Team organization - learning organization: the University of Arizona four years into it

Information Outlook, Sept, 1997 by Laura J. Bender

The University of Arizona Library is in its fourth year of a reorganization that placed it at the forefront of organizational restructuring among academic libraries. This change involved the flattening of the old vertical organization into a horizontal organization whose charge is dynamic and customer-driven.

The restructuring was prompted by several factors. State revenues were not keeping up with economic expansion, materials costs had been rising steadily - especially serials costs (the library had just undergone a $700,000 serials cancellation project), and the library was implementing its first integrated, online catalog (gateway). In the midst of all these changes, the library hired a new dean who recognized that the library was ripe for restructuring. She encouraged a thorough self-examination process. Dean Carla Stoffle had no outcome in mind - the study would determine the final structure. In addition, the library had formed a Task Force on Access/Ownership, whose members concluded that the library must move from the old collection building and maintenance model to one of providing materials and services based on customer need. Although total quality management literature was reviewed, as well as much of the literature on re-engineering, restructuring, reorganization, etc., the structure that evolved was a combination of many theories - all pointing to the goal of becoming an organization focusing on customer needs.

A Steering Committee was formed to come up with a macro design. They asked themselves: "If we were starting a library today, how would we organize ourselves and our work to achieve our mission?" The committee solicited input from all library staff, an open house was held, and two designs emerged. They weighed the pros and cons of the two, and came up with a design incorporating the best of both. This was the macro design presented to the four design teams charged with completing a macro design of functions to be performed in the library. Ten implementation teams defined work at the micro level, identified the staff needed to carry out the work (FTEs), and developed position descriptions. The Operational Adjustment Team determined final FTE allocation. An elected selection team interviewed and hired team leaders. Then the Transition Planning Team appointed people to the eleven identified functional teams.

Based on the studies completed by the aforementioned committees, many more staff would be needed to implement the new plan than there were people available. Of course, not every staff member was involved in the implementation of every change. There was concurrent involvement on the part of many, but the Library Systems Office, for example, focused its work on getting the online catalog up and running, while many front line librarians worked with their departments to lessen the impact of the deep serials cuts. The transition, therefore, took almost two years; much longer than expected. Over 100 staff were involved, and the organizational design that evolved - that the library functions with today - is the solution based on invaluable staff input and available resources. Staff participation was and is highly valued in the library culture.

There were no models in the library world to help us through these initial stages. The business world had embraced quality management principles, but non-profit organizations have been slow to follow. However, external economic pressures and customer needs are closing the operational gap between non-profit and for-profit organizations and the University of Arizona Library received help from both sectors.

Susan Jurow and Maureen Sullivan, of the Association of Research Libraries, provided several training sessions. The entire university was responding to similar demands for change and, as a result, formed the Continuous Organization Renewal Office to help the library and other departments learn quality management theories and applications. Intel Corporation provided the business consultants who told us it would take at least seven years to approximate the sense of accomplishment associated with self-directed teams and who introduced the library to the "management by planning" process that would be adopted during the restructuring. Intel worked closely with the University Employee Development and Training Office and the Employee Wellness Department to promote good mental and physical health during the transition.

The result of this structural upheaval is an organization that consists of the dean; two assistant deans; two assistants to the dean; a development officer; eleven team leaders who coach, facilitate, and lead (and were selected through an internal process by elected teams of librarians and classified staff, coordinated by the Transition Planning Team); eight functional teams that directly support customers including Fine Arts/Humanities; Research, Archives, Museums, Special Collections; Science-Engineering; Undergraduate Services; Information Access (acquires information resources); Materials Access (responsible for circulation, shelving, etc.); Bibliographic Access (catalogs and processes materials); and three teams that support the organization including the dean's team which are the Library Support Team, the Business Operations Team, and the Library Information Systems Team. Team members chose to join these functional teams, or were encouraged to join, based upon subject knowledge, experience, and appropriate skill sets. In addition to these assigned functional or "home" teams, cross-functional teams of various types are formed to administer budgets (e.g Information Resources Development/Preservation Council, formerly the Collection Development Committee), address and implement annual plan projects, and address urgent challenges or strategic problems. Members of these strategic, cross-functional teams come from existing functional teams. They are given a defined goal with a designated timeline. The library is finding that many of these projects are not finished within the designated period of time. Defining the work to be done, working with new team members within a new team configuration, and subject and research learning curves all contribute to a longer process than initially anticipated. Many new projects come out of cross-functional teams (responsible for coming up with projects to implement the annual plan goals) that require more than one year to complete. Questions also are raised about the eventual handoff of ongoing work coming out of the project teams. Where does the project go from here? How will the defined outcomes be implemented within the library or on campus? Now many handoffs go back to the functional teams to be incorporated into team objectives that directly serve our customers.