Good afternoon,The purpose of this email is to update you on progress to date with the Public Services Redefinition and, in particular, the recommendations contained in the Organizational Issues Task Force report. As you probably recall, the report was presented to Steering Committee in early August, and it contained a number of specific recommendations as well as several choices of possible organizational models. Since the report was presented, Steering Committee has digested the information in the report and its appendices. After discussing the recommendations and variety of organizational models, we came to a tentative conclusion about the direction in which we think Public Services should go, at which point I went back to the OITF and presented our ideas. Members of the OITF were unanimous in supporting an organizational model that is a modification of one of the ideas presented in the report. The OITF and I would now like to bring our conclusions back to you, the staff, for a period of comment, feedback, and questions.
The organizational model we are considering is outlined below. Please read it carefully and think about how it applies to your job and your unit. The OITF, the PC Team, and I will be scheduling several open meetings in the next few weeks where the model will be presented in greater detail and time will be allotted for questions and answers. The PC Team will also work on creating mechanisms for staff to discuss this on the web or through a listserve, and you are welcome to email me, write me, or call me directly if you’d like to talk in person.
I want to repeat that this is not yet a "done deal". I view these next few weeks through the end of September as a period during which we can engage in healthy and open debate and discussion to identify weaknesses in the modified model as well as figure out ways we might tweak it to make it the best possible solution for the Public Services units of the MIT Libraries. Your input at this juncture is vitally important, so I hope each of you will find a comfortable way to express your opinions! At the same time we're discussing this internally, I will be seeking input from other members of the MIT community to be sure that this approach would be viewed as a positive development in the continuing evolution of our public services.
Proposed Modified Model One for the MIT Libraries' Public Service Units—A Three-Dimensional Approach:
- Five divisional librarians: one each for Barker, Dewey, Humanities, Rotch, and Science plus an Institute Archivist and Head of Document Services
- Collection managers and reference coordinators in each divisional library
- The Associate Head position is probably necessary in this model
- Creation of more focused job descriptions by asking each of the Librarians I, II, or III in the divisional libraries to choose a primary area of responsibility from the following: reference, selection, instruction/orientation/training. In addition, each of these librarians will be asked to choose a secondary area of focus. (p. 10 of the OITF report) Each divisional library will have at least one librarian who focuses on each of the three areas.
- Creation of a user-focused organization by asking each of the divisional librarians, the Head of Document Services, and the Institute Archivist to take responsibility for coordinating services to a specific user group such as undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, researchers, alumni, administration, and outside users. Professional staff in the divisional libraries will be asked to choose a group to focus on and to participate in a librarywide entity that oversees services to that group. Support staff may have the opportunity to participate. Each divisional library will have at least one person who focuses on each of the user groups.
- Establishment or creation of forums to serve the following functional groups: circulation, processing, reference, selection, and instruction. Convenors or chairs of these groups will be selected from the members of the groups and will rotate. (p. 12 of the OITF report)
- Establishment of an ISP pilot in either Dewey or Rotch with an evaluation after 6 months (p. 13 of the OITF report)
- Beginning to plan for the possibility of establishing of a "super ISP" in Hayden as recommended in the OITF report (p. 13 of the OITF report)
- Review of the placement in the organization of ILB to study whether it should remain part of the Humanities Library or become affiliated with another entity such as Document Services (p. 15 of the OITF report)
- Consideration of the creation of an Access Services Librarian position to manage Building 14 public space
- Continuation of the current structure of having the branches report to the divisional libraries
The intent of this modification of Model One is to create a solid user focus in public service units, to build a sense of "systemness" for divisional library staff, and to move decision-making down to lower levels in the organization. There are still issues to be addressed, including:
- career paths for support staff: We need input from Human Resources before proceeding.
- how the Hayden super ISP would work and what its relationship would be with the Science Library and Humanities Library
- how the Dewey/Humanities Processing Team would function with this structure
- what would happen to the jobs of people who currently split their time between two divisional libraries
One thing I'd like to stress is that the organizational changes outlined in this model are intended as recommendations that will better position us for future demands. In proposing this model, I want to publicly acknowledge the fine work Theresa Tobin, Ruth Seidman, and Margaret de Popolo have contributed to the MIT Libraries over the past years. I would also like to thank them for their good humor, flexibility, and professionalism in considering major changes in their organizational responsibilities. Ruth, Theresa, and Margaret, thank you for jobs well done and for setting an example for us!
As noted above, this model is still in the comment stage. As part of this, many implementation issues are likely to arise, so we will need to create a list of these to be kept and addressed in the future, assuming this ends up being the solution we pursue.
I’m very much hoping that you will be willing to share your reaction to this modified model one with members of the OITF and me and look forward to hearing from you.
Ginny
Ginny Steel
Associate Director for Public Services