• Discussion Group Notes
• Group #2886
• Group #2873
• Group #2887

Print This Page

Notes from Discussion Groups: Objective 9. Identify the skills and resources needed for library innovation and develop new competencies by training and recruiting.

Group #2873
Facilitator: David Block
Note-taker: Kizer Walker
LMT: Lee Cartmill
Attending: Pedro Arroyo, David Banush, Ken Bolton, Adam Chandler, Ida Martinez, Elizabeth Perenyi, Patricia Schafer, Martha Walker, Sharon Wargo, Linda Westlake, Marijo Wilson

The objective

Discussion opened with the question of how much more innovative the Library can be. How much innovation is needed?

• One participant responded that innovation must be coupled with continual evaluation and refinement of CUL’s existing initiatives. We need to place more emphasis on capturing, storing, and analyzing data about the use of library services.
• What is needed is qualitative data to measure the impact of services. It is not enough to count “hits.” We must determine whether we are reaching our intended users. Are we meeting their needs? Anticipating their needs? Evaluation must go beyond “librarian-centric” models and embrace insights offered by user behavior and human-computer interaction studies. The Library must avoid making assumptions about user needs from an attitude of superiority. Does CUL have in-house expertise to take this on?
• The priority objective calls for the identification of “ skills and resources”: w hat resources – besides financial ones – are needed to support innovation? The group agreed that human resources are key here. What are the human skills and competencies needed? We need a terminology to label skills and identify gaps. Important to think beyond traditional library functions and skills.

Implementation

• A typology was proposed that separates skills into:1. technical skills 2. management skills. One attendee cited a traditional definition of “management”: planning, direction, and control. The library plans well, but needs to focus better on direction and control.
• People/team/collaborative skills. Are these part of “management” or a separate category? These support innovation that does not come from the top down. Cross-departmental relationships can generate new initiatives. It is not sufficient to hire managers to manage technical staff. Staff who have technical skills need to be able collaborate with each other to nurture innovation.
• Flexible thinking is an essential skill.
• What are the proper roles of recruitment and training? Do we recruit for technical skills and develop management skills? How do you gauge management or collaborative skills in an interview?
• It will be important to take an inventory of interests of existing staff. This can be the basis for training/re-training.
• Gap analysis. Which skills do we have and which do we lack? What can be developed internally? What must we recruit for?
• The group discussed whether the “innovation” skills referred to in the objective were meant to pertain mainly to the other 8 objectives. Recruitment and training will need to address many library functions that are not included in the priority objectives. Also, since these are objectives for 2005-2006, should the discussion focus on skills that can be developed in the next two years? No, this objective naturally points beyond the others and has a larger timeframe.
• Question: Which functions or services is CUL prepared to jettison in order to free staff to pursue the 8 priority objectives? And how do we measure the number of staff and staff time required to carry out the objectives?
• It is important to give proper recognition to work in CUL that is outside the scope of the 8 objectives.
• An assessment of skills should flow up from the functional areas. This would be similar to the successful approach taken when Voyager was introduced – the functional groups were charged with training their own people according to their own needs.
• There are at least two (conflicting) approaches to handling staff
  (re-)assignment to innovative projects:
  • Central administration identifies staff who would excel in new initiative; gives them relief time to work in new area.
  • Evolutionary approach in which functional groups absorb new functions and reallocate staff time based on local needs.
• Some in the group expressed concern about central administration making decisions about the necessary skills and day-to-day requirements of the units. The group tended to favor a departmental process for identifying skills and gaps. The training of new staff should also proceed in a bottom-up manner, i.e. via the department or unit. But it was noted that commonalities will no doubt emerge among departments/units that can serve as a guide.
• A creative tension was noted here: departments are likely to try to replicate themselves and their functions into the future ß à it may require impetus from the outside to enable change. In some cases a system-wide approach is warranted. Recent successful models include the reorganization of interlibrary services and CTS integration.

Potential Partners

The Objectives document identifies:
University Office of Human Resources
Syracuse University School of Information Studies

• The group suggested the information schools at Buffalo and Albany. Also local Cornell potential partners: CS Department (increase existing collaboration), ILR and Johnson Schools (on human resources, marketing, evaluation issues, etc).
• It was noted that discussion at a recent CTS meeting included the possibility of bringing a recent Cornell PhD into the library as a postdoc. Part of the point would be to learn more about the information needs of Cornell academic departments. Could also aid in integration of information fluency into Cornell curriculum, another priority objective.
• Question: How should we collaborate? In partnering with information schools, important that they listen to CUL as much as provide consultancy. Info school partnerships should help the Library solve immediate problems.
• What has been the experience with HR training sessions, etc.? Management and other classes offered by CU and CUL HR are useful, but they are short-term workshops – what about longer-term study for CUL staff? There are different levels of need for continuing ed throughout the organization. Where does it come from? HR? Library school collaborations? Elsewhere? There was a sense in the group that HR training, especially at the university level, does not thoroughly address concrete problems.
• A disparity was noted between staff training (theory) and its implementation (practice). Management needs to entail monitoring staff to see that training is put into practice correctly. Supervisors need to set expectations and follow up with praise and critique. Technical skills are undermined without management.
• Can the Library and departments nurture staff development more consciously, e.g., through carefully graduated assignments? What is the role of mentorship? What is the status of the CPD mentorship program?

Measures of Success

• How do we know when we have succeeded? Evaluation is in the eye of the beholder (“I know it when I see it”). We do not have adequate measurement tools. CUL has ambitious people in management who will always raise the bar: “There is no finish line.”
• The hope was expressed that when information and input are solicited from staff, they actually be used by the administration.