Reading Lists - End to End

Gary BrewertonMiddleware and Library Systems Manager

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/gary-brewerton/84/1a/40b

Contents

• Setting the Context• What is a reading list/RLMS• Reading lists at Loughborough• An ongoing issue

• Process review• Methodology used• Following the workflow• Mapping the process

• What next?

Setting the context

What is a reading list/RLMS

• Reading list• A list of resources (books, journals, AV material, websites, etc.)

compiled by an academic to support students in their studies

• Reading List Management System (RLMS)• enables students to access their reading list online and check

availability of recommended resources• allows appropriate staff to create and maintain the reading lists• provides the Library with information to support its collection

development

Reading lists at Loughborough

• We’ve had our own in-house RLMS (called LORLS) at Loughborough since June 2000• Initially we hired students to pump prime the system• Thereafter academics took on responsible for maintaining their

own reading lists• New academics trained by library staff to use the system

• In February 2011 we introduced significant new version of the system• Included multiple methods of creating/updating reading lists

An ongoing issue

• We’ve had a lot of success with reading lists but we still have an ongoing issue with backlogs in processing them at key times of the year• this can lead to delays in getting books on the shelves when

needed

August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July 0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.00

Month

Day

s to

pro

cess

Process review

Process review methodology

• DEFINE the process that we are seeking to improve and their purpose. But define from the customer’s perspective rather than from our own organisational structure.

• CHECK – collect information and data on the current process from the perspective of the customer. This could be email, phone calls or observing front line drop-ins.

• Do this by FOLLOWing the flow of the process around the organisation – literally. Speak to front-line staff – not just their managers. And most importantly gather information on their interactions with customers.

• CATEGORISE that data into “Value” and “Failure” demand. The first is where in responding to the request we are genuinely adding value and the latter is where we are correcting something we should have ideally got right first time

• MAP the current flow of the process at a high level – again from the customer’s perspective• ANALYSE the demand patterns and current flow. Identify where we have waste, hand-offs and

duplication.• DESIGN a new, simpler flow at a high level.• EXPERIMENT with a sub-set of customers by taking them through the new process. The reason for a

sub-set is it allows you to test and refine process using manual methods – i.e. without a need at this stage for an IT solution.

• SCALE-UP the experiment by computerising the processes and rolling in additional work.

Beginning the review

• Defining the problem from a customer perspective• NOT removing backlogs in the Library• BUT “Get my reading list items on the shelves now!”

• Collecting information and data• Reports produced from RLMS and Library Management System• “Go and see” following the process around the institution by

seeing academics in their offices, tracing the workflow within the Library and surveying students in lectures

• Noting failure demand (waste, duplication and hand-offs) and where value is added in the process

Following the workflow: starting with academics

• Disconnect between what some academics have on their printed lists and what they make available online• Some maintain multiple versions of their reading lists

DUPLICATION• Academics mandated to put resources on the VLE sometimes to

the detriment of the RLMS

• Tend to update reading lists just before courses start and can forget how to use it• However, when asked to add an item all successfully did so

• “Never had a book request turned down”

Following the workflow: around the library

• Internal processes have grown organically rather than being designed from the start• Cumbersome workflows leading to delays in acquiring new or

additional resources WASTE• Unofficial workarounds to deal with some issues (e.g. liaison

staff editing reading lists on behalf of academics who can’t/won’t do it themselves) ADD VALUE or HAND-OFF?

• Library suppliers don’t delivery books the next day unlike certain online retailers• Difficult to justify this to both academics and students

Following the workflow: ending with the students

• Recently surveyed 150 students from various departments during a lecture• Currently compiling the results

• However, from previous student surveys we know• “there should be more emphasis placed on them by

tutors/lecturers, as they can often be forgotten about”• “need to be updated on a more regular basis to make them

more relevant”• “often list too many books that either are too expensive to buy

or get taken out by others students from the library”

Mapping the process (high level)

• The current workflow when an academic updates a reading list

What next?

What next?

• Continue collecting information• Speak with other stakeholders (e.g. students Union, e-Learning

team, Learning & Teaching Committee)

• Complete the review• Analyse what we’ve discovered• Design a cleaner process• Experiment by taking selected academic and library staff

through the revised process• Scale-up the experiment for the institution (including possible

development of the RLMS)