The Network - lib.ugent.belib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/000/780/602/BIB-G... · BUILDING STONES...

The Reorganisation of Library and Information Services at UGentThe Network

S u m m a r i s i n g R e p o r t

Lars BjörnshaugeUniversity of Lund, Sweden

J u l y 2 0 0 3

The Reorganisation of Library and Information Services at UGentThe Network

S u m m a r i s i n g R e p o r t

OLD STRUCTURES IN A NEW WORLDIntroduction to the report

The what p. 4General context of the reorganisationThe why p. 5Drivers for change

General developments in library and information servicesDrivers for change revisited

Problems in the current setup of the library structure at UGentGeneral problemsThe ‘Tower of Books’ – its collections and servicesThe Digital LibraryThe faculties and departmental libraries

The when p. 7What happened before? What else has happened?

The VLIR visitation reportsThe what for p. 9Purpose of the reorganisation The how p. 9Research at the basis

A NETWORK OF LIBRARIESThe coordinated distributive model (CDM)

A network of libraries p. 10The whole is more than the sum of all partsEquivalence in diversity

Central unitsDecentralised units Organisational charts p. 13 - 15

Equality in quality Decisions on decision-making

Description and definition of units in the new model p. 16The Central Library

Overall management of the library organisationThe ‘Tower of Books’ The Digital Library

The individual library unit Tasks and responsibilities of faculty and departmental libraries Minimum requirements of a decentralised library unit

Funding structure p. 19Funding the decentralised library units Funding the Central Library units

Table of contents 2

Organisation and decision-making p. 21Role of the Board of DirectorsRole of the Interfaculty Library Board Role of faculty library committees

Recommendations p. 22Access to print collectionsAccess to electronic resourcesPreservation of cultural heritageDecision-making and fundingOptimising the use of resourcesSupporting the dissemination of the UGent research outputMarketing LISA strategic plan for LIS at UGent

ORGANISING THE FUTUREImplementation of a new library structure

Decisions related to the new model: organisation, funding, responsibilities p. 25

Decisions and actions in specific areas p. 26Corporate storage arrangementsCentralising and consolidating administration of journal subscriptions Digitisation of card catalogue(s)Maintenance of adequate physical conditions for preservation Academic bibliography – electronic publishing – institutional repository Quality control, performance measures and staff training

BUILDING STONESAddenda to the report

Addendum 1. Outlines of the research p. 29Addendum 2. Who has been involved? p. 31

Members of staff interviewedGhent University LibraryDepartmentsFaculties

Table of contents 3

OLD STRUCTURES IN A NEW WORLD

Introduction to the report

Here we will see what the report is about and premedidate on how we

have gone about the task. We will also learn about what happened before

and why all those involved felt the need to reorganise the UGent library.

The whatGeneral context of the reorganisation

UGent is not the first university to realise that it will have to adapt itself to achanged and forever changing contemporary reality. All over Europe, you willfind universities with large numbers of small libraries that are not alwaysefficiently organised. This phenomenon is mostly linked to old universities rooteddeeply in the 19th or previous centuries. They are often located in the heart ofdensely populated cities, with departments situated in many different places andusually in old buildings that are not easy to adapt to modern library services. Wecan find examples in the Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden,Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium.

In addition to the problem of lack of space, these universities are confrontedwith the new reality of electronic (or digital) library services. A digital libraryrequires more expert knowledge and special training for the staff involved, whileat the same time, and for funding reasons, it is felt the staff should be used moreefficiently. It is in fact very unlikely that if a new university were to be foundedtoday, the current systems of library provisions would be implemented. But sincethere is no real possibility of starting from scratch, we have to work with theinheritance of the past to build flexible structures for the future.

All in all, it is no coincidence that so many universities have been or are goingthrough the process of restructuring their library and information services.

When UGent set out to investigate how it could restructure its library andinformation services (hereafter called LIS), it contacted several Europeanuniversities that had either already gone through a reorganisation or were in theprocess of doing so.

However, it was the contact with the University of Lund that took root. Therewere many similarities with the situation at UGent: the age of the university, thenumber of students, the way it is spread throughout the (medium-sized) town and– not in the least – the number of libraries it harbours. At the end of the 1980s, Lundcounted approximately 190 ‘libraries’. In 2003, the number has fallen to 60 thoughthe final goal is set at around 20.

A new library services structure was developed at the University of Lund indifferent stages during the 90s. In 1994, a new library network saw the light, whichgreatly improved the quality of services delivered. Nevertheless, a certaindissatisfaction remained concerning the functioning of the Central Library. In1999, a committee – which included Richard Hesseltine, UK – recommended theconstruction of a still stronger network with decentralised units and servicesunder the management of a coordinating ‘head office’.

The Lund model can be seen as a variation on the coordinated distributivemodel the UGent Executive Committee [Bestuurscollege] has agreed upon. In thismodel, the faculties can decide for themselves how they want to set up the libraryservices at faculty level, i.e. whether they want only one library or whether theyoperate several libraries within the faculty. The consequence of this autonomy liesin the fact that they themselves are responsible for the funding of their libraries.

Present Director of Libraries at the University of Lund, Lars Björnshauge, hasagreed to act as consultant for UGent.

The whyDrivers for change

General developments in library and information services

Since the mid-90s, when the transition from printed journals to electronic versionsreally took speed, a lot has been said about the approaching supremacy of thedigital library. Today we know that electronic library services will develop side byside with existing library services, based on the collections of printed media builtup over the centuries. The term ‘hybrid library’ has become the normal way ofdescribing modern library services.

The evolution of the hybrid library requires new competences and flexibleattitudes. Expertise in the maintenance and preservation of printed sources has tobe combined with the development of new services based on electronicinformation resources. The upsides of electronic evolution are that libraries requireless space for the collections and less personnel. It is however important to realisethat a modern learning environment requires new, additional and modernfacilities for students: a workspace equipped with workstations and professionalsupport staff, i.e. learning centres. These are often collocated or even integratedinto libraries. Accordingly, libraries have to be better organised to enable users tofind the information available, and their staff better skilled to organise theavailable information resources.

In addition, the development of electronic databases and journals hasdramatically changed the relationship between suppliers and libraries. Whenlibraries purchase printed sources, these become their permanent propertywhereas electronic journals, for instance, are licensed. This means libraries onlybuy access to the contents for a specific period of time and for a well-definednumber of users in a certain setting (unit, organisation, firm). Ownership remainsin the hands of the publishers.

For libraries this has enormous consequences, not only in terms of futureaccessibility of resources or the preservation (archiving) of information, but also on

Old Structures in a New World 5

the level of financial planning. Information is becoming more and more expensiveand due to the existing monopoly-like situation, library budgets are underpressure of commercial publishers’ pricing policies.

As a result, we have seen the emergence of library consortia in recent years,i.e. libraries joining together to purchase electronic resources collectively. Anothermajor change in attitude is slowly emerging on the part of research institutions allover the world: they have been striving to make their publications available inelectronic archives that can be consulted for free (open access).

So what are the users’ needs in this respect? Researchers want to be able to workfrom anywhere at any time, and students require as much access to the internet aspossible, often preferring digital sources to printed ones when it comes togathering information. Consequently in some faculties, while the typical librarytasks of collection and loan management have become less important, there is alsoan increasing need for elaborate but flexible electronic resources management.Hence user support today implicates specialised attention from service providersand necessitates the development of more technical skills.

This necessary change in competences and working methods cannot be realisedovernight. Nor can we expect it to take place ‘organically’. It has to be supportedwith a plan and organised in phases so as to involve all stakeholders in itsdevelopment and implementation, leading to a coherent, well-structured andefficient system.

Drivers for change revisited

Problems in the current setup of the library structure at UGent

Based on interviews with decision–makers and members of staff, and research ofmaterial and information available amongst other things, it has been possible todetermine a number of problems or deficits in the existing LIS setup at UGent.These issues are to a certain degree expressions of the developments (drivers forchange) outlined in the previous paragraph.

General problems

- Dispute over funding: there seems to be an unregulated battle between thefaculties over shares in the common funding of media. The discussion about theallocation key has continued for years.

- There is a feeling of a lack of transparency in decision-making structures.Existing organisational and administrative structures prevent flexible solutions.

- There is no clear-cut strategy for the development of modern, coherent, effectivelibrary and information services.

The ‘Tower of Books’ – its collections and services

- As of today, no clear division of services has been made between the CentralLibrary and the Faculty of Arts and Humanities.

- The precious and unique special collections at UGent require up-to-date physicalconditions necessary for their long-term preservation.


The digital library

- The absence of a central management of journal subscriptions has led to anuncontrolled proliferation of these subscriptions, with the probable consequencethat UGent is not getting value for money in this respect.

- The development of new electronic services is inhibited by the lack of an effectiveinformation environment for library staff.

The faculties and departmental libraries

The following deficits were mentioned by several of the decision-makers andmembers of staff interviewed:- inadequate access to existing collections;- inadequate overview of collections in the faculties, departments, seminar rooms,

professors’ offices, etc.;- waste of expensive space currently employed for less frequently used (and

inaccessible) collections;- unequal commitment from the faculties towards library services;- inadequate staffing and demand for greater competence and qualifications of the

library staff in the faculties and departments;- small departmental libraries are not effective and rationalisation is necessary;- opening hours are very limited in a large number of departmental libraries and

access to them is often restricted; - large proportions of books and journals purchased through research grants and

contracts are regarded more as the private property of those who ordered themrather than a part of the university’s collections;

- there is an unbalanced willingness to take a corporate view of the provision oflibrary services. It seems that some members of academic staff are still primarilyconcerned with servicing their own departmental research needs, regardless ofthe needs of their students or colleagues in other departments.

The whenWhat happened before?

The need for a reorganisation of library services appears on the agenda of theBoard of Directors (Raad van Bestuur, called Raad van Beheer up until recentyears) meeting as early as the mid-80s. This resulted in a first study in 1988 by R.Suys entitled ‘Bedrijfsorganisatorische studie van de Centrale Bibliotheek RU.Gent’ [‘Business Organisation Study of the RU.Ghent Central Library’]. Theacademic authorities, and more specifically the then Administrator, Walter VanEspen, asked Suys to conduct this research. It was carried out within the context ofthe 1982-1989 reconstruction scheme, which included a recruitment freezeamongst other things.

At the Board of Directors meeting of March 24th 1989, it was decided tofound a study group to scrutinise the librarianship at the RUG (now UGent) andformulate a reform proposal.

On November 10th 1989, the Board of Directors decided on a number ofconcrete measures:


- the librarianship of the RUG would become decentralised, implying greaterautonomy for the faculties;

- the faculty library services would be considered independent or would befounded as such, as had already happened with the PC facilities;

- Faculty Library Councils and an Interfaculty Library Council [IFBR orInterfacultaire Bibliotheekraad] would be established. The IFBR met for the firsttime on September 3rd 1990.

In his letter of April 25th 1996, Rector Jacques Willems brought this library plan tothe fore once more, within the context of the policy plan for the administrative andtechnical staff (ATP).

At the Executive Committee meeting of October 13th 2000, an acting headlibrarian was appointed and a request was made for a new policy andorganisational plan for the modernisation of the librarianship of the University ofGhent, to be implemented by September 30th 2001.The deadline for a preliminary report describing the baselines and a number ofplan options, was set for January 2001.

At the Board of Directors meeting of November 14th 2000, the mutation of thereading room staff and the cataloguers of the Central Library to the faculties wasapproved as of December 1st 2000. The aim was to incite the faculties and makethem responsible for the functioning of their library. Hereby an agenda point of theBoard of Directors meeting of July 9th 1999 came to a conclusion. As a result, an ad-hoc working group was founded to look into the problems of accounting and theresponsibility of the CB staff now appointed to the faculties.

At the Executive Committee meeting of June 21st 2001, one specific conceptwas approved: the coordinated distributed model (CDM) which included thedigital library. This CDM is based on the existence of a Central Library on the onehand and a group of decentralised libraries on the other (one or a small number oflibraries per faculty or per group of faculties). The faculty libraries arehierarchically dependent on the faculties, but are also functionally guided by theCentral Library.

As soon as this CDM was elaborated into tangible texts, bilateralconsultations were held with the faculties. The Registrar was asked to examine thepossibility of appointing an external specialist or consulting agency for thiselaboration.

At the Executive Committee meeting of October 26th 2001, it was agreed thatnegotiations with Lars Björnshauge concerning a cooperation agreement with theUniversity Library of Lund, would continue. The Executive Committee alsowanted to appoint a new head librarian as soon as possible. After allocating theconsultancy assignment, the new head librarian would start the reform process, inagreement with the Director of Research Affairs, the Registrar and the InterfacultyLibrary Board. The Director of Research Affairs would perform the role of projectmanager.

In 2003 the de facto cooperation between UGent and Lars Björnshauge wasconsolidated into a contract between UGent and Lund University. A copy of thiscontract will be added to the Final Report as Addendum 2.


What else has happened?

The VLIR visitation reports

The need for reorganising university library services is a nationwide phenomenonnot solely linked to the situation at UGent. It was confirmed by a study carried outin recent years by the VLIR [Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad] or FlemishInteruniversity Council, consisting of visits to and consultation of all Flemishuniversities. An overview of the general VLIR findings will be added to the FinalReport as an addendum.

Nevertheless, the VLIR study also confirms the situation at UGent to beproblematic. Out of 31 departments – consulted over a period of time from 1995 to2003 – 18 received a negative evaluation of library services and infrastructure. Ineleven cases it was said that this was due to too much fragmentation (spreading oflibrary services over too many libraries) and that the solution had to be sought inmerging library services into bigger structures. In another ten departments (partlythe same), the general functioning of university libraries was thought to beinadequate while in eight cases, opening hours were said to be too limited.

The least that can be said is that whatever reorganisation process takes placeat UGent in years to come, it will have to concentrate on disposing of the presentwidely recognised causes of malfunction.

The what forPurpose of the reorganisation

The principal goal of reorganising the library system at UGent, is to create a newand modern structure that will be able to adapt itself to future changes. Themission of the restructuring plan is therefore an ambitious one. It wants to lay outthe framework which libraries complying to an agreed set of minimumrequirements can fit into to form a modernised network – i.e. a state-of-the-artprovision of LIS – and thus feed a high quality superstructure of research andeducational activities at UGent.

In the following chapter, we will elaborate on what we mean by a state-of-the-art LIS and formulate recommendations about how it could be achieved.

The how Research at the basis

Addendum 2 of the present report consists of a quick overview of research actionstaken upon which to build our analysis and recommendations. The Final Reportwill contain a large chapter with detailed research results including comments onit. Here we will simply name all UGent staff members who cooperated in theresearch by way of thanking them too.

As mentioned before, UGent has been aware of the necessity of libraryreorganisation for a long time. In the present Summarising Report, we will onlyhighlight the more important steps taken in the decision-making process. For a full ‘managerial’ overview of all deliberations and decisions of both theBoard of Directors and Executive Committee, please refer to Addendum 1 of theFinal Report (expected later this summer).


A NETWORK OF LIBRARIES

The coordinated distributive model (CDM)

Here we will propose a model for the reorganisation of the university

libraries, and make recommendations as to what steps and decisions

should be taken in order to implement the model.

A network of librariesA coordinated distributive model essentially aims to create one unifying structurein which all substructures participate as equal partners. The central structureserves as a virtual meeting point where ideas, working methods, plans, strategiesand missions are agreed upon by all partners. Through its coordinating function, itenables the (re)distribution of knowledge and method in an effective way. Henceits name of coordinated distributive model or CDM [gecoördineerd gedistribueerdmodel].

In terms of the process being carried out at UGent, the CDM has to be fed bycommunication, consultation and dialogue. Out of these roots grows the stem ofconsensus, which itself branches off in the form of decisions taken.

The overall structure we have in mind matches the image of a temple. Thecoordinating and distributing partner (the Central Library) can be seen as thefoundation, and the different cooperating partners (faculty and departmentallibraries) as the pillars that support the dome. The dome then stands for thefunction a university has in society: to be a breeding ground for education andresearch.

But in the 21st century with the proliferation of communication technologies,we have to take the comparison further. From the existing static old building, wehave to move to the new and flexible structure that is the internet. The unifyingfactor is the protocol, the ‘language’ that everyone agrees will be used forcommunication: general policy decisions, strategies, working methods belongingto the domain of the Central Library. Protocol is the foundation on which everyexisting information network is based, without which it cannot work. On the otherhand, every network is fed by information and services from cooperating partners.The old pillars of our temple (the faculty and departmental libraries) have becomeservers in that they bring together information in an organised way, manage it andserve as distributed nodes from which it can be accessed by users. Protocol andservers together are the conditio sine qua non for the existence of a superstructure,the intangible dome of university education and research.

This is what we mean when we speak of the ‘Library Network’ or the‘Network’ in short. The basic characteristics of such a structure are:

- the whole is more than the sum of all parts. Individual servers following anindependent course do not contribute to the strength of the network, nor do theyprofit from it;

- there is equivalence in diversity. It is important that the servers differ from eachother, so as to meet the specific needs of their users. At the same time they areseen as equal partners in the decision-making process on protocol and standards;

- there has to be equality in quality. The whole is as strong as the weakest point: thesuperstructure can only grow stronger if each and every partner keeps to theprotocol and the standards (the minimum requirements for faculty anddepartmental libraries) agreed upon.

The whole is more than the sum of all parts

The mission of the CDM is an ambitious one. It wants to lay out the frameworkwhich the UGent libraries can fit into so that together, they form this modernisednetwork – i.e. a state-of-the-art provision of LIS – and thus feed a high qualitysuperstructure of research and educational activities at UGent.Put in more concrete terms, the overall goals of implementing the CDM can beidentified as follows:- to optimise the use of resources;- to increase the accessibility of media (printed and electronic);- to increase researcher/student faculty responsibility for library services;- to enhance the level of user services: they should be of better quality, faster and

easier to access (for instance more opening hours, remote access to moreinformation resources, etc.);

- to enable UGent to explore and take advantage of existing opportunities offeredby adequate information resources, thus saving time for researchers and studentsto search and retrieve information and consequently contribute to the quality ofthe output (research and education) from UGent.

In short: the goals of the new model are to increase the volume, quality, speed andaccessibility of LIS for the users at UGent.

This report aims to show how UGent could go about the process of achieving thesegoals. Based on the outline of general drivers for change and specific issues toaddress in the present setup of library services at UGent, we will propose a modelwhere on the one hand, the faculties decide how the structure of library servicesshould be organised at faculty level. However, this autonomy has to be based onan agreed set of minimum requirements for faculty and departmental librariesqualified for the Network. On the other hand, the model ensures that commonlibrary services and infrastructural measures will be implemented in order toguarantee the development and effectiveness of these modern LIS.

Equivalence in diversity

The most important feature of the new model is to establish a clear distinctionbetween the responsibilities of each partner in the structure and a clear division oftasks. Therefore the model proposes a distinction between central units on the onehand and decentralised units on the other. We refer to the organisational charts on

A Network of Libraries 11

pp. 13 to 15 for the visualisation of relations between the different units. In theFinal Report, we will link this to an estimate of staff allocation for the tasksperformed by the central units.

Central units are:

- the Library Network Management Unit,- the RepositoryLibrary (´Tower of Books´), with its rare collections, its general and

expert services and its management of corporate storage,- the Digital Library.

Decentralised units are:

- libraries at faculties and departments operating according to a set of minimumrequirements outlined on page 19.

The distinction between central and decentralised units is basically influenced bythree considerations.

First of all, modern library and information services for research, teachingand learning have to be tailored to the specific needs of a given user population.There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all library. Nowadays, teaching andlearning are developing towards greater activity and responsibility on the part ofthe students themselves. This means they require more advanced support fromtheir information services.

Secondly, the setup, operation and maintenance of digital library servicesrequires coordination, consolidation and management in order to be efficientwhen it comes to user services and allocation of resources.

Thirdly, it makes sense to concentrate a number of services from and aroundthe older collections in the Central Library. The same goes for different expertfunctions to support faculty and departmental libraries in matters of preservation,cataloguing, inter-library loans (ILL), library sciences, etc.

The model ensures that each faculty can decide for itself how library serviceswithin the faculty will be organised.

However, the implementation of the CDM and the plan connected to it aimsto quite drastically reduce the number of units so far called ‘libraries’ (+300today!). Therefore, relevant decision-making bodies will state the minimumrequirements for libraries as well as minimum service level agreements, whichshould be implemented, monitored and evaluated.

Organisational charts

On the following pages you will find brief organisational charts illustrating thebasics of the proposed model.


Common Library Services

Library NetworkManagement unit

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

FacultyLibrary

INTERFACULT

Y LIBRARY BOARD

CENTRAL LIBRARY

Organisational Chart | The Library Network

RepositoryLibrary

DigitalLibrary

Board Of Directors


IFLB

Chief Librarian

DigitalLibrarian

RepositoryLibrarian

active digitalcollection

digitalarchives

archivescollection

culturalheritage

providing support & servicesManagement Unit

ElectronicResources

AcademicBibliography

UserTraining

Acquisition& Licensing Website

SpecialCollections

Techn. Support& Development

LibraryAutomation Open Archives

Reading RoomServices

StorageServices

Cataloguing

PreservationRestauration LoanReproduction

ILL

Organisational Chart Central Library | Common Library Services


IFLB

Chief Librarian

DigitalLibrarian

RepositoryLibrarian

providing support & servicesManagement Unit

Organisational Chart Central Library | Management Unit

Management Unit is policy making - provides support and services,contains Chief Librarian, Digital Librarian, Repository Librarian and

an administrative unit with amongst others a planning officer.It can form special committees for special projects containing people from all levels and all libraries.

Development of the Network of Libraries

Quality & Evaluation

Administration& Planning

Human Resources

Special Projects


Equality in quality

Decisions on decision-making

To arrive at a fully functional and high quality network, it is necessary to reach aconsensus on what level of quality we are striving for. Logically enough, thisconsensus has to start on a ‘diplomatic’ level. Certain decisions have to be taken asto which tasks, procedures and processes are most efficiently taken care of bydecentralised units (i.e. faculty and departmental libraries) and which ones shouldbe taken care of by the common service units (i.e. the Central Library).

Everybody recognises that in an organisation such as a university, the ongoingdiscussion about allocation of funding and resources is an immanent factor. Fromthis it follows that the balance between university-wide policy making anddecentralised autonomy is very fragile. This is why we will make recommen-dations on matters of funding further on in this report (see pp. 20 - 21).

Especially when it comes to LIS, it is very important that general tasks takencare of by central units (and in this case centrally funded units) are clearlyidentified, and that all key stakeholders agree that such tasks are best taken care ofby such units.

From the point of view of faculties and departments on the other hand, twothings are important: that the operation and development of LIS match the specificdemands and needs of library services encountered in each faculty and that theythemselves can have a sense of control on the scope, profile and economic aspectsof the services.

It is quite easy to identify a number of specific LIS best suited to centralmanagement (we will return to this point later) while there are also good reasonsfor some other library services to be delivered by units close to the users within thefaculties or departments. Therefore, one of the first things that must be clarified iswhich parts of the LIS are best taken care of either centrally or locally.

Description and definition of units in the new modelAs we have seen, the goal of the new model is to organise the LIS at UGent as anetwork of libraries. This network will be composed of strong faculty anddepartmental libraries on the one hand (decentralised units) and a high qualityinfrastructure centred around the Central Library on the other. Here we will try to describe how we envisage the division of tasks andresponsibilities between the different units.

The Central Library

The central infrastructure will contain the following units:- the Library Network Management Unit for the management and development of

the library network;- the RepositoryLibrary (´Tower of Books`) with its special collections and expert

services to take care of these collections, and the opportunity for corporatestorage of less frequently used material;

- the Digital Library managing the digital library services.


The tasks and services provided by the Central Library fall into the followingparts.

Overall management of the library organisation

In order to keep the network of libraries together and guide the futuredevelopment of the network, we propose that a separate unit – the LibraryNetwork Management Unit – should be set up.

A planning officer, a new function to be created, should be added to this unit,which would be led by the Head of Libraries.

The unit will have the following tasks:- to manage and guide the operation and development of the network;- to initiate, monitor and document evaluation and quality control of the LIS

provided by the entire network (i.e. generate and present user statistics, costs,etc.);

- implement, monitor and follow up on the strategic plan;- prepare the annual budget and the annual balance for common library services;- prepare cases for decision-making on the interfaculty library board (i.e. policy

decisions on operating the network);- to plan and run competence development programmes for the staff in the entire

library network.

The ‘Tower of Books’

Maintenance of the collections and services related to it An important part of the common library services in the library network is thepreservation of the precious collections in the RepositoryLibrary (´Tower ofBooks`). UGent possesses unique collections of cultural heritage. These collectionsare an extremely valuable asset for the university and deserve adequate conditionsfor their future preservation. But just as important as preservation are theopportunities for actual use of these collections (reading room services, etc.).

The library network will need certain expert functions to assist faculty anddepartmental libraries with cataloguing or ILL for instance, and to advise oncollection development (weeding, remote storage, preservation, etc.).

The collections and services of the RepositoryLibrary should be regarded asan organisational unit within the Central Library. A new position bearing the title‘RepositoryLibrarian’ should be created to manage it.

Corporate storage arrangements and servicesFurthermore, the RepositoryLibrary operates today as storage room for lessfrequently used material primarily for the Faculty of Arts and Humanities andsome other faculties. However, there is a demand from all faculties for more spaceto store less frequently used material collected by them. At present, this material isdispersed over the numerous departmental libraries, seminar rooms, professors’offices, etc. Furthermore, many books and journals are stored in cellars and are notaccessible; there are not even any records stating exactly what is in thesecollections.


As proposed elsewhere in this report, an infrastructure for corporate storageshould be set up in the Beta and Gamma faculties for material relevant to them.

This new setup will establish a system of corporate storage. It will covercollections from all faculties which would have to be managed by the CentralLibrary as a whole, possibly outsourcing the operation to an appropriate facultylibrary. In any case, this should provide efficient and cheap storage for facultiesand departments, thus freeing expensive space in their own quarters. Thesecorporate units should also be provided with modern document delivery services.

The Digital Library

The Digital Library is also an organisational unit within the common libraryservices located in the Central Library. The main tasks of the Digital Library Unitare:- to set up and maintain the technical infrastructure for the provision of digital

library services;- to provide the administrative infrastructure for the management of electronic

resources;- to provide training for library staff in using digital library services;- to assist library staff in the network in providing end-user training in the use of

digital library services; - to operate the UGent Electronic Publishing Services (incl. the Academic

Bibliography).

The Digital Library Unit should be led by a ‘Digital Library Manager’, anothernew function to be created.

The individual library unit

Tasks and responsibilities of faculty and departmental libraries

The most important components in the new library structure are the faculty anddepartmental libraries. The day-to-day library services for students and researchersare carried out by the decentralised library units, designed and operated by theappropriate body (faculty, department, group of departments, ...

The most important tasks and services provided by the faculty anddepartmental libraries are:- the acquisition of books, printed journals and other media not financed by the

Central (Digital) Library;- the processing of the above-mentioned media (cataloguing, etc.);- providing services based on the collections directly available as well as providing

document delivery and ILL from other collections inside UGent and elsewhere;- providing user training in the use of the library services in general (including the

digital library services);- assisting users in their search for information and setting up tailored information

services, including training for users in using the services provided by the DigitalLibrary;

- managing and maintaining the local website in accordance with rules agreedupon for the central website;

- marketing library services.


Minimum requirements of a decentralised library unit

It is obvious that in the proposed new structure, and given the tasks outlinedabove, the faculty and departmental libraries should comply with a set ofminimum requirements.

It is important as well, that certain incentives should be built into the modelto motivate faculties to merge existing smaller units into bigger and moreappropriate ones. As of today, this evolution towards more self-contained andwell-equipped libraries is well underway at a number of faculties.

The principal requirements for decentralised libraries to be qualified for thenetwork are the following:- opening hours: 40 hours a week;- each faculty should have 1 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) of educated library staff

level A, this being the head of the faculty library or of the faculty library services;- each faculty library with full LIS services (acquisition, cataloguing, ILL, user

training) should have at least 3 FTE library educated staff apart from the head ofthe faculty library;

- each departmental library should have at least 2 FTE library educated or trainedstaff;

- the library should have its own budget, specifying staff costs, allocation ofresources to printed material (books & journals) and other media not covered orhandled by the central (digital) library (video, films, special maps, etc.);

- the library should have its own website fitting in with the general layout of LISwebsites;

- the library should have its own library committee;- the library should have its own plan for the development of services.

Services offered to users should include as a minimum:- loans from local and remote collections (ILL);- photocopying equipment and services;- workstations for user access to digital library services;- library training.Some of these services could be bought from or outsourced to other parts of thelibrary network (i.e. the central library and/or another library) based onagreements.

We do not expect all libraries to be able to comply with the minimum requirementsovernight, but we recommend that the requirements should be fulfilled over a twoand a half year period.


Funding structureImplementing the proposed new model for the LIS at UGent will mean changes inthe present funding. In what follows, we will look into which general principlesare to be applied in the funding of different services in the new structure.

Funding the decentralised library units

We have seen in the above presentation of the new model that the structure of theLIS at faculty level will be decided upon by the faculty board. It should be obvioustherefore, that funding of these services lies in the hands of the decision-makers –namely the faculties.

We are aware that this will mean some changes in the funding compared to thepresent situation. Today, the faculties/departments pay for the staff allocated tolibrary tasks and for parts of the media bought for these libraries.

However, one third of the media purchased by UGent is financed by thecommon budget for media administered by the central library, and distributed bymeans of an allocation key. We are also aware of the fact that the allocation key iscurrently under discussion.

There will be a split in the acquisition of media, based on the model. Electronicinformation resources – databases and electronic journals (in package agreements)– will be handled and decided upon centrally in the future (monitored by the InterFaculty Library Board) whereas printed media (books, journals and other) will behandled, decided upon and paid for by the faculties/departments.

Therefore, parts of the current common budget should be redistributed to thefaculties for the purchase of printed media. This redistribution could probably bederived by means of the new allocation key.

Another issue will arise. In the new model certain tasks so far taken care of by theCentral Library will no longer be a centralised responsibility, but will bedecentralised to the faculty libraries (acquisition and ILL). This will probablymean that a reallocation of staff from the Central Library to e.g. the faculty libraryof Arts and Humanities should take place.

The factulties can of course also ‘buy’ these services (ILL and acquisition)from the Central Library or from another faculty library.

Finally, I would like to underline that it would probably be a good idea to allow thehousing costs to be more visible, in so far that one of the recommendations is tomerge libraries and relocate less-used materials in remote storage, thus freeingexpensive space that could be used for other purposes.

Funding the Central Library units

The functions of the Central Library – the overall management of the network oflibraries, the Digital Library and the services provided by the RepositoryLibrary –are defined as common services.

We will consider these services as a form of infrastructure, which in generalcaters for LIS for all users at UGent. Therefore it makes sense to propose that thecosts of these services should be funded by the university as such.


The overall management functions in the library structure are tasks and serviceswhich should keep the network of libraries together. The contents of these servicesare outlined elsewhere. We propose that these functions should be funded bymeans of government funding for the university.

Services provided by the RepositoryLibrary mainly concern the preservation ofspecial collections. They also cater for the management of corporate storage ofcollections not frequently used and for some expert functions for the network. Wealso propose that these services should be funded by means of governmentfunding for the university.

The Digital Library basically has two different kinds of expenses. One partconcerns the technical and administrative infrastructure of the digital library. Thisshould also be funded by the government grant to the university. The other part isthe actual costs for the licensing of databases and electronic journal packages. Thecosts for these information resources – media costs managed centrally – should befunded by means of the allocation key.

The reason for this distinction in the funding of the Digital Library is that inthe years to come, UGent will like other universities experience a gradual shiftfrom printed media (in the proposed model funded by the faculties) to electronicmedia. In order not to disturb or undermine a new funding structure, it isimportant to secure that a new balance in the funding of media costs will not bedisturbed by this gradual transition. This would also reduce the chance of conflictsbetween faculties that would generate problems for the necessary transition fromprinted to electronic media.

Organisation and decision-making In the new structure, a clear decision-making structure should be implementedinvolving the Board of Directors, the Interfaculty Library Board and FacultyLibrary Committees.

Role of the Board of Directors

In a new LIS decision-making structure, it should be the role of the Board ofDirectors to take policy decisions as to: - the organisational structure in general;- the division of responsibilities between the different units in the structure;- funding mechanisms and allocation keys for the funding of common library

services;- the annual budget for common library services;- general policy issues.It is also the Board of Directors’ task to instruct the Interfaculty Library Board.

Role of the Interfaculty Library Board

In the new library structure, there is a need for a body that can guide and direct theimplementation of the new model and secure the development of library andinformation services.


The existing Interfaculty Library Board could probably take up this rolebased on a clear instruction from the Board of Directors.The Interfaculty Library Board should take decisions as to:- standards for cataloguing, etc.;- minimum service levels for libraries;- the acquisition of electronic resources;- rules for the use of general library services (Aleph, etc.);- the policy and guidelines for storage or weeding of less-used material.and should be responsible for:- monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the organisation;- the preparation of the annual budget for common library services, for the Digital

Library and for the services and expert functions run by/from the ‘Tower ofBooks’;

- the preparation of a strategic plan for the library services as such;- the preparation of cases to be decided upon by the Board of Governors.

Role of faculty library committees

It is appropriate for each faculty to appoint its own faculty library committee.Please note we use the term committee – not board – to indicate that the facultylibrarian is referring not to the committee, but to the dean of the faculty.

The primary tasks for a faculty library board are:- to give advice to the faculty librarian about the overall profile of the services;- to give advice about collection development;- to prepare the budget for the faculty library services (be it in one or more

libraries) to be discussed and decided upon at the faculty board;- to draft a plan for the library services at faculty level;- to evaluate the quality of library services.

Recommendations Access to print collections

The goal set here is to increase and facilitate access to print collections. To do this,the following actions need to be taken:- defining of and deciding on minimum requirements for faculty and

departmental libraries belonging to the network;- creating incentives for faculties to stimulate them to merge existing libraries not

complying with the agreed requirements, into larger and more self-containedlibraries complying with the defined requirements;

- digitising card catalogue(s) in order to allow remote access to existing collections,facilitate search and retrieval actions and make more effective use of thecollections, thus saving valuable time for researchers and students.

To make the most effective use of space and staff, and to maximise the value-for-money of the collections, corporate storage arrangements will be needed for lessfrequently used material. Based on an agreed weeding policy and a service levelagreement, such corporate storage would free significant (and expensive) space infaculties and departments. This could pave the way for the recommended merge


of departmental libraries, while at the same time contributing to the creation oflibraries with ’fresh‘ collections by ‘reuniting’ currently displaced parts of existingcollections.

For these reasons it is necessary to:- investigate the amount of books and back volumes of journals (earlier issues of

journals) to be either weeded or relocated in corporate storage – organised alongthe Alpha, Beta and Gamma setup;

- to draft and agree upon a common weeding and storage policy;- to look for adequate locations for corporate storage for the Beta and Gamma

Faculties.

Access to electronic resources

To increase and facilitate access to electronic information resources UGent needs: - to centralise the management and administration of electronic information

resources (databases and electronic journals). Only this way can the most bemade of existing opportunities, e.g. by activating electronic access to singlejournal subscriptions or taking advantage of possible package deals with leadingjournal publishers;

- to integrate digital library services into a one-stop-shop for search and retrievalof information. This will help users serve themselves, thus saving staff time andcontributing to the enhancement of the quality of the university’s primaryproducts – i.e. research and education – and to draft and implement anintegration project to ensure existing digital library services such as the unioncatalogue, databases, electronic journals and SFX linking, are better gearedtowards one another than they are today.

Preservation of cultural heritage

UGent possesses unique collections of books, coins, drawings, manuscripts, maps,medals, papyri, posters, etc., that require special conditions to prevent theirgradual deterioration and preserve them in the long run. Key actions to be taken inthis respect are:- draft a plan for the creation of adequate physical conditions for the preservation

of special collections; - evaluate the existing collections and decide which are in most urgent need of

special care and treatment.

Decision-making and funding

The proposed model requires a clear division of work and responsibilities betweenthe units in the library network. Accordingly, there is a need for a clear decision-making structure and delegation principles to be combined with a clear fundingstructure. Thus, UGent will have to:- implement a clear decision-making structure involving the University Board, the

Interfaculty Library Board and Faculty Library Boards;- reallocate funding according to the model proposed, amongst other things, by

means of a revised allocation key.


Optimising the use of resources

The resources spent on journal subscriptions can be optimised by:- investigating current subscriptions (library subscriptions, personal subscriptions

and subscriptions paid by research grants or groups).

The use of space (square metres) can be optimised by:- offering faculties and departments adequate facilities for storage (corporate

storage) of less frequently used material, thus enabling them to use space forother purposes – research, teaching, offices and student work spaces;

- investigating the amount of books and back volumes of journals to be eitherweeded or relocated in corporate storages – Alpha, Beta and Gamma.

- drafting and agreeing upon a common weeding and storage policy;- looking for adequate locations for corporate storage – Beta and Gamma.

Supporting the dissemination of the UGent research output

To establish support for research evaluation purposes, and for better and fasterdissemination of research output by means of Open Archives Technology, adecision should be taken as to: - the development and management of a university-wide publications database

(academic bibliography) covering all intellectual output from the university; - conceiving this database in such a way that it would become the backbone of an

institutional repository (where full text documents are archived) with openaccess to the global research community.

Marketing LIS

A structure based on collaboration, networking and cooperation demands anefficient flow of information between the different parties. That is why:- the library website should be reorganised in order to reflect the new structure of

libraries; - a real intranet for library staff (of all libraries) should be developed as a

cooperation project between the libraries under the management of the centrallibrary (library management unit).

A strategic plan for LIS at UGent

As a specific part of the plan leading up to the implementation of the new model,university management should initiate work on a strategic plan for the LIS to beestablished within 18 months after the new model has been decided upon.

A strategic plan should include plans developed by each faculty within theframework of a master plan, drafted by the appropriate body, i.e. the InterfacultyLibrary Board.

The preliminary work on the strategic plan could start immediately on thelevel of planning, administration and accountability. Amongst other things,research for the current report has demonstrated that a more consistent andunified tool for accounting and reporting on the spending for LIS is dearly needed.Therefore it is necessary to:- implement a mandatory set of accounts in the SAP system handling all library

expenses.


ORGANISING THE FUTURE

Implementation of a new library structure

Here we will see what is to be done and which steps are to be taken in

which order to develop a fully functional network as efficiently as

possible.

With all the changes it involves, it is obvious that the proposed model cannot beimplemented overnight. There are a lot of investments to be made in order to reachthe goal of modern library and information services: an efficient tool for researchand education at UGent .

Based on the experience in Lund, amongst other places, we would proposeimplementation to be phased over a period of three years. The development ofmodern faculty libraries in particular, will take time and requires commitmentfrom the faculties. Furthermore it is very important for the acceptance of the modelthat the faculties themselves can determine the pace to some extent.

This means, for instance, that faculties will have three years to develop theirlibraries in accordance with the agreed minimum requirements.

In what follows, we will list the decisions to be taken. The order in which we dothis more or less reflects the order in which we think they should be taken.Nevertheless, some decisions are to be juxtaposed while others have to be inchronological order as to make one another possible.

Decisions related to the new model: organisation, funding, responsibilitiesThe Board of Directors has to decide on the overall principles of the new model,including:- the tasks of the Central Library units (as outlined in chapter 2, pp. 16 - 18);- the funding structure: which tasks and services should be funded centrally

(by the university as such) and which ones by the faculty (chapter 2, pp. 20 - 21);- decision-making: which body decides what in a new library structure (chapter 2,

pp. 21 - 22);- the minimum requirements for faculty libraries (chapter 2, p. 19);- the composition of the Interfaculty Library Board;- the instructions to be drafted for the Interfaculty Library Board (chapter 2,

pp. 21 - 22).

The above decisions should be taken before the end of 2003.

Decisions and actions in specific areasA number of specific actions should be taken as soon as possible. Below you willfind the most important specific issues. Some of them have already beenmentioned in chapter two as recommendations.

Corporate storage arrangements

We recommend that the Interfaculty Library Board should decide to carry out:- an investigation of the need for corporate storage arrangements (as outlined in

chapter 2, page 17). This should be done by the Library Network ManagementUnit.

Centralising and consolidating administration of journal subscriptions

As set out in a previous section, nobody until now has had a clear picture of thecurrent journal subscriptions at UGent.

Subscriptions are taken out by the Central Library on behalf of the facultiesand paid for out of the common budget for acquisition. Faculty and departmentallibraries hold subscriptions as well. Depending on opening hours, etc., these aremore or less accessible to the users. Furthermore, numerous subscriptions aretaken out outside the libraries by research groups, etc. Access to these journals iseven more difficult. And finally, hundreds of subscriptions are taken out byindividuals (professors, researchers, etc.) through research grants and/or paid forby institutional credit cards.

A large amount of these subscriptions also include electronic access. At least forsubscriptions taken out by libraries or paid for by research grant money, thiselectronic access can be activated for university-wide access. Up till now, this hasnot always happened, which means the university is not taking advantage ofactual opportunities. On the contrary, it leads to expensive and time-consumingdocument delivery requests from, for instance, the British Library.

Furthermore, there will probably be a great potential for present personalsubscriptions to be converted into official library subscriptions. Indeed a numberof these journals already exist in electronic format or could possibly be activatedthis way.

For all these reasons, the Inter Faculty Library Board should request:- an inventory of all journal subscriptions;- a mandatory obligation be issued to report all existing and new subscriptions to

the Central Library;- the Digital Library set up an easy method of reporting;- the Digital Library staff centralises all subscriptions . Only this action would

make it possible for them;- the start of negotiations with publishers on journal package deals to obtain access

to more journals, thus increasing access and reducing document delivery costs; - a report back to personal subscribers that their subscription could be cancelled if

electronic access is already in place (thus saving, time, money, etc.).

The inventory should be done by staff from the Digital Library Unit

Organising the Future 26

Digitisation of card catalogue(s)

In order to allow remote access, easier search and retrieval, most effective use ofexisting collections and researchers and students to save time, it is stronglyrecommended that existing plans for the digitisation of the card catalogue presentin the central library should be carried out as promptly as possible.

Additionally, an investigation into other existing card catalogues in facultyand departmental libraries should be carried out.

The Digital Library Unit should be in charge of these initiatives based on decisionstaken by the Interfaculty Library Board and in cooperation with the RepositoryLibrary.

Maintenance of adequate physical conditions for preservation

UGent possesses several collections of unique material requiring specialconditions for their long-term preservation.

Therefore, a coherent maintenance plan should be drafted by theRepositoryLibrarian and decided upon by the Interfaculty Library Board,consisting of the following actions:- the evaluation of existing collections to decide which are in most urgent need of

special care and treatment;- the evaluation of present physical locations in terms of their suitability for

preservation;- the drafting of a plan that highlights the correct physical conditions for the

preservation of unique material and how to maintain these collections.

Academic bibliography – electronic publishing – institutional repository

Based on new publishing technologies, and in order to promote themselves web-wide, universities and research institutions all over the world are establishing so-called institutional repositories – a university’s electronic publishing service.Recently, international standards - known as the Open Archives MetadataHarvesting Protocol - for easy exchange of metadata have been agreed upon.

Furthermore and as of lately, the concept of the academic bibliography hasbeen revitalised in Ghent. I recommend that a publications database should beestablished covering all intellectual output from the university. This should bedone in such a way that at the same time, it could be the backbone of aninstitutional repository, where full text documents are archived and subject toopen access.

To achieve worldwide electronic presence and availability of UGent publications,and to promote and make visible its quality in research and education, werecommend the Board of Directors decide on and allocate funds for:- the development of the academic bibliography, a publications database covering

all intellectual output from the university;- the integration of an institutional repository into this academic database, where

full text documents can be archived and openly accessed by users from all overthe world.


Reorganisation of the library website

In an organisation such as the one proposed – based on networking andcooperation – information between different stakeholders has to flow constantlyand fluently. This does not only apply to end-users, but to all staff involved in thedifferent libraries as well. Therefore, the Head Librarian should decide to assign aproject team with representatives from the faculty libraries responsible for:- the evaluation of the existing website and its further development so that it

mirrors the organisation;- the development of a real intranet for library staff (all libraries). This should be

the subject of a cooperation project between the libraries under management ofthe Library Network Management Unit.

Integration of electronic library services

When it comes to digital library services, the comparison on an international levelbetween UGent libraries and other modern academic libraries will probably be toGhent’s credit in most cases.

However, in order to make the most of the efforts made and to increasestudent and researcher productivity, an integration of the existing digital libraryservices is recommended. As electronic resources (databases, electronic journals,etc.) increase in number and complexity, it is very important to work towards theone-stop-shop for search and retrieval of information. This will help users servingthemselves, save time and thus contribute to the quality of the primary products ofthe university – research and education.

Therefore, the Head Librarian should decide upon an integration project andschedule it in such a way that existing digital library services, such as the UnionCatalogue, databases, electronic journals and SFX linking solution, can be mergedbetter than they are today.

Quality control, performance measures and staff training

To be able to guide and monitor the development of the new library network andfollow up on the development of quality and usage of LIS, it is recommended thatquality control, performance measures and staff training should be taken care ofby the Library Network Management Unit.

The development of the new library network should be guided andmonitored by the Library Network Management Unit. The same unit should alsobe responsible for following up on quality and the degree of use of the LIS.

Therefore, the Interfaculty Library Board should decide on the setup of asystem to regularly control the quality of the LIS. This system could includeregular user questionnaires, web statistics and other performance measures.In the new structure where faculty and departmental libraries play a veryimportant role, it is crucial these libraries are staffed with qualified personnel.In order to improve the qualifications and the competence of the library staff, theHead Librarian should: - draft and implement a plan for the transfer of knowledge from staff at the Central

Library to the staff at the faculties and departmental libraries; - develop and run education and training programmes for the entire library staff.


BUILDING STONES

Addenda to the report

Here we will explain how the research leading up to this report has been

conducted and we will name the people who have cooperated in the

research. We will also announce the advent of a Full Report that will

comment on the results of the research in all detail.

Addendum 1Outlines of the research

A lot of material, information and data has been collected in order to support therecommendations for the proposed model. This material falls into the followingcategories:- official information and statistics (fact and figures about UGent);- data about the libraries;- financial data from the SAP system;- interviews;- a summary of the visitation reports (the parts relating to library services).

Special efforts were made in order to obtain an accurate picture of the state ofaffairs when it comes to the libraries. A questionnaire (addendum xx in the FullReport) was generated and sent out to all (approx. 300) libraries asking forinformation about staff numbers , media costs, size of collections, services openinghours, etc.

Roughly 55% of the libraries responded. The quality of the data varies greatlyand a comparison with the data from the SAP system also shows huge differences.The general conclusion is that it has not been possible to get a clear overview of thewhole picture.

This attempt to obtain an overview has resulted in the recommendation thata set of accounts for library expenses should be set up in the SAP system. Theseaccounts should be mandatory for faculties, departments and research groups intheir accounting practice.

The Full Report – of which the present one is only a summary – will include anoverview of the results of the questionnaire, and some examples of the problemsencountered.

The financial data from the SAP system covering media costs per faculty, werepresented during the interviews with representatives of the faculty. To oursurprise, this was the first time most of the faculties saw data of this kind.

The findings from the interviews will also be summarised in the Full Report.The same goes for the summary of the visitation reports.

Below is the table of contents of the chapter in the Full Report outlining ourworking methods, data collection and other material that has supported the workfor this report.

The process of research

Preparations

Agreements on time lines

Presentation before the Interfaculty Library Board

Data collection

Present funding and budget allocation principles

Faculty structure, departments and libraries

Facts and figures (research funding, funding for education, staffing, students per

faculty, etc.)

Data about the libraries

Media: numbers and costs

Collections

Staffing, space, other costs

Present services, opening hours, user training, ILL

Financial data (from the SAP system)

Data analysis

Presentation of the data

Interviews

List of interviewed persons

General findings from the interviews

Problems in the current setup of the library structure

The ‘Tower of Books’ – its collections and services

The Digital Library

The faculties and departmental libraries

Summary of visitation reports

Building Stones 30

Addendum 2Who has been involved?

An extra member of staff, Stijn Verhaaren, was engaged on a part-time basis togather information and process reports.

Members of staff interviewed

Ghent University Library [Centrale bibliotheek UGent]

Sylvia Van Peteghem, Chief Librarian [hoofdbibliothecaris];Veerle Van Conkelberge, Head of Acquisitions and Cataloguing Department[hoofd catalografie en acquisitie];Martine de Reu, Head of Museological Department - Keeper of Manuscripts andRare Books [hoofd museale afdeling - conservator der handschriften en kostbarewerken];Lucie Zabeau, Keeper of Maps, Coins and Medals [conservator kaarten, munten,penningen];Erwin Breusegem, Head of the Circulation and Document Delivery Department[hoofd bruikleen en documentlevering];Frederik de Leersnijder, Dominiek Decleyre, Paul Bastijns, Frank Vande Pitte,Automation Department [dienst automatisering].

Departments [Directies]

Gonda Cock, Director Financial Department [financieel directeur];Bob van Win, Dirk van Haelter, resp. Director Department of Personnel andOrganisation, Head of HRM Unit [resp. directeur personeelszaken enafdelingshoofd personeelsbeleid];Luc François, Director Department of Educational Affairs [directeur onderwijs];Herwig Bruneel, Director Department of Research Affairs [directeur onderzoek].

Faculties [Faculteiten]

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy [Letteren en Wijsbegeerte]Johnny Devreker, Dean [decaan];Jean Pierre Vander Motten, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitterfacultaire bibliotheekraad];Faculty of Law [Rechtsgeleerdheid]Eduard Somers, Dean and Chair of the Faculty Library Council [decaan envoorzitter facultaire bibliotheekraad] – (Faculty Librarian [faculteitsbibliothecaris]Ann Biebuyck is langdurig afwezig – translator forgot to translate. follows).Faculty of Sciences [Wetenschappen]Luc Moens, Dean and Chair of the Faculty Library Council [decaan en voorzitterfacultaire bibliotheekraad];Monica De Loose , Faculty Librarian [faculteitsbibliothecaris].

Building Stones 31

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences [Geneeskunde en Gezondheidswetenschappen]Paul Van Cauwenberge, Dean [decaan]; Rik Verhaaren, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad];Marie-Jeanne de Clercq and Stein Verschelden, Library Staff[bibliotheekmedewerkers].Faculty of Engineering [Toegepaste Wetenschappen ]Erik D' Hollander, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad];Mieken Osselaer, Library Staff [bibliotheekmedewerker]. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration [Economie en Bedrijfskunde]Roland Paemeleire, Dean [decaan]; Piet Van Poucke, Management Assistant in charge of Communication[Beleidsmedewerker en communicatieverantwoordelijke];Philippe Standaert, Faculty Librarian [faculteitsbibliothecaris];Inge van Nieuwerburgh, Library Staff [bibliotheekmedewerker].Faculty of Veterinary Medicine [Diergeneeskunde]Aart de Kruif, Dean [decaan]; Jozef Vercruysse, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad]; Jan Bauwens, Library Staff [bibliotheekmedewerker].Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences [Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen]Geert de Soete, Dean [decaan]; Ivan Mervielde, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad];Jean-Pierre Uyttersprot, Faculty Librarian [faculteitsbibliothecaris]. Faculty of Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences [Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen]Herman Van Langenhove, Dean [decaan]; Dirk Reheul, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad]; Marianne Borderé, Library Staff [bibliotheekmedewerker].Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences [Farmaceutische Wetenschappen]Jean Paul Remon, Dean [decaan]; Hans Nelis, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad];Stefaan De Smedt, Successor Chair of the Faculty Library Council [opvolgervoorzitter]. Faculty of Political and Social Sciences [Politieke en Sociale Wetenschappen]Ruddy Doom, Dean [decaan]; Frieda Saeys, Chair of the Faculty Library Council [voorzitter facultairebibliotheekraad];Hilde Van Peteghem, Library Staff [bibliotheekmedewerker].

Building Stones 32

The Network - lib.ugent.belib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/000/780/602/BIB-G... · BUILDING STONES...

Documents

Transcript of The Network - lib.ugent.belib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/000/780/602/BIB-G... · BUILDING STONES...