Sink or Swim

1
Sink or Swim

• Floating Collections at VPL
• By Anne Martin and Lysanne Fox, VPL

2
Our Mandate

• Examine the concept of floating collections, and
  their possible applications at VPL
• Make recommendations on all aspects of floating
  collections, relative to VPL
• Plan implementation at VPL
• Liaise with VPL special projects

3
Why Float?

• Reduce the amount of materials handling done by
  delivery and staff in Central and branches
• Reduce the amount of material in transit
• Refresh and revitalize materials at all locations
• Collections move where patrons want them

4
Why Float?

• Reduce physical wear and tear on items
• Avoid extra transactions
• Reduce transportation costs of moving items
  between sites
• Less staff administration and processing of
  materials

5
When?

• Committee established January 2006
• Implementation March 2006
• Phase 2 May 1, 2006
• Phase 3 January 1, 2007
• Phase 4 May 1, 2007

6
Where?

• All Branches
• Central Library
• PRL (Popular Reading Library)
• Teen
• Childrens

7
How?

• Behind the scenes with the catalogue
• Distribution plan
• Communicate, communicate, communicate!

8
Who...? The Committee

• There are 9 members
• Technical Services (2), Systems (1) and Public
  Services units both at Central (3) and in
  Branches (3)
• There is a mix of classifications

9
Reactions!

• Patrons
• Staff
• Assumptions made by librarians

10
Problems

• Weeding
• Overflow/Underflow
• Mismatches

11
VPL Floating BLOG
12
Mismatch Wiki (superceded by Centralized
Mismatching System)
13
STANDARDIZATION(Lysanne Fox continues)
14
What? Committee Mandate

• Establish a standard set of paperback categories
  for public use
• Investigate and make a recommendation regarding
  lettering on paperback spines
• Investigate and make a recommendation regarding
  identification of newly arrived material

15
Mandate continued

• Establish standards for any other labelling
• Establish Standards for weeding
• Investigate options for the consistent
  application of Values Based Service regarding
  damaged materials
• Investigate and make recommendations regarding
  reducing labelling

16
Why?
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Who?

• There are 7 members
• Representing the areas most impacted Technical
  Services (1), Public Services units both at
  Central (2) and in Branches (4)
• There is a mix of classifications

24
When?

• Shortly after the Floating Committee began
• Ongoing

25
How?

• Surveys
• Made recommendations. Upon approval communicated
  new processes
• Created a Standardization webpage on the Intranet
• Insured that units had the material needed to
  implement changes

26
Reactions

• Patrons
• Staff

27
Problems

• Long timelines
• Joint operations

28
Where are we at now?

• Standardization of non-fiction
• Serials
• Weeding standards
• Filing rules

29
What did we learn?

• Communicate
• Communicate
• Communicate

30
Questions and Discussion