![\"IviesBlogImage\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.lib.uconn.edu\/professionaldevelopment\/files\/2015\/06\/IviesBlogImage.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIvies Plus Access Services Symposium 2015<\/strong><\/p>\n Yale University<\/strong><\/p>\n Post by Erika McNeil and Stan Huzarewicz<\/p>\n This past Friday, Stan Huzarewicz and Erika McNeil attended the Ivies Plus Access Services Symposium at Yale.\u00a0 The themes of the symposium included fair use, evolution of staff skills, strategies for dealing with change, and access to collections. \u00a0Attendees included staff from: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Stamford, MIT, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, NYU, Chicago, Penn, Emory, and Rutgers, as well as\u00a0representatives from Atlas Systems.<\/p>\n Susan Gibbons, Yale\u2019s Deputy Provost for Libraries & Scholarly Communication, launched the symposium, and her introduction focused on the concepts of partnerships and collaboration.\u00a0 She stressed that we need to find more ways to collaborate and create new partnerships, and that we can\u2019t move forward alone.\u00a0 Yale trustees, she said, support these concepts at Yale; we need to create best practice together, and that doing so for copyright and fair use is critical.<\/p>\n The panel then began on Copyright, Fair Use, and the GSU Decision<\/em>, led by Kevin Smith (Director of the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication at Duke), Peter Hirtle (Senior Policy Advisor to the Cornell University Library and Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University), and Joan Emmet (Licensing and Copyright Librarian at Yale).\u00a0 As we know, Georgia State is not finished; decisions have been made, but Kevin Smith stressed that no decision yet has changed Georgia\u2019s daily work practice.\u00a0 What we know now: fair use does apply to e-reserves, even though it is not considered to be transformative; classroom copying guidelines do not define fair use (10%); you can reuse e-reserve articles each semester under fair use; using an item-by-item approach is more important than ever; and it is critical to search for a digital license.\u00a0 Consider what your book is, the 10% or one chapter guideline is still probably a good rule of thumb, but it must be flexible; less is recommended if the pedagogical need does not require 10% or if a digital license is available; if the teaching purpose is for more, then this may be okay too.\u00a0 Flex up, flex down.<\/p>\n In terms of ILL, there isn\u2019t any explicit fair use language, with the exception that in general, ILL cannot be used as a substitution for a subscription.\u00a0 In terms of explicit<\/em> permissions of the law, it\u2019s not there.\u00a0 There are guidelines, like ILL\u2019s common best practice of CONTU<\/a>, but CONTU is not a law.\u00a0 In terms of your e-resource licensing, Joan Emmet stressed the allowing of ILL; if ILL restrictions are in a license she receives, she strikes it out.\u00a0 Her reasoning is that it\u2019s not enforceable by law now, but if it\u2019s restricted in a license, then it becomes so.\u00a0 It\u2019s critical to look for undue restrictions and to use a database to record these licenses.\u00a0 Yale provides specific information about their e-resource license restrictions to ILL as well as reserve and is proactive in informing these groups.<\/p>\n At the session Evolution of Access Services Staff and Strategies for Dealing with Change<\/em>, many commonalities emerged.\u00a0 Many institutions are dealing with budget cuts and loss of staff (e.g. New Jersey is also under a hiring freeze).\u00a0 Systems and technologies are changing more quickly than some staff can adapt, but training is key when you can\u2019t hire new staff.\u00a0 It is essential to keep your job descriptions current.\u00a0 There was a group motion to create a core competency document.\u00a0 At Yale, all staff are cross trained for ILL and circulation and share the work.\u00a0 At Johns Hopkins, it was important to bring staff skills up even if it meant reclassing them.\u00a0 Yale does peer-based training.\u00a0 All staff at Cornell went through customer service training.\u00a0 Rutgers is doing an evaluation to see where training is needed.\u00a0 MIT did customer service training for all staff as well.<\/p>\n At the session Discovery Tools and Access to Services and Collections<\/em>, similar issues again arose.\u00a0 Link resolvers don\u2019t always resolve, what metrics we should keep . . . Johns Hopkins has begun to use Enterprise Authentication<\/a>: users log in when they access the system, which gives them single-sign on functionality\u2014there is no need to authenticate with every system.\u00a0 Atlas is working to integrate ILLiad requests into the LMS and has done so at Harvard and at VCU (it works with an ILLiad addon).\u00a0 (We\u2019re going to investigate this, as Virginia also has Alma.)\u00a0 Dartmouth is using Stack Map<\/a>, which lets you see exactly where a book is in the library.\u00a0 At Harvard, they put a QR code on a door that patrons think provides access to a certain study room\u2014the code brings up a short video on how to get to the correct door.\u00a0 Chicago is exploring using Google Maps to bring you into their library and to all of the floors.\u00a0 Chicago is working to eliminate recalls; for every book that a patron recalls, they\u2019re inserting a bookmark directing the patron to ILL next time; Johns Hopkins and Penn echoed this, emphasizing \u201cstop saying no!\u201d<\/p>\n The session on Technology in Libraries<\/em> addressed libraries\u2019 experiences with circulating technology.\u00a0 Tom Bruno (Yale) facilitated the session and suggested that, in addition to meeting patrons\u2019 needs, libraries are providing a \u2018technology sandbox\u2019 where patrons can learn about new technology.\u00a0 Libraries are still dealing with basic questions surrounding loan periods, liability for damaged items, shelf life, etc. \u00a0Demand for a new technology decreases as patrons acquire the items for themselves, leaving items to gather dust and eventually become obsolete. Technology can quickly become cost prohibitive \u2013 can the library find allies in other areas who can share the cost?\u00a0 The session concluded with the most fundamental question\u2014should the library even own this service?<\/p>\n There were some interesting demos during the lunchtime demonstrations.\u00a0 At Penn, they have begun 24\/7 in earnest, hiring staff to cover the overnight shifts.\u00a0 These staff receive training in tech support, reserve, shelving, and chat.\u00a0 All of these services are covered all of the time.\u00a0 They have found that services are caught up and that patrons are benefiting.\u00a0 They have on average over a hundred patrons in the building at any hour during the night.\u00a0 Johns Hopkins now embeds the ILL request link both in the list of search results as well as the item level for patron convenience; one of the biggest benefits was the reduction in recalls.\u00a0 At MIT, they conducted an initiative to improve customer service.\u00a0 They wanted to create a unified voice and send a better message.\u00a0 Each message sent from the library for any service (automated or personal templates) was looked at and rewritten to remove jargon, remove strange strings of numbers, offer actionable alternatives, and to create simple subjects.\u00a0 It helped show their value and was done concurrent to a mandatory public service training for all staff.\u00a0 Emory profiled an app that they created with a developer to note seating in the library, including PC stations and music stations; it has helped them evaluate staffing and plan for future needs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ivies Plus Access Services Symposium 2015 Yale University Post by Erika McNeil and Stan Huzarewicz This past Friday, Stan Huzarewicz and Erika McNeil attended the Ivies Plus Access Services Symposium at Yale.\u00a0 The themes of the symposium included fair … Continue reading