Word document

Libraries and Librarians:  A link between Legal Information Services and Firm Productivity?

Margaret Aby Carroll, BS, MLS - Library Sites Manager, Microsoft Corporation and Ph.D. student

AndDr. Yvonne J. Chandler, BA, MLIS, PhD Associate Professor, University of North Texas / School of Library and Information

Science

INTRODUCTION

Background – Information as an Asset

“The most valuable assets of a 20th century company were its production equipment [emphasis added]. The most valuable asset of a 21st century institution, whether business or non-business, will be its knowledge workers and their productivity” [emphasis added] (Drucker, 1999).

Today’s workforce, largely professionals known as knowledge workers, spends a great deal of its time creating, using and communicating knowledge. Currently knowledge workers spend an average of 9.25 hours per week just gathering and analyzing data (Strouse, 2001).

For more than two decades, information seeking end-user research has consistently shown that professional knowledge workers (e.g., attorneys, engineers and scientists) spend, on average, 25% of their workweek seeking and analyzing information. Of that time, 50% is spent analyzing the information. Also, individuals intuitively cease information seeking after spending 20-25% of their time doing so because a) other work-related tasks have become more important and b) they perceive further effort will yield insufficient results to warrant more time expenditure (Strouse, 2001).

It is the generation, transfer, and reuse of both external and internal information in the form of knowledge that distinguishes information as an asset. If information is the raw material of knowledge work, then the relationship between an organization’s productivity and its information services is critical to an information intensive industry such as the practice of law.

An important application of knowledge management involves the concept of intellectual capital, “knowledge that exists in an organization that can be used to create differential advantage” (Steward, 1991, p. 31-32). Knowledge management (KM), defined as the deliberate modification of an organization to improve its information and knowledge creation and sharing,

seeks to aggregate and manage an organization’s information environment to ultimately contribute to improved organizational performance and productivity.

Empirical research exists that proves cost effective information services do provide its parent a competitive advantage. Because this issue crosses multiple disciplines, research findings are published in a scattered, sometimes obscure, body of literature across disciplines such as business, economics, social sciences and library and information sciences (Koenig, 2000).

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the generally accepted measures of information services contribution to productivity were based on valuing Library services. An example is cost savings accrued to the Library’s parent by having professionally trained librarians locate required information. Highly paid, highly productive employees can then focus on their primary duties instead of spending time finding information themselves.

Organizations continuously strive for productivity improvements by seeking to maximize efficient and effective use of its resources (inputs) to produce maximum goods and services (outputs). Productivity has long been an accepted and highly desirable economic measure; one so important that high productivity can be a competitive advantage ensuring sustainable market share.

The following formula published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (referred to in Bearman, Guynup & Milevski, 1985) will be used to develop a “revenue per lawyer” number to serve as the criteria for this study’s productivity measure.

Output Productivity = ----------------------------------------------- (Revenue/attorney) Input

Where: Output = Firm revenue Input = Total attorneys/firm for the period Oct. 1, 2002 to Sept. 30, 2003

Source: National Law Journal (NLJ) 250 Methodology

The Legal Information Services Environment

Legal electronic resources became available in the mid-1970s when Lexis and then Westlaw were introduced. However, scientific and business literature did not begin to become universally available in electronic format, particularly full-text articles with graphics, until the advent of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1991.

Print resources continue to be an important piece of a law firm’s information resources though there is a move to e-content, especially for non-legal resources. This change is being driven, in part, by the increasingly smaller space devoted to the law library. In the Second

2

Annual AmLaw Tech Library Survey report, 70% of respondents who said their library had been redesigned or moved indicated the new library was smaller.

Work on valuing Library services has continued, but little work has been done since the early 1990’s on the characteristics of information environments that support organizational productivity. The rise of knowledge management and the World Wide Web has produced research on information portals, but again, there is little research on the total information environment managed by information professionals, particularly in the legal community.

The introduction of the internet and intranet as collaborative platforms for knowledge sharing has produced a significant shift in emphasis to knowledge management. Productivity has tagged along as an incidental outcome of an effective knowledge management program rather than continuing to serve as the desired primary outcome. This shift is a direct result of the need to manage all of an organization’s information assets, e.g., aggregating externally and internally generated information.

Some characteristics of the information environment conducive to organizational productivity have been identified. Knowing which information environmental resources and services produce the highest contribution to productivity could not only ensure the viability of the information agency, its agents and the parent organization but also contribute to the “differential advantage”.

Axelroth (2003) and McCollam (2003) cite the following trends in legal information services:

downsizing of physical libraries increase in percentage of budget allocated to e-content declining average attorney vs. staff ratio increase in professional staff vs. non-professional staff ratio (2:1) decrease in delivery of training to customer base increase in budgets increase in professional staff a convergence of IT and library science expanded role of the information professional particularly in the area of knowledge

management involving client facing activities

Relevant to the management and delivery of law firm services is technology. It is also an important tool for delivering information services. Kennedy (2004) lists the following 2004 legal technology trends:

litigation technology - numerous uses such as presenting complex issues to juries, to substantially reduce discovery documents review time, and to conduct case management in real time

stop wasting technology dollars - firms will begin to align technology projects with business goals and use ROI (return on investment) and other business practices to manage technology investments

big firm lawyers go small - reduced technology costs enable young, technology savvy attorneys to acquire superior equipment so they can leave large firms and go

3

out on their own (downside is that at big firms the next generation of leadership (attorneys) is wiped out and also there tends to be reduced technological innovation and competence because those who left probably pushed for cutting edge technology).

Blawgs and RSS feeds constant security threats to networks and personal computers clients fire law firms due to tech shortcomings WiFi, Tablet PC, OneNote and practice specific applications are the next killer apps

Statement of the Problem

Competition among the major large United States law firms is intense. There are currently 400,000+ practicing attorneys in the United States and its Territories, and more joining the profession each year.

To maintain market share and revenue levels, law firms, like any services business organization, must continuously strive for productivity improvements by seeking to maximize efficient and effective use of its resources (inputs) to produce maximum goods and services (outputs). Productivity has long been an accepted as a highly desirable economic measure; one so important that high productivity can be competitive advantage ensuring sustainable market share and firm viability. Revenue per lawyer is the generally accepted measure of a highly productive law firm and a statistic cited in the AM Law 200, a ranking of the US highest grossing law firms, published annually in The American Lawyer. Another useful measure, the Profitability Index, the ratio of profits per partner to revenue per lawyer, is also cited in the AM Law 200.

In a law firm, revenue is no longer a result of the combination of legal specializations and billable hours. Access to, and efficient and effective management and reuse of workers’ intellectual capital also impacts revenue. More importantly, firms who have a technology based business models are valued by corporate clients. They associate a firm’s degree of technology expertise with its ability to help clients control legal costs. Clients also have the perception that a tech savvy firm is more responsive and has a greater capability to deliver innovations to the client (Kennedy, Jan., 2004).

Implementation of knowledge management initiatives, supported by the adoption of new collaborative technologies, has enabled capture and reuse of a firm’s intellectual capital. Information routinely used by attorneys is available at the desktop in context 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year, to anyone in the firm.

In context denotes information in the form of customizable documents such as wills and trusts, buy-sell or partnership agreements, divorce or custodial arrangements available at the desktop, anytime, anywhere. The inability to retrieve relevant information at the point of need comes at a high cost resulting in poor decisions, duplication of effort, and loss of cases, clients, and credibility culminating in lost revenues.

4

Research Question

This study will seek to answer the following questions, “Can an analysis of the characteristics of libraries or information centers and librarians in highly productive law firms yield operational models and standards which contribute to their parent’s productivity?” and “Is it possible to determine which variables make the greatest (perceived or real) contribution to the firm’s productivity?”

Purpose of the Study

Knowledge management concerns itself with processes, technologies and techniques, but largely ignores the overall information environment because of the complexity of assessing productivity of information intensive people, processes and units supported by information services. While studies have consistently utilized calculations of the value of information services as the basis for validating productivity contributions (King and Griffiths, 1993) (Portugal, 1999), little has been done to revisit optimum information environment characteristics of highly productive law firms, especially in the new wired world.

Collecting data about an organization’s information environment, particularly the

characteristics of formal information services and their staff, will enable:

1. identification of those traits consistent with the most highly productive law firms’ libraries and librarians

2. findings which could lead to identification of techniques information services can use to generate knowledge workers’ productivity gains

3. firm productivity gains4. discovery of the connection between the presence of libraries and librarians and

high productivity

Significance of the Study

This descriptive study will identify the specific characteristics of libraries and librarians at highly productive law firms. Findings should produce a list of ranked variables that appear with greater frequency at more productive firms and appear less frequently as firm productivity declines. Conversely, there may also be variables that appear less at more productive firms and more at less productive law firms. Correlation of the variables should be possible but will not be addressed in this paper. To date, no one has identified specific characteristics/traits of law firm libraries and librarians at highly productive law firms.

Important implications for study findings include:

generation of staffing guidelines, e.g., appropriate credentials, optimum ratio of professionals to paraprofessionals, optimum ratio of staff to customers

development of a criteria for resource allocation decisions

5

identification and ranking of library and librarian services providing greatest contribution to productivity

identification of measures to successfully demonstrate return-on-investment (ROI) on information services investment

The relationship between productivity and the existence of a library or information center and/or librarian or other information agents has been established and the topic of prior research across disciplines as diverse as economics, the social sciences, engineering, and library and information science. Most of the research by library and information scientists on this topic was conducted between 1975 and 1995.

A substantial portion of that research focuses on calculating the value of information and information services. Other studies approach the issue by exploring the impact of information services and information professionals on creativity and innovation, scientifically proven contributing factors to productivity.

We know knowledge workers spend on average 25% of their work week finding and analyzing information, and, in a law firm, it could be even more. Therefore, ten hours out of a forty hour work week are spent on searching for and analyzing information. Five of those ten hours are routinely spent just in searching for the information. It is conceivable a law firm could generate significant savings by reducing the attorneys’ “searching” from just 5 hours to 2.5 hours a week. For example, a firm with 300 attorneys, with a bill rate of an average of $300 per hour, over a 50 week period, could achieve a savings (salaries not spent finding information) of $11.25 million a year. That firm also frees up 375,000 hours (2.5 X 50 = 1,250 x 300) which could become billable hours and to generate another $11.25 million in revenue per year. Of interest is the fact that Librarians are found in all of the National Law Journal 250 firms according to the American Association of Law Libraries Directory.

Definition of Terms

Extranet – an extension of a firm’s intranet enabling communication between the firm and its clients

Intellectual capital – knowledge that exists in an organization that can be used to create differential advantage

Knowledge management – defined as the deliberate modification of an organization to improve its information and knowledge creation and sharing

Productivity – a concept that expresses the relationship between the quantity of goods and services produced—output, and the quantity of labor, capital, land, energy, and other resources that produced it—input

Basic Assumptions

The study is a web based survey delivered by email so it is assumed that all of the survey population has access to a computer, to email and to the internet. Also, all recipients identified hold the highest possible position in their firm’s information services operation.

6

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

This study will target one industry, law firms in the United States. Results will be compared with the Second Annual AmLaw Tech Library Survey, the 2002 Private Law Library / Corporate Law Library SIG Operations Survey of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries, and the 2003 American Association of Law Libraries Salary Survey.

Summary

This section introduces general background information to support the concept of information as an asset, the importance of productivity, trends in both law libraries and technology in law firms and the legal information environment. The significance and need for the proposed research study are articulated as are potential limitations and delimitations of the study.

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

Productivity and Knowledge Management (KM)

Numerous studies have examined the value and contribution of library and information centers, information professionals, and information content to an organization’s performance, health and success. Highly productive companies require a steady stream of actionable information to sustain a competitive advantage (Davidow & Malone, 1999) and law firms are no exception. The more competitive the market place, the greater the information need, and the greater the investment in information services though there is evidence that companies consistently underinvest in information resources (Koenig, 1999).

Organizations do differ in their ability to produce productivity gains from information resource investment. Industries considered information intensive such as the legal profession are more likely to improve their productivity than non-information intensive ones such as manufacturing (Harris & Katz, 1991). Internal and external factors also affect productivity gains. Internal factors may be senior management’s commitment, a firm’s prior experience and satisfaction with information investments, and firm politics. External factors can include the marketplace, a firm’s financial standing prior to the investment, and the firm’s size and ability to benefit from economies of scale (Olson & Weill, 1989).

The 2003 PricewaterhouseCoopers-Legal Research Center Knowledge Management Study results indicate “the legal professional has a good understanding of its involvement in KM [knowledge management]” (Adkins, Jul. 25, 2003). Approximately 50% of survey participants report some kind of Knowledge Management program at their firm. Most frequently cited top objectives of a KM project are the very things clients associate with a firm who has embraced technology:

improved quality of service

7

improved speed of service reduced cost of delivering service

According to the study, reducing redundancy, particularly research redundancy was a significant outcome in achieving KM objectives. More than 60% of survey respondents attributed redundancy to poor internal communications and “lack of incentives to motivate knowledge reuse” (Adkins, Jul. 25, 2003).

Challenging but critical to successful KM initiatives is the contribution to the KM repository, typically a document management system (DMS). 80%+ of survey participants internally reuse legal research or precedents generally in the form of standard legal forms or templates and research memoranda 1-5 years old. 70% of respondents believe the best KM systems access a variety of sources. What sources? Law firms most frequently utilize software that enables management of these functions containing KM related raw data: financial, document, case/matter, legal research, litigation, client relationships (CRM). Email or other communication/collaborative systems are also crucial to the process.

KM systems most frequently being implemented are:

Substantive knowledge, such as form files and research archives Organizational knowledge such as expert databases or records management Procedural knowledge such as checklists and practice guides

Productivity in Libraries -- Valuing Library Services

Literature on the relationship of libraries, library services and productivity is scattered among various disciplines. In the information and library science field, the earliest research focuses on the value of information. It either describes the concept of value and ways to measure it or describes the calculation of the value of information products and service using those measurements (Griffiths, 1982). The definition of productivity and its measurement are also considered because of the close relationship to measures for valuing information.

Value assessment from the user perspective was advanced by the work of King et al during a study on the value of the Energy Database (as referred to in Griffiths, 1982). Three views of user perspective valuation were defined: 1) input perspective or what users would pay for information and its products or services; 2) process perspective or how the use of information affects works; 3) output perspective or how work affects the environment as a whole.

Graham and Weil’s 1975 Exxon Research Center study is considered a seminal work on valuing information services (Koenig, 2000). This study evaluated the benefit of the service provided and derived a value of information, something that had never been done before. 62% of Exxon researchers reported that information events recorded over twenty randomly selected days were of benefit and 2% of the participants quantified that value. Graham and Weil extrapolated an 11:1 ratio of benefits to cost of providing the information services. This study was followed by a similar but larger study at NASA in the late 1970s.

8

Both of these studies developed a cost/benefit ratio comparing the benefits likely to be saved or cost savings to product costs. Valuation methodologies of this type were most fully developed and widely applied by King Research in the late 1970s and 1980s. A comprehensive review of this research is available in Griffiths and King, (1993) Special Libraries: Increasing the Information Edge. The business and management literature also contains reviews of research conducted on the relationship between information and productivity, but with a focus on the impact of information on innovation and research (Buderi, 1999).

Studies show that information access, contact with external information sources, and diversity of information sources are key factors to successful innovation. Utterback’s (referred to by Koenig, 2000) review of management literature cites consistent communication as the primary contributing factor to innovation. Wolek and Griffith’s (referred to by Koenig, 2000) review of sociology literature reaches the same conclusion. McConnell (referred to by Koenig, 2000) credits the flow of formal and informal information up, down and across an organization as the source for improvements in operational productivity. Kanter, after investigating innovations by middle managers, formulated recommendations for organizational support of creativity that included “a free and somewhat random flow of information” (referred to by Koenig, 2000, p. 91). She also asserts that a manager’s needs are information, resources and support, in that order.

Research has developed a positive correlation between professional level employees’ productivity and the amount of time spent reading. Koenig (1999) cites research by Mondschein, Ginman, King Research, Inc. and others to validate this theme of greater access to and use of information services by more productive individuals across all findings. It makes sense for an employer to provide the most relevant information resources possible to increase employees’ information seeking effectiveness.

Calculating Information as a Productivity Factor

Various approaches have been used to calculate the effect of information as a factor in industrial productivity. Hayes and Erickson (referred to in Koenig, 2000) used the Cobb-Douglas formula in 1982. Braunstein (referred to in Koenig, 2000) incorporated the constant elasticity of substitution and the translog production functions into the Cobb-Douglas formula in 1985 to produce a consistent 2.34:1 ratio, e.g. each unit of information service input yields 2.34 units of output value. King Research, Inc.’s ratio of 2.2:1 for the Department of Energy’s Energy Database and a 1.98:1 ratio for NASA’s information services are very similar though they did not use the Cobb-Douglas formula in any form.

Matarazzo, Prusak and Gauthier in 1990 and Matarazzo and Prusak in 1995 conducted studies on the value senior executives placed on information centers and information professionals. They used a trend analysis technique to profile corporate libraries. Results reveal the value or impact of the library or information center increases when it is closely aligned with the more strategic pieces of the parent organization. A deep understanding of the parent’s business and industry and market in which it operates is essential to delivering more complex

9

services such as data analysis. Data analysis was cited as a primary example of a skill that could be developed to enhance the library or information center’s contribution to its parent.

Other findings include greater end-user access to information which then requires increased training on selection and use of information resources; reduction in size or stagnant growth of library or information center staff, space requirements, and budgets; adoption by information professionals of a more proactive stance in delivering information. However, no determination was made as to which factors contribute most to corporate productivity (Matarazzo et al. 1999; Matarazzo and Prusak, 1999).

SUMMARY

The relationship between productivity and the existence of an information agency (library) and/or information agents (librarians) has been the topic of prior research across several disciplines.  It is known that libraries and librarians contribute to organizational productivity, but there remains no consensus as to which service(s) provided by a library and what qualifications of librarians make the greatest contribution in organizations.  Since the introduction of collaborative technologies in the form of the internet, intranet or networks, little research has examined the impact of the involvement or participation of librarians in the development, content management or maintenance of information sources on organizational productivity. 

10

METHODOLOGY

Unlike companies in the industrial age when hard assets represented value, law firms’ value in the information age resides almost exclusively in intellectual assets. The extraordinary degree to which knowledge comprises law firm working capital, coupled with the fact that this industry has not been the recent focus of productivity studies, makes them an ideal and interesting candidate for this study. “Because knowledge has become the single most important factor of production, managing intellectual assets has become the single most important task of business”, Steward (1997, p. xiii).

To reiterate, this study is to identify characteristics of both information agencies (libraries) and agents (librarians) at the top US law firms ranked by revenue per lawyer as published in the 2003 AmLaw 200. This chapter describes the intended survey population, survey instrument and delivery method, categories of data to be collected and selected analysis methods.

Survey Population

This study surveyed the 2003 National Law Journal 250 law firms. These firms were selected by the National Law Journal (NLJ) from their 26th annual survey of the nation's largest law firms, covering the period Oct. 1, 2002, to Sept. 30, 2003. The NLJ sent surveys to some 300 law firms to determine the 250 largest. Eligibility for selection to the NLJ is based on a firm's total number of attorneys above 160. Additionally, a firm must have more lawyers based in the United States than in any other single country. Firms are ranked by the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) attorneys, rather than just full-time attorneys. In that survey, firms are ranked by the number of partners and associates, excluding "other" attorneys. A tie was broken based on the number of partners at each firm.

The actual survey recipient at a firm was one of the following in the preferred order: Director or Manager of the firm’s Library or Information Center; Solo Librarian; Managing partner; Firm Office or Operations Manager. The manager or director of libraries for the principal office of two hundred forty of the firms ranked in the 2003 National Law Journal 250 was identified in the American Association of Law Libraries Membership Directory. An invitation to participate in the survey was then sent via email to those named individuals.

The survey was not anonymous since data must be correlated according to the productivity measure of revenue per lawyer ranking of respondent. To mitigate participant concern about release of competitive intelligence, individual responses are known only to the researchers. The findings are to be presented only in aggregate form with individual responses not attributed to any named person or firm.

Data Collection

Data was collected using Survey Monkey, http://www.surveymonkey.com, a web-based survey instrument delivered via email. Data was collected the first quarter of 2004 over a two

11

week period. One week after the initial release of the survey, a reminder to complete the survey was sent to prospective participants who had not submitted a survey to date. Thirty-six responses were received for a return rate of 15.00%.

To meet the research objectives, questions have been segmented into the following categories: General Information, the Parent Firm, the Library or Information Center Staff, the Library or Information Center Organization, and Firm Return on Investment Measures.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Since this is a descriptive study, analysis will be in the form of descriptive statistics and correspond to the sections of the survey.

General Information

97.2% of firms participating in the survey have one or more Libraries or Information Centers and employ information professionals (individuals with a Masters of Library Science, Masters of Information Science or Masters of Library and Information Science degree.

Profile of the Parent Firm

Forty-four percent of the responding librarians work in firms that have between 251 to 500 attorneys. This number is comparable and approximately representative of the NLJ survey which reported that 35.2% of the largest firms were that size. The second largest number of firms participating in the survey had between 151 and 250 attorneys. Twelve or 33.3% responded to the survey which is representative of the number of firms that are that size from the NLJ survey, 89 or 35.6 %. One firm reported that it had less than 150 attorneys which would have moved it out of the listing for the NLJ survey.

Table 1 - Number of Attorneys in Firms of Responding Librarians

Number of Attorneys Survey National Law Journal 250less than 150 1 2.8 0151 – 250 attorneys 12 33.3 89 35.6251 -500 attorneys 16 44.4 88 35.2510 – 750 attorneys 3 8.3 41 16.4751 – 1000 attorneys 4 11.1 19 7.6More than 1000 attorneys 0 0 13 5.2TOTAL 36 100% 250 100%

The overwhelming majority of the responding librarians reported data from a headquarters or principal office of a firm with branch offices (66.7%) or multiple offices (30.6%). Many law and accounting firms, including almost two-thirds (63.9%) of the responding firms are organized and operate as Limited Liability Partnerships or LLPs. The LLP

12

operates much like a limited partnership, but allows the members of the LLP to take an active role in the business of the partnership, without exposing themselves to personal liability for others' acts except to the extent of their investment in the LLP. A smaller number of the responding firms are organized as professional corporations (13.9%) or as professional limited liability companies (11.1%).

The geographic distribution of the responding firms was approximately even for all regions of the country with the exception of the West from which only two firms (6.3%) responded to the survey. Although the principal offices of 18.75% of the responding firms are located in the Northeast, no firms responded from some of the major cities on the east coast including Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. The geographic representation from this survey is somewhat different than the geographic distribution professional respondents to the AALL 2003 survey. The largest percentage of respondents to the AALL survey were from the Northeast region - Mid-Atlantic/NY-D.C. (26.2%) and New England/Boston (8.7%) for a total of 34.9% of all respondents while for this survey the South region with 28.1% was the most heavily represented area of the country.i

Table 2 – Number of Attorneys in Firms of Responding Librarians by Region

Geographic Region Number of Reporting Firms %

NLJ 250 Number of

Firms%

Northeast 6 18.75 102 40.8South 9 28.1 38 15.2Southwest 7 21.9 15 6.0West 2 6.3 33 13.2Midwest 8 25.0 62 24.8

32 100.00 250 100.00

The areas of law in which these largest firms practice include the entire range of a full-service law practice in virtually all areas of local and international civil, corporate, commercial, financial, and government law. The practice areas noted most by all respondents were bankruptcy, corporate/commercial law, labor and employment law, litigation and dispute resolution, real estate, property, and land use, securities, and tax law. Areas of practice noted least frequently by the responding firms were criminal law (36.1%), family law (36.1%), or maritime and admiralty law (33.3%).

Table 3 - Practice Areas of Law

Areas of Law %Advertising, Media & Entertainment 86.1Alternative Dispute Resolution 86.1Antitrust Law 97.2Banking & Finance Law 97.2

13

Bankruptcy & Reorganization 100.00Business Technology & E-Commerce 97.2Civil Trial Law 97.2Construction Law 88.9Corporate / Commercial 100.00Creditors' Rights 86.1Environmental Law 97.2Estate Planning 94.1Government Affairs 75.0Health & Health Care Law 91.7Immigration Law 72.2Insurance Law 94.4International Law 75.0Intellectual Property & Patent 94.4Labor & Employment Law 100.00Litigation & Dispute Resolution 100.00Legislative Law 72.2Mergers & Acquisitions 91.7Municipal / Public Finance 83.3Products Liability Law 86.1Real Estate, Property & Land Use 100.00Securities Law 100.00Taxation Law 100.00Utilities / Energy 72.2

Profile of the Library or Information Center Organization

As stated above, the librarians responding to the survey are all members of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). All of the libraries are part of the administrative (44.4%) department of the firm or the library/information center is an individual department (47.2%). Because these firms were selected from the NLJ 250 comprised of the largest firms in the nation, it is not surprising that the libraries reported having multiple professional, paraprofessional, and clerical employees. There was an average of 5.5 full-time information professionals employed in the responding libraries, an average of 3 full time para-professionals, and two full-time clerical staff members. The firms also reported part-time professional and paraprofessional employees.

These findings are slightly larger than those reported in the results of the AALL 2003 Salary Survey results on staffing found in Tables 10-14 of the section “Organizational Characteristics – Staffing”. The AALL survey findings reported an increase in the average staff size in private firm/corporate libraries from 2001 to 2003; particularly, in the number of full time equivalent information professionals in private law firm libraries.ii According to the AALL data, there are an average of 3.71 full-time professionals per library, and 1.26 para-professionals, and .55 clerks. Private firm/corporate libraries employed 53.9% of the professionals reported in the AALL survey. The AALL findings are consistent with the results reported in the AmLaw Tech Library

14

Survey where 38% of the 88 responding libraries reported staff increases over the previous two years.iii This survey data is consistent with the findings of the 2002 Private/Corporate Libraries survey of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries. That survey found that not unexpectedly, the more lawyers working at a firm or corporation, the more permanent library staff-members are employed. iv

The most common job titles of professionals and non-professional staff in the libraries were Director or Head of Library Services (71.4%) and Library Assistant/Clerk (97.4%). Other titles identified by a large number of the responding librarians were Acquisitions/Collections Development/Collections Management Librarian (28.6%), Electronic/Online Service Librarian (21.4%), and Reference/Research Librarian (67.9%). Less than five percent of the firms reported having a professional or other staff member with the titles of Government Documents /Legislative History Librarian (7.2%), Knowledge Architect/Manager (3.6%), or Database Administrator (7.1%), or Web Designer/Editor/Master (10.4%). As noted above, no firms with principal offices in Washington D. C. responded to the survey. Firms located in the Nation’s capitol tend to have staff with the responsibilities of government information and legislative history research. In the AALL 2003 Salary Survey, nine librarians self-identified as government documents/legislative librarians. Eight of the 9 librarians worked in private firms and 100.0% of the 9 were from the Washington DC Metro area.v

While only a small number of responding librarians reported having staff with the position of knowledge manager/architect, this data is contrary to reports from other surveys. The AmLaw Tech Library Survey 2003 reported that 81% of firm librarians plan an active role in the firm’s knowledge management efforts. This was an increase in the number responding affirmatively for the 2001 survey.vi While staff may not have the specific title, other staff member’s may be conducting these activities in law libraries.

The majority of responding information professionals (an average of 4.69 for each firm) have a master’s degree in library or information science. A number of the information professionals also reported having the J.D. degree. In the AALL survey, nearly six out of 10 professionals (57.0%) had earned a MLS degree.vii

None of the responding law firms require their information professionals to participate in continuing professional education or development, but all of the firms reported support for these efforts. One hundred percent of the responding firms support conference attendance for staff to obtain professional development training. Other experiences supported by the firms include payment for continuing education classes or programs sponsored by professional associations (71.4%), offering in-house training classes (85.7%), and providing vendor instruction (82.1%). Support for formalized continuing education classes at a college or university (32.1%) or through tuition reimbursement for coursework leading to a degree (21.4%) is not available in most of the firms.

Funding the Library or Information Center is crucial to the success of the library. 74.1% of firms surveyed reported their libraries were funded as part of the firm’s operations budget or as firm overhead. 51.9% reported funding was also received through client billing on an hourly basis for services and research. 95.2% of survey respondents reported a total average budget of

15

approximately $2.3 million dollars representing the total of all the firm’s libraries or information center’s budgets. This is slightly less than the $2.7 million average of the combined staff salaries and dollars spent running the library (excluding staff salaries and computer based research applications like Westlaw and Lexis Nexis) reported in the Second AmLaw Tech Library Survey in 2003. Staff salaries and benefits are the largest budget expense followed by online information resources and then all other information resource purchases.

Profile of the Library Collection

The largest number of responding firm librarians, approximately one third (37%) work in participating firms with information collections of between 20,001 and 50,000 volumes. An equal number of firms, 14.8%, each report either 10,001 – 20,000 volumes or more than 50,001 volumes.

Table 4 – Size of Firm Library Collection

Size of the Library Collection Number of Respondents %Less than 5,000 volumes 3 11.15,001 – 10,000 volumes 6 22.210,001 – 20,000 volumes 4 14.820,001 – 50,000 volumes 10 37.0More than 50,000 volumes 4 14.8Total 27 100.00

Contrary to predictions from information scientists in the past, we are not a paperless society as evidenced by the materials and content purchased by reporting firm law libraries. All of the responding firms are still purchasing books as well as other non-print information products including CDs, DVDs, software, video or audio tapes. All 36 firms also reported selecting treatises and topical materials, directories, law journals and reviews, magazines, newspapers, tax materials, and government regulatory or agency materials. Many of these resources are also being purchased as web-based or internet subscriptions. The continued importance of print resources to the collections of firm libraries is also supported by results from the AmLaw Tech Library Survey. While three-fourths of the respondents noted that they firm has canceled subscriptions to some West reporters over the last two years, more than one-half (56.0%) noted that they do not have plans to phase out their print collection of West reporters.viii The CALL survey also found that a significant portion of library budgets was still spent on print materials i.e., books, law reports, annual print subscriptions, binding, and desk copies.ix

In addition, all of the surveyed libraries are subscribers of online services – Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, Factiva, etc. and utilize web based resources. More than 90% of the libraries provide continuing legal education materials and copies of conference proceedings for their customers. While over 90% purchase business or management resources, less than two-thirds report selecting market research reports (61%) or Wall Street analyst reports (55.6%). Overwhelmingly, these resources are purchased from bookstores, legal publishers, book dealers, ebased online vendors, or professional associations. Additionally, much primary law material is accessed for library collections from the courts as well as from government or municipal

16

agencies, departments, and the Government Printing Office. Approximately one-third of the responding libraries (38.9%) noted use of information brokers, consultants or independent research firms to purchase or retrieve information for their primary customer group or clients.

Profile of Library Services

The top fifteen Services most frequently offered are circulation of books (81.5%),user training (77.8%), circulation of conference proceedings (77.8%), circulation of audios/videos/DVD/CDs (74.1%), journal circulation (74.1%), journal subscription management (74.1%), reference/research on business or competitive intelligence (74.1%), reference/research on companies (74.1%), on demand research (74.1%), targeted news services that distribute focused content (74.1%), ready reference (74.1%), cataloging (74.1%), interlibrary loan-ILL (74.1%), and journal/serials management (74.1%). Overall, records management services were least offered though 11.1% of respondents did offer archiving. Less than 4% of survey participants managed client files, record access, storage and retention, digitization of client records and files, or preservation of records.

Also, only 22.2% offer knowledge architecture services, e.g., metadata/thesaurus/taxonomy development, search structure strategies, etc. while less than 30% work to integrate external and internal content. This is in sharp contrast to the 47.1% who reported they were a “contributor” on the 2002 Private Law Library / Corporate Law Library SIG Operations Survey and the notable 81% who said they played an active role in their firm’s knowledge management efforts on the 2003 Second AmLaw Tech Library Survey! Also, 58% of the AmLaw participants reported their firm had launched a Knowledge Management initiative.

The principle services or content offered on the firm’s library or information center’s intranet are desktop access to external databases such as Lexis and WestLaw through the Intranet (92%), online catalog of library holdings (88%), links or pointers to selected internet sites (80%), topic pages aggregating resources for specific practice groups (76%), and company or industry information (68%). Wall Street analyst reports (8%), market research reports (16%) and e-Books and e-journals (24%) were least likely to be offered.

Participation in the development of and selection or creation of content for the firm’s intranet as well as maintaining an information portal for the library was noted by a majority of the responding firms (63.0%). This figure is consistent with the data reported by the CALL survey of private and corporate libraries. The CALL survey reported that in 1998 just over half of the respondents (53.6%) worked in a firm or corporation which had an Intranet or where an Intranet was a work in progress. Although there has been growth in the prevalence of internet/intranet technology, the 2002 CALL survey only shows a 10 percent growth in Intranets. In 2002 63.2% of the librarians stated that their firm had an Intranet. Library catalogs were available on 40.2% of firm intranets in the responding libraries in 2002. One-fourth (25.3%) of the responding librarians said there was no Intranet at their workplace.x

Firm Return on Investment

17

Billing time for research conducted by the library or information center staff was reported by the majority of the responding firm law librarians or 81.5%. This was the most often noted method that librarians are able to demonstrate their value and return on the firm’s investment to the partners or shareholders and associates. Other methods for demonstrating ROI reported by more than half of the respondents were savings in consolidated purchasing across the firm and its multiple offices (63.0%), direct savings to clients or other departments attributed to the library or information center staff (59.3%), and testimonials from customers about the contribution of the firm library or information center to work (55.6%). The CALL survey noted that almost a quarter of their firm librarians recovered 71.0% or more of their online charges through client billing.

The services and resources provided by the library and information center professional were rated as very important to a majority of the partners/shareholders (81.0%), associates (85.0%), summer associates or clerks (56.0%), clients (52.0%), and the employees conducting Marketing, Client or Business Development (52.0%). The attorneys noted services that were very important to their work included online database and/or internet training and instruction, performing complicated research projects and other reference services, and non-legal research. Routing of current awareness materials, reviews, newspapers, journals and other materials was also noted as very important to support the work of firm attorneys. This finding echoed the results of the CALL survey which also noted that routing of materials such as “tables of contents” were offered by more than 90.8% of the survey respondents. Although not completely members of the firm, the services to support the summer associate or clerk program were also identified as very important work of the library. The associates and clerks depend on the database training and instruction, assistance with research and projects, as well as access to all electronic and print resources.

Library services were also noted as very important for other departments in the firm notably, firm administration and marketing or client development department. Both of these departments rely on the library or information center for corporate and company information, competitive intelligence information, conducting non-legal research, and legal industry trends or news. The respondents also noted that the Human Resources departments utilize the library and Information center’s services to conduct personal or labor law research as well as database training.

SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Summary

There is change in the legal information environment, but it is not dramatic change. The majority of information professional has Masters degrees in either Library or Information Science. While firms do not require their information professionals to participate in professional development, staff professional development is consistently supported by their firms, primarily through funding for conference attendance. Funding remains steady and an upward trend is

18

emerging. Knowledge Management has arrived with a bang, and thought a large number of firms anticipate KM initiatives; few are actually executing KM projects.

Physical libraries in law firms are getting smaller as the transition to e-based resources continues. Resources of a non-legal nature are generally the first to make the change. Circulation remains the number one service from law libraries while user training, reference/research, journal subscription management, cataloging, inter-library loan and provision of targeted news services all tie for second place.

Librarians are increasingly participating in the development of and selection or creation of content for not only the firm library portal, but also the firm’s intranet. The principle services or content offered on the firm’s library intranet are desktop access to external databases such as Lexis and Westlaw, access to an online catalog of library holdings, company or industry, and links to filtered, targeted information resources identified and maintained by the library staff. Of note is the fact that almost one in four responding librarians said there was not intranet at their firm.

Demonstrating the firm’s return on investment (ROI) in library or information centers remains all about revenue! The number one criteria are amount of billable hours for research conducted by the library or information staff. Overall, library and information center services and resources were most highly rated for partners/shareholders and associates. Provision of library services to the summer associates or clerks, clients and client or business development members in the firm was also rated very important. Attorneys most valued access to online databases and/or internet training and instruction, performing complicated research projects and other reference services and non-legal research. Other departments such as marketing and human resources rely heavily on the library for non-legal research to support their activities.

As the data undergoes further statistical analysis, a profile will emerge which will be presented at the 2004 Special Libraries Annual Convention.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Data from this survey will be correlated and, ideally, some causal factors will be revealed which can then be investigated. Alternatively, a practical project that could be informative would be to conduct a benchmarking study to capture best practices for selected services which are most consistently offered at the top five or ten law firms based on revenue per lawyer.

19

REFERENCES

Adkins, III, A. (Jul 25, 2003). U.S. firms are embracing KM. Law Technology News, 36.

American Association of Law Libraries. (2003). Biennial salary survey and organizational characteristics, 2003. Chicago, IL: Author.

Axelroth, J.L. (Jul 7, 2003). Library economics 101: the costs and benefits of meeting law firms’ information needs. Legal Times, 26.

Bearman, T. C., Guynup, P. & Milevski, S. N. (1985). Information and productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 36(6), 369-375.

Buderi, R. (1999). In search of innovation. Technology Review 102 (6), 42-49.

Davidow, W. H. & Malone, M. S. (1999). Powers of information. In J. M. Matarazzo & S. D. Connolly (Eds.), Knowledge and special libraries, 49-67.

Peter F. Drucker (1999) Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge California Management Review, 41 (2), 79-94.

Drucker, P. F. (1994). The age of social transformation. The Atlantic Monthly, 274 (5), 53-80.

Griffiths, J. M. (1982). The value of information and related systems, products and services. In M. E. Williams (Ed.). Annual review of information science and technology, 17, 269-284.

Griffiths, J. M. & King, D. W. (1993). Special libraries: increasing the information edge. Washington, D. C.: Special Libraries Association.

Kennedy, D. (2004, Jan. 22). 2004 Legal technology trends – 1: Do we stand on the threshold of the next Legal Killer App? Retrieved 3/11/2004 from the WWW at http://www.ghostdigest.co/za/code/A_300.html.

Kennedy, D. (2004, Jan. 29). 2004 Legal Technology trends – 2: Do we stand on the threshold of the next Legal Killer App? Retrieved 3/11/2004 from the WWW at http://www.ghostdigest.co.za/code/A_304.html.

Koenig, M. (1999). The importance of information services for productivity under-recognized and under-invested. In J. M. Matarazzo & S. D. Connolly (Eds.), Knowledge and special libraries (pp. 69-83). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Koenig, M. E. D. (2000). Information services and productivity: A backgrounder. In T. K. Srikantaiah & M. E. D. Koenig (Eds.), Knowledge management for the information professional (pp. 77-97). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

20

McCollam, D. (Jul 7, 2003). Evolution: Mixed bag. Legal Times, p. 27.

Methodology (Nov., 2003). The National Law Journal. Retrieved 3/12/2004 from the WWW at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1069170401903

Olson, M. H. & Weill, P. (1989). Managing investment in information technology: mini case

examples and implications. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3-17.

Rataic-Lang, J., Holeton, A. & Mogenson, L. (Nov., 2003). 2002 CALL Private/Corporate Law Libraries Operations Survey REPORT. Retrieved 3/11/2004 from the WWW at http://www.callacbd.ca/images/PLL_CLL_ops_survey_2002.pdf.

Second Annual AmLaw Tech Library Survey (June, 2003). AmLawTech. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, March 14, 2004, at http://www.law.com/special/professionals.amlaw/2003/library_survey.shtml.

Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The new wealth of organization. New York: Doubleday.

Strouse, R. (2001). The Value of libraries: Justifying corporate information centers in the year of accountability. Information About Information Briefing, 4(10), 1-21.

21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Number of Attorneys in Firms of Responding Librarians

Table 2 – Number of Attorneys in Firms of Responding Librarians by Region

Table 3: Firm's Library (ies) or Information Center(s) Budget(s)

Table 4: Size of Firm Library Collection

22

APPENDIX A - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Information Resources and Services in U.S. Based Law Firms

Introduction My name is Margaret Carroll and this survey is to fulfill the research requirement of my dissertation for the University of North Texas – Interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in Information Science.

The purpose of this survey is to: construct profiles of information resources/services in the largest US law firms listed in the

National Law Journal's annual survey determine if there is a relationship between information services and a Firm’s productivity determine causal factors relating to a Firm's productivity (defined as revenue per partner)

There are 5 Parts to the survey: I: General Information II: The Parent Firm III: The Library or Information Center Staff IV: The Library or Information Center Organization V: Firm Return on Investment (ROI)

The survey has been directed to you as the highest ranking manager of the Firm's Information Services since survey responses should be composite answers for ALL of the Firm's Libraries or Information Centers. If you cannot provide composite answers, please forward the survey to someone who can. If that is not possible, please answer to the extent that you can.

Survey participants are not anonymous but are known only to the researcher. Also, findings will be presented only in aggregate form so an individual or firm is not named or identified in any way. By completing this survey, you are implying consent for the information you provide to be used in aggregate form. You are free to withdraw your consent and cease participation at any time.

Completing this survey within 1 week of receipt would greatly facilitate this project. Your contribution to this research is very much appreciated. Survey participants will receive an executive summary of findings.

Click "Next" to get started with the survey. If you'd like to leave the survey at any time, just click "Exit this survey". Your answers will be saved.

If you have any questions, you may contact me via email ([email protected]) or by phone (817-797-3919). You can also ask questions of my faculty advisor, Dr. Yvonne Chandler, via email ([email protected]), or phone at 940-565-3777.

Margaret CarrollPh.D. Candidate

23

University of North TexasSchool of Library & Information [email protected]

Part I: General Information

1.) What is your title and area of responsibility?

Title: Primary area of responsibility:

2.) Name of firm: ______________________________________________________

3.) Does your Firm have one or more Library (ies) or Information Center(s)?

Yes: Don’t know: No: Other (specify) :

4.) Does your organization have information professionals (individuals with Masters of Library Science, Masters of Information Science, or Masters of Library and Information Science) performing duties usually associated with librarians or research analysts?

Yes: No: Other (specify):

5.) What kind of content is purchased by your organization? Check all that apply.

Sources SourcesAnalyst (Wall St.) Reports Online services (e.g. D & B, Dow

Jones Interactive, NewsEdge, Lexis-Nexis)

Bar certification and/or practice exams

Legal forms

Benchmarking studies Market Research ReportsBusiness / Management resources NewspapersBooks / CDs / DVDs Regulatory and/or Agency materials,

reportsConference Proceedings SoftwareContinuing Legal Education (CLE) course materials, resources, etc.

Tax forms and resources

Directories (legal and corporate) Technical Reports

24

Documentation Treatises and Topical Law materialsJournals/Reviews/ Magazines Web-based or Internet subscriptions

such as: BNA, RIAOther (specify):

6.) Where does your organization get the content it uses? Check all that apply.

Author InternetBookstore Legal Publishers and Book DealersColleagues outside of your organization

Market Research Co (e.g. Gartner, IDC)

Consultants Professional AssociationsCourts Standards Organizationsebased Online Content vendor (e.g., Lexis, Westlaw, LivEdgar, D & B, Dow Jones, etc.)

Subscription Service(s)

Governmental or Municipal Agency or Government Publishing Office

Training vendors

Information Broker or Independent Researcher / Research firm

Other (specify):

6. Comments - If your firm does not have a library or employ librarians or information professionals, this is the end of survey. Thanks for your participation!

If your firm either has a library or employs librarians or information professionals, continue to Part II and complete the balance of the survey.

Part II: The Parent Organization: Tell us about your organization.

1.) How many attorneys (partners, shareholders, and associates) are in your firm?

Number of AttorneysLess than 150 501 – 750 attorneys151 – 250 attorneys 751 – 1000 attorneys251 – 500 attorneys More than 1000 attorneys

2.) Please check one box identifying the type of firm information reported in this survey:

Headquarters Only: Location of principal office: Headquarters with Branch Offices: Number of Branch OfficesSingle OfficeMultiple offices in one metro area Number of OfficesMultiple offices in multiple locations Number of OfficesOther(specify):

25

3.) How is your Firm organized?

Type of Organization SourcesPartnership (may include individual PCs)Professional Corporation/AssociationProfessional Corporation w/ “S” electionLimited Liability Company (LLC)Professional Limited Liability Company (PLLC)Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)Professional Limited Liability Partnership (PLLP)Other (please specify)

4.) In what areas of the law do your firm’s attorneys practice? Please check all practice areas that apply:

Practice Areas Practice Areas

Advertising, Media & EntertainmentInsurance Law

Alternative Dispute Resolution InternationalAntitrust Law Intellectual Property & PatentBanking & Finance Law Labor and Employment Law

Bankruptcy & ReorganizationLitigation and Dispute Resolution

Business Technology & E-Commerce LegislativeCivil Trial Practice Maritime & Admiralty LawConstruction Law Mergers & AcquisitionsCorporate/Commercial Law Municipal/Public FinanceCreditors' Rights Natural Resources LawCriminal Law Products Liability LawEducation Law Professional Malpractice LawEnvironmental Law Real Estate, Property and Land Use Estate Planning Securities LawFamily Law Taxation LawGovernment Affairs Transportation LawHealth & Health Care Law Trusts and EstatesImmigration Law Workers' Compensation Law

Utilities/EnergyOther (please specify):

5.) Under which department does the library or information center fall within the Firm?

Unit within the Firm under which the library or information center falls

Administrative

26

Client/Business Development or Conflict ResolutionClient Support ServicesConsulting / Professional ServicesEducation and TrainingIT / IS (Technology) groupInformation ServicesKnowledge ManagementLibrary / Information CenterLitigation SupportRecords ManagementResearch & Development / Technology

Other (specify):

6.) If you ARE an Information Professional (have a Masters Degree in Library or Information Science) but are not a member of the library staff, or are NOT an Information Professional, indicate the group within the firm in which you work.

AdministrativeClient/Business Development and Conflict ResolutionClient Support ServicesConsulting / Professional ServicesEducation and TrainingFirm AdministrationIT / IS (Technology) GroupInformation ServicesKnowledge ManagementLegal / Regulatory ComplianceLitigation Support

Other (specify):

7.) Are there any library and information center staff NOT housed in the Firm’s library or information center?

No. of Professional or Technical

No. of Para-professional or clerical

Location of staff

Client/Business Development or Conflict ResolutionSupport ServicesConsulting / Professional ServicesEducation and TrainingIT / IS (Technology) GroupInformation ServicesKnowledge Management

27

Legal/Regulatory ComplianceLitigation Support

Other (specify):

8.) To whom does the highest-ranking information center or library center staff person report?

Title: Primary area of responsibility:

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III: The Information Staff (Please provide aggregate answers for ALL Firm libraries or information centers.)

1.) What is the ratio of library or information center staff to customers, e.g., 100:1 or 50:1?

________ Actual customers vs. staff________ Potential customers vs. staff________ Don’t know

2.) How many people are employed in All the Firm’s libraries or information centers? List the number of library or information center(s) staff next to the category that best describes the primary tasks on which the majority of their time is spent. Count an employee only once.

Employees Categories # of Full Time

# of Pt. Time

Contractors / Outsource Personnel

Information Professional(s) - IP(Performing duties usually assigned to individuals with an MLS, MIS, MLIS, MBA Degree or equivalent experience)Para-professional(s) - PP(Performing duties usually assigned to individuals with a Bachelors degree, a specialized information skill such as acquisitions or circulation or 1+ years information center experience)Clerical - C(Performing duties usually assigned to individuals with no degree or IS experience) Technical - T(Primarily performing duties involving software development / intranet or web work or database administration involving hardware

28

or networks)

3.) How long has the staff at ALL the Firm’s libraries or information centers worked for the firm? Account for employees in the same category (IP, PP, C or T) assigned in question #2 by placing them in the number of years experience range. Count an employee only once unless the individual has years accrued in multiple categories.

4.)

How long have ALL of the Firm's Libraries or Information Centers’ staff worked in Libraries or Information Centers PRIOR TO JOINING THE FIRM? Account for employees in the same category (IP, PP, C or T) assigned in question #2 by placing them in the number of years experience range. Count an employee only once unless the individual has years accrued in multiple categories.

Previous library experience (work at other libraries or information centers)

<1 year

1-3 years

4-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

15+ years

Information Professionals – IPPara-professionals - PPClerical - CTechnical - T

4.) What job titles are used in ALL of the Firm’s libraries or information centers? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.

Title Staff Title StaffAcquisitions Librarian Government Documents

LibrarianAdministrator Knowledge ArchitectAnalyst Knowledge ManagerAssistant Legislative History

LibrarianCataloger Library AssistantClerk Library TechnicianCompetitive Manager or Supervisor

Experience in your organization

<1 year

1-3 years

4-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

15+ years

Information Professionals – IPPara-professionals - PPClerical - CTechnical - T

29

Intelligence Researcher/LibrarianCollection Mgt Librarian

Programmer

Collection Dev. Librarian

Project Manager

Consultant Public Services Librarian

Content Manager Reference LibrarianInformation Specialist Research LibrarianDatabase Administrator

Systems Librarian

Director of Attorney Services

Tax Librarian

Director/Head of Library Services

Team Lead

Editor Web Master / EditorElectronic/Online Services Librarian

Web Designer

Foreign & International Reference Librarian

5.) Note number of staff holding each title. COUNT AN EMPLOYEE ONLY ONCE.

Title Staff Title StaffAcquisitions Librarian Government Documents

LibrarianAdministrator Knowledge ArchitectAnalyst Knowledge ManagerAssistant Legislative History

LibrarianCataloger Library AssistantClerk Library TechnicianCompetitive Intelligence Researcher/Librarian

Manager or Supervisor

Collection Mgt Librarian

Programmer

Collection Dev. Librarian

Project Manager

Consultant Public Services Librarian

Content Manager Reference LibrarianInformation Specialist Research Librarian

30

Database Administrator

Systems Librarian

Director of Attorney Services

Tax Librarian

Director/Head of Library Services

Team Lead

Editor Web Master / EditorElectronic/Online Services Librarian

Web Designer

Foreign & International Reference Librarian

6.) What is the highest level of education achieved by ALL the Firm’s library or information center staff? Note number of staff next to highest level they have achieved. COUNT EACH EMPLOYEE ONLY ONCE.

7.) Do you require a 2nd subject specific Masters Degree or other advanced degree for ANY library information center staff position?

____ yes Subjects:

____ no ___ don’t know

8.) Does your organization have a minimum number of training hours ALL library or information center staff must complete annually for professional development?

____ yes Numbers of hours:

____ no ___ don’t know

9.) How does the staff obtain professional development training? Check all that apply.

__ Conference attendance__ Continuing education classes at a college or university__ Continuing education classes or programs sponsored by a Professional Assn

AssociatesDegree

BachelorsDegree

Masters 2nd

MastersJ.D. Ph.D.

Information Professionals - IPPara-professionals - PPClerical - CTechnical - T

31

__ In-house training classes__ Self-paced learning from personally selected resources__ Tuition reimbursement for coursework leading to a degree__ Vendor instruction__ Web-based tutorials or courses__ Other (specify): _________________________________________________ Do not know: _________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Part IV: The Library or Information Center Organization (Please provide aggregate answers for ALL Firm libraries or information centers.)

1.) How are ALL the firm’s libraries or information centers funded? Check all that apply.

______ Allocation to departments/practice groups based on a formula ______Allocation to departments/practice groups based on usage ______As part of the operations budget of the firm ______Costs are covered through billing or charge backs to departments or practice groups ______Library or information center budget is funded as firm overhead ______Per charge head across the firm ______Client billing on an hourly basis for services/research ______Don’t know ______Other (specify): ____________________________________________

2.) Please provide a dollar range representing the organization’s total library or information center budget.

Range: Don’t know:

3.) List Firm’s entire Library(ies) or Information Center(s) budget allocation percentage to total 100%:

Percentage AllocationDepreciationEquipment / Hardware / SoftwareInformation Resource acquisitions (e.g. books, serials, videos, CD/DVDs, etc.)Online Information Resource Acquisition Accessible only by IS Staff (e.g. Dialog, LexisNexis)Online Information Resource Acquisition Accessible across the enterprise (e.g. Factiva.com)Operational overhead (facilities charges, etc)Rewards / Recognition / Morale

32

Staff salaries & BenefitsProfessional Development (e.g. Association memberships, training)TravelOther (specify):

4.) What services are offered by all of your organization’s library or information centers or by information professionals based in other areas of your organization? Check all that apply.

Circulation - Content: _____Audios/Videos/DVDs _____Books_____CD/DVDs_____Conference Proceedings_____ Journals_____ Market Research_____ Newspapers_____ Patents _____ Software_____ Standards_____Updating/Current Awareness Materials _____Other (specify):Circulation – Hardware: _____PC_____ Digital Camera _____ Scanner_____ TV _____ VCR/DVD players _____ Other (specify):______________________________________________Content Management: ____Evaluation of resources____Database development and/or management of internally generated materials, e.g., standardized forms or agreements ____Negotiate/enforce electronic licensing contracts ____Manage journal subscriptions for the library or information center ____Manage journal subscriptions for internal customers____Manage market research ____Purchase content housed in or managed by the library or information center____Purchase content housed in or managed by other group’s in the FirmKnowledge Management: ____Knowledge architecture consulting (e.g. search structure strategies, taxonomy or meta-data/thesaurus development)____Integrate internal (e.g. client database) and external content databases____Manage internally generated proprietary content____Other knowledge management initiatives (specify): ____________________________

33

Records Management:____Archives____Manage client files____Research client conflict resolution____Preservation____ Records access, storage and retention____ Digitization of client records and filesReference / Research:____Research client conflict resolution____Business or Competitive Intelligence ____Company information – Public and private – national and international____Data analysis as part of a research deliverable____Legislative histories ____ Maintain general overall awareness (e.g., market conditions, customer needs, etc.)____On demand research including searching online databases, the internet or other specialized resources____ Patent research and analysis____Research to support special project assignments for the benefit of the Firm____Targeted news services (selective dissemination of information) that distributes or circulates (electronically or in hard copy) articles, market research or other focused content____Ready reference____Other (specify):Miscellaneous Services:____Proctor exams (e.g. technical certifications, university qualifying exams, etc.)

i AALL 2003 Salary Survey – Respondent Background – Geographic Distribution – Professional Positions, http://www.aallnet.org/members/pub_salary03/background.pdfii AALL 2003 Salary Survey – Organizational Characteristics - Staffing, Tables 10 – 14, http://www.aallnet.org/members/pub_salary03/org_characteristics.pdfiii AmLaw Tech Library Survey, http://www.law.com/special/professionals/amlaw/2003/library_survey.shtmliv Lang, Joan Rataic, Anna Holeton, and Lynne Mogenson. 2002 Private Law Library/Corporate Law Library SIG Operations Survey Report, Canadian Association of Law Libraries, http://www.callacbd.ca/images/PLL_CLL_ops_survey_2002.pdf, November 2003.v AALL Salary Survey – Annual Salary – Private Firm/ Corporation, http://www.aallnet.org/members/pub_salary03/s-105-s-107.pdfvi AmLaw Tech Library Survey, http://www.law.com/special/professionals/amlaw/2003/library_survey.shtmlvii AALL 2003 Salary Survey – Respondent Background – Educational Profile, http://www.aallnet.org/members/pub_salary03/background.pdfviii AmLaw Tech Library Survey, http://www.law.com/special/professionals/amlaw/2003/library_survey.shtmlix 2002 Private Law Library/Corporate Law Library SIG Operations Survey Report, Canadian Association of Law Libraries, http://www.callacbd.ca/images/PLL_CLL_ops_survey_2002.pdf, November 2003.x 2002 Private Law Library/Corporate Law Library SIG Operations Survey Report, Canadian Association of Law Libraries, http://www.callacbd.ca/images/PLL_CLL_ops_survey_2002.pdf, November 2003.

34

____Build out and manage branch libraries with highly target collections in strategic locations____Study carrels ____TV / DVD/PC access in the library or information centerTechnical Services:____Accept donations or gifts____Cataloging / classification of collection____Document delivery ____Inter-library loan____Journal/Serials management____Standing order managementTechnology/Tools: ____Develop content and/or maintain an information portal on the firm’s intranet ____Develop content and/or maintain the firm’s internet____Develop and/or maintain access to external databases (from 3rd party vendors)____Develop and/or maintain the library or information center’s administration system (e.g. online catalog) User Training:____General instruction on selection and use of appropriate library or information center managed information resources ____ Instruction on use of the Online catalog____Instruction on use of targeted resources for specific end results (e.g. online legal research databases)Other (specify):

5.) What information services or content is offered on the library or information center’s INTRANET portal? Check all that apply.

Content or ServiceDesktop access to external information databases (e.g. LexisNexis, Westlaw, etc.)Company / Industry information (companies outside of organization)Document delivery requestDocumentation / standardseZines / e-BooksLinks or pointers to selected internet sitesLinks or pointers to other internal intranet sites Market Research ReportsOnline catalog of library or information center holdingsOnline training on selection and use of information resourcesReference or research requestTargeted news services (Selective Dissemination of Information)Topic pages aggregating resources for a specific practice groupsOther (specify):

6.) How large is your information collection? Check all that apply.

35

Number of VolumesLess than 1,000 volumes1,001 to 5,000 volumes5,0001 to 10,000 volumes10,0001 to 20,000 volumes20,001 to 50,000 volumesMore than 50,000 volumes

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V: Firm Return on Investment

1.) What data do you collect to illustrate return on investment to firm administrators, partners, and/or upper management?

____Customer circulation statistics ____Customer interaction incidences ____Customer testimonials about library and/or information center contributions ____Direct savings attributed to library and/or information center ____Hours billed attributed to library and/or information center work or resources ____Savings in consolidated purchasing of information resources across the Firm ____Attorney/Staff/User time saved ____N/A ____Other (specify): ______________________________________________

2.) Please rate the importance of the following library or information center customer groups to the firm.

Group / Unit Very Important

Important

Somewhat Important

Not important

N/A

Firm AdministratorsPartners AssociatesSummer Clerks /Associates /InternsParalegals / Legal AssistantsRecords ManagementLegal SecretariesClientsTechnology EmployeesHuman ResourcesFinance /Accounting EmployeesTraining / EducationMarketing / Client Development

36

3. What library or

information center service(s) is most frequently used by the following library or information center customer groups in the Firm?

Group / Unit Service(s) most frequently usedFirm AdministratorsPartners AssociatesSummer Clerks /Associates /InternsParalegals / Legal AssistantsRecords Management employeesLegal SecretariesClientsTechnology Dept. EmployeesHuman Resource Dept. employeesFinance /Accounting employeesTraining / EducationMarketing / Client or Business Development employeesOther (please specify group and service):

37

---- END OF SURVEY ----------------

Your participation is critical to our profession. Thank you for your time!

Margaret Carroll, Ph.D. Candidate -- University of North Texas - School of Library and Information Sciences

[email protected] / 817-797-3919

38