Denison University & Kenyon College Library Technical Services

Work Redesign

OVGTSL 2005 Annual ConferenceMay 11-13, 2005

Representing the Denison-Kenyon Library Technical Services Work Redesign Team

Ellen ConradWilliam Howard Doane Library

Denison UniversityGranville, Ohio

Andrea PeakovicLibrary and

Information ServicesKenyon CollegeGambier, Ohio

Our Context

Both are members of the Five Colleges of Ohio consortium (plus Oberlin, Ohio Wesleyan, & College of Wooster)

Denison, Kenyon, OWU, and Wooster share an online catalog

All five college libraries share a joint storage facility

All are members of OhioLINK*statewide union catalog of 88 academic libraries (public, private, research to community colleges)*direct patron-initiated borrowing from any institution*consortial purchase of 100+ databases

Library Profiles

Denison 8,400 volumes/yr 1,200 periodicals Federal documents

depository 35% selection

10 FTE’s Includes part-

time and split positions

Kenyon 6,200 volumes/yr 1,200 periodicals Federal documents

depository 34% selection

10 FTE’s Includes part-

time and split positions

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Grant

January 1, 2004 – August 15, 2005

Goal of the Project

“To improve access to information resources and create value-added services for our patrons through the cooperative efforts of the libraries of Denison University and Kenyon College”

Pre-Committee & Its Charge

Pre-committee: 3 Directors, 1 TS Head, 1 Cataloging Head, 1 Public Service Librarian, 1 Online Catalog Manager, 1 Paraprofessional Cataloger

Background study Reengineering the Corporation (Hammer & Champy)

Created grant proposal Process map Case for action Vision statement Budget

Plan for the Task Force Hired Project Consultant

The Task Force & Its Charge

Task Force:four from Denison (2 librarians,2 support staff)

five from Kenyon (2 librarians, 3 support staff) and the consortium system manager Facilitator was appointed by Directors Hired consultants

Charge: Create a robust system for combined library technical services in which the focus is on constantly evolving patron information needs, research patterns, and desires. The system must be flexible, transferable, malleable, and adaptable.

Objectives of the Project

Apply dramatic efficiencies to 80% of what we currently purchase

Streamline receipt and delivery Reallocate resources to enhance our

collections so they better serve our users. Empower our technical services division to

create new services and manage information in all formats

Enable our users to fully realize the liberal arts in an age of electronic information.

Key Planning Processes

Vision Statement

Planning Assumptions and Principles

Workflow Model

Final Plan

Significant Task Force Activities

Task Force retreat All-staff retreat Workflow evaluation by outside Consultants Background information

Reading plans Web searches Conferences

Information exchange All-staff meetings Minutes & monthly reports Email distribution list

Drafting final plan

Task Force Retreat

Two-day retreat, Roscoe Village Task Force, Directors, and Consultant

Key Outcomes: Work redesign principles Planning assumptions List of questions Environmental assessment Vision—the ideal Development of initial work redesign What we need to know and learn Group agreements Timeline

Library Work Redesign Task Force Group Agreements

1. Avoid side conversations. 2. Say what we think and listen with respect and attention. 3. Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive areas/topics and who said what. Be explicit when this is needed. 4. Agree as a group what is to be reported out of our meetings. 5. Issue frequent reports (perhaps an e-newsletter). 6. Encourage the “devil’s advocate” position to be expressed and respect it. 7. Let each other know when something is said or occurs that upsets or may offend. 8. All will monitor the progress (both in results and process); and offer timely feedback (what is working, not working). 9. Discuss concerns in the group. 10. Adjust the agenda when necessary (e.g., agree to return to a topic if we can’t reach closure). Added after the retreat: 11. Keep on topic and speak up when we see that we are wandering and need to redirect or focus. 12. Use consensus building techniques to reach decisions.

Evolution of a Vision…

"The organizational restructuring of the four libraries was discussed to allow for the consolidating of technical services functions. Monographs could be purchased and cataloged through a single monographic department for the four colleges. Serials might be acquired and processed through a single department. Standards for cataloging would need to be accepted by each of the four colleges, however, membership in OhioLINK would bring about this standardization."

May 31, 1994Paul Gherman, Kenyon College

Evolution of a Vision…

Grant Proposal: “A single collection management unit…responsible for:” [paraphrased]

Acquiring resources in all formats; Managing resources to maximize usefulness; Improving users’ access to resources—both physical and

virtual; Leading the Ohio5 consortial collection development

initiatives; Managing the Ohio5 off-site storage facility; Continuously adopting, adapting and innovating ways to make

research more comprehensive & efficient to use.

“This unit will organize its work process around the current and future needs of our patrons, making no assumptions about existing processes, while fully embracing technological and managerial innovations in our field.”

Vision Points from the Retreat

Provide tools (software) that enable people to do collection development and acquisitions at the same time.

Stimulate multiple orders this early Include mechanisms to alert system to this activity Provide intellectual view of collection as a whole Unit interacts with people in other units People across libraries have joint understanding of work as a whole;

collaborate to plan development of tools, finding aids, etc.(R & D capacity for whole organization)

Acquire materials as one unit to serve patrons at different locations Act as a whole unit Cooperative selection

Apply 80/20 rule here? With approval plan Increase/broaden book approval plans

Cooperative (physical and cataloging) processing (80/20) Central location Check-in

Central library with local browsing collectionslibrary role/image focuses on teaching/learning

Remove bound periodicals? 20% (quirks,exceptions) are handled locally Handle serials differently-new approach-streamlined, ROI approach

UNLV model Common budgeting/accounting system

?feasible to merge acquisitions budget? Open up more space in library (weed, send to storage, etc.) Address overlaps, hand-offs, redundancies Consolidate data base/catalog management into one unit Collaborationimprovement in service at both Everything is in the catalog

Seamless for patron Create unit that continues to provide common search point

Vision Points from All-Staff Retreat

Categories we identified: Staff and staffing issues CONSORT Catalog Service User needs/desires Use of space Technical resources (vis-à-vis use of

systems Miscellaneous

Staff and staffing issues:

a. more widespread awareness of the role and functions of technical services (3)

b. consistent application of consortial policies (presumption of existence of said policies)

c. consistent and timely incorporation of resources into catalog d. cross-training of staff (3) e. flexibility of staff (3) f. solicitation/volunteering of specific suggestions for improvements (2) g. online tutorials (2) h. more training (4) i. sensitivity to staff concerns (2) j. staff empowerment (4) k. recognize and take advantage of individual (person and/or institution)

strengths CONSORT Catalog:

a. single record for multiple versions of a title (6) b. additional resources in the catalog (selected web sites, eresources,

databases, etc.) (3) c. personalize the catalog for each user (saved searches, favorites, etc) d. maximize existing functionality (2) e. in general, make the catalog better (3) f. manage access to licensed resources

Service:

a. streamline processes, shorten time between publication and access (9) b. eliminate redundancies, within and across institutions (6)

User needs/desires:

a. one-stop shopping (10) b. more patron education(4) c. simpler, more straightforward access d. online tutorials e. dynamically updated subject guides (as part of acq/cataloging

process) (2) f. current and relevant collection development policies/processes g. anticipation (3) h. data-mining (2)

Use of Space:

a. more use of remote storage to increase user space in individual libraries

b. better use of existing space (2) Technical resources:

a. all systems have to be current and robust enough to support delivery/utilization of resources (2)

Miscellaneous:

a. centralization of book repair b. familiarity with our users c. adequate funding and institutional support d. shared funding e. consideration of our users’ needs, rather than just the current trends

The group compared lists of Vision Statements from both the all-staff retreat and the January retreat. For each set of statements, we discussed the wording, and whether or not the statement reflected a “vision” or just a possible “outcome to keep in mind.” After tweaking and consolidating our ideas, we came up with 5 sentences. Then we went back to page 14 of the proposal and tested our statements against the “vision outcomes.” This is the result:

Vision Statement Italics=from proposal page 14 (integrating vision outcomes)

1. Act as a whole unit to best serve users at multiple locations.

(enhancing services for our scholarly communities) (consideration of how to best use local and storage facility resources)

2. Provide intellectual representation of collection as a whole.

(physical & virtual resources/accesses)

3. Promote/foster a culture of staff empowerment that effectively utilizes and rewards

individual strengths.

(adopting, adapting, and innovating research tools)

4. Enable research and development capacity for whole organization.

(adopting, adapting, and innovating research tools)

5. Appreciate that as we combine our processes, there may be activities best implemented separately.

Final Vision Statement

BE COURAGEOUS! Act as a collaborative unit to best serve users at

multiple locations Provide intellectual representation of collection as a

whole Foster a culture of staff empowerment that effectively

utilizes and rewards individual strengths Enable research and development capacity for entire

organization Appreciate that as we combine our processes, there

may be activities best implemented separately

Internal Summary

List of items that are probably within our purview: -streamline TS processes; shorten time between publication and access -eliminate redundancies, within and across institutions -raise awareness of the role and functions of TS (to all staff, and to all of our constituents) -implement and apply consistent consortial policies -cross-training of TS staff -more training of TS staff -sensitivity to staff concerns -solicitation of specific suggestions for improvements -staff empowerment -recognition of individual strengths (person or institution) -maximize existing functionality -increase use of storage facility, partially to free up local space -look into possible advantages of shared funding -familiarity with our users -consistent and timely incorporation of resources into the catalog -consideration of users’ needs, rather than just trends

Internal Summary (cont.)

List of items that are probably not within our purview: -dynamically updated subject guides -centralize book repair -current and relevant collection development policies -one-stop shopping access to all of our resources -online tutorials -single record for multiple versions of a title -in general, make the catalog better -manage access to licensed resources -more patron education -simpler, more straightforward access to material -anticipation of user needs -data-mining -all systems must be current and robust -adequate funding and institutional support

Planning Assumptions and Principles

A combined collection that is greater than the individual collections

24 hour turnaround time in material movement between the two schools

Staff from Denison and Kenyon will become one unit, thereby creating time to devote to managing other formats

The mainstream of materials’ acquisition will be created and automated to streamline work

Focuses on the typical processes within the whole system

Process Map from Grant Proposal

Key Work Activities Map

SELECT

ACQUIRE

CHECK IN (Shelf Ready)

CATALOG (Not Shelf Ready)

PREPARE FOR USE

AVAILABLE

The Workflow Model

Critical Points of the Plan

A combined technical service team for the two libraries that will be on the leading edge of technology and user service

Work processes that are combined to enhance efficiency and allow for more flexibility to address user needs

A work process that is location independent and expandable

Central Recommendations of the Plan

A joint approval plan including combined selection, budget, and accounting for the two campuses

Expedited delivery to ensure seamless user access of campus collections

Replace paper with electronic flows wherever possible

Increase the use of vendor provided services

Concentrate our intellectual resources in areas that we cannot automate

Implementation

Implementation Team began January, 2005 Three member team: Denison librarian, Kenyon

paraprofessional, Consortium Systems Manager

Workflows refined Staff involvement integral part of workflow refinement Frequent meetings with staff to encourage involvement

and participation in the process

Location of various functions determined Combined approval plan initiated Evaluation of daily delivery between Denison and

Kenyon

Words to the Wise (from the Weary :)

Define and study concept of redesign Develop group agreements for Task Force

and working criteria Use consensus for decision-making Balance size of Task Force with good

subject/work area coverage Open and frequent sharing of information Hire professional consultants Realize change brings about conflict and

hurdles Be courageous!

“Radical redesign means getting to the root of things: not making superficial changes or fiddling with what is already in place, but throwing away the old...inventing completely new ways of accomplishing work.”

Hammer and Champy, p. 36

Stay Tuned for Updates

www.denison.edu/collaborations/ohio5/libres/lwrtf/lwrtf.html

Bibliography

Hammer, Michael. “Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate.” In Harvard Business Review. July-August 1990 p.104-112. Hammer, Michael and James Champy. Reengineering the corporation : a manifesto for business revolution. New York: HarperCollins, 2001. Hayes, Jan and Maureen Sullivan. Mapping the process: engaging staff in redesign work. Wheeling, IL: North Suburban Library System, 2002? Snyder, Monteze M. et al. Building consensus: Conflict and Unity. Richmond, IN: Earlham Press, 2001. Grant proposal: http://www.denison.edu/collaborations/ohio5/libres/lwrtf/proposal.html Final Plan: http://www.denison.edu/collaborations/ohio5/libres/lwrtf/planning_report.pdf

“Radical redesign means getting to the root of things: not making superficial changes or fiddling with what is already in place, but throwing away the old...inventing completely new ways of accomplishing work.”

Hammer and Champy, p. 36