Michael Finigan (Co-convenor)
Marlene Manoff (Co-convenor)

Nina Davis-Millis
Margaret DePopolo
Daniel Eppelsheimer
Shana Gass
Deborah Helman
Michael Leininger
Christina Moore
Sarah Shreeves
Virginia Such
Donna Webber

August 1998

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A message from Ginny Steel concerning this document

Charge/Process

Underlying Principles

Divisional Library Structure
Model One
Model Two
Model Three
Addendum: Model Four
**Addendum: New Proposed Model [9/98]

Impact/Issues to be Considered

Creating More Focused Job Descriptions

Enabling Selectors to Focus on Collections

Bridging the Divisional Structure

Implementing the Integrated Service Point

Creating a Virtual Undergraduate Library Team

Providing Centralized Document Delivery

Managing Public Space in Science and Humanities Libraries

Encouraging Team Development

Appendices

Appendix A: Further Issues for Consideration

Appendix B: Staff Concerns

Appendix C: Summary of Interviews with Steering Committee Members, Divisional Librarians, and Sheelah Britt

Appendix D: Summary of Interviews with Associate Heads

Appendix E: Focus Group Summaries

Appendix F: Responses via Web Form on Service Priorities

Appendix G: Responses via Web Form on Organizational Issues

---

To all members of the Libraries staff:

Below you will find a copy of the extensive, thoughtful, and thought-provoking report from the Organizational Issues Task Force. Marlene Manoff and Michael Finigan, the OITF convenors, met with Steering Committee on Thursday, August 6th, to present the report. After a lengthy question-and-answer session, Steering Committee accepted the report. I would like to publicly thank all members of the OITF for their hard work on this task. Their dedication to identifying issues of concern to Public Services staff and their suggestions for ways we might resolve some of these issues will be very useful to me and other members of Steering Committee.

The next step in considering the recommendations included in the OITF report will be to continue the discussions in Steering Committee. This will happen next week and will continue until decisions have been made. We hope to do this as expeditiously as possible so that we can announce any changes that will occur as soon as possible. At that point we will move into the implementation phase. In the meantime, I appreciate your patience with the process.

I realize that there are recommendations in the report that could have a significant impact on some staff jobs, and I understand how difficult this period of ambiguity will be until definite decisions about Public Services structure and staff are made. It is my hope that these decisions will happen quickly, and I promise you all that I will work hard to make this happen.

Once again, I'd like to thank the OITF members for their exemplary efforts! I am confident that the MIT Libraries' Public Services operations will benefit from the work they did!

Ginny

Ginny Steel
Associate Director for Public Services
MIT Libraries

---

Charge

To help public services staff raise organizational issues for general discussion and consideration for change. The task force will be expected to review the current structure of merged divisional libraries to determine whether this structure is the most efficient and effective in meeting our users' needs, in creating an environment in which staff can deliver the best services, and in using our resources effectively. The task force may propose alternative structures that might better enable us to achieve our service priorities. The task force should create a list of issues and work with Ginny Steel to group similar issues, to decide who should discuss these issues and make recommendations, and to determine the timetable for review of these issues. This task force will not be responsible for actually handling each organizational issue itself but will plan the process and schedule that will allow us to consider all high-priority issues.

THE PROCESS

1. Reviewed charge

2. Reviewed list of questions from Ginny Steel (see Appendix A)

3. Gathered information

a. developed list of focus groups from which to solicit input
b. identified staff to be interviewed
c. developed list of questions for focus groups and interviews
d. conducted interviews (see Appendices C and D)
e. conducted focus groups (see Appendix E)
f. solicited staff input via anonymous web form to an organizational issues questionnaire (see Appendix F)
g. solicited staff feedback via anonymous web form on implementing the service priorities (see Appendix G)

4. Synthesized results of staff input, including focus groups, interviews and web forms

a. organized input into broad categories
b. identified major issues

5. Developed draft recommendations

6. Refined recommendations; composed report

---

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

After synthesizing the large volume of staff input represented in the appendices, a broad consensus of staff opinion emerged on certain underlying principles. Our recommendations were driven by consensus on those issues:

• The need to create an organizational structure that will best allow us to serve our user community

• The need to create an organizational structure that supports front-line staff in providing user services

• The need to broaden staff input in decision-making

• The need to create an environment that fosters initiative

• The need to encourage and support staff in developing areas of expertise

---

THE DIVISIONAL LIBRARY STRUCTURE

Administration of the divisional libraries

Staff see the school-mapped structure as a strength of the MIT Libraries because it allows each library unit to focus on a specific segment of the user population and to deliver an appropriate, selected array of services. However, many staff believe the mergers of the divisional libraries have not been successful. Jobs are divided between units, resulting in conflicting and uneven job priorities. Some jobs, such as the Associate Head positions and possibly the department head positions, are considered to be especially problematic because they are not structured to allow adequate focus on the delivery of services to users.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Retain the divisional library structure and do not establish a formalized matrix. The Institute Archives should exist independently and not report to one of the Divisional Librarians. Adopt one of the following models:

1) Five Divisional Librarians and an Institute Archivist

2) Three Divisional Librarians as heads of merged units, five Associate Heads, and an Institute Archivist

3) Heads for Barker, Dewey, and Rotch, a Head for Hayden Library, and an Institute Archivist

The three models each have advantages and disadvantages. They are presented on the following pages.

---

MODEL ONE: FIVE DIVISIONAL LIBRARIANS

• There is a Department Head in each divisional library
• There is a Collection Manager in each divisional library
• There is a Reference Coordinator in each divisional library
• The Associate Head position may or may not be necessary in this model

Advantages

• The five divisional libraries correspond to MIT's five schools; there is a high-level person in each divisional library to focus on links to the schools
• Each divisional library has an on-site head/manager whose job allows sufficient time to focus on user needs for the targeted MIT community
• The Divisional Librarian is close to unit functions, can participate in them more easily, and can provide closer direction on ways to make them responsive to user needs
• The Divisional Librarian is more knowledgeable about local issues and thus better able to represent the unit and user community on library-wide committees
• The Divisional Librarian can communicate information gathered from committees and other central sources within the Libraries and the School more quickly to the local unit
• Staff members have a stronger relationship with the Divisional Librarian and can more clearly understand unit goals, objectives, and priorities
• Office space and "travel" time can be used more efficiently
• The Collection Manager and the Reference Coordinator provide the head with a natural management team

Disadvantages

• The Divisional Librarian must make a greater effort to achieve a broad view of the MIT Libraries and overall MIT community
• The Divisional Librarian is more isolated and possibly more parochial in outlook than the merged-unit head
• The Divisional Librarian loses some flexibility in planning, staffing, and budgeting by having only the resources available in a single unit to manage
• The unit loses diversity of experience from a larger staff and may be affected by the loss of wider staff contacts
• The Divisional Librarian may be seen as less powerful and influential by academic department heads and faculty
• If there is no Associate Head, the Divisional Librarian may have to spend so much time directly supervising staff that s/he is unable to spend time in planning and managing resources to best meet user needs
• Two more positions filled as Divisional Librarians will probably result in two fewer front-line staff

---

MODEL TWO: THREE DIVISIONAL LIBRARIANS AND FIVE ASSOCIATE HEADS

The mergers of Humanities/Dewey and Engineering/Science would remain intact. Rotch and the Institute Archives would be unmerged The Associate Head in each library would be responsible for the supervision of day-to-day activities There would be a Collection Manager and Reference Coordinator in each library. The Associate Head position may or may not be assigned one of these responsibilities

Advantages

• The head of two divisional libraries can be a stronger voice in helping to set priorities and directions for the MIT Libraries because s/he represents a larger user base
• The head of subject-compatible units may have some leverage in dealing with the needs of the increasing number of interdisciplinary academic programs
• Decision-making in merged units is potentially broader based, less parochial, and focused on the overall goals of meeting user needs
• The Divisional Librarian has greater flexibility in deploying staff and managing other resources to coordinate and fine-tune library services to user demands and expectations
• Coordination of programs and services for users can be accomplished more easily with fewer heads
• The Divisional Librarian has immediate access to a larger staff who have a wider range of experience and greater diversity of opinion
• Having an Associate Head in each unit improves on-site management and enables continuing focus on the specific user community served by that library
• The two Associate Head positions provide the head with a natural management team
• Supervision may be more easily divided and managed
• With fewer heads, more positions can conceivably be dedicated to serving users on the front lines

Disadvantages

• The combined Head/Associate Head structure increases the hierarchy in the unit and may distance the Head from daily operations
• It is difficult for the head to maintain a presence in both libraries, so knowledge of user needs and library operations may suffer
• The specific combination of units envisioned in this model may not make sense intellectually, programmatically, or geographically
• Space, always at a premium, is not well used if heads have offices and equipment in two locations, and heads will have to spend time traveling between two locations

---

MODEL THREE: HEADS FOR BARKER, DEWEY, AND ROTCH AND A HEAD OF HAYDEN LIBRARY

• Dewey, Barker, and Rotch would follow the pattern outlined in Model One

• We propose the following management configuration for Hayden:

  A department head

  A Reference Coordinator for Humanities and a Reference Coordinator for Science

  A Collection Manager for Humanities and a Collection Manager for Science

  Associate Heads might help in managing the large number of units reporting to the Department Head.

  Associate Heads might be either Reference Coordinators or a Collection Managers

  Supervision for circulation, processing, and ILB would have to be determined

  There is a Humanities reference desk in addition to the ISP

Advantages

For Barker, Dewey, and Rotch, these would be the same as Model One

For Hayden Library:

• One person would be responsible for all operations in the Hayden Library which should result in better coordination
• Users would benefit by seeing a more consistent look and set of services
• Space and services could be managed more efficiently in Hayden
• The head of Hayden Library would have greater flexibility in deploying staff and managing other resources to meet user needs
• Hayden staff could be charged with the coordination of focused services to undergraduates

Disadvantages

For Barker, Dewey, and Rotch, these would be the same as Model One

For Hayden Library:

• The administrative structure increases the hierarchy in the unit and may distance the head from daily operations
• The specific combination of units envisioned in this model may not make sense intellectually or programmatically
• May be too many units reporting to one head
• Not consistent with the model of school-mapped divisional libraries

Impact/To be considered if any of these models is implemented:

• How would cross-divisional teams (e.g., Humanities/Dewey Processing Team) work in each of these structures?

• What happens to jobs that are currently split between divisional libraries?

• How do we bridge the divisional structures, giving staff in each unit a broader view of the MIT Libraries?

• How do we integrate the Institute Archives into the overall library organization?

• How do we redeploy existing staff in a new structure?

• What would be the role of the branches in the various models?

• What possibilities for collaboration would persist for unmerged units?

CREATING MORE FOCUSED JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Staff at all levels in public services report that jobs are too broad and too fragmented. Both services to users and our ability to retain staff would benefit from giving staff the opportunity to develop areas of specialization. Librarian staff have identified the subject selector/reference positions as especially problematic. Selection and reference are perceived as complementary, yet the jobs as presently constituted are too big. Selectors feel they don't have enough time to do anything well. Professional and support staff have few career paths or opportunities for advancement.

We recommend that Librarians I, II, and III in Divisional Libraries choose from the list below one primary area of responsibility and one secondary area. All three will involve a significant electronic component.

• reference
• selection
• instruction/orientation/training

Both Divisional Librarians and Associate Heads would have one area of specialization in addition to their administrative functions. We recommend that current librarian staff in the divisional libraries be given the opportunity to choose their primary and secondary responsibilities. Each divisional library would work out for itself an appropriate mix of specializations; current vacancies could be used to hire people with the specialties not covered by current staff. The goal of this recommendation is to encourage librarians and their supervisors to set priorities and to develop more focused job descriptions. It is not meant to be rigidly imposed.

Support staff indicate frustration with the lack of career paths and with appropriate levels of compensation for added levels of responsibility. We recommend that support staff be encouraged to develop areas of specialization, such as technology and information service. A technology specialist should be designated in each circulation or processing unit or team. Staff members, including administrative assistants, should be offered the same training opportunities as Library Technology Experts (LTEs). This will provide a means of grooming staff for the LTE positions and potential career paths for support staff.

We recommend designating a circulation/information specialty and a processing/information specialty with formalized training, including the opportunity to learn advanced database searching skills. This would help provide staffing for the Integrated Service Point. Support staff who develop these specialized skills should be compensated appropriately. We could use vacancies to hire people with skills and interests not met by local units.

ENABLING SELECTORS TO FOCUS ON COLLECTIONS ISSUES

In order to implement the service priority addressing the need for more time to be devoted to collection development, we recommend:

• The Libraries adopt the model of primary and secondary specializations as described above. Those who choose selection as their primary area would be encouraged to limit their hours on the reference desk so as to allow them to focus more on collections. They would be expected to provide advanced reference as needed.

• More collections support for selectors, including the possibility of additional student hours. The ability of processing staff and selectors to work together to build and maintain collections should be strengthened. Processing staff who choose to specialize in technology would work with selectors on subject web pages.

• Local processing staff, working with Technical Services, assess how Advance has impacted local processing and workflow and use this information to streamline local processing. The focus should be on eliminating redundancies and providing value to patrons. Local practices within processing units would be identified and evaluated; procedures for justifying or eliminating them would be developed.

• Continued refinement of the Yankee approval plan profile, expanding approval plans to include non-U.S. vendors.

BRIDGING THE DIVISIONAL LIBRARY STRUCTURE

No matter how the Divisional Libraries are administered, there will continue to be a geographic separation of the units. Effective communication among staff is therefore of tremendous importance. Because so many staff commented on communications issues, we will be passing this information on to the Internal Communications Task Force.

We recommend the following organizational structures to provide better coordination as well as communication between functions dispersed among the units:

• A forum for each of the following functional groups in public service units: circulation, processing, reference, and selection. These will provide the opportunity for staff to meet on a regular basis to address issues of common concern. Convenors, to be appointed by the Associate Director for Public Services, would be responsible for agenda-building and would serve as system-wide coordinators of public service functions.

• A decision-making committee to address local processing issues. Membership should consist of processing supervisors, a processing representative from the branches, and representatives from Technical Services. Members from public services will be appointed by the Associate Director for Public Services in consultation with the processing supervisors.

• Meetings of interdisciplinary subject selectors (coordinated by CMG) with particular attention to the needs of interdisciplinary research centers and labs. The selector forum could also address the implications of interdisciplinarity for collection development.

• An instruction team consisting of librarians who choose instruction as their primary or secondary area. This group, to be appointed by the Associate Director for Public Services, will focus on building web modules for library instruction.

IMPLEMENTING THE INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT

An Integrated Service Point (ISP) will be established in each Divisional Library, combining the resources of the circulation and reference units in a central and highly visible site. We recommend that the ISP be jointly managed by the Circulation Supervisor and Reference Coordinator in each unit. Data gathered from staff suggest the implementation of this service priority may have a significant impact not only on the quality of service provided to patrons, but also on the nature of work required by circulation and reference staff. For this reason we recommend job descriptions be reviewed and updated as the concept of the ISP evolves in each library. We recommend group process training for all staff who work at the ISP to ensure a successfully functioning and cooperative group.

The present configuration of space in the Dewey and Rotch libraries allows for the creation of an ISP with a minimum of construction. We recommend the establishment of a pilot ISP in either the Dewey or Rotch Library, with an evaluation after 6 months.

THE HAYDEN INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT Because of its central location and because of the perception by many patrons that it is MIT's "main" library, Hayden offers an opportunity for the creation of a "super ISP". We recommend a number of changes to consolidate in the Hayden ISP various public service functions:

• The relocation of the Reserve Book Room collection and staff to the Hayden circulation desk. This will consolidate all staff reporting to the Supervisor of Hayden Circulation into one space and free the current Reserve Book Room for other library purposes.

• The relocation of the Science reference desk from the Science Library to the Hayden ISP. We recommend keeping a separate Humanities reference desk on the Hayden 2nd floor.

• The establishment of a Document Services and ILB presence in the Hayden ISP. This will bring more visibility to document delivery and provide easier access for patron requests and retrievals.

• Centralize in one location the issuance of privilege cards for all non-MIT users. P-cards and cards for patrons from other BLC libraries would be issued at this point, as well as Harvard privilege cards and BLC cards for MIT users.

CREATING A VIRTUAL UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY TEAM

We recommend that services for undergraduates be managed by a virtual undergraduate library team with representation from all the divisional libraries. Locating the responsibility for undergraduate services in a system-wide team rather than a single space conceived as an undergraduate library would allow for growth of programs over time and added flexibility in following the developments in undergraduate education at the Institute. This undergraduate services team would focus on developing orientation, instruction, publicity and collections for undergraduates. The team would work with the Office for Undergraduate Academic Affairs as well as faculty involved with and interested in undergraduate education, to ensure that services and policies accord well with the needs of undergraduates. The team might also undertake long-range planning for spaces designed for undergraduate use, including group study space and additional and improved Athena clusters.

We believe that the existence of a group dedicated to undergraduate services would yield significant benefits, allowing the Libraries to demonstrate the value of its expertise, facilities and collections; forge closer working relationships with faculty and students; and enable the Libraries to develop a leadership role in undergraduate education at the Institute in a time of changing goals and expectations. The existence of an active undergraduate services group might also provide a focus for fund-raising and donor relations in years to come.

We recommend the team be appointed by the Associate Director for Public Services.

PROVIDING CENTRALIZED DOCUMENT DELIVERY

The task force did not have the time to investigate all the issues involved in providing rapid centralized document delivery to library patrons.

We recommend that a group look more closely at the operations of ILB and Document Services. We propose that the group consist of Keith Glavash, Margret Lippert, Michael Pavelecky, and Theresa Tobin. The group would consider such issues as whether ILB and ILL should be under the same roof physically and managerially, the implications of providing a public service function in a for-profit environment, and the potential for linking ILB with another unit in Building 14.

MANAGING PUBLIC SPACE IN HUMANITIES AND SCIENCE LIBRARIES

Many staff commented that public space in the Science and Humanities libraries is not well maintained. The ability of patrons to locate materials, re-shelving of materials, storage planning and implementation, and aesthetics were some of the frequently mentioned issues. The situation is further complicated by uncertainty over who is responsible for maintenance of the Hayden basement.

We recommend the creation of a Building 14 team to coordinate the maintenance of public space in Humanities, Science, and the Hayden basement. The team would consist of one representative each from Hayden circulation, Science processing, Humanities processing, and one librarian each from Science and Humanities. The team should have a budget and be empowered to make and implement decisions. The heads of the Science and Humanities Libraries will be responsible for appointing team members.

ENCOURAGING TEAM DEVELOPMENT

The success of the Dewey/Humanities processing team and the Rotch circulation team suggest that the Libraries should consider adopting a team approach in other local processing and circulation units. Teams provide a vehicle for collaborative decision-making, foster the growth and empowerment of staff, and provide for more efficient use of staff resources.

We recommend that divisional library circulation and processing units be offered the opportunity to develop a team and receive team training.

Further Issues for Consideration from Ginny Steel

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?

Further appendices

A SYNTHESIS OF FREQUENTLY EXPRESSED STAFF CONCERNS

To hear from the Director - her vision for the Libraries as well as periodic reports on the work she is doing

A clearer articulation of priorities from Steering Committee

A formal planning process

Better communication/coordination between Public Services and Collections Services

Uniform policies and procedures

More attention to professional development, career paths, mentoring and salaries for all staff

Faster filling of vacancies to prevent the demoralization of long vacant positions

Better coordination of space planning and allocation; clearer responsibility for day to day issues of keeping space orderly and attractive

Greater clarity about the kinds of decisions staff at all levels are empowered to make

Someone to coordinate publicity and a publicity team

Much broader and more evenly distributed participation on committees

More attention paid to problems of using student staff

A resuscitation of the Library Staff Association and more opportunities for social interaction among staff

Further appendices