<p> Using Delphi Technique in Developing Library Collections, Personnel, Services and Facilities</p><p>Armila Serrato, MLIS University of Antique [email protected]</p><p>Reysa Alenzuela, MLIS, Ph.D. Cabalum Western College/ Central Philippine University [email protected]</p><p>ABSTRACT </p><p>The University of Antique (UA) holds the distinction of being the only state university in the Province of Antique by virtue of Republic Act 9746. The Library is recognized as an integral part since its founding in January 1954 as an indispensable resource for effective teaching and learning and productive research. Recently, the result of the preliminary accreditation revealed many concerns and identified inadequacy that made up the UA Library scenario of poor quality. Acknowledging the urgency of the need to improve, the Delphi Technique was identified as a tool to effectively examine the current scenario and forecast the challenges and opportunities which serves basis for the formulation of the development plan of the University of Antique library. Delphi technique is based on the principle that forecasts from a structured group of experts are more accurate than those from unstructured groups or individuals. Since the study adopted this method, a team was formed composed of at least one representative from the college/department and two (2) external consultants. As in most Delphi surveys, data collected was interpreted quantitatively and qualitatively. In the analysis of data collected, the researcher used the identify – discuss - justify strategy. Further, in order to quantify the assessment of the university library in terms of collections, services, personnel and facilities the 5-point rating scale used by the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines served as reference. To sum up, the quantitative ratings earned by the UA Library from the panel of experts was adequate. Moreover, as the main goal of the UA Library is to provide the best quality of services and facilities, the qualitative analysis of the team members were collated and integrated in the five year development plan with the idea that the said identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats will be most needed not only in resolving the current issues but also the future needs of the library to maintain a high quality standard for the library. </p><p>Keywords: Accreditation, Delphi Technique, Library Development, Library Assessment</p><p>INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The University of Antique (UA) is a public, non-sectarian, non-profit institution of higher learning and holds the distinction of being the only state university in the Province of Antique by virtue of Republic Act 9746. The university status is a big call for change and a paradigm shift; therefore, confronting UA with bigger challenges and greater accountabilities. In providing quality education, the college strengthened its research and community outreach programs as well as continually enriched the different educational facilities. Library and laboratory facilities were added to provide services to the needs of the students as well as to the faculty (Agpawa, 2008). Adequate library resources and services, at the appropriate level of degrees offered are expected to be made available to support the intellectual, cultural, and technical development of students enrolled in University of Antique. The primary purpose of the university library according to Dougherty, Blomquist, and Oseghale (2011) is to support teaching, learning, and research in ways consistent with, and supportive of, the institution’s mission and goals. In addition, library resources and services have to be sufficient in quality, depth, diversity and currency to support the institution’s curriculum. As a result, the library is often considered the most important learning resource center of every academic institution. The Philippine Commission of Higher Education Memorandum Order (CMO) number 48, Series of 1996, states that the “library and laboratory facilities and equipment of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) must conform to the standard set by the commission”. The University had acknowledged the urgency of the need to improve the library to make its academic programs most effective. Thus, it is necessary to examine the existing library resources, personnel, services and facilities since the quality of the library is an indicator of a quality education. This study made use of the Delphi Method to look into the future directions of the UA Library. Delphi is based on the principle that forecasts from a structured group of experts are more accurate than those from unstructured groups or individuals. The technique adapted for use in face-to-face meetings, and is then called mini-Delphi or Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE). The Delphi method is based on the assumption that group judgments are more valid than individual judgments (Cuhls, Blind and Grupp, 2007). The Delphi Method is used as a part of Action Planning, Conflict Resolution, Problem Solving, Product Development, Project Planning, Strategic Planning, and System Design (Cuhls, Blind and Grupp, 2007). The usual or expected outcomes - a consensus, based on the intentions and ideas of the group as a whole. The facilitator holds knowledge over the topic, controls the input of the group. The facilitator prepared a questionnaire or a survey about the issue and sends it out to a panel of experts. Experts may be selected because of their knowledge, opinion or view about the issue (Linstone and Turoff, 2005). In this study, the group was composed of the UA Library Committee and two external consultants. They were requested to answer the questionnaire checklist. Responses were collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints were identified. The median or mode of the results of the questionnaire or survey were part of the report. These were then sent back to the panel for further comment. Participants comment on their own forecasts, the responses of others and on the progress of the panel as a whole. At any moment they revise their earlier statements to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus. Finally, the process was stopped after achievement of consensus, and the mean or median scores of the final rounds determine the results. This survey was conducted in preparation for a group (face to face) meeting. Two or more rounds are done before the meeting. The meeting then starts with the results of these rounds. The qualitative analysis was used when the researcher together with the panel looked into the external and internal factors that determined the kind of library the University of Antique has. In the analysis, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats were identified to serve as basis in the formulation of the five year development plan.</p><p>PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study assessed the University of Antique Library collections, personnel, services and facilities using the AACCUP standards, which served as basis in the formulation of a five year development plan. Specifically, this study aimed to: 1. Determine the extent of library collections, personnel, services and facilities using the AACCUP standard; 2. Analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the University of Antique Library using the Delphi Technique; and 3. Formulate a five year development plan for the University of Antique Library based on the assessment made regarding the availability and adequacy of collections, personnel, services and facilities.</p><p>METHODOLOGY Since the study adopted the Delphi Method, a Library Committee was formed composed of at least one representative from each of the following seven (7) colleges/department: College of Teacher Education, College of Technology, College of Maritime Studies, College of Computer Studies, College of Arts and Sciences , College of Business Management, and the College of Engineering and Architecture. Two (2) external consultants completed the group. Further, this study focused on the following queries: the assessment of the university’s library collections, personnel, services and facilities. Also, an analysis of the external and external factors related to the existence and operations of the library were done in order determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the unit has. All these data were utilized in the preparation of the five-year development plan. </p><p>Data Collection This study started with the review of related literature and studies by the researcher. The finalization of the problem of the study followed, which covered the assessment of the UA library collections, personnel, services and facilities using the AACCUP standards. The participants were asked to enumerate suggestions to improve the UA library’s collections, services, personnel and facilities. The instrument used for data gathering for this study is a questionnaire check-list using AACCUP standards and criteria. Further, the researcher ensured that there were enough items to collect data to cover all aspects of the problem and to answer all the specific questions under the statement of the problem. Part of the questionnaire is a letter drafted by the researcher to explain to the respondents the rationale behind the data collection. The instrument has five (5) parts.  Part I requests the participant to fill-up the personal data form so the researcher could establish their expertise and credibility.  Part II is an inquiry on the UA library collections.  Part III on the UA library personnel.  Part IV of the questionnaire inquired on the UA library services.  Part V of the questionnaire is concerned about the UA library facilities. Each area of assessment also required the participants to indicate recommendations for the improvement. The entries in the checklist are based on the minimum requirements for Philippine libraries set in the standards of the Commission on Higher Education as adapted by AACCUP. The study started in January 2014 and ended on April 2014.The researcher sent a letter to the President of the University of Antique to ask permission to conduct the study and to request for the list of members of the committee to assess the UA library. Once approval was sought, the researcher started the data collection. The data collection covered three rounds. The first round is the sending of the questionnaire for the assessment of the UA Library. Then, questionnaires were retrieved and data gathered were collated. The summary of the results of the assessment of the committee was sent back to everyone for further analysis and recommendations. When the group was ready for their analysis and comments on the result of the survey, a meeting was facilitated by the researcher to discuss the result of the survey and to agree on the final report of the UA Library assessment. During the gathering, a workshop was conducted to concretize the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the UA Library and to draft the Five Year Development Plan for the UA Library. Once the plan was drafted, the researcher called for a meeting among the committee members and administrators of the University of Antique for the validation of the plan. </p><p>Data Processing and Data Analysis Plan As in most Delphi surveys, data collected was interpreted quantitatively and qualitatively. In the analysis of data collected, the researcher used the identify – discuss - justify strategy. Further, in order to quantify the assessment of the university library in terms of collections, services, personnel and facilities the 5-point rating scale used by AACCUP was the same scale used:  5 points = excellent  4 points = very satisfactory  3 points =satisfactory  2 points = fair  1 point = poor.  A notation of 0 point for an item/area that is missing. Simple rankings of statistical data are the easiest way of presenting results. Another possibility explored is a half quantitative and half qualitative way of analysis. In the Delphi '98, the most important topics from the different importance were ranked and those which were often highly scored were clustered qualitatively and described under a joint headline. This was done to provide a very compact picture on results. Also, simple frequency counts, percentage and means were used in the data presentation, analysis and interpretation.</p><p>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</p><p>The Paradigm</p><p>The concept of ‘system’ serves to identify those manifestations of natural phenomena and process that satisfy certain general conditions. In the broadest conception, the term connotes a complex process involving interacting components. The relationships of each element that permit the identification of a boundary-maintaining entity or process is given much emphasis. It is noteworthy that: (1) Each element has an effect on the functioning of the whole; (2) Each element is affected by at least one other element in the system; (3) All possible subgroups of elements also have the first two properties. In each case, a whole made up of interdependent components in interaction is identified as the system (Lancaster, 2012). The most basic definition a system is a group of interacting components that conserves some identifiable set of relations with the sum of the components and their relations (to the system itself) conserving some identifiable set of relations to other entities (to other systems). Anchored on the above mentioned theory, this study views the library as integrated system. Analyzing the library as a whole on the complex interrelationships among its constituent parts – collection, personnel, facilities and services provides identifiable sets of relations as a group of interacting components. Using the Input-Process- Output Model, the study looked into the standards, collection development plans, rules, policies, statistical data and reports as basis for analyzing the library system. The process looked into the policies and procedures on how the collection is developed to meet the objectives of the institution and its responsiveness to the needs of the academic community; how the library services are delivered in the most cost-effective and efficient way; how the personnel are developed to provide quality service; and how the facilities are updated to meet the changing needs and ever growing demands of emerging technology. As a result, an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats leads to a responsive development plan that will meet the standards set and implement the underlying principles for quality service. Applying the systems approach using an integrated and overarching framework. The schematic diagram of the study presents the areas assessed by the panel of experts in order for the researcher to have a basis in the formulation of the UA Library Five Year Development plan.</p><p>Figure 1. The Framework of the Study on the Assessment of the Library Collections, Personnel, Services and Facilities</p><p>To elucidate further this study in terms of the research process adopted, the researcher used the IPO Model (Figure 2). IPO is used to convey systems fundamentals in preliminary investigation tool in systems development processes. It consists of at least three distinct components. Input is the data flowing into the system from outside. The next stage which is the process is the input data being manipulated in some way. Processing is the action of manipulating the input into a more useful form. The final stage in the information flow is normally to present the information in a user-friendly way. Output is the information flowing out of the system (Lochstet, 2007). The components of the IPO model are defined as: • I: Input - The information, ideas, and resources used in creating a program • P: Processing - Actions taken upon/using input or stored material • O: Output - Results of the processing that then exit the system.</p><p>The key areas in the library such as collections, personnel, facilities and services, were analyzed in terms of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats confronting the library. Using this IPO model, the UA library was able to analyze both the external and internal factors that determine the role and performance of the library in the life of the institution. With the SWOT analysis the formulation of the five year development plan for the UA Library was proposed. Figure 2. The Research Process Using IPO Model</p><p>Since the study adopted the Delphi Method, a Library Committee was formed composed of at least one representative from each of the following seven (7) colleges/department: College of Teacher Education, College of Technology, College of Maritime Studies, College of Computer Studies, College of Arts and Sciences , College of Business & Management, and the College of Engineering and Architecture. Two (2) external consultants completed the group. Unlike other studies where the level of agreement or disagreement was recorded, in this study, the data that was reflected are the consensus of the group after the three rounds of independent trial rating. </p><p>Result of the Delphi Method</p><p>To sum up, the ratings earned by the UA Library from the panel of experts was 3.07 (“adequate”). The UA Library earned the highest rating in its services which was 3.29, second in rank was the personnel with a rating of 3.14, the third in rank was the collection with a rating of 3.09, and the last in rank was the rating earned in facilities which was 2.78. The result of the study revealed that with the “adequate” (average level in the scale) library collection, personnel, services and facilities of the UA Library, its students, faculty members and other users are not having the best library resources and services they deserve to have for their information needs. Having collected the data on the status of the UA Main Library, the panel made an environmental analysis – both internal and external by identifying the strengths and weaknesses (internal) and opportunities and threats (external). The areas of concern included the collection, personnel, services and the facilities of the UA Main Library. Recommendations on what to do with the strength and opportunity factors and how to lessen weakness and threat factors were also identified in the form of actions to be taken. These recommendations were well-taken in the formulation of the UA Main Library Development Program for School year 2016-2020.</p><p>V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS</p><p>Delphi study can be a tool for libraries to evaluate the current status of library collection, services, personnel and physical facilities. Instead of using a one-shot evaluation, a repetitive review of panel of experts ensures the reliability of responses. Taking a different point of view, this time from users who are at the same time authoritative in the field can be very helpful.</p><p>The discussion in this research focused on the process but while this study advances an uncommon tool for library services rather than focusing on the results, the researchers deemed it worthy to note the recommendations deduced from the data gathered.</p><p>1. All the suggested actions to be taken by the panel of experts in the four areas of the UA Library will be included in the five year development program of UA for 2016-2020. Specifically:</p><p> a) In order to improve the collections of the UA Library the panel of experts agreed to recommend the following: (a) The collection development policy has to be reviewed by the Library Advisory Committee; (b ) To update library holdings to reach the minimum requirements based on AACCUP standards; (c) To continue adding in its collections the Filipiniana and research books and to have these collections both in print and electronic formats; (d) To update and acquire additional pictures and reference materials, audio-visual materials and CD ROMs; and (e) To base action plans on results of weeding out activity.</p><p> b) In order to improve the UA Library Personnel, the following actions to be implemented were listed by the panel of experts: (a) For the UA Library head librarian to earn her master’s degree in library science; (b) To formulate a personnel development plan which considers the minimum requirement for the quantity and quality of library personnel; and (c) To provide financial assistance for continuing education of the staff. </p><p> c) For the betterment of the services of the UA Library the following were identified by the panel of experts for implementation: (a) List of new acquisitions, should be known to the users promptly; (b) To review the flexibility of the schedule of the personnel in the UA Library, this way, support services are well-provided to the users. (c) To install an internet station under the UA Library supervision; (d) To formulate an Information Literacy Program to its users; and (e) To expand communication and other services to users outside of the university.</p><p> d) The following were suggested for implementation so as to improve UA Library facilities: (a) For the UA Library to be transferred to a building that could accommodate a minimum of 5 percent of its users at a time; (b) Requisition and purchase of needed furniture and equipment once library had expended its space; (c) Installation of security system and additional personnel to secure resources of library; (d) Immediate implementation of the plan for automation; and (e) Purchase of power generator. </p><p>2. Delphi technique is not a new tool for predicting a particular event or phenomena. However, it is seldom used in libraries in viewing its long term goals. This technique has been used in businesses and is a very reliable tool for libraries to explore as a way of assessing its future directions.</p><p>REFERENCES Agena, E.P. (2008). An Analysis of the usage of the Jose Rizal University Library collection: A basis for further development. Unpublished thesis. University of Santo Tomas. Agpawa, N. B. (2008). Status of the secondary school libraries in the Division of Ifugao based on Department of Education Standards. Unpublished thesis. Saint Mary’s University. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). CHED Memorandum Order No. 48 Series of 1996: Updated standards and guidelines for the grant and/or retention of university status vis- a-viz Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Commission on Higher Education (CHED). Manual of regulations for the private higher education (MORPHE) of 2008. Cuhls, K.; Blind, K. and Grupp, H. (2007). Innovations for our future, Delphi ’98: New foresight on science and technology. Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI No.13. Physica Heidelberg, pp.15ff. Davidson, S., & Mikkelsen, S. (2009). Desk bound no more: Reference services at a new research university library. Reference Librarin. Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 346-355. doi:10.1080/02763870903143591 Department of Education (DepEd). DepEd Order No. 56 Series 2011 –Standards for Philippine libraries. Dougherty, R., Blomquist, L. and Oseghale, L. (2011). Improving access to library resources: the influence of organization of library collections and of user attitudes toward innovative service. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Gabriel, M. and Bayeta G. (2007). Online collection evaluation, course by course. Collection Building. Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 20-4. Golden, B. (2010). A method for quantitatively evaluating university library collection. Library Resources & Technical Services. Vol. 98, Summer, pp. 268-74. Katz, W.A. and Gunasekera, J. (2010). Collection development: the selection of materials for libraries. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Lancaster F. (2012), If you want to evaluate your library. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Leighton, V. (2009). Course analysis techniques and guidelines. Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 175-9. Lochstet, G. (2007). Course and research analysis using coded classification system. Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 380-9. Lynch, B. (2012). University library standards. Library Trends. Vol. 31, No. (1), pp. 33-47. Obille, K.L.B. (2007). An evaluation of standards for academic libraries in the Philippines. Journal of Philippine Librarianship. Vol. 27, No. 1 & 2, pp. 109-150. Palais, E. (2007). Use of course analysis in compiling a collection development policy statement for a university library. Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp, 8-13. Philippine Association of Academic and Research Libraries. (2007). Introduction to PAARL library standards. Retrieved August 3, 2013, from http: //www. dlsu. edu.ph/library/paarl/pdf/standards/intro-standards.pdf University of Antique (2012). University of Antique: annual report 2011-2012 Woudenberg, F. (2011). An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 40, pp. 131 – 15</p>