It Takes (at least) Two To Make A Thing Go Right: Maximizing

Workflow Redesign ROI Through Collaboration

Karen Brown Letarte, LYRASISNancy Hershoff, FIU Libraries

Rita Cauce, FIU LibrariesCharleston Conference, Nov. 6, 2009

Session Topics

• Collaborative workflow analysis and redesign process

• Staff Involvement at all levels• Before and After scenarios• WF Changes and Recommendations• Improvements/efficiencies gained • What did We Learn?

Florida International University

Introduction to the Project

• FIU Dean of Libraries contacted LYRASIS about a TS workflow analysis in May 2008

• Background info• New dean• Workflow improvement & alignment

needed as result of new ILS• 2 campuses maintaining 2 TS operations• Project to analyze entire TS workstream

• First public, urban, research institution in Miami-Dade

• Opened for classes in 1972 with 5,667 students – the largest opening day enrollment in U.S. collegiate history

• Has more than 39,000 students, 1000+ full-time faculty, and more than 134,000 alumni

• One of the 25 largest universities in the nation

• Ranked first in the nation among four-year colleges for awarding bachelor’s and master’s degrees to Hispanic students

• Law School and Medical School• Green Library, Biscayne Bay Library,

Engineering Library, Law Library, Medical Library, Pine Center Library,Wolfsonian Museum Library, and Digital Libraries

Project Infrastructure

• Project team appointed to plan project with consultant– Head of Cat, UP Campus– Head of Resource Development, UP Campus– Head of BC at BB Campus

• Weekly conference calls set up• Project to include 2 site visits• Site visit 1: On-boarding for all involved

staff• Site visit 2: Data gathering and analysis

Project Goals• Provide neutral, authoritative expertise • Staff understands library’s new

strategic goals and objectives• Staff understands user needs• Align TS workflows to meet priorities

and needs• Team-building• Analyze current workflows, processes,

outcomes• Redesign to streamline operations,

create new efficiencies, leverage existing resources

In Other Words….

Designing a Collaborative Approach

• G0AL: Involve staff at all levels in redesign process

Hayes, Jan and Maureen Sullivan. Mapping the Process: Engaging Staff in Redesigning Work. [Wheeling, IL: North Suburban Library System], 2002.

Designing a Collaborative Approach, 2.

• Vision for process, but most details had to be worked out as we went along

• Process took longer than expected (Sept. 08-Jan. 09)

• Worked with project team to create list of workflows to be mapped

• Divided staff into project teams with specific wfs/deliverables

• Coordinator: Nancy Hershoff

Process Management• Multiple Intercampus functional group

meetings• Slightly different approaches to

process mapping • Software & hardware preparation• Scheduling for online distance learning

sessions• All staff participation in various

sessions• New ways to facilitate collaboration

GREEN LIBRARY Technical Services Cataloging Dept. Resource Development Dept.

BISCAYNE BAY LIBRARY Bibliographic Control Dept.

Dean of Libraries

Sue Wartzok,Head

CATALOGING

Rita Cauce, HeadRESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT

AD forCollection

Management

LTA43959

Sr. LTA44628

Sr. LTA44070

Accountant44143

Binding/ProcessingSupervisor

44142

ELECTRONICRESOURCESLIBRARIAN

44426

SERIALS UNIT

Sr. LTA44626

Sr. LTA45309

Sr. LTA44147

Sr. LTA44565

ACQUISITIONS UNIT

LTA Supervisor45757

Asst. Dept. Head(Authories Libn)

45215

Libn. (AVCataloger)

44911

Archivist44137

Archivist44072

Libn (SerialsCataloger)

44560

Asst. Univ. Libn44645

Sr. LTA44136

Sr. LTA44138

Sr. LTA43958

Sr. LTA44146

UP Tech Services

Dean ofLibriares

Exec.Assoc. Dir.

NancyHershoff, Head,

Bib Control

GOV DOCS

ACQUISITIONS

SERIALS

CATALOGING

Archivist

LTAS

SLTA

LTAS

SLTA

SLTA

BBC TS

Site Visit 1: 1.5 days

• Purpose: Team and Vision Building• Tools:

– 5 Dysfunctions of Teams model– Scenario planning– Appreciative inquiry– Gregorc Mind Styles Inventory

• Process mapping training

Project Teams 1Acquisitions

Rita Cauce (UP)• Mabel Berrios (UP)• Dalvys Perez (UP)• Ivy Torres (BBC)• Aminta Mayorga (UP)• Alicia Padilla (UP)• Zukina Contreras (BBC)

Project Teams, 2

Nancy Hershoff (BBC)

• Aurora Barrios (UP)

• Peter Matcau (BBC)

• Graciela Morejon (UP)

• Angela Obando (UP)

Peter Picerno (UP)• Mee

Suwanmaneedang (BBC)

• Johnnie Wright (UP)• Maria Zamora (UP)

Serials

Group Photo of the Serials Team

I took the picture.

Project Teams 3

Sue Wartzok (UP)• Ana Arteaga (UP)• Maria Bello (UP)• Gustavo Echeverri

(UP)• Nora Ferrer (UP)Eduardo Fojo (BBC)• Marilyn Gabriel

(UP)

Mirtha Hernandez (UP)

David Lawson (UP)Bob Mead-Donaldson

(UP)• Margarita Perez

(UP)Elaine Winske (UP)

Cataloging

Between Site Visits

• Weekly conference calls with project team

• Teams worked on maps• 6 Centra Distance Learning sessions

scheduled to follow-up on creating & critiquing maps

Process Maps

• Staff from both libraries were involved in process

• E.g.: Acq staff from UP & BB worked on same team to map processes

• Mapping was an important community-building exercise

• Mapping kept all staff members involved in process

• Staff also supplied written procedures for each map

• More than 60 workflows mapped!!!!

CLAIMING OPEN ORDERSGREEN LIBRARY

Is it a Gobiorder?

Create a report ofopen orders over

2 months old

NoYes

Produce a claimletter for that

open order withinAleph

Search for theopen order in Gobiand claim it within

their database

Claim sent andawaiting response

(Status Report) fromthe vendor

The claim could besent by either via

regular mail, e-mail,or fax

Update theinformation in theAleph Order Log

Since we did notproduce a claim

letter through Aleph,we must then update

the Order Log.

When vendorresponse received,

follow StatusReport Procedures

Site Visit 2: 4 days

• Purpose: to gather as much data and input as possible from staff about workflows

• Met with project teams• Met individually with (almost) every

staff member in TS• Also met with Public Services staff, E-

Resources team, and administrators

Goal: Streamlining acquisitions across campuses

• Two very different environments:Biscayne Bay University Park

- Student body 7,500 - Student body 32,000- 4 Master’s and 1 PhD programs - 30 PhD programs- 2 full-time acq. staff - 4 full-time acq. staff - $123K firm orders - $350K firm orders

+ $600M approvals

• Two very different workflows:- BB acq. was bringing in OCLC records at time of

ordering - UP depended on cat’g for all bib record loads; also

used YBP EOCR brief records

Working Together: The Plan

• Identify goals and process - Map all current procedures- Analyze procedures: streamline and increase efficiencies- Implement changes based on recommendations, to best serve our users and the library as a whole

• Getting to know each other- Writing procedures and create work flow maps together- Visit with each other- Have face to face meetings, one at each campus- Regular email updates and shared drive for documents- Everyone would have input and be open about what’s on their mind

Acquisitions Procedures to Map

• Placing Firm Orders

• Ordering Liaison Selections through GOBI

• Receiving Firm Orders

• Receiving Approvals: YBP; Latin American materials; etc.

• Processing Invoices in Aleph and University’s PeopleSoft

• Processing Credit Card Transactions in Aleph & PeopleSoft

• Claiming

• Processing Returns

• Status Reports from Vendors

The Process: expect the unexpected

• Dedicate time to listen to and to relieve staff stress:- BB staff concerned Tech Services would be moved to UP- UP staff concerned with downsizing due to budget cuts and funds being transferred to e-resources

• Can’t have too much communication- emails to update on weekly conference call, where we were, timelines, visit schedules, mapping process …- important to let them know why changing

• Importance of flexibility- many of the procedures so different, each campus did their own and then discussed

• All staff members need to be engaged

Major Recommendations• TS Functions should be administratively

centralized• TS functions should continue to be

performed physically at both campuses• Create a separate E-Resources Unit

with head reporting to Dean• Establish AD for TS• Establish position with resp. for ILS• Move to a catalog-on-receipt workflow

Review and Analysis of Recommendations

• Technical Services Reorganization Steering Committee reviewed and discussed the consultant’s report point by point

• TSRSC members then discussed relevant points with their staff

• A matrix (as shown in next slide) was set up to systematically analyze and reflect collective perspectives

• Recommendations are still being assessed and implemented in stages with slight variation

Recommendation Analysis Matrix

Status Clarity Complexity Issues

1. Done Needs Assessment High

2. Done Needs Assessment High

3. Underway Clear Low

4. For Discussion Needs Assessment High

5. For Discussion Needs Assessment High

6. For Discussion Needs Assessment High

7. Underway Clear Medium

What We Learned• Importance of

communication throughout the process

• Listen and encourage input from all

• Engage everyone in the process

• Change is very threatening – express how important they are for the process and why need to go in new directions

•Remind them that need to do what’s best for the users and the library as a whole•Be flexible!•Listen! (Two heads are better than one!)•Change takes time, but presents great opportunities for growth

CONTACT INFORMATIONKAREN BROWN LETARTE

Consultant for Library Effectiveness & Planning LYRASIS

karen.letarte@lyrasis.org

NANCY HERSHOFFILS Coordinator/Planning OfficerFlorida International University Libraries

sunn@fiu.edu

RITA M. CAUCEHead, Resource Development DepartmentFlorida International University Libraries

caucer@fiu.edu