| Title Page
Executive Summary
Chapter I: Problem Statement Chapter II: Shelf Reading and Chapter III: Type of Research CHAPTER IV: Reliability and Validity Chapter V: Summary
|
Literature
Review
The literature review section is subdivided into four categories. These are shelf- reading and shelving, staff motivation, staffing and training, and benchmarking. Each category specifically addresses issues related to this study. It is interesting to note one article related to staff motivation and shelving. The initial database search of library literature done in October 1997 produced 155 citations. Of those citations, only 11 were selected as relevant to this study. A later search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) through the Central Michigan University Library did not produce any additional relevant citations. It is evident from these reviews of literature that limited studies have been done which address the quality shelving issues in libraries. Shelf-reading and shelving are areas dealing with accuracy. Shelf-reading involves going to a stack and reading call numbers to see if items are in the correct order. Shelving involves placing items on the shelf in the correct order. The studies below discuss these issues. In a study completed by Owens (1992), stack management was viewed as an extremely important public relations issue. When users come into a library the first impression they receive when they walk through the door is the orderliness or disorderliness of the stacks. Shelf reading and shelving are serious concerns and if a book is misshelved it is lost. This can be very problematic if a library user checks out and returns a book and then it is misshelved. The perception of the library to that user is a negative one. Users begin to ask thought-provoking questions about the library’s internal policies, procedures and systems of operation. This issue also becomes one of accountability for resources. This study looked at two major questions: (1) How long will it take to read the entire stack area? (2) How much will it cost? In order to answer these questions, they counted each shelf and estimated the average number of books on each shelf. Next, they counted how many shelves could be read per hour and calculated the number of hours it would take to read the entire collection. This figure was then multiplied by the hourly rate per employee. It took them 2,466 hours at a cost of $12,800 to accomplish the task. They performed random sampling before and after shelves were read to see if shelf reading was effective (Owens, 1992). Pedersen (1989) discusses the importance of using statistics related to shelf- reading. The Briscoe Library adopted a policy to shelf read their entire collection every six months. They accomplished this by having employees continuously (Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) shelf-read until the job was completed. They made assignments by the hour to distribute the job equally among staff. This helped to reduce stress and burnout. Statistics were collected on the number of volumes, total items reshelved, error rates, badly misshelved volumes, total hours of shelf-reading and number of volumes read per hour. As the number of hours of shelf-reading went up so did the improvement and orderliness of the book collection. There was a 38% reduction in request for searches of missing items. Shelving on a regular schedule or program is the obvious solution to misshelving problems. However, time and expense are important factors to consider. The process can be expensive. A good estimate for the size of collection and average number of books per hour is needed to calculate these estimates (Sweetland, 1988). A study done at California State University Library tracked misshelving errors and identified which selections of books needed more frequent shelf reading. The error rate served as a goal for shelf-readers and served as a standard for measuring shelving performance and stack conditions. They started this study by dividing the stacks into areas approximately equal in size and limited to an amount small enough to be read in just a few hours. Next, they recorded the number of errors found in each section and then a student assistant took a sample reading somewhere in a section once a month. The sample identifies which reading areas had the highest errors and data were collected as the areas were read. Standards were developed from these readings. Each year the data were recalculated and the total number of hours spent reading in the area during the year was divided by the number of times the area was read. That number was then divided by the number of sections in the area; e.g., standard reading time = total hours/times read. The study did provide a method for measuring conditions in the stacks. However, it became costly and the times when the stacks needed the most work the shelving load was extremely high. This study was also done in an academic setting, and when the workload was high in the library they also had school pressure, which complicated matters even further (Lowenberg, 1989). There is not a broad-based agreement on what constitutes acceptable shelving errors according to a review of literature and survey study done by The State University of New York (SUNY) libraries. This survey originally was designed to find out how a shelving rate of 91% accuracy compared to other libraries. They had one major problem with this endeavor. Very few libraries knew what their shelving accuracy was. Therefore, they used their results internally to track individual shelvers and make it possible for them to show improvement (Kendrick, 1991). A Brigham Young University study stressed the importance of speed and accuracy relating to shelving. The study evaluated factors such as the day of the week or length of time employed, to see if these had any effect on shelving accuracy and speed. It was interesting to note the standards they used for shelving were 150 books in 50 minutes. Techniques used for training shelvers were reading manuals, sorting cards and the buddy system. The results of the study concluded there was no relationship between shelving speed and accuracy and the day of the week or level of experience had no relationship to shelving accuracy (Sharp, 1992). Shelving and shelf reading can become monotonous and boring. A study by Banks (1991) addresses the motivational issues of shelvers. Specifically it describes a statewide questionnaire, a student assistant survey, a first-ever study concerned with motivating student assistants in academic libraries to shelve more productively and a second experimental study. A synopsis of the four aspects of this study are as follows:
Staffing, staff development and training related to shelving are issues all libraries must face. These articles focus on tools and techniques used in other libraries to select, hire and train shelf readers and shelvers to perform their duties. Selecting, hiring and training are all issues which go hand-and-hand with quality shelving. Hiring quality people is extremely important. According to Caywood (1992), "One misfiled book can build up a logjam of errors with subsequent shelving" (p. 35). When applicants are selected, care should be taken to evaluate the applicants thoroughly. The shelving jobs in many libraries have few requirements such as age, education, or experience. This makes the selection process hard due to the large number of applicants. Choosing only to interview persons with legible handwriting and a clean looking application should be first selection criteria to screen candidates. The next criteria would be using relevant work experience or volunteer experience where the person must put things in order; e.g., filing orders, restocking, handling cash, operating keyboard equipment or providing customer service are all good prerequisite skills for shelvers. One suggested interview activity was to have a candidate pull a book or journal from the collection (Caywood, 1992). Robert Williams (1990) discusses the use of a computer-assisted instruction program to assist with the training of shelvers. Users proceed through a series of exercises designed to teach shelving skills. This appears to be a time saver for trainers and a positive training experience for users. Benchmarking in libraries is an interesting concept. According to Marshall and Buchanan (1995), benchmarking is based on the common sense thinking that someone inside or outside of libraries may have found a better way to do something and you and your performance could improve if compared with theirs. This is a tool used in Total Quality Management (TQM) programs and, with proper performance measurement tools, it has potential for library programs. The article specifically focuses on using benchmarking in reference services. A second article focusing on benchmarking gives how-to, step-by-step direction for benchmarking reference services in libraries.
It is complex and time-consuming and can be an overwhelming process. However, it is a tool which has potential for significant improvement (Buchanan & Marshall, 1996). |
Copyright © 1998 |
Library
| Medical College of Georgia |