Management Analysis Report: Organizational Design of the Claremont Colleges Digital Library

Introduction and Context

The Claremont Colleges Digital Library (CCDL) is a core division of the Claremont University Consortium (CUC). The CUC provides library services to seven undergraduate and graduate liberal arts colleges in California; the CCDL was established as a means of addressing demand and need for digital collections by each institution. As the CUC library services division serves multiple institutions, and does not “belong to any single college,” its organizational structure must be optimized to address all these institutions simultaneously (Crane, 3). In this report, I will examine the CUC and CCDL organizational design, and discuss if the structure supports quality digital collection services to each institution.

Critique and Implications

Below, I have created a simplified organizational chart based on the CUC’s Library Org Chart 2-21-19:

From this chart, it is clear that the CUC’s library services are functionally departmentalized; the library organizes “work and workers into separate units responsible for completing particular tasks” (Williams, 2015, p. 180). Expanding on this definition in context, this means that the workers in the Special Collections Department are under the leadership of the “Director of Special Collections” and are coordinated in their efforts by the “Curatorial Team Leader” to complete tasks directly related to Special Collections. They would not, for instance, perform work related to Acquisitions, as this is done by the “Assistants” to the “Acquisitions Team Leader” who reports to the “Director of Collections & Technical Services.” Each worker is responsible for being a specialist in a certain area and performing tasks related to that specialization.

Further, from the chart, we are able to deduce that there is a clear chain of command; a clear, “vertical line of authority” that makes clear who reports to whom (Williams, p. 186). There is also unity of command, as each worker reports to only one manager. For instance, the “Resource Sharing Assistants” report to the “Resource Sharing Manager” and no one else; while the “Resource Sharing Manager” reports to the “Director of User Services” and no one else; and, finally, the “Director of User Services” reports to the Interim Dean, and no one else.

It is reasonable to assume, although not directly confirmed by the organizational chart, that there is both line and staff authority in this structure. Line authority is clear through titles: there are “Assistant Catalogers,” to the “Cataloging and Metadata Team Leader,” for instance. The title of “Team Leader” also suggests that teams exist which are commanded by these leads, and they follow the vertical line of authority. Staff authority can be deduced from the departmentalization and the Director of each department reporting to the “Interim Dean of the Library.” As each department depends on the other departments to function, it can be expected that the Interim Dean acts to coordinate efforts between them. Consider, for instance, that the Special Collections Department would rely on the Collections and Technical Services Department to purchase and provide the products that make up the Special Collections. The Directors of both departments would likely have the right to advise one another to aid the coordinated effort of securing Special Collections products that best serve the institutions of the CUC.

Notably, the CUC library division has a unique delegation practice to address their cross-institutional services; but this delegation exists in a violation to unity of command. The process can be visualized as below, created with reference to the Agreement Regarding the Claremont Colleges Library:

In the Agreement Regarding the Claremont Colleges (2019) this arrangement is described as “a dual reporting relationship” for the Dean of the Library, with the Dean of the Lead College, a position which rotates yearly to allow each institution to serve, in charge of “strategic direction” and the CEO in charge of “operations.” The rotating Dean of the Lead College is an interesting delegation practice because the “strategic direction,” the mission the organization will follow for each academic year, can shift to better serve one institution or another once a new delegate is selected. This ensures that each institution has an opportunity to drive the initiatives they consider most important. However, the dual reporting relationship described could easily create what Williams describes as “conflicting commands from two different bosses” for the Dean of the Library (p. 187). Imagine, for instance, that the Dean of the Lead College has put forth a strategic direction of major acquisitions to promote the CUC, perhaps a new series of rare special collections to promote the subjects taught at the lead college; the Dean of the Library may find this mission at odds with the Operations demands set forth by the CEO, which have a very limited budget for such projects. Whose demand should the Dean of the Library prioritize? In the current arrangement, this is unclear.

Conclusion and recommendation

Functional departmentalization is an organizational structure that serves the CUC and CCDL well because it creates specialization, and addressing specialized concerns is the aim of the CUC and CCDL. Colleges are places to develop concentrated areas of expertise, so functional departments are a way to ensure that each concentration receives specialized attention from management.

As a functionally departmentalized structure with a rather rigid chain of command, the CUC and CCDL will be best served if unity of command is maintained. In a highly structured environment, or mechanistic organization, it is important to have a clear understanding of your duties so you can serve your specialized role. In the case of the Dean of the Library, I anticipate confusion and gridlock occur where the Dean of the Lead College and the CEO may have different priorities. The ensuing confusion and competing reporting structure may lead to less than optimal performance on the part of the Dean of the Library, and create an environment where many important functions are not addressed. Consider, if the Dean of the Library prioritizes the CEO’s budget concerns, and goes against the Dean of the Lead College in my prior example: the faculty and students accessing the library would be unable to access any new collections that year, and this would undermine the ultimate mission of the CUC -  to serve such patrons. Eliminating this dual-reporting process would eliminate this confusion, and likely improve the services the Dean of the Library was able to provide.

References

Academic Deans Committee. (2019). Agreement regarding the Claremont Colleges Library [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://library.claremont.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-05-Library-Agreement.pdf

Claremont Colleges Library. (2019). Library Org Chart 2-21-19 [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://library.claremont.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Library-Org-Chart-2-21-19-for-web.pdf

Crane, L. (2011). The Claremont College Digital Library: A model for digital projects [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/53

Williams, C. (2015). MGMT8: Principles of Management. Cengage Learning. 

Management Analysis Report: Planning + Creation of the Claremont Colleges Digital Library

Introduction and Context

The Claremont University Consortium (CUC) provides library services to seven undergraduate and graduate liberal arts colleges. In 2003, the CUC sought to establish a digital library as a means of supporting growing needs for digitized collections. The creation of the digital library, christened the Claremont Colleges Digital Library (CCDL), is examined using the SMART framework within this report.

As the CUC library services division serves multiple institutions, and does not “belong to any single college,” different problems arise and decision criteria must be weighed appropriately for each (Crane 3). In 2003, the CUC Library was “neither organizationally nor fiscally prepared… to embark on a full-fledged digital library program that addresses all the needs of the Libraries as well as The Claremont Colleges” (Clemens, et. al. 1). Relative comparisons needed to be made: Which college’s special collections would be given precedence? Which software or service deemed more pressing to acquire?

Critique and Implications

Below, a selection of the CCDL’s strategic planning document, CCDL strategic planning fiscal year 2006-2007, is adapted against the SMART framework:

Goal: “maximize patron use of ContentDM’s features” (a digital collection management software) and provide training to faculty to do assist in this; additionally provided is the staff goal, “Allegra will provide training sessions on Friday August 25 and Wednesday August 30. Allegra will provide another two training sessions for reference staff in the spring” (The Claremont Colleges Digital Library, 2006).

·      Specific? No.

o   It could be made specific by following the example set by Allegra’s personal goal. For example: train 30 professors and 300 students to use features x, y, and z in ContentDM

·      Measurable? No – there is no way to measure the maximization of the software.

o   Alternative: gauge patron use of each feature (x, y, z) and see if 80% of patrons could use the features without assistance once trained.

·      Attainable? Likely no – maximization requires absolute use (100% of patrons using ContentDM’s features)

o   As with Measurable, a percentage of patron use would make this goal more attainable.

·      Realistic? No – due to the CCDL’s already limited resources, and the unlikeliness of 100% patron use.

·      Timely? No –introducing and training patrons on ContentDM for maximum efficacy in a single fiscal year is not practical.

Although the ContentDM goal falls short within the SMART framework, other goals laid out by the CCDL are suitable. Consider:

Goal: “Create Best Practices for Encoding Audio/Video” (The Claremont Colleges Digital Library, 2006).

·      Specific? Yes. A best practices policy once established would guide future members of the CCDL in encoding Audio/Video documents and explain why the particular practices were selected.

·      Measurable? Yes. The policy is established or not; at the end of the fiscal year, this policy would be publicly available.

·      Attainable? Yes. Establishing a policy within a fiscal year is reasonable.

o   Within the Strategic Plan the CCDL states that they have “installed an Apple Streaming Server” and that the “Digital Library Cataloger is attending a workshop for applying audio/video metadata,” so steps were taken to make this goal attainable (The Claremont Colleges Digital Library, 2006).

·      Realistic? Yes. Best practices with regards to documents of any kind are standard components of Library Science institutions; so the CCDL can realistically be expected to produce them.

·      Timely? Yes. There is sufficient time to establish and review the policy, as well as a need within the organization for the policy to be established. As more audio/video documents are acquired, this policy will be paramount.

Although the policy itself once created will be specific and succinct; the CCDL will have to weigh many resources and research to determine the encoding process. Thus, this goal serves the strategic objective of establishing the digital library, is challenging, and provides “a target for which to aim” as well as a specific measure of success (Williams 91).

The CCDL’s goals, particularly those that fulfill the SMART requirements, provide a clear picture of the type of digital library the CCDL becomes. There is a focus on collaborating across institutions and expanding access of electronic resources; these goals directly addresses a balance of service to all seven colleges in the system.

Conclusion and recommendation

Although not every goal laid out in the CCDL strategic planning fiscal year 2006-2007 meets the criteria set out by the SMART framework, the document proposes a series of proximal goals related to training patrons, and creating document policies; which in turn, serve the distal goal of establishing the digital library. The document is especially successful in establishing goals related to policy in acquisitions; having a general course of action predetermined for a variety of digital acquisitions is a key factor to success in the case of a digital library.

In order to improve their success with patron related goals, I recommend that the CCDL focus less on maximizing use of any one software, and instead establish goals focusing on satisficing use of the software.  Although not every patron will make maximum use of ContentDM’s advanced search functions, the CCDL should strive for patrons to make keyword searches and use some advanced features successfully 80% of the time. Setting more realistic goals with regard to patron use will allow members of the CCDL to maintain goal commitment because the goal will be genuinely attainable.

References

Claremont Colleges Digital Library. (2006) CCDL strategic planning fiscal year 2006-2007. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/30/rec/4

Clemens, B., Emery, M., Bachli, K., Marsh, C., Moss, M., & Trainor, C. (2003) Developing the Claremont Colleges Digital Library. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/16/rec/22

Crane, L. The Claremont College Digital Library: A model for digital projects [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/53

Williams, C. "MGMT8: Principles of Management." Engage Learning. 2015. 

Management Analysis Report: Human Resource Management of the Claremont Colleges Digital Library

Introduction and Context

The Claremont Colleges Digital Library (CCDL) is a core division of the Claremont University Consortium (CUC). The CUC provides library services to seven undergraduate and graduate liberal arts colleges in California. The CCDL was established as a means of addressing demand and need for digital collections by each institution. In this paper, three critical components of the Human Resource Management (HRM) process will be examined as they relate to the creation of the CCDL: employee recruiting, employee training, and employee separation. Employee separation will be discussed as it relates to turnover, specifically.

Critique and Implications: Employee Recruiting

When seeking employment, many candidates consult websites such as Glassdoor.com, or local news publications to determine if the employer has a history of breaking or bending federal employment laws, a history of disparate treatment or adverse impact, or sexual harassment. Through similar research, I have determined that the Claremont Colleges Library has had no such reports and has a healthy Glassdoor rating of “3.7 / 5.0” (2019), suggesting that the environment is compliant with federal regulation and reasonably pleasant to work in.

With a healthy track record, the recruiting process, or “developing a pool of qualified job applicants,” should yield better results (Williams, 2015, p. 227). External candidates in particular will be more apt to apply in response to a job posting at a well-reviewed institution. In the case of the CCDL, recruitment of such external candidates was particularly strong in 2008 and 2009; producing “4 full time staff and 2 part time staff” candidates who were hired to fill the “Digital Production unit” of the digital library (Crane, 2011, p. 5). In addition to the external candidates recruited, the CCDL also employed “26 students over the course of the year” and these recruits are a particularly interesting facet of academic libraries, as the selection and validation processes can be streamlined (Crane, 2011, p. 5). I argue that these student candidates are similar to internal candidates, as they come from within the Claremont Colleges and have specific internal qualifications (their majors and GPAs) that can be used to determine their aptitude for the position. Further, employing students for federal work-study programs is a method academic institutions in particular are required to comply with federal regulation, which the CCDL clearly abides.

Critique and Implications: Employee Training

Although specific documentation with regard to internal review processes or training evaluations was not found in the course of my research, I did find evidence that the CCDL did an excellent “needs assessment,” an evaluation process of determining “learning needs of employees,” during the formative stages of its development (Williams, 2015, p. 233). This suggests a concern for, and emphasis on, the importance of employee training.

In particular, CCDL development documents show a concern in addressing “access challenges” of the digital collection, and employee training needs with regard to these challenges are emphasized (Clemens, et. al., 2003, p. 4). The CCDL task force suggests that the current library catalog system, Blais, may not be adequate to address user access, and introducing a “digital access management system, such as Luna Imaging’s Insight® or OCLC’s CONTENTdm®” to fulfill this need is discussed, along with the note that the CCDL needs “cataloging staff trained in describing digital media in order to provide adequate, robust access to digital items that have a variety of characteristics different from books and journals” (Clemens, et. al., 2003, p. 5). The discussion of specific training of cataloging staff illustrates that the CCDL is identifying a performance deficiency and the employees who need training to address that deficiency. It is particularly important that the CCDL identifies both the training objective (improved cataloging of digital media) and the employees who need the training (cataloging staff), as training needs must be tailored to particular requirements and employees in order to be most effective.

Critique and Implications: Employee Turnover

During 2010, the CCDL unfortunately experienced a reorganization process which spurred employee turnover. Employee turnover is the “loss of employees who voluntarily choose to leave the company” (Williams, 2015, p. 246). During this period, the “Digital Production Librarian” and “Digital Initiatives Librarian” left the CCDL for new positions. As they left, the CCDL digital production lab was physically moved in a campus reorganization to a space “2 miles off campus” and as a result “the number of students working dropped dramatically as they had to provide their own transportation between the lab and campus” (Crane, 2011, p. 6).

The loss of the Digital Production and Digital Initiatives Librarian, as well as numerous student workers, was a great detriment to the CCDL. As they lost many high-performers, the loss was dysfunctional and was costly to the organization; the Digital Production Librarian, notably, was not replaced for a year as a result. Further, the physical location of the lab compounded this dysfunction and resulted in additional turnover. Where possible, it is best for management to anticipate solutions around such physical limitations – requesting funding for student shuttle services, for instance – to help reduce these effects.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Although the CCDL experienced a period of high turnover, 2011 proved to be a renaissance. During the period, the two empty full-time positions were filled. Digital Initiatives with an internal promotion that likely buoyed the employee to be more motivated in a period following such downturn. In order to maintain a healthy atmosphere, I recommend the CCDL, and CUC more generally, continue to emphasize accurate and frequent needs assessments and train their employees to address deficiencies in the system. Coupled with their excellent reputation, I think an emphasis on effective training will make the CUC library services more relevant to users. This relevance will make the CUC library services better able to petition for funding, thus increasing their staff and collections respectively. 

References

Clemens, B., Emery, M., Bachli, K., Marsh, C., Moss, M., & Trainor, C. (2003) Developing the Claremont Colleges Digital Library. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/16/rec/22

Crane, L. (2011). The Claremont College Digital Library: A model for digital projects [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/53

Glassdoor. (2019, April 9). Claremont Colleges reviews. Retrieved from https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-The-Claremont-Colleges-EI_IE28941.11,33.htm

Williams, C. (2015). MGMT8: Principles of Management. Cengage Learning. 

Management Analysis Report: Budget + the Claremont Colleges Digital Library

Introduction and Context

The Claremont University Consortium (CUC) provides library services to seven liberal arts colleges in the Claremont area of California. There is one library, of which the Claremont Colleges Digital Library (CCDL) is part, to serve all seven colleges. The consortium of colleges within the CUC contributes to the CCL’s budget. The budget of the CCDL is examined using performance measurement, and benchmarking frameworks within this report. Additionally, recommendations for use of requests for proposal (RFP) are proposed.

The primary budget issue facing the CCDL was marrying differing institutions resource needs with the shared CUC budget. In the CCDL strategic planning fiscal year 2006-2007, two strategic objectives are established: 1) collaborate across institutions, and 2) expand electronic access and services. As the CCDL serves the seven colleges that fund it, its efficiency will be measured by its ability to serve these institutions as proposed by its strategic objectives.

Critique and Implications

Although specific dollar accountability was not found in the CCDL’s collection nor the CUC’s public documents, my team and I were able to find general budget directives in Maria Savova’s presentations (2018). Savova, Director of Scholarly Information Resources for the Claremont Colleges Library, provided these presentations as part of studies on library materials budgets in the Digital Age. The materials budgets will be evaluated against the following:

Performance Measurement: McKinney (2015) teaches us that performance measurement is the evaluation of specific criteria related to a program in a budget, and measurement of these criteria require data. In the case of the CCDL, the criteria are successful collaboration across institutions, and acquisition of electronic resources.

Benchmarking: McKinney describes benchmarking as understanding the process to achieve a measurable outcome. In the case of the CCDL, potential for improvement of the criteria are reducing expenditure on redundant resources and streamlining patron use of remaining electronic resources.

The CCDL’s efforts align with McKinney’s performance measurement schema as the CCDL identifies the specific needs of library patrons in a “four-dimensional faceted schema to accommodate four essential aspects of library expenditure:” format, type, mode, and cost (Savova 2018). The format and type facets account for patronized products (such as DVD’s and e-Journals), while the mode and cost facets address how the CCDL will allocate for the needs (such as subscriptions and departments served). Providing specific facets creates criteria, and allows for specific measurement against the acquisition goals. For instance, Savova presented that the Social Sciences ongoing-costs to maintain current e-Journal and e-Book subscriptions could not be met and would require some cancellations or reduced spending on print media. As the CCDL’s goal is further acquisition of e-resources, a reduction of spending on print media is appropriate to achieve the goal.

The CCDL’s efforts do not align with McKinney’s benchmarking process, however, as the budgeting schema does not address how to connect results with continued improvement. Expanding on Savova’s example of the Social Sciences e-journal and e-book subscriptions: there is no process to evaluate where subscriptions may be redundant, and which subscriptions are most used by patrons, nor is there a link to costs associated with the subscriptions and performance across institutions. The budget itself accounts for some cross-institutional relevance, as Savova explains, “a JSTOR Arts and Sciences collection might be allocated with a percentage to the Humanities and a percentage to the Social Sciences based on the list price or number of the journals from the respective disciplines” (2018). However, there is no means to evaluate cross-institutional use, which is the key to achieving the strategic objectives presented by the CCDL. It is not enough to provide the resources: the budget should reflect how well these provisions are perform the desired task. For example, if neither the Humanities nor Social Sciences departments are using the JSTOR collections, the subscription should be discontinued.

I examined the CCDL budgets against the program plans and allocation resources publicly available for review, but it would strengthen my analysis to find documents that address the monitoring of operations and measurement of results to better evaluate if the CCDL addressed McKinney’s benchmarking process (p. 349). It would be helpful to have documents that address the use of the resources against the four facets Savova presents in the Budget Implementation Guide.

Conclusion and recommendation

Although the CCDL’s budget documents do not directly address a benchmarking process, relative efficiency of the organization and performance measurement is clear from Savova’s examples of capital allocations. The CCDL was able to address the needs of patrons for e-resources; it acquired new e-subscriptions or sustained existing e-subscriptions by cutting allocation to print collections. Many of these subscriptions, such as JSTOR collections, served multiple institutions.

In order to encourage the establishment of a clear benchmarking process, I propose that the CCDL use Clegg’s RFP methodology before purchasing or ceasing e-subscription services (2006). As the RFP “needs to be carefully designed and built around…objectives and business requirements,” the process of producing RFP’s for e-resources will encourage the CCDL to establish more specific goals and expectations for the resources (Clegg 2006). This will likely result in reduced costs for each subscription as well. Using RFP’s will allow the CCDL to better determine redundancies in the collections purchased, and reduce subscriptions needed to provide patron services effectively.

References

Claremont Colleges Digital Library. (2006) CCDL strategic planning fiscal year 2006-2007. Retrieved from http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/adl/id/30/rec/4

Clegg, H., & Montgomery, S. (2006, June). How to write an RFP for information Products. Information Outlook, 10(6), pp. 23-33.

McKinney, J. B. (2015). Effective financial management in public and nonprofit agencies (4th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC. 

Savova, M. (2018, January). A faceted materials budget implementation guide for academic Libraries. Library Staff Publications and Research, 61. pp. 1-20.