View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Writing It All Down: The Evolution of Future-Proofing Library Workflows

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Writing It All Down: The Evolution of Future-Proofing Library Workflows
Language: English
Authors: Katherine E. DeVet (ORCID 0000-0003-4843-488X)
Source: Journal of Access Services. 2024 21(2):118-129.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Documentation, Shared Resources and Services, Library Personnel, Library Policy, Job Analysis, Knowledge Management, Labor Turnover, Staff Orientation, On the Job Training, Institutional Environment, Academic Libraries, Long Range Planning
Geographic Terms: Texas
DOI: 10.1080/15367967.2024.2340479
ISSN: 1536-7967
1536-7975
Abstract: With resource sharing staff staying an average of 3-5 years, capturing policies and procedures to facilitate onboarding and strengthen institutional memory is key in building consistent workflows. Creating documentation was a multi-stage process executed over several years. Initially, the staff supervisor wrote office policies and assigned staff to write step-by-step guides for common workflows. These were kept in shared storage and evaluated and updated periodically. During pandemic closures, mind-mapping in MindManager aided gap analysis to prioritize areas of the workflow not yet documented. Most recently, this documentation moved into Microsoft Teams which both limits inadvertent alteration and facilitates searchability.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1424186
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFsxyn0fdhYHWoC5u6L6SwnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMdH6JjPMiiotpPPBAIBEICBm-bt5JjcAF1I84UghyLy72Zfu_l27Iadq12nvLu3jcYfn3_0cgbCLJxrwYZkxtBOnY71xKWgdgIUPDXcU1c5Df6i43DLzVBsljVc_68gYrFxBKZJcqvR_hsBD3eOKxmrGlZFm5I5GM4Dt8v0Ct6nPNt70vIYyYj8TksBQu0DQS3vB0gRlEa7muOmYvNmKqFII3yz8-fmYVbxP6Pd
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176897176;g2k01jun.24;2024May02.05:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176897176-1">Writing it all down: the evolution of future-proofing library workflows </title> <p>With resource sharing staff staying an average of 3-5 years, capturing policies and procedures to facilitate onboarding and strengthen institutional memory is key in building consistent workflows. Creating documentation was a multi-stage process executed over several years. Initially, the staff supervisor wrote office policies and assigned staff to write step-by-step guides for common workflows. These were kept in shared storage and evaluated and updated periodically. During pandemic closures, mind-mapping in MindManager aided gap analysis to prioritize areas of the workflow not yet documented. Most recently, this documentation moved into Microsoft Teams which both limits inadvertent alteration and facilitates searchability.</p> <p>Keywords: Workflow documentation; staff training; onboarding; institutional memory; resource sharing; interlibrary loan</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Adam Savage famously said on the science entertainment show <emph>Mythbusters</emph>, "Remember, kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down (Savage, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>])." While libraries may not be trying to skip bullets off of pavement, there is still a pervasive sense of "If it's not written down, it didn't happen," particularly as departments strive to collect statistics to confirm their value within an institution. Within workflows, this is even more important. Earlier this spring, colleagues at a peer institution commented that they had not onboarded new staff in years and were not sure they knew how. All of their staff could measure their longevity in decades and much of their workflow was wrapped up in that institutional memory. It may very well be that when a staff member of 40+ years retires it could take years to discover all of the tasks they had done quietly and never written down. Within the Texas Tech University Libraries Document Delivery office, full time staff are onboarded with enough frequency that it has been necessary to codify policies and procedures in a way that will ensure standards are maintained despite an ever-shifting workforce.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-3">Literature review</hd> <p>Though maintaining workflow standards is essential to well-run libraries, documentation of how this is done is often an afterthought. Many case studies have examined the development of workflows as a means of event record, rather than functional documentation, spanning a wide range of work products from collection development to technical services to making and generally focus on the development of a new process rather than continuation of daily tasks. As many public services remain relatively unchanged, these are often, though not always, related to more behind-the-scenes procedures like digital workflows, resource ingestion, and institutional repositories. Faced with an increase in streaming video requests, Streeter, Kennedy, & Saragossi ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]) documented the internal workflow adjustments needed to readily handle the load added to their library management system. Focusing on efficiency while meeting patron needs, they instituted a centralized request form and batched orders in order to streamline tracking.</p> <p>For large moves or ingests, the developed workflows are often established to facilitate specific projects, rather than codify everyday tasks. Kirkwood ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref3">7</reflink>]) sought to develop efficient workflows to relocate 25,000 items, using CAIA (Circulation, Accession & Inventory Analysis) to balance the demands of the project with limited equipment and staffing. This built upon the workflows developed over successive projects at Johns Hopkins using item group editing in their library management system that allowed for much more efficient and error free mass ingest, deduplication, weeding, and digitization, as well as those developed for largescale moves at Hesburgh Libraries at the University of Notre Dame that moved approximately one million volumes to high-density storage (Guimaraes & Collins, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]; Keifer, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]). In a related project focusing on an institutional repository rather than physical shifts, Dale ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]) recorded the development of a mediated archiving workflow for the Computational Resource for South Asian Languages [CoRSAL] with an eye toward catering to the research and infrastructure needs for depositors for this early stage language archive.</p> <p>From a public services standpoint, workflow documentation tends to be used to determine a solution to a problem. During the shift to digital instruction due to pandemic restrictions, Tarver, Haupt, Cyrus, Wahl, & Burneson ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]) worked to curate and create standardized workflows to allow for more straightforward management and updating of online learning content, with the ability to share content between liaisons to lesson the workload. Litsey, Allen, Cassidy, DeVet, & McEniry ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]) discussed the faceted workflows developed to establish a new service providing 3D models to the campus community for use in the classroom, including recommendations for metadata collection and storage, consultation and design of 3D models, and public service implications in continued support of the service. Other models discuss new workflows to alter already existing services. Litsey & DeVet ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]) worked to streamline existing campus delivery services using iPads to track and check out delivered items rather than a complicated system of printouts and binders.</p> <p>Periodically, this is supplemented with scholarship on the process of updating and assessing workflows. Bergland, Davis, & Traill ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>]) developed a multi-pronged approach to update a large quantity of workflow documentation at once while simultaneously assessing accessibility and involvement of newer staff. Serials librarians at University of California-Irvine used Rapid Contextual Design Methodology to design a small, focused workflow analysis, looking for ways to improve interdepartmental communication (Pascual & Wallbank, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]). Veve ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]) took a wider view, examining different types of workflows available for dual online submission to both institutional repositories and ProQuest. More granularly, Ornat & Moorefield ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]) borrowed process mapping practices designed to gather information regarding a specific workflow and diagram it visually to help identify areas of potential collaboration and contribution to knowledge management.</p> <p>Popularized by Tony Buzan, Mind Mapping, also called concept mapping or spider mapping, seeks to diagram thought processes organically branching from a central idea, rather than moving laterally through text (Buzan & Griffiths, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]). Indeed, Buzan & Griffiths ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]) suggest that these mapping concepts can be used "where improved learning and clearer thinking will enhance business performance." These concepts have been used time and time again across disciplines for a wide variety of reasons. Murley ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]) posits that mind mapping can have many uses for librarians, including teaching, presentation, research, writing, brainstorming, project planning, and management. This method was used by the faculty of Informatics and Management at the University of Hradec Kralove to determine how students understood the concept of e-learning (Simonová, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]). Teese ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]) used Mind Maps to demonstrate how teacher librarians could help develop students' cognitive skills when used in conjunction with life skills programs, positing that Mind Mapping can be used to identify and record knowledge in any topic. Within an educational setting, Lestari, Jatmiko, Prahani, Deta, & Bachtiar ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]) used a variety of assisted learning mapping methods to analyze not only the effectiveness of such organizational methods, but also using quantitative data and qualitative description to ascertain that Mind Mapping was not only accessible to all learners but also easily extensible to concepts of a variety of complexities. Similarly, Indonesian senior high school students were found to have 20-25% better recall using Mind Maps to study physics material (Astra, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-4">Background</hd> <p>Often considered a cultural center of west Texas, Lubbock is largely known for very few things—a wide, flat horizon punctuated by strong winds; cotton as far as the eye can see; Buddy Holly; and Texas Tech University. A large doctorate granting institution, Texas Tech has been recognized as an institution with Very High Research Activity by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The Texas Tech University Libraries is a member of the Association of Research Libraries and the Greater Western Library Alliance along with other library consortia. There are five libraries across campus: the main library in the center of campus, the Architecture Library, the Law Library, the Peters Family Legacy Library, and the Southwest Collection/Special Collections Library. In 2010, Texas Tech was one of the institutions that made the goal to reach 40,000 students by 2020 and has succeeded in that. Working from nearly 37,000 FTE in FY2017, enrollment hit 40k in 2020 and has stayed relatively stable, with 40,528 FTE in Fall 2022, with 32,729 undergraduate students, 7,204 graduate students, and 595 students between the law and vet schools (Texas Tech University Institutional Research, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>To support the research needs of this community, the Document Delivery office has a team of staff and student assistants working to provide Document Delivery, Interlibrary Loan, and Course Reserves. A part of User Centered Services, the department is overseen by a Resource Sharing Librarian while day-to-day operations are managed by a staff supervisor [Unit Manager]. Request processing is handled by 5 FTE staff [Library Associates], with 2 on Borrowing, 1 Document Delivery, and 2 Lending. At present, one of the Lending staff doubles on Course Reserves at relevant times of the year. At peak volume pre-COVID, Document Delivery processed over 100,000 requests a year. Since pandemic closures, request numbers have been down but seem to be steadily on the rise. Within the department, the staff supervisor position tends to have longevity but the Library Associates are more of an entry level position. These full-time staff are hired with research expertise in mind and are often enrolled in graduate programs, working an average of 3-5 years before moving on to their next position. Most years in the last 10, this has resulted in 1-2 staff hired per year. Student Assistants often stay with Document Delivery until graduation but availability changes with coursework each semester. This often results in 3-7 new student assistants hired every semester.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-5">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176897176-6">Creation of documentation</hd> <p>To help continue expectations and the throughline of knowledge, four types of documents help maintain workflow documentation, beginning with overarching policies. Document Delivery Policies or DDPs are often what staff see first. These are higher level policies specific to FTE staff workflows and do not include step-by-step instructions to complete tasks. DDPs are typically written by the Resource Sharing Librarian and Unit Manager with the intent of establishing expectations and recording institutional memory. They are primarily used for onboarding and staff cross-training but have the added benefit of serving as a resource to return to as needed. With these and all of the documents that follow, staff are referred to by position, rather than names in order to help future-proof the documents should someone leave or change positions.</p> <p>Similarly, Document Delivery Student Policies, or DDSPs, are higher level policies for student assistants. These are also written by the Resource Sharing Librarian and Unit Manager but are primarily a resource for frontline staff rather than the students themselves. While the students directly report to the Unit Manager, the Library Associates assist with the supervision and training of student assistants throughout their workflow, often training on tasks related to their position. For example, one of the Lending staff often trains on packaging FedEx while one of the Borrowing staff trains on preparing incoming interlibrary loan books for delivery or pickup. The students receive this information largely through direct face-to-face training.</p> <p>These policies are refined by more procedural documentation. Document Delivery Step-By-Steps are likely the most used documents of this set. These are written by front line staff, codifying their own daily tasks and workflows, and are edited and approved by the Unit Manager and Resource Sharing Librarian before being published to shared storage. These Step-By-Steps assume that the reader has never done the task in question and are largely used for onboarding and staff training. As all Library Associates are cross-trained on other units, Step-By-Steps also serve as reference for tasks that might not be completed every day or workflows that are cyclical like course reserves or billing. These follow what some call the "peanut butter and jelly" approach to explanation. In the activity that inspired this, a teacher has a class instruct them on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, following the instructions exactly. This usually begins with inaccurate suggestions like "put the peanut butter on the bread!" where the teacher stacks a full, closed jar of peanut butter on top of either a wrapped or uncut loaf of bread, squishing it, and eventually gets to more granular instructions. These documents are designed so that, ideally, staff from other departments could step in and follow along if needed to complete the task in question.</p> <p>Document Delivery Checklists are somewhat similar to Step-By-Steps but more bare bones in scope. These are also written by front line staff about tasks they train student assistants on and are primarily a resource for students completing day-to-day work. They are laminated and posted in relevant work areas and also follow the "peanut butter and jelly" approach to explanation. The ideal for these documents is to be able to have student assistants or staff from other areas be able to step in and help if needed.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-7">Connectivity, storage, and sustainability</hd> <p>All four types of documents work together to create a comprehensive, living body of workflow documentation. Though each type of documentation has its own purpose and intent, any given section of the documentation does not show a complete image of how anyone workflow or process works. When considered as an entire portfolio, the respective policies and procedures work together to create a cohesive whole, guiding varying aspects of individual processes from different angles as different positions interact with them. For example, <emph>DDP23: FedEx Shipping</emph> governs the overarching ideals behind when and how shipping occurs while the <emph>FedEx Shipping</emph> Step-By-Step gives a granular procedural approach to every step of the process, including fine details on customs values and shipping times. Similarly, <emph>DDSP08: Student Workflow Priorities</emph> shows where packaging FedEx falls in the overall Student Assistant workflow while the <emph>FedEx Checklist</emph> explains exactly how to package FedEx, down to where to place the finished packages so they will be included in the daily pickup. Despite this interworking, the connection between the four document types had long been understood rather than explicit.</p> <p>During pandemic closures, staff supervisors in what would become User Centered Services began reviewing and editing workflow documentation while working remotely. To aid this, MindManager mapping was used to provide a way to make visual connections between documentation types and departments. As can be seen in the excerpt from the 2020 mapping shown in Figure 1, each unit splits into DDPs and Step-By-Steps with related documents linked and documents that need editing marked. This mapping allowed for critical assessment of workflow overlap and gaps in the documentation while leaving space and flexibility to add as needed. MindManager allows visual coding by icon, color, emoji, and style and can be edited remotely by multiple users. Most of the existing documentation when the project began involved services that were offered by Document Delivery. Additional documentation relates to staff expectations, leave time, and staff development. Assessment of these written and unspoken policies is a perpetual project. While many of the noted gaps have since been filled, early return to face-to-face affected the ability to complete the mapping project as planned. As Document Delivery is Mission Critical, staff were in the office through the end of March 2020 and returned to the office half time the first week of June 2020.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. An excerpt from the 2020 MindManager mapping of workflow documentation. [created by the author.].</p> <p>While MindManager allowed the organization of ideas, it did not change storage paths. Initially, all document types were stored in an internal SharePoint site accessible by all Document Delivery staff. In FY2022, the sunsetting of the Texas Tech instance of locally hosted Microsoft SharePoint caused all library SharePoint sites to transition into Microsoft Teams. This has allowed for the organization of files into channels to make ease of access more straightforward for staff. The Teams interface allows for more access customization than SharePoint and Team owners can granularly manage access and editability of both Members and Guests, even choosing which specific members can access different documents and channels. Within the Document Delivery Team, for example, the Supervision channels are shown with lock icons and are restricted to the Resource Sharing Librarian, Unit Manager, and Associate Dean, while the DDP and DDSP channels are view only by all Members but editable by Owners and the Brainstorming channel can be edited by anyone. Teams overall allows for the base functionality of SharePoint with additional options. Now nearly a year into using Teams for this purpose, available functionality is still being assessed to determine the best customization to suit departmental needs. While the Document Delivery instance is fairly straightforward, other options are under investigation. Currently, related channels are organized to centralize different document types and unit needs. Embedded OneNote notebooks and files are being used to centralize brainstorming for department-wide projects. Teams also serves as a centralized point of storage for documents like departmental workshop slide decks, frequently printed items, and the direct request link in addition to a centralized break and appointment calendar.</p> <p>Throughout the usage of this documentation, new documents have been added to these collections as needs arise. For example, in FY2017, the Course Reserves workflow shifted from Access Services to Document Delivery to better align with existing workflows and service needs, resulting in documentation for a new set of workflows being needed. Prior to the move, Course Reserves workflows were conveyed verbally and followed to varying levels of success by staff. Similarly, in Fall of 2019, impending building maintenance spurred the codification of a policy on operating from an alternate site. It had long been understood that Document Delivery is what Texas Tech University Libraries calls Mission Critical—that is if the library is inaccessible, Document Delivery finds computers and an internet connection and keeps research going. The new <emph>DDP28: Operating from an Alternate Site</emph> was the first time this had been deliberately written down and later became the basis for pandemic closure workflows. In addition to this, existing Step-By-Steps are reviewed by staff moving to other positions to make sure institutional knowledge is not lost in the transition. Older versions of all of these are also maintained in shared storage should it be needed.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-8">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176897176-9">Platforms and extensibility</hd> <p>It should be noted that the software and platforms discussed are not the only ways to perform this kind of knowledge organization. MindManager and Microsoft Teams were utilized because they were already in use at the institution and readily available while transitioning back and forth between on campus and remote work during pandemic restrictions. Microsoft Teams continues to have a wide variety of functionality for storage, linking, and access extensibility and is readily available for institutions using the Office365 suite. Even so, at its core, many libraries store this sort of institutional knowledge in strategically stored binders. Digital storage of workflow documentation allows for wider access and accessibility as well as ease of searching. This being said, Google has an increasing number of options along these lines including Google Classroom, widely used by many public schools, and the newer Google Workspace. Having coordinated wide spread work groups and task forces, much of this functionality can be found within the Google productivity options using shared Google Docs, Sheets, and Drive folders.</p> <p>The benefit to conceptual mapping workflows and related documentation is the ability to create a visual representation of the interconnectedness of the policies and procedures that inherently inhabit libraries. While MindManager is an excellent tool and has served this project well, it is by far not the only tool that allows for this sort of visual conceptual collaboration. The same knowledge organization could, at its core, be completed using markers and a large board or chart paper. Electronically, a variety of options exist, depending on the needs and coding abilities of the user. Products such as Lucidchart, Whimsical, and Miro have scalable solutions with free options for small scale projects up to a variety of enterprise solutions. In more open frameworks, draw.io through app.diagrams.net provides free diagram options with a variety of built-in cloud storage links to save your work. It has a similar interface to Google Docs or Microsoft Word, with built-in arrows and flowchart options, as well as advance flow layouts. Excalidraw is more visually based and allows the user to safe data locally, giving a variety of embedded tool options as well as option to add images which can result in a more professional appearance. Database Diagram is very privacy focused and uses a code-based interface, rather than a GUI to create mapping.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-10">Moving forward</hd> <p>Overall, the creation and maintenance of these four types of workflow documentation have been enormously helpful for staff onboarding and maintaining workflow standards. The collected policies and procedures are used regularly in early staff training stages, particularly as staff await necessary computer access. As staff move on or responsibilities shift, it serves as an excellent reference for everything from a Lending staff member covering Borrowing while a coworker is out sick to ensuring that all details are correct when generating and issuing an invoice. This has also been beneficial when training a new Unit Manager to then train and support the Library Associates. Because of the collected documentation and recorded institutional memory, many of the training tasks and procedures were already codified, smoothing the transition to a new supervisor while still maintaining expectations.</p> <p>Moving forward, existing documentation is currently being reassessed as the last full assessment was in Fall 2020. MindManager mapping in connection with Access Services and the overarching User Centered Services continues and includes determining and linking global policies as well as where and how departmental policies connect to each other. Additionally, as the current crew of staff are all at or approaching two years of service, documentation is being assessed for knowledge and information gaps. Related to this, Student Assistant training modality is under assessment and DDSPs are being evaluated to determine whether both departmental and student needs are being filled. This training may soon be supplemented with video or other media but we are working to determine the best path and access for this. As students do not have access to Teams, options using a learning management system is being explored.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-11">Conclusion</hd> <p>Though creating workflow documentation may require a significant initial investment in work time and energy, the lightened mental load in times of transition or exceptions is well worth it. The documentation needed to capture both workflow and institutional memory can easily be divided up among quieter times of the year and can either be written by a supervisor or assigned to practicing staff with oversight by a supervisor. In the case of Texas Tech University Libraries Document Delivery, policies were written by supervising staff and faculty while procedures were primarily written by practicing staff with editing and approval by supervising staff and faculty. It is best to set up a schedule for review to ensure that procedures remain current and in line with duty adjustments in response to changing priorities, organizational restructuring, extenuating circumstances, or even simple software updates. This could follow a preset calendar or could be a part of preparing for staff turnover or training, depending on departmental needs.</p> <p>If you are looking at doing this yourself, rather than advice, there are questions to ask yourself. As it currently stands, if you or your staff were out tomorrow, what happens to ILL at your institution? If someone leaves or retires, how do you pass that knowledge on? What do you do infrequently and how do staff remember what to do? And finally, for longevity and access, what centralized access points does your institution have? Building documentation that serves to answer these questions can help better equip offices and services to handle everything from situations as simple as a sick day to the passing of the torch to the next staff.</p> <hd id="AN0176897176-12">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0176897176-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Astra, I. M. (2023). Improving high school students' Physics learning outcomes using mind maps. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2596 (1), 12083. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2596/1/012083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref10" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bergland, K., Davis, K. K., & Traill, S. (2019). CatDoc HackDoc: Tools and processes for managing documentation lifecycle, workflows, and accessibility. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 57 (7–8), 463 – 495. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2019.1680470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Buzan, T., & Griffiths, C. (2013). Mind maps for business (2nd ed.). Harlow : Pearson Education, Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Dale, M. (2022). Creating workflow for mediated archiving in CoRSAL. The Electronic Library, 40 (5), 568 – 578. doi: 10.1108/EL-02-2022-0027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Guimaraes, A., & Collins, J. (2018). How to move a mountain: The preparation and transfer of one million volumes to an off-site storage facility. The Serials Librarian, 74 (1–4), 228 – 233. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2018.1428476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Keifer, D. (2009). Batch processing items in a high-density shelving facility. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 19 (3), 247 – 255. doi: 10.1080/10723030903000976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref3" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Kirkwood, J. P. (2023). Mass ingest! Logistics and workflow for a rapid large-scale ingesting. Collection Management, 48 (1), 56 – 67. doi: 10.1080/01462679.2022.2150732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Lestari, N. A., Jatmiko, B., Prahani, B. K., Deta, U. A., & Bachtiar, R. W. (2019). Pre-service physics teachers perception about concept map, mind map, and link map for innovative learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1417 (1), 012092. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Litsey, R., & DeVet, K. (2017). Special delivery: Using iPads and campus wi-fi to enhance an existing campus document delivery service. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 26 (1), 1 – 10. doi: 10.1080/1072303X.2017.1289136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Litsey, R., Allen, C., Cassidy, R., DeVet, K., & McEniry, M. (2020). Shaping new ideas: A case study on a library developed 3D model service for university instruction. Journal of Access Services, 17 (3), 119 – 129. doi: 10.1080/15367967.2020.1741375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murley, D. (2007). Technology for everyone ...: Mind mapping complex information. Law Library Journal, 99 (1), 175 – 863.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ornat, N., & Moorefield, R. (2019). Library cartography: Mapping workflow processes in an academic library. Journal of Library Administration, 59 (2), 175 – 192. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2018.1562805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascual, J., & Wallbank, S. (2021). Analyzing workflows and improving communication across departments: A quick and simple project using rapid contextual design. The Serials Librarian, 80 (1–4), 11 – 18. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2021.1877996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savage, A. (2015). The origin of the "remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down " [Online forum post]. Reddit. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.reddit.com/r/mythbusters/comments/3wgqgv/the%5forigin%5fof%5fthe%5fremember%5fkids%5fthe%5fonly/">www.reddit.com/r/mythbusters/comments/3wgqgv/the%5forigin%5fof%5fthe%5fremember%5fkids%5fthe%5fonly/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonová, I. (2013). Monitoring the concept of e-learning in mind maps of university students. European Conference on E-Learning, 463–469.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Streeter, A., Kennedy, K., & Saragossi, J. (2023). Streamlining streaming videos: Moving towards an efficient streaming video workflow in Alma/Primo. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 35 (3), 171 – 181. doi: 10.1080/1941126X.2023.2224663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarver, T., Haupt, S., Cyrus, J., Wahl, S., & Burneson, B. (2022). Designing a Workflow for online learning objects created by health sciences librarians. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 41 (2), 213 – 221. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2022.2054188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teese, N. (2013). Creating buzan mind maps with existing knowledge - Developing cognitive skills for teachers & students. Selected Papers from the ... Annual Conference, International Association of School Librarianship, 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Tech University Institutional Research. (2023). Texas tech university fact book. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://techdata.irs.ttu.edu/FactBook/">http://techdata.irs.ttu.edu/FactBook/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veve, M. (2021). ETDs in ProQuest and the institutional repository: A descriptive study of the current workflows available for dual online submission. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47 (5), 102429. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, A., Davis-Van Atta, T., Scott, B., Thompson, S., Washington, A., Jones, J., ... Smith, M. (2022). Navigating uncharted waters utilizing innovative approaches in legacy theses and dissertations digitization at the University of Houston Libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 41 (3), 1–16. doi: 10.6017/ital.v41i3.14719</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Katherine E. DeVet</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1424186
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Writing It All Down: The Evolution of Future-Proofing Library Workflows
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katherine+E%2E+DeVet%22">Katherine E. DeVet</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4843-488X">0000-0003-4843-488X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Access+Services%22"><i>Journal of Access Services</i></searchLink>. 2024 21(2):118-129.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Documentation%22">Documentation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shared+Resources+and+Services%22">Shared Resources and Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Library+Personnel%22">Library Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Library+Policy%22">Library Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Analysis%22">Job Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Management%22">Knowledge Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Labor+Turnover%22">Labor Turnover</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Staff+Orientation%22">Staff Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22On+the+Job+Training%22">On the Job Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Environment%22">Institutional Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Libraries%22">Academic Libraries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Long+Range+Planning%22">Long Range Planning</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15367967.2024.2340479
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1536-7967<br />1536-7975
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With resource sharing staff staying an average of 3-5 years, capturing policies and procedures to facilitate onboarding and strengthen institutional memory is key in building consistent workflows. Creating documentation was a multi-stage process executed over several years. Initially, the staff supervisor wrote office policies and assigned staff to write step-by-step guides for common workflows. These were kept in shared storage and evaluated and updated periodically. During pandemic closures, mind-mapping in MindManager aided gap analysis to prioritize areas of the workflow not yet documented. Most recently, this documentation moved into Microsoft Teams which both limits inadvertent alteration and facilitates searchability.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1424186
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1424186
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15367967.2024.2340479
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 118
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Documentation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Shared Resources and Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Library Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Library Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Labor Turnover
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Staff Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: On the Job Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Libraries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Long Range Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Writing It All Down: The Evolution of Future-Proofing Library Workflows
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katherine E. DeVet
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1536-7967
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-7975
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Access Services
              Type: main
ResultId 1