The middle column in the chart (http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/Smathers_Libraries_Reorg_01242008.pdf) represents the branch libraries and reflects several proposed changes from our current structure.
The first significant change is acknowledgment of Library West as the Humanities and Social Science Branch Library. At the present time, there is no single individual with overall responsibility for scholarly resources and research services delivered by Library West. For example, reference services are coordinated through H&SS Reference department; circulation is managed by the Access Services department; collection development and the related faculty liaison functions are handled by the Collection Management department. In addition, there are services that support all of the Smathers Libraries that are integrated with the operation of Library West. For example, inter-library loan services, e-reserves, the auxiliary storage facility report to Access Services, but support all of our libraries.
In addition, Library West has several “tenants,” including the Smathers Libraries administrative offices (dean’s suite, human resources, business services, facilities) and the Price Judaica collection. The administrative offices need to be acknowledged as tenants and not become involved in the day to day operation of Library West to a greater extent than the involvement in other branches merely because of co-location.
The reorganization as presented would establish a chair for Library West, comparable to the chair for Marston Science Library, and establish within Library West responsibility for its own scholarly resources and research services. It would transfer to Technology and Support Services (the far left column) the services that support the libraries as a whole, such as inter-library loan. This would have the effect of dissolving the Public Services division as it is currently constituted, though most of its functions would remain in Library West and the other branches and, as explained below, the faculty from the Collections Management department would be merged into Library West or Marston.
In addition, the proposed reorganization places the Government Documents department, including maps/GIS, with Special and Area Studies Collections (the second column from the left) because its collections and services are more comparable to a special collection than to a branch library.
Currently, collection management is largely a distributed activity. Much of the work goes on in individual branches or with the faculty responsible for specific special and area studies collections. There are two exceptions. Two faculty members who provide collection management services for the sciences have their offices in Marston, but report to the Interim Chair for Collection Management, who is located in Library West. Collection management for the sciences is also done by other Marston faculty. Seven other faculty members with offices in Library West provide collection management services for the humanities and social sciences collections in the building.
The reorganization as presented would dissolve the Collection Management department and reassign the faculty to the branches in which they reside and for which they have collection management responsibility. The placement of the collection support unit is yet to be determined. If it is retained as a unit, it would move under Technology and Support Services because it supports multiple branches and collections. Alternatively, the staff could be reassigned to the branches that they serve. I am waiting for recommendations from the group that is working on a more complete definition of Library West as a branch library.
Another change represented in this proposal is the aggregation of the “other” branches, that is, the branches other than Library West and Marston, under a rotating chair elected from among the branch managers. At the same time, a new virtual branch would be created for business. This activity is already well developed and represents a service model that we may wish to expand into other disciplines over time. Acknowledging it as a branch library at this time allows us to further develop this specific library and to evaluate it as a model for other disciplines.
Because the proposed organization results in only three chairs for the scholarly resources and research services managed by and through the branch libraries, it seems reasonable to have each of the chairs report directly to the Senior Associate Dean, John Ingram, rather than creating an additional, intermediate associate dean.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I’ve been putting some thought into the 3 chairs model. I know it is scary to see the words “public service” and “collection management” disappear from the org chart, but it is just the words. These functions still exist – they’re what we do. If the words are needed though, perhaps they should appear in tiers below the chair level.
These 3 chairs will be collaborating closely, I envision. I don’t think their branches will have identical structures, because size does matter in this case. Library West is the largest so will require more structure, the small branches, the least.
Warning – self serving part coming up. Now of course, my biggest concern is Marston. I am an assistant chair in the CM department, but under the new model be moved into the Marston branch. I’m hoping to then be an assistant chair of collections in Marston (I do love collection management) or the assistant chair of scholarly resources and research, or whatever – again, the words aren’t so important. I imagine West will need an assistant chair of collections too. Maybe West needs an assistant chair of public service, or more narrow, an assistant chair of access services and an assistant chair of reference and instruction. Marston, being smaller probably won’t need as much of a breakdown (but who knows – our discussions are just beginning).
These fledgling ideas come with plenty of questions of course. A couple being:
The small branches are too small for such breakdowns, so would all facets fall to the current chair?
What type of committees will we structure to ensure good communication regarding these functions? Some of the ones we have may still work. Some may not (PLEASE! For every new one created, one must be dismantled or it will be meeting overload!)
Just a few thoughts to get some positive conversation going.
Post a Comment