Minutes of January 30, 2002

Present: Susan Bellingham, Marian Davies, Ian Donaghy, Sharon Lamont, Alex McCulloch, Carl Nagel

1. The User Services part of the project won't go to tender until March at the earliest.  In all likelihood there won't be any construction in this fiscal year.  This provides our group with more time to collect more information from users.

   Decision: After some discussion the group felt that there was no need to collect more information on most points, given the limited number of possibilities for the floor.

   Decision: As there is more time, it was agreed that there is no longer a need to present something to Department Heads on February 12.  Mark Haslett and Susan Routliffe will be updated on our progress.

   Whatever can be done this fiscal year by way spending on the project would be desirable, as long as there is storage space available for any furniture that is purchased.

   Action: Sharon will confirm with Lorraine how important it is to buy furniture this fiscal, in other words, how important it is to find storage space for furniture.

2. Action items from last meeting.
   • Carl stated that there are no figures available on workstation needs.

   • Alex has received two replies from staff who are also students.  The common thread is that individual study tables are most desirable for students.  This seems to be supported by the recent Occupancy Surveys of Ann Naese, which show the 5^th floor to be the most popular, apparently because there are more study tables there.

   • Susan reported that we are not committed to an Information Commons by proposals being developed for Campaign Waterloo.

   • Ian passed around catalogues on tables and chairs.  It was decided that exact styles would depend to some extent on the recommendations of an office design specialist (see below).

3. Out of a general discussion the following items emerged:

   Action for Next Meeting:

   1. Alex will talk to Ann Naese to determine the minimum numbers of bays of shelving that will be required for newspapers, as the space that has been allotted for newspapers will not accommodate the number of bays that have been considered so far.

      FollowUp: Ann has determined that 8 bays can be made to work, instead of 12, as long as the supplier can make some modifications.  She will attempt to confirm with the supplier before next week.  This should allow shelving to go where originally planned if that remains the desired location (it will depend on the exact number of inches required for 8 bays, as there isn’t much room to spare).

   2. Ian will contact Gary Kosar to explain the status of the project to date and see if someone from his office could assist our group, and, if so, whether they would like to attend our next meeting or wait until some more decisions have been made.

      FollowUp:  This has been done and Gary has agreed to send someone.

      Ultimately the group hopes that someone in office design from PO can be given the group's criteria and develop some seating plans.

   3. Sharon will collect information on the number of new books purchased for Porter, before a final decision is made on whether to include a new book area.  The 2^nd and 3^rd floors were noted to be more desirable locations if a new book area is desirable.

   For Discussion at Next Meeting:

   It became clear that the group needs to clarify and prioritize the visions for the floor.  For example, should everything on the floor be dedicated to longer-term uses, or is it fine for there to be something designed for short-term use, such as a stand-up PC station?  Should a broader or narrower array of user services be available, i.e. should stations be available for email/ word processing/ internet access, or should the floor be designed for just reading and discussion?  What level of noise do we want to achieve: should groups be encouraged or discouraged; will the click of keyboards be distracting for some, or should as much of the floor as possible be wired for power and internet, for the sake of present and future computing?  What level of privacy is necessary to accomplish the vision we choose: will we need to break-up the floor into smaller areas somehow, or put up panels between tables?

   In order to structure a discussion to achieve consensus I am suggesting that we employ the Nominal Group Technique of decision-making (format is below).  The question that I’ll frame for the next meeting will be along these lines: “You are a student coming to use the first floor of the Porter library. You are not coming for any of the collections there. What features attract you to this floor?”

   Achieving consensus on a vision will lead to specific criteria that can be given to a design specialist.

   Other Points:

   1. Susan noted the need for signage on the floor.

   2. Carl noted that a wireless transmitter could be added at minimal cost and disruption at anytime.  The group will defer a decision on this to the committee looking at wireless needs in the Davis library, of which Carl is a member.

   3. Gary Kosar of Plant Ops is looking into whether trenches in the floor will be possible for running wiring.  Carl pointed out that even if possible they might not be desirable because floor wiring can create obstructions.

   4. Gary will try to match the public carpet with the one on the second floor, in order to get the impermeable barrier.  (The User Services part of the 1^st floor will hopefully get the same carpet as the Special Collections area).

1. Frame the question in clear, simple language (so that it can be answered with a simple idea or sentence). Encourage participants to think for a few minutes, or write down their thoughts before speaking.

2. After a few minutes of thinking individually, ask the participants -- in "round robin" style -- to respond to the question with one (only one response at a time) of their ideas. Give instructions that this step is accomplished by just listing the ideas, discussion will follow. The facilitator puts the ideas up on flip chart paper (alternating two colors) without numbering the items.

3. After all the ideas are up on the flip chart paper, review the list by discussing each item briefly. The purpose is to clarify and understand the logic behind the idea. Unless there is direct overlap of ideas, keep items separate. After discussion, number each item.

   Encourage participants to speak in favor of an idea they believe particularly worthy -- or explain why they find an idea troublesome. (This is a key part of understanding diverse points of view.)

4. Ranking the items can be accomplished in a number of ways. The easiest is to use sticky dots. Give each participant five dots and instruct them to write number each dot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Then direct the participants to select from the list the five most significant or useful ideas.

   Tell the participants, "Now that you have selected in your own mind the five most important ideas -- of those five items, give the dot with five points (the number "5") to the most significant and the dot with one point ("1") to the least significant of your five favorites.

   Continue giving points according to preference (four points to next most favorite idea, three, and two respectively).

   (Participants can walk up to the items listed on the flip chart paper posted on the walls, and stick the dots directly on the items.)

5. Tally the totals.

6. Ask for discussion on the results. Do the top ranking ideas make sense?

   Note: Nominal group technique works when you want to determine priority concerns or priority directions. For example, the question (# 1 above) might be framed: "If you were writing your organization's annual report a year from now, what accomplishments would you like to be able to include?"