Skip to main content

UCM Library Planning & Assessment: SWOT Analysis 2010

SWOT Analysis 2010

SWOT Analysis 2010

Strengths

Electronic information

Delivering access to content; ability to point at information and deliver that information

Collection management: hard to improve on

Instructional program; concerns about scalability and breadth

UC ILL

OAC/Calisphere

HathiTrust

Collections—info itself, mechanisms to point to and access to information

Digital Reference

Other reference models: meet with students

Orientation, outreach efforts

Internal strengths: project gateway helps with efficiency

Website as an avenue for services and content

Collaboration with Writing Program

Existence of assessment program; WASC documentation

Space – collaborative workrooms

Space we provide: need to ensure it is comfortable, but it is great for studying, socializing

Face to face customer service: way we do it and the quality of it is unparalleled

Reshelving time for materials same day

Collections

Access to published resources when people need it (ILL, purchase)

Digitization of textual materials

SCR as a service

Partnership with Writing Program, CRTE

Digital Reference

Digital signage – content

Showcase student and faculty work through exhibits

Space support, instructional support

Communication with our community

Quality and consistency of study and research space we provide to campus

Room reservation mechanism

Speed of shelving new materials

Collaborate with campus partners, e.g. IEW

iPod touch tour

LibGuides getting a lot of use, well-received by faculty

Weaknesses

Small book collection

Small staff that isn’t growing fast enough

Size of our building

Our forward-thinking ideas may not be well understood by others on campus. Perception of “digital smoke and mirrors”

Self-selected, like-minded group of staff: similarities in problem-solving approaches and vision

Size of the staff forces us to not do things we ought to be doing, e.g. improving accessibility of electronic resources in technical services

No redundancy of skills

Difficulty to communicate some things (ditto Donald’s comment)

Heavily reliant on student staffing

  • Requires more management
  • Turnover

Concern about things falling through the cracks for reference support

Fledgling partnerships: Office of Research—getting traction with initiatives e.g. open access, support for research

No time to investigate new initiatives

Building, configuration: needs much broader than we can meet both in terms of space and people, means to equip/manage facility

  • We are currently the “Student Union”

Structure of building: noise

Staffing—technology support thin

Specialized reference support (language, content, format)

Not well positioned to handle new programs

Archival services: digital, print

Better relationship with Student Services

Opportunities

Budget crisis forces transformation

UC resources that are untapped (C3 funds?)

UC Library system – resources, benefits from being a part of the larger system

Enhance efficiency through technology – automate repetitive activities

Self-service models: redefining library services

Open access policies

Shift from print to digital

Retrospectively converting analog to digital

This shifts what is made broadly available to people

New models for sharing, access, e.g. ILL of digital materials

Changes in research practice: opportunity to help people

Hybrid learning partnerships, pedagogical partnerships

Community-engaged research

Focus on assessment by UC campus

Online instruction (new UC initiative)

Cloud computing

Mobile computing 

Threats

Budget crisis

Growth of demands: student body, new programs

Salaries and benefits (not growing)

Staffing

Space crunch

Brain drain

Cost of information resources (rising)

Unresponsive, under-resourced partners

Variety of UC campus outlooks

Others view us (UCM) as an outlier

Problems/issues are attributed or attached to us for which we may not be responsible (e.g. printing in the library)

Niche faculty

Traditional expectations – conventional thinking

Shift from print to digital

Proliferation of published resources

Library no longer “gatekeeper” or major provider of information resources

Faculty don’t physically step into the library anymore

NSF data management plan mandate (1/28/2010)

Mandates from external entities that may be unanticipated

Audit requirements (IT, admin)

Diversity of computing devices, operating systems

 
http://libguides.ucmerced.edu/c.php?g=15981&p=847040
libguides.ucmerced.edu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-47
96875
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PDNDBTWKKU54BHHTFDH7OTWWQP677USO
<urn:uuid:0b8a0331-23d0-4afa-9987-48eae5b63fc3>
2019-11-22T10:53:11Z
18.233.50.128
text/html
sha1:ZD65N3S4GH55RK76ZJZ74UHCKUHELWNO
<urn:uuid:12a36507-1f26-4031-908a-b661daf705dc>
http://libguides.ucmerced.edu/c.php?g=15981&p=847040
response
<urn:uuid:92c9543c-9b6a-444a-a6b7-9df5f69a47df>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-47
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-5.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/