Back to CaTS Documentation main page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Collections and Technical Services (CaTS) Division implemented a redesigned work structure in late April 1998. Some groups represented variations on former departments within the Division, while others were entirely new and designed to focus on work that had received secondary attention under the departmental structure. Changes in workflow were accompanied by changes in staff relationships and culture. Evaluation of operating procedures, divisional structure, and staffing, were ongoing. A number of changes occurred on the basis of staff members bringing ideas forward for discussion in both formal work groups and more informal ad hoc groups. CaTS staff developed and implemented a number of changes to reflect a greater focus on both internal and external customers. They discussed their work with each other and with others affected by their work at the levels at which that work occurred. In many cases, that represented a fundamental change from former behavior. Not all goals and objectives have been met, but we see the results of the redesign implementation demonstrating significant progress toward a more adaptable and customer-focused CaTS.

In mid-May, the CaTS Internal Review Group (IRG) was formed and charged with examining the results of the CaTS reorganization which occurred approximately a year earlier. The group was comprised of a combination of CaTS staff involved in the original design and implementation work, plus one CaTS and one Public Services staff member not involved in the previous processes. We were to review all the available data, get as complete a picture as possible of the Division's performance, note key areas that needed improvement, and attempt to draw some conclusions and make recommendations.

We looked at the original CaTS Process Improvement Team (CaTSPIT) report, including the group's goal of finding "... ways to increase productivity and responsiveness, enhance our use of electronic resources, focus on quality control, provide opportunities for job expansion, and improve our work culture." Each IRG member gathered and compiled information on one of those topics, as they had been described in the original CaTSPIT document "Current State Problems and Issues." Information was collected from the CaTS Customer Surveys, additional interviews with library staff, data gathered from EUCLID, and numerical data from other sources. Statistical information that is included in this report should be considered illustrative and not inclusive. Lack of information on specific processes should not be interpreted as implying that those processes did not show improvement, only that we made selections from all the available data. We posed several questions to a variety of individuals, both within CaTS and without, inquiring about: what people saw as the most and least successful outcomes of the redesign; whether people's expectations had been met; whether interactions with CaTS had been more successful since the redesign; and how day to day work for CaTS staff had changed. We interviewed department/unit heads and one person they each suggested within their work unit, plus each CaTS group leader and a staff member they suggested. We are indebted to all the library staff who shared their thoughts with us during this process.

• Develop and communicate goals and expectations clearly. In developing those, keep in mind that it may not be reasonable to expect staff to be able to simultaneously focus on quality, efficiency, creativity and group development. Determine which of those elements is the primary focus at a specific time, clearly state what it is and why. This will assist groups and individuals in making decisions about priorities and time management.
• Maintain the ongoing self-assessment and evaluation components of the redesign, but avoid making major decisions and changes as reactive responses to perceived immediate problems. Focus on long-term results as well as the immediate situation.
• Work towards developing improved methods and tools for assessing group development.
• Take on a more proactive leadership role for the Division.
• Encourage and support the establishment of informal ad hoc (or, alternatively, more formalized) groups that provide the mechanism for sharing information and solving problems for groups that have common work (i.e. all the cataloging groups, all the training and testing groups).
• Examine the multiple group assignment issue. Consider allowing individuals the opportunity of reducing from multiple groups to a single primary work group, with opportunities to assist other groups as needed.
• Encourage groups to continue efforts at cross training, particularly for unique roles.
• Encourage and reward collaborative efforts, such as those of the "Holes in the Holds Group" which examined the EUCLID holds process, and the EMRC, which examined workflow for electronic resources.
• Discuss fluctuations in workload on a regular basis, thus providing opportunities for group leaders to express the need for assistance, and allow for adequate planning when major projects are in preparation.
• Re-examine the original liaison concept. Staffing and other problems have made it difficult for CaTS to determine the best mechanism for this function, but the need for it is clearly present. Assess how the concept should be implemented, then reinstate and publicize it.
• Encourage group leaders to share responsibility for attendance at committee meetings where possible, to enable them to devote more time to group work, planning, and training.
• Continue efforts at centralizing documentation. Documentation and Training Group should continue its efforts to bring together documentation for the Division in one place. Creating and sharing written documentation for unique roles should be a priority.
• Examine FTE's by function and group to determine whether staff hours are currently assigned in accordance with the priorities set by the Division and the Library.
• Continue efforts at finding ways to incorporate "group work" expectations as a significant part of the individual's evaluation process.
• Develop specific guidelines to assist groups in determining the kinds of statistical measures they should keep to provide meaningful information and form the basis for year to year comparisons of group and Division activities.

The original charge to CaTSPIT was "to design new processes for the accomplishment of the work in Collections and Technical Services, which will capitalize on the rapidly changing technological environment and which will further the library's mission of selecting, acquiring, and making bibliographically accessible information resources to support the teaching, learning, and research activities of the Emory community." The proposal that emerged from the team included both workflow changes and changes in the culture and structure of CaTS. It was an ambitious plan that meant change on the part of every individual within the division.

The formation of some new groups, such as Database Quality Management and Liaison, was undertaken to provide focus and emphasis on areas that were identified as needing resources specifically devoted to them in order to capitalize on the changing environment, technology, and training needs for staff. These groups developed goals, planned work, and have accomplished important work for the Division. Other units were combined, such as Monograph and Serials Receiving, to create work groups with more global knowledge and opportunities for cross training. In virtually any group that we could select to analyze on an individual level, there would be successes and failures of things that have been attempted in the redesigned CaTS.

Leadership in a changing environment has been one of the most complex and challenging areas to address. In the Coordinating Group, leaders and the Division Director have found themselves in a group that appears to be a hybrid between the former department heads and a traditional team. Differing expectations regarding decision-making and the group's role have created difficulties in reaching decisions and addressing issues. Some feel that the Coordinating Group's challenges are enhanced by the large size of the group, the awkwardness that can result from working as a peer with someone who is also your group leader, and the mix of management experience among members. Whatever the reasons, the Coordinating Group has experienced difficulty in drafting divisional goals and addressing variations in workload as experienced by some groups. The group leaders have met with varying levels of success in sharing leadership and getting full group participation. Since evaluations are not team-based, some of the difficulties in assessing team responsibility and getting team cooperation are not surprising. Lack of formalized divisional goals has not prevented individual groups from developing their goals and objectives, but it has placed each group in the position of establishing those in hopes that they are in harmony with those of the Division and the Library.

Not only is it challenging to go from leading in a hierarchical structure to leading in a more team-like environment, it is equally challenging to go from being led in a hierarchical environment to being asked to participate in developing goals and determining how work should be done. While the amount of time devoted to group process varied among groups, there is no doubt that significant effort was devoted toward learning to work differently and taking on a greater level of responsibility. Group evaluations showed improvement in all categories as the implementation progressed and group members had a greater understanding of their roles and how to work together.

The current state CaTS is not identical to the one that was proposed by CaTSPIT. Prior to implementation Day 1, Search & Sort Group had already combined with the Order Group. Since implementation, several positions have been realigned, Database Quality Management and Tech Group were merged, Liaison Group was disbanded in favor of a Liaison Coordinator, and a CaTS Government Documents Group came into being. Additional changes are currently under consideration, including introduction of an Acquisitions Librarian position that would further impact Search-Order-Sort and Receiving. The fact that evaluation and reassessment have been ongoing from day one has implications for both CaTS and for ICT as they look toward the future. Perhaps there really is "no there, there", and an ideal, fixed structural design is not compatible with two of the major goals of the original proposal, adaptability and responsiveness. Whatever positives and negatives one can see from the redesign, the continual assessment and change that has occurred is a very essential component of the CaTS original design and a definite measure of success. It would be unrealistic to expect that in any major change process, success would be equal to accomplishment of 100% of the goals within the first year.

The CaTSPIT proposal included a section that provided five specific areas considered "Current State Problems and Issues." The Internal Review Group looked at information on each of these areas and reviewed how changes have progressed.

Since the reorganization, a number of groups have demonstrated improved productivity and efficiency:

• FastCat Group has shown an increase in cataloging productivity of two titles per hour since last July and there is no standing FastCat backlog.
• The majority of labels prepared in Binding & Marking are now produced by wanding in the barcode and editing the EUCLID label screen rather than manually re-typing the information.
• The Catalog Group has already exceeded the number of new monographic titles cataloged last year. A number of factors (addition of cataloging hours to compensate for expected shortfalls plus taking on management of the backlog by the group) make it difficult to isolate whether this is a productivity improvement, but it does demonstrate a considerable achievement, in light of the number of other assignments in progress.

Workflow tasks relating to receiving, barcoding and changing status to "in-process" were reassigned from the previous Backlog manager to the Receiving Group. That has proved successful at eliminating the previous backlog at that stage in the acquisition process.

A number of holdover practices, such as the review of approval items by selectors, and the policy of discarding withdrawn library books, were reviewed and altered. Efforts to find ways to reduce the amount of paperwork that must be generated and filed by Search-Order-Sort are ongoing. Refinements to approval plan procedures were made, and under the changed practices, it is interesting to note that the number of added copies this year does not appear to have increased over last year.

CaTs work groups have made efforts at increasing their responsiveness to library user needs. Emphasis has been placed on expediting patron requests and holds, on correcting information in the EUCLID database to facilitate access, and on reducing errors in label preparation. There have also been initiatives to focus on internal CaTS and non-CaTS customers:

• DQM-l listserv was established by the Database Quality Management Group for reporting of errors or questions regarding EUCLID information accuracy.
• The CaTS Documentation Website, developed by the Documentation and Training Group, has provided a wealth of training material online.
• The Accounting Group has made strides in cross-training staff and has continued working with Collection Management Group to develop budget reports on a regular and as-needed basis.
• SerCat Group assisted Binding and Marking at a time of staff shortages, and added approximately 57% more serial item records this year over last.
• A CaTS Government Documents Group was established to focus on improving overall management of federal documents.

For most non-CaTS library staff, it appears that knowing "who does what" has continued to be a problem over the past year. Suggestions that came from interviews and surveys included: tours, e-mail and web page addresses on directories, and on-call staff in CaTS to answer questions between 8 and 5. There has recently been an open house, distribution of a directory with a list of all CaTS staff with their work groups, phone numbers and web sites, and there are continuing discussions of ways to address internal non-CaTS staff information needs. The Liaison Group/Coordinator was successful in meeting the needs of some non-CaTS library customers, such as CBI, and improving the management of vendor relationships.

There does not appear to be improvement in reducing the time required for procuring materials or improving efficiency in searching and ordering. It is difficult to determine whether these continuing problems relate to staffing issues or simply are inherent in the nature of pre-order searching.

There are still many challenges regarding electronic resources, but there appears to have been significant progress made in this area overall. The biggest improvements have been in the area of equipment, computing support, and documentation/training. There has been less progress in taking advantage of the capabilities of EUCLID and Emory's FAS accounting system .

NT workstations for a majority of the CaTS Division were acquired during the summer of 1998 during the Windows NT migration project. Training sessions for the NT environment were held during this migration, but subsequent ongoing NT training sessions have not been instituted for new employees. New printers for virtually all CaTS staff were acquired as part of an upgrade project in the Fall of 1998, as well as several networked laser printers. These improvements in the computing and printing infrastructure provide significantly improved automation capabilities for the Division.

The addition of the CaTS technical support specialist has provided dedicated front line computing support for the Division. His presence and the regular joint meetings between the DQM Tech Task Group and the General Libraries Systems Office have led to far better computing support for the Division overall, and much smoother relations with the Systems Office.

The Documentation and Training Group has developed a number of invaluable documents, which are available via the Web, and has also participated in a number of training sessions. Cross training and training on new technical features of the infrastructure still require attention.

EUCLID's full potential as a truly integrated library system is still unrealized. It appears that many staff still do not fully understand the functions and operations that are needed to do their work in the most effective and efficient manner. The CaTSPIT goal of seeing labels for cataloged materials prepared largely in cataloging work groups has so far not been realized. Difficulties in working with EUCLID's current labeling capabilities and finding suitable equipment has slowed progress in attempts to accomplish this. There is still no direct interface between EUCLID and Emory's FAS accounting system, and no prospect of such an interface with the eventually planned successor to the FAS system. Recent memos have pointed out some of the ways in which the capabilities of EUCLID could better be utilized, so there is reason to hope for advances in coming months on this front.

The Database Quality Management Group was established to provide a demonstrated commitment to EUCLID database quality. The group is charged with a significant variety of work responsibilities relating to the database, which led to the establishment of subgroups or task groups devoted to specific aspects of the work. This means that while progress is being made, resources are spread so thinly that the progress is slow but steady in most areas of need. Weekly lists of names and subjects produced by our authority control vendor are usually checked within the month they arrive, so that many more headings are being corrected in EUCLID. An indication of the increased attention to authority work can be seen in the increase from 678 authority records modified by staff a year earlier, to 6,691 during the past year. These headings represent only a small portion of the changes to the database. Customers have responded positively to the DQM documentation on the web site and the listserv.

Although there has been a significant amount of cross training on tasks, a number of tasks within the group continue to be unique to one individual. Global database change reports, which require significant training and experience, have not been extended to additional staff.

The merger of DQM and the Tech Group was positive. Both groups are supportive to issues of database quality. The Division as a whole has benefited from having a dedicated technical support specialist, and he has benefited from being associated with a work process group.

Using Smartport to bring authority records into EUCLID represented a major improvement in workflow. The record capture was immediate and it was a great improvement over the system of loading data in from disks. This contributed to the improved statistics for authority records loaded/edited.

The Projects Task Group has been successful in completing "priority requests" from Circulation and Reference, although at times the group has had to solicit hours from other staff in DQM in order to meet deadlines. Priorities were examined for many areas of work, and on-the-fly items were typically handled the same day of receipt.

Jobs in CaTS were previously viewed as being narrowly defined, leading to morale and customer satisfaction problems. To improve morale, CaTSPIT proposed giving staff the opportunity to learn new skills and work in a variety of areas. This was to be achieved through multiple group assignments and cross training both between and within groups. In addition to this variety, individual involvement in group decision making would promote a broader understanding of the processes and products of the Division, thereby improving customer service. Most of these opportunities have been realized but their secondary impacts on morale and customer satisfaction have met with mixed success.

Broadening of jobs has occurred through multiple group assignments and cross training has occurred within groups where time or necessity made it possible or vital. Staff have become more engaged in the work of their groups, have enjoyed the opportunity to expand their skills or to use previously under-utilized skills. Membership in multiple groups has given individuals a broader base of knowledge from which to answer customer inquiries.

Despite the success in implementing multiple group assignments and broadened opportunities, it also had a detrimental impact on morale. Staff found themselves overwhelmed by trying to accommodate the needs of multiple groups. Most of the individuals with assignments in three chose to drop out of one group when given the opportunity to do so by the Division Director about six months into the implementation. Staff have reported difficulty scheduling time appropriately for the work of multiple groups, juggling the fluctuating priorities across multiple groups, and the difficulty switching from the work of one group to another, particularly when the type of work varies greatly. In what appears to be an attempt to cope with these stresses, there has been a turning inward to focus on the work at hand, which limits the broad, division wide perspective that was desired to improve customer satisfaction.

Cross training across groups has not been broadly achieved to date. This has been attributed to staffing shortages and reluctance to ask for or offer limited time outside one's group. Efforts toward encouraging this would benefit the Division.

Evaluation of our experiences relating to work culture reveals a broad spectrum of feelings about a number of prominent issues. Overall, an assessment of the following issues is best characterized as mixed, with some individuals expressing favorable views, others unfavorable:

• Communication and ability to suggest and implement beneficial changes, both on the group member and group leader levels
• Multiple group assignments
• Effectiveness and number of meetings
• Effectiveness and benefits of the Coordinating Group
• Relevancy and quality of system-wide assessments

Predominantly less than favorable views were expressed in relation to a number of issues. Implementation was viewed as highly uneven. For example, there is a feeling that some groups and individuals have been spending a good deal of time and effort at achieving the principles behind the redesign while others have put forth only a superficial effort. Decision-making processes are viewed unfavorably. A recent example cited was the decision and manner in which the Acquisitions Librarian position was announced. Trust between leadership and division members remains an issue. There is a strong feeling that, division-wide, we lack the FTE's to achieve desired results. Finally, there is sentiment that the "transition" has gone on for too long, and that the overall library redesign impedes CaTS progress and contributes to a tentativeness and lack of clarity in moving toward achievement.

There were also some prominent favorable views on a number of issues. The division structure is viewed as being less hierarchical, leading to the feeling that the stage is set for continued improvement and that in time efforts will be even more fruitful. Division members recognize that the redesign is a work in progress. Perhaps most importantly, a significant number of Division members can point to positive achievements, regardless of whether or not they hold an overall favorable view of the redesign.

• CaTS staff believe that they are redesign pioneers within the library, and there is an expectation that the library wide redesign should recognize and build on this. Many feel that they have already been faced with change that is above and beyond the call of duty.
• Membership in three groups turned out to be too difficult for the majority of people who tried it. Also, membership in the Coordinating Group, Level 1 service desk, and sub-groups can require just as much of a person as a 'regular' group, e.g. time in meetings, time for completing assigned work, and balancing priorities.
• Scheduling work time for even two groups is difficult. Many staff tried a variety of time management techniques, for example dedicating mornings to one group and afternoons to another, or assigning the work of particular groups to certain days of the week. While each individual has devised a workable strategy for their particular situation, most staff still feel fragmented and dissatisfied with their ability to find a balanced schedule.
• The time it takes a group to 'start-up' is significant, and many staff comment that CaTS is just really getting underway after one year.
• Group leader and group member expectations were established and publicized. Group evaluation forms were based on these expectations. CaTS discovered that interpretations of the expectations varied between individuals and group to group, and that questions of clarity continued to come up at three, six and nine month evaluations.
• Expectations for entire groups and for the Division were not written and agreed upon. Because individual expectations varied, goals and success became hard to define and recognize.
• Another situation that arose from unclear expectations was the negative impact on morale created by the perception that production expectations were fluctuating. Early in implementation staff were reassured not to worry about a drop in production during the 9 month implementation period, and at about six months into implementation staff were asked what they could give up to free time for the library wide design. Shortly after that, staff became aware of a push for productivity. This situation has been brought up numerous times in discussions of both clarity of expectations and trust.
• Training in 'group process' was offered before groups first met together. Follow up training was to be offered as needed. The results of group evaluation forms, as reviewed by the Division Director and Human Resources Officer, and self reporting by groups were intended to determine the need for further group process training. Only one group requested further process training on a specific topic, and that only after the Documentation and Training Group offered it more than 9 months into implementation. The Coordinating Group has discussed that group process training should have been planned as a process across time, starting before team formation, continuing through the difficult start-up period, and narrowing to meet specific needs as groups settle into patterns.
• Flexibility was necessary in bringing the proposed design to reality. Some structural changes were made during implementation and before Day 1 (Search and Sort Group and Order Group were combined to form the Search Order Sort Group). Some structural changes were made over the first year (Technology Group merging into the DQM Group, conversion of Liaison Group to Liaison Coordinator, and the creation of a Government Documents Group).
• Replacing departing staff that have multiple group assignments has proved challenging.
• Not everyone wants to participate in decision-making. CaTS has discussed making group participation part of an individual's performance evaluation to encourage this.

The CaTS Internal Review Group

Susan Bailey
Betty Berry
Tim Cherubini
Martin Halbert
Joan Moffson
Marie Nitschke

back to CaTS Documentation main page