Government Information in the 21st Century - IMLS Grant Project
SWOT Analysis of Training Practices and Procedures
University of Colorado at Boulder, Norlin Library
August 12, 2008
STRENGTHS
- Project coordination
- Built on a history of collaboration among participants
- Funding for training, travel, stipends made broad participation possible
- Depth of Expertise
- Individual Buy-in
- Met a real need
- Well-developed base (modules) that facilitated customization of content to meet local needs
- Platform to work on
- Goals were well-defined and achievable
- Public Librarians were familiar with the platform
- Good support from WJ and OCLC
- Train the Trainers sharpened teaching skills
- Networking between librarians
- Adds vitality and usability to “boring” information
- Excitement among participants
- Explication of “discovery” process
- Increased institutional support for gov info
- Positive feedback to leaders
- Large IMLS grant increased visibility and enabled people to act
- Increased communication with potential audiences
- Closed communication loop
- Good PR for overlooked area
- Filled a gap à value added for gov sites (bridge)
- Subject approach
- Enhanced communication with community
- Forcing trainers to expand comfort zones
- Fulfilled depository role
- Service to end user
- Professional growth
- Better trainers
- Flexibility (ill-defined framework)
WEAKNESSES
- WebJunction flaws
- Personnel issues [grant staff turnover and trainers leaving over coarse of grant]
- Institutional grant regulations [taking into account all participants’ institutions’ regulations]
- Stipends
- Estimates of time involved
- Undefined audience for modules
- Lack of basic training skills for some trainers
- Geography
- Paperwork
OPPORTUNITIES
- More structure and definition of roles and expectations for people and institutions (changeover in personnel)
- Stipends structure (student and trainers)
- More input from target populations
- Earlier input from groups
- Building on current grant and modules already created
- Scalability
- Defined the audience
- Expanded service to minorities and how to reach out in a way that is nonthreatening
- Expanded services to subject specific library staff
- Market and customize to broader audiences (school, prison, library schools)
- Include special groups in development phase
- Broader committee membership
- Module development workshop
- Overall “training” training (hands-on learning how to train)
- Teach the skills
- Mentoring within state
- Stricter job descriptions for trainers
- More control in trainer selection
- Variety of tasks to play to participants’ strengths (setting up trainins, coordinating, module development, marketing)
- Trains and support to respond to changes in government information
- Keeping up momentum / time to build network
- Kink through federal agencies
- Innovative training (online)
- New depository librarians àlearn from trainers
- New depository librarians same level as non-depository librarians
THREATS
- Roles not defined
- Time/workload
- Poor trainer / Training skills
- Funding and sustainability
- Support
- Infrastructure
- Lack of Institutional support (docs education, budget, staff, buy-in)
- Regulations and reorganization (Depository)
- Response to changes (government information)
- Visability
- Geography & culture
- Technology and access
- Level of expertise in training, trainers, and changing docs environment
- Structure of team roles, training
