Attendees were asked to take a few moments to fill out an evaluation form for the symposium. Below are average scores for each of the elements of the evaluation form as well as summaries of themes or trends indicated in the open-ended portion of the evaluation.

1. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how useful each of the following aspects of today's program was:


1 - Not at All
2 - To a Small Extent
3 - To a Moderate Extent
4 - To a Great Extent
5 - To a Very Great Extent
N/A - Not Applicable

General Sessions:

A. Organized for Access - Average Score 4.07%
B. Circulation Services - Average Score 4.06%
C. Stack Maintenance Services - Average Score 3.887%

Breakout Groups:

A. Electronic Reserves - Average Score 4.10%
B. Offsite Shelving - Average Score 3.78%
C. User Evaluation - Average Score 4.29%
D. Staff Training - Average Score 4.23%

Opportunity to meet colleagues - Average Score 3.89%

Opportunity to learn of practices at other institutions - Average Score 4.53%

Facilities/Logistics - Average Score 4.26%

2. Would it be worthwhile for this or a similar group to convene again to discuss Access Services?

There was unanimous indication that this group should reconvene to discuss Access Services.

3. If you answered yes to question 2, how long should it be before another meeting is convened?

The group was split on frequency with about half indicating we should meet annually, and half suggesting twice a year. A couple of people indicated a preference for meeting few months.

4. If you answered yes to question 2, would your institution be interested in hosting such a meeting?

Two institutions indicated that they would be interested in hosting a meeting, and two others said they might be.

5. Please use the remaining space to indicate what worked well in today's program, what could have been better, and why:

The time was too short for all we had to cover and discuss. The morning discussions went well and they covered a lot of items for anyone in Access Services. The afternoon breakout topics were interesting but limited to the institutions actually having off-site storage and training and development programs.

Too many topics for thorough coverage, but a very good initial start. The symposium was interesting but there was way too much to cover in way too short a time. Each of the morning session could have spent 1.5 hours on each of the subtopics. Also the symposium should be longer than one day to give greater opportunity to share perspectives and meet each other.

More time for each topic and smaller breakout groups. More time to talk with colleagues one-on-one.

I liked the focus on a broad view of access services. I enjoyed the entire session. I don't normally go to these types of things but found it interesting to hear from other schools. If the symposium is repeated perhaps it should be smaller with more narrow topics and more depth as well as one or two formal presentations.

I would have appreciated an opportunity early to socialize/break the ice with other participants with the objective of networking. Please build this into the program next time.

Lunch together might have given more opportunity for meeting others. It was wonderful to attend a professional meeting that was focused on the work we do in access services, and not on who it was who provided the service (i.e., librarians, managers with or without a professional degree, supervisors, etc., meeting on a level field.)

There should be a contact person at each institution to whom people could turn for more information on that institution's programs.

Facilitators would have benefited from having a timekeeper to allow all 3 topics to be discussed in some sessions. The discussion moderators and the opening addresses were excellent. Time allotted/scheduling was very wise (time was tight enough to keep things moving). The summaries at the end, while necessary and very helpful, were a little "overdone." The organizers did great things with a good idea.

Shamiana Pond deserves applause for a job well done.

Have you thought about publishing the proceedings of the day, maybe a Spec-Kit type document including some copies of documentation from each institution? I think it would be helpful.

I would have liked to discuss more specific aspects of library/services rather than discuss things generally. For example, I would be very interested in hearing how other libraries handle "claims returned" fine disputes, staffing methods, etc. I think we should all have an e-mail list and general postings.

What I appreciated most was the ability for people to speak up and describe what practices their libraries were following. I came back to my institutions with many good ideas on how to address a variety of issues.

What validation and collegiality.

Having specific solutions from other institutions stimulates experiments at home. Today was full of useful tips. It will certainly lead to some experiments and initiatives—probably at each institution that participated. This is a great idea. I hope it continues.