Transcript No Slide Title

Crossing the Cultural Divide:
Teams and the IUPUI University
Library
David W. Lewis
Dean of the IUPUI University Library
Living the Future 4
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
April 26, 2002
Prelude: David’s Two Observations
Observation 1:
25 years ago the most important thing libraries did was
keep millions and millions of small pieces of paper in the
correct order.
The organizational structures and the culture that made
it possible not to loose very many of those millions of
pieces of paper was required then.
Today these structures and that culture have become
counterproductive.
Observation 2:
The purpose of libraries is to provide the members of
the communities or organizations they serve with an
information subsidy.
Without this subsidy information is not used to the
extent that will provide the most benefit to the
organization or community.
It is the subsidy, not the mechanism that currently
provides it (the library) that is important.
IUPUI University Library’s Story
Today I will tell the story of the IUPUI University
Library’s five year journey as a team-based
organization.
The focus will be on the strategies that have evolved to
more successfully deal with our technology intensive
environment and the expectations of our involvement
with student success and retention.
Underlying Assumption
My underlying assumption is that all libraries must cross
the cultural divide that separates organizations which
are internally focused on control and continuity from
those that are outward looking, fast moving, and
innovative.
Without cultural change libraries will not be able to
adapt to the many disruptive technological changes
that are taking place in their environment.
Theoretical Underpinning:
Disruptive Change
Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When
New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, New York:
HarperBusiness, 2000.
Clayton M. Christensen: Sustaining
versus Disruptive Technologies
• Sustaining technologies improve the performance of of
established products along dimensions of performance
that mainstream customers in major markets have
historically valued.
• Disruptive technologies bring a very difference value
proposition to the market than has been previously
available. Generally, disruptive technologies initially
under perform established products in mainstream
markets. But they have other features that are valued
by a few fringe (and generally new users) users.
Clayton M. Christensen: Sustaining
versus Disruptive Technologies
• Sustaining technologies - Established organizations are
generally good at change involving sustaining
technologies.
–
–
–
–
Follow the best customers
Service models are not fundamentally changed
Quality improves
Added cost justified by improved service
Clayton M. Christensen: Sustaining
versus Disruptive Technologies
• Disruptive technologies - Establish organizations
generally fail when change involves disruptive
technologies. Organizations at the periphery succeed.
– Design product or service for new, rather than established,
users
– Cheaper, faster, easier — even if quality is not high at the
outset
– Service models disrupted
– Faster rate of development
Change in Libraries
• Change from Paper Library to Automated Library (19651995) was a Sustaining Change
• Change from Automated Library to Electronic Library
(1995 to date) is a Disruptive Change
From Michael Buckland, Redesigning Library Service: A Manifesto,
Chicago: American Library Association, 1992.
Disruptive Change in Libraries
• Collections
– Open Archives (ePrint servers) are challenging journals as
means of scholarly communication
– Web archives (like American Memory) make large
collections available without institutional affiliation
– eBooks will happen soon (libraries might not be players)
– Collections are not hand crafted one item at a time as
they once were
• Collections purchased with partners
• Collections purchased by large entities (states) on behalf of
citizens not libraries
Disruptive Change in Libraries
• Bibliographic Control
– Bibliographic control purchased rather than made one item
at a time (Marchive, PromptCat, Serials Solutions)
– Access to items not owned as, or more important. than
access owned items
– Catalogs are for machines, not people (SFX and other
linking systems)
– Portal battle — library catalog versus Goggle, library
interface versus Science Direct (Elsevier), or library
interface versus state interface (INSPIRE, etc.)
– Trade-off between collections and bibliographic control
Disruptive Change in Libraries
• Reference
– Alternative reference providers
• OCLC Remote Reference Collaboration
• LSSI Chat Reference Service
– Mass customization of services is expected by users
(MyLibrary)
– Alternative expert advice is available on the web
• Instruction
– Involvement in curriculum development rather than
“library instruction”
– Need to have measurable impact on student success and
retention
Performance Oversupply
“Once the performance level demanded of a particular
attribute has been achieved, customers indicate their
satiation by being less willing to pay a premium price
for continued improvement in that attribute. Hence,
performance oversupply triggers a shift in the basis of
competition, and the criteria used by customers to
choose one product over another.”
— Clayton M. Christensen
Performance Oversupply - Library Collections
Performance Oversupply - Library Collections
Web Resources
Responsiveness
Availability
Freshman Needs
Paper Library
Faculty Needs
Now
Time
What happens when an organization
confronts disruptive change?
“It is simply impossible to predict with any useful
degree of precision how disruptive products will be used
or how large their market will be. An important
corollary is that, because markets for disruptive
technologies are unpredictable, companies’ initial
strategies for entering these markets will generally
be wrong.”
— Clayton M. Christensen
Librarians love to plan. In the old world this was
a critical skill. It may now be a waste of time.
“The dominant difference between successful ventures
and failed ones, generally, is not the astuteness of their
original strategy. Guessing the right strategy at the
outset isn’t nearly as important to success as
conserving enough resources… so that new business
initiatives get a second or third stab at getting it right.”
— Clayton M. Christensen
Libraries rarely have, or can acquire, flexible
resources.
“Managers confronting disruptive technologies need to
get out of their laboratories and focus groups and
directly create knowledge about new customers and
new applications through discovery-driven
expeditions into the marketplace.”
— Clayton M. Christensen
Need to be close to users so you can watch what they
do (rather than listen to what they say).
Librarians hate to leave their buildings or roam
too far from home.
“Blindly following the maxim that good managers should
keep close to their customers can sometimes be a
fatal mistake.”
— Clayton M. Christensen
All organizations are depended on customers and
investors — their value network. Companies make
decisions in the context of this value network.
Since disruptive products bring a different kind of value
old customers don’t see the need for them.
• Can we consider that buying books may not be the best
use of our resources?
• Can we act on what learn from freshman when what
they teach us runs it runs counter to what the faculty
say they want?
• Can we trust small groups develop products or does
everyone have to buy-in to everything?
• Are we willing to develop exploratory systems and
services assuming many will fail?
Organizational Structures for Confronting Change
Organizational Structures for Confronting Change
Organizational Structures for Confronting Change
Organizational Structures for Confronting Change
Structures for Confronting Change Lesson from Christensen
• Since libraries can rarely create autonomous
organizations to manage change...
• Changing culture is required!! Need to match the
library’s values to the new environment
Libraries Organizations and Disruptive Change
• Changing culture is hard!!!
– War and famine
– Change what individuals need to do to be successful in the
organization and in their careers
– Change the rules in the middle of the game
Indiana University - Purdue
University Indianapolis
Indiana University - Purdue
University Indianapolis
• Urban campus of Indiana University
• Founded 30 years ago from extension programs of IU
and Purdue in Indianapolis
• Health Sciences campus; most graduate programs have
professional orientation
• More sponsored research than any campus in Indiana
• Strong commitment to serve the Indianapolis/Central
Indiana community
• Campus tends to be entrepreneurial and collaborative
Indiana University - Purdue
University Indianapolis
• Students: 27,000 headcount, 16,000 FTE
• Mostly commuting, many non-traditional (average
undergraduate is 26 years old; works 30 hours per
week, and has 5 hours per week of dependent care
responsibilities)
• Retention is a major concern (six year graduation rate is
about 25%)
• Awards Indiana University or Purdue University degrees
• Largest range of academic programs of any campus in
Indiana
IUPUI University Library
IUPUI University Library
• Supports all programs except: health sciences and law
• Budget: $7.8 million
– $4.0 compensation
– $2.7 million for materials
• Staff: 90 total
– 30 librarians (with faculty status)
– 15 professionals (mostly technologists)
– 45 clerical
• Collections
– 600,000 volumes
– 20% of expenditures for electronic resources
– Leading collection in Philanthropy in the nation
IUPUI University Library
• New building in 1993 with focus on technology
• Technology innovations as a result
– Web interface to all library applications in 1993
– One of first libraries with many public computers with nonlibrary applications
– Early adapter of electronic reserves
– SFX beta
– Chat reference
IUPUI University Library
Advantages
• Not encumbered with historical collections — no old
paper
• Library system (OPAC, etc.) run from Bloomington
• Campus expects us to use technology as route to
excellence
• Campus expects us to contribute to student success and
retention
• Good support from campus leadership
• Responsibility centered budgeting - provides fiscal
flexibility
IUPUI University Library
Advantages
• New building (opened in summer of 1993) and jump to
technology that accompanied the new building, broke
the library from past in dramatic way
• Created change in culture because of technology and
because the library became a leader
IUPUI University Library
Disadvantages
• Aging librarians tied to the campus by tenure and 18/20
retirement plan (golden handcuffs)
• Tight market for technologists
• Need to be both collaborative with the Bloomington
campus and independent from it
• Campus is underfunded
• No one can figure out who we are
IUPUI University Library Librarians
8
7
6
5
Tenured 18/20
Tenured
Untenured
4
3
2
1
0
2529
3034
3539
4044
4549
5054
5559
6065
IUPUI University Library Priorities
1. Increase retention — actively contribute to curriculum
redesign
• Instructional Teams for Freshman Learning Communities
(20 a year five years ago; 125 for the past three years)
• Center for Teaching and Learning
• Gateway Initiative - redesign of big intro courses
• Electronic Portfolio
2. Develop strong technology base for delivering library
collections and services
• Can’t afford to build strong paper collections
• Required for distributed teaching and learning
• Serves our students
Mission Statement: The IUPUI University Library
honors tradition, but looks to the innovative application
of technology and new forms of engagement with our
various publics as our path to excellence.
Vision: To be the innovative leader among urban
university libraries
University Library Strategies
• Teams with overlapping team assignments
• Recently developed of client-focused teams for our
services group
• Flat hierarchy
• Three times a year “organization weeks”
• Birkman Assessment Tool
• Commitment to developing talent internally
• Focus on assessment and performance measures
Teams and the University Library
• Reorganized into a team-based organization in 1997
• Top town decision made and executed by senior
management
• Technical Services and Public Services dissolved as large
powerful groups
• Hierarchy flattened
• Initial focus on instruction through the development of
“instructional teams”
• Most librarians on multiple teams
Overlapping Team Assignment
• When we first organized in teams we did this to fill out
the teams
• Much overlap between technology teams
• Much overlap between the Reference Team, the
Instruction Team, and the Collections Team
• Some overlap as coordinating mechanism (Digital
Libraries and Reference, Digital Libraries and
Cataloging, Cataloging and Special Collections)
• Most librarians has liaison responsibilities, but they were
not accommodated in the structure
Overlapping Team Assignment
• Worked very well for technology teams, they have
become a self managing group
• Coordinating overlaps works
• Reference/Instruction/Collections overlaps caused a
great deal of stress
– Most of dual team assignments were held by “line”
librarians (many untenured) who got caught between
demands of multiple team leaders
– Liaison activities, which were often very rewarding for
librarians, “did not count”
– Everyone wanted off the Instruction Team because it was
the director’s high profile project and if you were involved
it sucked up all of your time
Client-Focused Teams
• Instituted May 2001
• Disbanded the Instruction and Collection Teams
• Created four teams focused of groups of schools (the
significant academic units)
–
–
–
–
Liberal Arts Team
SETN Team
Professional Programs Team
University College Team
• Client teams responsible for instruction, advanced
reference, and collections for group of schools
• Liaison became common responsibility, especially
instruction
• Largely resolved issues with instruction
Client-Focused Teams
• Each Team appointed a person to coordinate collections,
reference, and instruction
• The coordinators for collection and instruction meet
periodically
• Reference Team kept responsibility for desk services
• Reference coordinators were members of the Reference
Team
• Reference has been this year’s area of conflict
Dean
A ssoc
Dean
Servic es G roup
T ec hnology
G roup
C li ent T eam
G roup
Operat ions
Liberal A rts
Digital
Libraries
Special
Collect ions
A quisit ions
Reference
Client
Support
Herron
Cataloging
A ccess
Services
SETN
Prof essional
Programs
Universit y
College
A dmin
Support
Business
A f faris
Reference Instruction
Collectio ns
Lib era l Arts
Academ ic
Units
SETN
Professional Program s
Univ ersity College
Herron
Special
Collectio ns
Flat Hierarchy
• We have four layers in the organization:
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Dean
Team Leader
Team member
Hourly (student) workers
10% rule
Makes micro-management difficult
Encourages and protects innovation
Requires cross team coordination
Organization Weeks
• Started as “team” training sessions — meeting
management, conflict resolution, etc,
• Now done three times per year (January, May, and
August)
• Three days — “weeklet”
• All staff are expected to participate - no vacations
• Dean’s talk and food always involved
• Once or twice a year outside training or consultant —
issues change based on organizational focus and needs
• One week (May) for annual planning
Organization Weeks
• Demonstrates our commitment to organizational growth
and development
• Provides time for teams
• Provides opportunity to mix individuals across teams in
various activities
• Allows regular formal opportunity for the dean to
communicate with the organization
• Recognize accomplishments
• Try to have fun (Beanie Baby drop)
Birkman Assessment Tool
• Birkman is a Myers/Briggs like tool that assess work
style on a variety of dimensions
• Everyone takes the Birkman when they join the
organization
• Developed internal expertise
• Reinforces the fact that we all work differently and gives
the organization a common vocabulary to talk about this
• Useful in managing team conflict
Develop Talent Internally
• Explicit with technology teams (can’t afford developed
talent)
– Hire staff with good fit to the organization
– Encourage and fund training ($10,000 training fund
managed by technology team leaders)
• New Team Leaders hired from within whenever possible
• Good support for librarian and clerical professional
development
Assessment and Performance
Measures
• Raise the “Visibility of Consequences”
• Campus measures — student and faculty satisfaction
surveys
• Standard measures
– Circulation
– Gate Counts
– Use of electronic resources
• Our own satisfaction survey
What is Required of New World
Library Organizations?
1. Change the culture
2. Create structures that encourage and reinforce
the cultural change
Changing structures (moving to teams, etc.) disturbs
establish culture - this is good
Questions?
David W. Lewis
IUPUI University Library
[email protected]
317-274-0493