LibStaffer: Workflow Planner for Multi-Site Library Scheduling

Last updated: June 11, 2025

Significance and Background

The growing complexity of services, diversity of staffing roles, and the proliferation of multi-site operations have increased the demand for systematic, scalable scheduling solutions in libraries. To address the inefficiency of ad hoc or single-purpose scheduling methods, the Université de Liège Library undertook a structured functional analysis ° of LibStaffer, Springshare's scheduling tool for libraries. The evaluation process was methodical: an expert question grid, based on rubrics from Lenepveu and Maisonneuve's reference work, was first applied and then enriched with questions and concerns voiced by coordinators from the library’s largest branches. This dual approach—drawing on both literature and the lived experience of staff—ensured that the trial phase, conducted over two months with real services and schedules, reflected operational realities and nuanced requirements (analyse fonctionnelle de l'outil de gestion de planning LibStaffer).

Foundational Concepts in LibStaffer's Workflow Model

LibStaffer’s workflow model ° is designed to support both routine and exceptional scheduling needs by offering:

• Multi-site/Multi-service Flexibility: Users can define an unlimited number of branches and services, each with their own timetables ° and constraints.
• Fine-grained Time Slots: Shifts can be scheduled with minute-level precision, accommodating detailed or complex coverage requirements.
• Role-based Assignment: Only qualified staff can be assigned to specific tasks or shifts, reducing inappropriate assignments.
• Quota Management: Hour limits (daily, weekly, monthly) can be enforced for each user, supporting workload equity.

The platform further offers recurring shift patterns (e.g., by week or year), automated assignment features, and robust management of staff availability, including absences, swaps, and claims. All components—schedules, staff profiles, and shifts—are accessible through dashboards offering clear, configurable visualizations for both managers and team members, enhancing transparency and accountability (analyse fonctionnelle de l'outil de gestion de planning LibStaffer).

Key Developments and Empirical Findings

Methodology and Trial Implementation

The evaluation proceeded in an iterative, collaborative fashion. From an initial set of around 60 functional questions, the grid was expanded to about 80 items to capture specific needs raised by staff—these included both standard and edge-case requirements. This enriched evaluation framework was then applied during a trial using actual scheduling data from various sites within the library, ensuring that observations aligned with practical realities.

Feature Coverage and Limitations

Strengths identified:

• As a SaaS °, LibStaffer requires no installation and benefits from fast setup and automatic updates.
• The Auto Scheduler can fill open shifts, taking into account qualifications, quotas, and preferences.
• Real-time conflict detection ° flags or blocks scheduling conflicts and quota violations.
• The tool integrates with the broader Springshare suite and supports calendar exports to iCal, Google, and Outlook.
• Access rights can be finely configured via LDAP, SSO, and per-site or per-plan controls.

Limitations noted:

• There is no built-in support for dual/concurrent assignments in the same time slot (e.g., a staffer assigned to two posts simultaneously), though shift splitting can sometimes act as a workaround.
• Configuring persistent, site-specific recurring availabilities for agents is challenging.
• The interface lacks prominent alerts for uncovered shifts in cases of absence.
• Localization into French is sometimes imprecise, and no dedicated mobile application ° exists.

Where possible, workarounds were put in place or feature/translation requests submitted to Springshare, confirming a vendor-responsive feedback process °.

Comparative Context and Assessment

LibStaffer was not covered in Lenepveu & Maisonneuve's 2019 comparative paper—due to its North American focus—which evaluated French-market solutions such as Bcal, Credo-Planning, and Planning Biblio. Compared with more generic tools (e.g., Teamup, Google Calendar), LibStaffer’s major advantages include:

• Built-in support for complex, multi-site scheduling and granular user rights management.
• Features like auto-scheduling, agent-initiated swaps/claims, and comprehensive quota and absence management.
• Seamless integration ° with institutional authentication and calendaring systems.

However, it falls short in handling double-assignments, providing advanced in-tool statistics visualization (requiring export to Excel for detailed graphs), and in offering a high-quality mobile experience or flawless French translation.

Current Applications and Observed Impact

The extended pilot and gradual deployment highlighted key operational improvements:

• Time and Efficiency Gains: Teams reported reduced time for schedule preparation, updating, and communication, particularly in complex service arrangements.
• Clarity and Transparency: Dashboards were widely appreciated, providing clear visibility over individual and collective assignments and absences.
• Adaptability: The platform allows for quick responses to last-minute changes, including unplanned absences and swap requests.
• Data Extraction: While the system itself offers basic reporting (e.g., total hours, coverage ratios), more advanced statistics require export for analysis via CSV ° or PDF °.

Feedback collection and vendor interactions during the pilot phase resulted in improvements to both features and translations.

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

The analysis underscores several direction-setting themes in workflow planning for libraries:

• Continuous Improvement: The evaluation grid is periodically updated based on user feedback and new operational needs, supporting ongoing assessment across renewal cycles.
• Scalability and Integration: Systems like LibStaffer show their true value when embedded in an interoperable ° suite covering booking, authentication, and related logistics.
• Flexibility vs. Specificity: There is an inherent trade-off between robust enforcement of operational rules (e.g., no double-assignment) and the ability to flexibly handle exceptions or niche scenarios.
• Evolution with User Needs: By virtue of the SaaS delivery model, the tool can adapt in pace with institutional and functional changes, as observed during the pilot and in ongoing dialog with the vendor.

Summary Table: LibStaffer Core Capabilities

Conclusion

A systematic, real-world evaluation ° demonstrates that LibStaffer offers robust capabilities as a workflow planner for academic and public-sector libraries with multi-site, multi-role scheduling demands. Its architecture and features support standardization and flexibility, with measurable gains in efficiency and organizational transparency. The trial led to a two-year renewable subscription by ULiège Library, with ongoing evaluation for further adaptation. While certain limitations persist, LibStaffer provides a strong model for workflow planning in environments coping with a mix of sites, services, roles, and exceptions (analyse fonctionnelle de l'outil de gestion de planning LibStaffer).