The options considered by the Task Group can be grouped into three categories. The first category includes a broad range of options which might lighten the Library's burden over the long run, but which will not produce significant increases in the amount of available space over the next five to ten years. The second set of options involve the expenditure of large amounts of money for the construction of major new facilities. And the third set of options call for the relocation of collections and services from the Porter Library to other buildings on campus. We will consider each of these in turn.
In the first category, we include weeding (steady state), sale of books, rewriting approval plan profiles, and conversion to microform and electronic media. In assessing the promise of each of these options, we ask what gains in space it will afford the Library over-and-above the 100,000 volumes which should be removed immediately to relieve the over-crowding on floors 6 through 10 of the Porter Library.
Sale of books should be included with weeding (steady state) (App. B, Sec. 8), in that both call for the removal of materials from the collections. They differ only in that the sale of books would generate some income for the University, though perhaps less than might be supposed. (We doubt that there is great demand for superseded editions and out-of-date books at more than a few cents per copy.) Together, these options do not promise much of an increase in available space in that each volume received by the Library replaces a weeded volume.
More space might be created if a more aggressive weeding strategy were pursued, whereby most of the collection warehoused on north campus would be eliminated. In this scenario, probably most of these materials could be permanently withdrawn following the existing guidelines for the warehousing or withdrawal of materials (see App. B, Sec. 8). We are warned by the staff librarian who prepared the assessment of the weeding (steady state) option that considerable resistance from faculty members and graduate students can be anticipated on the grounds that valuable but little used materials would inevitably be purged. A special contractual problem arises, he noted, in the case of the Government Documents collection.
It is true that the University Library bears a special obligation to meet the needs of undergraduate students. And it is probably also true that the needs of undergraduates can be satisfied with a much smaller collection of about 250,000 volumes. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate for the Library to pursue an aggressive or even a steady state weeding policy which ignores the research needs of faculty and graduate students. We doubt that there is much support for such a solution.
It was proposed that the approval purchasing plans be rewritten to exclude what one faculty member feels is a great deal of garbage " purchased under these plans. We accept that there may be some tightening-up possible in this area, a reduction which the recession impose any event. But are doubtful it will produce significant savings space. bears repeating approval plans subject to annual review by departmental representatives Arts Faculty Library Committee and their respective liaison librarians. Furthermore, new acquisitions displayed weekly invited monitor them return supplier, if they wish. also believe widely divergent interests judgements most departments about what qualifies as garbage members undoubtedly hold different opinions whether an acquisition strategy should merely reflect current tastes, or strive for inclusiveness comprehensiveness. >
User Services in the Porter Library collected some data in 1986 which bear upon some of the claims about the adequacy of the approval plans. They compared the circulation histories of books purchased under these plans and custom-ordered books for the period 1982 to 1985. Under the garbage hypothesis, one might expect custom-ordered books to be more widely used. In the Porter Library, however, 48% of approval plan books versus 43% of custom-ordered books had circulated. The discrepancies in favour of approval plans were larger for the EMS (i.e., Davis Centre) and the University Map and Design collections. While we might wish for more nuanced data, there seems little reason to despair of the approval plans.
App. B, Sec. 8). We are warned by the staff librarian who prepared the assessment of the weeding (steady state) option that considerable resistance from faculty members and graduate students can be anticipated on the grounds that valuable but little used materials would inevitably be purged. A special contractual problem arises, he noted, in the case of the Government Documents collection.
It is true that the University Library bears a special obligation to meet the needs of undergraduate students. And it is probably also true that the needs of undergraduates can be satisfied with a much smaller collection of about 250,000 volumes. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate for the Library to pursue an aggressive or even a steady state weeding policy which ignores the research needs of faculty and graduate students. We doubt that there is much support for such a solution.
It was proposed that the approval purchasing plans be rewritten to exclude what one faculty member feels is a great deal of garbage" purchased under these plans. We accept that there may be some tightening-up possible in this area, a reduction which the recession impose any event. But are doubtful it will produce significant savings space. bears repeating approval plans subject to annual review by departmental representatives Arts Faculty Library Committee and their respective liaison librarians. Furthermore, new acquisitions displayed weekly invited monitor them return supplier, if they wish. also believe widely divergent interests judgements most departments about what qualifies as garbage members undoubtedly hold different opinions whether an acquisition strategy should merely reflect current tastes, or strive for inclusiveness comprehensiveness.
Compared to other major university libraries in North America, this University has been extremely reluctant to adopt the microform option (see App. B, Sec. 6). In figures compiled by the American Association of Research Libraries for 1990/91, Waterloo ranked 105th out of 106 university libraries (including 11 other Canadian universities) in its microform holdings. Only Colorado State ranked lower. The staff librarian who prepared the report on this option distinguished between conversion of current titles in all libraries and conversion of ceased titles and cancelled subscriptions. If we were to convert current titles in all four UW libraries, we would gain the shelf-space equivalent to 120,000 volumes of periodicals or 150,000 books, minus the considerable space required on the ground floors for cabinets to house microfilms, additional microfilm readers and copiers. Only a portion of this saving would accrue to the Porter Library, of course, since the Davis Library's periodical holdings are substantial. The Task Group is of the opinion that the University should convert lesser used subscriptions to microform, where possible, even though this solution promises little relief for the Library's space problems over the near future.
The Task Group also considered the merits of electronic media (App. B, Sec. 7) as an alternative to books. To fully realize the benefits of this system, it would be necessary for the Library to create an extensive network of PCs to accommodate large numbers of users. This investment would take the form of Library space as well as money. Some modest amounts of space can be freed up on the second floor by removing the card catalogue which has not been updated since 1988 and which has been superseded by the GEAC computerized system. The electronic option also has the merit that its use can be decentralized to PCs in faculty and student offices and homes. The Task Group recommends that the University move in this direction where CD-ROM alternatives are available. It was informed, however, that the materials available in this format are still very limited, so that net savings in space will be minimal for some time to come.
The Task Group considered a number of options that call for the construction of new facilities (App. B, Sections 1, 2 and 3). All of them are defined as high density options, requiring the use of compact, moveable shelving (see the introduction to App. B, Sec. 4). They differ in the following respects:
Storage Library vs. Storage Building.
A library provides many of the services found in the Porter Library, whereas a storage building is fundamentally a warehouse providing little more than a consultation room for a few users. Materials from a storage building are requested by patrons and are retrieved by library staff on, for example, a 24-hour schedule.
Open-Stacks vs. Closed Stacks.
This distinction applies only to high density storage libraries. The use of moveable compact shelving imposes some inefficiencies on patrons' use of the stacks.
South-Campus vs. North-Campus.
This distinction is more relevant to a high density storage library because if affects patron accessibility. It is probably of little consequence in the case of a storage building since library staff would transfer materials from storage to the Porter Library, the patrons' point of contact.
Co-op Ownership vs. Sole-Ownership.
A new high density storage library or building might be owned by a consortium of two (e.g. Waterloo and Laurier) or more (Waterloo, Laurier, Guelph and possibly other) universities.
The Task Group takes the view that the University must look for a realistic long term solution to the Porter Library's space problem in this category of options. Solutions in the first category (Sec. 2.1.) are not really solutions, we have argued, because they promise to lighten the load without providing significant amounts of additional space in the near future.
Construction of a new facility will be expensive. How expensive it is will depend on the amount of shelf space the University wishes to purchase and whether it wishes to do so alone or in cooperation with others. In the absence of information about costs, we can nevertheless make some comparisons. We can say that a high density storage building will be less expensive than a high density storage library, both in terms of start-up and continuing costs. A storage library will be more expensive than a storage building because the former provides more space for patrons' use, offers more services, and requires more staff. We can also say that a high density storage building owned jointly with several other universities will cost less than the same kind of facility owned solely by the University of Waterloo.
It is reasonable to expect the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will look more favourably on efforts to provide needed facilities on a cooperative basis. The Task Group learned that some preliminary efforts toward a cooperative facility involving more universities were initiated in 1989, but these initiatives were stillborn. An update on these efforts appears as Document B in App. B, Sec. 3. Perhaps the chances of success will be improved by approaching those neighbouring universities with which Waterloo has a history of successful cooperation. We will comment more fully on the features of the cooperative option in Sec. 2.4.
The Task Group considered and rejected the option of installing moveable compact shelving on the lower level of the Davis Centre Library (App. B, Sec. 4). First, it would produce additional shelf space for approximately 180,000 volumes. Removal of the excess 100,000 volumes from floors 6 through 10 of the Porter Library, however, would shrink the net gain to 80,000 volumes. Second, the Davis Centre collections will continue to grow and will require this space. It is already short of seating space. The Task Group does not think it sensible to shift the space problem from one library to the other library by depriving the Davis Centre Library of room for expansion over the next decade.
A number of options involving the relocation of collections and services were considered. Each of them produces a sizeable increase in shelf-space, although the net gain is less impressive once we subtract the effects of moving the current excess of 100,000 volumes from floors 6 through 10 of the Porter Library. Rare books and special collections (App. B, Sec. 5.3) is already stretched to capacity and requires more space. Given this unit's special requirements for compact shelving (which it already has), plus environmental controls and security arrangements, we recommend against moving it. The weight of the compact shelves requires that they be housed at ground-level, which is already the case.
We also oppose removal of the Government Documents Collection (App. B, Sec. 5.4) from the Porter Library . Removal of this collection would disrupt existing patterns of integrated usage of it and other collections, thus provoking patron resistance. In any event, the net gain in shelf space would accommodate only 30,000 volumes.
The Task group is generally opposed to decentralizing the Library's collections (App. B, 5.5) by relocating unique sets of materials to branch libraries scattered around campus. It is acknowledged that this practice has evolved over a number of years at several universities; in the case of one American university, for example, there are 60 to 70 branch libraries. We anticipate that there would be a great deal of user resistance to such an innovation at Waterloo. There is little available space on campus for the kind of massive decentralization necessary to produce significant gains in space in the Porter Library; checkout and other services would be duplicated across campus; staff morale would suffer from isolation of small groups of workers; and the collections would become less accessible to users.
Although the Task Group does not endorse relocation of collections, it sees some merit in relocation of selected services. As short term solutions, it favours relocating the Acquisition and Cataloguing Departments (App. B, Sec. 5.1) and the Reserve Reading services (App. B, Sec. 5.2) to other buildings on campus. Without presuming to name buildings to which relocation might occur, it seems desirable to remove the Reserve Reading services to a central location within the Ring Road, while Acquisitions and Cataloguing might occupy a building more peripheral to the campus. This strategy would protect the interest of students in accessibility and maintain the large staff in Acquisitions and Cataloguing as an integrated work unit. Subtracting the 100,000 volumes which would be moved from the upper floors of the Porter Library to the space vacated by these two moves, there would be a net gain of approximately 110,000 volumes. The Task Group stresses, however, that this is a short term solution, intended only to buy time for the University to finalize arrangements with other universities and to raise money, privately or through government, to erect a cooperative storage facility.
The Task Group benefited from the written commentary on the Preliminary Report that was submitted by 28 members of the University Community. While this is by no means a representative sample of faculty and students, they have clearly given thought to the role of the Porter Library in the life of the University. The Task Group was more interested in the cogency of their arguments than in extrapolating the frequencies of their answers to the University community. Beyond these 28 people, however, oral comments to members of the Task Group conveyed the overwhelming support enjoyed by the Library in the University.
The Task Group devoted its final meeting to a review of the campus feedback. We can summarize its content as follows.
There was widespread support for our principal recommendation that this University erect a storage building in cooperation with one or more local universities. We noted, however, that several people expressed reservations about a cooperative arrangement (e.g., as an infringement on our autonomy) and worried lest such a facility be built along Highway 401.
In the Task Group's view, this university has been well-served by its various cooperative arrangements. Academic programs have benefitted from the enlarged resources placed at the disposal of students, without diminishing the responsibility of faculty for the quality of their programs. There is reason to fear for the quality of the Porter Library's collections if some such measure is not taken and soon.
The Highway 401 location is not integral to the cooperative option and the Task Group does not premise its recommendation on any given site.
The strongest feelings and differences of opinion were evoked by the conversion options (microform and electronic) and any suggestion of elimination of materials solely on the basis of usage. The Task Group sees little need to adjudicate between the two schools of thought on conversion since these options do not offer a solution to the Library's space problems in the near future. The Task Group does not advocate and the Library does not practise a policy of aggressive weeding.
There was modest support for relocation of Acquisitions and Cataloguing and Reserve Reading services, with reservations expressed by several people. There was also some support for relocating Government Documents or establishing specialized collections, such as women's studies, elsewhere on campus.
There was little support in the Task Group for fragmenting or decentralizing the Library's collection. The government documents collection in the Porter Library, for example, has been developed specifically to meet the needs of students and faculty in the disciplines of political science, history, sociology, psychology, applied health sciences, geography and man/environment resource studies. When asked to rate the relative importance of various types of library material, graduate students in Environmental Studies gave government documents a score of 4.2 out of a possible 5.0; books scored 4.0. A recent use study has confirmed that the collection is also used extensively in conjunction with other material in the Porter stacks, e.g. in the areas of taxation, financial accounting, and national statistics. Some users would be seriously inconvenienced by the arbitrary decentralization of essential sources of information.
We should mention two specific suggestions contained in the feedback. One person recommended the creation of quiet rooms" in non-library buildings, thus freeing space for additional shelving in the Porter Library. While a useful suggestion in theory, in practice space designated for study purpose tends to be cannibalized over time for other purposes, either because the space is underutilized by students or because it is needed to address what are perceived to be higher priorities within a department or faculty. Students are frequently accused of misusing the library by treating it as a study hall. Doubtless this occurs, but to exclude them from the library on these grounds reduces the opportunities they might have to come in contact with library collections and services that contribute to a richer educational experience.
Another person suggested that the Porter and Davis Centre Reserve Reading Services should be combined, in the event that the Porter Reserves are relocated. Although this recommendation does not speak directly to the Porter Library's space problem, perhaps it merits consideration.
As the preferred long term solution for the Porter Library's space problem, the Task Group recommends a cooperative high density storage facility. In the short term, we recommend the relocation of the Acquisitions and Cataloguing Departments and the Reserve Reading services. The Task Group does not see these as alternatives but as complementary solutions to the Porter Library's pressing space problems. The relocation proposal is intended to buy time while the University establishes a consortium of interested universities, arranges financing through fund raising or government sources, and constructs the desired facility.
It would be unfortunate if the University accepted the relocation options as long term solutions to the Porter Library's space problem. If a cooperative storage facility (or a more expensive campus library or facility) is not erected, the University can expect to face the same space problem in another decade. At that time, it will not have the array of short term solutions available to it that it now has.
The Task Group envisions the following kind of shared facility:
It should be owned cooperatively by the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University, and the University of Guelph.
Other participants might join in this cooperative venture, although distance to the new facility may pose a problem for some of the participants. One way of addressing the problem of distance is for all members of the consortium to share equally in the costs of one or two round trips per day between each participating university and the facility. In this way, no university should be penalized by greater distance, while closer universities would pay for the benefits of proximity. Distance may remain a problem for researchers wishing to visit the facility.
Each participating University would surrender exclusive ownership of materials removed from its collection and transferred to the jointly owned storage facility. It would be the responsibility of the storage facility staff to eliminate duplicate copies of books and to otherwise reduce the contributions from the three universities into a single collection.
Assuming a single collection, a facility with a capacity of 200,000 to 500,000 volumes per participating institution should provide adequate storage well into the next century. Moveable compact shelving favours a single-storey rather than a high rise building. Modular construction will permit additions to the building as the need arises in the future.
There should be a consultation room and modest rest-rooms, thus permitting researchers to visit the facility for examination of runs of journals, etc. But otherwise, this is a storage facility and not a storage library.
In the event that other universities fail to enter into a cooperative venture with this University, the Task Group concludes that the Porter Library's space shortage is sufficiently grave to require that the University of Waterloo proceed alone to construct a high density storage facility.
David Emery
Associate Librarian, Collections
University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883
contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011
University of Waterloo