MIT Libraries Task Force on Organizational Issues Final Report

Appendix E

SUMMARIES OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statistical Analysis of Focus Group Discussion

Circulation Focus Group 7/7/98

Circulation Focus Group 7/15/98

Subject Selectors Focus Group 7/7/98

Processing Focus Group 7/9/98

ILB/Document Services/Archives Focus Group 7/13/98

LTE And Staff Assistant Focus Group 7/13/98

Teams Focus Group 7/14/98

Reference/Subject Selector Focus Group 7/15/98

Open Session Focus Group 7/16/98

 

Statistical Analysis of Focus Group Discussion Participation

· Approximately 61 Public Services staff members participated in OITF focus group discussions

· 11 Public Services staff members participated in more than one focus group discussion

· Approximately 43.7% of Public Services staff participated in one or more OITF focus groups

· Approximately 25% of Systems staff participated in an OITF focus group discussion

· Approximately 2.13% of TS staff participated in an OITF focus group discussion

back to the table of contents

CIRCULATION FOCUS GROUP 7/7/98

Circulation - What works:

· Flexibility in staffing within circulation/ cross-training (within circulation and with reference and processing) (20 votes)

· Knowledgeable staff/respect for staff (16 votes)

· Commitment to deliver best services (16 votes)

· Support/cooperation from within the same unit and from other units (7 votes)

· Uniform routines and procedures (2 votes)

· Training opportunities (2 votes)

· Relaxed work environment

 

Miscellaneous input from the cards:

· Representation on PSAC

 

Circulation - What doesn't work:

· Timely computer support and training (inconsistent among units) (21 votes)

· No money and procedures in place to cover staff shortages and training sessions; lack ability to hire temps and/or students (18 votes)

· Adding new responsibilities without dropping old ones (12 votes)

· Circulation rules and procedures interpreted differently among units (11 votes)

· Long and involved hierarchy for approval of new ideas

· Policy for problem patrons

 

Miscellaneous input from the cards:

 

· outside users

 

Comment:

Circulation seems to bear the brunt of staff shortages which is aggravated by the lack of a quick and expedient procedure for filling them.

 

Circulation - Service Priority: What changes would have to take place and what are the implications of an integrated service point?

Responsibility:

 

· training and cross training (forced?)

· compensation

· important not to have circulation take all the weight of additional responsibilities

· blurring of lines between professional and support staff

· does this devalue reference services?

· does it exploit support staff?

 

Space:

 

· We’d need to get expertise about how to recreate the spaces keeping in mind: traffic patterns, clarity about what services are provided where, office space for circulation away from the desk

 

Where do reserves fit into this?

 

Should there be one person responsible for scheduling reference and circulation services?

 

 

back to the top

back to the table of contents

CIRCULATION FOCUS GROUP 7/15/98

Circulation - What works:

· Ability to work independently (11 votes)

· Non-hierarchical structures (i.e., the Rotch Circulation Team) (8 votes)

· Decentralization of separate units (6 votes)

· Professional respect for work (5 votes)

· Cross training (4 votes)

· Circulation and processing cooperation (3 votes)

· Diversity of tasks (2 votes)

· Circulation committee - promotes communication across units

· Use of email for communication

· Administration open to support staff suggestions

 

Miscellaneous input from cards:

 

· close working relationship with users

Circulation - What doesn't work:

· Space (11 votes)

· Blurring lines between professional and support staff without upgrading of staff salaries or job

· classifications (8 votes)

· Staffing levels inadequate for amount of work (7 votes)

· Too much redundancy in subject areas; awkward divisions of disciplines (5 votes)

· Advance (4 votes)

· Lack of awareness on the part of administration of work of support staff (4 votes)

· Miscommunication/lack of communication between units (2 votes)

· Merging of libraries

· System breaks down when someone leaves

· Technology upgrading not consistent across units

· Teams don’t always work

 

Miscellaneous input from cards:

 

· User not always aware of who is staffing the reference desk – librarian/non-librarian

· Territoriality

· Lack of voice/awareness of branch libraries

· Need more sharing of knowledge/experience with circulation staff in other units

· Each library unit needs a permanent representative on circulation committee

· Circulation policies that are not consistent across units

Circulation - Service Priority Discussion: What organizational changes would help implement and what are the implications of a self service circulation system?

 

Implementation

 

· need a good system

· good technical support

· training for staff and users

· start in summer

· do all libraries have to take part?

· should be plugged into MIT network

 

Security

 

· security of system itself (against hackers, etc.)

· security of physical items – what about items that are not currently stripped?

· use of MIT cards by unauthorized people

 

Policies

 

· consistent and clearly stated across units to handle exceptions, non-circulating items, different types of users (P-card, BLC, etc.), and problems

· physical items should be consistent (for example barcodes in the same place and all items should have a circ code)

 

Staff

 

· working mainly with problems so will mostly see frustrated user/ may increase stress

· training for dealing with problem users/stress

· what will staff do with time? More problems/difficult interactions? More shelving?

· possibility of more turnover

· should not be used to reduce staffing levels

 

A self-service circulation system will diminish the contact between circulation staff and users which would be a loss for both. May make the library more impersonal.

The group agreed that the ability to renew books, place holds, and have access to personal records were positive aspects of this. There was some feeling that the loss of routine interactions (checking out books for example) would be a negative impact.

 

back to the top

back to the table of contents

SUBJECT SELECTORS FOCUS GROUP 7/7/98

works / doesn't work / service priority discussion

Subject Selectors - What works:

· Local processing provides expertise to support reference and collections; liaison with Collection Services; and problem-solving (18 votes)

· The service package we provide (OWL, appointments, etc.) works well (5 votes)

· Reference, selection, and liaison with departments are complementary (25 votes)

· The role of the Collection Manager (4 votes)

· The divisional libraries develop subject expertise and relations with faculty (3 votes)

· Respect for peers (3 votes)

· Assistant Acquisitions Librarian for Digital Resources

· Flexibility in divisional libraries

 

Miscellaneous input. from the cards:

 

· Delivery of services (suggested purchase forms, ILB, web-based ref., new book lists)

· Ability of staff to do some of their own priority setting, and to respond to changing demands

 

Subject Selectors - What doesn't work:

· The merged divisional libraries, resulting in split reference positions and selection duties (16 votes)

· Work load, especially during short and long-term vacancies (11 votes)

· Work flow (hardware, set-up, etc.) and technical support for electronic resources problematic (9 votes)

· Difficulty implementing even modest local solutions (8 votes)

· Few forums by function across divisional libraries (e.g. ref librarians, selectors) (6 votes)

· Communication – lateral, up and down (4 votes)

· Lack of staff development and training

 

 

Miscellaneous input from cards:

 

Decision-making

 

· Decisions are made too slowly and not communicated or announced explicitly

· Too much decision-making is done centrally; Divisional Librarians have too little control

· Divisional librarians wait long periods for decisions from Steering Committee

· Committees seem a bit top-heavy

 

Coordination

 

· Many people doing the same thing in each unit with no coordination.

· Poor coordination of collections and public service priorities and deadlines.

 

Duplication of effort

 

· So many people trying to get the same thing accomplished across the system.

 

 

Functions poorly supported by present structure

 

· Orientation (rotation of membership means lack of continuity; program is not proactive)

· Publicity

· Publications

 

Decentralization of privilege cards and document delivery interferes with reference service

"The elephant gets the least attention because he is too old, large and dirty (and mice crawl up his back)" (e.g., Hayden Basement)

 

Subject Selectors - Service priority: What organizational changes would be needed to enable selectors to focus on collection issues beyond basic collections building?

Vendor issues:

 

· Additional approval plan for European imprints

· More standing orders (STOs through Yankee?)

· Better serial vendor responsiveness

· Fine-tune profiles for approval plans

· Approval plans don’t work for subjects where only a small percentage of the total output is selected

· STO problems are not attended to by vendors

 

Workflow issues:

 

· STO SWAT team to handle problem STOs

· Acquisitions staff travels to local units

· Responsibility for problem-solving is unclear (vendor? Acquisitions) – selector ends up doing a lot. Ideally, the selector’s involvement should end once the decision has been made to order something.

· Have no system of notifying selector if journal issues or STOs are not received

· More realistic timetable for ordering – even it out over the year. Can Acquisitions staff be deployed to other work (e.g. processing) when orders are slow?

· Better collaboration/coordination with Acquisitions

· Present division of monograph & serial budgets creates workflow issues

· Credit cards for acquisitions; accounts at local stores

· Streamline/standardize storage and weeding procedures. Standardize process for storage of items with preservation/repair issues

· Flexible storage schedule

· "Special offers" drain selectors’ time

· Better and more collection management information (missing books, circulation, etc.)

· Decentralize serials? (Would result in sending a lot of items back to 14E-210 for cataloging)

· Need support for web page creation – help, training and software. Do subject selectors need to know HTML?

 

 

Local processing issues:

 

· Selectors need more local support for collections, in addition to processing. This includes pre-order searching and making sure the things that are ordered are received. Without this, selectors end up doing these functions themselves.

· Local processing brings together local collections and service issues

 

 

Issues specific to electronic resources:

 

· Workflow for ordering and implementing electronic resources is inefficient. The selection and acquisition work well, but then no coordination of hardware, installation, support and training.

· Are there selection tools for electronic resources?

· NERD’s decision-making seems bureaucratic and slow. On the other hand, NERD makes use of CMG experience

· The Electronic Resource Librarian position is good!

 

Policy issues:

· More money for binding and preservation

· Policies coming out of Collection Services are based on workflow, not users’ needs. Cataloging policies are set without public service or user input. Withdrawal policies should be made in consultation with Public Services.

· Precats are a "black hole." Some items are unlikely ever to show up on OCLC.

How can individuals staff a service point, provide instruction, and do complex collections work?

Will shelf-ready books cost us in local options?

The gifts process is getting better, more under control. Maybe eliminating it wouldn’t save us that much staff time.

Selectors need to meet and talk to each other – and they have to be supported in attending the meetings!

 

back to the top

back to the table of contents

PROCESSING FOCUS GROUP 7/9/98

works / doesn't work
Brainstorming on pros and cons of centralized and decentralized processing

Processing - What works:

· Local processing with expertise and relationship to local collection and cross departmental communication (29 votes)

· Flexibility of tasks and schedule (in approach as well as when one does things) (16 votes)

· Close and supportive relationships with other units centralized and decentralized (always room to improve) (10 votes)

· Variety of tasks (6 votes)

· Autonomy in decision making about many things (4 votes)

· Ability to experiment with organizational structures at a local level (4 votes)

· Team approach (2 votes)

· Space

· Relaxed flexible work atmosphere

· Cross departmental communications

· Team reports directly to head of library

· Accountability to collections (??)

· Ability and opportunity to show initiative

· Processing work goes directly to patrons

· Good working relationship with 14E, bindery, etc.

· Getting info is easy because of informal and official lines (of communication?) work

· Cooperation between circ and processing

· Ability to develop expertise in a specific area

· Decentralized journal check-in

· Communication with supervisors goes up and down

· Large number of experts within the system available for consultation

· "My job makes sense as a whole in its benefit to the system: if job were broken up it would be harder to understand how it fits"

· Independence

· Empowerment for each library: each can find best methods for its users (doesn't have to be consistent)

· Reference work as long as it is not taken for granted

· Job provides exposure to many facets of a books' life span

· Job draws on accumulated knowledge of library operations

· Opportunity for learning new things

· Cooperation and support among processing supervisors

 

Processing - What doesn't work:

· No efficient direct way for local processing to impact policy and procedure (22 votes)

· No consistent technical support/training (10 votes)

· "Taxation without representation!"-no direct local processing. representation on any committees (8)

· Lack of recognition/respect (8 votes)

· Difficult to advance/no opportunities for professional growth for exempt or support staff (7 votes)

· Centralized serials checkin is a problem (5 votes)

· Ineffective/wretched review process (no merit based raises) (4 votes)

· Some things are too uniform--different sites have different needs (3 votes)

· Lack of local autonomy for and appropriate level of major decision making (2 votes)

· RSC/Gov Docs/gifts = time intensive tasks (2 votes)

· Hierarchical communications--slow or parts missing

· Insufficient staff

· Communications with the Big Room (14E-210)

· RSC storage procedures

· Shear amount of different projects can get overwhelming

· Getting due respect from the OUTSIDE WORLD (including librarians, others)

· Communication across branches and with collections services is lacking in clarity, uniformity - ps priorities not assessed by collections services

· Major problems in collections processing ignored because there is too much to deal with

· Demands from ps staff not matched with gratitude or recognition

· Role of processing generally misunderstood particularly at managerial level

· Inefficient serials claims procedures

· Loss of local binding budget and repair skills

· Incorrect collections services assumptions about ps priorities

· Too little decision making allowed at appropriate level (must go through DLG/TSAC)

· Not enough face time with staff of other units

· Too many meetings

· More flexibility -- a local catalog

· Communications with selectors and collections managers

· Too many reference hours

· Professional vs non-professional antagonisms and antics

· Budget and accounting are TOO slow

Processing - Brainstorming on pros and cons of centralized and decentralized processing

Communication

 

· Does processing need to be the middleman between subject selectors and 14E-210

· One of the greatest values of local processing is the link between reference/subject selectors and collections/technical services

· Procedures and decisions made in 14E-210 for (or impacting) local processing with no consultation or notification (also a DECISION MAKING issue)

· Management structure too personality based, making communication difficult with some

 

Decision Making

 

· There is a fear somewhere to let processing staff try something new that the staff thinks will save time – staff need to be empowered to take that initiative to try new things

 

Workflow

· Different libraries have different needs – some libraries have to do extra work to correct things done centrally because of different needs, so there is duplication of effort (serial check-ins)

· Since journal check-in was decentralized there are fewer staff in the local processing units

· Advance is very labor intensive for many functions (journal check-in)

· A problem with decentralization is that it takes time, knowledge, and energy to know who to send things to

· All functions occurring in one unit in each library – might it go faster?

· Technology enables processing units to do more locally (e.g., GOBI ordering)

 

 

Career Paths and Advancement

 

· There are no promotion paths for level 4 to processing supervisor (there are more level 5’s in technical services) – this needs to be reviewed.

 

Serials Check-in

 

· Decentralization of serials check-in would benefit some libraries, but not all

· Some libraries would need a serials cataloger in local unit if this were done

 

No Representation

 

· No local processing representation on decision making committees

· No BOG representation

· Local processing are the system-wide experts on Barton – they are exposed to every module

 

Local Choice

 

· Does there have to be a choice between centralization/decentralization for everything -- could some units choose centralization for one function and another choose decentralization?

 

Other issues

 

· Centralization must have adequate staff to do things in a timely way or else it is not useful

· Centralization leads to generalists! Example: catalogers aren’t subject sensitive (no expertise to support that)

· Expertise developed in decentralized processing felt to be an asset

· Some in processing would like to do more collections support (research to assist subject selectors, not just ordering)

· We currently don’t have staffing to support collections support

· Technology can sometimes make things more labor intensive

· Don’t want to handle money (would not want everything to be decentralized)

· Mobile bindery/catalogers

back to the top

back to the table of contents

ILB/DOCUMENT SERVICES/ARCHIVES FOCUS GROUP 7/13/98

works / doesn't work / service priority discussion

ILB, Document Services, Archives - What works:

· Positive work environment including fairness, respect (26 Votes)

· Diversity of tasks–efficient for workflow, workload, and good job design (25 votes)

· Communication between staff—within unit, between units (9 votes)

· Training—Opportunities coming out of changing demands (7 votes)

· Centralization promotes development of expertise in providing ILB (2 votes)

· Existence of ILB within public Service Unit provides an opportunity for synergy to take place (2 votes)

· Likes workflow + possibility of advancement; changes are regarded as positive (2 votes)

· Likes autonomy + flexibility; reporting structure well-adapted to tasks at hand

· Awareness to reduce duplication of effort

· Staff are considerate + work well with minimal supervision; good mix of experience & new ideas; several employees can do each job so work continues uninterrupted

· Good support for learning & training in technology: inside MIT & outside (conferences, meeting, NELINET, etc.)

· Good support for technology: computers

· Supplies easily obtained because of flexibility with purchasing methods

· BLC membership

· ILB staff participate in reference desk staffing--diversity of tasks

· Latitude to make decisions and confidence expressed in employee's abilities

 

Miscellaneous input from the cards:

· Provision of ILB without cost to MIT community--important to them

· Support for continued training and involvement in library-wide discussions/groups

· Flexible hours, vacation time plentiful

· Regular staff meetings

· Communication is open--allowed to express opinions

· Electronic scanning of MIT theses, other MIT-related document/fiche scanning (MIT-OOP, RLE, Sloan, etc.); Registrar preservation; MIT/non-MIT request for various journal articles; Loaning of MIT journals/books; Film Processing (MIT/non-MIT material)

· Clear concepts of responsibility and clear policies on issues

· Humor creates relaxed atmosphere; comfortable working environment

ILB, Document Services, Archives - What doesn't work:

· Overall systemic communication between various—no common base of knowledge (responsibilities of departments)--affects service (18 votes)

· Time assigned to tasks often arbitrary and unrealistic: Supervisors often not aware of changing amount of work (17 votes)

· Slow in filling vacant positions (slow in describing and advertising) (10 votes)

· Staffing: Should be adequate to handle peak demand (9 votes)

· Decision-making: Too centralized, too rigidly part of hierarchy: Decision-Makers may not clearly understand individual units (8 votes)

· Communication: Reporting channels often too rigid (2 votes)

· Time constraints regarding technical training (not enough time) (2 votes)

· Need more tours—awareness

· Lack of knowledge how library makes decisions/policies

· Slow in adapting new technologies (doesn't always meet patron expectations)

· Risk-taking not generally encouraged (though we pay lip-service to it)

· Non-competitive salaries

· Poor utilization of support staff on committees

· No reporting mechanism for upper management to report back to committee members how upper management used the committee's work in reaching final decision—no feedback on work of committee

· Weak partnerships with users and departments outside libraries to tackle common problems (exception: IS)

· Tech creating an impediment to talking directly w/ other staff ( in + out of lib.) - email, voice mail …

· Fewer large ineffectual meetings, more employee / supervisor communication

 

Miscellaneous input from cards:

 

· Performance evaluations

· Work is very rote

· Don't like working in basement, feel isolated from rest of libraries

· Physical appearance of department

· Catalog--[in]accurately reflects MIT's holdings

· Patron Instruction

· Database searching for ILB requests

· Need venue for staff to discuss issues such as customer service, copyright

· Decentralized library system

· Decision-making: lack of input, foresight

· Need computer support

ILB, Document Services, Archives - Service Priority: Deliver MIT Libraries' materials both physically and electronically

General points

· MIT Libraries should look like leader while these changes are being undergone

· Proactive vs. Reactive--anticipate needs

· Look at environment--what's coming--research , plan, coordinate w/ IS

 

Partnerships

 

· Look at direct ILL + forge partnerships

· Discuss how we should handle departments--labs--centers> discuss problems w/ them

· Take advantage of W3 tech resources here

· Book Page partnerships: delivery of books, etc.

· Discussion w/ interdepartmental mail reg. --delivery service. Retrieve overdue books while delivering!

· Coordinate w/ IS especially the electronic end within MIT

· Coordinate w/ departments being served in whichever format.

· Electronic diversity--coordinate w/ IS on this

· Electronic support from Libraries Systems

 

Benchmarking

 

· Involve staff in evaluating workflow, benchmarking

· Look at systems that have done this (desk top delivery)

e.g., UC Davis (?), HBS

· Example: disclaimer for faculty for 3rd party.

 

Planning

· Careful definition of goals

· Internal documentation what constitutes success.

· Start up + promotion for new services

· Old services under-promoted by design

· Have staff ready when new service starts

 

Pilot Projects

 

· Experiment w/ vendor software >with a particular dept., eg. British Libraries "Inside"

· Very experimental pilot project ? (who is intended user group? )

· Pilot w/ users - don't finalize until [it can be seen to work well]

(but can't give access, then pull away)

 

Space & Equipment Implications

 

· Lots of space--organize book delivery

· File space (electronic)

· Staffing space

· Scanners for staff

· Production facility

 

Technologies for users

 

· Become technologically fluent ourselves in order to serve

· Slow to implement tech users want/ expect

· Web page? Users get it themselves

· Format people prefer

· Be sure users want "x"

· Could someone use it in eclass?

· Define ultimate purpose -

· Policy for serving off- site mit researchers needed

· Which tech level will users need?

· Support responsibilities of tech

· Try relatively low-tech -

ex: re-faxing (quality degrade issue)

· Handle transmission of images--get standards

· Priority list of hi- tech to low-tech, but needs to match users' needs

· Assumptions of user preference could be overturned…

 

Turnaround time

 

· Timelines for patrons--how soon can I get it?

· Better communication about timeline--realistic

 

Funding/Cost

 

· Bill-back service or will Libraries eat cost?

· Retain cost-free to user services as they are now--not tiers of those who can afford/ not

 

Budgeting, staffing, impact on MITL etc.

 

· Level of tech upped cost disproportionately

· Examine present systems: do they work or not?

· Adequate staffing--provision to add as service changes

· Impact on existing staff: how will this effect other library departments (ex: delivery vs. circulation or reference)

 

Copyright

 

· Electronic journals--copyright problems w/ electronic delivery--what are restrictions?

· What is MIT's philosophy--how to negotiate contracts?

· Copyright issues to consider

· Archival preservation of electronic material

· Promote fair use

· Negotiate advantageously for users

· Strategic alliances w/ other libraries - e.g., Yale

back to the top

back to the table of contents

LTE AND STAFF ASSISTANT FOCUS GROUP 7/13/98

works / doesn't work / service priority discussion

LTEs & Staff Assistants - What Works:

· Training opportunities (21 votes)

· Staff as resources to other staff (availability and good attitude) (10 votes)

· Local communications (lateral, not vertical) (9 votes)

· Relaxed atmosphere (7 votes)

· LTE program (6 votes)

· Use of technology (5 votes)

· Openness (expressing ideas across all levels and up and down) (2 votes)

· Staff Web (as info and as representing us to outside)

LTEs & Staff Assistants - What Doesn't Work

· Getting and keeping staff (wages, opportunity for growth, assignment of duties, slowness of replacement) (24 votes)

· Communications up and down and between divisional libraries (unnecessary duplication of efforts, policies and procedures) (18 votes)

· Workload (lack of clear-cut priorities, extreme overburdening when LTW function added) (9 votes)

· Physical spaces (aesthetics, physical plant, lack of congruence with function, lack of space for materials and staff) (6 votes)

· Libraries' lack of stature at MIT (3 votes)

LTEs & Staff Assistants - Service priority: Changes and implications for "added technical support"

 

· Photocopiers entail two levels of service: simple and complex (paper replacement versus calling repair person); no middle ground.

· Structure of LTC/LTE under threat? arrangement breaking down? could degenerate into major problem of support?

· LTE's need clearer job descriptions

· LTE job an add-on, no time with the title

· Each LTE configured differently

· LTE gets short end in competition for resources

· Need assertive stance in recognition of importance of technology (in the form of adequate support)

· Standard skill set needed of all staff; expectations clearly stated from above

· Skills assessment of all staff needed

· Skills needed must be in context of departments

· Programmatic changes require new support, maintenance, and equipment (rising expectations and constant change); creates

· Slippage in proper levels of support

· Technical skills are dynamic in nature and require a dynamic support program

· Training partnerships should be formed

· LTE time commitment unclear

· LTE lacks legitimization and certification

· One LTC per library needed; appropriate level of support for each technical need must be determined, as well as where it will come from

· State-of-the-art versus playing catch-up (will we ever attain a state-of-the-art level?)

· Training: all staff, work out an agenda, not all from systems

· Most projects get their support primarily at the beginning. How do we decide which projects need constant dialogue between

· Systems and librarians?

· LTE's need to know what is expected of them, ground rules, priorities

· Are LTE's on the C3 agenda?

· LTE needs to be physically working in the unit they support

· LTE position needs to have professional development built in

· Media technology moving quickly, training and skill sets essential

back to the top

back to the table of contents

TEAMS FOCUS GROUP 7/14/98

works / doesn't work / brainstorming on wider use of teams

Teams - What Works:

· Cross-training/work sharing = flexibility and cooperation in time, tasks, and scheduling (14 votes)

· Supportive environment makes you feel more part of a work community (13 votes)

· Collaborative decision-making, ex. team hiring (10 votes)

· Problem solving/troubleshooting as a team (7 votes)

· Communication between team members ideally democratic (oasis in hierarchy) (6 votes)

· Greater productivity due to cross training and flexibility (3 votes)

· Autonomy/creativity (2 votes)

· Collective voice garners more respect (2 votes)

· communication w/in team and w/out

· non-hierarchical, everyone equal

· helps to vary tasks and duties, keeps boredom away

· shared understanding of libraries

· minimal bureaucracy

· sense of empowerment and respect

· accountability

· accomplishing enormous amounts of work

· no supervisor stress

· no competition

· "safety in numbers"--collective voice/strong-arming

· sharing responsibility for work so that it always gets done (during vacation, overloads, etc.)

· consensus decision making

· many sources for new information

· information desk experiment extends team to see more

· burden of special projects is shared

Teams - What Doesn't Work

· Difficulties/confusion in how teams work in a non-team environment (17 votes)

· Reliance on self-motivated, equal participation (9 votes)

· Confusions, gray areas in work responsibilities (8 votes)

· Consensus decision making can be arduous and slow (7 votes)

· Too much work is given/taken on, can become overload (7 votes0

· Tam success relies too much on similar personalities (7 votes)

· Expensive--proper allocation of resources in time, training, team meetings? (3 votes)

· No one pays attention to big picture

· Interpersonal relations can really test team

· A way to shove more work into fewer jobs

· Group priorities/ group priorities can conflict

· Without supervisor, less representation on decision making committees

· Instead of one, there are multiple supervisors

· Tend towards lack of diversity on team

· Tyranny of the majority

· Consensus can substitute for conscription

· Can provide a false sense of security

· Hard to make decisions quickly

· Collaborative decision making--each word/fine point/wording must be minutely examined to pass muster

· Takes lot of time to establish and maintain

· Can go overboard with ground rules (restrictive)

· Expensive

· Not always a unity of voice for team (communications outside of team)

· Supervisor role within team is delicate and sometimes difficult to manage

· Personal conflicts/miscommunications must be worked out without arbitrator

· Despite best intention, sometimes tasks don't get done

· Libraries don't understand how team works

· No one person makes swift decisions, can slow things down

· No formal evaluation/compensation program at MIT for teams

· No one to make tough decisions

· Making everyone accountability can be tricky

· Shared responsibility may mean less accountability

Teams - Brainstorm session on the implications of wider use of teams in the Libraries

Team Mindset:

 

· all members must want to be on a team

· for new teams, each member must ask "do you really want to do this"

· need to know WHY you're teaming

· prepare for timesink, many meetings

· prepare for flexibility

· be prepared to like job and those with whom you work

· sense of humor

· camaraderie (however crude)

 

Internal Dynamics

 

· accountability within team, how to encourage responsibility amongst sloths

· group pressure positive and negative

· hesitancy on part those not fully supportive/engaged to express opposition (majority rule)

 

Team Development

 

· trial period - does this work

· takes long time (2 years) to form fully functioning team

· formed with goal in mind beforehand

· teams inappropriate in some cases

· different types of teams -- goal oriented, short-lived, etc.

· conflict does not equal failure in the beginning

· self-managed or supervisor (matter of personality)

 

Team Training

 

· better team training - MIT team training is "insulting", should not be corporate coopted approach

· need groundrules

· interpersonal "stuff" needs to be part of training

· some call themselves "team", but not really trained and working as one

· training needed for everyone in all aspects of every team member's job

· existing teams should do training for new Libraries teams

 

External Dynamics

 

· needs support from person "above" team

· more teams would address territoriality, fewer turf wars

· beneficial to management to have multitasked staff

· more teams equal smoother operation outside?

· team more democratic, but limited by outside hierarchy

 

 

Benefits of a Team

 

· less duplication of effort

· keeps staff longer if interested in work they do

· Utopia

· would make Libraries more dynamic

· team hiring as example of group decision making

· can set own workflow, can say NO

· lower stress level

· inter-team communications would be more helpful

· involves more work doing more work whereas others do only one job

· seen by non-teamers as "ton of work", but not really

back to the top

back to the table of contents

REFERENCE/SUBJECT SELECTOR FOCUS GROUP 7/15/98

works / doesn't work / service priority discussion

Reference & Subject Selectors - What works:

 

· Combined reference and collections functions; subject expertise is important (13 votes)

· Local organization/units – local supervision works (12 votes)

· All staff work well together regardless of level; willingness to pitch in, share knowledge; this applies to staff relations with users as well (10 votes)

· Existence of local processing units; provides expertise and a link to collection services (8 votes)

· Support for professional development and training (room for improvement) (4 votes)

· Communications between subject experts with each other and with other functions enhances reference

 

Miscellaneous input from the cards:

 

· Flexible hours at reference

· Meetings only when necessary

· Branch libraries

Reference & Subject Selectors - What doesn't work:

Reference & Subject Selectors - Service Priority: What changes would have to be implemented and what would the implications be of an integrated service point?

Responsibility

 

· Who would know what and how much? Would reference be expected to know circulation?

· redefine job descriptions based on staff agreement

· training/ cross training

· Who would be involved at the desk – all public services staff?

 

Implementation

 

· Draw on branches experience

· Restructure reference hours?

 

Who will determine the scheduling and staffing of the desk?

 

There will be a lot of noise at one service desk.

 

There is a risk that this could quickly degrade to one person at the desk – staff retreating to office when the desk is not busy and is double staffed.

 

Working at one point could bring support staff and professional staff closer together.

 

 

back to the top

back to the table of contents

OPEN SESSION FOCUS GROUP 7/16/98

service priority discussion - integrated catalog
service priority discussion - integrated service point
service priority discussion - focusing on collections issues
service priority discussion - equipment & technical support

Open Session - Service Priority: Provide an Integrated Catalog/System

Cataloging

 

· Team to look at what's available in marketplace, what other libraries have

· More staffing needed to do Table of Contents cataloging

· Do you really want everything cataloged at the tables of contents level?

· What do we really want with tables of contents--is it helpful?

· Doing journals would be helpful

· Taking this to a new level of complexity

· Recatalog what we have?

· Go with vendor--outsourcing

· Training--some librarians do own cataloging

 

Interface

 

· Too many screens for patrons to go through

· Design single interface for all we've cataloged

· Seamless interface--click right to ejournals

· Plus, all resources should be available at reference desk--no "go here for this, there for that" (Special subject matter on a certain computer)

· Search all catalogs the same way--Z39.50

· Controlled vocabulary

· Thesauri

 

Impact on Staff

 

· Could lessen need for reference desk hours

· or could increase number of reference questions from home users

· Could improve efficiency of own jobs

 

Things to Consider

 

· Determining the level on which we can staff this

· Budget

· Have to define what service priorities mean

· And what do they mean to patrons?

 

 

Open Session - Service Priority: Provide a Single Integrated Service Point

General Comments

 

· Is ISP the current branch model?

· ISP should not be seen as a staffing-saver

 

Pilot Project

 

· Maybe we should try ISP model in a divisional library with significant traffic and evaluate after 6 months

 

Parameters for Variability

 

· Each unit needs to be free to decide precisely how they choose to do this

· MIT Libraries might offer three models and allow local units to decide

· Consider unique situation of Hayden: Couldn't have untended LAN on 2nd floor

 

Cross-training/Cross-over/Job Descriptions

 

· Training issues

· If there are 2 people at the desk, do they need to be cross-trained?

· Would circ staff do info and reference; reference staff do circ?

· At Dewey, circ staff already do info and reserves, but reference staff don't do any circ

· Would reference staff be prepared to fill in for circ?

· Not bad to train reference librarians in circulation but might want to limit it

· We don't want centrally mandated how much reference service circulation staff will provide, or how much circulation services reference staff will provide BUT concern that variation in job descriptions may negatively impact circulation staff

· Need to balance need for uniformity and allowing local units some autonomy

 

The Burden on Circulation

 

· Must think "self-service and ISP" together

· Important to have self-service checkout to decrease burden on circulation

· Now there is a greater burden on circulation and we need to not worsen this situation

· Need to be sure circulation doesn't end up absorbing--may mean need for more circulation staff

· Need commitment to fill circulation positions immediately

 

Info/General Reference vs. Expert Reference

 

· Need to distinguish general from expert reference

BUT if you have ISP positions, [patron] can't distinguish reference from circulation staff, so all need to be able to answer a question

· Fear of degradation of standard of reference service--and patron won't know why--ISP must work well for patron, or it's better not to do it

· Expert reference service doesn't necessarily have to be at ISP

· On-call model for reference

· Expert Humanities reference could be done on-call (especially because of unique Hayden situation)

 

New or Altered Job Descriptions

 

· Maybe should hire circulation staff explicitly to do info services

· Maybe need info/circ position hired as such

· Redesign some circulation positions for higher level?

(or divide circulation staff into distinct responsibilities, info services being one of several specializations possible)

· Create reference positions that include some circulation and info services but NO collections responsibility

· Link: compensation and responsibility

 

 

Scheduling

 

· Each unit needs to determine staffing and hour needs

· Needs may vary between units and what constitutes adequate reference coverage

· Cannot centrally mandate which services when

· Will be difficult to predict exactly when difficult reference questions will come

· Danger of double scheduling for reference librarians--both at desk and on-call

· Staff will have to be free to say: this service is not available at this moment

· Branches: students often run show for substantial amounts of time--would ISP functions be demanded of students and be in place when only students are staffing the desk?

· Recognize that some users would not benefit from a system where there's less constant expertise and more referrals

 

Physical Space Issues

 

· Need to reorganize desks and terminals

· Need a computer for each person at the desk

· Noise issues--could be chaos

· What if ready reference collection isn't near the desk?

Open Session - Service Priority: Enable Selectors to Focus on Collections Issues

Approval Plans

 

· Fine-tuned profiles

· Have to accept that Yankee Book Plan doesn't do some subjects well

· Implications: FastCat cheaper than YBP?

· Uniformity of cataloging: Don't go back to re-do, use benefit to maximum

· Would we be free to look at other approval plans?

· Canceling series--impact: would we have to buy individual conferences, go back to standing orders?

 

Storage

 

· Librarian and processing staff--streamline paperwork

· Two different things to move book--should request just go to 14E-210, starting a chain & initiating process?

· Sending back to Harvard Depository--just change the record? Does kind of material determine this?

· Where would we discuss this streamlining concept?

· RSC requires paperwork

 

Weeding

 

· Weeding implication--collection becomes canonical

· Weeding does not have a uniform effect in all disciplines

 

Support Issues

 

· Processing/collection support staff could help free up time

· Eliminate other subject selectors "random tasks" or hand work to others

· Example: Web work (except for intellectual content)

· Reference librarians finding articles, copying and faxing them--should they be doing this?

· Fewer desk hours would help balance

· More support for reference would help: general reference staff taking desks

· ESL--big support cuts recently

 

Job Descriptions & Roles

 

· Selectors/bibliographers seen more by appointment/consultation?

· Selection/reference combination good--but people still gravitate towards questions they know

· Would "just reference" generalists impoverish the position

· Another model--just a few bibliographers who do just a little reference

· Reference librarian was the department liaison in this case

· Bibliographer was able to do intensive foreign bibliography work

· Need more support for reference in our MIT model

· Reference and collection support

· Big budget to spend takes time--may not have time to do same reference hours as others

· Collection development librarian--responsibility alone depending on information from others (vs. Team)

· New program--benefits from Collection Development Librarian

· CJF coordinates between parties

· Pressure to spend money--easier to have one person responsible BUT in the worst case, that could mean just having one more person to convince--a damper on autonomy

· If we had more time to focus on special materials, is there space or money?

 

Coordination/Reporting Structure

 

· More interaction between subject selectors and, say, CJF--skip the levels

· Eliminate or rethink layers?

· Could we eliminate coordination of collections between divisions--is there too much staff time spent on avoiding duplications, for too little savings? : duplications, special orders, storage, mono standing orders vs. limited collections budget

· That was a strategy we established--could we reverse it?

· Could we carry money over and not lose it?

· If we don't spend in collections, they would want to spend the money somewhere else

· Need an easy way to shift money from one account to another

· Team--CMG?

· Team of selectors

· Could that help with duplication issue?

· Team thing to spend all money, balance work more?

 

Open Session - Service Priority: State-of-the-Art Equipment and Technical Support

· Hire competent tech support people and pay them well

· More uniform software and interfaces

· Clarify: who to go to for technical help

· Need centralized purchase and maintenance of high-end infrequently-used technical products, including software

· One common place for documentation (per unit)

· Formal, timely training for new software and equipment