In order to improve patron access to the library's collection of electronic resources, upgrade staff competencies for working with electronic resources, and enhance workflow efficiencies, both the Technical Services Department of American University's Pence Law Library and the Information Delivery Services division at American University’s Bender Library implemented reorganizations. These two libraries, however, chose different organizational models. The law library redefined itself through a distributed model using existing staff. In contrast, the Bender Library formed a centralized Electronic Resource Management Unit to better manage access to and discovery of the electronic resource collection. The presenters will examine the successes and challenges of revising workflows, reassigning tasks, and redistributing print-based work to address the growing needs of electronic collections and diminished volume of print materials in both a centralized and distributed model. This program also provides an overview of project management techniques and how these techniques were implemented and supplemented in order to evolve the skills of the staff at both libraries. The program will also provide an overview of how a new vision and new goals were crafted; how workflows were reviewed and revised; and how jobs were rewritten and reassigned. In addition, the presenters will address shared challenges with current workflows and organizational structures. The intended audience is librarians in smaller to mid-sized libraries who do not have a librarian or department dedicated to electronic resources but who need to tackle electronic resources workflows and evolve staff's print-based skills to accommodate the needs of electronic resources. Kari Schmidt Electronic Resources Librarian, American University Library

1. From Print to Online:
Revamping Technical Services
with Distributed and
Centralized ERM Workflow
Models
Kari Schmidt
Electronic Resources Librarian & Co-Interim
Director for Information Delivery Services,
American University Library, American University,
Washington, D.C.

2. Technical Services Re-Organization
Director, Information
Delivery Services
Acquisitions
Cataloging
Electronic
Resource
Management
Access Services
AUL, Collection Services
Acquisitions
Cataloging
Collection
Management
Serials & E-
Resources

3. From Serials & E-Resources To ERM: 2008-2009
 Closed current periodicals desk
 Lost 3 full-time positions and all student
workers
 Transferred serials cataloging to Cataloging
Unit
 Transferred serials check-in and bindery work
to Acquisitions Unit
 Transferred 100,000 bound serials volumes to
off site storage
 Access Services managed newly created
open current periodicals stacks
 Went from 35% of serials expenditures on print
to 25% of serials expenditures on print
 Implemented ERMS
 Regained one full-time position: ERM
Specialist
Serials & E-
Resources Librarian
Serials
Coordinator
Serials Check-in
Specialist
Periodicals Desk
Supervisor
Serials
Cataloger
E-Resources
Specialist

4. Centralized ERM: 2010-2013
 Transitioned away from
consortially managed ERM tools to
locally managed ERMS, Open URL
Resolver, MARC Record Service,
EZProxy, OCLC KB, LibGuides, and
Summon
 11% of serials subscriptions in print
 Increasingly tasked with acquiring
new types of e-resources: e-
books, datasets, learning tools,
professional training resources
 New focus on assessment,
discovery, and access issues
E-Resources Librarian
E-Resources
Management
Specialist
E-Resources
Applications
Administrator
E-Resources
Specialist

5. Training & Skills Building in ERM Techniques
Methods
• ERM “class” to underscore importance of work, where it fits in
organizationally, and how it is different from traditional technical services
workflows
• Training through troubleshooting access issues
• Training others in Technical Services via e-Resources Forums
• Vendor trainings
• Cross-train within the unit
• Annually evaluate responsibilities ripe for delegation
• Prioritize projects and focus on inter-departmental dependencies
• Provide opportunities to serve on consortial/regional committees

6. Siloed ERM Workflows in Technical Services: 2013 -
 ERM Unit handling 82% of the overall materials
expenditures in FY13 with not enough bandwidth to
systematically focus on assessment, discovery, and access
issues
 Cataloging overwhelmed with multiple print legacy
projects mandated by Library Administration, RDA
transition, and pressure to move toward metadata services
for Special Collections
 Acquisitions staffing levels disproportional and workflows
weighted towards print acquisitions
 Director of Technical Services position currently vacant

7. Print and Non-Print Expenditures, FY09-FY13
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
FY09
FY10
FY11 FY12
FY13

8. Toward Distributed ERM Workflows in Technical Services
New Initiatives
 Piloting print PDA plan for titles that
come for review on e-slips
 Shifting licensing for e-books to
Acquisitions
 Piloting e-preferred Approvals plan for 7
subject areas to support of online
learning programs and to analyze
workflow implications
 Analyzing print standing orders
managed by Acquisitions to move them
e-only
 Acquisitions taking on some aspects of
copy-cataloging to create time for
Cataloging to work on metadata
projects
 Formalizing library systems work in ERM
Unit with Academic Technology and
Access Services
Recent Initiatives
 Shelf-ready approval plan with
quality control check list
 MyiLibrary PDA e-book plan
 Implemented EOD and EDI in
Acquisitions
 Hired Digital Cataloging Specialist
 Cataloging trained in MarcEdit and
handling e-book collection loads
 MARC record service
 Implemented CORAL Resources
Module to manage e-book workflows

9. Challenges
 Open Director of Technical Services position
 University Librarian on three year contract
 Disproportional staffing levels in Technical Services
 Ongoing move to storage project
 Creation of Research Commons in Library
 Big Data
 Limited funds for training and development of staff
 No overarching collection development policy
 No coordinated shared collections policy with consortia