This small sampler of topics is just the beginning — currently offers over 1600 course titles from which to choose.  Just click any of these course links, log on with your Middlebury username and password and you’re on your way.  Work through an entire course or view just the movie segments you need — it’s up to you.

• Leading Productive Meetings
• Delegating Tasks to your Team
• Word 2010 Essential Training
• Mac OS X Mountain Lion New Features

Need a hand getting started?  Sign up for a lynda.com overview session,  visit go/lyndainfo for more details, or send an email inquiry to helpdesk@middlebury.edu.

Best of luck with your goal-setting!

Consolidation of repetitive tasks related to student employment.  This provides uniform policies and procedures, and reduces staff hours allocated to these tasks.

Deliverable:

• User services student supervisors work as team to find commonalities in the process
• Document timelines (numbers needed, when, hiring process, training)
• Agree upon common payroll policy, scheduling tools, advertising, hiring, & training
• Identify areas of difference between work groups – and document these as well

Outcome:

• Stress reduction by providing redundancy & supporting one another
• Anticipate consolidation of service points
• Standardize process
• Resource sharing

Delivery:

Complete – Fall 2010

Milestones:

• Ongoing: Continuing customer service training
• February 2010:
  Spring hires – team consulting with one another during job posting, interview, hiring, paperwork process
• Summer 2010:
  Create a secondary training for overlaps in job descriptions

Resources:

1. Who is involved:
   Student supervisors for Library Circulation, branches, reserves, helpdesk, media services.
   Currently – Elin, Todd, Dan, Kellam, Shawn, & Stewart.
2. Time:
   mostly the same as in the past, but allow for initial organizational meetings, and a bit more time when advertising, interviewing & hiring.  Time required determined by team allocation of tasks to members.  Little if any additional money or materials – depending on team choices.
   Team approach will allow sharing of responsibilities with common resources – avoiding current challenges when staff are not available for these tasks.

Viability:

• We have already demonstrated part of this goal with the current shared customer service training.  The rest is an extension of the same concept.
• Challenges: buy-in of supervisors, finding shared time to work together
• Opportunity: use of common tools (e.g. scheduling)

Deliverable:

1. By summer 2010 identify core sets of services and resources that all liaisons need to be familiar with, and provide training to allow all liaisons to achieve a similar level of familiarity.
2. By summer 2010 define the expectations around expertise in particular areas of specialization (e.g. collection development, video editing, etc.) document where that expertise resides within the organization and provide training to build up that expertise and/or fill gaps.

Outcome

We need to efficiently provide for faculty and students’ library instruction, educational technology instruction (including technology present in various classrooms), individual research, assistance in the development of course assignments requiring library research or educational technology, and the liaison program is a coure vehicle for doing this. In addition, we need to promote new and current LIS services to the community.
- tracking and creating a timeline for this outcome will be the challenge.
- this outcome is a ”moving target” and will be hard to quantify. How do we evaluate the level of proactiveness?
- The blog that was created to document the faculty tech fair could be used and incorporated into this goal.

Delivery
ACS will complete the rolling out of the new faculty liaison program by the end of June. The new liaison program will improve the way that we work with faculty to integrate technology and library resources into the curriculum, simplifying the paths that faculty need to follow to use our services and amplifying our understandingt of what faculty and students want and need from us.
-what are the key milestons and how do we track them?

Resources
This will require the time of everyone within ACS, as well as some time from folks outside of ACS but within LIS. Resource conflicts within ACS will be managed within ACS, broader resource conflicts will be brought to the attention of the AD team.
- an inventory of who’s doing what within LIS and the broader LIS skill set in general may need to be created.
- how the liaison program interfaces and overlaps with the Curriculum Technology Team and the Media Tutors is still to be resolved. 

Visibility
We need to commit time to working on this, and to working with departments to assess the efficacy of this new model.

Deliverable
-Develop an ongoing program to learn “FIVE NEW THINGS” in TEN WEEK time chunks
-Menu of FIVE THINGS” that evolves to match new tech trends and directions
-Self-paced; self-scheduled menu of learning platform choices to suit schedules and work demands – web-based; workshops; 1:1 and small group tutorials
-Menu of modules to choose from – with Liberal Arts model of distribution areas, requirements and electives; with a focus on tangible tools and practical, applicable know-how
-System to track accomplishments and incorporate into performance process

Possible menu of competency modules:
-Blogging – read, comment, publish; rss; tagging
-Wiki – add a page; edit a page; be able to seach and find documentation; tagging
-Library Resources -how to search Library data-bases and catalog
-Print/copy – troubleshooting
-Smart classroom – troubleshooting; how-to
-Personal computing
-Photo and image – search, edit, resources
-Web bookmarking tools
-Web-based/cloud applications and computing
-Podcasts, video, streaming, music
-Personal web pages -iGoogle; Drupal profiles ; College Directory
-Real-time trends – twitter etc.
-Geo and location
-Mobile computing
-Social Gaming
-Personal privacy issues
-Social web

Outcome
-Stay current with trends in library and information services
-Develop a “Change ready” attitute
-Gain confidence in ability to learn new tools
-Bridge LIS work areas
-Decrease fear of learning new things
-Open minds to new ideas
-Encourage discovery and innovation in the workplace
-Encourage staff to explore new tech with an eye to integrating into daily work
-Engage in activities to inspire imagination, curiosity
-Learning as its own reward
-Have fun
-Collaboration across User Services and LIS
-Foster team ethic
-Share knowledge – learn and teach
-Create an environment and have expectations for staff to work together
-Develop generalist knowledge of LIS resources and tools; and emerging technologies

Delivery
-Inventory skills; identify experts – May ‘10
-Develop the list of competency modules – July ‘10
-Create a system of MY FIVE THINGS to track individual and group progress – July ’10
-Every staff member in User Services contracts to accomplish at least 5 modules from menu – Sept ‘10
-Celebrate the accomplishments – Sept ‘10
-Evaluate and assess program – what worked/did not? Re-evaluate effectiveness of program, system, platform – go/no go of program – Nov ‘10
-If go –develop new menu offerings – Jan ‘11

Resources
-Align with newly formed Training Team to support leaning opportunities
-Partner with Web Team to learn about WordPress and Media wiki
-Curriciular Technology Team as a resource for identifying new technology learning meeds
-Internal “experts” identified to direct learning modules
-Collaborate with LIS Liaison program

Viability
-Minimum outcome – all US staff exposed to 5 new skills
-Maximum outcome – 50% US staff exceed goal – and go beyond the 5 new things
-Low cost – potential to tap into existing low cost/free resources and tools
-Flexible
-Partnering across User Services
-Non-threatening, self-paced, self-scheduled learning
-Realistic – 5 small steps at a time
-Allows participation by all
-Fun and productive; self-motivating
Possible barriers:
-Changing LIS org structure
-Time
-Pressing demands of day-to-day work
-Fewer staff resources

Position LIS proactively to optimize existing infrastructure and new technologies to meet increasing needs and varied demands of our constituents, achieving as well ‘greener’ environment.

Deliverable

Create a comprehensive ETI infrastructure, networking and services 3-year plan.

Inventory of existing infrastructure / servers / services / systems upon which to build – update – replace for future systems.

Outcome

Improve integration of Midd & MIIS campuses.

Assure continued, reliable & appropriately scaled services.

Articulated path for integrated communications, increased use of mobile devices, large-scale storage & delivery platforms for data, media, voice communications, & utilization of cloud.

Plan encompasses all these areas and includes tentative cost figures & timelines.

Delivery

Inventory / Plan finished August 2010.
Phases:

1. set scope of planning

2. research & vendor contacts made

3. inventory existing systems / services

4. identify technologies gather estimate costs

5. describe systems / services to be handled internally and/or externally

6. identify inter-relationships & dependencies

7. plan/report written

Resources

ETI & MIIS staff will need time to do research and talk with vendors / consultants. Will involve others across LIS & user community (for needs assessment)

Other campuses, consultants & vendors to be contracted (some expenditures)

Staff time may mean less time on immediate work or team work.

Long term: capital & operational budget balance / allocations

Viability

Likely; depending upon staff time; availability / funding of consultants.

Long-term implementation dependent on LIS staffing, resources, priorities, changes in environment (internal & external).  Will need to build in checkpoints.

Clarify roles, responsibilities, and service levels in providing & troubleshooting systems & ETI services
(whom do people call when about what, and what is the response we provide?)

Deliverable

Effective technical documentation & training for systems / staff with whom we work (e.g., User Services & MIIS staff). Implement cross-ETI  project tracking & workflow.

Outcome

Established service levels defined for all calls that relate to ETI systems/services.

Clarity of roles, timelines, workflow for projects.

Fewer calls to our staff. Improved response to users.

85-90% of calls related to selected ETI systems issues can be handled by helpdesks or technical staff outside ETI based on training & documentation.

Delivery

Jan-June 2010: Partner with User Services, MIIS (etc.) to designate & prioritize systems on which to focus initially. Clarify roles, responsibilties & service levels for these systems.

Jul-Dec 2010: learn from previous 6 months; adjust what we’re doing; extend to other systems.

Jan 2011 onward: repeat as needed.

Resources

Staff will need time to assess needs, develop & participate in training, and establish mutually defined service levels.

Staff time working on this goal may mean less time on immediate work or team work.

Viability

Yes, achievable! We have staff knowledgeable and willing to share expertise and expedite problem resolution.

Our staff will use their expertise to partner with others in LIS and a functional area (once selected) to achieve the LIS administrative efficiency strategic goal.

Deliverable

Systems & services are designed with self-service in mind.

ETI staff members will contribute their experience & expertise to work with users in College departments / areas to develop model(s) to enhance workflow, and data collection / storage / access. Models can then be rolled-out across campus.

Outcome

With fewer staff on campus, expedite use of technology (with system & process re-engineering) to achieve more efficient workflows. Empower constiuents in use of technology across campus. Allow LIS staff to prioritize on work they’re best at.

Devlivery

Timing in line with LIS goal – plan articulated by June 2010, and services implemented during FY2011.

1. User meetings

2. Articulate needs

3. Consult/vendor solutions; internal solutions identified

4. Cost proposals

5. Plan developed

Resources

Staff will need time to do research and talk with vendors / consultants. Will involve others across LIS & user community (for needs assessment)

Other campuses, consultants & vendors to be contracted (some expenditures) will need to be consulted.

Staff time on this goal may mean less time on immediate work or team work.

Long term: capital & operational budget balance / allocations will need to be assigned.

Viability

We have knowledgeable staff and vendors to achieve this goal.

Document and assess ACS’s current student information literacy (IL) efforts and methods and identify areas (if any) needing improvement or alternatives in order to meet or exceed NEASC accreditation standards (especially standard 7: Library and other information resources and standard 4.6) and plan for future initiatives or IL curricular integration.

Deliverable (How?)

Examine instruction statistics for bibliographic (library) and tech instruction for classes.  Examine curricular materials used for instruction (online guides, handouts, tutorials, instructional outlines).  Survey students and faculty to determine effectiveness of instruction.  Use a survey or template to get a summary from each instructor (librarians, educational technologists, and FYSE coordinator) of instructional efforts by department/program, i.e. identification of core courses where instruction is targeted as well as additional courses/instructors that tend to request instruction, as well as basic concepts that are taught. Identify areas where they may be gaps. Examine 1999 Midd NEASC review to measure current practice versus past practice and to make sure minor weaknesses haven’t become major ones. Also review 2008 interim report (substantive change?). Request accreditation reports from similar Oberlin group schools who have recently successfully completed accreditation (so we know what success looks like – ex. Amherst re-accredited Nov. 2008).    

Outcome (Why?)

Gain an understanding of the effectiveness and reach of our instruction program.  Identification of instructional objectives and expected student outcomes (similar to ACRL standards but less detailed).  Identification of department-specific needs and expectations. Identification of timeline (First year to Senior year) for introduction of skills and achievement of student success. Identification of areas of weakness (or potential accreditation failure) and target increased/improved instructional effort in these areas, if needed. The latter may require college administrative and faculty support and allocation of staff resources.

Delivery (When?)

To be accomplished by Dec. 2010 with weaknesses (if any) addressed by January 2011 in time for NEASC review (self study due Jan. 2011).  Establish time line for each stage and check progress midway through each step. [dates moved up by 6 months after feedback from Carol P.).

Resources (Who & What?)

Small team (2-4 people) to compile materials, design and implement surveys, and contribute to final report.  All members of ACS will be needed to contribute summaries of efforts/achievements in their areas.  [feedback from LIS meeting:  need to work with or be a part of new Training and Education Team and Accreditation team so don't duplicate effort.  Midd assessment involves all programs including Breadloaf, Monterey, and Schools Abroad, so our assessment needs to be coordinated or included with theirs].

Viability (Is this achievable?)

Achievable if prioritized and new initiatives are put on hold.

What are the barriers (competing demands for our time, possible reluctance by students/faculty to provide input) & enablers? (administrative support)

Decide– Go – no choice.  Midd needs to pass accreditation and assessing and mapping our instructional program will also help with planning for senior work.

Complete online withdrawal and physical removal of bound periodical issues duplicated by PAO (Periodicals Archive Online) digital coverage.

Bound volumes are duplicated by digital coverage and take up valuable shelf space. Often shifting of volumes is required to accommodate new volumes, etc. These items are now rarely used as digital access is preferred.

Supports Strategic Choice:
Space Planning — Shelving will be emptied allowing more flexibility in space planning.

Deliverable

Recently completed JSTOR withdrawal project can serve as a model with only minor workflow adjustments.

Outcome

• To free up shelving, adding flexibility to housing the collection. These volumes are no longer used as digital access is preferred.
• More space on shelves, or less space needed for shelves and available for other use

Devlivery

By June 2011
1) Midcat and OCLC records edited. 2) Bound volumes marked. 3) Volumes removed and sent to recycling.

Resources

• Selectors identify items that should not be removed (i.e., due to presence of color plates, or other criteria they develop)
• Cataloging and Serials staff will edit Midcat and OCLC records and mark volumes to be removed.
• P&P students will remove and send to recycling.
• Recycling staff will dispose of them.

Viability

• Yes. The scope of this project is smaller than the JSTOR project that was accomplished in a similar time frame.
• Barrier: Staffing levels. JSTOR was accomplished prior to the first round of ERP. Should CM lose more staff this project may take longer or be postponed
• Enabler: Should space issues become high priority this project could be accomplished sooner by postponing other tasks.

Designate a Collection Management staff person to assume certain low-level library system roles.

Supports Strategic Choice
#4 – staff development as part of performance process

Deliverable

• Work with Barbara Merz & Mike Lynch to identify functions/tasks that could be shifted
• Identify CM staff member with requisite background and aptitude
• Identify training opportunities, both in house and through III

Possible tasks for CM to assume:

• Updates to Serials Solutions (III/Excel manipulation)
• Serve as contact with III
• Load table editing/creation (more complex)
• WebBridge  maintenance (more complex)

Outcome

• Make CM more self-sufficient for “routine” library system issues
• Faster response time for minor issues
• Relieve Library Systems of these tasks as Mike devotes more time to managing a workgroup.
• Provide new opportunities for CM staff
• Learn more about the system CM works with every day.

Devlivery

• Identify CM candidate very soon after the dust settles from the next round of VSP/ERP departures.
• Have basic list of specific tasks to assume identified by that time; may need to be adjusted depending on who takes role.
• Identify training needs and opportunities by June ‘10
• Ask systems to set permissions necessary to access various  system parameters
• Begin training and assume tasks as soon as ready thereafter.
• Monitor progress monthly
• Change job descriptions as needed.

Resources

• CM member would need to commit to learning and performing certain III functions.
• Systems staff would need to commit to providing some training
• ADs would need to commit some prof. dev. money for outside (i.e. III) training
• Workgroup supervisor would need to allow release time for training classes and reading documentation in III manual/CSDirect
• Some work can be done during “down-time” periods

Viability

• Barrier: identifying appropriate staff member in CM.
• Barrier: finding time from Mike and/or Barbara to train CM staff member.
• Enabler: Library systems and CM workgroup leaders already in agreement in principle.
• Enabler: CM staff generally willing to tackle new challenges.