Reduce the Repetitive Research. Keep Local Access Decisions With the Library.
These workflows help triage faculty requests, organize search leads, surface licensing and access questions, and draft follow-up without pretending AI knows your local subscriptions or vendor terms.
AI can prepare the work. Librarians verify the local reality.
Start With the Faculty Need, Not the Tool
Each workflow can be copied as-is. The AI will ask for the information it needs instead of requiring you to edit bracketed placeholders.
Choose the support task.Triage, search, check access, or draft follow-up.
Give only the useful context.Course, deadline, current material, or candidate list may be enough.
Verify locally.Holdings, licenses, user limits, access, and renewal conditions stay with library sources and staff.
Important boundary: Unless you provide the evidence, an AI tool should not claim that your college subscribes to a resource, that a specific license permits course use, that access will remain stable, or that a vendor resource meets accessibility requirements.Support workflow 1
Triage a Faculty OER or ZTC Request
Use this when the request arrives as “Can you help me make this course ZTC?” and you need to identify what information actually matters before searching.
Start here
Turn the Request Into a Small Next-Step List
Preview the prompt
I am an academic librarian helping a faculty member with an OER or zero-textbook-cost course-material request.
Ask me to paste or summarize the faculty request. Then ask no more than 5 short questions that would materially change the search or support plan. Prioritize questions such as:
- course and discipline,
- what material they are replacing or trying to add,
- whether they need a full-course resource or one gap filled,
- timing or adoption deadline,
- formats or student-access constraints, and
- whether they are open to library-supported ZTC resources as well as OER.
Then return:
1. What I already know,
2. The 1 to 3 missing details that most affect the search,
3. The best next action,
4. What can be researched publicly, and
5. What I should check in local library systems, licensing records, or vendor tools.
Do not guess my institution's holdings, license terms, concurrent-user limits, or purchasing options.
Librarian Check: The goal is to avoid spending research time on a request that still needs one key clarification.
Support workflow 2
Build a Manageable OER and ZTC Search Shortlist
Use this after the request is clear enough to search. The prompt deliberately separates open resources from library-dependent leads.
Search Broadly, Return Narrowly
Preview the prompt
I am an academic librarian helping a community college faculty member locate OER and other possible zero-cost-to-students course materials.
Ask me for the course, the specific material need, important constraints, and any trusted starting sources or local information I already have.
Then build a focused search plan and, if you have web access, search credible open repositories, institutional collections, government sources, discipline-specific collections, and other authoritative public sources.
Return no more than 8 serious leads, grouped as:
A. Verified OER or public-domain resources,
B. Publicly identifiable library-supported or licensed-resource leads that require local availability checking, and
C. Other leads that may be useful but do not yet have enough evidence.
For each item, provide the title, source, what it could contribute, direct source link, license or rights evidence when publicly verifiable, and what still needs checking.
Do not claim my library owns, subscribes to, or can license a resource unless I provided that information. Do not treat free access as proof of OER. Mark unresolved details “Needs verification.”
Librarian Check: Public web research can identify promising leads. Local systems determine whether a library-dependent option is actually usable for your students.
Support workflow 3
Check Access, Licensing, and Sustainability Risk
Use this when you already have candidates and want a clean list of what is verified versus what requires local checking.
Turn Candidates Into a Verification Queue
Preview the prompt
I am an academic librarian reviewing possible OER or zero-cost course-material candidates.
Ask me to paste the candidate titles, links, notes, or vendor/library information I already have.
For each candidate, separate:
1. Publicly verifiable facts,
2. Local library facts I supplied,
3. Reasonable inference, and
4. Unknowns that still need checking.
Check or flag these issues as relevant:
- exact open license or public-domain status,
- whether access depends on a library subscription or purchase,
- concurrent-user or seat limits,
- off-campus authentication,
- persistent or course-level linking,
- download/print/DRM restrictions,
- streaming or classroom-use rights,
- renewal or continuing-access risk,
- version or edition stability,
- documented accessibility information, and
- whether students need an account or third-party platform.
Return a table: Candidate | What Is Verified | Local Check Needed | Risk or Limitation | Next Action.
Do not infer local holdings or license permissions from a public product page. Do not certify accessibility compliance.
Librarian Check: AI is useful for organizing the questions. Your licenses, systems, vendors, and professional review answer them.
Support workflow 4
Draft a Clear Faculty Follow-Up
Use this when the research is done enough to communicate, but the faculty member does not need to see every search note and licensing caveat.
Turn Research Notes Into a Short Faculty Message
Preview the prompt
Help me draft a short, plain-language follow-up to a faculty member about an OER or zero-textbook-cost course-material request.
Ask me to paste my research notes, candidate list, and any local library information I want included.
Draft a message that:
- starts with the most useful finding,
- gives no more than 3 to 5 realistic options,
- clearly distinguishes OER from library-supported ZTC materials,
- states any important access or licensing caveats in normal language,
- identifies anything that still needs verification,
- tells the faculty member what decision or information I need from them next, and
- avoids overwhelming them with research-process detail.
Do not overstate certainty. Do not imply that a library-supported resource is guaranteed for future terms unless I explicitly provide that information. Keep the tone collegial and concise.
Librarian Check: Edit the message so the caveats are proportionate. Faculty need the decision-relevant information, not every technical detail you investigated.
Related support
Need a Different Kind of Campus-Level Workflow?
OER/ZTC liaison workflows focus more on faculty outreach, opportunity finding, and program-level planning.
