RESPONSE TO CONCERNS REGARDING:
LIBRARIAN JOB DESCRIPTIONS
SUPPORT STAFF ISSUES
EXEMPT STAFF ISSUES
FUNCTIONAL FORUMS
USER FOCUS GROUPS
SUPPORT FOR SYSTEM WIDE GROUPS
INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT
ACCESS SERVICES LIBRARIAN FOR HAYDEN
10/15/98The purpose of this email is to take the next step in the Public Services Redefinition process by addressing issues that were raised in the recent town meetings and on the Redefinition website. Since the meetings and the October 6 deadline for comments, the OITF and I met to talk about the input we had received. Although many questions remain to be answered as part of the implementation process, the unanimous opinion of the OITF is that we should move ahead with Modified Model One. In doing this, our intention is to retain what has worked well in the past, while shifting our structure to accommodate changes necessary to enable our public services operations and staff to focus even more on meeting user needs. Each divisional library will undoubtedly end up with a slightly different approach to this new model depending on current staffing levels, vacancies, and the division of subject assignments. While this means that there will continue to be some ambiguity until the model is sorted out in each library, this will also allow more flexibility and ultimately a more tailored structure.
Members of the OITF recorded the questions asked during the town meetings and on the anonymous web form and developed the document that follows this message to clarify the major issues that emerged. If, after reading these responses, anyone still has deep-seated, seriousreservations about Modified Model One, please come see me. At this point in the process, one-on-one conversations will be more productive since they allow for more discussion than either large meetings or email/web exchanges.
Thanks to all of you who attended the town meetings and/or gave input during this stage of the process. Your questions and concerns have been heard and will be addressed either below or during the implementation process. At this point, we are ready to move ahead into the implementation stage for this model. Within the next day or so I will send another email message that will provide a basic outline of the implementation process. I am very pleased with our efforts to date and trust that you will continue to make contributions to the ongoing success of our Public Services redefinition project.
Ginny
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS REGARDING LIBRARIAN JOB DESCRIPTIONS
We have heard many concerns regarding the proposed model and how it will affect the jobs of librarians in the divisional libraries. Many of these comments reflect an uncertainty about precisely how the proposal will actually work. The fact is, all the details have not been fleshed out. Because the model is new and represents a departure from what we've done, we will certainly be refining it and defining it as we go along. We do know that the structure of the primary/secondary responsibility and the user focus groups will require coordination within each division and system-wide. We also know that the model will need to be applied with some degree of flexibility. For instance, it may be that a subject selector with major liaison responsibilities will only choose a primary area of responsibility plus a user group. Such an arrangement would need to be worked out in each divisional library as part of the implementation process.
We propose that all divisional libraries' librarians choose (from among collections, reference, and instruction) a primary and a secondary area. Obviously, individual librarians' work as subject selectors will still involve their performing all of these services as part of their liaison responsibility. The selector responsible for a subject will continue to provide in-depth subject reference, will continue to maintain the collection, and will continue to provide instruction to classes in that area. Equally obviously, the reference desk will continue to be staffed. What we envision would be something like this:
All the librarians in a division who select a particular primary or secondary choice will meet as a group and work on the department-wide projects, policies, issues, and so on in that area. The people who select reference will probably want to have more desk hours than those who don't; the people who select collections will probably buy in more accounts; those who select instruction will probably take a more active role in the department's instructional activities. It will be up to each unit to determine how to divide things up, but the point is that in the third area (the one that's neither your primary nor your secondary choice) your involvement will be reduced. Your colleagues, your supervisor, and you will all understand this. The allocation of which tasks are whose priorities will be decided by the librarians of each unit in the way that best serves that libraries' users.
Many people have asked whether the web wasn't worthy of being an area of specialization. It was our intention that web work would be distributed throughout this structure. Thus, the reference group would be concerned with web-based reference and with many of the electronic services; the collections group would be concerned with subject resources on the web; the instruction group would be charged with creating web-based instructional modules.
The system-wide implications of the primary/secondary focus will be discussed further by the Internal Communications Task Force. Quite possibly, all those who pick each area as a primary focus will eventually take on responsibility for relevant system-wide planning and coordination.
Another new feature of the model is the user focus groups: system-wide groups, each headed by a divisional librarian, which will plan services targeted toward a specific user group. Such groups will enable us to focus on users in new ways by targeting the users in addition to supporting our traditional subject focus. Further, these groups will create opportunities for all public service librarians to contribute to system-wide efforts and will also improve our visibility within the Institute by providing new ways to make Institute connections.
The intention of the model is not to diminish in any way the importance of the subject focus nor to weaken the connections with academic departments. We do intend to define how the work of a department gets distributed, to address the question of how to support services which cross departmental lines, and to enable selectors to bring greater focus to each aspect of our service programs--collections, reference, and instruction.
Some of the more specific questions will probably have to be worked through as part of implementation. For example, many people have commented that divisional libraries have collection managers and reference coordinators but not all of them have local coordinators for instruction. This is something we might want to work toward. It is also likely that a scaled-down version of the model will be set up to accommodate part-time librarians. It should also be noted that there are a number of public service librarians who do not work in divisional libraries (branch librarians, the ITL, librarian staff in Document Services, and so on.) These people will not be required to pick primary and secondary foci but will join one of the user groups and may also wish to participate in the system-wide functional fora. Another question that was raised during the comment period inquired about the continuing need for cross-training, collaboration, and rotations of staff among divisional libraries (e.g., Science and Barker). This model was developed with the goal of creating an environment that simultaneously encourages focus as well as a librarywide perspective. Librarians and other staff will be encouraged to sustain cross-training, rotations, joint meetings, and other activities that are helpful in sharing information and coordinating services across libraries.
One final clarification for librarian job descriptions as envisioned in this model is to be clear that the choices of primary/secondary responsibilities and user group focus are not permanent. In two or three years or if there is a vacancy in a divisional library, librarians will have the opportunity to either retain their current choices or to make changes.
The OITF report and its appendices detailed several major issues of concern regarding support staff. Based on feedback from Jennifer Walsh, the Libraries' Human Resources contact, support staff could have the opportunity to choose a specialization such as technology or information services. Doing this will require careful planning and discussion at the library/unit level to be sure that support staff are not being asked to do more work in the same amount of time or are being asked to work outside their classification level for a significant percentage of their time and to be sure that the workload is covered. This is an area in which the implementation process will make it clear whether and how such a model will work.
Another concern was raised regarding the classification of support staff jobs in the Libraries versus the classifications for support staff positions elsewhere in the Institute. This is something that Ginny will explore with Sheelah Britt and possibly Jennifer Walsh. Classification issues cut across the entire Institute, so the Libraries do not have autonomy in this area.
In the first town meeting, several questions regarding LTE job descriptions were asked. Eric Celeste is already working on guidelines for LTE jobs and has pulled together a representative group from across the Libraries and that includes Jennifer Walsh. More information on LTE job descriptions will be coming from that group in the next few months.
Right now there is no career ladder for exempt staff. The model does not contain any remedy for this situation, but this concern has been noted by Ginny and will be pursued over the coming months. Because this involves classification levels across the Institute, this is not an issue that the Libraries can handle internally, and it is hard to say whether anything can be done, especially in a short timeframe. However, we can at least try!
In order to bridge the divisional library structure the OITF recommended functional forums for the following: circulation, processing, reference, instruction, and selection. These are to be made up of all staff involved in the particular function and will provide the opportunity for staff to meet on a regular basis to address issues of common concern. These forums do have the potential to be decision making groups. The Internal Communications Task Force will be making recommendations about these groups including:
-- whether to add additional forums (such as administrative support).
-- whether the forums are to be a decision making body and/or a vehicle for communication and information sharing.
-- how these forums will fit into the committee structure of public services.
-- how these forums will communicate with each other and to the library staff at large.
The user focus groups were intended to oversee and coordinate services to particular user groups. Working with Ginny Steel these groups will determine themselves how they want to proceed in overseeing services to user groups. All professional staff including exempt staff will be asked to choose a user group to focus on. Support staff will have the opportunity to participate depending on their current job responsibilities and agreement from their supervisor and department head.
SUPPORT FOR SYSTEM WIDE GROUPS:
Since the work of the systemwide groups will require varying degrees of administrative support, one of the issues the Internal Communications Task Force is looking at is how this might be handled. At the very least, as these groups get formed and launched, each one will need to include a discussion about the type of support needed and who and how this can be arranged.
The establishment of Integrated Service Points satisfies numerous existing conditions and future priorities. Since the public confuses circulation and reference staffs and views all of us as librarians, locating both staffs and their functions in one place will help to alleviate this confusion. Because circulation staff already provides information service, it should be recognized and enhanced with training and support. A single service point raises the knowledge level of all public service staff while promoting unified, complementary services. Increased mobility for all staff providing public services is effected through cross-training and concentration of staff.
Circulation and reference staff will be required to have at least minimal levels of training or knowledge about all levels of public service functions. Reference interactions which require in depth subject knowledge will be the librarians' responsibilities. On demand or by appointment services will be determined by each unit. Circulation staff will not be expected to provide in depth reference service. Reference staff will be expected to know basic circulation functions only.
The development and implementation of ISP's will require input from all staff involved. The ISP is an evolving concept which will encompass differing issues from unit to unit. For the ISP in Hayden, lines between functions may be more clearly drawn, due to additional functions which may be assigned to that ISP and the higher use which would accompany them.
ACCESS SERVICES LIBRARIAN FOR HAYDEN:
The possibility of hiring an access services librarian to be responsible for public spaces in Hayden is an idea that was briefly discussed late in the OITF's process. At first glance there seems to be significant appeal in having one point person responsible for areas such as the Hayden basement. Other responsibilities could also be included in an access services librarian's job such as supervision of Hayden circulation and stacking, supervision of ILB, and even potentially responsibility for the Hayden Super ISP. This entire idea needs further discussion among people who would be affected by it, so Ginny will meet with Building 14 occupants in the near future to start this process.
To the OITF Report
To the P.S. Redefinition Home PageSite maintained by the Process Communications Task Force. Contact Pam Burke (phyll@mit.edu)