Opportunities and Threats Derived
from
University Libraries of Notre Dame
Self-Study
(Version 2.2)
The following outline identifies broad issues or trends that were extracted from a SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) analysis of the University Libraries’ self-study dated October 11, 2001. We kept in mind the fact that the final document (the Libraries’ strategic plan) would be short and general, rather than long and detailed. This fact informed our decisions to identify major themes. This outline represents the Committee’s first attempt to crystalize important issues and does not in any way constitute a final list of priorities.
Opportunities:
1. Building relationships, including external
(consortia) and internal (campus)
a.
Building cross-dept. and div. working
relationships and interaction (7.3)
b.
Building relationships (liaison outreach,
consortia, partnerships) with academic and admin. units on campus (Kaneb
Center/ learning labs), other institutions and their libraries (3.5; 3.6; 5.3; 5.18; 5.20; 6.1; 7.11; 9.2)
c.
Making faculty more effective (3.4)
d.
National prominence for Aleph (8.2)
e.
Responding to external reviews about
collections (5.18-5.19)
f.
Rethinking of approach to service (e.g.,
LibQual); shift in priorities to information consultants (6.6; 6.19; 9.3-4)
g.
Setting/supporting priorities among
competing needs (3.1; 5.8)
h.
Strategic planning (8.4)
i.
Using traditional strengths to yield new
services, e.g., e-publishing (7.11)
j.
Working with the University as an
information provider (5.2)
k.
Cooperation with Kaneb Center/learning labs
(9.2)
l.
Demands on liaisons' time (3.5)
m.
Libraries exclusion from University's
planning process (5.4)
n.
Notre Dame's shift to research university
(5.2)
2. Digitizing our
collections
a.
Creating digitized content for
copyright-free materials (7.8)
b.
Creating unique digitized collections (7.8)
c.
Grants-in-aid for digitization staff and
equipment (7.8)
d.
Creating digitized content for
copyright-free materials (7.8)
e.
Investment in digital content equipment
(7.8)
f.
Preservation archive for digital resources
(5.5; 5.16)
g.
Remote storage (3.9)
a.
Catalog as repository (staff implications?)
(7.4)
b.
Developing mechanism to allow current use
networked products (7.6)
c.
Digital resources (5.15-5.16)
d.
Fully utilizing DAIAD (9.4-5)
e.
Implementing telnet access (7.10)
f.
Maintenance and management of digital access
and services (5.1; 6.9)
g.
Raising service level for digital
collections (6.8)
h.
Software applications enhancing and extending
value of online system,
i.
e.g., SFX, Metalib, DigiTool (7.5)
j.
Commercial entities providing library
services (3.3-4; 9.2)
k.
Complying to standards for digital resources
(n/a)
l.
Continuous development of digital resources
(5.1)
m.
Determining desired production levels for
digital resources ()
n.
Implementing bandwidth (7.12)
o.
IP authentication (7.6)
p.
Providing access to extensive e-resource
collections (3.3; 7.8)
4. Exploiting Web capabilities,
including developing Aleph to its potential
a.
Aleph Web OPAC’s accessibility, e.g.,
ADA-compliant (7.10)
b.
Catalog’s capabilities to link dynamically
and integrate matrix of extended links across databases (7.5)
c.
Developing services for low and high
bandwidth (7.12)
d.
Establishing task force to look at fewer
Aleph installations (7.7)
e.
Providing access to Law Library’s
collection (7.7)
f.
Implementing W3C guidelines (7.10)
g.
Standardized/complete bibliographic
access (7.3)
h.
Technological advancements increasingly
providing access, e.g., PDAs (7.12)
i.
Using Aleph to create databases or catalogs
for other campus units (7.7)
j.
Access to microformats (7.3)
k.
Aleph management (8.2)
l.
Catalog's capabilities to link dynamically
and integrate matrix of extended links across databases (7.5)
5. Improving funding, e.g.
securing grants and endowments
a.
Fund raising (3.7)
b.
Grant seeking (3.7)
c.
Increasing gifts (5.1)
d.
Stewardship with donors (3.7-8)
6.
Bibliographic instruction, increasing use of resources by students and
faculty
a.
Bundling of resources and services (9.2)
b.
Emphasis on information delivery as well as
collection building (5.8-9)
c.
Improving access to microformats (7.3)
d.
Information literacy programs (9.3)
e.
Linking users to most appropriate resources
(directly and indirectly); providing intuitive interface for resource
identification (6.2; 7.8)
f.
Packaging of resources with services (9.2)
g.
Changing expectations of
users/administrators; helping users deal with change (5.1; 6.10)
h.
Changing technology (user expectations/cost)
(5.1)
i.
Maintaining standards and consistency while
addressing user's bibliographic needs (7.4)
j.
Microform equipment (6.25)
k.
Providing information literacy program to
remote users (6.18)
l.
University collaboration for information
literacy programs (6.13-14)
7. Developing, supporting
special collections/distinguished collections
a.
Development of distinguished collections
(5.9-12)
b.
Development of rare books/special
collections (5.12-14)
c.
Impact of technology on access to special
collections (6.3)
d.
Approval plan (5.14-15)
e.
Restructuring of budget (9.1)
f.
Restricted endowments (3.7-8)
g.
Providing better statistics (9.5)
h.
Review of collection development policies
(9.1)
i.
Use/evaluation measures of resources (5.21;
5.6)
j.
Assessment measures for reference services
(6.21)
k.
Criteria for evaluating opportunities/lack
of benchmarks (5.8; 6.8)
l.
Effective use of digital/physical space
(3.9)
m.
Preservation (5.16-17)
n.
Use statistics for resources (5.6-7)
8. Restructuring budget
a.
Approval plan (5.14-15)
b.
Restructuring of budget (9.1)
c.
Restricted endowments (3.7-8)
9.
Evaluation/measuring/statistics: collection strengths, use, etc.
a.
Providing better statistics (9.5)
b.
Review of collection development policies
(9.1)
c.
Use/evaluation measures of resources (5.21;
5.6)
d.
Assessment measures for reference services
(6.21)
e.
Criteria for evaluating opportunities/lack
of benchmarks (5.8; 6.8)
f.
Effective use of digital/physical space
(3.9)
g.
Preservation (5.16-17)
h.
Use statistics for resources (5.6-7)
10.
Reviewing organizational structure
a.
Re-organization (3.2; 5.22)
b.
Recognition of subject librarians/liaisons
as collection managers (9.2)
c.
Review of organizational structure (6.4-5)
d.
Drastic workflow shift to meet desired
effectiveness (7.3)
e.
Investment in specialized staff for project
management (7.8)
11.
Role in local community
a.
Alumni services (6.3)
b.
Working on role in local (South
Bend/Mishawaka) community (n/a)
c.
Globalization of information resources (5.1)
12.
Evolving scholarly communication
a.
Globalization of information resources (5.1)
b.
Input on privacy issues (7.11)
c.
Keeping fair use alive (7.9)
d.
Scholarly communication (3.1; 3.9-10)
e.
Copyright/intellectual property (3.10; 5.3)
f.
Licensing models of content providers (7.9)
g.
Ongoing superinflation (3.10)
h.
Predicting future scholarship (5.2)
i.
Price of fair use (7.6)
j.
Recent Supreme Court decisions (7.9)
Threats:
1.
Inadequate funding
a.
Creating digitized content for
copyright-free materials (7.8)
b.
Fund raising (3.7)
c.
Grant seeking (3.7)
d.
Investment in digital content equipment
(7.8)
e.
Investment in specialized staff for project
management (7.8)
f.
Microform equipment (6.25)
g.
Ongoing superinflation (3.10)
h.
Restricted endowments (3.7-8)
2.
Inadequate physical and digital space
a.
Effective use of digital/physical space
(3.9)
b.
Remote storage (3.9)
3.
Inadequate numbers of library
faculty
a.
Re-organization (3.2; 5.22)
b.
Recognition of subject librarians/liaisons
as collection managers (9.2)
c.
Review of organizational structure (6.4-5)
d.
Demands on liaisons' time (3.5)
4. Rising
user/administrator expectations
a.
Alumni services (6.3)
b.
Digital resources (5.15-5.16)
c.
Improving access to microformats (7.3)
d.
Information literacy programs (9.3)
e.
Making faculty more effective (3.4)
f.
Raising service level for digital
collections (6.8)
g.
Rethinking of approach to service (e.g.,
LibQual); shift in priorities to information consultants (6.6; 6.19; 9.3-4)
h.
Working on role in local (South Bend/Mishawaka)
community (n/a)
i.
Aleph management (8.2)
j.
Changing expectations of
users/administrators; helping users deal with change (5.1; 6.10)
k.
Cooperation with Kaneb Center/learning labs
(9.2)
l.
Implementing bandwidth (7.12)
5. Under
utilization of resources
a.
Catalog as repository (staff implications?)
(7.4)
b.
Catalog’s capabilities to link dynamically
and integrate matrix of extended links across databases (7.5)
c.
Developing mechanism to allow current use
networked products (7.6)
d.
Developing services for low and high bandwidth
(7.12)
e.
Establishing task force to look at fewer
Aleph installations (7.7)
f.
Fully utilizing DAIAD (9.4-5)
g.
Grants-in-aid for digitization staff and
equipment (7.8)
h.
Linking users to most appropriate resources
(directly and indirectly); providing intuitive interface for resource
identification (6.2; 7.8)
i.
National prominence for Aleph (8.2)
j.
Restructuring of budget (9.1)
k.
Standardized/complete bibliographic access
(7.3)
l.
Using Aleph to create databases or catalogs
for other campus units (7.7)
m.
Access to microformats (7.3)
n.
Drastic workflow shift to meet desired
effectiveness (7.3)
6. Inadequate
evaluation
a.
Providing better statistics (9.5)
b.
Use/evaluation measures of resources (5.21;
5.6)
c.
Assessment measures for reference services
(6.21)
d.
Criteria for evaluating opportunities/lack
of benchmarks (5.8; 6.8)
e.
Use statistics for resources (5.6-7)
7. Interdisciplinary
nature of academic studies/research
a.
Providing access to Law Library’s collection
(7.7)
b.
Scholarly communication (3.1; 3.9-10)
c.
Notre Dame's shift to research university
(5.2)
d.
Predicting future scholarship (5.2)
8.
Not setting priorities for user needs
(collections, use, access, etc.)
a.
Approval plan (5.14-15)
b.
Creating unique digitized collections (7.8)
c.
Development of distinguished collections
(5.9-12)
d.
Emphasis on information delivery as well as
collection building (5.8-9)
e.
Responding to external reviews about
collections (5.18-5.19)
f.
Setting/supporting priorities among
competing needs (3.1; 5.8)
g.
Using traditional strengths to yield new
services, e.g., e-publishing (7.11)
h.
Continuous development of digital resources
(5.1)
i.
Determining desired production levels for
digital resources ()
j.
Increasing gifts (5.1)
k.
Providing access to extensive e-resource
collections (3.3; 7.8)
l.
Providing information literacy program to remote
users (6.18)
m.
Stewardship with donors (3.7-8)
9. Commercial
institutions competing with the library
a.
Bundling of resources and services (9.2)
b.
Packaging of resources with services (9.2)
c.
Commercial entities providing library
services (3.3-4; 9.2)
10. Rapid technological change
a.
Globalization of information resources (5.1)
b.
Implementing telnet access (7.10)
c.
Maintenance and management of digital access
and services (5.1; 6.9)
d.
Software applications enhancing and
extending value of online system, e.g., SFX, Metalib, DigiTool (7.5)
e.
Technological advancements increasingly
providing access, e.g., PDAs (7.12)
f.
Catalog's capabilities to link dynamically
and integrate matrix of extended links across databases (7.5)
g.
Changing technology (user expectations/cost)
(5.1)
h.
Impact of technology on access to special
collections (6.3)
i.
IP authentication (7.6)
j.
Licensing models of content providers (7.9)
11.
Preservation needs
a.
Development of rare books/special
collections (5.12-14)
b.
Preservation (5.16-17)
12.
Meeting standards
a.
Aleph Web OPAC’s accessibility, e.g.,
ADA-compliant (7.10)
b.
Implementing W3C guidelines (7.10)
c.
Complying to standards for digital resources
(n/a)
d.
Maintaining standards and consistency while
addressing user's bibliographic needs (7.4)
13.
Copyright issues
a.
Keeping fair use alive (7.9)
b.
Copyright/intellectual property (3.10; 5.3)
c.
Price of fair use (7.6)
d.
Recent Supreme Court decisions (7.9)
14.
Library not integrated into university planning
a.
Building cross-dept. and div. working
relationships and interaction (7.3)
b.
Building relationships (liaison outreach,
consortia, partnerships) with academic and admin. units on campus (Kaneb
Center/ learning labs), other institutions and their libraries (3.5; 3.6; 5.3; 5.18; 5.20; 6.1; 7.11; 9.2)
c.
Input on privacy issues (7.11)
d.
Review of collection development policies
(9.1)
e.
Strategic planning (8.4)
f.
Working with the University as an
information provider (5.2)
g.
Libraries exclusion from University's
planning process (5.4)
h.
University collaboration for information
literacy programs (6.13-14)