SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
DIVISIONAL LIBRARIANS, AND SHEELAH BRITT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. The current organizational structure
A. What works
A. What elements of the status quo should we keep?
B. What aspects of the present structure should we change?
C. In what ways have the merged divisions been successful?
In what ways have they been unsuccessful?D.Other comments on the merged structure?
What are the most critical issues facing the Libraries' staff today?
Have you seen other organizations where these issues are handled more effectively?
How?
V.
What would your ideal organization look like? (optional
question)
VI. Do you have other thoughts or comments to share with us?
I. The current organizational structure
A. What works
Steering Committee as a final stop for decision-making.
Steering Committee as a way to communicate at the top of the organization.
The division of responsibilities by function on Steering Committee.
New interest in Steering Committee in pushing authority down the ladder:
We don't need to go to Steering Committee for many decisions. (When staff learns that this is so, it will help).
Good relationships between public and technical services -- the informal network is alive and well.
Communication and coordination between collections and tech services works well.
Fairly good public services/collections services communication and attitude
(especially when compared to other library systems).The distributed library structure, which has parallels with the strengths of the Institute.
The public services structure is tied to the five Schools, which is very relevant to what we do.
Benefits of the distributed library structure are the faculty perception that they have a library, the relationships the librarians have with faculty, and the kind of support we can muster from those relationships.
Immediate access to our user communities through the divisional and branch libraries.
Divisional libraries and branches; branches especially have close relationships with user communities -- know what they are doing and can be proactive.
Smaller units (branches) work much better.
Size of the unmerged divisional units is good.
Library autonomy works well for local faculty relationships and subject expertise; results in better service to communities.
Subject specialists working at public service points and providing instruction as well as reference support.
Some committees, e.g., BOG, CMG, NERD, DLG/TSAC (as an effort to coordinate collection and public services).
RapDoc in the E/SL gives the librarian power to decide when to acquire a document more quickly though at a greater cost than ILB. It is one of our few very good local services.
Good support for training and staff development.
The new structure for technology, combining hard core staff, central support, and people from different parts of the organization and with different perspectives in C3.
Computer support in its new configuration; LTEs -- although positions are very person-dependent.
The Ellen Duranceau position.
The Jennifer Banks position -- one person with an overview of collections for all libraries, both in content and physicalness.
The Dewey-Humanities processing team.
Ginny's recruiting from beyond DLG is a very positive change.
The bottom-up process represents a good new direction.
Initiatives work better than the old annual planning process because they have a chance to get done in a year or two. The old planning process was too broad, identified too many needs; nothing ever got done.
Archives' informal communication with Document Services, bindery, BAS, SAS works well.
Archives' communication with divisional libraries is improved by being part of PSAC.
I. The current organizational structure
B. What doesn't work
More communication from the Director of Libraries is needed, so that staff better understand the progress she is making on fund-raising and on improving understanding of and support for the Libraries at high administrative and academic levels.
Need better communication about leader's values.
Decisions made in Steering Committee need to be better communicated to department heads.
Decision-making by Steering Committee is seriously delayed. It can take six months or longer for a crucial decision. This causes staff to lose faith.
There is considerable overlap between the functions of Public Services, Collection Services, and Systems.
The division between Collection Services and Public Services leaves some local activities without a home, for example, the Web, electronic resources.
There are uneasy edges between public and technical services, with the result that we end up moving stuff all the time; we have no good ways to think about materials management.
The scheduling of public and collections activities lacks coordination.
Working a matrix organization in a hierarchical structure is quite difficult.
There is less sharing of financial and administrative information than there was five years ago. I have no sense of what the criteria are for spending.
More information is needed for managers to represent Steering Committee to staff.
Decentralization of library units makes it difficult for those in central positions to be sure things are done on time. 50% of the job is getting stuff out from central and back in again.
It's hard to function without a central core and a coherent front. Where is the library at MIT? Habits formed in one place may not work in another.
It is incredibly expensive in terms of staffing, technology, training, etc. to maintain and staff so many service points in so many different places.
The divisional library structure is labor- and space-intensive. Although we are always high on the ARL statistics in number of staff, the staff always seems to feel pressured.
The divisional libraries have too little decision-making authority; they are expected to solve problems which are not theirs or cannot be solved without upper level decision-making, which sometimes doesn't happen.
There are unequal skills in the divisional libraries -- skills in one unit may not be shared across the system.
Branches have some autonomy but feel left out and isolated, although they are sometimes happy to be on the fringe.
There is no collective philosophy for public services activities. (Two good examples of attempt to coordinate are now gone: Circulation Committee under Anita Perkins, and the Reference Coordinators Group).
Lack of a planning process makes it difficult for staff in the units to plan their activities in the context of a wider Libraries' plan.
Library Council does not work as a forum for discussing organizational problems.
Library Council is something to go around.
Library Council is unsuccessful, passive; has no policy-setting function. The department heads have been disempowered. Power has migrated to the top.
The current committee structure is murky. We should know who is on committees and what they are doing. We don't know what we are doing as a corporate body.
The same people do all the work on committees (although this is becoming less true, e.g., the public services redefinition process).
We lack a library equivalent to the research labs and centers that overlay academic disciplines. We have no easy ways to collaborate on collection development, to support interdisciplinary efforts. Besides committees, which are very labor intensive, we have no vehicles or organizational tools that can be applied to extending work beyond individual library units.
MIT research projects (often interdisciplinary) are not well supported; we should be more focused on and be working directly with research projects.
We don't have ways to collect the personal experience of individual staff members into shared expertise.
The present organizational structure (with strength in place and collections)leaves us fragmented: this doesn't make us agile or able to share what we know and learn.
ILB is broken; it is not strong enough in staff and resources (although it does a marvelous job with what it has). It does not meet patrons' expectations, it is too slow, it is not easy enough (patron can't call directly for status of a request), materials don't come to patrons' hand.
ILL is very confusing to users: we need to constantly explain, "we only do the stuff that's here at MIT."
Bookpage is ineffective, doesn't put the item into patron's hands, is a waste of resources. Its problems are related to the ILB issue. Patrons can and do avoid using our document delivery.
There is a lack of programmatic coordination and consistency, e.g. in circulation, there's a sense that each unit has its own rules.
The food and drink policies are inconsistent.
Patrons should be able to go to different libraries and find similar arrangements. Journal arrangement and journal circulation are confusing to patrons.
We have a poor image with patrons.
Circulation is not given the respect it deserves as the one place where all of our patrons go.
How we incorporate the Web into the working environment isn't working; this is still evolving, and we do have a plan for a Web manager.
Splitting responsibilities across locations causes some strain for the person and the units. There is some concern about the expense of two offices, computers, files, commuting time. Hard to know how serious these issues are.
Library-wide initiatives don't have a central support system. For example, we don't have a library-wide view on how to respond to the demand for data services from Sloan and Urban Studies. The responsibility is too fragmented.
There is no formal structure or way to assign responsibilities for general things: Who handles facilities? Who looks at the new 3M products for circulation at ALA? Rotating responsibilities year to year might work but wouldn't build continuing relationships.
There has been no true planning process in the last four years. We need goals and objectives. It affects morale. I don't know what my job or my department's job is. Initiatives are not a replacement for planning.
There is less input into Collections decision-making than there used to be; it makes everyone paranoid.
Operating budgets have not increased in eight years although costs have.
What is the operating budget supposed to support?
The divisional library structure for the Social Sciences, split between Dewey and Humanities, doesn't work well.
Schering-Plough doesn't seem to have a real purpose or specific mission or clientele.
The Hayden building doesn't have enough space for the science collections that are needed nor to accommodate the exponential growth of the science literature in recent years.
Having an Archives' head who isn't an archivist doesn't work.
Public services librarians' job are too diverse, with the result that some pieces of their responsibilities get passed over or are less well done.
Broader-scope or peripheral collection management activities are not well done. These include: collections review, gifts, donor relations, preservation, and storage.
LTE positions can work very well but combining the necessary LTE skills with half of another job requiring other skills can make filling vacancies very difficult.
LTE positions are difficult; job descriptions are not well thought out; some LTEs are unqualified; the LTE positions are low-paid.
The system lacks a personnel function for staff development, professional development, and training.
There is no career path for librarians; Librarians I and II are stuck or encouraged to leave.
There is no reward system.
Jobs are poorly defined.
The inability to increase head count puts too big a burden on the same small group.
Those trying to become competitive in the job market have no way to gain supervisory or budgetary experience.
There is the perception that people who speak up are seen as trouble-makers.
Local processing offices may not be efficient.
It is hard for Archives to communicate informally with the divisional library units.
PSAC is moribund, nor is there a forum for reference people.
DLG is too small -- too few people are deciding too much.
The C3 representatives have become remote.
II. Structure and hierarchy
A. What elements of the status quo should we keep?
Keep the things that work -- primarily, being close to the faculty and schools and how we build subject expertise. (At MIT, a bunch of generalists is not wanted.)
The strength of the Libraries is the subject approach in the public services units. This is very important, because parts of MIT are so diverse. Whatever new plan is evolved should have the School/subject approach.
What Ann is doing for the Libraries around the Institute is phenomenal. The special salary monies for librarians I and II is a result of her moving around the Institute and educating.
Keep the hierarchy at the upper levels of the organization.
Steering Committee is valuable to handle sensitive personnel and policy matters.
Keep central support for public services, e.g., cataloging.
Keep the identification of initiatives each year. It's more focused and more concrete than the old planning process.
Subject selectors with a mix of responsibilities (collections and reference) is a keeper.
It's good that almost all people in the library units have an opportunity to work at a public services desk.
The Hum-Dewey processing team is a huge success: it sees the big picture, plans out a year's work, comes up with own ideas and carries them through, effects changes, saves a lot of time, has high morale.
Keep the circulation team in Rotch.
Groups focused on services and functions -- like BOG and OWL -- are good.
C3 is helpful in pulling together a library-wide broad sense of technology.
Keep the current "revolution" of Steering Committee going directly to the staff, and not down the hierarchy, to ask for participation.
Keep the ad hoc groups working on a specific problem and coming up with solutions that are put into effect.
The redefinition process was apparently needed; applause to Ginny for using this means to make intelligent decisions.
II. Structure and hierarchy
B. What aspects of the present structure should we change?
Make it easier to get issues on the official "list." Space is an example; there's not a clear way for units to get space change needs on an agenda for action.
Each operational unit cannot handle all activities: we need to leverage our effort. Housekeeping functions, like the local handling of materials, has been made the responsibility of public services staff, but such tasks as stacking and local processing could be handled in other ways.
Change how we solve problems. Committees are good at identifying problems, but not at moving to actions that solve them. This could be a hierarchy problem, in that everything goes through Steering Committee. The process is slow and discourages people.
Bookpage still needs to be fixed. In January the service was to move to the public service units but this hasn't happened. The delay has to do with problems in developing a Web service to replace the current procedure.
Revisit the issue of collecting vs. providing access, especially for journals, from point-of-view of user satisfaction.
Communication about what's happening in groups doesn't happen. There needs to be more understanding among the staff about what the committees are deciding. Example: BOG came to terms with the quality of the GEOWEB product but the staff was not informed, so now that staff has been asked to do something, they are duplicating work that BOG has already done or decided not to do.
Public Services committees in particular seem mysterious, especially since the redefinition. PSAC hasn't been meeting regularly. In other areas, committees are mostly focused on tasks.
PSAC is not successful in making things happen fast enough. Issues with orientation, instruction, and ready reference were on the agenda for months.
People are not willing to let go; there's a dedication to "get it right"...
Members joke about "action" in the PSAC name.
PSAC is its own worse enemy. Mixing managers, Reference Coordinators, and others has not worked. PSAC has meant less chance for librarians I and II to get together to work on problems. Previous groups -- publication, orientation, and instruction -- were composed of I's who could act.
We need to take risks. Steering Committee will have to be prepared for mistakes to happen. Erring on the side of caution means things just don't get done. We should take risks and learn from our bruises. Example: We could have a Web catalog up next month and the public could be using it in the following month without our knowing what problems there are in it.
Change how facilities are handled. There is too much on Sheelah Britt's plate as a result of the elimination of the Tom Wilding position.
Circulation needs to be improved. There is confusion about who makes circulation decisions -- the Committee? the Associate Director? the Divisional Librarians?
Steering Committee needs a senior voice on budget issues and personnel.
Personnel should be consolidated under one person, probably at the Steering Committee level. The present division is problematic and confusing.
There should be more opportunity for input into the budget planning process.
The positions of department and Associate Heads seem really stretched. If they were divided differently it might be possible to focus on different things -- contacts with users. This would come with an expensive price tag, however.
The Associate Head positions have always been a problem. The Associate should be able to step in when the Head is out, but this is not always the case.
There is not enough clerical help in the Director's Office.
There are some problems of territory and turf when it comes to certain operations of the Libraries --- but this is a problem of people, not of structure.
ILB needs more supervisory attention.
We go to immense effort to hire the best people and then do not give them any power.
There needs to be support at the top for publicity and handouts.
People who are great at something -- but may not be great at their job -- should be used elsewhere within the library, where their skills are needed.
II. Structure and hierarchy
C. In what ways have the merged divisions been successful? In what ways have they been unsuccessful?
D. Other comments on the merged structure?
Each of the mergers has a different situation. Science and Engineering were put together because the subjects fit together and because there is overlap among them.
The E/SL merger also makes sense because many labs and centers are now combinations of engineering and science faculty/subjects.
E/SL's merger has been positive: they have a common outlook, they've forged an identity.
E/SL has been a very successful merger: the librarians work both desks, the reference staff is trained by the same person, information about the departments and Schools is shared, and some collections work is shared.
If there is any problem with the E/SL merger, it is because the two libraries are physically separate, not because they are administratively merged.
Engineering/Science has worked better than Humanities/Dewey, possibly because of personalities.
E/SL works intellectually but not physically or managerially. Intellectual combining works very well.
E/SL is a good merger because the curriculum and subject areas are interdisciplinary. The same is true with Dewey and Humanities. You can't just know one area; you need the others.
The Humanities/Dewey processing team has been very successful.
Contact with the group from the other unit gives a sense of larger organization.
The merged structure has broadened people's horizons and the efforts to work across the edges have been admirable.
The merged structure improves cross-disciplinary work.
I don't have a firm sense that we should unmerge. There's not a perfect solution in a distributed library.
If we have merged department heads, we should think seriously about unmerging the Associate Heads.
We need at least an Associate Head/Reference Coordinator in each library. They need time to think about service, develop electronic services, etc.
The Sloan librarian should be Associate Head.
The perception of staff is that they have a half-time department head.
If we had a department head in each place, would we need Associate Heads?
Some units may need associates, others, not. In the larger units, it is a burden just to handle professional evaluations and personnel issues. Departments should decide what works best for them.
The Associate Head can devote time to mentoring supervisees; can serve as the acting head when the head is elsewhere; usually has much hands-on experience; is the salami in the sandwich, between the staff and the head.
Dewey and Barker need two heads, or one head and two Associate Heads.
Physical presence is best for supervision and collections work.
Dewey and Humanities have different ways of operating, different clientele, different subject matters. The intensity is different. The merger there felt like convenience; we should have more of a goal if we're going to merge.
Humanities/Dewey don't seem a good fit, except for the social sciences part.
Science and Engineering may not belong together. Engineering is the 800-lb. canary -- it is huge, important, and needs quality of attention.
It's hard to know who is in charge of the Science library.
The E/SL combination was a vision, but the reason for merging Humanities and Dewey was to reduce positions at a time of cost-cutting.
The Humanities/Dewey merger might have work with more staff. There is not enough flexibility in staffing.
The Humanities/Dewey combination has too many people reporting to too few.
Possible benefits are cross-training and more consistency in services; otherwise there are not many benefits.
Geography isn't the stumbling block; culture is.
The Rotch/Archives combination does not work, because the work of the staffs is too different for there to be crossover benefits at all levels.
The Rotch/Archives merger doesn't make much sense in the long term, but RVC has skills in images that could be applied in Archives.
From a manager's viewpoint, learning about another unit is very rewarding; but dividing time 50%/50% is very frustrating, because so many opportunities for excellent services have to be by-passed.
The administrative paperwork of the merged department heads is almost overwhelming.
Department heads should have some chance to see and work with patrons, and not be tied to doing administrative work only.
The need of individuals to be in two places at once creates stress.
In the merged structure, some people are empowered, others not. Some people wait until the senior people are there (i.e., they delegate up). The merger needs to permeate further down in the structure.
Mergers have been problematic in terms of space, e.g., one person occupying two offices, nothing's where you need it, etc.
The mergers seem marginally successful at best; the heads seem to feel divided, waste time moving around.
There is nothing positive in the merged structure. It is difficult for the supervisors to handle all the responsibilities. There is insufficient backup from the Associate Heads and staff assistants because they are focused on library or LTE work, not administration. It's very stressful and hard to manage in two places.
Moving reference staff from place to place is difficult and a waste of time, and there is no space for the staff when they get to the other library (Humanities/Dewey).
Working two reference desk works for those who want to and doesn't for those who don't.
Is it possible for reference staff to keep up in both locations? Is the level of service suffering?
For all levels of staff, the timeliness of decision making and communication can be a problem -- for instance if there are crises in both places.
The expectation that staffing shortages can be filled in by staff from the other location may be relied upon too much.
III. Staff Issues
A. What are the most critical issues facing the Libraries' staff today?
The lack of a central personnel function in the Libraries. There is no senior administrator for staff training or professional and staff development.
Better promotion/career paths are needed, for support and professional positions.
The lack of upward mobility for support staff is a critical issue. Everyone is either a IV or a V, and there's no place to go. There is a reluctance at the Institute to promote support staff to administrative staff.
Salaries for professional and support staff are low and not competitive (although the current adjustment for librarians I and II was very beneficial).
Overall support salaries are not that great, even when we start people at higher rates because the need for computer skills has increased. More and more staff are reaching the top of the range.
How jobs are classified and how we compensate are important matters. We need to keep a careful eye on what is included in what level job classification -- Web development for example. We need to stay competitive, but this is dependent on the Institute.
It's hard for library assistants to move out because there isn't an understanding of what they do outside library systems.
Support staff are being asked to do more, more team work, less directed work. Some of our best technical people are support staff; support staff are doing a lot of Web work. We create demanding jobs, train people for them and they turn over quickly, because higher salaries are available elsewhere.
There has been some grumbling about support staff/professional staff delineations. It's not going to be easy to keep on respecting the limits on support staff as the line between support and professional staff blurs. Salary may push the issue -- for instance in the recent salary adjustments for librarians, the support staff were left out.
The primary staff issue is anxiety about technical and social, or societal, change. The profession is undergoing tremendous change, with the result that it's hard to feel competent in your job, hard to know if you job will even continue to exist one or two years from now, hard to define the role of the library. Anxiety is often addressed as a need for training, especially in technology, but it is really more an issue of confidence than a technology or training issue.
Training, which we are doing much better now, is a constant need of all positions. People are self-selecting training, using IS more.
Training -- it's harder and harder for people to keep up with so much that is changing. This is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed for the long term.
The most pressing need is the growing scope of our responsibilities; jobs just keep expanding.
Jobs have outgrown people's ability to do them. Librarian I and II jobs are very difficult, overwhelmed with Web, databases. Five hours of processing have been added to local units without additional staff. Administrative assistants are doing SAP and are LTEs, in some cases.
Staff has no time to build research collections, e.g., searching for publications of small presses. Collections will suffer in 10 years.
Stress, because more is being done with fewer staff, not because of cuts, but because there have been no additions to staff, and no one wants to give things up.
There is no staff pride in the system. Example: Everyone has to apologize, daily, for Advance. It gives the perception that we're incapable of having a good library system.
Chances for meaningful professional involvement have a cost: if 100% on own time, it's unfair; if work time is used, what is the cost to self and other staff?
Vacation time -- MIT is not terribly generous compared to neighboring institutions.
MIT does not offer the same benefits that other universities do -- for example, the opportunity to take classes at MIT is extremely limited, and the trend seems to be to reduce benefits.
Staff complains about technology, equipment -- where are we in the queue? why do we have to wait so long?
The staff feels upset when someone leaves, not just because of the extra work for the others.
Not having enough information, or having too much information.
There is no flexibility in the open-hours schedule.
Another issue is involvement, participation.
III. Staff Issues
B. How would you like to see them addressed?
An Institute-wide study of support staff ranges and jobs, similar to the one being done for administrative positions now, should be conducted.
We need to create a way for lower-level people to gain valuable experience for their professional development and for "moving on," if needs be.
We need to expose people to administrative functions.
We need to open up more paths to level III librarian positions, with increased responsibility but not tied to administrative roles. The same needs to be done for level IV positions.
We need to create more promotion opportunities.
We need to push the salary issue one more time.
All librarian levels should be rewarded for professional activity, not just I's and II's.
We need to be clear in articulating that the distinction between support staff and professional staff is not about tasks, but about time and commitment. If you're a professional, this is part of your life, a career, and the effort you devote to the field.
We need to articulate the differences between support staff and librarian and administrative staff in ways that express the value of both. Support staff want to feel involved and valued. The question is how we value both professional and support staff at the same time.
For training, we should have regularly scheduled staff training days/hours, somewhat following the Harvard model.
We must develop training programs for all staff, tied to career development, and including both support staff and librarians. For example, we should have librarian I training before promotion to librarian II.
C3 is making forward strides in the training area -- it's the most positive thing right now. Also, Steering Committee thinks training needs support.
We need stronger LTEs.
The new structure for technology will help address the anxiety about training and will spread peer information in ways different from formal training.
We need some new, creative, interesting projects and some demonstrated successes.
We should have a top-of-the-line public catalog that the staff can be proud of.
There's a better chance that MIT administration might fund that, if we showed them what we need, than that they would support space renovation or buying journals. We should concentrate our efforts on a great OPAC.
Even though every unit is different, we need to be flexible about time.
We need to increase flexibility by taking some risks; maybe close for mornings one month in the summer to get a project done, like the barcoding project.
We need to shift emphasis in how we do work away from supervision to individuals and teams. There should be more autonomy and responsibility at the levels where work is getting done, which means teams.
Create a reference team and a subject selectors' team.
I am not in favor of teams, per se. I am afraid that with more teams we will grow less outward looking. Teams and committees, team evaluations -- these are very time consuming.
We need more and different people on committees. Perhaps we should limit the number of committees each person can be on; for example -- one standing committee, one ad hoc committee, and one search committee.
We need to support and complement Ann's time spent talking about the Libraries around the Institute. We need to find ways to translate what we do into an argument for Ann. The more we do that, the more success Ann will have in compensation, positions, etc.
We may need an ongoing group for measurement and evaluation. We may need to assign this responsibility, change expectations, and put it in job descriptions. We need to have a constant discussion about what we do and change what doesn't work.
The best solutions to work problems come from the staff. The processing staff should describe processing jobs, for example.
We need to rationalize jobs; we need to make jobs work in 35-37 hours.
We don't want the staff to stop doing what excites them. We have to give up something, or increase head count.
Centralize government documents.
IV. Best practices
Have you seen other organizations where these issues are handled more
effectively?
How?
In political campaigns, ideas win over structure -- people are motivated to get the best ideas out. People argue, disagree, and make mistakes.
Recognize that wanting to do the job well creates its own kind of stress. Our work has real meaning; it's important to the world to make sure resources are available now and in the future.
The cross-departmental model (C3) is already working in the MIT Libraries, in some cross departmental committees, such as DLG/TSAC and BOG. The model is very important and a useful way to get things done.
Some libraries have more of a matrix structure -- circulation, reference, processing, each working across the system. It's very effective for working across the organization, not so effective reporting to units. It would be difficult for reference to work in a matrix structure, but circulation and processing could. The drawback is that time and attention are divided among multiple units.
Some libraries have a full-time training person.
For better communication across units, we could have a weekly newsletter from each unit that talks about new hiring, people's vacations, things happening at the library, etc.
Decision-making should be more decentralized; decisions should be made at a lower level.
People can be rewarded for their professional development, with tenure, a sabbatical, a ladder of more than three levels to move up. Promotions can be based on work plus publications or teaching -- and time given to do the extra work.
Archives work best when able to develop strong relationships with central administration. Opportunities to get funding for Archives projects from the administration needs to be encouraged here.
We need to tangibly thank people. In another university a certain percentage (one per cent?) was knocked off salary increases for reward money. It went to (1) people with sustained high performance (maybe $2,000) and to (2) spot rewards. There were nominations every month for the spot rewards, and a library committee decided who would get the money -- $250-$500.
Places with unions probably do a better job at rationalizing jobs.
The following models were suggested as options for consideration:
Bibliographer model. Five bibliographers do all the subject selection.
The change-over could be phased in, and indeed some specialties might remain for highly specific collection areas. The bibliographers would not do training of other librarians and would not do reference. They would do only high-level instruction. The other public services librarians would handle reference, databases, communications and outreach to users, and instruction. The bibliographers would be part of Collections Services but could be housed either in the divisional libraries or centrally. For interdisciplinary subjects, the bibliographers would at least be clear about whom they had to work with, so that this arrangement might be better suited to interdisciplinary collection development. The bibliographers would have to be highly proactive because ties to the reference desk and public contact would be cut.
Divisional librarians as functional department heads. The divisional librarians would be phased out as such and become department heads for system-wide public services functions, such as reference, circulation and ILB, collections, instruction, etc. A variation on this model is that each Divisional Librarian would have both a library and one function to manage. This would force them to think more broadly across the system.
More extensive matrix environment. We now have a matrix structure for technology and for collections. It could be extended to public services. Each librarian in public services would have one primary and one secondary responsibility (and only two). These responsibilities would be for reference, collections, instruction, cataloging, acquisitions, etc. In their primary roles, librarians would serve on teams responsible for one particular function, including policy, procedures, and training (of secondary people) and the entire process. Librarians would work on part-time basis in their secondary roles. This arrangement would give job variety and enrichment and a broad understanding of system-wide issues. Also people would not be stretched so thin.
Collection development in public services. (Logical, but not particularly appealing.) The development part of collections would be in public services and report to Ginny. Collections Services would take over the whole range of processing functions from the point of ordering to stack maintenance. This arrangement could be for the whole system or, perhaps more workable, be applied only to building 14, for Humanities, Science, and Music.
In some consulting companies, library staff work together on a project with a consultant -- equivalent to faculty; almost a client relationship.
We need to think about the concept of a SWAT team vs. training our own people to do such tasks as stacking and local processing.
The Baker Library of the Harvard Business School has a Research Services Group with explicit responsibility to work with faculty. This service gave the library really high visibility.
The model I like is a team of librarians, where everyone does everything, but each team member has one responsibility, for example -- access, instruction, online service, the Web, circulation, etc. The group works as a team, all do reference, all do instruction, but one person is the lead person in a specialized area.
In planning, the Baker Library asked: "What matters most to our patrons?" and then selected three or four activities to be targeted for attention and did whatever it took to do those very well. In considering other activities, they applied the 80/20 rule.
Like insurance companies, who use field reps and sales reps as data points, we need ways to tap into what the individual on the reference/circulation desk knows about our market, about patron expectations, about how patrons behave. We need to collect the personal experience of individual staff members into shared expertise.
V. What would your ideal organization look like? (optional question)
We should consolidate functions, get people in public services out from as much clerical work as possible, and look for economies of scale. We should concentrate our labor force on public service activities to better serve patrons. The goal is to keep public services client-oriented.
Give the routine parts of digital pieces to a centralized unit, following the Ellen Duranceau model. The Web will be there before long; also data sets.
Understand usage patterns and map services to needs.
Don't assume we need to maintain a physical presence everywhere we now have one. Branches are a wonderful resource but murder to staff and maintain. Closing units might create protest but if we plan properly and communicate well we can deal with that fallout.
We have to invent other ways to bridge disciplines and find easy ways to collaborate. We need to develop organizational tools which apply to work extending beyond individual library units. The tools must be synergistic, not replacing strengths that come from deep knowledge of subject disciplines.
We should build a world-class faculty orientation program, starting with new faculty, and going on from there. We could conceptualize the program as a Center, and get funding to support it.
My ideal organization structure would feel good! Staff would be proud of the organization and what is done for those coming in the door. We would know that if we had a problem, we would have a better-than-not chance of fixing it. We would know that we, the Libraries, are a valued part of MIT.
What matters is how people relate, regardless of the structure. It is important to have trust, to believe that people are out to do good. People would do their jobs and wouldn't feel that they have to do other people's jobs. People might have a variety of roles but would be clear about them. It would be easy to find out what's happening in other parts of the organization and to avoid duplication of effort. It would be clear where something is done.
Communication would be happening. We would worry less about structure and more about the job at hand. There would be trust, responsibility for our actions, and the ability to act meaningfully either as an individual or as a group.
"If I could start from scratch, I would say "one big library."
Everyone would be trained and have equipment so we would be able to focus on user needs. We would always be thinking critically about what we do. Everyone would be accountable and invested. We'd exceed the expectation of users. More people would feel motivated. More people would feel like the structure helps rather than hinders. There would be more trust, more effective communication, in and out. The organization would recognize its high investment in people as a tremendous asset and be structured in a way that makes it possible for everyone to work to his/her fullest potential.
My ideal organization would be more driven by consensus. It would be more open and information would be shared. There would more planning structure, so we would know that individual decisions were moving toward a particular shared end.
The ideal organization would be visionary, responsive, communicative, capable of change. There would be more fora for people to express ideas and come up with solutions to problems. There would be a way to express concerns without being perceived as being negative and without being ignored. There would be system-wide positions, maybe some at-large positions, but not as replacements for local positions. Work would reside locally or centrally, whichever was most efficient. The reward structure would not be tied to the hierarchy and there would be steps in the salary range for each level. Teams would work by unit and not necessarily by function. There would be a "floating structure" -- impermanent, dealing with issues of the moment, with groups/committee happening when they need to happen, across units. There would be rotating positions on Library Council.
VI. Do you have other thoughts or comments to share with us?
We are trying to be a traditional library and provide state-of-the-art services too. We need to do our distributed library smarter or say we can't do it.
We need to get librarians talking to customers about what they need.
Working 9-5 won't make sense or be enough for the future. If we study head counts and usage patterns, we might change our hours.
This redefinition process ideally will break down tribalism or turn some of it to strengths. The deep knowledge we have is very unusual, maybe unique.
We need to trust each other more. We should have a formal work exchange program among our libraries. Or ways that we can be equivalent to labs and centers or visiting faculty -- visiting staff?
We should look not only at the formal structure but think how to build bridges. We should base our deliberations on the functions presently handled by the Libraries and on the functions we anticipate handling soon.
Current functions (incomplete list)
Bibliographic instruction
Selection of print and digital information
Reference hours
Course support
Shelving
Web pages
Training
Cancellation projects
Weeding collections
Circulation
Stack/shelf labeling
Faculty orientation
Student orientation
Data access
Skill development
Faculty training
Office Hours
Gifts
Tracing and replacements
Future functions (1-5 years)
Multi-media
More in storage
Web first choice
Data
Consortia
Build and manage bridges
"Reach" faculty
Software
Communication - we need to fix it and have a plan to do so (task force).
Much is a matter of fine-tuning, of walking the line between too little and too much. We don't even have consistency among departmental e-mail lists!
We need more communication across units. Some of this is done informally (processing supervisors) but it needs to be formalized. The matrix structure is appealing for this reason. We need cross library communication in circulation, processing, reference, instruction, orientation, and training. The PC team has done a great job of communicating during this process. Maybe there's a better way to alert people to things we need to know rather than just in minutes.
We might have to change some jobs to be more technologically focused -- and say that it's more important to do this than to do xxxxx.
We might be able to outsource in public services -- hiring temps to do shelving; brochures are another example.
The positions at the top are fine, but we need another assistant or associate director for administration.
A personnel librarian would be good.
We need one department head for each divisional library. The biggest problem would be head count.
We need a good way to address problems. The staff needs to be able to say things are not going right. Perhaps we should have a grievance channel, an ombudsman within the Libraries. Supported by Mary Rowe?
We've embarked on a process that is more difficult to do than imagine.
Steering Committee is very different from what people expect; it'll take time and patience before that sifts down to the whole organization.
It's amazing that people have gotten so committed to the redefinition process.
It's not about transforming the highest level but about all of us transforming how we do our work. Steering Committee is ready to facilitate the next step but is not going to dictate it. It's a new leadership -- Steering Committee members have come in with different approaches.
Some administrative functions might be better centralized rather than decentralized. Can we cooperate in training circulation staff and users?
Training is the largest area of duplication. Is there duplication in the reporting between branch to division to central administration? Is there duplication in the hand-off between ILB and circulation?
There should be a single person responsible for Circulation, reporting to Ginny, with 100% circulation duties, both operational and future planning.
Electronic reserves should have been in the planning stages years ago but wasn't because no one person was responsible.
We need some reference staffing on evenings and weekends. Patrons probably prefer 9-midnight access to reference rather than someone there 9-5.
We need to make a real commitment to timely electronic reference.
Let the staff make the implement the changes.
Hope this process will result in some constructive whole and that rebuilding will result. We're ready to experiment as long as everyone knows. But we should not change just to make change. We need to build on the strength of the place.
Everyone should get off one library committee or team and join one Institute team.
We should create a reference team and a subject selectors team.
Teams can be difficult to manage; performance evaluation is difficult. I am not convinced that teams are all that successful.
We should develop work systems that compensate for short-staffing.
Each department should have a head.
Expertise is currently not appreciated and rewarded.
We don't need one head of the building 14 departments.
We don't need a facilities manager in building 14. Past space groups have worked; they need more resources to manage.
It might be possible to have one person in charge of Building 14 public areas, but not of everything in both libraries. Responsibilities for public areas of Building 14 might include:
Services - staff
hours open - libraries and various service points
coverage
service with a smile
Organization and maintenance of the collection
ability of public to locate materials
re-shelving of materials after use
shifting
storage planning and implementation
General
overall organization of the space
aesthetics
displays
security/safety
computer facilities
other equipment
access (ADA, etc.)
housekeeping, cleanliness
signage
Top
OITF Final Report
Redefinition Home Page