Task Group on Library Collections Space

Final Report

June 11, 1992

1. Statement of the Library's Space Problem

1.1 Statement of the Problem
1.2 The Task Group's Mandate
1.3 Membership of the Task Group
1.4 Chronology
1.5 Criteria for Assessing Options
1.6 Initial Suggestions from the University Community
1.7 Information on Options

1.1 Statement of the Problem

The lack of space to house the collections of the Dana Porter Library threatens the ability of the Library to serve the University community and hence the capacity of the University to fulfil its objectives.

The library space system is currently 12,649 square feet or 14 per cent under its entitlement for collections space. The actual shortfall in the Porter Library is 26,122 square feet or 43% of its entitlement.

"Entitlement" is not an arbitrary figure. Neither does it express an abstract ideal. It is a recommended standard for shelving a circulating collection that limits shelf-occupancy to no more than two-thirds of the shelf. This standard allows material to be removed and reshelved without damage, and permits acquisitions to be incorporated easily into the existing collection.

The following table provides the basic measure of the Library's current space problem. In percentage terms, it shows that three units in the University Library system have excess capacity, but the percentages over entitlement are misleading because the assignable square feet are much more modest than in the case of the Dana Porter Library.


                 Library Stack Space:  Actual and Formula Entitlement



                     Net Assignable Square Feet     Under/Over



                     Actual         Formula         Entitlement

 

Dana Porter          33,982         60,104          -26,122   (-43%)

Davis                26,045         19,445         +  6,600   ( 34%)

UMDL                  3,710          2,652         +  1,058   ( 40%)

Storage              12,002          6,187         +  5,815   ( 94%)

 

                     75,739         88,388          -12,649   (-14%)

The optimum collection size of the Porter stacks is 590,000 volumes. There are already 695,000 volumes. This means that the stacks exceed the recommended standard by 105,000 volumes or 18 per cent.

A minimum of 11,000 volumes are added annually to the Porter stacks. To restore the situation to accepted standards, it is necessary to remove 100,000 volumes immediately, and another 11,000 volumes annually.

These are conservative figures. The 11,000 figure is an average intake over a number of years. In the year September 9, 1990 to September 5, 1991, however, a study by User Services showed that 19,071 new books, equivalent to 505 full shelves at nearly 38 books per shelf, were added to floors 6 through 10.

If no action is taken to relieve the pressure, there are a number of predictable consequences:

Library staff will spend an increasing amount of time shifting the existing collection between ranges and between floors to provide space for incorporating new acquisitions. This is nonproductive use of staff, especially given that the Library has lost a minimum of 15 staff positions in the past decade and anticipates the loss of another 15 positions during the next decade.
Materials will be increasingly misshelved as it becomes difficult for users to replace them in the correct location. Misshelved books are lost books, and the collection becomes less useful.
Odd-sized and extra-large books will be placed on the tops of ranges, out of sequence and will be a potential hazard to users.
Overcrowded materials will be subject to mishandling and damage as it becomes more difficult to remove and reshelve them.

As a short term solution to growth in the collection, the Library has developed a program of weeding superseded books and materials which are transferred from the Porter Library to a storage facility on the north campus (see the weeding policy statement in Appendix B, Sec. 8). Books and materials stored on north campus can be retrieved within 24 hours, on user request. However, this strategy does not make a dent in the excess 100,000-plus volumes in the Porter Library.

But even this solution, as partial as it is, will soon become impossible. There are currently 145,000 items in rented storage on north campus, and there is space for only another 55,000 items. At the current rate of collection growth, and assuming as many items are removed from Porter as are added each year, the University has a maximum five-year grace period in which to implement a more constructive, long-term solution.

1.2 The Task Group's Mandate

The objective of the Task Group is to examine the existing space problem, and to submit proposals to alleviate it in the short term and to provide satisfactory accommodation for circulating collections in the long term, based upon the projected rate of growth.

Terms of Reference

To compile an inventory of the stack space currently available on Floors 6-10 of the Dana Porter Library.
To estimate the maximum storage capacity of the existing stacks.
To prepare a series of predictions of the number of years of excess storage space remaining, based on a range of acquisition scenarios and their associated probabilities.
To invite and receive comment and suggestions from the academic community concerning the existing library space problems, and in particular the problem of space for circulating collections in the Dana Porter Library.
To compile and review a list of the options that should be considered in resolving the problem of library collections space in the short term, having regard to their practicality, impact upon the user, and the ease with which they can be implemented.
To compile and review a list of the options that should be considered in resolving the problem of library collections space in the long term, having regard to capital maintenance and service costs, collections growth and management, ease of access, preservation and conservation, and agreements on the cooperative development and management of collections.
To submit a report and recommendations to the University Librarian by July 1, 1992.

1.3 Membership of the Task Group

Professor Sheila Ager
Chair, Arts Faculty Library Committee Classical Studies, Faculty of Arts

Lorraine Beattie
Co-ordinator, Library Administrative Services

**David Emery
Associate Librarian, Collections

Professor Eric Haldenby
Director, School of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Studies and Senator

Nelson Joanette
President, Graduate Student Association

*Professor Ron Lambert
Chair, Department of Sociology and Senator

Bruce MacNeil
Associate Librarian, Information

Nicole Messenger
Undergraduate Student and Senator, Faculty of Science

Donato Montano
Undergraduate Student and Senator, Environment and Resource Studies Department, Faculty of Environment Studies

Susan Routliffe
Co-ordinator, Library User Services

Murray Shepherd
University Librarian

*Chair; **Secretary

1.4 Chronology

1. Establishment of Task Group, Membership and Mandate   January 9, 1992



2. First Task Group meeting                  January 29, 1992



    (a) Problem Statement;

    (b) Tour of Library facilities;

    (c) Potential solutions identified and information requested;

    (d) Criteria for assessment of potential solutions determined;

    (e) Schedule for filing report established



3. Publication of press release requesting input



    (a) Gazette                  February 12, 1992

    (b) Imprint                  February 14, 1992

    (c) FAUW Forum               February 1992

    (d) The Latest               Winter 1992



4. Second Task Group meeting                     February 19, 1992



    (a) Review of information on potential solutions, provided

        by Library staff



5. Third Task Group meeting                  March 11, 1992



    (a) Discussion of Task Group members' preferences;

    (b) Discussion of recommendations submitted by members of

        the University community;

    (c) Agreement on draft recommendation to the University.



6. Task Group critique of draft Preliminary Report       March 17, 1992



7. Circulation of Preliminary Report to the University Community    

                                                         April 10, 1992



8. Publication of press release requesting feedback on Preliminary Report

    

    (a) Gazette                  April 6, May 6, 1992

    (b) FAUW Forum               April 1992

    (c) The Latest               Spring 1992

    (d) Imprint                  May 1, 1992



9. Fourth Task Group Meeting                     May 14, 1992

    

    (a) Review of feedback



10. Task Group critique of draft Final Report            June 15, 1992



11. Submission of Final Report to the University Librarian   July 1, 1992

1.5 Criteria for Assessing Options

These criteria were adopted at the first Task Group meeting.

Gain in Shelf Space. This is the most basic criterion because it defines the objective of the present exercise.
Start-up Financial Costs. There will be variable costs associated with the construction of an entirely new facility, remodelling existing buildings on campus, or relocating departments and collections from the Library.
Continuing Financial Costs. A strategy for dealing with the space shortage may require new points of service and hence additional and continuing costs in personnel.
Effects on Staff Morale. While this criterion may not be relevant to some options, other options which isolate staff or break up work units constitute costs.
Effects on the Accessibility of the Collection. In general, solutions that remove part of the Library system to north campus or from the campus entirely limit the ease of patron access and therefore constitute a cost.
Potential Resistance. And by whom. Users and staff develop an attachment to existing facilities and configurations over a period of time, based on ease of access, etc.
Long vs. Short Term Solution. We require solutions to move the University into the next century and to weather the pressure on the Library's resources over the next few years.

1.6 Initial Suggestions from the University Community

Eight faculty members and students responded in writing to the Task Group's initial invitation in the press to suggest ideas. The Task Group expresses its gratitude to these members of the University community for their effort and ideas. Their suggestions were discussed at the third meeting of the Group and can be grouped as follows:

Adding to the collections.
Two people recommended that the intake of new materials be curtailed by stricter definitions of the approval plans. Under the approval plan, a department specifies which kinds of books it does and does not want, and a jobber handles the purchases on behalf of the Library. In the view of these two people, the Library has been purchasing a great deal of material that is not warranted.
Conversion of the collections.
Two people favoured converting from books to CD-ROM and microfiche formats where possible. Another person suggested switching to paperbacks for non-essential books, thereby saving space. A third person opposed a conversion strategy.
Housing the collections.
Four people suggested a number of strategies in the way that the collections are housed, including the following: relocate parts of the collection to separate libraries or departmental reading rooms; add shelves per stack and provide stools for users to reach the upper shelves; use high density shelving for various collections; decrease carrel space and increase common reading space; extend the borrowing time and make it easier for faculty to borrow through the campus mail, so that more of the collections are in circulation at any given time; and create a common research library for UW and WLU faculty and graduate students. A fifth person urged that a new library be constructed.
Reducing the collections.
Four people suggested aggressive selling and weeding of books from the collections. Less popular books might be loaned to the Kitchener and Waterloo Public Libraries.

1.7 Information on Options

Porter Library staff were requested to provide information according to the criteria identified in Sec. 1.5 for the options that were identified as worthy of detailed consideration. Their reports appear in Appendix B of this document.

Library Staff       Option



Lorraine Beattie    Davis Library Compact Shelving



David Emery     Cooperative Storage

            Relocation of Government Documents Collection

            Relocation of Rare Books/Special Collections

            Relocation of Reserve Reading Services

            Relocation of Acquisitions/Cataloguing Departments





Bruce MacNeil       Weeding - Steady State

            Microform Conversion of Periodicals



Mike Ridley     Electronic Conversion



Susan Routliffe     High Density Facilities



Murray Shepherd     Decentralizing Collections

David Emery
Associate Librarian, Collections

WWW version: June 5, 1995

Secretary to the University Librarian
Last Updated: February 27, 2007

Staff & Administration • Library Documents