臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於電腦科技與網際網路的普及，人們現在可以透過不同的管道擷取多元的資訊。而電腦科技的進步也影響到了圖書館，不只是它所提供的服務抑或是本身都必須要做一個巨大的轉變來滿足使用者不斷增加的需求。也由於這樣，使用者可以透過電子資料庫所提供的搜尋工具輕易地得到所想要的資訊，這樣的方便性不僅讓使用者很快的適應也使得使用電子資源成為一個必要的趨勢。然而，在資金沒有大幅增加的情況下要同時擁有兩種不同的館藏資源無疑是造成學術性圖書館的困難，同時轉型成一個學習中心的角色更是使得這些圖書館必須要面臨到更多複雜的挑戰。為了要有效管理經歷過這樣一個重要轉變的學術性圖書館，建立一套績效指標成為管理者的指導方針是極度重要的。因此本論文利用兩個不同的績效評估模式，Cameron模式和SERVQUAL向度建立一混合式架構及依據現代化圖書館建立一系列的績效指標。
然而，AAU預測在未來幾年裡甚至到了2015年，紙本資源依然是傳遞知識的一個主要方式。紙本資源與電子資源不同點在於它必須仰賴正確的館藏盤點才能讓使用者找到想要的資料，因此即使是在一個現代化的圖書館裡，做好正確的館藏盤點依然是非常重要的。然而傳統的盤點方法不僅所需時間長且也需要花費相當的成本，因此在本論文裡，設計一實驗比較傳統盤點方法與3M公司結合了RFID技術所研發出來的一套可以用來協助館藏盤點的系統，數位化館藏助理(DLA)，之差異以探討科技的導入是否能夠改善傳統盤點方法，結果顯示，數位化館藏助理所要花的時間比傳統盤點方法平均少了2.5分，而因為技術尚未成熟使得其可靠度不如預期穩定以及人員訓練不足導致正確率平均差了10%，並沒有如廠商所宣稱的比傳統盤點方法要高很多。

Due to the popularity of computer-based technology and internet, users can access diversified information through different channels nowadays. The advances in computer-based technology also affect libraries that they have to make vast changes to meet users’ increasing needs. Although the convenience brought by electronic databases easily make users adapt to them, keeping two sets of collections obviously creates difficulty for an academic library without dramatically increasing its budget. The role of migrating to a learning center creates yet more complex challenges for these libraries. To efficiently manage an academic library undergoing a fundamentals change, it is imperative to develop a set of performance indicators that can be adapted as managers’ guideline. This thesis established a hybrid framework combining Cameron’s (1978) model and five SERQVUAL dimensions and set up a series of performance indicators for libraries.
However, AAU predicts that printed materials are still the main resources of library in the coming years. However, unlike electronic materials that can be easily accessed with the help of powerful searching tools provided by the database, printed materials rely on accurate and efficient collection management so that a user can find the materials they want. Therefore, accurate collection is imperative though it’s time-consuming and labor intensive. Thus this study compared traditional manual approach with DLA (Digital Library Assistant) which is developed with RFID technology to improve performance of inventory of collection. The results show that the average performing time of DLA is 2.5 minutes less than traditional manual approach. But the unstable reliability of DLA due to the immaturity of technology and the lack of personnel training result in the slight difference of accuracy between DLA and traditional manual approach.

Abstract in Chinesei
Abstract in Englishiii
Table of contentsv
List of Tablesviii
List of Figuresix
1. Introduction1
2. Background3
2.1 Changing roles of libraries3
2.2 Challenges for libraries managers9
2.3 Justifications for new technology14
3. Changes of Libraries16
3.1 Service quality16
3.1.1 Resource sharing18
3.1.2 Teaching and learning19
3.2 Organization and management22
3.2.1 Flat organization structure22
3.2.2 Strategic management23
3.2.3 Partnership and interaction24
3.2.4 Integrated teams26
3.2.5 Un-direction communication27
3.2.6 Educational training courses and continuous learning28
3.3 Staffs30
3.3.1 Effects of technology on staffs31
3.3.2 Multi-skilled staffs32
4. Performance Evaluation34
4.1 Overview of service quality34
4.2 Development of library goals and performance indicators45
5. Inventory of Collection53
5.1 Introduction to the experiment53
5.2 Pilot test for inventory accuracy55
5.3 Comparison between Manual Human Operator and DLA57
5.3.1 RFID in digital library57
5.3.2 Apparatus60
5.3.3 Subject66
5.3.4 Experiment design66
5.3.5 Experiment procedure68
5.3.6 Results69
6. Conclusion80
References83
Acknowledgement85
Appendix 1Inventory list of the experiment86
Appendix 2Checklist of the experiment108
Appendix 3Performance evaluation forms111

1. Allen, N.H., Williams, J.F., 1995. The future of technical services: an administrative perspective. Advances in Librarianship 19, 159-189.
2. Altman, E., Hernon, P., 1998. Service quality and customer satisfaction do matter. American Libraries 29(7), 53-55.
3. Association of American Universities Research Libraries Project, 1994. Reports of the AAU Task Forces. Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC.
4. Barnatt, C., 1997. Challenging reality.
5. Bluck, R., 1994. Team management and academic libraries: a case study at the University of Northumbria. British Journal of Academic Librarianship 9 (13), 224-240.
6. Budd, J. M., 1998. The Academic Library: Its Context, Its Purpose, and Its Operation. Libraries Unlimited, Inc., Englewood, CO.
7. Cameron, K., 1978. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 604-629.
8. Corrall, S., 1995. Academic libraries in the information society. New Library World 96 (1120), 35-42.
9. Creth, S. D., 1995. A changing profession: central roles for academic librarians. Advances in Librarianship 19, 85-98.
10. Cullen, R. F., Calvert, P. J., 1995. Stakeholder perceptions of university library effectiveness. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21, 438-448.
11. Cullen, R., 2001. Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends 49 (4), 662-686.
12. Elliott, K., 1995. A comparison of alternative measures of service quality. Journal of Customer Service in Marketing and Management 1 (1).
13. Faerman, S. R., 1993. Organizational change and leadership styles. Journal of Library Administration 19, 55-79.
14. Gunilla, B., 2000. The information and communication society: how people will live and work in the new millennium. Ergonomics 43 (7), 844-857.
15. Hanson, T., Day, J., 2000. Managing The Electronic Library: A Practical Guide for Information Professionals. Bowker Saur, West Susex, UK.
16. Harris, R., 1992. Information technology and the de-skilling of librarians. Computers in Libraries 12, 8-16.
17. Hernon, P., Altman, E., 1998. Assessing Service Quality: Satisfying The Expectations of Library Customers. American Library Association, Chicago.
18. Hernon, P., Nitecki, D.A., Altman, E., 1999. Service quality and customer satisfaction: an assessment and future directions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 25(1), 9-17.
19. http:www.arl.org
20. Hummel, R. P., 1987. The Bureaucratic Experience, 3rd Edition. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.
21. Kroon, G. E., 1995. Improving quality in services marketing: four important dimensions. Journal of Customer Service in Marketing & Management 1(2).
22. Lancaster, F.W. ed., 1983. Library Automation as a Source of Management Information. University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
23. Lancaster, F.W., Sandore, B., 1997. Technology and Management in Library and Information Services. Library Association Publishing, London.
24. Lynch, M. J., 1983. Measurement of public library activity: the search for practical methods. Wilson Library Bulletin 57.
25. Nitecki, D. A., 1996. Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 22(3), 181-190.
26. Orr, R. H., 1973. Measuring the goodness of library services: a general framework for considering quantitative measures. Journal of Documentation 29.
27. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64.
28. Ranganathan, S. R., 1988. The Five Laws of Library Science, UBS Publishers’ Distributors Ltd., New Delhi.
29. Reeves, C. A., Bednar, D. A., 1994. Defining quality: Alternatives and implications. Academy of Management Review 19.
30. Rice-Lively, M. L., Racine, J. D., 1997. The role of academic librarians in the era of information technology. Journal of Academic Librarianship 23, 31-41.
31. Senge, P. M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York, NY.
32. Stein, R. G., Pinchot, G., 1995. Building an intelligent organization. Association Management 47, 32-39.
33. Xu, H., 1996. The impact of automation on job requirements and qualifications for catalogers and reference librarians in academic libraries. Library Resources and Technical Services 40, 9-31.