Of the 120 surveys mailed, sixty-three respondents completed the survey by the deadline (a 52.5 percent response rate). All but one response included the institution’s name. Of the responding libraries, sixteen (25 percent) were libraries at public institutions, and forty-seven were libraries at private institutions. Of the public institutions, six were community colleges, five were libraries in the four “state-related” universities,²⁹ and five were libraries in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), i.e., the state university system.³⁰ Four of the survey responses represented libraries at ARL institutions. The responding libraries, including both public and private institutions, employed an average of thirteen librarians and seventeen staff in the library. Of those employees, an average of two librarians and four staff worked in technical services. The number of librarians ranged from 1 to 171; the two largest employed 171 and 135, respectively, and the next largest employed 50. The outliers were not excluded from the survey analysis.

The survey asked participants to indicate whether their library assessed technical services activities. Sixty libraries answered this question, with 60 percent (thirty-six respondents) of the libraries indicating that they assessed technical services activities. Three libraries skipped this question. There was very little difference between public and private institutions’ assessment activities as reported in the responses to this question: 60 percent of public institutions and 59.1 percent of private institutions reported that they had assessed technical services activities.

Although only 60 percent of responding libraries reported assessing technical services activities, 90.5 percent responded to the next question in the survey intended to gather information about specific assessment methods used by the libraries. The question was, “Which specific assessment methods do you currently use or have used in the past to assess technical services activities?” In retrospect, this discrepancy may have been avoided by more clearly stating a time in this question; for example, asking whether assessment has been done in the past five years and then asking what kinds of assessment was conducted during that period. The discrepancy noted may indicate that assessment is only regularly conducted in 60 percent of the responding libraries; whereas 90.5 percent of the libraries have at one time conducted some form of assessment. Table 1 illustrates the types of assessment methods reported by responding libraries.

Other methods of assessment reported by survey respondents included

• comparing statistics for online resources, interlibrary loans, and acquisitions with those from similar institutions;
• return-on-investment studies of specific technical services functions;
• participating in a 360 degree review process;
• comparing practices with other institutions; and
• conducting a self-study exercise.

An analysis of the responses to this question shows a difference in the practice of technical services assessment between public and private institutions. A review of the responses reveals that 81.2 percent of public institutions report that they have conducted some assessment of technical services activities compared with 93.6 percent of private institutions which report the same. All five of the libraries in state-related institutions reported that they conduct assessment of technical services activities; however, in two of those cases that assessment consisted solely of gathering statistics. Two of the five libraries in PASSHE institutions reported that they do not assess technical services activities. Two of the community college libraries (33.3 percent) do not assess technical services activities.

According to the survey results, more responding libraries selected quantitative rather than qualitative assessment as ways they have conducted assessment in the past. The top two methods of assessment cited are quantitative: gathering statistics and gathering usage data. The survey question did not specify or ask what statistics were collected, and it did not specify or ask what or how usage data were collected. Other methods, such as benchmarking, conducting customer service surveys or focus groups, gathering input or anecdotes from other staff or customers, and using an anonymous suggestion box are used less frequently than quantitative assessment methods.

As mentioned in the methods section, for the purposes of this survey, technical services was defined as people or units responsible for cataloging and metadata; acquisitions; electronic resources management; and preservation, bindery, and physical processing. The survey question identified four areas of responsibility commonly found under the umbrella of technical services. These vary from institution to institution and are combined into a variety of departmental configurations within those institutions. The goal of this part of the survey was not to identify how the technical services units or departments are configured, but whether the activities traditionally performed by technical services units were assessed within the past five years. Units responsible for cataloging, metadata, and acquisitions were the most likely to have undergone some form of assessment in responding libraries, followed by electronic resources management and units responsible for preservation, binding, and physical processing. Table 3 illustrates the units that were assessed by responding libraries within the last five years.

Primary responsibility for conducting technical services assessment lies with the library director, dean, or university librarian in twenty-one of the responding libraries (38 percent). Others identified as holding primary responsibility for technical services assessment include the division head, department head(s), unit head(s), a committee, and in two cases, a single librarian. Table 4 illustrates who in responding libraries holds primary responsibility for technical services assessment.

In addition to the people or units identified in the survey question, six respondents supplied answers to this question. In each case the written response indicated that no single person or unit held primary responsibility for technical services assessment; rather, multiple individuals or units shared that responsibility:

• It varies; we do have a department which does assessment, but work is also done at the division, department, and unit levels
• The technical services librarian provides the library director with information used for assessment
• Department heads and unit heads
• Director, associate director, and staff in technical services
• Library administrative team (associate dean/director, associate director, and assistant director in consultation with department heads and supervisors)
• Library director and a committee

Libraries report the results of their technical services assessment activities in many ways, with the most prevalent being through the library’s annual report. Other ways that these activities are shared are through informational reports to library administration, a mass email to all library employees, a library or campus newsletter article, presentations, or a website. Table 5 illustrates the various ways assessment results are communicated to others.

In addition to the responses identified in the survey question, sixteen additional responses were supplied by the survey respondents. These included a variety of written reports, and the following other methods:

• Assessment report
• Five-year audit report
• Department outcome assessment reports
• Emails and presentations when appropriate to faculty and students
• Internal discussions between department heads
• Report to the Provost
• Information is included in the College’s Fact Book
• Part of performance evaluation
• Annual assessment report
• Report within WEAVEonline (www.weaveengaged.com/weaveonline.html)
• Internal communications
• Discussions with library director
• Library committee report
• Surveys and questionnaires submitted to external accrediting or collegial organizations
• Internal self-study results were made available to the finalists in our library director search

This question required survey respondents to record their answer in a text box, and generated thirty-five responses. Many themes that emerged from the outcomes described in the responses provided. Table 6 summarizes these themes as reported by survey respondents.

Specific responses from the survey illustrate these themes. For example, fourteen libraries indicated that they had reallocated staff on the basis of the results of their assessment activities. Several libraries reported that many positions were eliminated, and one library was able to justify filling a vacant position with statistics collected as part of their assessment activities. Some of their comments include the following:

• We reallocated a position from print to electronic resources management.
• We have shifted staff from bindery preparation to assist with storage activities.
• We have shifted staff to monitor reports of incorrect links or problems with electronic resources based on statistics and feedback from the librarians.
• We have increased the number of student assistants.
• We have reallocated staff time among acquisitions, cataloging, and serials in response to e-resources.
• We have realigned staff responsibilities.
• We have shifted and eliminated duties.
• Staff have been reassigned to different tasks (metadata cataloging, serving on the reference and circulation desks, and creating library exhibits).

Ten libraries reported that they streamlined processes because of their assessment activities. In some cases, libraries eliminated procedural steps to streamline their processes, and in other cases, they eliminated entire functions or services. Some of their comments include the following:

• We changed some ordering procedures to provide quicker access and less hassle for the business department.
• We adopted shelf-ready processing.
• We have trimmed costs by cutting back on stripping and covering.
• We eliminated shelflisting and writing call numbers on the verso of the title pages.
• We are currently assessing approval plan returns with the hope of eliminating all (or most), in order to move into more shelf-ready plans.
• We have streamlined our government documents workflow.
• We ceased binding, check-in and claiming.
• We changed our monthly authority control processing to a quarterly process, thereby saving money.

Another common theme that emerged from this question involved collection development decisions. Ten libraries reported that they made collection decisions based on their technical services assessment activities. These decisions included weeding, reallocation of funds, and transferring materials from one collection within the library to another. Some of the respondents’ comments included:

• We decided to add new online resources to the collection.
• We purchased additional databases for specific disciplines.
• We reorganized our collection to co-locate reference books with circulating books, and to allow more reference books to circulate.
• We are currently weeding most of our collection. We are making better decisions on what needs to remain in our collection, what can be de-accessioned and what we need to purchase.

Four libraries changed vendors or vendor services because of their assessment activities. Of those, one library changed its book jobber and another library cancelled the approval plan because of usage statistics. A third library is considering cancelling their approval plan, and a fourth library reported that they had consolidated their print, electronic serials, and standing orders under one vendor.

Three of the responding libraries reported that they made changes to staff training because of their assessment activities. One library reported that they were providing more training to their staff in new technologies, including electronic resources management. Another library identified cross-training as an area that warrants more attention. Finally, a third library reported that they are developing training materials and adapting policies to achieve efficiencies.

Improved communication was an outcome of assessment identified by three libraries in the survey. In one case, the consolidation of print, serials, and standing orders with one vendor improved communications with that vendor. In another case, communication with teaching faculty regarding collection building was improved because of their assessment activities. In another, new services for faculty were offered that directly improved communication with them. Those services included new-publications email notification, new-book display shelves, and an improved book order and request system.

Finally, two of the responding libraries changed their integrated library system (ILS) because of their technical services assessment activities. One library reported that they were not satisfied with the services offered by their current ILS vendor and are migrating to another system. The second library reported that they are upgrading their current ILS to the software-as-a-service (SaaS) model to eliminate the need to do manual backups and upgrades, thereby enabling the technical services/information technology librarian to devote more time to other services.

The author analyzed the survey results to determine whether the type of assessment conducted affected the outcomes that were reported. Libraries that only gathered statistics or usage data were less likely to report any outcomes. Twenty-two libraries only gathered statistics or usage data. Of those libraries, only ten (45.5 percent) provided examples of outcomes from their assessment activities. This is in contrast to the thirty-five libraries whose assessment went beyond gathering statistics or usage data. Of those thirty-five, twenty-five libraries (71.4 percent) reported outcomes.

The method of assessment also affected the types of outcomes reported by responding libraries. The ten libraries that only gathered statistics or usage data reported outcomes that included reallocating staff, streamlining processes, making collection development decisions, and changing vendor or vendor services. Table 7 illustrates these findings.

Thirty-five libraries used assessment methods that went beyond collecting statistics or usage data. Those libraries reported outcomes that include the four cited in the previous paragraph, but also included adjusting staff training, improving communication, implementing new services, and changing ILSs. It is likely that some forms of assessment, e.g., gathering input from non–technical services librarians and staff, collecting anecdotes or feedback from customers, administering customer service surveys, benchmarking, providing a suggestion box, or conducting focus groups may elicit information and feedback that is useful for a variety of management purposes. Table 8 demonstrates this.