Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: Centralize or Decentralize?
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes389 views
This document discusses options for structuring an organization to effectively manage electronic resources. It suggests that e-resources have become the mainstream activity for technical services but that organizational structures and priorities often do not reflect this reality. The document examines the skills, tools, and workflows needed for e-resources management and considers whether to take a centralized or decentralized organizational approach. It provides recommendations for libraries to recognize e-resources as the priority, expand e-resources staffing levels, and integrate e-resources tasks into mainstream workflows.
Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: Centralize or Decentralize?
- 1. Copyright Denise Pan and Rick Lugg 2010. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors. Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 1 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 2. Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs Centralize or Decentralize? Denise Pan University of Colorado Denver Auraria Library Rick Lugg R2 Consulting LLC
- 3. Presentation Outline • Organizational Capacity – How has e-resources changed technical services? – What skills are needed? – What tools are needed? • Organizational Realities – How do you change workflows with a static workforce? – What organizational structure is needed? – How do you create your own knowledge? Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 3 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 4. About R2 • Selection-to-access workflows • Organizational redesign • Helping libraries shift priorities and activities • From print to electronic • From commonly-held to unique • Strategies for legacy print collections Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 4 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 5. R2 Experience Libraries Vendors • University of Cincinnati • ABC-CLIO • University of Lethbridge • Blackwell Book Services • Auraria Library • Casalini Libri • USMA West Point • UC-Riverside • CAVAL Collaborative Solutions • UC-Santa Cruz • Common Ground Publishing • University of Oxford • Eastern Book Company • University of North Carolina • Ebook Library (EBL) • Wellesley College • Follett Library Resources • Colorado State University • HARRASSOWITZ • University of Michigan • Innovative Interfaces • Oberlin College • Ingram Digital Group • MIT Libraries • OCLC • University of Utah • Wesleyan University • RR Bowker • Colby College • Sage Reference • East Carolina University • University of California Press • George Washington University • Xrefer (now Credo Reference) • YBP Library Services Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 5 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 6. Organizational Capacity • In most libraries, an obvious imbalance Staff Level Budget Level Print Print Electronic Electronic Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 6 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 7. Trends in E-R Workflows & Workloads • It is the mainstream activity, but mostly organizations and priorities don’t reflect this reality • In a rational world, library managers would: • Accord E-R the highest priority in staffing and support • Make certain this work gets done first and well • Train as many people in this work as needed • Let other tasks slide correspondingly Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 7 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 8. Changing work in Technical Services • Quantity – size and variety of “batches” • Erosion of consolidated workflows • Profession and industry won’t stop changing • Complexity of deals, resources, packages • Cross-departmental tasks • Invisible workloads and workflows • Timing and task tracking: can be months between steps • Work cycles and patterns change Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 8 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 9. E-Resource Life-cyle Oliver Pesch EBSCO (Influenced by work by Ivy Anderson)
- 10. E-resource life cycle Libraries License terms Order Trial use Price Pay Assess need/budget Evaluate IP Addresses Register User feedback Acquire Proxy Servers Usage stats Catalog Evaluate Portals/Access Downtime Monitor Provide Access lists analysis Campus Review authentication problems Holdings lists Problem log Provide Support Administer User IDs Hardware needs Admin module information Software needs Preferences (store) Contact info Holdings lists Troubleshoot/ Access triage restrictions New processes introduced View rights for Claiming use
- 11. Many Variables Affect Workloads • Serial/Not Serial • To Catalog/Or Not to Catalog • ERMS/No ERMS • Dynamic update/Batch update • Knowledgebase/No Knowledgebase • Dependencies with print counterparts Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 11 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 12. What are the pain points? • Complexity of processes • Need for new skills • New systems • New vendors, agents, kbase providers • Same players returning in new roles • Print/Electronic interdependencies • Serial holdings updates • Multiple access paths to maintain Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 12 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 13. What skills are needed? • Legal and negotiating skills (and authority) • Communication and collaboration • Big picture: how decisions and actions propagate throughout the workflow • Small picture: details matter at every stage • Multi-tasking: implementing/maintaining/troubleshooting and evaluating Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 13 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 14. What tools are needed? • A way to make the process visible to all • Access to selection, acquisitions, and other metadata • Automatic notification upon completion of specific steps • Shared knowledge of resources, status, and issues—for staff and users both • KBART – UKSG/NISO Recommended Practice Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 14 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 15. What structure is needed? • Centralized model • Advantages • Disadvantage • Distributed model • Advantages • Disadvantages Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 15 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 16. Spectrum of E-R Control Specialists Only Integrated into Mainstream Hub Factor High Moderate Minimal Process Moderately Very Less Formal Formal Formal Requirement Minimally Moderately Highly Scalability Scalable Scalable Scalable Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 16 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 17. E-R staffing: Stage One • Find or build an expert • Centralize processes around scarce expertise • License review and negotiation • Central repository of signed licenses/signing authority • Trials, activation, A-Z lists, proxy, trouble- shooting, knowledgebase maintenance • Requires knowledge of • Consortial relationships, deals • Package composition and overlap • Serials holdings • Discovery layer capabilities Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 17 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 18. E-R staffing: Stage One • Strong bias toward control • A sort of priesthood/elite • Small, self-contained, highly-trained • Issue: this “hub” model is very hard to scale, even when supported by third-party services, ERMS, and other tools. Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 18 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 19. E-R staffing: Stage Two • Wailing and gnashing of teeth • Integrate E-R tasks into mainstream workflows • Some specialized tasks remain (e.g., licensing, t-shooting) • Selectors select; Acquisitions acquires; Catalogers catalog • Staff capacity transferred from analagous print tasks • Emphasize similarities, but also expand skills – it’s just another format • Requires • Training, re-training, persuasion, overcoming fear • De-mystification and relinquishing some control • Reliance on systems and procedures rather than individual expertise • A transition from expert to manager Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 19 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 20. E-R Staffing: Stage Two • Increased capacity – highly scalable • De-centralization, dispersion of tasks • Corresponding loss of direct control • A mainstream operation for a mainstream activity • Issue: the best individual contributors are not necessarily the best managers Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 20 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 21. E-R Staffing: Stage Three? • Expand the yield of the specialist group • Broader resource base- more titles under management • More libraries benefit from scarce expertise • Consortial/Collaborative management of e-resources (CDL/UC Model) • E-Resource workloads are easier to share than print workloads Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 21 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 22. Recommendations • Treat E-Resources as the mainstream • Explore alternate policy choices • Stop cataloging e-journals; rely on links and A-Z list (look at how users find this material now) • Move to e-only for current subscriptions wherever possible – to eliminate confusion, complexity • Focus on timely maintenance of preferred access paths—make those work first, fast, and well • Minimize customization of batch loads • Get the e-resources work done first; manage print with what’s left Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 22 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 23. About Auraria Library • Located in downtown Denver, Colorado • Academic library for – University of Colorado Denver – Metropolitan State College of Denver – Community College of Denver • FTE 28,000 undergraduate & 2,000 graduate students Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 23 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 24. R2 Report • E-Resources and Serials: – “E-Resources needs to be recognized as the mainstream workflow, and staffed accordingly” – “needing more staff hours and experience with serials and eresources” • Staffing and Organization: – “Auraria has been managed as a topdown, hierarchical organization” – “opportune time to realign the organizational structure and staffing levels to support those changes” Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 24 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 25. Reorganization Recommendations Recommended Structure – Functional View Original Structure – Functional View Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 25 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 26. Organizational Realities How do you.. recognize e-resources as the library’s mainstream and expand e-resources staff in both number & level with a static workplace? N.Y. Playground (Library of Congress) Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 26 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 27. Re-framing the Organization Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 27 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 28. Appreciative Inquiry is a strategy for change that begins with the identification of the “best of what is” to enable stakeholders to pursue their dreams and visions of “what could be.” 4-D Cycle: Discover, Dream, Design, Destiny Sullivan, M. (2004), “The Promise of Appreciative Inquiry in Library Organizations”, Library Trends, Vol. 53 No. 1, p. 219. Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 28 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 29. Becoming a Learning Organization • Reasons for Change – New technology & formats altering established processes – Limited library materials budget & staffing • New Opportunities – Break down traditional silos – Work collaboratively & cross-functionally – Create more efficient workflow processes N.Y. Playground (Library of Congress) – Backup training for continuous service – Greater communication within Technical Services and with Library and patrons Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 29 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 30. Technical Services Today • 1 Full-time Staff • 2 Full-time Staff • With help from • 1 Part-time Staff 2 full-time staff Systems Acquisitions Cataloging E-Resources & Metadata • 1 Full-time • 2 Full-time Librarian Librarians • 2 Full-time Staff • 3 Full-time Staff • 1 Part-time Staff Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 30 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 31. E-Resources Hybrid Organizational Structure Centralized Administration & Distributed Decision Making Centralized Decentralized Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 31 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 32. Shared Leadership Moves beyond hierarchies and creates leaders throughout the organization. Staff are able to flexibly move in and out of leader and follower roles as required. Deiss, K. and Sullivan, M. (1998), “The Shared Leadership Principle: Creating Leaders Throughout the Organisation”, Issues and Trends in Diversity, Leadership and Career Development, Vol. 2, pp. 2-6. Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 32 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 33. E-Resources Workflow & Staffing • Journals – 1 part-time staff • Direct Databases & Licenses – 1 full-time staff Acquisitions • Consortia Publisher Packages – 1 librarian • Serials Solutions (360 Marc Updates & Link) Access • 1 Librarian + help from full-time staff & MLIS grad student • Batch loading (WCCP & Serials Solutions) – 1 full-time staff Discovery • Original Cataloging & WorldCat Sets – 1 full-time librarian • Usage Statistics (Scholarly Stats) – 1 full-time staff Assessment Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 33 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 34. Information literacy forms the basis for lifelong learning. It is common to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education. It enables learners to master content and extend their investigations, become more self-directed, and assume greater control over their own learning. ACRL (2000). “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education”, available at: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/ informationliteracycompetency.cfm (accessed 31 December 2009). Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 34 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 35. Creating a Learning Organization • Reorganize with appreciative inquiry • Encourage dialogue at routine and ad hoc meetings • Trust in the abilities of colleagues to participate in shared leadership • Promote lifelong learning Scaling Organizational Capacity to Meet E-Resources Needs: ER&L February 1-3, 2010 35 Centralize or Decentralize?
- 36. Questions? Contact Us denise.pan@ucdenver.edu rick@r2consulting.org