Are academic libraries ready for knowledge management?

Abstract

153 This paper analyzes results of a survey on shelf-ready materials management and cataloging practices in US academic libraries with various collection sizes. The survey respondents consisted of managers and librarians in technical services operations. Survey questions addressed topics such as the volume of shelf-ready materials, perspectives on shelf-ready expansion, the effect of local cataloging practices on shelf-ready services, the amount of cataloging and processing errors, and quality control. The majority of participants were from small-and medium size academic libraries, and print materials were the prevalent format for shelf-ready treatment. Two main reasons for shelf-ready implementation across libraries of all sizes were the need to improve materials turnaround time and the desire to redeploy staff for other projects or tasks. T he acquisition of library materials in shelf-ready form is one of the outsourc-ing strategies implemented by technical services departments to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and increase patron satisfaction. Shelf-ready materials supplied by vendors include physical items accompanied by full bibliographic records and physical processing such as application of barcodes, spine labels, security strips, etc. As the current library environment is moving toward management of electronic resources, the possibility of streamlining receiving, cataloging, and processing of materials in non-electronic format is potentially a very welcome alternative to the traditional acquisitions to cataloging model. While some libraries gained substantial experience in managing shelf-ready operations during the last decade, others are still contemplating the idea or are unsure of the implications that shelf-ready services could have for their libraries' databases and staffing. Potential concerns linked to the implementation of shelf-ready services can include extra review of vendor-supplied records, presence of less than full bib-liographic records, and changes in work assignments for technical services staff. The review of current library literature reveals a need for assessment of academic libraries' practices in shelf-ready materials management. The authors designed a survey to gain insights into different aspects of acquiring shelf-ready materials in US academic libraries with varying collection sizes. The authors were particularly interested in gathering feedback on the quality of bibliographic records for shelf-ready materials and their effect on local cataloging practices, including authority work. The implication of the new cataloging code,

Knowledge management in the context of academic libraries: the state of the art in brazilian studies

“…Likewise, it is necessary that the library has a qualified staff, according to its objectives and the objectives of the university to which it belongs. After all, a library's success depends on its staff's ability to use its knowledge to serve the user community, while managing the processes of knowledge creation, dissemination, and possible exploitation (MAROUF, 2017).…”

Gestão Do Conhecimento Em Uma Biblioteca Universitária: Desafios E Potencialidades

“…Em organizações de conhecimento, como bibliotecas, a Gestão do Conhecimento também é necessária, uma vez que permite gerenciar o conhecimento do usuário (suas necessidades, quem contatar para busca de informações), o conhecimento dos recursos (fontes, serviços e onde esses serviços estão disponíveis) e o conhecimento prático das pessoas (expertise disponível, a qualidade do serviço que prestam) entre outros (Islam, Agarwal & Ikeda, 2017). Afinal, o sucesso de uma biblioteca depende da capacidade de utilizar o conhecimento de sua equipe para atender à comunidade de usuários, ao mesmo tempo em que gerencia os processos de criação, disseminação e possível exploração do conhecimento (Marouf, 2017 (Probst, Raub & Romhard, 2002).…”

Measuring Knowledge Management Readiness of Indonesia Ministry of Trade

“…The reference for each instrument variable is shown in Table 1. Trust [5], [7], [8], [12], [13], [14], [29] 3…”