Baldrige winners pride themselves on their willingness to share information about best practices with others. Similarly, articles in library literature will often suggest which libraries are significant in certain areas. Staff will likely raise arguments about the comparability of benchmarking results that came from a comparison with a different type of institution.
As with claims about institutional uniqueness and quibbles over methodological approach, such arguments probably reflect a resistance to change. Of course, the more analogous a comparator organization is to the group undertaking the benchmark, the easier it will be to persuade the group to change. However, if a generic comparator provides a truly superior process, then it is worth the effort to persuade staff to use it. And in the area of electronic resources, we had thought we could rely on just other libraries but, in a follow-up benchmark the second year, we decided to benchmark our providing support for remote users by visiting IBM.
For any organization, networking is the main way to find out who are the best in areas of interest. We began the process of identifying all library benchmark comparators by asking colleagues around the nation who they thought had the best programs in particular areas.
Institutions that practice TQM will already have analytical tools at hand, whereas those not engaged in TQM may do training or reading on such techniques as flowcharts, control charts, and customer surveys. It began with a telephone survey of selected customers, followed by a short, paper-record analysis of current users. These data were put into a Pareto chart which demonstrated that getting materials in a timely fashion is the most important ILL feature for customers. Although over 80 percent of customers indicated satisfaction with a ten-day response time, the team sponsor the dean of libraries challenged the team to strive for a five-to-seven-workday goal.
In order to compare its outcomes with those in other libraries, the team developed other flowcharts. From paper files, it found that the average ILL borrowing turnaround time in was twenty-one working days—far longer than customers desired. In , it was able to reduce delivery time to fifteen days; current delivery is, on average, ten days.
Although the main flowchart still reflects a great deal of complexity, the number of process steps has been cut a third. The team continues task analysis by sharing charts with best comparators to determine other steps that can be eliminated or modified to make benchmarking outcomes more equivalent. Questions for the comparator about the process being benchmarked may be developed by either the benchmarking team or a process team.
Any set of questions may take two to three hours to formulate; it should be tested with colleagues, refined—and then answered by the originating organization because it is essential to know local practices when exchanging information with the benchmarking partner.
Steps for brainstorming a set of questions include:. Used as a platform for the dialogue with the other institution, the question set allows the benchmarker to delve into layers of the best-practice operation. Refinement of questions may be augmented by preliminary minitours of, and handouts from, the comparator institution.
In general for comparative analysis, many questions can be answered from standard sources, such as statistical publications of the ARL or of the ACRL. What the process should focus on, however, is not simply what the result was but how it was achieved. Questions should have that methodological point of view. Libraries are generally quite free about sharing information on operations, and we encountered no problems of confidentiality. The character of a trip to a generic enterprise is quite different from a trip to another library.
Companies that are practitioners of renowned quality in one form or another are accustomed to both seeking best practices and receiving visits. Dates and length of visit are discussed along with any special requirements for visiting a manufacturing plant and a list of questions sent ahead.
The process of scheduling the visit with another library should be as easy, but libraries tend to ask many more questions than do manufacturers about the nature of the benchmarking project and about interview scheduling.
On one Penn State Libraries trip, a corporate contact was forthright about the quid pro quo, wanting to know what training programs the university has available and whether they were open to outsiders.
The benchmark team will, of course, invite those with whom it benchmarked to visit them and may expect other libraries to inquire about its experience.
Because the benchmarking team must communicate with various audiences, several different reports, with varying emphases, need to be written.
The team implementing the benchmark will make use of a much broader range of information to implement the changes, but the rest of the organization needs only to focus on overall improvements. Because the team will have worked with a sponsor along the way, it should have already developed coalitions of supporters and strong prospects for implementation.
The academic institution makes a strong general commitment to the project, whereas the library administration gives detailed and directive guidance to the unit being restructured. At least some members of the unit should be on the benchmarking trip to enable them to see an alternative process firsthand and thus gain greater commitment to the changes proposed. However, it may not be possible for the whole team to make the trip, given the costs as well as some inconvenience to the comparator organization.
An alternative is to invite someone from that organization to visit the local workplace and to discuss the restructuring process. Telephone or conferencing such as PicTel offer other alternatives for communicating with a larger work group.
A typical difference between academic committees and TQM teams is that the former produce reports that tend to be shelved whereas the latter make enduring improvements in work processes. Yet, the resistance from units facing a benchmark restructuring can be visceral. Employees will fear for their jobs, their schedules, their established procedures, their work space, their benefits, their prestige, and so on.
Such fears can build into a range of barriers to redesigning things. Incremental change is not the only means available to remedying a shortfall from the best practice; a complete restructuring or reengineering of a process may be necessary. Outsourcing is the greatest response to a shortfall between local and best practices. For example, the University of Alberta Libraries recently outsourced cataloging to a Canadian vendor.
That phrase and those figures have had a marked influence on a Penn State group currently at work on an outsourcing project. An objective of this project is to enable library patrons searching the catalogs of other CIC institutions to initiate their own ILL requests. A more systematic approach to building relationships with non -academic units offers many advantages and can be facilitated by adapting and expanding the liaison model typically applied to academic units.
The defining characteristics of most formal liaison work in academic libraries are that librarians are linked to specific academic departments, that there is a budget allocation to support collection-building for those departments, and that liaisons engage in a combination of activities focused on collection development, instruction, reference, and outreach or communication.
In this model, liaison responsibilities are formalized: they are included in job descriptions, supported through some sort of administrative structure, and aligned with the academic departments or colleges in existence at the institution. Those that flourish can lay the groundwork for partnerships related to teaching, innovative services and other projects which may extend beyond the department itself and impact a broader segment of the academic community.
In true partnerships, involved parties have shared goals, engage in advance planning, and contribute substantively Donham and Green Department-based liaison is a venue for creating such partnerships and establishing the basis for the shared projects that are more and more becoming a part of the landscape in academic libraries Franke, Raschke and Wood It provides a built-in structure to foster and support the relationships necessary for projects that extend beyond liaison work and facilitate collaboration with a variety of partners.
In some ways liaison with non-academic units is parallel to that with academic departments. It differs in that it is currently not entrenched in the formal structures of academic libraries. The administrative structures necessary to support liaison with non-academic units are similar in form to those supporting more traditional liaison programs, although the expectations outlined must be specific to a non-academic liaison role.
A further difference is that liaison with non-academic units is not necessarily collections- or budget-based, as most liaison relationships with academic departments are. However, it would be an advantage to have a budget allotment to acquire the resources required by the units themselves. As a result of these differences and the varying activities of each unit, the primary duties of liaisons with non-academic units also differ.
Despite these differences, however, the benefit of initiating formal and sustained relationships with both academic and non-academic units through liaison is the creation of mutually beneficial partnerships. Because of the advantages of broadly-based initiatives on campuses, such as the development of media, teaching, and learning centres Dewey , liaison programs with non-academic units should be expanded, nurtured and formalized.
In contrast to the traditional model, an extended model links librarians to user groups which are united by something other than an academic discipline. Furthermore, this model is not necessarily based on a budget allotment or collection development needs, and helps focus attention on less visible user populations. By maintaining formal liaison programs exclusively with academic departments and colleges, libraries are failing to develop and take full advantage of new opportunities.
Projects such as the creation of information commons and other student learning centers, data and research centers, and specialized services for particular user groups do not necessarily originate in academic departments, but benefit from the participation of the library. In fact, these services are often operated by and housed within libraries.
By having formal liaison relationships in place with a wide variety of non-academic units, the library is more likely to be involved in the initial stages of creating and planning programs and projects, and be in a better position to truly partner in their development. Broadening the traditional understanding of the liaison model in academic libraries encourages the development of unique and non-departmental relationships and positions libraries to raise their profile on campus.
It will enable libraries to meet a wider range of user needs and create new opportunities for partnerships. Keeping in mind the potential outcomes of liaison with non-academic units, three strategies for identifying candidates for a formal library liaison program emerge:.
Take stock of unmet needs on campus. Units that gather information or conduct research such as University advancement, finance, and communications offices; research centers; career, health and security services can benefit from using library resources but are often unaware of what is available to them through the library. Groups for whom special programs have been created minority or transfer students for example may require special training and resources.
For example, teaching assistants work directly with students and are expected to assist with research assignments but are sometimes ill-equipped for this task.
Scan lists of organizations and non-academic units on campus. Phone directories and websites are good sources of information about which units exist and how they are structured. Student unions, professional organizations and digitization centers are possible targets. Identify service providers who have goals in common with the library, or who are more likely to meet their goals if they are in partnership with the library.
Teaching, research, learning and writing centers require resources and expertise, both of which can be found in campus libraries. In order to avoid duplication of effort, information sharing and joint programs are essential. By identifying unmet needs, the library can identify and even create new target groups for services and products; establish relationships with, and better meet the needs of, a variety of users; and integrate itself more fully across the campus.
While the opportunities these units and user groups afford the library differ from those of faculty and the academic departments in which they are situated, they are no less relevant or full of potential. Those with whom libraries typically form formal liaison relationships represent only a portion of campus networks and user needs. Once target groups and units are identified and a liaison librarian is assigned, liaisons must identify the structures already in place to initiate outreach.
Just as is the case with academic units, staff meetings, orientations, and social events are starting points for liaison. Actual liaison activities for non-academic units would be less uniform than those undertaken in academic units. They may consist of training unit staff and users, offering jointly-sponsored programs, providing information research services, participating on advisory committees, advocating for the acquisition of specific resources, or providing a formal and reliable channel of communication.
As with other types of liaison, the amount of time devoted to the task and the specific needs of both parties will determine the exact shape of the relationship. However, basic expectations should be clearly articulated, manageable and regularly assessed by the library. Administrative support for liaison is necessary to formalize the program and create conditions in which it is allowed to flourish.
Structures to administer and facilitate the work of liaisons may mirror those in place to support traditional liaison. For example, both programs benefit from having a coordinator, training opportunities and information resources. A program statement, in which the purpose, goals, and standards of liaison with non-academic units are outlined is necessary for assessment purposes and may differ from those in place for traditional academic liaison programs.
Formal assessment supports liaison work by facilitating a process for gathering and reporting regular feedback, evaluating strategies and successes, and ensuring accountability. Some features of the site may not work correctly.
Martin Published 4 January Medicine The paper explores how faculty need and use the library. It reviewed literature on the roles of subject librarians and the advantages for faculty and libraries.
It summarized key strategies for subject liaison librarians to develop relationships with faculty and the use of surveys to explore faculty needs. The paper also included a survey administered to the business, engineering, and education faculty at The University of Toledo in to help subject librarians better understand their… Expand.
Save to Library Save. Create Alert Alert. Share This Paper. Tables and Topics from this paper. Citation Type. Has PDF.
0コメント