Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
CUWL Reorganization Assessment Working Group
Final Report to Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Distributed to CUWL October 26, 2009
Working Group Members:
Marlys Brunsting, UW-Green Bay (Library Technology Coordinating Committee)
Anita Evans, UW-La Crosse
Steve Frye, UW-Madison (User Services Coordinating Committee)
Lisa Jewell, UW-System Administration
Valerie Malzacher, UW-River Falls, Chair
Joshua Ranger, UW-Oshkosh (Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee)
Richard Reeb, UW-Madison (Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee)
Mary Rieder, UW-Colleges
Introduction
The Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries developed a new committee structure in 2007. Primary goals of the reorganization were to improve communication between CUWL, its subgroups, and all members of the UW System library community and to provide a structure that allows for broad input into decision-making. The new structure organized four coordinating committees dealing with collections and resource sharing, digital initiatives, technology, and user services. Resource groups, working groups and task forces support and supplement the work of the coordinating committees. The Report on CUWL Subgroups, approved by CUWL on January 24, 2007, outlines this structure in detail, and also mandates that the new organizational structure should be formally assessed to determine whether or not it should continue or if another structure should be put into place.
The CUWL Reorganization Working Group has completed its assessment of the structure and presents a series of recommendations to CUWL to improve the effectiveness of CUWL subgroups.
Process
The CUWL Reorganization Working Group was formed in the fall of 2008. It includes members who have had direct experience working within the new structure: two members of the original group that worked on the restructuring, the chairs of the four coordinating committees, a CUWL liaison, and the UW System library consultant.
The Working Group developed a survey to assess various aspects of the CUWL reorganization. The survey, including questions, the number of respondents that answered each question, and the percent response, is included in the Appendix. The survey included tracks for members of CUWL (library directors or other appointed or ex-officio members); members of CUWL coordinating committees, resource groups, working groups, or task forces; and librarians who have not served on any CUWL subgroup. The survey offered numerous opportunities for respondents to offer comments, and was conducted during April-May 2009.
A listening session, that included a general overview of survey results, was held at the CUWL summer meeting in June 2009. This session provided a forum for all interested members of the UW library community to offer additional input to the Working Group regarding the structure.
General Survey Conclusions
Generally, members of CUWL are satisfied that the overall committee structure has contributed to the efficiency and effectiveness of CUWL operations, with 68% either somewhat or very satisfied. CUWL members expressed the greatest level of satisfaction with the involvement of committee chairs in CUWL meetings, with 82% either somewhat or very satisfied, and the lowest level of satisfaction with the relationship of the CDC and the LAMs as resource groups for their respective coordinating committees, with 47% of CUWL members either satisfied or very satisfied regarding the CDC and LAMs.
Generally, members of committees/task forces/working groups are satisfied with their meetings, with 58% either satisfied or very satisfied. Members of the CDC (64%) and LAMs (63%) feel they have a productive role in the new structure.
Problems with communication between CUWL, its subgroups, and all members of the UW System library community were clearly identified by all survey respondents. 40% of all respondents, both members and nonmembers of groups, are either somewhat or very dissatisfied with communication throughout the UW System. More nonmembers of groups are neutral about how well communication is working. Members are more satisfied—34% vs. 14%.
The CUWL mailing lists were reorganized as part of the restructuring. Both public and committee-only lists were created for each of the coordinating committees, and some former lists were combined or eliminated. 41% of all survey respondents are not subscribed to any of the CUWL mailing lists, citing lack of knowledge of the lists as a primary reason. Librarians involved in a subgroup are more likely to be connected via the mailing lists (only 14% are not subscribed to a list), but people who are involved are more dissatisfied (30% are somewhat or very dissatisfied) with the lists than people who are uninvolved in any way.
Several new communication methods were introduced as part of the CUWL reorganization: the CUWL wiki, webinars sponsored by coordinating committees, and the annual summer meeting. Members of groups use the wiki more and are more satisfied with it: 50% of members are somewhat or very satisfied vs. 21% of nonmembers. Members of groups participated in webinars far more frequently than non-members and were generally satisfied with this venue for sharing information. High levels of satisfaction have been expressed with the CUWL annual summer meeting, with 85% of respondents indicating that it should continue.
Respondents who are not currently serving on a committee or group were split on their willingness to volunteer. Sixty percent were willing, but 40% were unwilling, mostly due to lack of time or expertise.
Should the CUWL committee structure continue? Nonmembers of groups generally don’t know (56%) while 24% answered yes, keep it basically as is; 16% answered yes, with modifications; 4% answered no. Members of groups are generally more informed about the committee structure. Only 27% don’t know if it should continue, while 36% answered yes, keep it basically as is; 25% answered yes, with modifications; 11% answered no.
A large number of comments provided suggestions on how to improve the committee structure and the communication vehicles that support the structure. Working group members analyzed these comments and incorporated many of the specific suggestions in the specific recommendations that follow.
Specific Recommendations
A number of specific recommendations regarding the CUWL organizational structure are grouped around several main themes: awareness of CUWL, committee charges and memberships, CUWL webpage and wiki, discussion lists, teleconferences and webinars, and workload issues.
1. Awareness of CUWL
A lack of knowledge regarding CUWL, its structure and initiatives was identified as a problem for librarians new to the System and for librarians not affiliated with a CUWL committee. There needs to be ongoing, regular communication regarding CUWL, ways to get involved, ways to learn about and track projects, etc.
Recommendations regarding awareness about CUWL:
1.1 Develop a page on the wiki geared for new staff describing CUWL, its purpose and functions, committee structure, mailing lists and how to access them, etc.
1.2 Encourage all supervisors to include a briefing about CUWL as part of the orientation program for all new librarians.
1.3 Expand the functional staff directories on the Wiki. The currently available directories on the Wiki (the UW library directory, UB Contacts and SFX/MetaLib contacts) have proven to be effective.
2. Committee charges and memberships
The membership definitions of the coordinating committees specify that nine librarians from a variety of relevant functional areas should be members of each of the coordinating committees, along with ex-officio members from CUWL, UWSA, and WiLS (CRSCC). The memberships are currently defined as:
Digital Initiatives: Membership should include representatives with backgrounds in archives, automation, digital projects, public and technical services and shall also include at least one faculty member. There shall be two ex-officio members representing CUWL and UW System Administration.
Collections and Resource Sharing: Collection development, access services, and user services staff shall be members of the committee. There shall be three ex-officio members representing CUWL, UW System Administration and WiLS.
Library Technology: Librarians involved in library automation, technical services, user services and electronic resource management shall be members of this committee. A member of CUWL and a member of UW System Administration shall serve as ex-officio members of this committee.
User Services: Reference, instruction and distance education librarians and archivists shall be members of this committee. There shall be two ex-officio members representing CUWL and UWSA.
Recommendations regarding committee charges and memberships:
2.1 Retain the current approach regarding size of committee and membership definitions. Although we recognize that some responders to the survey requested that all campuses should have a representative on all coordinating committees, the Working Group affirms the current model of smaller committees with rotating memberships. Smaller campuses and the Colleges are not in a position to send a representative to each committee, and larger committees are difficult to manage. Unlike members of the LAMs and the CDC, who are expected to represent their own campus when taking votes on matters, coordinating committee members are expected to take a System-wide approach regarding committee initiatives.
2.2 Aim for greater functional diversity in the coordinating committee appointments. People from cataloging, acquisitions, access services, government documents and interlibrary loan should be represented on the four coordinating committees. Automation staff should be considered for coordinating committees beyond the LTCC.
2.3 Increase the involvement of staff from technical services on the coordinating committees.
2.4 Encourage directors to be more intentional in recommending staff for coordinating committee membership that reflect the memberships as described above.
2.5 Appoint the Chair of the LAMs as an ex officio member to the LTCC and the Chair of the CDC to the CRSCC. This will facilitate planning and information sharing and will allow the chairs of the LTCC and the CRSCC to more appropriately communicate with their respective resource groups.
2.6 Appoint the Head of the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center as an ex-officio, voting member to the Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee.
2.7 More clearly define the relationship between the LTCC and the LAMs and the role of the LAMs as a resource group to the LTCC. Some elements of the LTCC committee charge (determining shared system upgrade schedules, for example) should be under the purview of the LAMs so that the LTCC can focus more on strategic planning related to technology. More clearly define the relationship between the CRSCC and the CDC and the role of the CDC as a resource group to the CRSCC. Develop a statement of ongoing responsibilities for both resource groups.
2.8 Review the committee charges and membership definitions at the time that CUWL’s strategic directions are updated, so that the charges can clearly reflect CUWL’s on-going strategic priorities.
2.9 When a new chair is appointed to a coordinating committee, the past chair will continue to serve (as a voting member) for one year to provide continuity. If the year as past chair would be that person’s fourth year on the committee, their original slot on the committee will be filled and they will serve as an extra person on the committee.
2.10 Individuals may be appointed to two consecutive terms on a coordinating committee.
3. Web Page and Wiki
Both the CUWL web page and the wiki are vital communication tools. The web page presents the official work of CUWL to audiences both internal and external to the UW System.
The CUWL wiki is a dynamic workspace available to all library staff in the UW System. It is an important tool that helps to facilitate the work of committees/task forces/working groups and is a convenient way to share work-in-progress with the UW library community.
Recommendations regarding the web page and the wiki:
3.1 The current free wiki has reached space limitations. A small group should be formed to study options for a wiki that scales to our needs and offers permanence. A commercial product or the file sharing function of Xythos (a file management system used by some UW campuses) should be investigated as possibilities.
3.2 Discontinue the practice of posting committee/task force/working groups minutes on the CUWL web page. It is sufficient to post these on the wiki. Continue to post CUWL agendas and minutes and all final, accepted reports of CUWL and all its subgroups on the CUWL webpage.
3.3 Make the timely posting of meeting agendas and minutes a high priority.
3.4 Clearly define and advertise how to join the wiki and how to obtain rights as a writer.
3.5 Determine and document how administrative tasks related to wiki maintenance will be accomplished.
4. Discussion Lists
Discussion lists facilitate the day-to-day business of the Coordinating Committees and allow for the dissemination of information and discussion of issues among staff at all the UW libraries. Survey feedback and experience with the lists over the past year indicate that there are problems with the discussion lists that need to be solved to help improve communication among UW librarians.
Recommendations regarding discussion lists:
4.1 Create discussion lists for functional groups (e.g., Catalogers, Interlibrary Loan staff) to encourage discussion of day-to-day working issues.
4.2 Reestablish the LAMS list.
4.3 Advertise the lists more broadly. Develop an inventory of current lists and post this inventory to the CUWL Wiki. Clearly document how individuals can subscribe to/unsubscribe from lists and advertise this regularly.
4.4 The current lists hosted at DoIT have been problematic. A small working group should be formed to investigate other options for list hosting, including options for moderated list hosting which allow for people to self-subscribe and unsubscribe the lists.
5. Teleconferences, Webinars, and Annual Meeting
Coordinating Committees, Task Forces, and Working Groups often rely on teleconferences to conduct business. This is a cost effective and time efficient way to conduct business and is encouraged.
Recommendations regarding teleconferences, webinars, and annual meeting:
5.1 For audio-only teleconferences, groups are encouraged to use Freeconference.com or a parallel product to save money. A number of groups have effectively used this free service over the past year.
5.2 Web conferences need to be a quality experience. The Freeconference.com web app does not work well. For web conferences, groups are directed to use Wisline Web. Although there is a cost associated with this service, it is a necessary cost when a group requires the use of the web as part of the teleconference.
5.3 A small group should be formed to investigate other web apps to find the highest quality, lowest cost solution.
5.4 Information about arranging audio and web conferences should be outlined clearly on the CUWL wiki.
5.5 Continue to host an annual meeting. 85% (111 respondents) agreed that CUWL should continue the annual meeting.
6. Workload Issues
Seventy-seven percent of those who are members of a coordinating committee or group felt the workload generated by committee service was manageable, but three of the four coordinating committee chairs felt the workload was burdensome.
Recommendation regarding workload issues:
6.1 Review the committee charges and set strategic directions and goals for the committees that are manageable within designated timeframes. Directors should consider some work relief at the local campus level for coordinating committee chairs.
In Conclusion
The CUWL Reorganization Working Group did find that the new committee structure achieved the major goal of more “grassroots” involvement in the overall work of CUWL. New training opportunities represented by the annual conference and CUWL sponsored webinars have been well received. The Working Group believes that the implementation of the recommendations stated here largely will address problems with communication, a frequent theme in the survey responses. The Working Group recommends that the CUWL Executive Committee reviews the progress made on the recommendations within two years.
Appendix
CUWL Reorganization Assessment Survey
Questions with response percent for each question
Response percents are rounded to the nearest percent for purposes of this report
1. Where in the library do you work? Select all that apply. Response Percent
Access Services (Circulation, Reserves) 23%
Acquisitions 23%
Archives and Special Collections 8%
Cataloging 14%
Collection Development 32%
Distance Learning 8%
Government Documents 8%
Instruction 30%
Interlibrary Loan 13%
Library Administration 18%
Library Automation/Systems 11%
Reference 41%
Serials 15%
Web/Electronic Services 20%
Other 6%
Answered question = 168
2. Are you a member of CUWL (library director or other appointed or ex-officio member), not including coordinating committee chairs?
Yes 14%
No 86%
Answered question = 168
3. Are you currently, or have you been, a member of a CUWL coordinating committee, resource group (Collection Development Committee or Library Automation Managers), working group (e.g., Library Dynamics Working Group, Web 2.0 Working Group, etc.) or task force:
Yes 41%
No 59%
Answered question = 143
4. Of which groups are you, or have you been, a member? Select all that apply.
Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee 15%
Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee 7%
Library Technology Coordinating Committee 13%
User Services Coordinating Committee 11%
Annual Conference Planning Committee 2008 6%
Annual Conference Planning Committee 2009 6%
Blackwell Evaluation Working Group 9%
CUWL Reorganization Assessment Working Group 8%
Distance Library Services Committee 17%
Document Delivery Working Group 6%
Library Automation Managers 19%
Electronic Resource Management Working Group 9%
Information Literacy Assessment Working Group 6%
Library Management System Exploratory Task Force 8%
Library Dynamics Working Group 6%
MetaLib Assessment Working Group 6%
MINDS@UW Working Group 4%
New Reference Models Working Group 8%
Periodicals Procurement Bid Working Group 2%
Resource Discovery Exploratory Task Force 6%
Universal Borrowing Working Group 9%
UW System Archives Council 2%
Web 2.0 Working Group 2%
Other 6%
Answered question = 53
5. As a member of a CUWL coordinating committee, resource group, working group and/or task force, do you feel the workload has been manageable?
Burdensome 8%
Manageable 77%
No significant addition to my workload 15%
Answered = 53
6. To what degree are you satisfied with your coordinating committee (i.e., Collections and Resource Sharing, Digital Initiatives, User Services or Library Technology) meetings?
Not a member of a coordinating committee 29%
Very dissatisfied 10%
Somewhat dissatisfied 15%
Neutral 10%
Somewhat satisfied 17%
Very satisfied 19%
Answered question = 52
7. To what degree are you satisfied with your resource group (Collection Development Committee or Library Automation Managers) meetings?
Not a member of a resource group 42%
Very dissatisfied 0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 10%
Neutral 14%
Somewhat satisfied 21%
Very satisfied 14%
Answered question = 52
8. To what degree are you satisfied with your working group (e.g., Library Dynamics Working Group, New Models of Reference Service Working Group, etc.) or task force meetings?
Not a member of a working group or task force 23%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Somewhat dissatisfied 17%
Somewhat satisfied 36%
Very satisfied 14%
Answered question = 52
9. To what degree are you satisfied with communication between your group(s) and other groups?
Very dissatisfied 14%
Somewhat dissatisfied 21%
Neutral 29%
Somewhat satisfied 31%
Very satisfied 6%
Answered question = 52
10. Are you a member of the Collection Development Committee (CDC)?
Yes 29%
No 71%
Answered question = 52
11. Do you feel the CDC has a productive role in the new structure (e.g., does the Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee consult your group often enough)?
Yes 64%
No 36%
Answered question = 14
12. Are you a member of the Library Automation Managers (LAMs)?
Yes 22%
No 78%
Answered question = 37
13. Do you feel the LAMs has a productive role in the new structure (e.g., does the Library Technology Coordinating Committee consult your group often enough)?
Yes 63%
No 37%
Answered question = 8
14. Would you be willing to volunteer to be a representative from your institution on a CUWL committee or group?
Yes 61%
No 39%
Answered question = 82
Questions 15 through 22 answered by members of CUWL only
15. Are you satisfied that the new committee structure has contributed to the efficiency and effectiveness of CUWL operations?
Very dissatisfied 0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 11%
Neutral 21%
Somewhat satisfied 42%
Very satisfied 26%
Answered question = 19
16. Are you satisfied that the structure has improved the CUWL strategic planning process?
Very dissatisfied 0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 16%
Neutral 32%
Somewhat satisfied 26%
Very satisfied 26%
Answered question = 19
17. Are you satisfied that the current committee charges and committee membership definitions work for all four committees? You may review the committee charges and memberships here.
Very dissatisfied 6%
Somewhat dissatisfied 22%
Neutral 17%
Somewhat satisfied 39%
Very satisfied 17%
Answered question = 18
18. Are you satisfied that committee chair involvement in CUWL meetings contributes to the effectiveness of CUWL operations?
Very dissatisfied 6%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0%
Neutral 12%
Somewhat satisfied 29%
Very satisfied 53%
Answered question = 17
19. Are you satisfied that the workload for those serving on coordinating committees/working groups/resource groups/task forces is acceptable?
Very dissatisfied 0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 11%
Neutral 50%
Somewhat satisfied 33%
Very satisfied 6%
Answered question = 18
20. Are you satisfied that the reorganization allows UW System OLIT staff to provide support to CUWL leadership and functional areas at the level needed?
Very dissatisfied 6%
Somewhat dissatisfied 39%
Neutral 39%
Somewhat satisfied 11%
Very satisfied 6%
Answered question = 18
21. The Library Automation Managers (LAMs) are a resource group for the Library Technology Coordinating Committee. Are you satisfied that this is working?
Very dissatisfied 6%
Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
Neutral 35%
Somewhat satisfied 24%
Very satisfied 23%
Answered question = 17
22. The Collection Development Committee (CDC) is a resource group for the Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee. Are you satisfied that this is working?
Very dissatisfied 0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 24%
Neutral 29%
Somewhat satisfied 35%
Very satisfied 12%
Answered question = 17
23. If you have served as a CUWL liaison to a coordinating committee, please comment on the effectiveness of this arrangement?
No quantitative data to report
Questions 24 through 39 answered by all survey respondents
24. Which mailing lists are you subscribed to? (Information on how to subscribe to these lists is available on the CUWL web page.)
CUWLCRS (Collections and Resource Sharing) 42%
CUWLDIGITAL (Digital Initiatives) 30%
CUWLTECH (Technology Initiatives) 37%
CUWLUSER (User Services) 37%
Not subscribed to any of the above 41%
Answered question = 139
25. To what degree are you satisfied with the mailing list system?
Do not use 30%
Very dissatisfied 3%
Somewhat dissatisfied 15%
Neutral 22%
Somewhat satisfied 20%
Very satisfied 11%
Answered question = 139
26. To what degree are you satisfied with the CUWL wiki?
Do not use 34%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Somewhat dissatisfied 5%
Neutral 22%
Somewhat satisfied 25%
Very satisfied 12%
Answered question = 139
27. Do you read CUWL minutes and/or reports?
Yes 68%
No 32%
Answered question = 139
28. Do you read CUWL coordinating committee/working groups/task force minutes and/or reports?
Yes 64%
No 36%
Answered question = 139
29. Have you attended any of the webinars organized by the coordinating committees (e.g., New Models of Reference Service, MetaLib Assessment, MetaLib CKB Monthly Updates)?
Yes 30%
No 70%
Answered question = 139
30. To what degree are you satisfied with communication among staff throughout the UW-System?
Very dissatisfied 10%
Somewhat dissatisfied 30%
Neutral 35%
Somewhat satisfied 22%
Very satisfied 4%
Answered question = 139
31. Are there any other avenues of communication that you feel would improve communication between CUWL, its subgroups, and library staff throughout the UW System?
No quantitative data to report
32. Did you attend the CUWL summer meeting in June 2008?
Yes 46%
No 54%
Answered question = 130
33. Should CUWL continue an annual meeting?
Yes 85%
No 15%
Answered question = 130
34. Do you feel more is being accomplished (productivity, efficiency, etc.) due to the new structure?
At the CUWL (system-wide) level Yes=26% No=15% Don’t know=59%
At the local library level? Yes=12% No=26% Don’t know=62%
Answered question = 114
35. Are there any areas of specialization that lack adequate representation in the current structure? Select all that apply.
Access Services (Circulation, Reserves) 18%
Acquisitions 13%
Archives and Special Collections 5%
Cataloging 20%
Collection Development 11%
Distance Learning 7%
Government Documents 18%
Instruction 18%
Interlibrary Loan 18%
Library Administration 2%
Library Automation/Systems 9%
Reference 9%
Serials 14%
Web/Electronic Services 13%
Other 22%
Answered question = 56
36. If you feel there are any areas of specialization that need better representation, should this representation be achieved by formation of a formal group?
Yes. What new group would you suggest? What
would its purpose or specific actions be? 18%
No. Can you suggest another means to achieve better
Representation, if necessary? 10%
Don’t know 72%
Answered question = 97
37. Should the current structure (coordinating committees supported by various resource groups, working groups and task forces continue)?
Yes, continue basically as is. 34%
Yes, but with modifications. 21%
No 6%
Don’t know 39%
38. How can we improve the committee structure? Please comment.
No quantitative data to report.
40. Please provide any additional comments relevant to the assessment of the CUWL reorganization.
No quantitative data to report.