Please find attached an earlier Review of Government Libraries and their staff conducted by Dr Hallam.
Download (1.87 MB)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.
- The AGLIN Executive establishes a Future Directions Taskforce, comprising a representative
sample of the membership, charged with the responsibility to review this research report. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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
- 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:
- Details about the library/information service
- Library staffing
- Service delivery
- Library users
- Library resources
- Library automation
- Space and storage
- Library finance
- Library trends
- 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:
- Coordinate cooperative activities and services among federal libraries, information
centers and other information users - Serve as a forum to consider and make recommendations to the federal information
community - Encourage and promote development of librarians and information professionals
- Support procurement efforts to centralize and streamline options to provide efficient
and cost-effective use of federal library and information resources and services - 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
- Government-wide agreement to move to shared services arrangements
- Establishment of shared services provider
- Establishment of central management unit for government library and information services
within the shared services provider - Contractual arrangements, policies and procedures relating to:
a. Funding
b. Roles and responsibilities
c. Technology
d. Procurement and licensing
e. Service provision - 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
- Further in-depth research into all Commonwealth Government library and information services
- Government-wide agreement to move to cluster library arrangements
- Consensus regarding the appropriate structure for the clusters of library and information services
- Establishment of central management unit for government library and information services
- Determining locations of cluster libraries
- Contractual arrangements, policies and procedures relating to:
a. Funding
b. Roles and responsibilities
c. Technology
d. Procurement and licensing
e. Service provision - 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
- Cross-agency agreement to establish collaborative arrangements
- Establishment of coordination group with authority to manage collaborative activities
- 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:
- The AGLIN Executive establishes a Future Directions Taskforce, comprising a representative
sample of the membership, charged with the responsibility to review this research report. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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
David Faraker
Student, Master of Information Technology (Library & Information Studies)
School of Information Systems
Science and Engineering Faculty
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane
Contents
- Introduction .............................................................................................................................. A1-1
- Directions in government administration ................................................................................. A1-2
-
Trends in government libraries ................................................................................................. A1-6
3.1 International perspectives ..................................................................................................... A1-7
3.2 Australian perspectives ........................................................................................................ A1-10 - Determining the value of government library and information services ............................... A1-12
- Skills and competencies of government librarians ................................................................. A1-16
- 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).
- 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).
- 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:
- Demonstrate returns on investment
- Establish mission critical programs
- Integrate mobile devices, apps and dashboards into workflows
- Expand roles as analyst, educator and consultant
- Cultivate use of the Semantic Web, cloud computing and Web 3.0
- Customize and personalize information to meet the needs of users
- 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.
- 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
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).
- 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).
- 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
-
- Retrieved from http://www.aglin.org/policies/
Australian Institute of Management (2012). Shared services in the public sector: A triumph of hope over
experience? North Sydney: AIM. Retrieved from
https://www.aim.com.au/sites/default/files/downloads/AIM-Research-Shared-Services-Public-
Sector.pdf
- Retrieved from http://www.aglin.org/policies/
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:
- Details about the library/information service
- Library staffing
- Service delivery
- Library users
- Library resources
- Library automation
- Space and storage
- Library finance
- Library trends
- 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
- Please indicate name of the government agency that you are working with.
-
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? -
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? -
Do you believe that there are any shortcomings or problems with the current model? Please
explain the reasons which support your views. -
What do you believe are the most valuable attributes of government agency libraries in general,
or the library that serves your agency specifically? -
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?
- If your library closed tomorrow, what difference do you think it would make to your agency?
-
How, and to what extent, do you believe that government agency libraries support, or
contribute to the achievement of the government’s strategic directions? -
How, and to extent, do you believe that government agency libraries support or contribute to
the development of high quality, evidence-based public policy? -
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? -
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. -
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? -
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? -
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? -
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? -
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? -
Do you believe that there are any untapped opportunities for government agency libraries?
Can you please outline your ideas? - Blue sky thinking: What would your vision for government agency libraries be?
-
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