| Title Page
Executive Summary
Problem Statement Chapter II: Shelf Reading and Chapter III: Type of Research Chapter IV: Reliability and Validity Chapter V: Summary
|
Chapter
V
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations The objective of this study was to investigate and make an assessment of the book and journal collection shelving quality in the Greenblatt Library. It was to develop a systematic plan for evaluating the quality of shelving through the use of cumulative historical data and random observations. The research objectives were met. The quality of shelving for the book and journal collections was extremely high, even higher than anticipated. The results showed an average of > 98% for both the book and journal collections. This study addressed many issues and found the literature related to shelf reading, shelving , staff motivation, staffing, training and benchmarking extremely useful. The study incorporated much of the literature for its design and implementation. Owens (1992) looked at time and cost for shelf reading their entire collection. Pedersen (1989) focused on keeping statistics and Sweetland (1988) focused on regular scheduled shelf reading. The Lowenberg (1998) study tracked misshelving errors in order to set goals for improvement. Kendrick’s (1991) study found that few libraries actually know their level of accuracy or quality. Each of these issues were taken into consideration and comparative or similar information incorporated and found for the Greenblatt Library. This study did not incorporate Sharp’s (1992) study, which stressed the importance of speed and accuracy and its relationship to the days of the week and level of experience, nor did it incorporate Banks’ (1991) study which looked at issues related to motivation. However, since the quality of shelving of books and journals in the Greenblatt Library was high, the next logical step would be to recommend further studies relating to motivation and speed relating to shelf reading and shelving. The Caywood (1992) study focused on hiring shelvers. It should be noted that many of the same techniques are currently used in the Greenblatt Library (e.g., screening applicants based on factors such as legible handwriting, relevant work experience and attention to detail). It appears from the high results of the Greenblatt Library study excellent shelvers are currently in place and these techniques work. Shelving and shelf reading training in the Greenblatt Library are currently done through the use of shadowing; however, Williams (1990) suggests the use of computer assisted instruction. This is an interesting concept which should be explored further. Measurable outcomes and assessments are extremely important to the success of any program. One tool which is being developed in the Greenblatt Library is the use of benchmarking. This concept is discussed in the Marshall and Buchanan (1995) article about benchmarking reference services. Step-by-step directions are given in the Buchanan and Marshall (1996) article. The Greenblatt Library study has produced a lot of relevant information useful for benchmarking quality in the area of shelf reading and shelving. In conclusion, the results indicate that the Greenblatt Library has a high level of quality or accuracy of shelving in the book and journal collections. There is no significant difference in the quality of shelving of books versus journals. The results of this study show a > 98% accuracy rate. Obviously, this is a reflection of a conscientious, motivated group of library assistants (shelvers) who take great pride in their quality of work. It is also a reflection of the full time LInC staff’s commitment to ongoing quality improvements. It will be hard to beat this accuracy rate, so the objective will be to maintain such a level of quality. Follow-up quality checks and studies should be ongoing in order to continue the success rate. It may now be the time to look into issues of increased speed in shelving or shelf reading with continued high accuracy and more efficient ways to hire, train and supervise staff for these areas. Continue with present procedures relating to hiring, training and work assignments. The current methods seem to be working with an unusually high success rate, so the methods should be continued with constant monitoring for deviations. Continue to keep relevant statistics relating to shelving in order to compare and benchmark quality with other similar libraries. The majority of statistics in this study were standard statistics kept on a regular basis. The statistics should be assessed monthly or quarterly just as an ongoing indicator of quality. Continue to assign LInC full-time staff to monitor sections of books and journals for neatness and accuracy and continue to have library assistants assigned to specific sections for shelf-reading on an ongoing basis. This will provide feedback to the LInC supervisor and library assistants regarding the quality of shelving accuracy and it will help to promote team work among LInC workers. At least once per year (twice if possible) have both collections shelf read by full- time LInC staff and have them keep statistics from these readings as a quality indicator. This would be especially appropriate in the summer and/or winter (around the holidays), because these are usually the least busy times. The reason to use full time LInC staff is library assistants are generally the ones who shelve and there would be a possible bias if they were also the ones to conduct this type of shelf-reading. The cost would be nominal even using full time staff, if this was done at a time when work is slow. Further studies are needed to compare this study’s results with that of other similar health science libraries. Continue to look for better ways to increase speed while maintaining accuracy. Explore the use of computer based instruction for training new staff to shelf-read and shelve. This would be a potential way to save time and cost related to training. |
Copyright © 1998 |
Library
| Medical College of Georgia |