Greetings!

One of my roles in the Public Services Redefinition Process is to establish the charge for each of the task forces and to clearly set the parameters of the task force assignments. As part of this responsibility, I developed a list of major issues that will be used as a starting point for the Organizational Issues Task Force to solicit input from staff. Now I’d like everyone else to have a copy of this so you’ll know some of the themes likely to be discussed in the coming weeks.

As you’ll see when you read the list below, answering any of these questions will require us to make decisions about the best way to ensure that the MIT Libraries continue to be a vital partner in MIT’s educational and research enterprise. Whatever we decide to do will be based on our values and service priorities.

I believe what we need to do is to think seriously about how we should structure ourselves to meet the challenges of being a first-class library in the 21st century. Doing this may mean that some jobs will change in a significant manner, and this is an unsettling prospect. Even so, I believe it is best that we discuss these questions openly and honestly rather than cloaking these types of deliberations with an aura of secrecy. I hope that everyone who is directly affected by these issues will participate in these discussions, and I am counting on you to share your thoughts and wisdom.

As I said in the original message announcing the Public Services Redefinition project, no decisions have been made at this point. Like each of you, I have my own opinions, but I am also eager to hear from all of you before we make any lasting choices about the directions we will go; this is why I have convened the task forces. These groups provide a mechanism for you to participate in the process of determining our collective future. In order for the MIT Libraries to achieve greatness, we all need to pull together toward a common goal, and part of that process is ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard.

Thanks for your patience with this process. Members of the Organizational Issues Task Force will be inviting your input shortly. If you have any questions or would like to talk with me, please feel free to contact me, or use the "Ask Ginny" section of the Redefinition webpage.

---

Organizational Issues Draft List from Ginny
May 15, 1998

1. Is the current structure of combined divisional libraries (Dewey and Humanities, Barker and Science, Rotch and Archives) an effective one? Will it enable us to meet our users’ needs in the future and to focus on our various user groups? Is this the best way to use our resources? Are the jobs that are split between two libraries do-able? Should we adopt another model and change the way we are organized? For instance, at some libraries, all operations that are similar report to one person, e.g., all reference units report to one person, all circulation units report to one person, all processing units report to one person. Or should there be teams established to focus on certain functions such as reference? Another related question is whether there should be a head of Hayden Library who would be responsible for all or most of the operations in Building 14?
   
   
2. What is the best way to deliver reference service in the MIT Libraries? Will the model change and develop over time? Should we try the Brandeis model? Should we establish information desks instead of reference desks?
   
   
3. How should we be organized to better communicate with our users and to educate them about resources and services available in and through the Libraries?
   
   
4. If we want to make our users self-sufficient, what changes in services do we need to make and how should we be structured to carry this out? For instance, if we want to move to a self-service circulation environment, are we able to do that efficiently with the current structure?
   
   
5. In a world-class organization, what is the best way to make use of our resources? Does our current structure with multiple small production units in public services make the best use of our resources? For instance, we have multiple processing units, multiple circulation units, and ILB—should these remain separate and distinct, or should they somehow be merged into other units to reduce the amount of administrative time spent managing them and to provide more robust levels of backup staffing?
   
   
6. Is our current structure of having almost all public service librarians be responsible for selection in assigned disciplines the most effective and efficient way to handle collection development and maintenance?
   
   
7. How should we structure ourselves to establish, maintain, and deliver electronic services? Are we adequately organized in public service units to cope with hardware and software issues?
   
   
8. Do we need to do anything different in terms of providing service to undergraduates?
   
   
9. Are there units or operations we currently support that could be phased out?
   
   

-- Ginny Steel, 6/01/98