) Education 2

Continual needs assessment, evaluation, needed to ensure that future training/follow-up to see if training is effective (Group 2) Education 1

Education in the broadest sense, not just database training (Group 3) Education 0

Total Dots for Education (3 groups) 44

Texas Digitization Program: To allow for regional digitization labs, plan for long-term preservation of digital files (Group 2) New 16

Ask Texas/TEXANswers: Statewide collaborative virtual public service element to build on the Library of Texas/Virtual Reference Service (Groups 3 & 4) New 11

Multimedia Marketing Program: To increase awareness of TexShare’s programs (Group 1) New 5

Total Dots for New programs (4 groups) 32

No new programs, improve existing ones (Group 5) No New 12





Encourage broader participation through a focus group of non-participating libraries to study some of the barriers of non-participation (Group 5) Card 11

Aggressively market the TexShare card program to:· non-participating libraries / Develop marketing package for those libraries who don’t participate – give them tools to present to their admin (stats on benefits, stats on loss, etc.) to increase participation,· increase visibility of each TexShare card participants’ lending/borrowing policies,· the public. (Groups 1 & 3) Card 9

Bring K-12 into card program (work out the details in WG) (Group 3) Card 9

Total dots for Card program (3 groups) 29

Restore funding for TexTreasures and increase funding to make proportional to # of libraries in TexShare (Group 2) TexTreasures 12

More publicity of outcome of grant awards including info on how grant projects are completed successfully, including training on how to complete project successfully (Group 2) TexTreasures 0

Total Dots for TexTreasures (1 group) 12

Restore/Increase in TexShare’s subsidy for TExpress participants (perhaps create a more flexible scale ) for participants (Group 1) TExpress 8

Encourage non-participating libraries to use TExpress, Promote/publicize shared use of stop locations (Group 1) TExpress 1

Total Dots for TExpress (1 group) 9

TOTAL DOTS: 283


NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 31.4


Return To Top

 

Page last modified: January 28, 2011
Top of Page