AGLIN

Submission: 

Please find attached an earlier Review of Government Libraries and their staff conducted by Dr Hallam.

Document: 
PDF icon Download (1.87 MB)
Automatic Transcription: 

Commonwealth Government

Agency Libraries Review

Research Report

Dr Gillian Hallam

April 2016
Research report prepared for the

Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN)
www.aglin.org

Dr Gillian Hallam

Adjunct Professor, Library & Information Studies

School of Information Systems

Science and Engineering Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane

g.hallam@qut.edu.au
Executive summary

The Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review was commissioned by the Executive

Committee of the Australian Government Library and Information Network (AGLIN). The review

sought to identify how Commonwealth Government library and information services might best meet

their users’ needs, ensuring that the services provided are efficient, cost-effective and equitable. The

principal research objectives were: to explore the issues and challenges relevant to contemporary

government library and information services; to examine the financial, administrative and

technological context of Commonwealth Government library and information services; and to present

and discuss potential models which could ensure the sustainable delivery of efficient, cost-effective

and equitable library and information services to support the business requirements of

Commonwealth Government agencies.
The project commenced with a literature review and environmental scan to examine and discuss the

diverse issues impacting on the provision of government information and research services, including

current developments in government administration, national and international trends in government

library services, and the skills and competencies required by library and information professionals

working in this sector. A primarily quantitative survey was used to collect data about the individual

library services, and focus groups were held to capture qualitative data from respondents employed

in Commonwealth Government libraries.
The findings revealed that those government library and information services responding to the main

survey were far from homogeneous. Some information services supported regulatory bodies, some

supported research-intensive agencies, while others were aligned with the policy portfolios of a

particular government department. There was a considerable range of size – in terms of the number

of staff, the allocation of space for the library, the extent of the collections, and the technologies used
– as well as significantly diverse subject foci for the individual information services. Despite the

differences, respondents shared a passionate commitment to provide high quality services and to

ensure that the specific information needs of the users of the services were met.
It was apparent, however, that these library and information services faced many challenges. For the

smaller services, the professional isolation of the librarians was a major concern, which increased the

vulnerability of the services in times of fiscal uncertainty. The administrative complexities caused by

Machinery of Government (MoG) changes, frequently accompanied by reductions in funding and

downsizing of staffing levels, had had a direct and negative impact on the provision of timely and

relevant information and research services. The information and communications technology (ICT)
environment represented a further significant challenge for many of the respondents. Although some

government library and information professionals were able to drive a new digital agenda in their

agencies, others had found themselves stymied by restrictive ICT policies and practices.
Nevertheless, respondents were keen to ensure that good professional practice was sustained, with

library staff supporting and leading change within their agencies. Current developments in the public

service which encourage a digitally literate public service, a culture of innovation, and the imperative

of informed, evidence-based policy will stimulate the development of alternative approaches to

delivering information services. Four options for potential models of service delivery are outlined:
Option 1 – Status Quo; Option 2 – Shared Services model; Option 3 – Cluster model; Option 4 –
Collaborative Projects model. The advantages and disadvantages of each model are highlighted,
together with the requirements which should underpin the respective models if efficient, cost-
effective and equitable services are to be offered to users across the Commonwealth Government.

AGLIN Research Report i

April 2016
Recommendations

The Executive and membership of AGLIN are encouraged to review the research findings presented in

the report and to work together to consider the range of strategies which will build the capacity of

and secure a strong and relevant future for the association, and by extension, for the individual

member library and information services.

  1. The AGLIN Executive establishes a Future Directions Taskforce, comprising a representative
    sample of the membership, charged with the responsibility to review this research report.
  2. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce host a workshop for members to
    discuss the research findings and to commit to a preferred model for library and information
    services across the Commonwealth Government.
  3. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce use the research findings presented in
    this report to inform the discussion and development of the future strategic directions for the
    organisation, with associated responsibilities and operational plans, to lead the changes required
    to develop a new model of service.
  4. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce host a sector-wide forum to identify
    and prioritise the areas for valuable, effective collaboration across and beyond government
    library and information services.
  5. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce develop a government-wide advocacy
    campaign to promote the current and potential roles of library and information professionals,
    the value of high quality information and research services to government stakeholders and the
    benefits to be achieved through a new model of service. This campaign should be supported by a
    media and communications plan to ensure AGLIN members commit to and participate in the
    advocacy activities, both individually and collectively. Champions, who will play a leading role in
    supporting and promoting the government-wide advocacy campaign, should be invited to be
    involved.
  6. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce work with the Consortia Taskforce to
    examine the current licensing arrangements for eResources across the government agencies to
    identify opportunities to offer more equitable, cost-effective access to high quality information.
  7. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce work with the Training & Development
    Taskforce to commission and/or develop and deliver a CPD program of future-focused activities
    designed to inspire government library and information professionals and enhance their
    skillsets. Members should be encouraged to participate in the ALIA PD Scheme, with its
    Government Library specialisation.

AGLIN Research Report ii

April 2016
Contents

  1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
    1.1 Background to the study ......................................................................................................... 1
    1.2 Objectives for the study .......................................................................................................... 1
    1.3 Research approach.................................................................................................................. 2
    1.4 Structure of the report............................................................................................................ 2

2 Research methodologies................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Literature review..................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Online survey .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Focus groups and online questionnaire .................................................................................. 4

3 Characteristics of Commonwealth Government agency library services ....................................... 4
3.1 Profile of the library and information services ....................................................................... 5
3.2 Library staffing ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Library users ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Library services........................................................................................................................ 9
3.5 Library collections ................................................................................................................. 14
3.6 Resource sharing ................................................................................................................... 16
3.7 Library automation ............................................................................................................... 19
3.8 Library space and storage ..................................................................................................... 21
3.9 Budget & finances ................................................................................................................. 22
3.10 Trends (2010-2015) ............................................................................................................... 23
3.11 The role of AGLIN .................................................................................................................. 26

4 Consultation with the government library community ................................................................ 27
4.1 The current model of government library and information services ................................... 28
4.2 Alignment with government’s strategic directions............................................................... 31
4.3 User behaviour ...................................................................................................................... 33
4.4 The skills of government library and information professionals .......................................... 34
4.5 Marketing and promotion..................................................................................................... 35
4.6 Future directions for government library and information services .................................... 36
4.7 The role of AGLIN .................................................................................................................. 37

5 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 38

AGLIN Research Report iii

April 2016
6 Options for the future ................................................................................................................... 44
6.1 Option 1: Status Quo............................................................................................................. 45
6.2 Option 2: Shared Services Model.......................................................................................... 46
6.3 Option 3: Cluster Model........................................................................................................ 49
6.4 Option 4: Collaborative Projects Model................................................................................ 53

7 Summary and recommendations.................................................................................................. 55
7.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 56

References ............................................................................................................................................ 58

Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 61
Appendix 1: Literature Review

Appendix 2: Online Survey

Appendix 3: Focus Group Questions

AGLIN Research Report iv

April 2016
1. Introduction

The Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review (CGALR) was commissioned by the

Executive of the Australian Government Libraries and Information Network (AGLIN)1. Established in

1993, AGLIN is an independent association of Australian Government public sector library and

information services which aims to represent and supports the interests of its constituent members.
As an association, it is not endorsed or funded by the Australian Government.

1.1 Background to the study

A common characteristic of government library and information services is the strong client focus:
managers and staff are committed to designing and delivering efficient, cost-effective and equitable

programs and services to meet the information and research needs of public service staff in the

performance of their work for the Commonwealth Government. At the same time, however,
government libraries are characterised by their distinctiveness. The agencies themselves are far from

homogenous as they include policy agencies, research organisations and regulatory bodies which

represent the spectrum of government functions (United Nations, 2011).

AGLIN has a deep interest in safeguarding the roles and responsibilities played by its members, both

individually and collectively, to support the achievement of the Government’s own goals and

objectives, with a clear focus on informed, evidence-based policies and programs. Government library

and information services work to ensure that government staff are provided with access to

authoritative and relevant information resources to support their specific business requirements in a

timely and cost-effective way.

However, ongoing financial, administrative, and technological changes present significant challenges

and opportunities for the management of these information services. A number of factors impact

directly on service delivery, including:
 Frequent changes to public service administrative arrangements
 Increasing budgetary pressures
 Reductions in the need for physical information repositories in individual agencies
 Increasing availability of electronic research information resources
 Recognition of the need to increase the level of sophistication for information management
activities in the agencies
 Awareness of the lack of equitable access to relevant research information across the sector
 Recent new developments within government which seek to introduce digital
transformation and e-government initiatives.
The Executive of AGLIN believed it was important to review the current Commonwealth government

landscape to identify the areas of strengths of and the challenges faced by library and information

services and to investigate the future service delivery options.

1.2 Objectives for the study

The key objective of the project was to undertake in-depth research into the current model of

government library services, to identify the advantages and disadvantages of this model, and to

examine current service delivery trends. The research project was guided by the following research

question:

1
AGLIN: www.aglin.org

AGLIN Research Report 1

April 2016
How can Commonwealth Government agency libraries deliver services which support their
clients’ needs in the most efficient, cost-effective and equitable way?

This question could be distilled into a number of project objectives:
 To explore the issues and challenges relevant to contemporary government library and
information services
 To examine the financial, administrative and technological context of contemporary
Commonwealth Government library and information services
 To capture the views and opinions of Commonwealth Government agency library managers
and staff, as well as a wider range of stakeholders, relating to current and future models of
service
 To present and discuss potential models which could ensure the sustainable delivery of
efficient, cost-effective and equitable library and information services to support the
business requirements of Commonwealth Government agencies.
The project specifically focused on gathering a sound evidence base about the current state of the

profile and performance of government library and information services, including budget, space,
staffing, business models and service standards.

1.3 Research approach

The research activities were informed by a literature review and environmental scan which examined

and discussed the issues impacting on the provision of government information and research services.
The study sought to collect the critical quantitative and qualitative data to permit the development of

an accurate, evidence-based understanding of these services supporting the Commonwealth

Government. Data collection instruments included an extensive online survey about the individual

library services; a series of focus groups held in Canberra which were attended by government library

managers and staff; and an online questionnaire made available to stakeholders to extend the reach

of the consultation activities.

1.4 Structure of the report

This research report presents the details of project and its findings. Following a brief introduction to

the research methodologies applied in the study (Section 2), the research findings are discussed in

detail, encompassing both the data collected through the online survey (Section 3) and through the

consultation with stakeholders (Section 4). After the implications of the findings are explored (Section

5), the report provides a number of options for future service delivery (Section 6). Four options are

examined critically to consider their respective advantages and disadvantages, together with a brief

synopsis of the steps required to adopt each service model. The report concludes with a summary and

a series of recommendations (Section 7) for the AGLIN Executive and membership to consider.
Supporting documentation is provided in the Appendices: the literature review, online survey and

focus group questions.

2 Research methodologies

The research project encompassed several approaches to data collection:
 A literature review and environmental scan
 A major online survey instrument to collect all relevant data about the individual library and
information services
 A qualitative data collection instrument used as the framework for focus group discussions,
as well as an online questionnaire to achieve wider consultation.

AGLIN Research Report 2

April 2016
2.1 Literature review

The literature review built on and updated the literature review completed as part of a review of

Queensland Government agency libraries (Hallam, 2010a). The primary foci were the developments

in government administration, national and international trends in government library services,
developments in contemporary special libraries, and the skills and competencies required by special

librarians. The preliminary literature review was distributed to the AGLIN membership in early

December 2015. The research team continued to monitor developments across the areas of interest,
with the final updated version of the document released in April 2016. The literature review is

presented as Appendix 1 of this report.

2.2 Online survey

The development of the online survey was undertaken collaboratively by members of the project

team. The team worked from the core survey instrument used in the Queensland Government study,
with amendments and revisions made to ensure that the questions were relevant to the

Commonwealth Government context. The online survey (LibList.Info) is a custom designed survey and

census tool created specifically to support research activities in the library and information

management sector. It has been built using an industry-standard, highly secure Oracle database

system, APEX. It allows respondents flexibility in the ways they navigate the questions, allowing time

to consider and collect data for the responses. The system has also been designed to enable surveys

to be replicated in the future to facilitate the collection of longitudinal data. Over the past decade,
LibList.Info has been used for a range of workforce related research projects across the Australian

library sector.

The research subjects for this online survey were the managers of Commonwealth Government

agency library services. While the members of AGLIN were the main target group, the survey was also

open to library services which did not belong to the association.

The survey comprised ten sections, with questions relating to:

  1. Details about the library/information service
  2. Library staffing
  3. Service delivery
  4. Library users
  5. Library resources
  6. Library automation
  7. Space and storage
  8. Library finance
  9. Library trends
  10. The roles of AGLIN.
    The online survey questions are presented in Appendix 2.

The survey was piloted by five test respondents over the period 23-25 November 2015 with minor

adjustments subsequently made to the wording of several questions. The survey was open from 27

November 2015, with data collection continuing until 4 February 2016.

The survey data collected within the online tool was downloaded to a powerful business intelligence

tool, QlikView, for detailed analysis. QlikView allows the researcher to drill down into the survey

results, highlighting relationships within the data which are often not evident in traditional data

analysis tools.

AGLIN Research Report 3

April 2016
2.3 Focus groups and online questionnaire

The data collection instrument used for the focus groups and online questionnaire was again

developed collaboratively by members of the project team. The instrument included 20 questions

designed to capture the views and opinions of library and information professionals about the

relevance of government agency library and information services today; the most valuable attributes

of the services; and the difference these services make to the agency or department itself. Specific

attention was given to the areas of evidence-based public policy, the government’s information and

communications technologies (ICT) and information management strategies, and human resources

issues. Respondents were also asked to share their vision for government agency libraries. The

questionnaire is presented in Appendix 3 to this report.

Six face-to-face focus groups took place in Canberra on 15-16 December 2015, and one additional

focus group was conducted by teleconference on 17 December 2015. All seven discussions were

recorded and transcribed. The online questionnaire was available from 18 December 2015 until 4

February 2016.

A second online questionnaire was developed to seek the views of respondents within the executive

branch of the government. This questionnaire comprised three questions seeking to examine the most

important contribution made by the library service to the agency; the reasons underlying perceptions

about government libraries’ lack of traction or influence within their agencies; and the respondents’
vision for future library and information services. This second online questionnaire was also available

from 18 December 2015 to 4 February 2016. As only four valid responses were received, the data

collected has not been included in the analysis of the research data. The low level of interest

contrasted strongly with the study of Queensland government library services, which attracted over

500 responses from senior managers and clients (Hallam, 2010b).

To ensure objectivity in the analysis of the qualitative data, coding was undertaken by three individual

coders. Each coder completed the process of identifying, arranging and systematising the key themes

and ideas captured in the textual data of the transcripts. A coding frame was developed to articulate

the principal concepts and their interpretation. Intercoder reliability was confirmed through an

iterative process of comparing the different coders’ results, leading to refinements in the coding

frame.

The analysis and interpretation of the data collected are discussed in detail in the following sections

of the report. All research activities were conducted in line with the principles of research ethics, with

the commitment that all responses would remain completely confidential, anonymous and de-
identified. No individual agency details have been revealed and all data collected is retained securely

with the project leader.

3 Characteristics of Commonwealth Government agency library
services

A total of 24 responses were received for the online survey; 21 of these respondents were current

members of AGLIN. The other three respondents represented Commonwealth Government agencies,
but they were not AGLIN members. In terms of AGLIN membership, the response rate, excluding these

three non-member libraries, was 53%. Each respondent completing the survey provided the name of

the library and information service and details of their location. In order to maintain confidentiality,
however, no reference is made to any individual department or agency library services in this report.
The analysed data presents the anonymised characteristics of the different library services.

AGLIN Research Report 4

April 2016
It should be noted that one large library service funded by the Commonwealth Government was

excluded from the data analysis process as the information provided by the organisation – specifically

in terms of staffing, funding arrangements, space, client profile, and services and programs offered –
was substantially different from the other smaller, more specialised library and information services.
The inclusion of the data provided by this respondent would have skewed the research results

significantly. Of the 23 responses which were analysed, 21 provided responses to all the questions
(100%), while survey completion rates for the other two responses were recorded as 68% and 62%
respectively.

As noted above, the online survey comprised ten thematic areas of questions (Appendix 3). The

research findings are discussed within the framework of these themes.

3.1 Profile of the library and information services

It was found that the overall profile of the respondent organisations was generally representative of

the AGLIN membership, both in terms of size (based on the details of human resources and financial

resources) and the focus of the government department or agency it supported. With regard to the

particular administrative arrangements, there was an even split across government departments
(48%) and government agencies (48%), although some more complex governance arrangements were

highlighted by a small number of respondents (4%). The agency portfolios encompassed the broad

range of functions of government, including general public services, economic affairs, public order and

safety, community services and health (United Nations, 2011). The host organisations included

regulatory bodies, policy agencies, operational services and research intensive organisations. The

library and information services were located across the country, with 15 in the Australian Capital

Territory (ACT), three in New South Wales (NSW), two in Victoria and one in Queensland. One

respondent reported having a presence in both the ACT and Victoria, plus small library collections in

other states; another library and information service had multiple locations across Australia.

Two thirds (65%) of the library and information services had directly experienced government or

departmental changes over the past three years. Over one quarter (27%) stated that their library

service had been moved to a different department or agency during that period. Machinery of

Government (MoG) changes were cited as having a major impact on library funding, with 47% of those

affected reporting significant funding cuts and 33% highlighting staff cuts. Structurally, 13% of

respondents reported that the service where they had originally been employed had been closed,
while 20% of library services had been affected by mergers with other library services, and a further

20% had been charged with a wider remit to provide library and information services to a larger cohort

of users under cross-agency arrangements.

A question was presented to determine the range of agency services and functions which were the

direct responsibility of the library and information service, i.e. the library unit provides specific agency-
wide services. Respondents were able to indicate as many services as they felt were applicable and to

add details of further services in a comments box. The 23 respondents allocated a total of 137 services

and functions, which equates to an average of 6 agency-wide services per library. The lowest number

reported was two services, and the highest was ten.

Not unsurprisingly, the data revealed that the core services related to library services (100%) and

research services (96%) (Figure 1). Other functions which featured strongly were training (70%),
collection of agency publications (61%), managing historical records and photographs (52%) and

managing the agency’s intellectual property, including copyright, rights permissions and Creative

Commons licensing (43%).

AGLIN Research Report 5

April 2016
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Figure 1. Range of agency-wide services and functions under the responsibility of the library

Comments from respondents captured additional functional areas such as the management of

publications (e.g. the administration of ISBN and ISSN) and work on systematic reviews.

Respondents were asked to indicate the discipline or subject strengths of the library’s physical and

electronic collections and research services. Despite the request to report only the top five fields, a

number of respondents provided larger numbers of subject areas, which confounded the analysis

process. The word cloud presented in Figure 2 graphically presents the range of fields which represent

the libraries’ foci. While the listing of subjects to select from were, by necessity, fairly general,
respondents provided further facets of the various subject areas in their comments.

Figure 2. Key subject strengths of the physical and digital collections and research services

AGLIN Research Report 6

April 2016
Deeper analysis of the subject areas revealed that the library collections and research services were

closely aligned with the core functions of the agencies served.

3.2 Library staffing

Respondents were asked to provide details about the total number of permanent staff positions,
expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE) (as at 1 November 2015). It was found that almost one third
(30%) of the responses represented a one-person library and information service (Figure 3). The

majority of libraries ranged between 2-5 staff (39%) and 6-8 staff (17%). No responses were recorded

for the values 9-12, 13-15, 16-20 or 21-25 staff, but 13% of libraries reported having 26 staff or over.

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1 person 2-5 6-8 26-30 30+

Figure 3. Permanent staff positions

This data was further examined from the perspective of Australian Public Service (APS) classifications.
Agencies which did not use APS classifications had the option to provide further information in the

comments box. Only one agency reported that it did not use APS classifications. Only 16 responses
(70%) actually provided the relevant details of the levels of staff employed; the data therefore relates

to 64 staff across these 16 services (Figure 4). The majority of positions (81%) were clustered around

the levels of APS4 (17%), APS5 (25%) and APS6 (39%). Representation at EL1 was recorded as 13%,
with a very minor distribution (1%) across the levels of APS3, EL2 and SES.

APS3, EL2, SES
EL1 1% each APS4
14% 17%

APS5
25%
APS6
39%

Figure 4. Classifications of library staff

AGLIN Research Report 7

April 2016
Only 17% of agency libraries employed commercial contract staff. The responsibilities of the contract

staff included website maintenance, professional indexing and short-term activities in the library.

3.3 Library users

Respondents were asked to indicate the size of their user base, i.e. active users of the library service.
Half of the respondents (50%) stated that they had over 500 active users, while about one quarter
(23%) had under 50 active users (Figure 5).

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1-50 51-100 101-250 251-500 501+

Figure 5. Number of active users of the library service

In their comments, a few respondents noted that it could be difficult to ascertain the precise number

of users of eResources, as they did not track individual logins to the various databases.

The total number of possible internal users varied greatly across the respondent organisations, from

as few as 25 potential users (4%) in compact agencies to over 100,000 (4%) in large, distributed

organisations (Table 1). The most common organisational profiles were up to 200 potential users
(40%) and 1,000-5,000 potential users (44%).

Table 1. Number of potential users of the library service
Number of Percentage
potential users of libraries
1-100 23%
101-200 17%
201-500 4%
501-1000 4%
1001-2000 17%
2001-5000 27%
5001-10000 4%
100,000+ 4%

The collections and resources were generally only available to users within the agency itself (87%),
although a number of respondents noted that staff from other agencies and academic researchers

could request access to the physical collection, by appointment. Licence restrictions meant that no

electronic access was made available to non-agency users. A large proportion of respondents (39%)
therefore indicated that internal users made up 100% of their user base, compared with just 4%
stating that 80% of their user base was external to the agency. It was unusual to include members of

AGLIN Research Report 8

April 2016
the public as users: only 4% reported that 20% of their users were in fact members of the public. There

was also a common theme that as the collections included classified or confidential information. There

were limitations on access to the library itself and to its resources. In some situations, specific security

or cultural restrictions were applied to manage diverse user groups within a single agency.

All respondents stated that the electronic library services and resources could be accessed via the

agency Intranet, while 57% also provided Internet access. No libraries were using GovCloud or GovDex.
Authentication provisions were generally in place, with IP recognition being the most common

arrangement. It was found that access arrangements were more complex when a library and

information service was provided to a number of different agencies or departments.

3.4 Library services

The questions in the section of the survey relating to service delivery focused on the range of services

offered to users; the breadth and depth of information and research services; current awareness

services; and the financial aspects of service delivery, for example where charges were levied.

Range of services offered to users

A group of questions related to the range of services that the libraries offered directly to their various

user groups, as opposed to agency-wide service support (as presented in Figure 1). Possible areas of

library-centric service delivery encompassed the provision of print and electronic resources, work and

study space, access to and support for technology, training etc. Respondents were asked to indicate

all those services that applied to their specific situation. It was found that all library and information

services provided print books, ILL and/or document delivery, alerting or current awareness services,
and research for users and/or work on literature reviews (Figure 6). The majority also provided access

to electronic resources (96%) and offered training (91%).

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 6. Range of library services provided to users

About half of the libraries provided group meeting space and individual study space. Technology

support was lower, with only around one quarter (26%) helping users with mobile devices and 17%
specifically providing access to wifi networks.

AGLIN Research Report 9

April 2016
Information and research services

As noted above, assistance with research activities was of primary importance to these library and

information services. Library staff were involved in online searching, conducting tailored literature

searches, complex information retrieval activities (e.g. legal research, business and statistical research,
media monitoring, compiling Endnote bibliographies) as well as ensuring close engagement with and

support for users throughout the life of a specific project. No distinctions were discovered between

the services in regulatory agencies, policy portfolios or more research intensive organisations.

Respondents were positive about their ability to meet user needs. While it was uncommon (4%) to

have a client charter or any guidelines relating to turnaround times for research support, there was

clearly a strong professional ethos of providing highly responsive services to users, with an emphasis

placed on negotiation to establish priorities for the work undertaken, and aligning those with the

immediate needs of the agency staff, taking into consideration the complexity of the queries and the

immediate deadlines for the work. Over half (57%) felt that the users’ needs were met ‘very well’ or
‘extremely well’ (Figure 7). Only 8% expressed any negative views about the ability to meet user needs.
It is acknowledged that this data reflects the perceptions of the staff working in the library, rather

than the views of the users themselves. Although it had originally been hoped to capture data directly

from respondents who were either senior managers with responsibility for library and information

services within their portfolio, or who were active users of the services, the research study failed to

attract strong interest from these stakeholders.

Not at all well
4% Not well
4%
Extremely well
22%

Well
35%

Very well
35%

Not at all well Not well Well Very well Extremely well

Figure 7. Extent to which the library and information service meets user needs

Almost half (44%) of the respondents reported that service levels had increased over the past three

years, while 39% indicated that service levels had increased (Figure 8). However, there were no clear

patterns across the different types of agency (i.e. whether primarily regulatory, policy focused or

research intensive).

AGLIN Research Report 10

April 2016
Increased significantly

Increased to some extent

Remained the same

Decreased to some extent

Decreased significantly

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Figure 8. Extent to which service levels had changed over the past 3 years

The survey sought to develop insights into the amount of work undertaken to support government

staff in their research activities, with respondents asked to indicate how many staff hours might be

spent on research tasks over a typical month (Figure 9).

20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
11-20 21-30 31-40 51-60 71-80 91-100 101-200 201+
hours hours hours hours hours hours hours hours

Figure 9. Average number of hours spent on research activities in a typical month
(all respondents)

The interpretation of this data was complex given the diversity of the library and information services

themselves and their staffing profiles. Although it might be assumed that high research workloads
(201+ hours per month) would be associated with the larger library services, it was found that the

responses citing higher workloads (201+ hours per month) were in fact provided by some libraries

with smaller numbers of staff (2-5 staff and 6-8 staff), as well as those with large numbers of staff (30+
staff). The picture for the libraries staffed by only one person was interesting, as there was a wide

range of hours spent on research activities (Figure 10).

AGLIN Research Report 11

April 2016
30%

20%

10%

0%
0 hours 11-20 hours 21-30 hours 31-40 hours 91-100 hours

Figure 10. Average number of hours spent on research activities in a typical month
(one-person libraries)

Once again, there were no significant differences between the libraries supporting policy intensive

departments, regulatory bodies, scientific organisations or operational services.

The research findings clearly reveal that the provision of reference and research services to users is a

significant component of the work profile and that is a primary function of government library and

information services. These services are delivered primarily to internal clients: just over one third of

respondents (35%) indicated that they worked with internal clients only; almost another third (30%)
stated that 90% of their work was with internal clients. Almost one fifth (17%) reported that they also

offered research assistance to users from other agencies, but only one service reported that they had

a significant role to play in the provision of information to the public, representing 30% of their users.

Current awareness services

The questions drilled down into the format and frequency of the current awareness or alerting services

sent out to users. While electronic alerting services were the most common (83%), it was noted that

17% still distributed current awareness services in print; the frequency of distribution of electronic

alerting services varied: 42% on a daily basis and 26% on a monthly basis (Figure 11).

Monthly
26%

Daily
42%

Fortnightly
11%

Weekly
16%

Figure 11. Frequency of electronic alerting services

AGLIN Research Report 12

April 2016
Library bulletins may be used as a communications tool for library staff to inform their users about

matters of interest to them. Only 13% of respondents distributed their library bulletins in print; this

was found to be generally in addition to, not instead of, electronic bulletins. Almost two thirds (61%)
of respondents distributed electronic tables of contents for a range of journal titles and it was noted

that it was common practice for library staff to send out a suite of electronic alerting services: e.g.
current awareness, tables of contents and library bulletins.

A good number of libraries (61%) provided tailored news services for specific groups of clients, often

on a daily basis (43%). It was noteworthy, however, that over one third (39%) did not offer their users

any such services. Nevertheless, some of these libraries maintained a library blog, with varying

frequency of updating: daily, weekly or just occasionally. While 39% of respondents blogged about

library services and resources, far fewer encouraged social media activities: only 8% ran a Twitter

account. One respondent catered to a wide range of user communication preferences: social media,
electronic alerts and print bulletins. There was no pattern to practice: the libraries with mature

communication strategies were again representative of the different staffing profiles: a library service

run by only one person was just as likely to provide daily communication with users as was a library

with more than 30 staff.

Training activities

Survey questions focused on the training activities run by library staff across a range of potential areas:
library orientation, eResources orientation, Internet searching (i.e. Google and other search engines),
introduction to the library’s databases, database-specific training, subject-specific training, alerting

services, bibliographic referencing software (Endnote), and the use of mobile devices. Most library

and information services provided a range of training activities, although it was found that 17% of

respondents did not answer the question or indicated that it was not applicable to them. The most

common and most frequent areas of training were general library orientation (83%) and eResources

orientation (83%) (Figure 12). Training sessions to offer an introduction to the library’s databases
(70%), database-specific searching (74%), subject-specific searching (65%) and Internet searching
(61%) were also widespread. The areas least likely to be covered by any training activities were mobile

devices (17%), Endnote (30%), and helping users to set up their own current awareness and alerting

services (43%).

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Figure 12. Training offered by library and information services

AGLIN Research Report 13

April 2016
Only one library and information service offered training across all these areas, ranging from weekly
(for most activities listed) to occasionally (for training relating to mobile devices and specific subject

areas). In this area of the investigation, it was not surprising to note that the range and frequency of

training was directly correlated with the libraries with higher staffing numbers; nevertheless, one-
person libraries indicated that they did offer training ‘occasionally’ across the different areas of

information activity.

3.5 Library collections

A further section of the survey posed questions about the range of resources managed by the library

and the extent to which library holdings were contributed to Libraries Australia2, the national resource

sharing service run by the National Library of Australia. Library collections across the country can be

identified and located through Trove3. Respondents were also asked to indicate which electronic

resources they had access to, by selecting from an extensive list of subscription titles.

Bibliographic records

It was found that almost half of the libraries (45%) had over 50,000 bibliographic records for the

materials held in their collections (Figure 17), covering a wide range of subject areas, including

business, law and legislation, scientific, technical, defence, intellectual property, resources, policy

areas (c.f. the subject word cloud presented in Figure 2). A small number of libraries (15%) reported

that they had over 100,000 bibliographic records. At the other end of the scale, however, one quarter
(25%) had far smaller – but arguably highly specialised – collections, with under 10,000 bibliographic

records (Figure 13).

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1-1,000 1,001- 5,001- 10,001- 25,001- 50,001- 75,001- 100,001+
5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000

Figure 13. Number of bibliographic records

Library holdings were contributed to Libraries Australia by 74% of respondents, with the majority of

this group (77%) indicating that over three quarters of their collections were reflected in the national

database and that the holdings were updated regularly. However, 17% of libraries contributed less

than 50% of their holdings to Libraries Australia and were less diligent about ensuring that the holdings

information was kept current.

2
Libraries Australia: http://www.nla.gov.au/librariesaustralia/
3
Trove: http://trove.nla.gov.au/

AGLIN Research Report 14

April 2016
The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) was the most common classification scheme used by the

government library and information services (77%). Other schemes in use were the National Library

of Medicine (9%), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) (5%) and Moys (for legal materials) (5%).

Respondents were asked to provide information about any unique or significant resources which

featured in their library collection, e.g. plans, maps or legislation. Over one third (35%) held specialised

collections of legislation, and 30% managed collections of photos. Almost one quarter (22%) reported

that they managed maps. Overall, 43% of respondents were responsible for historical resources, thus

managing and providing access to materials relating directly to the activities of the agency or to

specific regulatory activity over time.

Electronic resources

A schedule of 34 electronic resources, listed at the vendor level rather than the database level, was

presented in the survey, with respondents asked to indicate which services they subscribed to on

behalf of their users. The eResources which were most commonly subscribed to are presented in Table

2.

Table 2. Access to electronic resources

eResources Percentage
(vendors) of libraries
EbscoHost 65%
Informit 61%
Macquarie 57%
SAI Global 52%
CCH Australia 48%
Science Direct 43%
LexisNexis 39%
Proquest 35%
Thomson Reuters 30%
Wiley 30%
Factiva 26%
IbisWorld 26%
OECD 22%
Dow Jones 22%
Crown Content 22%
Emerald 13%
J-Store 13%
Safari 13%
Oxford 13%
Dialog 9%
Dun & Bradstreet 9%

Single subscriptions were also recorded for Business Research, Fairfax, Forrester, Gartner, Scopus and

Web of Science.

Funding arrangements varied across the different library and information services and across the

different electronic services. A total of 166 subscriptions were recorded, of which 77% (127

subscriptions) were directly and fully funded by the library, 3% (5 subscriptions) were fully funded by

the library via consortia, and 6% (10 subscriptions) were partly funded by the library (Table 3). Beyond

this, 11% (19 subscriptions) were fully funded by the department or agency and 3% (5 subscriptions)
were identified as whole of government subscriptions.

AGLIN Research Report 15

April 2016
Table 3. Funding arrangements for electronic resources

Fully
Fully Partly Fully
funded: Whole of
funded: funded: funded:
library via government
library library agency
consortia
127 5 10 19 5

The whole of Government subscriptions were reported for IbisWorld, Macquarie and OECD resources.
Interestingly, a diverse range of funding arrangements was in place for the subscriptions to these

electronic resources. A total of 6 subscriptions was reported, for example, for IbisWorld, including fully

funded by the library, partly funded by the library, fully funded by the library via consortia, fully funded

by the agency, and funded under whole of government subscription arrangements.

3.6 Resource sharing

A series of questions asked respondents for information about the use of library resources, covering

both print and electronic resources, either as loans to internal clients or as external activities through

ILL and document delivery. Almost one fifth (19%) of respondents stated that they did not have any

physical loans activities as they focused purely on the provision of digital information services. It was

found that those libraries which did loan print books (79%) primarily supported the needs of internal

clients. Only a small number of libraries (13%) loaned print materials directly to external users. No

clear pattern emerged about loans traffic, with a distribution of responses across all options, from one

book per month (10%) to over 2,000 books per month (5%).

Inter-agency loans represented an important aspect of the services provided, with around one third

of the respondents lending to other agency libraries through reciprocal borrowing arrangements and

one quarter through ILL. Almost half the library services used ILL arrangements to lend books from

their collections to other libraries across Australia. The aggregated data revealed that, in a typical

month, these libraries loaned a total of over 4,000 books to internal users and around 120 books to

other libraries through ILL. The ILL traffic highlights the relevancy and value of the collections held by

government libraries.

The supply of journal articles was another important area of activity. Across the 23 library and

information services, almost 6,000 journal articles were supplied to internal users in a typical month,
ranging from smaller libraries supplying under 50 articles per month to larger libraries supplying over

1,200 articles per month.

In terms of cost recovery, two thirds (67%) of respondents stated that the ILL arrangements were cost

neutral to internal users who requested materials, while 14% indicated that users may be charged on

a selective basis, depending on the relationship with the other libraries. The full ILL costs were passed

on to internal users by one fifth (19%) of respondents (Figure 14).

AGLIN Research Report 16

April 2016
Full ILL charges
paid by user
19%

Selective No charge
charging to user to user
14% 67%

Figure 14. ILL charges passed on to internal users

When lending their own resources to other government agency libraries through ILL or document

delivery, a similar pattern emerged: 14% stated that they would always levy charges to be paid by the

library service receiving the materials, while 67% declared that it depended on the relationship with

the other library. Around one fifth (19%) would not seek any payment for the loans provided (Figure

15).

No charges
levied for ILLs
19%

Charges depend on
Always charge relationship with
for ILLs other library
14% 67%

Figure 15. Charges levied for ILLs to other libraries

Respondents were also asked about borrowing from other libraries. The aggregated monthly data

revealed that, on average, around 116 books and 667 journal articles were received through reciprocal

arrangements and ILL. While inter-agency loans using ILL represented the most common approach to

borrow books, it was only for one third of respondents who reported that they might request about

one book per week. One single library recorded higher traffic, borrowing around 30 books per month.
Locating books in non-government libraries was not frequently undertaken. One third of respondents

stated that they did borrow through general ILL arrangements: half of these libraries would borrow

on average about one book per week, and the other half around two books per week.

AGLIN Research Report 17

April 2016
Just under half the respondents reported that they requested copies of journal articles from other

libraries through reciprocal borrowing arrangements, with the volume of articles distributed evenly

across the scale of 1 article per month to 32 articles per month. A similar number of libraries located

the journal articles they needed through inter-agency ILL arrangements, again ranging from 1 article

per month to 50 articles per month. Sourcing materials from non-government libraries was more

common, however, with 7 libraries borrowing around 1-2 articles per week, and 2 ‘high end’
borrowers, each requesting around 50 articles per week.

In the context of ILL, it was found that government libraries loaned more resources to other libraries
(average 980 items per month) than they borrowed (average 788 per month).

Collaborative arrangements

Respondents were asked to provide information about any collaborative, reciprocal or consortia

arrangements they had. Collaborative arrangements were considered very important for government

libraries as they supported access to a wider range of information resources, the sharing of resources

and ideas, and the opportunity to collectively reduce the costs of running library and information

services. The principal collaborative arrangements were seen as being those managed by AGLIN4 (76%)
(Figure 16). Over a quarter (29%) of the respondent libraries were members of the Australasian

Libraries in the Emergency Sector (ALIES)5 network, while others shared resources through Gratisnet6
(24%) for resource sharing across the health sector, and Ebsco Publishing (24%) for access to online

databases. Only one library service indicated that it operated autonomously, with no collaborative

arrangements in place.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
AGLIN ALIES Gratisnet Ebsco Other
Purchasing

Figure 16. Collaborative arrangements in place

Respondents provided information about other collaborative arrangements they were involved in;
some were formalised through specific industry connections which offered reciprocal borrowing

arrangements with other libraries (e.g. Fishnet, IAMSLIC and Tranzinfo), and some were informal

cross-institutional arrangements. It was noted that Libraries Australia7 was viewed as a valuable

resource for ILL and document delivery. The importance of consortial purchasing as a strategy to

4
AGLIN: www.aglin.org

5
ALIES: www.alies.org.au

6
Gratisnet: www.gratisnet.org.au

7
Libraries Australia: http://www.nla.gov.au/librariesaustralia/

AGLIN Research Report 18

April 2016
reduce costs was highlighted, specifically the Standing Offer arrangements covering print serials

subscriptions and eResources licences managed by the Defence Library Service. Considerable benefits,
beyond simply financial savings, were acknowledged, citing greater staff efficiency, increased service

delivery to users, wider access to information and the sharing of professional knowledge and expertise

across government library and information services.

3.7 Library automation

The data on library management systems (LMS) painted an interesting picture. All but one library

service reported that they had a LMS: 86% were proprietary platforms and 14% were open source

systems. It was found that there was very little commonality across the different libraries in terms of

the systems being used, the different versions of these systems, and the installation and maintenance

costs. The various LMS arrangements are summarised below.

Open source LMS

Koha was used by three libraries: two were installed in 2013, one was installed in 2015. The installation

costs ranged from $8,140 to $33,400; support costs were quoted by one respondent as $2,600 per

annum.

Proprietary LMS

SirsiDynix was the most common LMS provider, with products including Symphony (3), Horizon (2)
and EOS (3). Other systems included First, Alma Primo, Spydus and Softlink Liberty. In terms of hosting,
40% of the LMS were operating on internal servers, 30% were hosted on external servers and 30%
were Software as a Service (SaaS/Cloud). Three quarters (75%) of the systems were web-enabled,
while 10% were not. A small number of respondents were not sure (15%).

The installation dates ranged from 2006 to 2015. The set up costs also varied: $10,000-$20,000;
$20,000-$30,000; $30,000-$40,000; and over $40,000. The annual maintenance fees ranged from

under $10,000 to over $40,000 per annum. Inevitably, the dates for renewal were not aligned: seven

contracts were due for renewal /replacement in 2016, and two in 2018. Three library services had no

plans for the future and two remained uncertain about their plans. Of those with plans in place, four

were budgeting for installation costs of under $100,000, with one library anticipating costs of over
$100,000. It was found that there was significant interest in open source options (Figure 17), with 57%
of respondents keen to learn more.

Unsure
27%

No Yes
15% 57%

Figure 17. Level of interest in open source options for the LMS

AGLIN Research Report 19

April 2016
There was also considerable interest in the idea of moving to SaaS as an option. Of those respondents

planning for a new LMS platform, almost two thirds (64%) were keen to explore ideas about SaaS
(Figure 18).

Unsure
27%

Yes
64%
No
9%

Figure 18. Level of interest in SaaS as an option for the LMS

A good proportion of library functions were automated, as outlined in Table 4. Almost all library

services had an OPAC (95%), automated circulation (90%) and serials control (88%). The least

automated functions were acquisitions and ILLs with around half of the respondents (47%) reporting

that these tasks were undertaken manually. In relation to managing reference enquiries, an equal

proportion of respondents worked with an automated system (41%) and manual systems (41%). The

remaining 18% indicated that they were in transition, as they moved to a new automated system.

Table 4. Automation of library functions

Library function Automated Manual
OPAC 95% 5%
Circulation 90% 10%
Serials control 88% 12%
Federated search 75% 25%
Cataloguing 70% 30%
Acquisitions 53% 47%
Interlibrary loans 53% 47%
Reference query tracking* 41% 41%

The relative values for the data (manual or automated) are also presented graphically in Figure 19.

AGLIN Research Report 20

April 2016
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Automated Manual

Figure 19. Automation of library functions

3.8 Library space and storage

A series of questions were asked to ascertain the amount of physical space and storage allocated to

the library services. It was unsurprising to find a range of responses, from under 50m2 to over 500m2
(Figure 20). Libraries with smaller staff numbers (e.g. one person libraries) tended to have the smallest

space allocation (under 50 m2). Although one respondent stated that the area for their library was

only 7m2, another one-person library had a footprint of almost 400m2..

Over 500 sq m
13%

Under 50 sq m
31%
201-500 sq m
13%

101-200 sq m
24% 51-100 sq m
19%

Figure 20. Space allocation for the library and information service

Four respondents managed a second location (three being up to 100m2 and one larger at 300m2). A

further two respondents reported they ran libraries in a third location (both being up to 100m2).
Further examination of the library space aimed to consider the relative proportion (expressed as a

percentage) of the space allocated to the collection, to the staff workspace and to the user workspace.
Unfortunately, as a number of respondents did not answer this question accurately, it was not possible

AGLIN Research Report 21

April 2016
to report on the data collected. Almost one third of respondents (30%) stated that they had additional

storage space, either in government buildings (67%) or in commercial buildings (33%). It was not

possible to report on the area allocated to, nor the cost of supplementary storage.

3.9 Budget & finances

Respondents were asked to provide details about the financial arrangements for the library and

information service, based on the appropriation from Treasury, grants and contributions (i.e. own

source revenue) and user charges (e.g. through service level agreements). As confidentiality was

assured, it is not possible to present the precise financial arrangements for each library. Overall,
however, it was found that the appropriation from Treasury, based on nine responses, ranged from a

low of $30,000 to a high of $1,100,000. Only four respondents provided details of grants and

contributions, which ranged from $20,000 to $850,000. There was insufficient data to report on

income from service level agreements.

In terms of expenditure, respondents were asked to report on the proportion allocated to employee

related expenditure, supplies and services, and depreciation and amortisation. The proportion of

expenditure on staff, as reported by 12 respondents, ranged from a low of 30% to a high of 80%. It

was not possible to correlate expenditure ratios with the size of library service. Unfortunately, the

remaining financial data collected was not considered reliable enough to present in this report. A small

percentage of respondents (30%) stated that they outsourced some work, primarily in the areas of

digitisation, indexing, cataloguing, training and to meet specific staffing needs.

Cost recovery

The extent of cost recovery is presented in Figure 21, with questions asked about whether the libraries

sought full cost recovery (i.e. factoring in staff time and on costs) or direct cost recovery (i.e. the actual

cost of the item) for the services they provided. The most likely areas where direct cost recovery was

applied were identified as the purchase and acquisition of information resources which were retained

by a specific business unit (40%) and document delivery (20%). Only two library services charged the

business units for resources which were purchased on behalf of their immediate staff, but housed in

the library. Comments were received which indicated that it was generally considered more cost

efficient for the library staff to manage all purchasing activities independently, drawing on their

professional knowledge, rather than seeking approvals from managers.

It was rare for charges to be levied for training activities (5%), but it was pointed out that, where the

library supported more than one user group, eg through memoranda of understanding with another

department or portfolio agency, the various subscription costs, library management systems

administration, client liaison etc were charged back to the individual agency concerned.

AGLIN Research Report 22

April 2016
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Resources for Resources for Research Document Photocopying Staff
library business services delivery training
unit

Full costs Direct costs No charge

Figure 21. Cost recovery for library and information services

3.10 Trends (2010-2015)
An important area of the study of government libraries relates to the changing environment in which

they operate, and the impact of this on the libraries’ operations and on the services they provide.
Looking specifically at the past five years (2010-2015), respondents were asked to consider the extent

to which various aspects of the library service had changed. Sixteen factors were presented, with

instructions for respondents to state how they felt the situation may have changed; using a Likert

scale, the values covered whether the individual factors had decreased significantly, decreased to

some extent, remained the same, increased to some extent or increased significantly. There was also

an option to indicate that a specific factor was not applicable to the respondent.

Figure 22 presents the trends through the combining of the responses for ‘decreased to some extent’
and ‘decreased significantly’ and the responses for ‘increased to some extent’ and ‘increased

significantly’, as well as ‘remained the same’.

One quarter of respondents (26%) reported that library base funding had increased, with positive

indications in terms of the staffing budget. This reflected a clear move into the electronic environment:
the eResources budget had increased, with an associated increase in the range of eResources available

to users. The data reflected the distinct trend towards electronic resources, balanced by a dramatic

drop in the budget for print resources (76%) and a reduction in the space allocation for the library.

In counterpoint to this, almost two thirds of respondents (62%) recorded a drop in library base

funding. Here the situation was less rosy: there was a general reduction across most factors: space

allocation, staffing and the size of the collection. The eResources budget had also decreased for 59%
of these libraries. It was noteworthy, nevertheless, that despite the funding cuts, the budget for

electronic resources and the range of eResources available to users had in fact increased for over one

third (38%) of library services.

AGLIN Research Report 23

April 2016
Range of electronic resources

Acquisitions budget: eResources

Range of departmental functions

Range of services provided

Library base funding

Amount of professional development

Size of physical collection

Number of paraprofessional staff

Number of professional staff

Library staffing budget

Space allocation

Hours of services

Acquisitions budget: print

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Increased Remained same Decreased

Figure 22. Trends in library services (2010-2015)

It was reported that the hours of service had tended to remain the same (90%) over the past five years

and the range of services provided remained the same (50%), or had even increased (10%). Again,
despite the funding cuts, the range of departmental or agency functions falling under the

responsibility of library staff increased (60%). There is clear evidence of the staff of the library and

information services ‘doing more with less’ and refocusing their services in a changing environment.
It is important to realise that the library is there for the benefit of the organisation
and when the organisation changes, we need to change with it and fit to the strategic
direction. This could mean re-skilling and working on non-traditional library tasks.
Respondents were invited to provide information about changes to staffing that may have occurred

over the past five years (2010-2015). While 10% reported no change, there were multiple instances

of the elimination of positions (41%), the relocation of staff (28%) and the downsizing of positions
(21%) (Figure 23). One agency had experienced all three factors: elimination of positions, relocation

of staff and downsizing of positions. Two libraries had seen positions both eliminated and

downgraded, and two libraries noted that positions had been eliminated and staff relocated.

AGLIN Research Report 24

April 2016
No change
10%

Downsizing
of positions Elimination
21% of positions
41%

Relocation
of staff
28%

Figure 23. Changes in staffing over the past five years (2010-2015)

Respondents were able to provide their own views about the changing environment they were

operating in.
Important for the Library profession to acknowledge that the labour market is
shrinking and our tasks are changing.
While a few negative comments were received, the general tone was positive: respondents felt that

there was a significant role to be played by library staff individually and collectively to ensure a bright

future:
We have to be constantly evolving to fit within the changing landscape of the APS,
willing to do new things and take on new responsibilities, prove our “value add”.
The current environment provokes both apprehension and exhilaration. Librarians
have faced change before and have generally been good at dealing with it – those
who can demonstrate innovation and client focus should find their skills appreciated
by the people they help.
One respondent expressed concern about the uncertainty of the political context in which government

libraries have to operate:
What complicates this for government libraries are the ideological swings that
each election can bring and the specific MoG changes that follow… arrangements
established under one government can be torn apart by the next.
In spite of the challenges of the past few years, there was a clear sense that the staff of the government

library and information services had plans for the ongoing development of their services, particularly

with the application of new technologies. The key themes which emerged were reducing the footprint

for print resources with the aim of establishing more multi-functional spaces, the increased use of

online repositories and linked data to improve discovery and repurposing of information resources,
and the digitisation of some of the collections.

The comments provided stressed the importance of ensuring close alignment with the strategic

directions of the department or agency, deepening the understanding of user needs, streamlining

workplace practices, and building opportunities for cross-agency collaboration.

The future of libraries is changing and to avoid downsizing or closure I am working
on closer ties with other agencies and also greater cooperation.

AGLIN Research Report 25

April 2016
Organisational arrangements also featured in the comments, including merged departments, wider

departmental responsibilities, shared service models. It was encouraging to see that several

respondents highlighted they were developing contemporary policies for the library and information

services, conducting evaluative reviews of their services and undertaking strategic planning work.

3.11 The role of AGLIN

The survey concluded with a group of questions about the role of AGLIN. Respondents were asked to

consider a list of activities that AGLIN, as an association, might be involved in, and to indicate the three

most pertinent activities which should be, in their view, the focus for AGLIN. These activities

encompassed advocacy topics, facilitating collaboration and cooperation, advice and guidance, and

professional development. One quarter of the responses received (n=18) underscored the importance

of AGLIN promoting the value of government libraries, followed by representing the interests of

member libraries (n=13), running cooperative schemes and resource sharing activities (n=13) and

serving as a forum for issues affecting government libraries (n=12). The coordination of professional

development activities was also valued (n=8) (Figure 24). The data also provides a clear indication of

activities which are not highly valued by the membership.

Promote the value of government libraries

Represent the interests of member libraries

Run cooperative schemes & resource sharing activities

Forum for issues affecting government libraries

Coordinate professional development activities

Develop an information rich website

Offer a professional mentoring program

Provide expert advisory services about library services

Facilitate dissemination of government publications

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 24. The role of AGLIN

Three quarters of respondents (74%) felt that the current name, the Australian Government Libraries

Information Network, was appropriate for the contemporary environment and should be retained
(Figure 25). Some respondents appreciated the inclusion of the word ‘Network’, although there was

also a sense that using the term ‘Association’ might be more powerful. A small number of respondents

questioned the immediate relevancy of the word ‘Library’, preferring ‘Information Professionals’ and

the need to include the wider remit of records, knowledge management and collections.

AGLIN Research Report 26

April 2016
Unsure 17%

No 9%

Yes
74%

Figure 25. Appropriateness of the name ‘AGLIN’ in the contemporary environment

It was generally felt that it would be counterproductive to change the name when it is widely

recognised and acknowledged for the work it undertakes.
Whatever its merits or deficits, AGLIN has some name recognition. A campaign to change
perceptions of what libraries can provide might be of greater value.
AGLIN does a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. Lots of people who might complain
never actually volunteer themselves I’ve noticed. They have assisted me greatly in my career
and the training and forums have been invaluable.
The online survey produced a wealth of data which contributes to a more accurate understanding of

the nuances of government library and information services and establishes an evidence based

foundation for future research. This information is enriched through the qualitative data to provide

insights into the experiences of those working in the sector.

4 Consultation with the government library community

One valuable aspect of the research project was the ability to capture the opinions and views of people

working in the government library and information sector. Two key approaches were adopted to

ensure wide consultation: a series of six face-to-face focus groups and one online focus group held in

mid December 2015, and an online questionnaire with 20 open-ended questions was made available

to stakeholders. These questions were aligned with the topics discussed at the focus groups.
Unfortunately, efforts to engage senior managers and executives with the research activities proved

difficult, with only four valid responses received to a brief survey with three key questions.

The matters explored through the consultation process focused on the relevance of government

agency library and information services today; the most valuable attributes of the services; and the

difference these services make to the agency or department itself. A group of questions examined the

contribution made by library and information services to the achievement of the government’s

strategic directions; to the development of high quality, evidence-based public policy; to the

government’s information management strategies; to its ICT strategies and the Digital Transformation

Agenda (DTA). Human resources issues were also investigated, to consider the role played by LIS

qualifications in the Australian Public Service (APS) workforce and how these related to the APS

capability map, as well as the opportunities for training and staff development. Scrutiny was given to

different models of service delivery, the perceived shortcomings of the current model, and what

opportunities may lie ahead for government libraries.

AGLIN Research Report 27

April 2016
A total of 27 people attended the focus groups and there were 14 valid responses to the online

questionnaire. The extensive body of qualitative data gathered through the consultation process was

analysed and synthesised to develop a rich picture of the world of Australian government libraries, as

viewed by the managers and staff working in this field. The findings are discussed under the themes

of the current model of library services, the services’ alignment with the strategic directions of the

Commonwealth Government, user behaviour, and the skills and competencies of government library

and information professionals.

4.1 The current model of government library and information services

Commonwealth Government library and information services are, for the most part, department- or

agency centric: they manage the information resources for and support the information needs of a

specific government department or agency. However, one conundrum for the sector is the actual

range and variety of agencies and departments, each with quite diverse – often niche – roles and

functions played by the different cohorts of staff within the organisation itself. It can be difficult to

achieve an agency-wide understanding of the work and the potential of the library and information

service, but establishing productive relationships with users is critical:
[It] is important to build trust… You have to be tied to the people who are using you in the
corporate structure, they understand how much money you need and what it is that you do,
so it makes a huge difference…
The specific strengths of the current service model were found to be the deep understanding the

library staff had of their agency’s role and activities, as well as their mastery of the subject matter at

the heart of the business of the agency. In some situations, there were legislative requirements to

retain copies of departmental resources, with agency libraries having oversight over confidential

material that needs to be well managed in-house:
[Often] it is sensitive; you may not want to talk to an outsider about it…
There was a keen sense of the importance and value of the relationships with the users or clients of

the services offered by the library, which ensured that the staff could draw on their highly specialised

knowledge to provide responsive, targeted support.

The library and information services should be directly aligned with the organisation’s own functions,
whether that might have an emphasis on research, regulatory matters, or policy. The relevance of the

service was felt to be dependent on positioning. On one hand this could be beneficial:
We were incorporated into the policy department. This pushes you right into the middle
of research.
We are not a typical government department, more like a small university department,
totally research oriented. Find and disseminate. No other services provided.
On the other hand, positioning may be problematic: being placed in corporate services was found to

be less meaningful than being located with policy and research areas. Where possible, librarians have

taken steps to address the issues:

We are moving to make sure we are more embedded in the Policy Office - embed there
and go out selling the library to other departments.

The most valuable attributes of the library and information services were associated with the benefits

brought to the department: the efficient and cost-effective management of information resources

through the negotiation of subscriptions and licenses to online resources; the curation and

discoverability of grey literature; and the strong client relationships. These were all underpinned by

the knowledge, skills and expertise of the library staff.

AGLIN Research Report 28

April 2016
Similar themes were reflected in the participants’ understanding of the single most important

contribution the library and information service made to the agency:
 In-house knowledge
 Client relationships
 Environmental scanning, current awareness, proactively pushing information out to clients
 Immediacy of information provision
 Saving time and ensuring increased efficiency
 Loyalty and confidentiality.
The contribution made by the library staff is acknowledged by some of their users:
We get recognition sometimes…
We always do well in surveys… seen as an extra person for each team.
Many participants reported that they followed up with their users to ensure that they were satisfied

with the work undertaken on their behalf and to capture positive feedback which could subsequently

be used to build a business case for new services through formal presentations within the department,
or presented as evidence in staff performance reviews.

In discussions with a wider group of stakeholders during the research project, one view was presented

to suggest that media monitoring services represented a direct competitor for library and information

services. It was believed that executive managers found it easy to introduce a media monitoring

service directly tailored to the business of the agency, but this would be to the detriment of the library

and information service. Focus group participants refuted this view, however, noting that they were

very aware of departmental arrangements with media monitoring services, but they felt that the role

and function of these services was quite distinct from the information services provided by the library.
The focus of media monitoring tended to be specifically on the profile of the agency in the media.
While that could include the impact of policy decisions in the public arena, it was not associated with

the sourcing of research and information to support the development of policy. One focus group

participant stressed that in her agency, library staff worked in partnership with the media and

communications teams, using daily media services to provide information to keep their clients up-to-
date.

In response to the question about what participants believed might happen if their library and

information service was closed tomorrow, two prospects were aired. Some librarians stated that the

service they provided to the agency was ‘mission critical’: the agency itself would not be able to

function without access to the core information resources used across the agency. This was

particularly important in regulatory and research agencies and those with a strong legal focus.
If the server goes down we have 3 minutes before we hear from all the scientists!
People are working in critical area, checking applications etc
We are part of the workflow. They value and would miss that service.
Other librarians felt that they would not be missed immediately, but the quality of the agency’s work

and the productivity of the staff would certainly deteriorate:
They would not [getting] the quality and [would] not realise it for the first month or so - they
will realise it in the long term.
Researchers will criticise where they see no evidence-based material in the report. A recent
report was widely disparaged – and overseas too.
Quality of advice to Ministers would drop.

AGLIN Research Report 29

April 2016
The quality of the management of information resources would deteriorate: costs would increase and

a lack of coordination would result in the widespread and unwieldy duplication of resources. Some of

the key library and information functions would still need to be provided, but the responsibilities

would be passed to executive assistants or new graduates who had no professional knowledge or

understanding of information management practices and procedures, and would not establish and

maintain the mutually beneficial relationships with other information professionals. As noted in

Section 3.6 of the report, there are considerable benefits from the professional interaction between

libraries, especially in the area of collaboration and resource sharing.
Material would be dumped at Recall, much is not electronically available. Services would
need to be outsourced, ILL and networking would be lost. Licences would still have to
continue.
Focus group participants agreed that there were some drawbacks associated with the current model

of service delivery, as the internal focus inevitably results in a myriad of agency-specific systems,
processes and purchasing arrangements:
Duplication of resources, licensing, pricing problems. Less value for money.
In response to these concerns, there was some discussion around the concept of shared services:
The discussion on shared services is not sophisticated or granular. They mean a thousand
things by ‘shared’.
One instance of shared services amongst Commonwealth Government libraries was cited, with a

combined library service in place for the Department of Education and Training and the Department

of Employment. Overall, respondents’ views about the shared services tended to be more negative

than positive:
The siting of shared services is problematic…
The specific information needs of the different units or groups of staff was found to be challenging: it

was difficult to pay centrally for specialist databases, and firewalls in the different departments could

cause immense barriers to access to the required online resources. There was also a sense that

perceived inequities and competition produced their own challenges in a shared services

environment:
… other agencies can perhaps monopolise or drop priority…
Focus group participants and online survey respondents were anxious about the fact that many

stakeholders regarded libraries as being no longer relevant in some government departments:
[Libraries] are no longer seen as relevant, that is why they were closed!
Some participants believed that government support services in general were under threat:
It is not just libraries that have lost their relevance, it is also records and IT.
It was argued that some executive managers were unable to recognise the distinction between public

libraries and departmental libraries; the term ‘librarian’ was in itself misleading.
The perception of us, they see us as public library activity, they believe it is procurement.
…we are not a public library, we are a service, so people can take or leave it, most people
leave it…
Comments were also made to indicate that librarians failed to market their skill sets effectively. By

working quietly and efficiently, they were at risk of concealing the sophisticated nature of the

professional activities they were involved in, in effect putting their roles at risk.

AGLIN Research Report 30

April 2016
Maybe we have not lost relevance, but maybe just failed to demonstrate it as effectively as
some others competing.
You can do too good a job, make it all too seamless.
It was felt that, while many managers could identify the types of information-centric functions they

wanted performed in the agency, they were unable to make the connection with the role of ‘librarian’.
Accordingly, ‘librarian’ positions have been removed from the organisational structure, or positions

have been downsized, leaving immense gaps in the department’s capabilities and performance.

4.2 Alignment with government’s strategic directions

An important theme which was explored in the focus groups was the degree of alignment with the

Government’s strategic directions, through the contribution made by library services at the

departmental or agency level. Particular attention was paid to the sub-themes of evidence-based

policy, and ICT and information management strategies.

Evidence-based policy

The importance of evidence-based government policy is examined in the literature review (Appendix

1). It was noted that in government departments with responsibility for high quality policy

development, there was a central role to be played by the library and information services. The library

staff were able to facilitate access to accurate information published in authoritative resources, and

to deliver this in a timely manner, with a tangible, positive impact on the rigour of policy work and the

quality of government communication.
The library aligns itself with government strategic directions through evidence-based information
We contribute to the quality of government papers.
Evidence-based information is our life blood really.
Although the sophistication of their research skills was highlighted by focus group participants, it was

felt that the capabilities of some library staff were actually underutilised. They felt the situation could

be improved if policy staff understood the value of involving library staff in the preliminary stages of

their work, to ensure that detailed, relevant research could be undertaken to directly inform the policy

development process.

Fears were expressed by a large number of focus group participants and online survey respondents

about the capacity for government staff to develop strong, evidence based policy documents. In

particular, with the push for self-sufficiency across the public service, there were major concerns

about how policy makers were actually obtaining the information they were working with. Increasingly

tight time pressures meant that departmental staff are no longer relying on trusted, authoritative

sources, but just “doing a quick Google search and copying text from Wikipedia”.
They are Googling it, looking for free things, they might be on some newsletters, from other
libraries, see a video, ring up a friend…
It was important for library staff to openly discuss the roles they play in managing traditional published

information, in both print and digital formats, and in curating informally published resources,
particularly grey literature. Only a few libraries, however, had direct responsibility for coordinating

the agency’s own publications, e.g. with an institutional repository and/or a digitisation program.

Nevertheless, a number of managers clearly articulated their understanding of the imperative to

develop a strategic focus for the library and information service: their very existence depended on it.
In our agency plan there is explicit mention of the library as one of the strengths of the
organisation.

AGLIN Research Report 31

April 2016
We make a big contribution and we do make sure everyone knows that we do. We need our
reporting to tie in to the strategic direction. A lot of this is in our hands. Execs should not have to
ask what our relevance is.
We have a monthly and 3-monthly report that goes to the Commissioners and GM’s meeting. We
are mentioned in the annual report.
Some librarians felt they were fortunate that the agency had its own Act which mandated their roles

and responsibilities.

ICT and information management strategies

The Digital Transformation Office (DTO), with the associated Digital Transformation Agenda (DTA), and

the growing need for data curation and data management, were highlighted as new areas of interest

across government. Some government departments hold their own datasets and are under pressure

to make these available to researchers outside the department. Some librarians viewed this as an

opportunity to extend their expertise in digitisation, metadata and data management into new areas,
but all too often “the first port of call was IT”. Some respondents believed that library staff often

failed to promote their knowledge and experience:
IT are placing themselves much better than librarians, blow their own trumpet, placing
themselves where people want to go.
Departmental managers were criticised for not understanding the complexity of the contemporary

information ecosystem, with no real comprehension of the management of information resources,
but they also showed no interest in seeking out advice from library professionals.
IT has no understanding of IM and how it works… We are locked out of the debate, even
when they set up DTO, they see that as an ICT role.
Some managers were turning to records managers for support and guidance:
Records managers do have that big stick and the ear of management at the moment.
DTA Is being led by the National Archives, records people are the go-to people for that.
Many of the participants felt that they faced significant challenges in the area of ICT activities.
Technology managers often failed to acknowledge the fact that productive library and information

services relied heavily on a contemporary ICT infrastructure. As a result, library staff were often locked

down behind firewalls, using out-of-date systems which could not mesh with the content provided by

the online publishers, and with little or no ability to introduce any new technologies which would

enhance their service delivery. One case was cited where the business case to upgrade from Internet

Explorer 7 to Internet Explorer 8 was knocked back, at a time when users beyond the government

sector were already working with Internet Explorer 11. The opportunities to design and develop

innovative information services were frequently, and frustratingly, blocked by their own IT

departments.

The lack of continuity in government services was also found to be problematic, with the complex

impact of MoG activities, changing ideas and shifting priorities.
They have shut down websites because of MoG changes.
Digitisation projects were particularly at risk:
… so much from previous governments is removed or not digitised or no longer available
because ideas have changed…

AGLIN Research Report 32

April 2016
Some librarians reported, however, that they had managed to develop some creative technical

workarounds, while others indicated that they went to great lengths to establish useful and productive

relationships with their colleagues in IT.

The level of engagement with broader information management activities often depended on the size

of the agency.
In a smaller agency often you become involved in IM, become an expert in TRIM etc. Often in
a bigger department you are sidelined.
In some agencies there were opportunities for collaboration and integration:
I have recently been moved into the Records Management team as it was considered IM was
related.
We sit with the web team and have input into the intranet and a library page.
In other agencies, the library staff continued to be victims of management perceptions, seen as

procurement officers rather than information professionals.

4.3 User behaviour

Despite operating in an increasingly online environment, participants in the focus groups noted the

paradoxical situation where many library users continued to be heavily dependent on print materials.
People perceive everything is available online. But some people, including Commissioners,
refuse to use things online and demand print.
Given the view amongst some agency managers that “everything will be online”, participants

expressed grave concerns about the closure of library collections, the relocation of resources to
“inconvenient” locations (e.g. basement areas or off-site storage) or the irretrievable disposal of

materials, which inevitably restricted access to the required information and resulted in service

degradation. The library was regarded as space which could be better utilised, in order to achieve
‘efficiency dividends’. Where these actions were also associated with the retrenchment of qualified

library staff, the decline in library use became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In contrast, some librarians had accepted the hand they were being dealt and had turned the situation

to their advantage.
Be prepared to give up the real estate, but fight for space online and branding that tells you –
‘brought to you by the Library’.
If they are more inclined to let their physical materials go, then concentrate on building the
networks that allow you to digitise print, get a chapter etc. Move in that direction,
organisation gets the space, less rent. There is a residual niggle that you prove value by
having a collection, but you have to prove it in services.
I think we need to move with them and adapt: be seen as adaptable, you are seen as
obstructive otherwise…
It was recognised that this was a period of transition for many government staff, as was emphasised

in the literature review. However, it was noted that many users lacked the skills required to work

productively in this new digital environment, and library staff were not necessarily leading the way:
We still have not made the transition from information literacy to digital literacy.
If library staff were keen and prepared to promote the development of new skills to the agency staff

in order to build the confident use of eResources, they were often told that training was not actually

required, or when training courses were offered, there were no takers. Where skills development did

take place, it was usually on a one-to-one basis, especially in smaller agencies. Some other librarians

AGLIN Research Report 33

April 2016
believed that it was not their responsibility to be concerned about the development of digital literacy

skills amongst agency staff. This is in contrast with academic and public libraries, where a wide range

of training activities is provided to support their users in the digital environment. There were situations

where smart devices were being rolled out in an agency, but some library staff did not feel that they

needed to be directly involved.

It was again stressed that building trusted relationships with clients was critical:
Relationship management is important: find out what people are doing.
We are situated with academics and they strongly support us.
New graduates were singled out as a valuable target market for building relationships with users:
It is important to get in touch with graduates when they start out and also a bit later, for
more in-depth training.
Nevertheless, meeting the needs of new graduates was sometimes difficult. As they tended to be used

to the wide array of databases made available to them at university, they were frequently

disappointed to realise that they had access to far more limited resources now they were working for

the government. There was often a naïve expectation that government libraries could simply partner

with university libraries to open up their collections:
What the department would really like is to have a university library; government would
like to hand over a big cheque.
There were accompanying accusations that the librarians were the actual obstacle:
Clients want access to the world’s scientific intellectual property… They are constrained
by people like us.
Anecdotal evidence was provided in the focus groups to report that some graduates enrolled in

postgraduate studies in order to continue to have access to materials through the university library,
or they ‘borrowed’ the login authentication from family or friends. In situations like this, the academic

library inevitably becomes an unequal competitor to the government library.

There was further anecdotal evidence to highlight that when government staff relied on Google or

other search engines, they were frustrated by the paywalls they encountered to access journal articles

or reports. There seemed to be a significant lack of awareness amongst government staff about the

information services that they legitimately had access to at work. One participant argued, however,
that paywalls could work in the library’s favour, if users could be encouraged to contact the library

whenever they hit one. Paywalls could in fact direct people back to the library. It was critical to

translate obstacles into opportunities.

4.4 The skills of government library and information professionals

Participants were asked about the value of and the extent of recognition for LIS qualifications in their

organisations. Responses were very mixed, with little uniformity across the agencies. “Eligibility for

membership of ALIA” tended to be the accepted approach and there was a strong push to have LIS

qualifications included in job descriptions, at the minimum as ‘highly desirable’, if not ‘essential’
criteria. A small number of people stated that LIS qualifications were a requirement when they applied

for the position they currently held, whereas other people highlighted the problems resulting from

agency managers not understanding the academic discipline of library and information science.
Librarians are assumed to have no qualifications and the work is easy to do:
They think anyone can do a librarian’s job…

AGLIN Research Report 34

April 2016
One line of thought linked back to the expectations for self-sufficiency in the public service, with

information work simply being an ubiquitous, generic skill:
Because people can find information themselves they do not believe that we can do better.
The APS Capability Map, used to determine job level standards in the public service, was found to be

particularly problematic: LIS work did not fit with the overall mapping process.
When you look at the standards, some of our skills are listed at quite a low level
(e.g. all level 3 do research)
Specific challenges were noted for library technicians as the qualification was not recognised by HR in

the workforce profile of a number of agencies.

It was felt that the ways in which the LIS field was rapidly evolving added further complexity: new skills

such as data management and visualisation were regarded as ‘specialist’ (i.e. non-LIS) skillsets. One

focus group participant believed that there would be greater value if recruitment was organised

around skillsets, as opposed to formal qualifications. In smaller agencies, however, LIS staff felt

satisfied with the opportunities they had to broaden and deepen their skills. Nevertheless, compared

with other fields, librarianship was not accepted as a career pathway in the public service:
There is no career progression. No specialist line. If you are in IT you can go straight
to the top.
There were very mixed views about professional development (PD). On the one hand, some people

were concerned that funding for PD had been significantly reduced so that they were not allowed to

attend PD events, or they could only attend something if it was free. Other participants eagerly

reported that they had plenty of opportunities to attend a wide range of developmental activities, to

participate in online forums, and even to develop their own training programs for their staff. It was

stressed that the individual needed to take ownership of their own PD pathways, not just sit and wait

for managerial direction.
The lawyers were happy that I went to the legal specialisation course and I got more of
that sort of work.
While only a few people were aware of the government library specialisation in the ALIA PD scheme,
there was a level of interest:
We would be interested in investing in such a scheme.
Maybe it will help you get a better job.
The discussion about LIS skills led to the importance of marketing the skills that library and information

professionals had, and how these were applied in their work.

4.5 Marketing and promotion

Many participants sensed that the lack of relevancy, as perceived by the senior managers and

executives of the government agency, was directly aligned with the failure to promote library and

information services effectively.
I am disappointed at the lack of leadership. Why our services are not valued is that we
do not market them. It is up to us to make ourselves visible. We can offer a lot more!
We should get people in the department who say we are amazing, to tell senior
management more.
Participants observed that some library staff failed to recognise their true responsibilities to the parent

department or agency, choosing to focus on their own library-centric interests and therefore, to a

great extent, ignoring the changing world around them.

AGLIN Research Report 35

April 2016
I think we see ourselves as librarians first… the organisation should be the librarian’s
primary responsibility, not being a librarian.
… some government libraries are trying to keep the status quo.
It was critically important to ensure that government library and information services strive to support

clients achieve their specific organisational objectives, to justify service provision through

demonstrable strategic outcomes. It was argued, however, that the challenges currently faced by

government library and information professionals are far from new:
It is still about being proactive. This has been happening for a long time and if you have
not adjusted or streamlined your service, you need to update.
A small number of librarians have established effective strategies for collecting evidence and

articulating the intrinsic value of the collections they manage and the services they provide to clients.
We have a mantra which goes ‘the budget is covered if I save each person in the building
20 minutes a week’. They really get it then. I have not been challenged over an increasing
budget in a decade.
Usage figures are there, 2 million downloads of library materials every year.
It was argued that demonstrating the value of the work performed was directly connected to the

future roles of government library services.

4.6 Future directions for government library and information services

Focus group participants and respondents to the online questionnaire were invited to consider any

untapped opportunities for Commonwealth Government library and information services. The main

topics that emerged were: liberating themselves from the print world and venturing deeper into the

digital world (e.g. eBooks, big data, mobile apps); introducing new channels of communication with

users (e.g. social media, blogs); and ensuring that their services were appropriately branded and

marketed.
Get proactive, go online, go selling yourselves, have apps, stop moaning about being
misunderstood, and go out and show it.
To ensure that the library and information services do have a strong future, participants not only

emphasised the importance of needing to operate in leaner and smarter ways, but also to establish a

stable, sustainable model for service delivery.
We should look at the things that cause most problems. The collection has to move every
time government changes. There is so much wastage; resources thrown away or stored.
There were tensions between the ‘individual’ and the ‘collective’ nature of library and information

services. On the one hand, it was especially important to highlight and promote the specific

characteristics of the diverse functions of government (United Nations, 2011). The library and

information services which support these government functions are equally distinctive, highly

specialised and ‘individual’:
We are not a bland mix of pasteurised milk
We are boutiques…we are not Target.
On the other hand, it was felt that there were immense opportunities for a ‘collective’ approach to

service delivery: greater collaboration had the potential to reduce duplication and to leverage the

benefits from the synergies to be achieved from overlapping objectives and interests. A number of

benefits which could be achieved through collaborative initiatives were presented: building stronger

relationships between the library services, both operationally and professionally through AGLIN;
streamlining collections; eliminating duplicated processes with the goal of improving access to digital

AGLIN Research Report 36

April 2016
resources across all government departments and agencies. Figure 26 presents the participants’ ideas

in a word cloud.

Figure 26. Future directions for government library and information services

Specific attention should be given to the opportunities offered by next generation library service

platforms which are able to significantly reduce the financial and labour overheads of library

operations and improve access to and the discovery of government information resources.

While the staff of some individual agency libraries felt they were making some progress towards some

of these collaborative goals, many potential developments were siloed. There was a very strong

interest in learning to work together in new ways, with lots of ideas expressed: sharing costs;
purchasing consortia, whole of government licences, a single LMS for all government library and

information services, and the concept of a central advisory agency.
A central agency/repository could be a good solution to hold (non-sensitive) material.
I like the ‘Library of Last Resort’ idea, then we will be sure materials will be there.
The discussion could be distilled into several intertwined themes:
 To ensure equitable access to quality information by all government staff, regardless of the
agency they worked in
 To collectively manage government information resources
 To leverage the opportunities offered by ICT
 To reduce the operational silos, while retaining client relationships
 To have a common voice to promote the knowledge, skills, expertise and the values of
library and information professionals.
There was a strong belief in the idea that ‘together we are more’.
That boundary spanning is what I am interested in – synergies, getting traction, hybridising,
whatever it takes to survive.
The challenges facing government libraries were not underestimated, but there were opportunities

for a collective voice, effective advocacy, champions amongst the senior executives, and “some

political backing or leverage”.

4.7 The role of AGLIN

There was a general acknowledgement across the focus groups that AGLIN was a valuable

organisation, yet not without its own challenges. It was recognised that, more recently, AGLIN had

adopted a more strategic approach:

AGLIN Research Report 37

April 2016
AGLIN is doing some amazing work at the moment.
In the last 12-18 months they have really upped their game.
It was important to have a viable membership base: some people thought it should be obligatory for

Commonwealth Government libraries to become members, while others encouraged a widening of

the membership to include, for example, state government library services, “to build more clout”.
There was a clear sense that, even though AGLIN was essentially a volunteer group, the sector needed

a strong voice:
We work among ourselves as we can, but we need to up the ante…
We need the authority to speak at the top…
Could government libraries be better served by some different advocacy of support?
We need a representative for government libraries…
Echoing the responses to the online survey (see Section 3.11), focus group participants did not see any

specific reason to change the name.

5 Discussion

Together, the quantitative data relating to the management and operations of Commonwealth

Government library and information services, and the qualitative data capturing the perceptions,
views and opinions of the library and information professionals managing and working in these

services, contribute to the development of a deeper understanding of the government library sector

in Australia at the current time. In this section, some of the key themes which have emerged in the

research findings are linked back to government issues discussed in the literature review (Appendix 1)
and in the recent press.

5.1 The current government library environment

The current agency-centric model of service delivery has a number of strengths, but at the same time,
it presents a number of challenges. The focus group participants and the respondents to the online

questionnaire outlined the critical importance of ensuring that their users have equitable access to

high quality information which they require to productively contribute to the achievement of the

department’s or agency’s goals, regardless of the particular department or agency they might work

in. It was particularly important to ensure continuity of information access for all users and provide

efficient and sustainable research services: they underscored the need to be resilient and prepared

for the greatest challenges, which in many cases were the inevitable rounds of MoC changes resulting

from government activities.

The staff of library and information services who were based in regulatory or research-intensive

agencies felt that they had greater security than their colleagues who worked with government

departments with a policy focus. Nevertheless, given that the topic of evidence based government

policy is in the spotlight across the world, the civic demands for improved decision-making are high

on the list of priorities for open, responsible and accountable government. Government library and

information professionals clearly have a significant role to play in the collection and curation of

increasingly digital resources of interest and relevance to decision makers to ensure that policy

developers draw on accurate and high quality information from a wide range of authoritative sources.
Librarians can make a major contribution towards the mitigation of the risks associated with the

likelihood of policy decisions being made based on incomplete or poorly argued information
(Shergold, 2015, p.21).

AGLIN Research Report 38

April 2016
There is undoubtedly the potential to improve the management of and access to grey literature and

to work with open linked datasets through collaborative eRepositories. Shergold’s views that
“increasing access to government data supports innovation by unlocking the economic and social

value of information” (Shergold, 2015, p.19) are echoed in a recent report which considers the

economic impact of open government data (Bureau of Communications Research, 2016).
Developments in the area of open data and data-driven products and services, such as the recent

release of IP Australia’s datasets, will stimulate new practices for research data management and open

up further new, exciting career pathways for library and information professionals across the

government sector. Current discussion points to new directions for government services in Australia,
with opportunities for information professionals to re-imagine the roles they play.

5.2 New directions for government services

The Commonwealth Government’s Digital Transformation Agenda (DTA) requires the public service to

meet community expectations for new ICT-driven models of service delivery. Leading public servants

have heralded the “rich period of opportunity” offered by the current government. As Prime Minister,
Malcolm Turnbull has been described as “an open book, he wants our ideas… This presents us public

servants with opportunities like we’ve never had before” (The Mandarin, April 20, 2016). The Digital

Transformation Office (DTO) is a prospective partner for many new initiatives. Echoing the Prime

Minister, government library and information professionals are encouraged to “open their minds and

be bold” (The Mandarin, April 20, 2016) and to seek out new ways of working with and for their users

in the digital environment.

The Director General of the National Archives of Australia (NAA), David Fricker, has emphasised the

imperative for society’s participation in the development of public policy, declaring that “if you’re

going to have evidence-based, informed, policy development, government information has to be

available, anywhere, anytime” (Fricker, 2016). Shergold also articulated the importance of access to

information created by the government: “The community should be actively encouraged to use public

information for all sorts of public purposes. Factual information collected at public expense should

generally be available to the public to use as it pleases” (Shergold, 2015, p.19-20). Through their

understanding of information management and information flows, librarians can offer productive

guidance about the sharing of information and present ideas to support the development of more

open, agile and adaptive government and citizen-centred governance. Frey has proposed that libraries

can transform themselves into a dynamic network, “using iterative business models, based on sharing

ideas and inviting comments, feedback, and collaborations” (Frey, 2014).

Recently, criticisms have been raised about the dangers resulting from the lack of willingness to share

information across government agencies. Concerns were expressed about the low priority afforded to

information resource management within government agencies and the associated lack of confidence

of public service staff to navigate the digital information landscape, yet “we live in an information age”
(The Mandarin, March 30, 2016). Declarations such as these should inspire government library and

information professionals to ensure that the roles they play, together with their professional skill sets

and their strong professional relationships across the government sector, are recognised and

respected by agency managers.
If you happen to work for an innovative, forward-thinking organization, where the value
of information and its importance to success is well understood, consider yourself lucky.
You probably have at your disposal a corporate library and at least one librarian (a.k.a.
Information Specialist, Knowledge Manager, Cybrarian, Information Broker).

AGLIN Research Report 39

April 2016
Modern corporate libraries are like hive-minds; acquiring, filtering, synthesizing and
distributing information where it’s needed most, keeping organizations vital and
relevant… In an age where separating good information from the irrelevant is
increasingly difficult, libraries and librarians are more crucial than ever.
(Culhane, 2013, p.121)
Library and information professionals have the transformative potential to develop the critical

information and digital literacy skills needed by the government workforce to find, evaluate, use and

re-purpose relevant information resources they need.

The Australian public service finds itself not only in a state of transition, but also subject to the forces

of rapid and unrelenting change. In October 2015, NAA released its Digital Continuity 2020 Policy
(NAA, 2015). This policy document emphasises that information is an asset to be valued:
Australian Government information is a key strategic asset and economic resource of
the Commonwealth. Information is as important as finances, property and equipment.
It informs public policy and debate, ensures accountability and underpins how the
government conducts its business.
When information is accountably created, managed, described and stored the potential
future value of information increases. Future value of information is dependent on its
ability to be used, reused and shared.
(NAA, 2015, p.4)
The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) has stressed the growing importance of information

management skills, with a new framework being introduced to build the capabilities of staff working

with digital information. This is marked as a movement away from viewing information-related tasks

as generic, something that anyone can do, to promote digital information management as a specialist

role (Easton, 2015). Library and information professionals must step out from the shadows to stake

their claim in this space, to emphasise the value of the qualifications they hold and to demonstrate

their potential for active leadership roles.

As there is clearly an imperative to transform skill sets across the public service, library and

information professionals have the opportunity to contribute to the staff development process, both

by modelling the skills through their own professional practice and by playing a lead role in the design

and delivery of new digital programs across the public service. There are many opportunities for

information professionals to drive the change processes: “If we are looking at the digital revolution,
you have got to have people who understand that, get it and go with the right level of ambition but

also manage the risks going forward” (KPMG, 2014a).

Government librarians have the immense potential to promote their deep understanding of the

contemporary information ecosystem, “opening up new ways of engaging with people and transacting

and doing business” (KPMG, 2014b). They can take full advantage of the ways in which technology can

drive and support the libraries’ own management processes and the services they offer to users. While

the data collected in the online survey revealed that there is, at the present time, a veritable

patchwork of LMS arrangements across the respondent libraries (Section 3.7), there are clear

possibilities to change the landscape. As the Commonwealth Government seeks to reduce overheads

and achieve significant efficiency dividends, it is timely to undertake a critical appraisal of the ways in

which government information resources are managed. Librarians can successfully leverage these

opportunities to move away from legacy library systems and capitalise on the benefits offered by next

generation library systems. Vendors such as OCLC WorldShare and ExLibris offer a range of exciting

solutions:

AGLIN Research Report 40

April 2016
… an integrated suite of cloud-based library management and discovery applications
packaged together to give librarians a comprehensive and cost-effective way to
manage library workflows and improve access to library collections and services…
(OCLC, 2016)
It goes beyond the scope of this report to review specific vendor platforms, but it is argued strongly

that, collectively, Commonwealth Government library and information services would achieve

significant benefits by introducing new, integrated and collaborative solutions to streamline their

existing service processes, reduce their costs, manage their collections of published materials and grey

literature, and open up their resources to far wider audiences by contributing to national discovery

tools. Such an initiative would, in itself, support the Government’s push for joined-up services and

contribute to a far greater return on the government’s investment in information services.

To move in this direction means completely re-examining and re-imagining the governance and

funding arrangements for the individual siloed library services. It would require ICT managers in the

different agencies to develop a clearer understanding of the information services, both actual and

potential, to be provided. In some agencies, barriers to effective information provision have resulted

from the lack of interest and/or understanding on the part of the IT departments. In other agencies,
on the other hand, productive relationships with their IT colleagues have facilitated the introduction

of new digital services which are highly valued by the users. It is critical that library and information

professionals are forward thinking, proactive and strategic in their understanding of technology

solutions to safeguard their roles and to enhance the government’s access to, use of and creation of

information assets.

5.3 A future-focused library and information profession

The relative ‘invisibility’ of library and information professionals was felt to be a challenge associated

with professional isolation. Many of the issues examined in the studies of special libraries conducted

by ALIA had not yet been fully addressed by the sector: there was scope to build the profile of

government library and information professionals by demonstrating the impact of their services and

programs on the parent organisation (ALIA, 2010) and discussing the factors relating to the return on

investment achieved by library services (ALIA, 2014).

There was an intuitive awareness amongst the focus group participants of the value of their skills.
Some librarians had successfully translated their skillsets to fit the new contexts of a changing

government workplace, while others took the initiative to independently invest in the development

of new skills. The disruptions caused by new technologies are not restricted to the government library

environment, but are manifest across all types of library. Along with colleagues in the public library,
academic library and children’s library sectors, special librarians have reviewed the competencies

required for contemporary professional practice. In the United States, the association for specialised

information professionals, SLA, has recently released a new version of the document Competencies of

Librarians and Information Professionals (SLA. Professional Competencies Task Force, 2016).
Compared with the earlier version (SLA, 2003), this revision steps presents a renewed focus on the

specialised concepts of information and knowledge services, systems and technology, resources and

the organisation of data, information and knowledge assets.

“Having a deep understanding of why information is needed, how it will be used and how the business

works is now key” (Lord, 2014, p.258). A white paper released by LexisNexis (2014) examined the

range of skillsets required by information professionals in an increasingly demanding digital world.
The impact of the continued growth of online information resources will mean that library and

information professionals will need to:

AGLIN Research Report 41

April 2016
 Ensure that the context of the information gathered is clear, especially to others
 Help others understand how the information professional aggregates and synthesises the
information he/she gathers
 Help others interpret the outputs of the information that is aggregated and synthesised by
the information professional
 Present information in different ways for different audiences
 Present information in ways that can be more easily understood by others, e.g. visualisations
and dashboards.
These skills are very closely aligned with understanding the clients’ requirements: the ability to

understand user behaviour, the user experience, and user engagement through effective service

models and diverse communications channels is of crucial importance. “Librarians move from being

knowledge navigators to being experience creators and navigators” (Inayatullah, 2014, p.28). They can

build connections between people and innovation (Arup, 2016).

As workplace activities and research-focused initiatives become more collaborative, librarians need to

provide the connections “between activities and between people” (Tancheva et al., 2016, p.36).
Researchers seek connections with other researchers as a natural part of the research process, and

librarians can create and foster research linkages within and across institutions. They can “play a

greater role in making available their resources in customizable platforms that would allow individual

preferences in searching, storing, tagging, citing, writing, and sharing with respect to knowledge

consumption, production and dissemination… The library… lies at the juncture of customization and

collaboration” (Tancheva et al., 2016, pp.39-40).

Although library and information professionals have always emphasised their critical understanding

of their users’ expectations and requirements, the public service is now awakening to this reality: “The

tools of the digital economy start with people, rather than technology, so services can be designed

around user needs and underlying problems” (Webb-Smart, 2016). As some of these tools include

methodologies to support a deeper understanding of user needs, design thinking, co-design of services

etc, library and information professionals are well placed to provide guidance to their government

colleagues. Thus, in addition to all the technical skills relating to the web, databases and content

management, the essential skills for the future are identified as analytical skills, business intelligence,
and communication and consultancy skills.

Lord has argued that, today, information professionals operate as client-centric, decision enablers.
They “communicate constantly with the rest of the organisation, integrate themselves into new areas,
build key and productive relationships, and proactively demonstrate their value to senior colleagues”
(Lord, 2014, p.258). This work is underpinned by their skillsets:
 Communication to foster long-term engagement with users
 Understanding the business and how their users think
 Managing the processes associated with information and knowledge transfer
 Mastering the technological tools they use
 Providing decision-ready information, i.e. “to transform mountains of information into
pinnacles of knowledge” (Shergold, 2015, p.17).

The role of the government library and information professional has been transformed “from gatherer

and supplier to analyst, educator and indispensable guide” (Lord, 2014, p.265). Within the context of

the Commonwealth Government, there are new opportunities to leverage the national attention

being paid to the work of the DTO. Collective strategies should be shaped to facilitate inter-agency

communication, so that library and information services can work with the DTO on determining

AGLIN Research Report 42

April 2016
priority areas of common interest where they can make a significant contribution to progress the

digital agenda within the various departments and agencies.

It is critical that AGLIN engages its members in the discourse about the professional competencies and

skills required in the government library sector, to adopt a clear understanding of the future-focused

skillsets that will provide a secure career path. Individual library and information professionals not

only need to be confident about the expertise they have, but also to articulate the value they provide.
The ideas presented in documents such as the LexisNexis exploration of the past, present and future

of information management (LexisNexis, 2014) and Lord’s analysis of the attributes required by

modern information professionals (Lord, 2014) have found further structure in the business plan

developed by the Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK) in the United States. FEDLINK

presented five goals to guide the organisation through the period 2012-2016:

  1. Coordinate cooperative activities and services among federal libraries, information
    centers and other information users
  2. Serve as a forum to consider and make recommendations to the federal information
    community
  3. Encourage and promote development of librarians and information professionals
  4. Support procurement efforts to centralize and streamline options to provide efficient
    and cost-effective use of federal library and information resources and services
  5. Manage proactively to achieve results.
    (FEDLINK, 2012)
    Similar goals sit at the centre of current developments in the Canadian government library arena
    (Federal Libraries Consortium, 2015; Marin-Cormeau & O’Connell, 2015). The Commonwealth

Government library and information sector in Australia has much in common with the federal

government sectors in Canada and the United States. This research study has opened up the

opportunities for library and information professionals to think more deeply about the role they play

in the government sector in this country and to consider alternative ways of scoping and managing

their services.

The study revealed that the dangers of professional isolation for those working in the special library

sector were very real. Over two thirds of the respondents worked in library and information services

with fewer than five staff, and almost half of these were one-person libraries. Faced with diminishing

resources, yet increased responsibilities, and the professional determination to provide relevant,
quality services to their users, these library staff feel exceptionally time poor. It has been noted,
therefore, that although their ability to contribute to professional organisations such as AGLIN or ALIA

may seem problematic, there is undoubtedly great potential for government library and information

professionals to work together to find collective solutions to some of the challenges experienced at

the individual level.

The research findings indicated that AGLIN had a genuinely important role to play, especially in terms

of promoting the value of government libraries, representing their interests and coordinating

cooperative and resource sharing arrangements. Members saw no specific benefits in changing the

name from the current one (Australian Government Libraries Information Network) as it was believed

that this was a well established brand which represented the identity and integrity of the group. There

were, however, tensions between the need for AGLIN to have a strong voice across the sector, and

the fact that it operated as a volunteer organisation. Strong professional values were clearly

articulated, but there was a conflict between the expectation, as an individual, to deliver quality

professional services to one’s own users, and the desire to see productive professional outcomes as a

collective.

AGLIN Research Report 43

April 2016
6 Options for future models of service

One of the principal objectives of this review of Commonwealth Government library and information

services commissioned by AGLIN was to identify and discuss the options that might ensure efficient,
cost-effective and equitable government library services. Reference is made to an earlier study of

Queensland Government agency library services (Hallam, 2010b) which presented a series of options

for future service delivery. It must be noted that, although some characteristics are shared by the

programs and services delivered by State Governments and those delivered by the Federal

Government, there are also some clear differences. While it goes beyond the scope of this report to

discuss the distinctiveness of State Government and Commonwealth Government contexts in detail,
it is acknowledged that the options presented in the Queensland Government review cannot be

directly transposed to Commonwealth Government agency libraries. Nevertheless, some areas of

commonality will be reflected in the discussion about the positive and negative factors of the various

models of service.

The Queensland review included one option whereby proposed oversight for government library

services could be assigned to the State Library of Queensland (SLQ) (Hallam, 2010b, pp.23-37).
Although the option was considered by some stakeholders as “a retrograde step” at the time (Hallam,
2010b, p.27), the developments which followed the election of Campbell Newman as Premier of

Queensland in 2012 (which may be described as ‘disruptive’ for government agency libraries in the

state) resulted in the closure of a number of State Government library services and the downsizing of

many more. Following a focused review, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet Library was in

fact relocated – or “reincarnated” – as the Queensland Government Research and Information Library
(GRAIL), a unit of SLQ (Vilkins, 2014). Today, services operating out of SLQ are provided to a range of

government agencies, based on memoranda of understanding and service level agreements. This

model for oversight of government agency libraries, if translated to the Commonwealth Government

context, would infer that the National Library should assume responsibility for some or all of the

government department and agency libraries. This idea is discussed in Option 2 (Section 6.2).

A further distinction between the two studies relates to the fact that the Queensland review was

sponsored jointly by the Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and the Director-
General, Department of Public Works. Accordingly, all Queensland Government Agency library

services completed the survey, with the result that comprehensive data was collected about all state

funded department and agency library and information services. As noted earlier in the report, the

response rate for the survey in this study, commissioned by AGLIN as an independent association, was

lower (53% of AGLIN members, plus three agencies which were not members of AGLIN). The fact that

this study has not achieved 100% response rate means that the quantitative and qualitative data

cannot be regarded as fully comprehensive.

Consequently, the options presented in this review are based on the analysis and interpretation of the

available research data. Four models of service are presented: each option is briefly discussed, with a

supporting table to encapsulate the respective advantages and disadvantages of the model. It should

be noted that no weighting is ascribed to the various advantages and disadvantages presented, and

no attempt has been made to flesh out the logistics for or costs involved in establishing the different

models.

AGLIN Research Report 44

April 2016
6.1 Option 1: Status Quo

In any planning situation, there is always an option to maintain the status quo and make no changes

to the organisation and operations of the library and information services already in place.
Maintaining the status quo would see the current autonomy of individual departmental and agency

library services preserved. The research data highlighted the value of the libraries being embedded in

the individual agency and being directly involved in the business of the agency itself, which ensures

that strong relationships are established between library staff and their users, fostering a clear

understanding of the information patterns and resources required by the business unit.

Figure 27 presents a schematic diagram of the Status Quo model: the individual, autonomous library

and information services are agency-centric. Interactions between the libraries are informal, with

some semi-formal networks to support ILL and document delivery.

This option would, however, result in the continued vulnerability of some library and information

services. The picture would continue to be one of a patchwork of services, with differing perceptions

of value across the various government departments and agencies. While some library and

information services find themselves in a secure position due to the information-intensive focus of

the agency’ operations, others are subject to the pressures of management seeking to find ‘easy

targets’ to reduce overheads and achieve efficiency dividends.

The current model of service means that the users of the agencies’ library and information services

could not be guaranteed continuity of access to the high quality information resources required for

their work, especially when MoG changes impact on the actual ownership and location of physical

resources and on the electronic licensing arrangements distributed across the agencies. In terms of

library management, multiple independent library services will continue to result in considerable

duplication of effort and overlap of expenditure.

Agency C
Agency A Library &
Library & Info Service
Info Service

Agency B
Library &
Agency D
Info Service
Library &
Info Service
Agency F
Library &
Agency E
Info Service
Library &
Info Service

Figure 27. Option 1 - Status Quo model: agency-centric model of
government library and information services

AGLIN Research Report 45

April 2016
Advantages and disadvantages of the Status Quo

The relative advantages and disadvantages of the current model are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5. Option 1 - Status Quo model: advantages and disadvantages
Areas of practice Advantages Disadvantages
Organisational issues All library and information staff Vulnerability to MoG changes,
located in the agency involving merging or dividing library
collections and services
Strong relationships with users Significant duplication of effort
Subject specialisation for information Information silos
resources
Autonomous decision making
Financial issues Direct responsibility for budget Funding insecurity
Relative invisibility of library and
information collections and services
Resources issues Multiple licensing models
Inequitable access to information
resources
Technology issues Agency firewalls
Multiple ILMS platforms
Professional issues Professional isolation

Requirements for the adoption of the Status Quo Model

There are no specific requirements associated with maintaining the Status Quo: individual agency

libraries continue to operate as they have traditionally done.

6.2 Option 2: Shared Services Model

There has been considerable discussion in and beyond the government sector about the value,
benefits and shortcomings of shared services. Attention is generally paid to the cost-savings achieved

through the streamlining of staffing arrangements, particularly for common or generic business

support services such as human resources, accounting services, property and facilities management,
and ICT support. The Shared Services Centre (SSC) has been established by the Commonwealth

Government and currently supports ten services covering payroll, property and facilities, and

technology solutions. In South Australia, Shared Services SA has rationalised the core business

functions across a number of departments and agencies.

There are examples of early models of centralised services, including in Victoria when, for a period in

the 1980s-1990s, the State Library of Victoria assumed responsibility for the staff working in the state

government agency libraries. However, this model was found to be problematic, with the outcome

that library staff were once again employed by the host agency. More recently, however, the push for

whole-of-government services has seen a new shared services model introduced for library and

information services: this is the Victorian Government Library Service (VGLS) (Atkinson & Lewin, 2012).
The way in which the VGLS has brought together 15 discrete library services into a central business

unit is discussed in the literature review (Appendix 1).

AGLIN Research Report 46

April 2016
In the United States, the Federal Government Library and Information Network (FEDLINK) operates as

a part of the Library of Congress, with the mission, vision and activities directly aligned with the values

of this central body. The National Library of Australia (NLA) was approached to consider the potential

for this institution to serve as the central management unit for Commonwealth Government library

and information services. Senior NLA staff advised that they maintained a watching brief over

developments impacting on agency libraries, particularly at a time of budgetary constraints, and they

were keen to support these specialised services where possible. It was believed that, at the present

time, there were no service opportunities to develop a new role for the NLA. The current

arrangements whereby the NLA had a representative serving on the AGLIN Executive Committee was

acknowledged to be a productive model for engagement with Commonwealth Government library

and information services.

Although participants in the focus groups were generally unsupportive of the concepts of shared

services for libraries, it was recognised that there could be benefits from greater coordination and

collaboration within a model that would still accommodate the specialisations of individual services.
Many of the operational aspects of running a library service would be consolidated, but the research

staff would be embedded in the different agencies to provide users with tailored information services.
The centralised activities could potentially encompass a range of areas including, but not limited to:
 Technology
o Gateway or portal
o ILMS
o Discovery tools
o Digitisation
o eRepositories
 Purchasing and licensing
o Print materials
o Databases, eJournals, eBooks
 Human resources
o Workforce planning
o Staff development
 Quality assurance
o Evaluation and reporting

Atkinson and Lewin have argued that the shared services model offers a framework for improved

service delivery within a collaborative, productive and professionally satisfying environment for staff”
(Atkinson & Lewin, 2012, p.10). Figure 28 illustrates the Shared Services Model, with a central

management unit having orverarching responsibility for technology, purchasing and licensing, human

resources and quality assurance.

AGLIN Research Report 47

April 2016
Central management
unit
Technology
Purchasing
Human resources
Quality assurance
Agency A
Research
Agency C
Research
Agency B
Research
Agency E Agency D
Research Research

Figure 28. Option 2 - Shared Services Model of government library and information services

Advantages and disadvantages of the Shared Services Model

The relative advantages and disadvantages of the mode are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Option 2 - Shared Services Model: advantages and disadvantages
Area of practice Advantages Disadvantages

Organisational issues Impervious to MoG changes Challenges of developing a business
case for the proposed model
Opportunity for strategic leadership Extended timeframe for planning
and direction and implementation
Increased visibility of library and Extensive change management
information services processes required
Research support staff embedded in Diversity of government agencies
agencies
Coordinated administrative functions Differing values and expectations
Elimination of duplication of effort Disparate user requirements
Improved evaluation and reporting Physical relocation of staff to new
site
Wider distribution & sharing of staff Multiplicity of library policies and
knowledge and skills procedures
Lack of shared commitment and
mutual trust
Challenges of transition to new
model
Reduction in support staff
Potential for agencies to grow back
mini services
Resistance to change
Potential industrial relations matters
Financial issues Funding security Loss of autonomy
Reduced overheads Complexity of funding arrangements
Reduced wastage
Collective purchasing arrangements

AGLIN Research Report 48

April 2016
Area of practice Advantages Disadvantages
Resources issues Streamlined licensing arrangements: Physical relocation of collections to
opportunities for whole-of- new sites
government licenses
Single point of access to information Complex range of information
resources resources to cover all subject areas
Comprehensive, discoverable
collection
Equitable access to information
resources
Shared offsite storage
Technology issues Single ILMS Differing priorities
Increased collaboration Complexity of merging catalogues
Opportunities for innovative practice
Professional issues Professional collegiality
Professional development
Career progression

Requirements for the adoption of the Shared Services Model

  1. Government-wide agreement to move to shared services arrangements
  2. Establishment of shared services provider
  3. Establishment of central management unit for government library and information services
    within the shared services provider
  4. Contractual arrangements, policies and procedures relating to:
    a. Funding
    b. Roles and responsibilities
    c. Technology
    d. Procurement and licensing
    e. Service provision
  5. Change management processes, including industrial relations advice.

6.3 Option 3: Cluster Model

Although there are many concerns associated with a shared services model, it was recognised that

there would be beneficial to achieve greater coordination, increased collaboration, clearer visibility of

information resources and the opportunity to maximise the benefits of the digital information

environment. Government agency library and information services already had some successful

collaborative arrangements in place for resource sharing, particularly through ILL and document

delivery, and for some consortial licensing arrangements. An major challenge, however, was the

disparateness of the various government departments and agencies, and their staff, and as a

consequence, a lack of homogeneity for Commonwealth Government library and information services.

Some groups of libraries already tended to work more closely together, particularly when the business

focus of the agencies were similar, whether across particular subject areas or across functional lines
(e.g. research, technical, regulatory or policy). In the review of government libraries in Queensland,
an option was presented to establish a model which reflected the model frequently found in academic

libraries, based on discipline-specific or faculty libraries, for example Health, Legal Services, Education,
Science and Resources. The users (staff and students) not only have full access to all information

resources across the whole service, but also to specialist research staff at the local level. It should be

pointed out, however, that the functions of academic institutions – teaching and research - may be

AGLIN Research Report 49

April 2016
considered more tightly focused than the functions of government, which means that the university

library model cannot be directly replicated.

The cluster model would entail establishing a centralised unit to offer a coordinated approach to the

management of government library and information services, providing leadership, strategic direction

and professional guidance to the clustered groups of library services. Individual library and

information services would be released from the current agency-centric arrangements. The clusters

would allow much closer interaction to support common areas of interest and practice, as well as the

increasingly multi-disciplinary nature of government activity.

As an example of the cluster model, reference is made to the FEDLINK arrangements in the US, where

the Library of Congress (LoC) provides central oversight. Internally, the LoC operates along the lines

of a cluster model, with designated areas of research expertise. In Australia, the Australian

Parliamentary Library (APH), like many other parliamentary libraries, employs highly qualified

researchers who are supported by subject specialist librarians. If this model is transposed to the

government agency environment, specialist teams would provide dedicated services as analysts,
educators and consultants, to the relevant government staff. Their services would include tailored

data and information products, such as literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, data

visualisation etc. Skills development would be offered through highly specialised training in the area

of digital research technologies: collaboration with the Digital Transformation Office would offer

further value to this model. Importantly, research support librarians would be co-located with

government researchers and policy makers, while a dedicated team would manage the administrative

activities of the service. Close connections and interactions would facilitate the essential

communication channels between the units.

In Canada, the work being undertaken to establish the Federal Science Library (FSL) demonstrates how

these arrangements will work in practice. The proposed “collaborative model” will ensure that

government staff, whether working in science, technology, health research or policy, “have virtual

access to both high-quality library and information resources and the services of skilled library

professionals and subject experts provided by departments” (Marin-Cormeau & O’Connell, 2015).

In line with the goals of the shared services model, many of the operational aspects of running a library

service would be consolidated, freeing research support staff up to work closely with their clients:

 Technology
o Gateway or portal
o ILMS
o Discovery tools
o Digitisation
o eRepositories
 Purchasing and licensing
o Print materials
o Databases, eJournals, eBooks
o Consumables
 Human resources
o Workforce planning
o Staff development
 Quality assurance
o Evaluation and reporting

AGLIN Research Report 50

April 2016
Research staff would no longer be located in the individual agency, but be embedded with their clients

in the cluster information centres. The centralised management team would have oversight of the

administrative and operational functions to negotiate whole-of-government benefits. Due to changes

in the licensing arrangements, government staff, regardless of the agency they work with, would have

equitable access to the specialised resources most relevant to the focus of their work. The Cluster

Model is shown in Figure 29.

Central management
unit
Technology
Purchasing
Human resources
Quality assurance

Training unit:
Agency A, B & C Agency D, E & F
Digital research skills
Research Research

Agency G, H & I Agency K, L & M
Research Research

Figure 29. Option 3 - Cluster model of government library and information services

Some logistical challenges would be inherent in this model as, unlike many academic institutions,
Commonwealth Government departments and agencies are not co-located on a campus. Although

some agencies have related or overlapping areas of interest, they may currently be located in different

areas of the ACT, or even in different states or territories.

The Cluster Model is presented here as a principle, requiring additional in-depth research. The DTO

could be approached to garner support for the concept and provide advice and guidance about the

most appropriate structures and relationships. Given that not all Commonwealth Government

libraries participated in the review commissioned by AGLIN, as well as the lack of clarity around the

subject strengths as collected via the survey, it is essential that a further process of investigation and

analysis is undertaken as a first step.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Cluster model

The advantages and disadvantages of this model are outlined in Table 7.
Table 7. Option 3 – Cluster model: advantages and disadvantages
Areas of practice Advantages Disadvantages
Organisational issues Impervious to MoG changes Challenges of developing a business
case for the proposed model
Opportunity for strategic leadership Extended timeframe for planning and
and direction implementation
Increased visibility of library and Extensive change management
information services processes required
Facilitates cross-agency research Diversity of government agencies
collaboration

AGLIN Research Report 51

April 2016
Areas of practice Advantages Disadvantages
Research staff embedded in cluster Geographic distribution of
libraries government agencies
Coordinated administrative functions Differing values and expectations
Elimination of duplication of effort Disparate user requirements across
agencies
Improved evaluation and reporting Physical relocation of staff to new
sites
Wider distribution & sharing of staff Multiplicity of library policies and
knowledge and skills procedures
Lack of shared commitment and
mutual trust
Challenges of transition to new model
Reduction in support staff
Potential for agencies to grow back
mini services
Resistance to change
Potential industrial relations matters
Financial issues Funding security Loss of autonomy
Reduced overheads Complexity of funding arrangements
Reduced wastage
Collective purchasing arrangements
Resources issues Streamlined licensing arrangements: Physical relocation of collections and
opportunities for whole-of- staff to new sites
government licenses
Single point of access to information
resources
Comprehensive, discoverable
collection
Equitable access to information
resources
Shared offsite storage
Technology issues Single ILMS Differing priorities
Increased collaboration Complexity of merging catalogues
Opportunities for innovative practice
Professional issues Professional collegiality
Professional development
Career progression

Requirements for the adoption of the Cluster Model

  1. Further in-depth research into all Commonwealth Government library and information services
  2. Government-wide agreement to move to cluster library arrangements
  3. Consensus regarding the appropriate structure for the clusters of library and information services
  4. Establishment of central management unit for government library and information services
  5. Determining locations of cluster libraries
  6. Contractual arrangements, policies and procedures relating to:
    a. Funding
    b. Roles and responsibilities
    c. Technology
    d. Procurement and licensing
    e. Service provision
  7. Change management processes, including industrial relations advice.

AGLIN Research Report 52

April 2016
6.4 Option 4: Collaborative Projects Model

The Collaborative Projects model can be regarded as a hybrid model. It offers a leaner version of both

Option 2: Shared Services model and Option 3: Cluster model, as it focuses solely on collaborative

efforts to achieve coordinated systems, while retaining the agency-centric benefits of Option 1: Status

Quo. The model would seek to establish coordinated oversight over a series of projects which would

bring collective benefits to all Commonwealth Government agency libraries. The collaborative project

work could be sequenced and/or scaffolded in line with the priorities and capacity of the various

library services.

Examples of possible projects include:
 A single gateway or portal to provide access to all Commonwealth Government agency
library services
 Coordinated purchasing and licensing to ensure cost effective and equitable access to
information resources
 A shared ILMS platform to coordinate bibliographic and discovery functions
 A shared eRepository to capture and provide access to the government’s grey literature
 A common off-site archival facility to support the reduction of physical library space while
assuring continuity of access to resources of ongoing value to government services
 A coordinated staff development program to prioritise training activities across agency
libraries and to build the knowledge and skills required to build capacity and future proof the
provision of research and information services.

The Collaborative Projects model is shown in Figure 30.

Agency C
Agency A Library &
Library & Info Service Collaborative
Info Service projects
Agency B
Library & Common gateway
Agency D Consortia licences
Info Service
Library & Shared LMS
Info Service Joint eRespository
Agency F Shared off site
storage
Library & Staff development
Agency E
Info Service
Library &
Info Service

Figure 30. Option 4 - Collaborative Projects model of government library and information services

AGLIN Research Report 53

April 2016
A major barrier to achieving productive outcomes, however, would be the absence of any formal

structure or responsibilities for initiating or managing the projects within the current government

library sector. The potential exists for representatives of AGLIN, with the support of its membership,
to be granted the authority to play a leading role in the Collaborative Projects model.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Collaborative Projects model

Table 8. Option 4 – Collaborative Projects model: advantages and disadvantages
(NB project dependent)
Areas of practice Advantages Disadvantages
Organisational issues Increased visibility of library and Vulnerability to MoG changes,
information services involving merging or dividing library
collections and services
Research staff embedded in agencies Challenge of achieving consensus on
strategic direction
Facilitates cross-agency collaboration Lack of governance and authority
Elimination of duplication of effort Diversity of government agencies
Wider distribution & sharing of staff Differing values and expectations
knowledge and skills
Disparate user requirements
Complexity of inter-agency projects
Lack of shared commitment and
mutual trust
Lack of project management skills
Resistance to change
Financial issues Reduced overheads Loss of autonomy
Reduced wastage Complexity of funding arrangements
Collective purchasing arrangements
Resources issues Streamlined licensing arrangements:
opportunities for whole-of-
government licenses
Single point of access to information Physical relocation of collections to
resources common off-site facility
Comprehensive, discoverable
collection
Equitable access to information
resources
Shared offsite storage
Technology issues Single ILMS Differing priorities
Increased collaboration Challenge of agreeing upon priorities
Opportunities for innovative practice Complexity of merging catalogues
Professional issues Professional collegiality
Professional development

Requirements for the adoption of the Collaborative Projects Model

  1. Cross-agency agreement to establish collaborative arrangements
  2. Establishment of coordination group with authority to manage collaborative activities
  3. Contractual arrangements, policies and procedures relating to:
    a. Funding
    b. Roles and responsibilities
    c. Technology
    d. Procurement and licensing
    e. Service provision.

AGLIN Research Report 54

April 2016
All four options have their specific advantages and disadvantages. The options are presented to

stimulate discussion within the AGLIN Executive and membership, and amongst other stakeholders in

the public service, about the opportunities to develop a future-focused model of service delivery for

Commonwealth Government library and information services. Further detailed analysis is required in

order to prepare a sound business case which articulates the establishment and operational

requirements of a preferred alternative model.

7 Summary and recommendations

The research activities undertaken in the Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review,
sponsored by AGLIN, encompassed a detailed online survey to capture data about the management

and operations of the library and information services funded by the Federal Government, as well as

a series of focus groups to discuss the perceptions and opinions of library managers and staff. There

was also an opportunity for stakeholders to provide individual views through an online questionnaire.
Managers of just over half of the AGLIN member library services provided responses to the survey. As

respondents were found to be generally representative of the membership profile, the findings can

be broadly interpreted to reflect the current state of play in Commonwealth Government library and

information services.

The quantitative data relates to 23 government library services, including those providing information

and research services to legal, regulatory, research and policy bodies. The views and ideas of library

and information professionals are included in the analysis of the qualitative data. The landscape that

is presented is an amalgam of negative and positive factors: government library and information

services currently face a number of significant challenges, but developments in the public service

sector open up many new avenues to develop and deliver digital information services. The findings

illustrate that some government agencies are characterised by a strong, vibrant information and

knowledge culture, while other agencies are less aware of the value of reliable, trustworthy

information and the role it plays in the development of public policy and the delivery of relevant,
targeted government services. While the libraries hosted by these agencies may be vulnerable to the

impact of MoG changes, to be an easy target for cuts or even obsolescence, the current discourse in

government circles presents new opportunities.

The initial breaths of change are being felt: ideas relating to the importance of the digital agenda, of

innovation, open government, of evidence based policy and of strategic information management are

on the table for discussion. The potential expanded roles to be played by library and information

professionals should not be underestimated: there are clear benefits inherent in the opportunities to

contribute to the new working environment the public service seeks to create. Across the government

landscape, librarians must “make a fundamental shift from being isolated, technical experts to being

multi-skilled team members who enable decisions and proactively integrate themselves into the

organisation” (Lord, 2014, p.265). Government library services need to take full advantage of

developments in ICT and the emerging trends in other library sectors to consider new, collaborative

approaches to service delivery.

Through the present study, the AGLIN Executive has been provided with a body of rich quantitative

and qualitative data to review. One major limitation of the study was the fact that not all managers of

Commonwealth Government library and information services contributed to the data collection,
meaning that it was not possible to relate the findings to the entire sector, nor present an explicit and

comprehensive answer to the research question about how government agency library services might

deliver services to support their clients’ needs in the most efficient, cost-effective and equitable way.

AGLIN Research Report 55

April 2016
Nevertheless, the study has achieved the principal research objectives: it has enabled the issues,
challenges and opportunities relevant to contemporary government library and information services

to be explored through the lenses of the literature review and environmental scan, the focus group

discussions and the online questionnaire responses. The financial, administrative and technological

context of Commonwealth Government libraries has been reviewed through the data relating to over

half of the services which are members of AGLIN, and stakeholder views and opinions about current

and future models of service delivery have been examined. Accordingly, four potential models of

service delivery have been presented, in order to help the AGLIN Executive and membership debate

the opportunities to ensure the sustainable delivery of efficient, cost-effective and equitable library

and information services to guide and support the business requirements of Commonwealth

Government agencies, today and into the future.

The data collected contributes to a sound evidence base about the current state and performance of

a significant proportion of the AGLIN membership, including budget, space, staffing, business models

and service standards. The online survey platform has been designed and developed to support

further research in the future, either to augment the data sets, or to repeat the survey at a later date

to monitor ongoing trends in government agency libraries.

The AGLIN Executive is invited to draw on the research findings to stimulate further discussion

amongst the membership about the ways in which the sector might work together to ensure a sound

future for Commonwealth Government agency library and information services. While the

recommendations presented to AGLIN do not propose that a single model of service delivery should

be adopted, they do seek to encourage the Executive and membership to review the findings and to

collaboratively consider the strategies which will help build the capacity of AGLIN. By securing a strong

and relevant future for the association, there will be, by extension, immense benefits for the individual

member library and information services.

7.1 Recommendations

It is recommended that:

  1. The AGLIN Executive establishes a Future Directions Taskforce, comprising a representative
    sample of the membership, charged with the responsibility to review this research report.
  2. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce host a workshop for members to
    discuss the research findings and to commit to a preferred model for library and information
    services across the Commonwealth Government.
  3. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce use the research findings presented in
    this report to inform the discussion and development of the future strategic directions for the
    organisation, with associated responsibilities and operational plans, to lead the changes required
    to develop a new model of service.
  4. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce host a sector-wide forum to identify
    and prioritise the areas for valuable, effective collaboration across and beyond government
    library and information services.
  5. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce develop a government-wide advocacy
    campaign to promote the current and potential roles of library and information professionals,
    the value of high quality information and research services to government stakeholders and the
    benefits to be achieved through a new model of service. This campaign should be supported by a
    media and communications plan to ensure AGLIN members commit to and participate in the
    advocacy activities, both individually and collectively. Champions, who will play a leading role in

AGLIN Research Report 56

April 2016
supporting and promoting the government-wide advocacy campaign, should be invited to be
involved.
6. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce work with the Consortia Taskforce to
examine the current licensing arrangements for eResources across the government agencies to
identify opportunities to offer more equitable, cost-effective access to high quality information.
7. The AGLIN Executive and the Future Directions Taskforce work with the Training & Development
Taskforce to commission and/or develop and deliver a CPD program of future-focused activities
designed to inspire government library and information professionals and enhance their
skillsets. Members should be encouraged to participate in the ALIA PD Scheme, with its
Government Library specialisation.

AGLIN Research Report 57

April 2016
References

Atkinson, L. & Lewin, B. (2012). The big bang: Establishing the Victorian Government Library Service.
Paper presented at eM – Powering eFutures: VALA 2012 Conference, Melbourne, 6-9 February 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.vala.org.au/vala2012-proceedings/341-vala2012-session-6-atkinson

Australia. Bureau of Communications Research (2016). Open government data and why it matters: A
critical review of studies on the economic impact of open government data. Retrieved from
https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-news/open-government-data-and-why-it-
matters-now

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2014). Putting a value on ‘priceless’: An
independent assessment of the return on investment of special libraries in Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/ALIA-Return-on-Investment-
Specials.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). Special Libraries and Information Services Advisory
Committee. (2010). ALIA Special libraries survey: Report. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/ALIA_SPECIAL_LIBRARIES_REPORT_
FA.pdf

Culhane, M. (2013). Fire Technology guest editorial: Special section on fire literature and information. Fire
Technology, 49, 121-123.
Easton, S. (2015). The rise of ‘public service professions’: information managers to lead the way. The
Mandarin, 28 May 2015. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/36103-rise-public-service-
professions-information-managers-lead-way/
Federal Libraries Consortium (2015). About the FLC. Retrieved from http://www.bac-
lac.gc.ca/eng/services/federal-librairies-coordination-secretariat/Pages/flc.aspx

Federal Library & Information Network (FEDLINK) (2012). Business plan: Fiscal years 2012-2016. Retrieved
from https://www.loc.gov/flicc/publications/businessplan/2012/BusinessPlanFinal050212_508.pdf

Frey, T. (2014). Liquid networks: A breeding ground for ideas [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2014/08/
Fricker, D. (2016, March 1). Value public information so that we can trust it, rely on it and use it. The
Mandarin. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/61161-david-fricker-transparency-
integrity-government-digital-age/
Hallam, G. (2010a). Queensland Government Agency Libraries Review: Literature review. Queensland
Government: Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31528/
Hallam, G. (2010b). Queensland Government Agency Libraries Review: Options paper. Brisbane:
Queensland Government: Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/50582/
Inayatullah, S. (2014). Library futures: From knowledge keepers to creators. The Futurist, Nov-Dec 2014,
24-28.
KPMG (2014a). Leadership in the public sector: make it effective in rapid change. The Mandarin,
December 2, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/12944-digital-age-public-
service-delivery-change-beyond-recognition/
KPMG (2014b). Digital age and service delivery: change beyond recognition. The Mandarin, December 2,
2014. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/12944-digital-age-public-service-delivery-
change-beyond-recognition/
LexisNexis (2014). The past, present and future of information management report: From a physical to
digital information world – how the data revolution is driving competitive advantage. Retrieved from
https://www.lexisnexis.com/infopro/literature-reference/white-
papers/b/whitepaper/archive/2014/04/23/the-past-present-and-future-of-information-management-
report.aspx

Lord, S. (2014). Closing the gap: The five essential attributes of the modern information professional.
Legal Information Management, 14(4), 258-265.

AGLIN Research Report 58

April 2016
Marin-Cormeau, C. & O’Connell, K. (2015). Rethinking federal library services: A collaborative model.
Paper presented at the Canadian Library Association (CLA) Conference, June 3-5, 2015, Ottawa,
Canada. Retrieved from http://www.claconference.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/J7_Rethinking-
Federal-Library-Services_EN_Marin-Comeau_O-Connell.pdf

National Archives of Australia (NAA) (2015). Digital continuity policy 2020 policy. Retrieved from
http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/digital-transition-and-digital-continuity/digital-
continuity-2020/index.aspx

OCLC (2016). WorldShare Mangement Service. Retrieved from
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/services/brochures/215409AUB_WMS-Brochure.pdf

Shergold, P. (2015). Learning from failure: Why large government policy initiatives have gone so badly
wrong in the past and how the chances of success in the future can be improved. Retrieved from
http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/learning-from-failure

SLA. Professional Competencies Task Force (2016). Competencies of librarians and information
professionals. Retrieved from http://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/0216-OM-B01-
Competencies-TF.pdf

Tancheva, K., Castro Gessner, G., Tang, N., Eldermire, E., Furnas, H., Branchini, D. & Steinhart, G. (2016). A
day in the life of a (serious) researcher: Envisioning the future of the research library. New York: Ithaka
S+R. Retrieved from http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-serious-researcher/
The Mandarin (2016, April 20). Turnbull: ‘look to other jurisdictions’ and plagiarise the best ideas. The
Mandarin. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/63521-turnbull-aps-look-jurisdictions-
plagiarise-best-policy-ideas/#
The Mandarin (2016, March 30). ‘Catastrophic’ impact of information sharing failures. The Mandarin,
Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/62550-catastrophic-consequences-information-
sharing-failures/
United Nations (2011). Classification of the functions of government (COFOG). Retrieved February 20,
2016 from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/iiss/Classification-of-the-Functions-of-Government-
COFOG.ashx

Vilkins, A. (2014). Government libraries: A new model? Information Today Europe, 21 August 2014.
Retrieved February 29, 2016 from http://www.infotoday.eu/Articles/Editorial/Featured-
Articles/Government-libraries-a-new-model-98896.aspx

Webb-Smart, P. (2016, February 8). Whole-of-government approach to service. The Mandarin. Retrieved
from http://www.themandarin.com.au/60006-penny-webb-whole-government-approach-service/

AGLIN Research Report 59

April 2016
AGLIN Research Report 60

April 2016
Appendices

Appendix 1: Literature Review

Appendix 2: Online Survey

Appendix 3: Focus Group Questions

AGLIN Research Report 61

April 2016
Appendix 1: Literature Review

AGLIN Research Report

April 2016
Commonwealth Government

Agency Libraries Review

Literature Review

Prepared by

Gillian Hallam & David Faraker

April 2016
Literature review prepared for the

Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN)
www.aglin.org

Dr Gillian Hallam

Adjunct Professor, Library & Information Studies

School of Information Systems

Science and Engineering Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane

g.hallam@qut.edu.au

David Faraker

Student, Master of Information Technology (Library & Information Studies)
School of Information Systems

Science and Engineering Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane
Contents

  1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. A1-1
  2. Directions in government administration ................................................................................. A1-2
  3. Trends in government libraries ................................................................................................. A1-6
    3.1 International perspectives ..................................................................................................... A1-7
    3.2 Australian perspectives ........................................................................................................ A1-10
  4. Determining the value of government library and information services ............................... A1-12
  5. Skills and competencies of government librarians ................................................................. A1-16
  6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... A1-19

References ...................................................................................................................................... A1-20
1. Introduction

Ongoing financial, administrative, and technological changes present significant challenges and

opportunities for government libraries in delivering services to their clients. Determining how

government library and information services might best confront these challenges and take advantage

of new opportunities is crucial for the future of the sector. The Australian Government Libraries

Information Network (AGLIN) has commissioned a review of service delivery models in

Commonwealth Government libraries. The goals of the Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries

Review (CGALR) are to evaluate the libraries’ current service delivery models and to develop an

options paper outlining some future models which might better serve needs of clients across

government.

As an initial step in the CGALR project, a literature review has been undertaken in order to consider

the issues which impact directly on government library service provision today. It will allow

government librarians to deepen their understanding of current service trends and provide an

evidence-based framework to support the development of the options paper. Accordingly, AGLIN will

be in a strong position to make informed decisions about reforming service provision in their

organisations and designing future-focused Commonwealth Government library services. The

literature review builds on and updates the review prepared for the Queensland Government Agency

Libraries Review (QGALR) five years ago (Hallam, 2010).

Libraries are commonly classified into several different types: public, academic, school and special

libraries. Vargha (as cited in Ralph & Sibthorpe, 2009) notes that special libraries are usually dedicated

to specialised subjects and collections, while O’Connor (2007) states that the users are a

correspondingly defined group with very particular requirements. The Special Libraries Association
(SLA) defines special librarians as “information resource experts who collect, analyse, evaluate,
package, and disseminate information to facilitate accurate decision-making in corporate, academic,
and government settings” (SLA, 2010a). As government libraries represent a specific sub-group of

special libraries, many issues relating to government libraries are common to special libraries.

In Australia, government libraries operate at federal, state and territory levels. Australian government

library and research services underpin important work conducted at the highest levels of public office,
including policy development and analysis, provision of tailored advice, and delivery of health and

legal services. AGLIN’s constituency specifically covers those government libraries which support the

work of Commonwealth Government agencies. A number of the factors identified in the QGALR

continue to impact on library and information service delivery across government, including: changes

to public service administrative arrangements; increasing budgetary pressures; increasing availability

of electronic resources and reductions in physical collections; the need for improvements in

information management expertise; equity of access to information resources; and the rapid

development of e-government (Hallam, 2010).

This literature review considers a range of current perspectives on library and information services,
focusing on the specific issues and challenges facing contemporary government libraries and

librarians. The review incorporates four key areas:
 Directions in government administration
 National and international trends in government library services
 Developments in contemporary special libraries
 Skills and competencies required by special librarians.

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-1

April 2016
Given the extensive coverage of these themes in the published literature, the review does not seek to

be exhaustive, but distils the key trends presented in recent professional, government and academic

publications, along with commentary made by library and information associations from Australia,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US).

  1. Directions in government administration

Issues impacting on government libraries should be viewed within the wider context of government

service delivery. Modern governments face many challenges that affect service delivery. Key

challenges for the Australian Public Service (APS) discussed throughout the literature include:
 The increasing complexity of problems, solutions and policy development
 The increasing public expectations of government
 Tight fiscal and time pressures
 Technological change
 A tightening labour market.

(Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration, 2010; Blackman, Buick,
O’Donnell, O’Flynn, & West, 2013; Shergold, 2013; Dickinson & Sullivan, 2014).

To ensure the APS addresses these challenges effectively and remains a high performing public service,
the Federal government appointed an Advisory Group in 2009 to develop a blueprint for the reform

of Australian government administration. While the Group’s 2010 report contained no explicit

references to library services, a number of its recommendations have direct implications for

government libraries and librarians:
 A whole of government strategy for service delivery
The blueprint (Advisory Group, 2010, p. 19) noted that there was no whole of government
strategy, meaning “agencies risk developing services in isolation which can affect citizens’
outcomes and government efficiency.” It recommended that federal government services be
delivered in closer partnership with state, territory and local governments (Advisory Group,
2010). It also recommended greater information sharing across all levels of government
(Advisory Group, 2010). Through their networks, government libraries are well positioned to
contribute towards such coordination.
 Enhancing policy capability
In a highly contested market for policy ideas, the research undertaken and advice provide by
APS staff must be high quality, evidence based and impartial (Advisory Group, 2010). This
not only highlights the important role of government libraries to contribute to the
development of evidence based policy by managing and providing access to high quality,
relevant information resources, but also the need for evidence based management of
government libraries themselves. Librarians have the potential to leverage their networks to
build stronger partnerships between the APS and the academic sector, another key
recommendation to enhance policy capability (Advisory Group, 2010).
 Addressing skill shortages in the APS
The blueprint identified a number of skills shortages, including in information and
communications technologies (ICT), high level policy and research work, and project
management (Advisory Group, 2010). It argued that the pace of technological change
demands improvements in knowledge and information management capabilities (Advisory
Group, 2010). Given the centrality of these skills to successful government library and
research services, the sector has potential leadership roles to play.

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-2

April 2016
 Expanding and strengthening workforce learning and development
Stronger mechanisms to encourage APS employees to develop their skills and career
experiences were recommended (Advisory Group, 2010). There is scope for library and
information professionals to add value to workforce capabilities across the APS, particularly
in the areas of information and digital literacies, through the development and delivery of
both formal and informal learning opportunities.

Governments are essentially information intensive organisations. Shergold reported that “good

government is founded on good policy, and good policy depends on good advice… Good advice is

factually accurate and backed by evidence” (Shergold, 2015, p.iii).

Ministers have access to a wider range of sources than ever before, including their party
colleagues, political advisers, industry lobbyists, community advocates, policy think
tanks and academia. They also hear from their constituents and individual citizens. This
is a good thing: being able to draw on more information and multiple perspectives
supports better decision-making. Public servants need to have the capacity to argue
their case against alternative views.
(Shergold, 2015, p.15)

Good government therefore depends on access to high quality, authoritative information, which

requires the expertise of library and information professionals to manage the resources and to support

policy makers as they develop and use their skills to “transform mountains of information into

pinnacles of knowledge” (Shergold, 2015, p.17). In government circles there is also increasing interest

in the economic role of information, data and data-driven products and services (Bureau of

Communications Research, 2016).

One key focus of the government reform agenda in many jurisdictions is the use of ICT to ensure

governments meet their objectives effectively and efficiently. In the UK there has been particular

interest in the role of ICT to provide better, more efficient services for less cost. Digital transformation

of the government’s services has been vast and rapid. A 2010 review of the government’s web

presence recommended a ‘digital by default’ approach to service provision across government and a

single web point of entry for services to satisfy public expectations and cut costs (Fox, 2010). In

response, the government established the Government Digital Service (GDS) within the Cabinet Office.
The GDS is responsible for leading digital transformation of public services in the UK. All transactional

services must meet the GDS’ Digital by Default Service Standard to build high quality services
(Government Digital Service, 2015). The importance of digital services across government has been

underscored by the private sector: “from funding to jobs, medicine, health and education, digitisation

is completely transforming how the public service looks” (KPMG, 2014).

In 2015, the Australian Government established the Digital Transformation Office (DTO) with

strategies and standards modelled on the GDS. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has moved the DTO

from the Communications portfolio to the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio (Burgess, 2015). This

demonstrates the importance of the government’s digital service delivery program to the new political

leadership. The Prime Minister’s office highlights the inconsistencies that currently prevail across

government, noting that “users expect to access information and services from one government, not

dozens of government agencies operating as silos” (Malcolm Turnbull, 2015).

At a recent forum hosted by the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) University and

Research Librarians (ACT) group and AGLIN, Change, challenges and opportunities: recasting your

library skills (AGLIN, 2015), the possibilities for collaboration between the DTO and government

libraries were noted. The common commitment to the delivery of public services and the shared

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-3

April 2016
motivations to meet user needs were underscored. In his presentation, the DTO’s Lead of

Engagement, Brant Trim, noted that there was currently a lack of common or consistent standards in

tagging content created by and about government departments. Librarians’ own specialised skills in

applying standards and organising content could assist the DTO in addressing this. While the forum

did not propose any direct strategies to facilitate communication between government librarians and

the DTO, it was recognised that there would certainly be opportunities for future planning and

discussion.

There has been considerable scrutiny in the UK of the use of evidence in policy making (Rutter, 2012;
Haddon, Devanny, Fosdick & Thompson, 2013; Rutter & Gold, 2015). Research revealed that there

was often little incentive for ensuring that policy decisions were made on the best available evidence,
as “there were few obvious political penalties” if good practice was not followed (Rutter & Gold, 2015,
p.5). As a result, the Institute of Government developed a framework for assessing the use of evidence

to guide decision making, arguing that governments are accountable to citizens and to the electorate,
to Parliament and to other areas of government. Policy making would be improved if government

representatives:
 Have properly analysed the issue they are trying to address
 Have conducted a wide-ranging search for evidence, both on what has gone
before and of other interventions
 Have comprehensively considered the form of proposed interventions
 Are clear on the assumptions on which they assess the benefits and costs
(and possible risks around them)
 Put in place plans for feedback, testing, evaluation.
(Rutter & Gold, 2015, p.16)
In a collaborative project, the Institute for Government will work with Sense about Science and the

Alliance for Useful Evidence to test the new framework in order to determine its usability and its

usefulness. This work will feed into an initial benchmarking activity to compare the work of individual

government agencies (Rutter & Gold, p.17) and form part of nation-wide campaign to raise public

interest in the imperative for evidence based policy and practice (Ask for Evidence, 2015). Increased

emphasis is being placed on public participation in the policy making process, with many voices

demanding access to information and data created by the government, which in turn makes the

management of digital information resources a priority (Bureau of Communications Research, 2016;
Fricker, 2016; National Archives of Australia, 2015; Shergold, 2015; Webb-Smart, 2016).

The challenges of electronic publishing in the context of government were examined in detail in a

Linkage Project funded by the Australian Research Council. In the discussion paper, Where is the

evidence? Realising the value of grey literature for public policy and practice, it was argued that “The

internet has profoundly changed how we produce, use and collect research for public policy and

practice, with grey literature playing an increasingly important role” (Lawrence, Houghton, Thomas &
Weldon, 2014, p.2). The study articulated a range of concerns relating to grey literature: “searching,
sifting, evaluating and accessing information and research are time-consuming and often frustrating

tasks occupying a large portion of the day for those engaged in policy work” (Lawrence et al., 2014,
p.3). This is in no small part due to the curation of policy resources being “dispersed and fragmented”
(Lawrence et al., p.3). Research findings revealed that the most important sources of information for

policy workers were government department and agencies (94%), academic institutions (83%) and

scholarly or commercial publishers (78%).

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-4

April 2016
Two key concerns raised in the report were that, firstly, policy makers and practitioners struggle to

find and evaluate relevant resources, and secondly, the lack of digital curation is compounded by

outdated legislation. Government library and information professionals can contribute significantly to

resolving these issues, in terms of developing information and digital literacy skills across the

government workforce, ensuring effective information management policies and practices are in place

so that grey literature is findable and accessible, and drawing on their professional networks to

minimise duplication of curation activities. Shumaker emphasises the fact that high performing teams

ensure that each team member works to his or her strengths. This means that, when library and

information professionals are hardwired to manage the information dimensions of the working

environment: “They’re best able to formulate the solutions that enable team members to use

information effectively, and free up other members to do what they, in turn, do best” (Shumaker,
2015, p.1).

Government service delivery increasingly involves not simply collaboration across government, but

also between government and non-government providers. Governments at all levels are outsourcing

services to drive efficiencies and find savings. A 2013 review of the Victorian Government’s community

and human services sectors examined how government, public service agencies, community service

organisations and private providers coordinated service delivery in what the report calls
“intergovernmental cross-sectoral collaboration” (Shergold, 2013, p. 5). Public administration, the

review argued, should be re-conceptualised as a “strategic commissioner” rather than a provider of

services, in order to reflect the growing importance of contracted providers to delivery (Shergold,
2013, p. 5). The review recommended embracing collaboration with the private and community

sectors to enhance the diversity and efficiency of government service delivery. Once again, librarians

are ideally placed to draw on their collaborative skills and multi-sector networks to potentially assume

leadership roles in these efforts.

The concept of shared services in Australian government has been a topic of discussion in the

academic and professional literature (Grant & Kortt, 2012; Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2014;
Local Government Association of South Australia, 2015). The Australian Institute of Management
(AIM) (2012) pays particular attention to the challenges associated with the implementation of shared

services in the public sector and provides some valuable insights into the behavioural dimensions of

the issue. The interface between state government and local government is clearly noted in the

collaborative arrangements for the delivery of public library services. The barriers to and enablers of

cooperative service models for public libraries were examined by the Centre for Local Government at

the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) (2015). It was found that there have been a number of

advantages relating to shared service arrangements in the public library context, for example lower

overall costs, increased service provision (number of branches and opening hours), streamlined ICT

infrastructure and the delivery of more innovative and popular programming. The Southern Sydney

Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) (2015) also seeks to achieve significant benefits by

introducing shared service arrangements, resulting in standardised processes and a reduction in the

range of technology platforms utilised in public libraries.

Within the Commonwealth Government, the Shared Services Centre (SSC) provides corporate and IT

services to 32 customers through a partnership between the Department of Education and Training

and the Department of Employment (Shared Services Centre, 2015). Services covered include payroll,
financial processing, application hosting, integrated desktop technology solutions, digital

communications support, and property and facilities. Given the growing use of technology in library

services across all library sectors, it is critical that government librarians monitor developments in this

approach to service management.
Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-5

April 2016
The changing roles of public servants were the focus of a 2014 report prepared by the Melbourne

School of Government. This report, Imagining the 21st Century Public Service Workforce, noted

increasing public expectations that governments would employ new technologies in service delivery,
yet efforts were seen to be largely confined to the periphery (Dickinson & Sullivan, 2014). There is a

new focus on information management skills within the government sector (KPMG, 2014; LexisNexis,
2014; Easton, 2015; Fricker, 2016; The Mandarin, 2016).

Government librarians might ask how they can contribute to these efforts, and whether they are able

to lead by example in their delivery of programs and services. Librarians might also consider how well

equipped they might be to take on or directly support the new roles which the Dickinson and Sulivan
(2014) argued will characterise the future public service. As more voices enter public debates, public

servants’ roles might be viewed as moving away from being ‘advisors’ to becoming ‘experts’ (Dickinson
& Sullivan, 2014). Such a shift places greater emphasis on high quality analytical skills, professional

judgment and experience, and the ability to synthesise evidence (Dickinson & Sullivan, 2014;
LexisNexis, 2014) and increasingly, it is government librarians who have the potential to demonstrate

these skills.

Another key role with potential for librarians is the reticulist, who draws on connections to build up

new networks of expertise, rather than working within silos (Dickinson & Sullivan, 2014). The report

presents a skills framework for the future public service which is valuable in distinguishing between

technical, human and conceptual skills. The latter category – encompassing skills like diagnosing

complex problems, designing complex systems and being flexible (Dickinson & Sullivan, 2014) – might

prompt librarians to reflect on the extent to which they currently devote resources to these more

systematic, future-focused activities amid more day-to-day concerns.

Government libraries are nested within this complex context of reform, change and innovation. As the

peak body for the library sector, ALIA has for many years supported the need for open, equitable and

enduring access to government information through policy, guidelines and submissions to relevant

government committees (ALIA, 2004; ALIA, 2009a; ALIA, 2009b; ALIA, 2010; ALIA, 2012; ALIA 2013).
Specifically, ALIA has advocated for the critical role of government libraries: “government library and

information professionals connect politicians and government employees to the essential information

they need to make decisions based on facts, not fiction” (ALIA, 2014a), underscoring the dangers of

failing to comprehend the importance of high quality information to effective, evidence based

decision making, at all levels of government.

ALIA has expressed concern about the potential for Australian federal department libraries to be

closed or outsourced as a result of cuts and reviews of services (ALIA, 2014b). The association is

sensitive to the potentially negative implications of rapid technological change and has underscored

the importance of ensuring that core principles are in place to ensure the effective creation, use and

dissemination of government information (ALIA, 2009c). ALIA has specifically highlighted the need for

greater collaboration and centralisation of services in the special library sector to demonstrate value

and to pool resources (ALIA, 2014c).

  1. Trends in government libraries

A selection of topics relating to special libraries is discussed in the book Special libraries: A survival

guide (Matarazzo & Pearlstein, 2013). The fate of special libraries is encapsulated in the foreword,
where James (2013) discusses the ways in which the librarians’ knowledge and skills, particularly in

corporate libraries, may be realigned as the parent organisation undergoes its own journey of mergers

and acquisition. This requires the need “to embrace the flexibility and readiness to adapt to new

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-6

April 2016
economic realities and conditions in order to survive” (James, 2013, p.x). Given the highly specialised

nature of the sector itself, it is valuable to review the challenges and opportunities facing government

library services through both national and international lenses.

3.1 International perspectives

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) released a set of Guidelines

for Libraries of Government Departments in 2008. The guidelines outline recommended practices for

government libraries and were designed to be easily adapted to specific organisations across the

world. IFLA defines government libraries as “any libraries that are established and fully supported by

government to serve government. (While their primary audience is government, the actual audience

served may be broader than government.)” (Bolt & Burger, 2008, p. 5).

In 2014 IFLA worked with partners in the library and development sectors to draft the Lyon Declaration

on Access to Information and Development. The Lyon Declaration seeks to influence the United

Nations’ 2030 development agenda across the globe. While it outlines how access to information

empowers governments and citizens, and supports sustainable development, it also acknowledges

the crucial role of the library sector (The Lyon Declaration, 2014). IFLA’s Government Information and

Official Publications Section (GIOPS) published a response to the Declaration which highlights the role

of government libraries and government librarians to assist achieve these objectives by ensuring that

government information is widely accessible and by offering expert advice (GIOPS, 2014). The

response makes two recommendations with significant implications for government libraries:
 That the contribution of libraries and librarians be recognised and documented in
achieving the goals of the 2030 development agenda
 That countries develop and maintain strong networks of libraries with government
information expertise to achieve sustainable development objectives.
(GIOPS, 2014)

The second recommendation is particularly valuable in suggesting a leadership role for government

libraries and librarians within the profession. Within individual countries, their expertise can be

harnessed in other types of libraries in order to assist the public in accessing and using government

information, thereby contributing to the achievement of global sustainable development goals.

In the US, government librarians are represented by a division within the Special Libraries Association
(SLA) – the Government Information Division – and a unit of the Library of Congress named the Federal

Library and Information Network (FEDLINK). Both organisations provide forums to discuss the value

and use of government information and government libraries. The activities of SLA’s Government

Information Division are relevant not only for government librarians but for all users of government

information (SLA, 2010b), while FEDLINK focuses specifically on issues impacting federal libraries and

librarians. FEDLINK’s mission is to optimise federal libraries’ use of resources through common

services, resource sharing and ongoing professional development (FEDLINK, 2014). It provides

significant cost savings to government, for example, by managing consortial acquisitions of

information products and services (Library of Congress, 2013). This initiative demonstrates the

capacity of government library associations to contribute greater efficiency and cost effectiveness

across government.

In 2007, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) library service was effectively shut down, but

subsequently re-opened. Matarazzo and Pearlstein (2013) presented a candid analysis of the EPA saga,
which is in turn further updated by Balsamo (2013), who explained how the EPA network of libraries

was able to reverse its fortunes. By developing a strategic roadmap for the future, the library staff

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-7

April 2016
have sought communicate the true value of the service to all stakeholders. Despite this successful

outcome for one agency, the vulnerable position of government libraries in the US was again revealed

during the 2013 government shutdown. Any government services considered ‘nonessential’ were

closed for over two weeks. This included many government libraries. The Census Bureau’s library,
which operates using contract staff, remained closed after the government and other bureau

functions re-opened because the contract for library services expired during the shutdown (Huffine,
2014). Only after significant advocacy on the part of the employees was the contract renewed by

management so that the library could re-open (Huffine, 2014).

The threat of severe budget cuts remains present for many US government libraries. In 2014 the

American Library Association (ALA) passed a resolution in support of stable funding for Air Force

libraries. Libraries across the Air Force network experienced six successive years of budget cuts,
resulting in large reductions in staff, service and hours of operation (ALA, 2014). It was reported that

six libraries were closed in the 2013-14 financial year, with a further three in the process of closing

and eight no longer employing a professional librarian (ALA, 2014).

FEDLINK undertook an environmental scan to identify the major challenges faced by government

libraries in order to chart the organisation’s future directions (FEDLINK, 2012). Seven major trends

were identified, which guided the development of the new business plan aimed at strengthening the

collective activities of those working in the sector:

  1. Demonstrate returns on investment
  2. Establish mission critical programs
  3. Integrate mobile devices, apps and dashboards into workflows
  4. Expand roles as analyst, educator and consultant
  5. Cultivate use of the Semantic Web, cloud computing and Web 3.0
  6. Customize and personalize information to meet the needs of users
  7. Collaborate via knowledge transfer and information sharing.
    An infographic has been created by Federal library professionals to present a Blueprint for success: A

Federal library checklist (Coady, Camerer & Clark, n.d), as a resource to encourage government

librarians to have a broader understanding of their environment. The infographic refers to

competences and standards, principal areas of professional practice, and career enhancement

strategies such as professional development, mentoring and networking.

In the UK, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) represents the

nation’s library and information professionals across all library sectors. Included in CILIP’s special

interest groups are the Government Information Group (GIG) and the Health Libraries Group (HLG).
The GIG represents those working in central government or who are interested in government

information (CILIP, 2014a), while the HLG is a network of information professionals working in the

health sector, including in the public health service and in government departments (CILIP, 2014b).
The HLG has been especially active in advocating for the role of government LIS professionals in

government initiatives. In 2012 the UK government opened up consultation about a workforce

strategy for the public health system. Major foci of the consultation activities were specific strategies

to strengthen public health information and academic public health (Department of Health, Health

Education England & Public Health England, 2013). HLG endorsed the emphasis on evidence based

practice, and identified a greater role for knowledge and information professionals in supporting

evidence based practice in public health (CILIP, 2012). The group suggested health libraries in the

public service “present an opportunity to improve access to published evidence and the skills to

appraise evidence” (CILIP, 2012, p. 6).

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-8

April 2016
Canadian government libraries also acknowledged that there was much to learn from the health and

biomedical sciences library sector. A study undertaken in Canada sought to redefine the federal

libraries service model: Libraries and Archives Canada (LAC) conducted situated research to inform

the Government of Canada Assistant Deputy Minters Task Force (ADM Task Force) on the Future of

Federal Library Service. The embedded librarian was viewed as a particularly valuable way to develop

a deeper understanding of an organisation’s requirements, to find gaps where new solution-oriented

services could be introduced (Zeeman, Jones & Dysart, 2011). The ADM Task Force sought to establish

clustered services (i.e. groups of libraries with overlapping subject interests) and centralised services
(generic back-end services available to all) as options to leverage the professional expertise of

government librarians.

It was hoped that, by 2015, Canadian public servants have seamless access to a “federal library service

without borders through the interconnected network of government librarians, library services and

all information resources” (McPherson, 2012, cited in Jordan & de Stricker, 2013, p.6). The proposed

whole-of-government library service in Canada did not eventuate. The Federal Libraries Consortium
(FLC) began as a grassroots organisation, but has been formally incorporated into the LAC. The primary

goal of the FLC is to better manage the purchase and management of information resources across

government agencies. Collaborative activities “maximise cost benefits, reduce administrative

duplication, leverage procurement expertise, and provide access to otherwise unattainable

resources” (FLC, 2015). Further developments have been noted, with the LAC working with the

Canadian Federal Libraries Strategic Network (CFLSN) to consult with federal librarians about critical

matters impacting on the sector, and to provide collaborative input into the Federal Science Library
(FSL). This initiative involves eight science agencies, with the ultimate aim being “to ensure that GC

employees - science, technology, and health researchers, program planners, and policy makers - have

virtual access to both high-quality library and information resources and the services of skilled library

professionals and subject experts provided by departments” (Marin-Cormeau & O’Connell, 2015).
Common systems, common purchasing and seamless client service are key elements of the project.

Government libraries in New Zealand represent the largest cohort of special libraries in the country.
Ralph and Sibthorpe’s 2009 report, Emerging trends in New Zealand special libraries, provided a

comprehensive review of the sector. The review highlighted the extent of rationalisations and mergers

of agencies, centralisation of resources in Wellington, and reductions in physical space allocation as

the significant trends and issues affecting government libraries (Ralph & Sibthorpe, 2009). In 2013,
Ralph and Sibthorpe noted that these trends were continuing to be significant challenges for the

special library sector, reporting that reductions in funding and services had resulted in significant job

losses and the closure of about 30 special libraries across all sectors since 2009. The authors also found

that there had been extensive centralisation of collections, budgets and services, heavy increases in

workloads, and greater use of contract workers in government libraries (Ralph & Sibthorpe, 2013).

It is interesting to note that the closure of government libraries stands at odds with trends in the

corporate sector, where a study of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK found that

there were very real barriers hindering business people’s access to quality information: a lack of

awareness about where to find the required information, about comprehending the value of the

information to their work, or about how to actually access, retrieve, use and interpret the information
(Mark Ware Consulting, 2009). Cost barriers through subscription costs and paywalls added further

complexity. In contrast with the situation in government, professional societies were finding that the

opportunity to provide access to quality information through their library and information services

was a very highly regarded value for their members.

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-9

April 2016
A positive, but challenging, future is painted by LexisNexis in their white paper on the contemporary

information management environment (2014). Drawing on the qualitative data gathered through an

online survey of information professionals across Europe and a series of interviews conducted with

senior information executives in France, Germany and the Netherlands, the authors discuss the

implications of the exponential growth of information and data, particularly for the vast majority of

people who assume that information skills are generic, rather than specialised. Information overload

is accompanied by the pressure to provide instantaneous access to the required resources, as well as

presenting the information in new visual formats, while continuing to maintain the highest standards

of accuracy and quality. Nevertheless, information managers are encouraged to take advantage of the

opportunities to utilising technology to reduce the time spent on routine, repetitive tasks and to build

their communication and investigative skills to develop new roles as consultants and analysts with the

ability to present information in different ways for different audiences and to add significant value to

the strategic priorities of the organisation.

These ideas echo trends in the government library sector presented by FEDLINK (2012). Correlations

with the academic research library have are also evident: the librarian’s ability to connect people with

ideas has also been explored in the recent report A day in the life of a (serious) researcher: Envisioning

the future of the research library (Tancheva et al., 2016). In the corporate research sector, the value

of these skills have been recognised by Arup University, with a librarian and knowledge specialist

appointed to the leadership role in Australasia to “drive innovation and collaboration both internally

and externally to support Arup clients and staff, and connects with the global Arup University

leadership team” (Arup, 2016).

3.2 Australian perspectives

Here in Australia, ALIA has strengthened its representative efforts for government libraries and

librarians since establishing its Special Libraries and Information Services Advisory Committee in 2009.
The committee advises the ALIA Board to encourage the development of strategic programs for special

librarians or those interested in special librarianship, including in the government sector (ALIA, n.d.).
Ralph and Sibthorpe (2013, p. 137) argue that the association “is ahead in achieving some of the critical

requirements for an advisory body to support and mentor special librarians, who are currently being

challenged in every way.”

In 2010 the advisory committee completed a survey of Australian special libraries which has provided

valuable statistical information about the sector and its workforce, information that library

associations have generally been slow to collect (Ralph & Sibthorpe, 2013). While the ALIA findings

reflect special libraries as a whole, more than half of respondents worked in federal, state or local

government libraries. The majority of respondents stated their staffing and client base had not

changed significantly over the previous five years; however, those who answered the opposite cited

budget cuts, amalgamation of services and machinery of government changes as reasons for changes

in service delivery (ALIA Special Libraries and Information Services Advisory Committee, 2010). The

survey also highlighted a lack of attention to mechanisms for collecting feedback about and

demonstrating the library service’s value to the organisation. Gathering informal feedback at the time

of service delivery far outranked service reviews, with questionnaires and surveys being the most

common feedback mechanism. It was found that two-thirds of special libraries were unable to

demonstrate the impact of their services and programs on the parent organisation (ALIA Special

Libraries and Information Services Advisory Committee, 2010).

The professional group, ALIA Health Libraries Australia (HLA) has worked to ensure high level

professional recognition with a major study into future workforce requirements for librarians working

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-10

April 2016
in the health sector (Hallam et al., 2011). ALIA, HLA and Health Libraries Inc. commissioned an

independent study into the return on investment, expressed as community returns, provided by

health libraries (SGS Economics, 2013). It was found that there was a $9 return for every $1 spent on

library and information services across the health sector. Further research is currently being

undertaken by ALIA HLA through a census of health libraries, to create an accurate picture of

government, academic and commercial health libraries in Australia. The report on the census will be

available in early 2016. The preliminary findings of a national survey of law librarians have also recently

been presented (Brown, 2015), with a full report to be released in the near future.

ALIA works closely with AGLIN to support government libraries throughout Australia. AGLIN

specifically represents Australian Federal Government library and information professionals,
facilitating information provision to clients within the APS. The group has recognised that there is no

cohesive model for government library services, nor are there any guidelines for best practice across

the sector. AGLIN’s Statement of strategic intent 2009-2013 (AGLIN, 2009) underscores the challenges

facing government libraries in the current economic environment, particularly the low level of

understanding of the costs and value of quality information and services: “new resource management

frameworks have resulted in greater accountability, greater scrutiny of resources and decision making

at higher levels, with a concomitant decrease in flexibility for libraries” (2009, p. 4).

AGLIN was well positioned to publicise an independent survey commissioned by ALIA in 2013 to assess

the return on investment of special library and information services in Australia. The research findings

indicated that special libraries return $5.43 for every $1 invested (ALIA, 2014d). Moreover, this may

be considered a conservative estimate, as the findings take into account time saved by clients – for

example, political advisers – searching for information, but not the enhanced quality of the

information supplied by special librarians (ALIA, 2014d). With effective advocacy, research such as this

could contribute to building stakeholders’ understanding of the value of government libraries across

government and the wider community.

AGLIN (2009, p. 4) has also noted “a move towards shared services” and “a greater requirement for

coordinated procurement across government” following the 2009 reform of federal administration

process. The Victorian Government introduced a new model for government library services in 2009
(Shine, 2010; Staggs, 2010). The new Victorian Government Library Service (VGLS) has been described

as an “extraordinary transformation” (Atkinson & Lewin, 2012). The process of building “one high-
powered streamlined information machine” from “fifteen independent library services, 40 in-house

catalogues and platforms, 14 sites managed by over 50 staff serving a total workforce population”
(Atkinson & Lewin, 2012, p.1). The complexity of government information services is discussed,
including the diversity of subject interest, yet with some overlap across the agencies, resulting in

artificial barriers to information access, and the diversity in research needs depending on the nature

of work in different areas of government. The benefits of the whole of government approach to

information services are clearly articulated: to the government itself, to those working to deliver

public services, and to the library staff themselves (Shine, 2010; Atkinson & Lewin, 2012). Valuable

insights are provided about the “framework for improved service delivery within a collaborative,
productive and professionally satisfying environment for staff” (Atkinson & Lewin, 2012, p.18).

Within the Queensland Government context, opportunities for collaboration and cooperation

between government libraries have been examined extensively in Hallam’s (2010) Queensland

Government Agency Libraries Review (QGALR). Noting that the “patchwork of libraries” (Hallam, 2010,
p. 3) across government presented barriers to research services and facilitated wasteful duplication,
the review recommended establishing a network of research centres with a central hub to coordinate

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-11

April 2016
common goals, systems and processes. Specific projects were recommended to enhance service

quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including a single portal for all government information

services, coordinated purchasing arrangements, and access by government officers to all libraries

regardless of their agency affiliation (Hallam, 2010).

While the options presented in the final report (Hallam, 2010) offered the basis for discussion about

the future directions for government library services in Queensland, political winds blew in a

completely different direction. In March 2012, Campbell Newman swept into power as the Premier of

Queensland, changing the political landscape completely. It was not an easy time for the public

service, with an immense program of ‘rationalisation’ taking place. Government agency libraries were

not exempt from the pain. One major change in service delivery took place in 2013, with the library of

the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) “packed up and moved across the river to settle in the

State Library of Queensland in its new incarnation as GRAIL (Government Research and Information

Library)” (Vilkins, 2014). The focus of the service concentrates on online/desktop delivery of tailored

information, with users benefitting from access to the expansive resources of the State Library of

Queensland, which is a ‘legal deposit’ library. By August 2014, seven government agencies had moved

across to become part of the GRAIL community (Vilkins, 2014).

The QGALR discussion is particularly useful in suggesting how such initiatives might better equip

government libraries and librarians to navigate machinery of government changes such as those

affecting Queensland Government libraries in 2009 and 2012. Rationalising management, pooling

resources and centralising services can mitigate the need to split collections and catalogues,
renegotiate licences, relocate the service and dislocate from clients (Ralph & Sibthorpe, 2013; Hallam,
2010). At the same time, the review recognises limits on the effectiveness of centralised arrangements

in the government library sector, as the embedded nature of libraries means that the staff develop

expert understandings of their agency’s information needs and establish strong relationships with

clients (Hallam, 2010). A key challenge is the need to determine how a network of government

libraries is able to balance centralisation with embeddedness in order to provide services that are

more efficient, effective, and equitable.

  1. Determining the value of government library and information services

The literature reports the difficulty of obtaining current statistics of the number of special libraries in

Australia. O’Connor (2007) and Ralph and Sibthorpe (2009) referred to the number reported in 1999

and concluded there were around 1125 special libraries in Australia; however, they argued that this

number was likely to be reduced due to downsizing and restructuring over the prior decade. A search

on Australian Libraries Gateway8 indicates there are currently around 1650 special libraries and 570

government libraries. However, it is difficult to verify this data’s accuracy, as some entries in the

database are branches of a central library or unstaffed collections. While statistical information

focuses, of course, on the quantitative perspectives, attention today is often on qualitative

perspectives, in order to determine the value of library services.

Traditionally, special libraries have evaluated their performance by measuring levels of client service
– for example through surveys and focus groups – and capturing data about library collections and

services such as size and usage. The data can be used to justify the present library service and support

decisions about resourcing such as funding, space, staffing, collections and technology requirements.
However, it is important to recognise that examining whether special libraries are efficiently and

effectively delivering services is not the same as determining the value clients gain from using those

8
www.nla.gov.au/libraries

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-12

April 2016
services (Botha, Erasmus & Deventer, 2009). As Botha, Erasmus & Deventer (2009, p. 108) state: “the

mere fact that a service is being used does not mean that the service is a valuable one, or that it makes

a difference to the user.” Library size, usage and user satisfaction data can help identify strengths and

weaknesses in library services and facilitate comparisons between libraries (Kelly, Hamasu & Jones,
2012), but they are unlikely to be clearly aligned with measures of success in the wider organisation
(Oakleaf, 2010). Their usefulness in demonstrating impact to the institution as a whole is likely to be

limited. It is therefore important for special libraries to demonstrate their worth and capture their

intangible value.

Matthews (2013) discusses Taylor’s model of value-added processes in information systems (Taylor,
1986), which seeks to conceptualise how the information use environment adds value for the user.
Taylor identified six criteria where there may be perceived benefits to the user:
 Ease of use: reducing the difficulties associated with information resources or services
 Noise reduction: providing the optimum amount of information resources or services
 Quality: ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the resources or services
 Adaptability: responding to users’ needs and requests
 Time savings: saving the users’ time
 Cost savings: saving money for the users.
(Matthews, 2013, pp.165-167)

However, one major challenge for special libraries and information services in measuring value is that

value as a concept remains highly contested in the literature. In particular, many studies use the terms
‘value’ and ‘impact’ interchangeably (Calvert & Goulding, 2015), without clarifying definitions. This

can prompt confusion, given these terms can already appear ambiguous and subjective, especially for

library users. Streatfield and Markless (2012) regard ‘impact’ as the effect of a program or service on

individuals or groups, so research studies may focus either on social impact, or on economic value.
Research measuring value in the special library sector can be broadly divided into economic and

impact studies (Oakleaf, 2010). Economic studies are interested in return on investment (ROI), which

measures the library’s perceived benefits divided by its perceived costs. ROI metrics include time,
money and labour savings, productivity improvements, quality enhancements, quicker responses, and

lower risks of incorrect information (Oakleaf, 2010). For example, an independent survey

commissioned by ALIA in 2013 found special library and information services in Australia return $5.43

for every $1 invested (ALIA, 2014c). Moreover, this may be considered a conservative estimate, as the

findings take into account time saved by clients – for example, political advisers – searching for

information, but not the enhanced quality of the information supplied by special librarians (ALIA,
2014c). It is important to recognise, however, that financial values do not always align with the

overriding values of the organisation. Oakleaf (2010) suggests this is true of higher education, but it is

also the case in the government sector, where it is not always easy or appropriate to ascribe monetary

value to an agency’s use of information.

Measuring the impact of information on users of special libraries might be more suitable. Impact

studies typically survey special library users to examine impacts of services on their practices (Oakleaf,
2010). Botha, Erasmus and Deventer (2009) apply this approach to determine the most important

indicators of impact in a South African research library on its clients. The authors’ (2009, p. 109)
definition of impact is “the effect the product or service has on the efficiency of the researcher” and
“the contribution the product or service makes to the effectiveness of the researcher.” This definition

ensures the research is targeted specifically at impact on the organisation’s bottom line. Importantly,
the authors (2009) contextualise their approach with a stakeholder framework setting out the

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-13

April 2016
service’s mission of enabling researchers to produce quality research which gains them recognition

and additional funding, which in turn allows the organisation to contribute to the wider research

needs of the country. This “spiral of impact” (Botha, Erasmus and Deventer, 2009, p. 111)
demonstrates a multi-faceted, interconnected understanding of value and impact. Understanding the

client leads to a service which positively impacts their research, which enhances the organisation’s

reputation and the wider research environment, which feeds back into the organisation, continuing

the cycle (Botha, Erasmus and Deventer, 2009).

The authors’ qualitative data suggest researchers see the service’s impact on research success and

time saved in search and delivery as the most important indicators of impact (Botha, Erasmus and

Deventer, 2009). While the findings are limited by a small sample size and an associated lack of

quantitative data, the authors developed an impact measurement template for libraries to capture

quantitative data measuring users’ perceptions of key impact indicators. They advocated using

measurable indicators of impact that stand in for actual impact. Rather than claiming correlations

between impacts and library services, they look for pieces of information indicating impacts or

differences.

In a case study investigating the impact of an information unit on a property firm in the UK, Reynolds
(2013) found considerable uncertainty surrounding the concept of impact. The employees of the firm

showed little understanding of how to define impact or how it applied to organisational goals
(Reynolds, 2013). They also expressed concern that impact is difficult to quantify and is highly

subjective (Reynolds, 2013). Reynolds concludes that conceptualising corporate information services

in terms of their impact to employees, workgroups and fee-earning work “is not generally how the IU
[Information Unit] is seen and that a different way of discussing this might be worth investigating in

the future” (Reynolds, 2013, p. 66). While Reynolds’ research applies to a specific organisational

context, it suggests special librarians should ensure concepts of value and impact are clearly

understood within their organisation. Otherwise, their attempts to demonstrate their worth are

unlikely to be effective: “unless the customer receives value, then the service really has no value at

all” (Matthews, 2013, p.167).

Each special library has unique characteristics and attributes, which makes the process of measuring

impact and value exceptionally challenging. There are currently no systematic methods allowing for

rigorous data collection and analysis in special libraries. Simon (2011) notes the difficulty of

introducing standards and best practices for measurement and assessment when the special library

sector’s defining characteristics are diversity and difference. Consequently, she argues, the sector lags

behind other types of libraries in developing quality standards and measuring service value. On a more

positive note, Simon (2011) highlights the potential for special librarians to find information about

best practices and competitive intelligence to aid organisation-wide benchmarking programs. This

points to an opportunity for special librarians to more visibly demonstrate value to decision makers

across their organisation.

A 2013 report commissioned by the Financial Times and SLA highlights the need for special libraries

and librarians to measure and demonstrate their value to the organisation. The report draws on survey

and interview data from a large sample of information professionals and executives working in

corporate, government and academic contexts. Considering the perceptions of those who manage the

organisational strategies and finances in these contexts adds richness to the findings. For example,
one of the information professionals’ major concerns is that their users are bypassing their expertise

to access information directly, potentially increasing exposure to organisational risk (Financial Times

Corporate, 2013). At the same time, the executives report suffering from information overload and

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-14

April 2016
perceive a lack of high quality, efficiently delivered information within the organisation (Financial

Times Corporate, 2013). Both groups of respondents identify a common objective – a greater role for

information professionals in saving user time, filtering and retrieving high quality information and

minimising organisational risk – yet fail to recognise it, let alone achieve it, as the value of information

services and professionals is not being successfully communicated or understood.

Indeed, the report suggests information professionals currently overestimate the level of value they

provide to the organisation. Whereas 55% of surveyed information professionals believe they add “a

lot of value”, this view is shared by only 34% of executives (Financial Times Corporate, 2013). The

performance gap is greatest in the government sector, where the percentages are 50% and 14%
respectively (Financial Times Corporate, 2013). The most important attributes for information

professionals identified by respondents – communication skills, identifying user needs, and providing

decision-ready information – are also characterised by strong disparities in performance ratings

between providers and users (Financial Times Corporate, 2013).

The literature also advocates positioning special libraries at the centre of their organisation’s

innovation agenda as crucial to demonstrating value. The Pharma Documentation Ring (P-D-R) (Renn,
Archer, Burkhardt, Ginestet, Nielsen, Woodward, & the P-D-R Library Affairs & Copyright Group, 2012)
has developed a blueprint for corporate information centres in the pharmaceutical industry to become
“innovation partners.” The blueprint (Renn et al., 2012) recognises that information has vital

competitive value for research-based companies in fostering innovation, facilitating access to

knowledge, and integrating content into everyday workflows. This is undoubtedly also true of the

services provided by government libraries to their clients and departments or agencies. Given the

renewed focus on innovation policy at the national level since the elevation of Malcolm Turnbull to

the Prime Ministership, the sector might consider whether it is doing enough to demonstrate this

value in the wider organisation and community.

The blueprint (Renn et al., 2012) identifies four major functions of corporate information centres:
information access; information research; information technology; and knowledge management. At

least the first three of these functions have long been traditional occupations of librarianship, but this

means they are arguably very localised. Dempsey has long argued that libraries operate at the

institutional level, whereas the users operate at the “network level” (Dempsey, 2008, p.115).
Government library and information professionals need to consider the value they provide to make

their users’ lives more productive and meaningful.

The blueprint is helpful in that it uses business terminology to reveal how these core areas generate

significant innovative value for organisations. Information access, for example, is about providing a

basis for sound processes and decision-making, and information research ensures money spent on

information access boosts innovation and thereby restrains spending in research and development
(Renn et al., 2012). This is a sophisticated approach to demonstrating value, by aligning the library’s

goals with the organisation’s mission and embedding the information centre’s functions in the

strategic imperatives of the agency. This ensures that the value of the library and information service

is intrinsically linked to the achievement of organisational outcomes.

Renn et al. (2012) characterise librarians and information professionals as possessing the skills and

experience to successfully undertake all of the elements under information access (information

acquisition and vendor relations, information and library services, and marketing), the majority of

those under information research (awareness and training, information consulting services, retrieval

and analysis, news intelligence business, and text analytics), and IT and informatics. Special librarians

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-15

April 2016
should therefore see themselves as central to organisation-wide innovation initiatives, even potential

leaders.

Town (2010) offered a more holistic approach to measuring value and impact in library services. Rather

than separating measures of worth into economic and impact dimensions, Town (2010, p. 268)
proposed “a broader assessment of the meaning of value; and recognition that value is dependent on

values sets or systems.” Town (2010, p. 269) believes libraries should strive for a “transcendent” level

of value, looking beyond immediate concerns to recognise the full range of intangible benefits they

bring to organisations. This means contributing not only to the organisation’s goals and bottom line,
but also to its value systems. As values are chosen by an organisation, value measures cannot be

devised until these values are agreed upon and known (Town, 2010). Town’s connection between

organisational values and value is key. It reveals how libraries’ human, structural and relational capital

is highly valuable to organisations and society. It also differs from other literature in arguing libraries

should measure their value based on organisational value statements rather than goals, as these

specify how to act, not what to do (Town, 2010).

Like much of the literature, however, Town offers little direct guidance on specific ways to measure

value. Calvert and Goulding (2015) agree with Oakleaf (2010) that multiple methods may be required

to estimate the value of library and information services, While it has been stressed that impact and

value studies are “time consuming, technical and resource intensive” (Calvert & Goulding, 2015,
p.280), some practitioners have sensed that “there is an agenda that isn’t going to go away”, so they

need to be prepared by having “killer facts at our fingertips, to be able to pull them out when talking

to somebody” (Calvert & Goulding, 2015, p.281). Urquart (2015) moves beyond the idea of data and

facts to the need for narratives “to tell a coherent story, or a set of stories, to our users (and the

funders and policy makers) about how our services matter to them” (Urquart, 2015, p.99).

  1. Skills and competencies of government librarians

A number of professional organisations have developed frameworks of core skills and competencies

for information professionals. The most relevant frameworks for special librarians, particularly those

in the government library sector, are the SLA’s Competencies for information professionals of the 21st

century (SLA, 2016) and the Federal Library and Information Center Committee’s (FLICC) Competencies

for federal government librarians (2011). Together these frameworks set out the knowledge, skills and

attributes considered vital for the profession. They consider both the generic and specialist skills

required by information professionals in a special library context. The documents’ key implications for

government librarians and libraries include:

 ‘Traditional’ librarianship competencies remain vital
The competency frameworks emphasise skills in managing information organisations,
resources, services, and technology – cornerstones of librarianship. Government librarians
should remain confident their core skills will continue to be valuable in tackling emerging
opportunities and challenges.
 Competencies should be conceptualised in business terms
While the documents largely reinforce traditional sets of competencies, the enabling
competencies highlighted by the SLA (2016) emphasise the business context for special
librarians, e.g. networking, relationship-building, marketing, project management, business
ethics. In an environment where greater efficiency and effectiveness are sought,
government libraries and librarians need to ensure they are maximising and demonstrating
their value to wider organisational objectives and operations.

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-16

April 2016
 Organisational knowledge is a gateway to collaboration
The FLICC (2011) framework foregrounds agency and organisational knowledge as a
specialised competency for government librarians. This includes being able to evaluate and
explain the agency’s role within the government and its relationships with other agencies
(FLICC, 2011). Using this knowledge, the FLICC (2011) states that government librarians also
need to assess and propose inter-agency and government-wide library initiatives. The need
for more integrated and coordinated government services was stressed in the
Commonwealth Government’s blueprint (Advisory Group, 2010). Australian federal
government librarians are well placed to draw on their in-depth agency or departmental
knowledge and their networks across government to develop and lead more extensive
collaborative efforts.
 Collaboration is an enabling competency
While the FLICC framework focuses specifically on collaboration within government and
frames collaboration as a specialised competency, the SLA framework identifies
collaboration as an enabling competency for information professionals (SLA, 2016).
The ongoing validity of these different competency frameworks reflects how the government library

sector understands and defines its professional standards; however, without advocacy for

incorporating them into professional practice their value remains largely abstract and theoretical.
Jaeger and Bertot (2011) discuss the apparent disconnect between LIS education courses and the

competencies required by government information librarians; Matarazzo and Pearlstein (2013) also

argue that the concerns expressed in competency documents for special librarians have not been

widely taken up in LIS education. The challenge for government libraries and librarians is to translate

these competencies into meaningful decision making processes and work to embed them in everyday

practice.

A 2010 report for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) offers a more empirical basis

for discussion of skill sets required by librarians in a Web 2.0 environment. The report draws on focus

group data from information professionals representing all library sectors across Australia – including

special libraries – to examine perceptions of Library 2.0 skills. Eight themes emerge from the data:
technology; learning and education; research or evidence based practice; communication;
collaboration and team work; user focus; business savvy; and personal traits (Partridge, Lee & Munro,
2010). While most of these themes overlap with the competencies identified in the SLA and FLICC

frameworks, several pose additional implications.

The research reveals productive tensions surrounding the levels of ICT skills desirable for Librarian 2.0.
Participants agreed successful librarians do not need to be IT professionals, but also noted that

boundaries between IT and LIS professionals are rapidly narrowing (Partridge, Lee & Munro, 2010).
This suggests that, as the world of digital information continues to evolve, further clarification of

information professionals’ desired technological skills is required. It also highlights a recent trend

examined by Schneider and Barron (2014) that is particularly pronounced in special libraries: the

emergence of the hybrid librarian-IT expert. This hybrid professional has emerged as information

organisations recognise that integrating information and technology functions has significant benefits
(Schneider & Barron, 2014).

In the context of law firm libraries, Schneider and Barron (2014) argued that information services can

enhance and expand their role by demonstrating how their knowledge of the organisation makes

them ideally placed to add value to technology and data. Employing staff with the skills to identify

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-17

April 2016
how information services and IT support overlap “is essential to the survival of the firm” (Schneider &
Barron, 2014, p. 48). These hybrid professionals possess skills such as facilitation and contract

negotiation that span both fields and promote greater collaboration between them in the organisation
(Schneider & Barron, 2014). Like law firms, government agencies traditionally separate their library

and IT services. There are therefore considerable opportunities for government libraries to become

more visible within their organisations by fostering skills that transcend these divides. This could

become a feature of future planning and discussion between Australian government librarians and

the DTO.

Partridge, Lee and Munro emphasised the “paradigm shift” (2010, p.11) that new technologies

brought to library and information work. However, as government libraries often need to adapt to the

seismic changes resulting from budgetary and machinery of government decisions, they should not be

daunted by changes in their ICT world. As the Web 2.0 world has introduced a networked, connected

way of working within and across enterprises (Dempsey, 2008; Frey, 2014), library and information

professionals must re-conceptualise the roles that they play – and the skills they require – to engage

with and support their users’ information needs (Inayatullah, 2014; LexisNexis, 2014; Lord, 2014). The

skills required for a successful information professional are becoming more complex and plentiful
(Partridge, Lee & Munro, 2010). In government libraries, this is occurring concurrently with the

increasing complexity of problems, solutions and policies across government (Culhane, 2013; Marin-
Cormeau & O’Connell, 2015) (see also Section 2 of this literature review). Commitment to ongoing

personal and professional development as well as the confidence to move out of their comfort zones

will be unavoidable if government librarians are going to possess the necessary range of skills to

navigate this changing environment.

In a boost for government librarians around Australia, ALIA recently introduced a Government

Specialisation strand to its professional development (PD) scheme. The PD scheme supports ALIA

members in achieving professional certification in government library and information services.
Modelled on ALIA’s initial Health PD scheme, the program is built around developing nine core

competencies:
 Understanding Government information environments and the policies, issues
and trends impacting them
 Understanding your agency’s vision and strategic direction and the principles and
practices related to providing information services that meet your users’ needs
 Understanding management of Government information resources
 Understanding how leadership, finance, communication and management theory
and techniques are applied in the public sector
 Understanding and using ICT to manage information
 Understanding laws, regulations, standards and policies applicable to your agency
 Understanding Government research methods and being able to critically
evaluate resources from many fields
 Developing an understanding of discipline specific and specialised subject matter
required by your agency
 Maintaining currency of professional knowledge and practice.
(ALIA, 2015)
This new PD specialisation provides government librarians with the opportunity to promote the

breadth and depth of their skillset to stakeholders. Technical skills and expertise across all areas of

digital information management will continue to be important, but increasing weight will be put on

new skills relating to the creative presentation of information, the focused analysis of data and

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-18

April 2016
information, and the articulation of business intelligence (LexisNexis, 2014). Such skill sets will support

staff across the public service “transform mountains of information into pinnacles of knowledge”
(Shergold, 2015, p.17).

This reinforces the business-inflected terminology of the SLA competencies (SLA, 2003) and can

contribute to the development of a more informed, evidence based approach to the management of

library and information services. By adopting a more future-focused position in their careers,
government librarians can be well positioned to not only manage their rapidly changing environment,
but also to drive productive change within their information service and their agency (Partridge, Lee
& Munro, 2010).

  1. Conclusion

This literature review has presented and critically analysed key issues and challenges facing today’s

government libraries and information professionals working in the sector. It found that governments

are changing and evolving in response to technological developments, financial pressures, and

demands for more collaborative and whole of government service delivery strategies. It also revealed

how government libraries across the developed world are beginning to leverage their potential as

leaders within government through more streamlined and cooperative approaches to service which

are more effective, efficient and equitable, and that better utilise the skills and attributes of their staff.

Finally, the literature review examined how the 21st century information environment is prompting

government librarians to re-conceptualise their traditional competencies and to develop new skills

not only to remain central to their agency’s operations, but also to extend their reach. In this

environment of rapid change, there are enormous opportunities for government agencies to design

and create new and better service models. Shumaker believes that government libraries and librarians

are ideally positioned to lead the way:
This is a far different level of service than the old model of the librarian at the
reference desk. It’s active, not passive; engaged, not apart; customized, not
generic. It gets librarians out of the library and into the life of the organization…
where they can apply their skills to the maximum benefit.
(Shumaker, 2015, p.1)
The research undertaken in the literature review has informed the development of two data collection

tools: an extensive online questionnaire seeking factual details about the operations of the diverse

Commonwealth Government agency library and information services, and the open qualitative

questions to be explored by library staff in a series of focus groups. A short questionnaire will also be

made available to senior executives and managers in order to canvass their views about their agency’s

information services. The detailed information gathered during the project will be analysed and

synthesised, to be presented in a final report in early 2016.

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-19

April 2016
References

Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration. (2010). Ahead of the game:
Blueprint for the reform of Australian Government administration. Retrieved from
http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/APS_reform_blueprint.pdf

American Library Association (ALA). (2014). Resolution in support of stable funding for Air Force libraries.
Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/governance/council/council_docu
ments/2014_annual_conference_documents/cd_43_resol_n_suppt_%20of%20airforce_libs_62814_a
ct.pdf

Arup (2016). New leaders appointed un Arup University Australasia. Arup News, January 11, 2016.
Retrieved from
http://www.arup.com/news/2016_01_january/12_january_arup_australasia_university_research_lea
ders

Atkinson, L. & Lewin, B., (2012). The big bang: establishing the Victorian Government Library Service.
Paper presented at eM-powering eFutures, VALA 2012 Biennial Conference and Exhibition,
Melbourne, 6-9 February 2012. Retrieved from http://www.vala.org.au/vala2012-proceedings/341-
vala2012-session-6-atkinson

Australia. Bureau of Communications Research (2016). Open government data and why it matters: A
critical review of studies on the economic impact of open government data. Retrieved from
https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-news/open-government-data-and-why-it-
matters-now

Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN) (2009). Statement of strategic intent 2009

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2004). New business model for access to and
distribution of Australian government publications: A review by the expert group. Retrieved from
http://alianet.alia.org.au/governance/committees/government.publications/publications.review.html

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2009a). Guidelines on dispersal of collections in
government agency libraries. Retrieved from https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/policies-and-
guidelines/alia-policies/guidelines-dispersal-collections-government-agency-libraries

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2009b). Principles of access to public sector
information. Retrieved from https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/policies-standards-and-
guidelines/principles-access-public-sector-information

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2010). Ensuring access to government
publications. Retrieved from http://alianet.alia.org.au/advocacy/government.publications.html

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2012). Submission to the Review of the operation
of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) and the Australian Information Act 2010 (IC Act).
Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/Freedom_of_information_Decembe
r_2012.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2013). ALIA Public Sector Information Advisory
Committee letter of response to the government’s issues paper on Big Data Strategy. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/ALIA%202013%20Big%20Data%20Strategy%20ALIA%20Pu
blic%20Sector%20Advisory%20Committee.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2014a). Government libraries: Essential for well-
informed decision making. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/government%20library%20prospectus.pdf

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-20

April 2016
Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2014b). Federal Government’s evidence-based
policy making under threat. Retrieved from https://www.alia.org.au/media-releases/federal-
government%E2%80%99s-evidence-based-policy-making-under-threat

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2014c). Future of the library and information
science profession: Special libraries. Retrieved from https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/ALIA-
Future-of-the-LIS-Profession-06-Special_0.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2014d). Putting a value on ‘priceless’: An
independent assessment of the return on investment of special libraries in Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/ALIA-Return-on-Investment-
Specials.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (n.d.). Special library and information services.
Retrieved from https://www.alia.org.au/node/184/special-libraries

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Special Libraries and Information Services Advisory
Committee. (2010). ALIA Special libraries survey: Report. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/ALIA_SPECIAL_LIBRARIES_REPORT_
FA.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), University and Research Librarians (ACT) &
Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN) (2015). Change, challenges and
opportunities: recasting your library skills. Program. September 9, 2015 at National Library of
Australia, Canberra. http://www.aglin.org/events-and-training/
Balsamo, D. (2013). Afterword redux. EPA libraries at 40 – looking towards a bright future. In J. M.
Matarazzo & T. Pearlstein (Eds.), Special libraries: A survival guide [EBL version] (pp. 91-92-90).
Retrieved from http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Blackman, D., Buick, F., O’Donnell, M., O’Flynn, J., & West, D. (2013). Strengthening the performance
framework: Towards a high performing Australian Public Service. Retrieved from
http://www.apsc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/56507/Performance_accessible.pdf

Bolt, N., & Burge, S. (Eds.) (2008). Guidelines for libraries of government departments. International
Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. IFLA Professional Reports, 106. Retrieved from
http://www.ifla.org/publications/guidelines-for-libraries-of-government-departments

Brown, F. (2015). National survey of Australian law libraries 2015: Abstract. Paper presented at Magna
data: From Magna Carta to big data, New Zealand Law Librarians’ Association Conference 2015,
Auckland, September 10-11, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.nzlla.org.nz/news-and-events/latest-
news/nzlla-conference-2015/ (NZLLA members only).
Burgess, V. (2015, September 23). Turnbull gets his public service ducks in a row – for now. Retrieved
from http://www.afr.com/opinion/columns/turnbull-gets-his-public-service-ducks-in-a-row--for-now-
20150923-gjt4ik

Calvert, P. & Goulding, A. (2015). Narratives and stories that capture the library’s worth: A qualitative
approach to measuring value and impact in New Zealand’s libraries. Performance Measurement and
Metrics, 16(3), 276-288.
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). (2012). Healthy lives, healthy people:
Towards a workforce strategy for the public health system. Retrieved from
http://www.cilip.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Healthy%20Lives%2C%20Healthy%20People.p
df

Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). (2014a). Government Information
Group. Retrieved from http://www.cilip.org.uk/about/special-interest-groups/government-
information-group

Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). (2014b). Health Libraries Group.
Retrieved from http://www.cilip.org.uk/about/special-interest-groups/health-libraries-group

Coady, T., Camerer, C., & Clark, N. (n.d). Blueprint for success: A Federal libraries checklist. Retrieved from
http://www.va.gov/library/FederalChecklist.pdf

Culhane, M. (2013). Fire Technology guest editorial: Special section on fire literature and information. Fire
Technology, 49, 121-123.
Dempsey, L. (2008). Reconfiguring the library systems environment. portal: Libraries and the Academy,
8(2), 111-120.
Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-21

April 2016
Department of Health, Health Education England, & Public Health England. (2013). Healthy lives, healthy
people: Towards a workforce strategy for the public health system. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/healthy-lives-healthy-people-towards-a-workforce-
strategy-for-the-public-health-system

Dickinson, D., & Sullivan, H. (2014). Imagining the 21st century public service workforce. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/msog-production/assets/files/000/000/259/original/MSoG-21c-
Draft2_2_.pdf?1415916853

Dollery, B.E., Grant, B.H., & Kortt, M.A. (2012). Councils in cooperation: shared services and Australian
local government. Sydney: Federation Press.
Easton, S. (2015, May 28). The rise of ‘public service professions’: information managers to lead the way.
The Mandarin. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/36103-rise-public-service-
professions-information-managers-lead-way/
Federal Libraries Consortium (2015). About the FLC. Retrieved from http://www.bac-
lac.gc.ca/eng/services/federal-librairies-coordination-secretariat/Pages/flc.aspx

Federal Library and Information Centre Committee (FLICC), Library of Congress. (2008). Federal librarian
competencies. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/flicc/publications/Lib_Compt/2011/2011Competencies.pdf

Federal Library & Information Network (FEDLINK) (2012). Business plan: Fiscal years 2012-2016. Retrieved
from https://www.loc.gov/flicc/publications/businessplan/2012/BusinessPlanFinal050212_508.pdf

Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK). (2014). FEDLINK. Retrieved from
https://www.loc.gov/flicc/fedlink/index_fedlink.html

Fox, M. L. (2010). Directgov 2010 and beyond: Revolution not evolution. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/directgov-2010-and-beyond-revolution-not-evolution-
a-report-by-martha-lane-fox

Frey, T. (2014). Liquid networks: A breeding ground for ideas [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2014/08/
Fricker, D. (2016, March 1). Value public information so that we can trust it, rely on it and use it. The
Mandarin. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/61161-david-fricker-transparency-
integrity-government-digital-age/
Government Digital Service (GDS). (2015). Digital by default service standard. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/digital-by-default

Government Information and Official Publications Section (GIOPS), International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions (IFLA). (2014). Access to government information in the post 2015 United
Nations development agenda. Retrieved from
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/giops/publications/giops-brief_1.pdf

Haddon, C., Devanny, J., Fosdick, C. & Thompson, A. (2015). What is the value of history in policymaking?
London: Institute for Government. Retrieved from
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Making%20History%20Wo
rk%20Report%20-%20Final_0.pdf

Hallam, G. (2010). Queensland Government agency libraries review: Literature review. Department of the
Premier and Cabinet, State Government of Queensland. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31528/
Hallam, G., Ritchie, A., Hamill, C., Lewis, S., O’Connor, P., Kammermann, M., Clark, C. & Newton-Smith, C.
(2011). Health librarianship workforce and education: Research to plan the future. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/our-
communities/Healthlibrarianshipworkforcereport.pdf

Huffine, R. (2014). Federal libraries continue their mission in the face of challenges. Information Today,
31(8). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/it/oct14/Huffine--Federal-Libraries-Continue-Their-
Mission-in-the-Face-of-Challenges.shtml

Inayatullah, S. (2014). Library futures: From knowledge keepers to creators. The Futurist, Nov-Dec 2014,
24-28.
Jaeger, P. & Bertot, J. (2011). Government information librarians: New skills and training for the digital
age. In: P. Garvin (Ed.), Government information management in the 21st century: International
perspectives (pp.9-21). Farnham, Surry: Ashgate.
Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-22

April 2016
James, S. (2013). Foreword. In J. M. Matarazzo & T. Pearlstein (Eds.), Special libraries: A survival guide
[EBL version] (pp. ix-x). Retrieved from http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Jordan, I. & de Stricker, U. (2013). Information management in the Canadian Federal Government:
Principles, practices and the role of information professionals. Retrieved from
https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/faculty_staff_research_publication/39509abe-6e49-483b-
8620-bc408a4e0819/fac_staff_res_pub_pdf/924c3ed514726e55f488bbf362c52596/jordan-
informationmanagementinthecanadian.pdf

KPMG (2014). Digital age and service delivery: change beyond recognition. The Mandarin, December 2,
2014. Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/12944-digital-age-public-service-delivery-
change-beyond-recognition

Lawrence, A., Houghton, J., Thomas, J. & Weldon, P. (2014). Where is the evidence? Realising the value of
grey literature for public policy and practice. Melbourne: Swinburne Institute for Social Research.
Retrieved from http://greylitstrategies.info/project-publications/where-evidence-realising-value-grey-
literature-public-policy-and-practice-0

LexisNexis (2014). The past, present and future of information management report: From a physical to
digital information world – how the data revolution is driving competitive advantage. Retrieved from
https://www.lexisnexis.com/infopro/literature-reference/white-
papers/b/whitepaper/archive/2014/04/23/the-past-present-and-future-of-information-management-
report.aspx

Library of Congress. (2013). FEDLINK to manage information acquisitions across federal agencies.
Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-012.html

Local Government of South Australia (2015). Service delivery framework and the role of shared services.
Financial sustainability information paper 7. Revised February 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/07%20-
%20Service%20Delivery%20Framework%20and%20the%20Role%20of%20Shared%20Services%20201
5.pdf

Lord, S. (2014). Closing the gap: The five essential attributes of the modern information professional.
Legal Information Management, 14(4), 258-265.
Lyon Declaration on access to information and development. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.lyondeclaration.org/
Malcolm Turnbull MP (2015). FAQs: The Digital Transformation Office. Retrieved from
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/policy-faqs/faqs-the-digital-transformation-office

Marin-Cormeau, C. & O’Connell, K. (2015). Rethinking federal library services: A collaborative model.
Paper presented at the Canadian Library Association (CLA) Conference, June 3-5, 2015, Ottawa,
Canada. Retrieved from http://www.claconference.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/J7_Rethinking-
Federal-Library-Services_EN_Marin-Comeau_O-Connell.pdf

Mark Ware Consulting (2009). Access by UK small and medium-sized enterprises to professional and
academic literature. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/111-prc-
projects/research-reports/sme-access-research-report/141-access-by-uk-small-and-medium-sized-
enterprises-to-professional-and-academic-information

Matarazzo, J. M., & Pearlstein, T. (2013). Educating special librarians: “The past is prologue.” In J. M.
Matarazzo & T. Pearlstein (Eds.), Special libraries: A survival guide [EBL version] (pp. 93-101).
Retrieved from http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Matarazzo, J.M., & T. Pearlstein (2013). Resuscitated: The EPZ libraries’ near death experience. In J. M.
Matarazzo & T. Pearlstein (Eds.), Special libraries: A survival guide [EBL version] (pp. 97-90). Retrieved
from http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Matthews, J. (2013). Adding value: getting to the heart of the matter. Performance Measurement and
Metrics, 14(3), 162-174.
McPherson, F. (2012). Whole-of-Government library: Helping develop the next GOC library service delivery
model. Presentation given at Canadian Federal Libraries Strategic Network (CFLSN) Monthly Meeting,
February 1, 2012.
National Archives of Australia (NAA) (2015). Digital continuity policy 2020 policy. Retrieved from
http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/digital-transition-and-digital-continuity/digital-
continuity-2020/index.aspx

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-23

April 2016
O’Connor, A. (2007). Special libraries and information services. In S. Ferguson (Ed.), Libraries in the
twenty-first century: Charting new directions in information services [EBL version] (pp. 59-72).
Retrieved from http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Partridge, H., Lee, J. M., & Munro, C. (2010). Becoming “librarian 2.0”: The skills, knowledge, and
attributes required by library and information science professionals in a Web 2.0 world (and beyond).
Library Trends, 59(1/2), 315-335. doi: 10.1353/lib.2010.0029

Ralph, G., & Sibthorpe, J. (2009). Emerging trends in New Zealand special libraries. Retrieved from
http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/SzentirmayReport2009RalphSibthorpe.pdf

Ralph, G., & Sibthorpe, J. (2013). Corporate library survival outside the United States: Lessons from New
Zealand and Australia. In J. M. Matarazzo & T. Pearlstein (Eds.), Special libraries: A survival guide [EBL
version] (pp. 129-147). Retrieved from http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
Renn, O., Archer, M., Burkhardt, C., Ginestet, J., Nielsen, H. P., Woodward, J., & the P-D-R Library Affairs
& Copyright Group. (2012). A blueprint for an ideal corporate information centre. Nature Reviews
Drug Discovery. doi: 10.1038/nrd2973-c1

Rutter, J. (2012). Evidence and evaluation in policy making: A problem of supply or demand? London:
Institute for Government. Retrieved from
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/evidence%20and%20eval
uation%20in%20template_final_0.pdf

Rutter, J. & Gold, J. (2015). Show your workings: Assessing how governments use evidence to make policy.
London: Institute for Government. Retrieved from
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/4545%20IFG%20-
%20Showing%20your%20workings%20v8b.pdf

Schneider, L., & Barron, S. (2014). The hybrid librarian-IT expert. In K. Schopflin (Ed.), A handbook for
corporate information professionals [EBL version] (pp. 45-56). Retrieved from
http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/
SGS Economics & Planning (2013). The community returns generated by Australian health libraries. Final
report. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/SGS%20Health%20Report%20September%202013%20lau
nch%201%20November.pdf

Shared Services Centre (SSC) (2015). Home page. Retrieved from https://www.ssc.gov.au/
Shergold, P. (2013). Service sector reform: A roadmap for community and human services reform.
Retrieved from http://vcoss.org.au/documents/2013/11/FINAL-Report-Service-Sector-Reform.pdf

Shergold, P. (2015). Learning from failure: Why large government policy initiatives have gone so badly
wrong in the past and how the chances of success in the future can be improved. Retrieved from
http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/learning-from-failure

Shine, C. (2010). Shared library services in the Victorian Government. Paper presented at ALIA Access
2010 Conference, Brisbane, September 1-3 2010. Retrieved from
http://conferences.alia.org.au/access2010/pdf/Paper_Fri_0940_Carolyn_Shine.pdf

Shumaker, D. (2015). The evolving role of the librarian. Research Focus,
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/bizfocus/pdf/shumaker_blog.pdf

Simon, C. (2011). An examination of best practices and benchmarking in corporate libraries. Journal of
Management Development, 30(1), 134-141. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711111098433

SLA (2003). Competencies for information professionals of the 21st century. Retrieved from
https://www.sla.org/about-sla/competencies/
SLA (2010a). Association profile. Retrieved from: http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/AssnProfile/Index.cfm

SLA (2010b). Government Information Division. Retrieved from http://govinfo.sla.org/
SLA. Professional Competencies Task Force (2016). Competencies of librarians and information
professionals. Retrieved February 29, 2016 from http://www.sla.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/0216-OM-B01-Competencies-TF.pdf

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) (2015). Shared library services. Retrieved
from http://ssroc.nsw.gov.au/ssroc-projects/shared-library-services/
Staggs, V. (2010). Shared government library services: The state of play in Victoria. HLA News, June 2010,
3, 15.
Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-24

April 2016
Streatfield, D. & Markless, S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of your library. 2nd ed. London: Facet.
Tancheva, K., Castro Gessner, G., Tang, N., Eldermire, E., Furnas, H., Branchini, D. & Steinhart, G. (2016). A
day in the life of a (serious) researcher: Envisioning the future of the research library. New York: Ithaka
S+R. Retrieved from http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-serious-researcher/
Taylor, R. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
The Mandarin (2016, March 30). ‘Catastrophic’ impact of information sharing failures. The Mandarin.
Retrieved from http://www.themandarin.com.au/62550-catastrophic-consequences-information-
sharing-failures/
University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Centre for Local Government (CLG) (2015). Regional library
management models. Draft literature review prepared for the State Library of New South Wales.
Retrieved from
http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/services/public_libraries/docs/DRAFT_Literature_Review_Regional_Library
_Management_Models.pdf

Urquart, C. (2015). Reflections on the value and impact of library and information services. Part 1.
Performance Measurement and Metrics, 16(1), 86-102.
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2014). Shared services in local government. Retrieved from
http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20140528-Shared-Services/20140528-Shared-Services.pdf

Vilkins, A. (2014). Government libraries: A new model? InfoToday Europe, August 21, 2014. Retrieved
from http://www.infotoday.eu/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/Government-libraries-a-new-
model-98896.aspx

Webb-Smart, P. (2016, February 8). Whole-of-government approach to service. The Mandarin. Retrieved
from http://www.themandarin.com.au/60006-penny-webb-whole-government-approach-service/
Zeeman, D., Jones, R. & Dysart, J. (2011). Assessing innovation in corporate and government libraries.
InfoToday, 31(5), 1-11.

Appendix 1

AGLIN literature review A1-25

April 2016
Appendix 2: Online Survey

Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-1

April 2016
Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review

Online Survey

Introduction

This online survey represents a key component of the Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries

Review, commissioned by the Australian Government Library and Information Network (AGLIN). The

information and comparative data collected through the survey will inform the development of an

options paper to determine potential future service delivery models for the government

departmental and agency libraries.

Before you start:
This is an extensive survey, with ten sections and a total of 78 questions. The questions seek detailed

responses about your library/information service and it is anticipated that you will have to undertake

some research at the local level to collate the information required. If your library service operates

from more than one location, you have the option to either complete the survey for each individual

service, or you can merge them into one single survey response.

The sections are:

  1. Details about the library/information service
  2. Library staffing
  3. Service delivery
  4. Library users
  5. Library resources
  6. Library automation
  7. Space and storage
  8. Library finance
  9. Library trends
  10. AGLIN.

While the information collected in the survey is identifiable to the researchers, all data will be

handled according to the principles of research ethics.
The closing date for the survey is [date].

Concerns or queries regarding the study:
If you have any questions about the research study in general or the survey in particular, please

contact the Project Leader.

Thank you for supporting the study.

Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-2

April 2016
[Note: the following questions provide an overview of the data requested, but not all options for

multiple choice responses have been provided. For further information, please contact the

research team.]

Change Service or View Census Ho to FIRST Question
Part 1: Details about the library/information service
1.1 What is the name of your library/information service?
1.2 Which Government Department or Agency hosts the library/information service?
1.3 What is the physical location of the library/information service?
1.4 Please provide details of any additional physical locations for this library/information
service.
1.5 Please indicate the administrative arrangements for the library/information service.
1.6 Has your library been impacted by any Government/Departmental changes in the past 3
years? If so, please briefly state the nature of these changes in the comments box.
1.7 Please indicate the range of agency services and functions that are the direct responsibility
of the library (ie the library unit provides the services for the agency as a whole.)
1.8 Please indicate the key subject strengths of your physical and electronic collections and
research services. Select your TOP 5 subject areas from the following list. Please consider the
subject areas that are reflected in your library collection and the focus of the research services
you provide.

Part 2: Library staffing
2.1 Please indicate the total number of permanent staff positions, expressed as full-time
equivalents (FTE) in your library service as at 1 November 2015.
2.2 Please indicate the number of library staff, expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE) in the
following classifications. For Non-APS classifications please provide details of the staffing
profile in the comments box
2.3 Are there currently any commercial contact staff employed in your library? If yes, please
provide details in the comments of: Number of commercial contract staff, and the
duties/roles/responsibilities of these staff.

Part 3: Service delivery
3.1 Please indicate whether you charge your agency business units for any services, through
recovery of costs. Direct costs = the actual cost of the item Full costs = costs including staff
time and oncosts Please provide details of any other arrangements in the comments box.
3.2 Does your library provide direct user assistance with research?
3.3 If your library does provide direct user assistance with research, do you have any specific
guidelines or turnaround times for research requests? Please provide brief details of any
guidelines you do have in the comments box.
3.4 Please consider the extent to which the library service meets user needs.

Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-3

April 2016
3.5 Please estimate the average number of staff hours spent, in a typical month, on direct
research assistance for users. You should consider the actual reference and research activities;
do not include collection development and maintenance of loans.
3.6 Please consider the relative proportion of direct research assistance that is provided to the
different user groups. There are 3 questions, relating to Internal users, External users,
Members of the public. The total percentage for these 3 questions should be 100%.
3.7 Please indicate the range of services that your library provides to users.
3.8 Please indicate the range and frequency of awareness or alerting services that your library
provides to users. If you offer any other alerting services, please outline these in the comments
box.
3.9 Please indicate the range and frequency of training activities that your library provides to
users. If you offer other training, please indicate these in the comments.
3.10 Please provide details of any collaborative arrangements your library has with other
libraries (eg reciprocal borrowing, consortia purchasing or licensing). Please indicate the
benefits gained from these collaborative, reciprocal or consortia arrangements in the
comments box.
3.11 Please estimate the average number of books loaned from your collection in a typical
month.
3.12 Please estimate the average number of journal articles supplied from your collection
(physical and electronic) in a typical month.
3.13 Please estimate the average number of books borrowed from external sources in a typical
month
3.14 Please estimate the average number of journal articles acquired from external sources in
a typical month
3.15 Does your library charge for providing resources through interlibrary loan/document
delivery to internal users?
3.16 Does your library charge for providing resources through interlibrary loan/document
delivery to other agency libraries?
3.17 Does your library charge for providing resources through interlibrary loan/document
delivery to non-government libraries or organisations?

Part 4: Library users
4.1 Please estimate the total number of active users (using physical and/or online services, do
not include interlibrary loan users).
4.2 What is the total number of possible internal users (ie staff from your own agency)?
4.3 Are members of the public or other external users able to visit and use your library and its
resources?
4.4 Are staff from other government agencies able to visit and use your library and its
resources and services?

Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-4

April 2016
4.5 Please consider the relative proportion of users of your library/information service. The
total percentage for these 3 questions should be 100%. (a) Relative proportion of active users
who are internal users (ie staff from your agency) (b) Relative proportion of active users who
are external users, not including interlibrary loans (ie staff from other government agencies,
agency partnerships, commercial activities) (c) Relative proportion of active users who are
members of the public.
4.6 Are there any specific conditions that relate to physical access to the library? If so, please
provide brief details.
4.7 Please indicate how your electronic library services and resources can be accessed.
4.8 Are there any specific conditions that relate to electronic access to the library resources
and services beyond the licensing arrangements? If so, please provide brief details in the
comments box.

Part 5: Library resources
5.1 What classification scheme is used to classify all or most of your collection?
5.2 Does your library currently contribute holdings to Libraries Australia?
5.3 If you contribute holdings to Libraries Australia, what percentage of your holdings are
reflected in Libraries Australia?
5.4 If you contribute holdings to Libraries Australia, are the holdings regularly updated?
5.5 Please indicate whether any of the following unique or significant resources feature in your
library collection
5.6 From the following list, please indicate the electronic resources your library currently has
access to. (Part 1 of 4.) The resources are listed at the vendor level to give an overall guide. The
research team may seek more detailed information as required at a later date.
5.7 From the following list, please indicate the electronic resources your library currently has
access to. (Part 2 of 4)
5.8 From the following list, please indicate the electronic resources your library currently has
access to. (Part 3 of 4)
5.9 From the following list, please indicate the electronic resources your library currently has
access to. (Part 4 of 4) Please note any other services you wish to highlight in the comments
box.
5.10 Please provide an estimate of the number of bibliographic records for your library. You
should consider the records for books, reports, audio-visual materials, journal titles, etc.
(ie. Not the records for individual issues of journals or journal articles)

Part 6: Library automation
6.1 Does your library have a library management system (LMS)? Note: If you respond with ‘No’,
the following few questions can be answered with the default “N/A” response.
6.2 If there is an LMS, what type is it?
6.3 If the LMS is an open source system, please provide the system name, installation year
(YYYY), setup costs and any other related charges.
Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-5

April 2016
6.4 If the LMS is a proprietary system, please provide the system name and version number
and year of installation (YYYY).
6.5 if the LMS is a proprietary system, what were the setup costs?
6.6 If there is an LMS, what is the annual maintenance fee?
6.7 If there is an LMS, is the LMS hosted internally or externally? If externally hosted please
provide the name of the host agency in the comments box.
6.8 If there is an LMS, is it web enabled?
6.9 If there is an LMS, when is the anticipated year for renewal or replacement of the LMS?
(YYYY) Please outline any plans you may already have for a replacement system.
6.10 If you are planning to replace the current LMS, would you consider an open source
system?
6.11 If there is an LMS to be replaced, how much is the projected capital budget for the LMS
replacement?
6.12 If there is an LMS to be replaced, would you consider Software as a Service (SaaS) as an
option?
6.13 Please indicate which of the following library functions are automated in your library.

Part 7: Space and storage
7.1 Please indicate the area (m2) allocated to your library. Enter the names of the locations in
the comments.
7.2 Please indicate the percentage of space allocated to Location 1. Put details of the location
in the comments.
7.3 Please indicate the percentage of space allocated to Location 2. If no second location
please enter zero [0]. Put details of the location in the comments.
7.4 Please indicate the percentage of space allocated to Location 3. If no third location please
enter zero [0]. Put details of the location in the comments.
7.5 Do you have any storage facilities in addition to the library collection space?
7.6 If you do have storage facilities, please indicate the arrangements.
7.7 If you do have storage facilities, please indicate the area (in m2) allocated for additional
storage space.
7.8 If you do have storage facilities, please indicate the rental cost ($ per m2, per annum) of the
additional storage space.

Part 8: Library finance
8.1 Please provide details of the library's budgeted revenues for the 2014/15 year. Please enter
zero [0] if not applicable. Note: Questions relating to changes in budgeted revenues are asked
in Section 9: Trends

Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-6

April 2016
8.2 Please consider the relative proportion of the budgeted expenditure for the period
2014/15. There are 3 questions, relating to Employee related expenditure; Supplies and
services (eg collections, subscriptions, licences, hardware, software, consumables);
Depreciation and amortisation. The total percentage for these 3 questions should be 100%.
8.3 Are there any services or programs which are outsourced or have external contracts?

Part 9: Library trends (2010-2015)
9.1 Please indicate the extent to which the following aspects of your library service have
changed over the past five years (2010-2015) (Part 1)
9.2 Please indicate the extent to which the following aspects of your library service have
changed over the past five years (2010-2015) (Part 2)
9.3 Has your library experienced any changes to staffing over the past five years (2010-2015)?
9.4 Please outline any new initiatives or developments planned for your library during the next
three years (2015-2018).
9.5 Do you have any further comments to add about the changing library environment?

Part 10: The roles of AGLIN
10.1 Please indicate the top 3 things you would like to see AGLIN involved in.
10.2 Do you feel that the name Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN)
represents the contemporary environment?
10.3 Do you see any value in proposing a change of name for AGLIN? If so, which name appeals
to you?

Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-7

April 2016
Appendix 2

AGLIN Online Survey A2-8

April 2016
Appendix 3: Focus group questions

Appendix 3

AGLIN Focus Group Questions A3-1

April 2016
Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review

Focus Group Questions

Consultation with Library Staff

Consultation with library staff represents an important element in the data collection activities for the

Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review (CGALR), commissioned by the Australian

Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN). The research activities will inform the

development of an options paper to determine potential future service delivery models for

Commonwealth Government departmental and agency libraries.
The research team is aware that government library services are highly specialised and have long

played an important role to support the work undertaken by government staff in a wide range of

positions. The current model of library services within the Commonwealth Government is

department-centric.
In order to consult widely with the government library community, the research team invites library

staff to contribute their views and opinions, either at focus groups to be held in Canberra on [date] or

through the online questionnaire.

Confidentiality

In line with the principles of research ethics, all responses will remain completely confidential,
anonymous and de-identified. No individual agency details will be revealed. All data will remain with

the project leader. The overall research findings from the review will be analysed and summarised in

the final project report.

Questions for Government Library Staff

  1. Please indicate name of the government agency that you are working with.
  2. Given your knowledge of and experience with government agency library services, do you
    believe that these services continue to have relevance and/or value to the department or
    agency? Can you please explain why you think this is the case?
  3. The current model of service delivery sees libraries directly associated with a specific
    department or agency. What do you feel are the strengths of this model?
  4. Do you believe that there are any shortcomings or problems with the current model? Please
    explain the reasons which support your views.
  5. What do you believe are the most valuable attributes of government agency libraries in general,
    or the library that serves your agency specifically?
  6. What do you believe is the single most important contribution that your library makes to your
    agency? What is the impact of this contribution?

Appendix 3

AGLIN Focus Group Questions A3-2

April 2016
7. Concerns have been expressed about the current climate for government library and
information services, with evidence that libraries have lost traction, influence or representation
in many government departments. What do you believe are the underlying causes for this
situation?

  1. If your library closed tomorrow, what difference do you think it would make to your agency?
  2. How, and to what extent, do you believe that government agency libraries support, or
    contribute to the achievement of the government’s strategic directions?
  3. How, and to extent, do you believe that government agency libraries support or contribute to
    the development of high quality, evidence-based public policy?
  4. How, and to what extent, do you believe that government agency libraries support or contribute
    to the achievement of the government’s ICT strategies, including the new digital transformation
    agenda?
  5. Do you feel that there are any specific barriers to the role that libraries might play in supporting
    the achievement of the government’s ICT strategies or digital transformation agenda?
    Please provide some reasons to support your views.
  6. How, and to what extent, do you believe that government agency libraries support or contribute
    to the achievement of the government’s information management strategies?
  7. Do you feel that there are any specific barriers to the role that libraries might play in supporting
    the achievement of the government’s information management strategies?
    Why do you think this?
  8. Do you believe that library and information studies (LIS) qualifications – professional or
    paraprofessional – are understood by stakeholders in your department or agency? Are LIS
    qualifications (or eligibility for membership of ALIA) considered an essential requirement for
    employment within your library and information service?
  9. To what extent is the employment of staff, and their professional development, determined by
    the APS capability map? To what extent do professional or paraprofessional qualifications play a
    role in recruitment and staff development?
  10. To what extent do you believe that you receive sufficient and/or appropriate training and
    professional development support from your department or agency? Where do you feel that
    staff development falls short of your needs?
  11. Do you believe that there are any untapped opportunities for government agency libraries?
    Can you please outline your ideas?
  12. Blue sky thinking: What would your vision for government agency libraries be?
  13. Finally, thinking about the role of AGLIN in the government library sector: how relevant do you
    feel the organisation is today? In what ways do you think this might, or could change in the
    future?

Appendix 3

AGLIN Focus Group Questions A3-3

April 2016