Appendix E


Georgia State University Strategic Planning
June 2010, Revised July 2010

It is our obligation both to follow where our faculties and students take us,
and to lead through realization of the new possibilities.

(James G. Neal, Columbia University – Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian)

Introduction – Georgia State University Library today

During the past decade, libraries have sought to balance traditional responsibilities with a variety of new roles. While continuing to maintain paper- and place-based collections and services, libraries must now also function in a much broader virtual environment. Additionally, research libraries are no longer valued solely by the size of the collection or by the number of people coming through the library door. Instead, libraries must also position themselves as partners in the teaching, learning and research endeavors of the academy.

In January 2010, in preparation for participation in the University Strategic Planning process, all Georgia State University (GSU) Library employees were asked to comment on what the GSU Library is doing well and should continue to do, as well as what we should be doing new. Employee responses noted our:

  • Compelling user environment.
  • Responsiveness to user needs and high quality service.
  • Virtual services, including answering reference questions via email and instant messaging. This also includes desktop delivery service for faculty members.
  • High level of discipline-specific information support. This includes classes, workshops and one-on-one consultations provided by subject librarians for faculty and students.
  • Undergraduate Research Awards presented annually to four students “who demonstrate skill and creativity in the application of library information resources for research papers/projects completed in fulfillment of a course requirement.”

Also mentioned were items in the process of being implemented:

  • A new GSU Library website (using the University template and RedDot CMS), which is being beta tested and is scheduled to go live by the fall semester.
  • Expansion of the article desktop delivery service for faculty members to include anyone who is teaching or taking classes away from the downtown campus.

The physical structure of the GSU Library, consisting of two buildings connected by a four-story bridge, contains approximately 300,000 square feet of space and holds an estimated 1.4 million volumes.1 In the first 10 months of FY10, 1.5 million people came through the door of the library, exceeding the number (1,469,026) for all 12 months of FY09. This growth is despite a more restrictive access policy introduced this fiscal year, and it continues a trend that began with the library renovations completed in FY07. Last year’s figure reflected a 47% increase over FY08, which in turn reflected an 88% increase over FY07.

Library responsibilities have been expanding dramatically during the past decade; however, there has been relatively little increase in staffing or financial support. Even before the recent budget cutbacks, funding for library collections, operations and staff over the past decade at GSU was failing to keep pace with enrollment growth, increased use of the facility and the escalating costs (well above general inflation rates) of scholarly journal and database subscriptions. In FY08, before the downturn in state revenues and subsequent budget cuts, GSU ranked near the bottom (above only Florida International University and the University of Central Florida) in per-capita library expenditures among 36 universities in the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL). Of particular note, and largely a product of limited budget growth, is the lack of progress made in addressing Georgia State University’s 2005-2010 Strategic Plan goal of membership in the Association of Research Libraries.

1The Law Library is not part of the University Library but is instead managed through the College of Law.

However, as we look ahead at the future of both GSU and the Library, of more importance are the areas of opportunity — places where change, innovation and new services will make a difference to the campus community. Currently, undergraduate students are well-served by the library and enjoy an acceptable level of support in terms of both collections and services. It is in support of faculty and graduate students where there is an identified need for increased collections and services. Four general topic areas have been identified via library employee comments, user surveys and focus group reports, and are also being discussed by the research library community. Any advances made will serve the entire university community, but particularly where the need is greatest – GSU faculty and graduate students.

Services – The success of the library of the future will be a result of the services it provides. These services will need to be responsive to user needs, using appropriate technologies as necessary, and must be flexible in order to address inevitable changes in the way information is used and delivered.

Scholarly communications – This covers a variety of topics including authors’ rights, open access issues, the institutional repository, and electronic theses and dissertations.

  • Action – Develop, in concert with others on campus, a program for providing the GSU community with information about scholarly communication issues and how they affect publishing opportunities, University costs, and the availability of published materials.
  • Action – Work through the committee structure of the University Senate to create community support for a GSU open access policy.
  • Action – Create a position description for a library point person for scholarly communication issues; advertise and hire.
  • Action – Provide improved methods of access to the University’s institutional repository (Digital Archive @ GSU), facilitate faculty submissions, and provide appropriate connections to the University’s faculty information management system.

Cyberinfrastructure – The University must develop the strategies, tools and mechanisms to support the storage and preservation of born-digital content. Effective this fall, the National Science Foundation plans to require that all proposals include a two-page data management plan. Though this is not a library initiative, the GSU Library’s existing information organization and preservation skills will enhance this endeavor.

  • Action – Develop, in concert with others on campus, a program for providing the GSU community with information, support and training about cyberinfrastructure issues.
  • Action – Work with others on campus to begin to develop the cyberinfrastructure needed to support the research endeavor on campus.

Return on Investment – A trend in libraries is to identify ways in which the value of investing in the library can be quantified. Though relatively easy to do for small or public libraries, this project is more challenging for large research libraries.

  • Action – Determine whether any of the existing protocols for demonstrating library value have widespread potential and validity, focusing on how these might impact different funding models for the library. Recent work being done by some of the library professional organizations is of particular interest.

Ubiquity – With the increased use of mobile devices by all populations, the library website and services must be easily viewable and usable with mobile devices.

  • Action – Create mobile services (apps) that will provide users with, for example, catalog searching, real-time computer availability, reservations for group study rooms, hours or Ask A Librarian services.
  • Action – Facilitate development of services and tools that will provide improved discovery and access to locally created content. This would include theses, dissertations, articles, books, working papers, technical reports, conference proceedings and other materials that require description, storage and curation.

Request fulfillment – We cannot divorce the cost of purchasing content from the cost of cataloging, processing and housing it, be it print-based or electronic. An additional component is the cost of acquiring content via “leasing” arrangement (e.g., interlibrary loan) or through shared digital resources (e.g., Google Book Search, HathiTrust). Ultimately, our users tend not to care where the content comes from as long as it is readily available.

  • Action – Provide seamless resource delivery – one place to ask for materials, whether we own them or not. This will include desktop delivery whenever possible; books purchased on request; and easier in-house access to print-based materials when electronic delivery isn’t possible.
  • Action – Identify collaborative methods of long-term retention of materials.

Collections – The nature of library collections is changing. As the costs for new materials rise, we must identify new ways of providing what our users need to be successful students, teachers and researchers.

Electronic access – Based on user feedback, the library must focus as much as possible on the electronic delivery of content. This is particularly true of journal literature where increasingly, and in all disciplines, evidence suggests that electronic access is preferred by faculty and students. (We have previously seen this trend in the sciences but are now also seeing it in the social sciences and humanities.) Less well-defined is the future role of electronic books. To some extent how this develops will be driven by available devices and formats, by rights management and by the extent to which textbook publishers embrace this technology. However, the vision of a completely digital research library is unlikely so we must continue to develop and support both electronic and paper-based collections.

  • Action – Provide the campus (in collaboration with others on campus) with test-bed opportunities to experiment with using electronic readers.
  • Action – Create an internal group charged with exploring and evaluating emerging hardware and software for the access, presentation, communication, customization and sharing of digital media and e-content.
  • Action – Continue to focus acquisitions budgets on electronic materials, including investigation of a transactional model, while trying to avoid the inherent risks to this approach as evidenced by Big Deal packages and long-term access issues.
  • Action – Create a position description for a library point person to provide virtual library services for the GSU community; advertise and hire.�

Creative partnerships – We must identify creative partnerships – both on and off campus – in order to leverage available resources. To date, most attention has been paid to partnerships with other research libraries in the state and region and to the University System of Georgia’s GALILEO initiative. Though these relationships are very valuable and must continue to be nurtured and supported, new partnerships must be developed. On campus, we need to expand our partnerships with faculty members and to further develop the collaborations that are providing students with the information skills they need to be successful students and citizens.

  • Action – Pursue additional off-campus partnerships. Evidence of a shift in thinking comes from the ASERL, which has “deep, innovative strategic partnerships” as a component of a new strategic plan. (ASERL has recently proposed a groundbreaking way to collaboratively manage Federal Depository Library Program collections in the Southeast that may ultimately serve as a model for the rest of the country.)��
  • Action – Develop a campus initiative that links new faculty hires, new campus initiatives and grant funding to a program that provides library “start-up” funding.

Special collections – A distinguishing characteristic of a research library is the nature of its unique collections. The special collections at GSU are a component of the University’s identity: they reflect the University in that they are largely collections of materials from the second half of the 20th century. They are good collections, but they could be better.

  • Action – Make the special collections of the GSU Library more accessible, particularly to researchers using electronic means to find them. This will require obtaining appropriate permissions to digitize materials and describing, storing and curating/migrating digitized content.
  • Action – Proactively identify and seek out materials that will enhance or expand the existing special collections at GSU.

Spaces – The GSU Library is seen as a vibrant campus center, but space limitations restrict our ability to respond to the changing demands placed on us by our users. As the University continues to expand, library space must also be expanded.�

Space for graduate students – Though the library does a good job of providing space for undergraduates, graduate students have expressed a desire for space that could be used exclusively by them – a place that offers a scholarly atmosphere that is conducive to serious research. This is historically a role for libraries, but library space is limited. Thus, we must be creative and identify alternatives.

  • Action – Identify spaces on campus available to graduate students that offer a scholarly atmosphere conducive to serious research. Determine what kind of library space should be made available to complement these campus spaces.
  • Action – Create a graduate student lounge space in the library and evaluate its use over a period of one academic year.

Off-site storage – As demands for library space change, we must look at ways to respond to those demands. Off-site storage of less frequently used materials would free up library space to be used for new purposes that are more supportive of teaching and learning, such as tutoring or collaborative learning spaces.

  • Action – Investigate options for shared storage with other libraries in the Atlanta area or throughout the state, including the possibility of public-private partnerships.
  • Action – Identify space on campus that could be used for either permanent or temporary storage of less frequently used materials.

Special Collections and University Archives – Currently, collections from this unit are housed in five locations on campus. The dispersed nature of the collection poses difficulties; for example, researchers generally must make arrangements in advance to gain access to material in which they’re interested.� This problem will only worsen as new collections like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photo Archives are added.

  • Action – Identify, in concert with others on campus, additional space on campus where new special collections can be stored.
  • Action – Identify, in concert with others on campus, appropriate space for combining all Special Collections and University Archives into one space where staff and services can be provided to researchers.

People – We are increasingly seeing the need for librarians with a less-traditional skill set. We need both to hire new people who already have these skills and to also help current employees acquire new skills – experience with scholarly communications issues, metadata creation, using new media and technology, etc. – so they may better serve the GSU community. Additionally, only 18 librarians provide support to all of the departments, institutes, centers, and initiatives on campus, meaning there are academic areas of the University either unserved or underserved by the library.

  • Action – Identify areas needing additional disciplines-specific support from the library. Create position descriptions as needed; advertise and hire.
  • Action – Identify skills needed to support the GSU community better and either provide training to existing staff or create new positions, advertise and hire.

Final Thoughts
In addition to the four areas discussed, there are perhaps some economies of scale that might be realized by working more collaboratively with others on campus. Though relationships with the College of Law Library and with the campus Division of Information Systems and Technology are strong, we need to ensure that we foster these relationships and make sure that all opportunities for collaboration are pursued.� A companion issue is to ensure that as the University evolves and grows, the necessary infrastructure is in place to support that growth, not only in the library but with appropriate and available technology, space, and people.

There are budget implications to the action items noted above. The budget for the GSU Library has not kept up with the aspirations or growth of the University. One possible recourse for the library is to investigate more fee-based services for the GSU community and other library users. More fundraising is also a component, but this is unlikely to completely fill the gap between available monies and needed services, collections, space and people. As the University enters into a capital campaign, it is worth considering the creation of an environment in which the library (as well as other “infrastructure” entities on campus) shares in the fund-raising successes of all campus units.

Finally, we are committed to being the library that the University wants us to be. We will follow where Georgia State University’s new strategic plan takes us, and will also provide leadership in realizing new possibilities for the Georgia State University Library.


Georgia State University Strategic Planning

Selected Resources

Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies. By Roger Schonfeld & Ross Housewright. ITHAKA, 2010.

The Idea of Order: Transforming Research Collections for 21st Century Scholarship. Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), June 2010.

Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change. By James Michalko, Constance Malpas & Arnold Arcolio – OCLC Research, March 2010.

Rethinking Research Library Collections: A policy framework for straitened times, and beyond. By Dan C. Hazen. Library Resources & Technical Services, Vol. 54, No. 2.

Scientists Seeking NSF Funding Will Soon Be Required to Submit Data Management Plans, Press release 10-077. National Science Foundation, May 10, 2010.

Seeking the New Normal – Periodicals Price Survey 2010, By Kittie S. Henderson & Stephen Bosch – Library Journal, 4/15/2010.

Strategies for Opening Up Content. Research Library Issues, A Bimonthly report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC – RLI 269 – A Special Issue, April 2010.

Georgia State University Strategic Planning

University Library Original Budget Allocations, FY2000 to FY2010
(including Areas of Focus funding in FY06, FY07, FY08, FY09)

Fiscal Year Acquisitions Personal Services Operations Fiscal Year Total
*2010 4,455,515 5,589,341 467,904 10,512,760
2009 4,427,065 5,454,811 476,192 10,358,068
2008 3,765,565 5,275,879 476,192 9,517,636
2007 3,607,565 5,165,220 475,926 9,248,711
2006 3,607,565 5,121,665 475,926 9,205,156
2005 3,305,998 4,789,626 475,926 8,571,550
2004 2,833,863 4,967,483 475,926 8,277,272
2003 2,833,863 4,952,861 475,926 8,262,650
2002 2,833,863 4,794,292 495,551 8,123,706
2001 2,880,314 4,573,828 475,926 7,930,068
2000 2,880,314 4,459,066 475,926 7,815,306
*Allocation for Personal Services includes $362,532 of Federal Stimulus Funds.

Overall Price Increase for Periodicals Subscriptions
Annual analysis from Library Journal – most recent Seeking the New Normal- Periodicals Price Survey 2010, By Kittie S. Henderson & Stephen Bosch – Library Journal, 4/15/2010.

2010 Increase of ~4.4%*
2009 Increase of ~7.6%
2008 Increase of ~9-10%
2007 Increase of ~7.8%
2006 Increase of ~7.8%
2005 Increase of ~8%
2004 Increase of ~9%
2003 Increase of ~8%
2002 Increase of ~8%
2001 Increase of ~9%

In the 15 years ending in 2001, periodical subscription prices increased by ~215%.

NOTE: In FY09 (the last complete fiscal year), periodical subscriptions accounted for 67% of the state materials budget for the GSU Library.

* The FY10 increase appears to be low for college and university libraries. The authors acknowledge that their data are limited to prepriced print titles as of January 2010. The projections were for higher increases, particularly for titles not billed in U.S. dollars.

Georgia State University Strategic Planning

Library Visits Comparison

Fiscal Year 2007 (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007)
Total visits to the University Library: 538,261

Fiscal Year 2008 (July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008)
Total visits to the University Library: 999,965
Percent change from FY07 to FY08: 88%

Fiscal Year 2009 (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009)
Total visits to the University Library: 1,468,026
Percent change from FY08 to FY09: 47%

Fiscal Year 2010, total visits as of May 31, 2010:� 1,512,231


Georgia State University Strategic Planning

Appendix C
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Per Capita Library Expenditures for Selected
Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) Members
Fiscal Year 2008

Institution Per Capita Expenditures*
Vanderbilt University 2,386.60
Duke University 2,294.02
Emory University 2,200.24
Wake Forest University 1,893.24
University of Miami 1,823.29
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1,668.77
University of Virginia 1,507.25
Tulane University 1,304.22
College of William and Mary 1,284.54
University of Louisville 1,124.07
University of Kentucky 926.19
North Carolina State University 900.73
East Carolina University 880.91
University of Tennessee-Knoxville 852.41
University of South Carolina 807.50
University of North Carolina at Greensboro 797.25
University of Alabama – Birmingham 775.19
Mississippi State University 765.76
University of Georgia 739.17
University of Alabama 723.66
Clemson University 711.82
George Mason University 696.23
University of Mississippi 691.87
Georgia Institute of Technology 663.43
Florida State University 638.33
Virginia Commonwealth University 569.77
Auburn University $559.57
Louisiana State University 557.65
University of Florida 554.22
University of Memphis 513.41
University of North Carolina at Charlotte 510.43
Virginia Tech 482.73
University of South Florida 481.50
Georgia State University 477.34
Florida International University 412.58
University of Central Florida 278.75
�*These data are from the National Center for Education Statistics Library Statistics Program. Thirty-eight libraries are members of ASERL but only thirty-six file reports with NCES.
FROM NCES, how Total Library Expenditures Per FTE Student is defined
Definition: Total library expenditures, divided by the total FTE 12-month enrollment.

Total library expenditures is the total of all funds expended from the library budget in the fiscal year regardless of when the funds may have been received from Federal, State, or other sources. All expenditures are reported in whole dollars. Includes: salaries and wages; books, serial backfiles, and other materials; current serial subscriptions; document delivery/interlibrary loan; preservation; other expenditures for information resources; computer hardware and software; bibliographic utilities, networks, and consortia; and all other operating expenditures. Excludes salaries and wages for contributed services and maintenance and custodial staff, and expenditures for capital outlays.

Total FTE enrollment is the total FTE 12-month enrollment of both undergraduates and post-baccalaureate students, including graduate students. The total FTE enrollment is calculated by taking the number of students enrolled full time and adding one-third the number of students enrolled part time.

Georgia State University Strategic Planning

Appendix D
Selected Academic Library Data Comparisons for Fiscal Year 2008

We have a significant amount of data available that can be used to show what is happening within the library as well as how our operations compare to institutions throughout the United States. This is an example of what we can supply to the committee to support discussion of contemporary library issues.

FY08 Georgia State University* Georgia Tech** University of Houston**
Total volumes held 1,642,947 2,524,671 2,617,282
Total serial titles 16,019 44,875 72,775
Monographs expenditures $1,423,688 $571,817 $1,760,006
Current serials expenditures $4,995,562 $4,227,563 $6,275,219
Professional salaries $2,572,521 $2,682,678 $2,795,072
Support staff salaries $2,248,610 $2,303,715 $2,352,860
Total materials expenditures $6,419,250 $6,205,541 $8,911,877
Total library expenditures $11,995,772 $12,432,754 $19,286,301
Computer hardware/software expenditures $212,947 $427,254 $827,493
Total employees 152 123 199
Professional staff 44 45 62
Reference transactions 19,889 8,178 29,210
Instruction sessions to groups 460 289 355
Total circulations 207,282 105,790 198,410
ILL requests sent to other libraries 16,160 10,598 26,008
ILL requests received from other libraries 9,128 12,062 18,395

*The Georgia State University figures include the University Library and the College of Law Library.
**These data are from the Association of Research Libraries Statistics 2007-2008.
LibQUAL+® Survey Results Comparisons

NOTE: In the following comparisons, institutions are not identified due to a stipulation of LibQUAL+® participation: “Institutions may use other libraries’ data in a confidential manner without disclosing the institutional identity of other libraries.”

Graduate Student Perception Scores (Mean) for Selected Questions

LibQUAL+® uses a 9-point scale, with 9 being high. GSU A Georgia Peer Institution A BOR Proposed Peer and Urban 13 Institution
Employees who instill confidence in users 7.38 6.69 6.47
Employees who have the knowledge to answers user questions 8.07 7.45 7.31
A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 7.74 7.02 7.11
The printed library materials I need for my work 7.05 6.58 6.85
The electronic information resources I need 7.09 6.89 7.11
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 6.82 7.28 7.05
Quiet space for individual activities 5.27 6.17 6.73
Community space for group learning and group study 7.06 6.80 6.73
Availability of subject specialist assistance 7.36 6.11 Not asked
Enabling me to find information myself 24 hours a day 7.00 Not asked 7.09

Faculty Perception Scores (Mean) for Selected Questions

LibQUAL+® uses a 9-point scale, with 9 being high. GSU A Georgia Peer Institution A BOR Proposed Peer and Urban 13 Institution
Employees who instill confidence in users 7.00 6.87 7.50
Readiness to respond to users’ questions 8.50 7.00 7.91
8.07 7.33 7.82
A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 6.95 6.84 6.89
The printed library materials I need for my work 6.79 6.36 7.32
The electronic information resources I need 7.33 6.71 7.26
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 7.58 7.00 6.76
Availability of subject specialist assistance 7.50 7.08 Not asked
Enabling me to find information myself 24 hours a day 7.33 Not asked 7.14

Users’ General Satisfaction with the University Libraryspace

LibQUAL+® uses a 9-point scale, with 9 being high. GSU A Georgia Peer Institution A BOR Proposed Peer and Urban 13 Institution
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. GS: 7.58
Fac: 8.23
GS: 7.50
Fac: 7.24
GS: 7.14
Fac: 7.80
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs. GS: 7.07
Fac: 7.07
GS: 7.01
Fac: 7.10
GS: 7.03
Fac: 7.23
How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? GS: 7.33
Fac: 7.47
GS: 7.20
Fac: 7.21
GS: 7.11
Fac: 7.60