ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 4 0 6 /C & RL News Q uality m anagement for today’s academ ic lib rary B y R u s h G. M ille r a n d B e v e r ly S t e a m s Identifying and meeting users’ needs D uring the 1990s there has been a maddash toward the implementation of qual­ity management in academic institutio cluding libraries, with a corresponding prolif­ e ra tio n o f b o o k s , jo u rn a l a r tic le s , and step-by-step workshops on the topic. This wave o f interest has been met by a concomitant de­ gree of skeptical resistance from many academic administrators and librarians who view it as just another fad, or who doubt its practical utility in a nonprofit setting. Despite success in im­ proving the quality of Japanese and American automobiles and other products, can quality management principles succeed equally in aca­ deme? Is it essentially different from current management models (e.g., participatory man­ agement, consultative committee structures, and collegial academic governance)? [Ed. note: Although this article reviews many of the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM), the authors prefer to use the term quality management in the context of nonprofit, edu­ cational institutions.] What is quality management? To understand what quality management is, we must recognize what it is not. According to Albert Koller, TQM is not: • a magic solution to every problem; • a way to delegate problems to a third party; • a way to bludgeon workers to produce more output; • surrendering supervision or leadership; ns, • total reliance on statistical controls; • a playground for “human relations” enthusiasts; • a new way to complain to your manage ment.1 In simple terms, quality management is “… a system of continuous improvement employ­ ingin­ participative management and centering on the needs of customers.’’2 It is more a perva­ sive culture than a management theory. Some key principles underlying quality management include: • the organization focuses its resources on meeting the needs of “customers,” both inter­ nal (other library departments/employees) and external (students, faculty, university staff, etc.), as opposed to the needs of the organization; • the goal of the organization is to improve the quality of services/processes on a continual basis as opposed to major innovation and change; • analysis of problems or services is based on objective fact, using standard measurement tools in order to isolate the root issues/prob­ lems; • em ployees are em pow ered to work collaboratively in self-directed teams under a unified vision developed jointly with adminis­ trators. What these principles mean in academic libraries A focus on customers implies that quality in the library is defined by internal and external “customers” and what it takes to meet their needs successfully. One might argue that, in the past, librarians have defined quality of service for users, often measuring quality by size of budget or collection or numbers of items circu- Rush G. Miller is d ean o f libraries a n d learning resources a t Bowling Green State University (BGSU), Ohio, e-mail: rmiller@andy.bgsu.edu; Beverly Steam s is assistant to the dean, BGSU, e-mail: bstem@andy.ggsu.edu mailto:rmiller@andy.bgsu.edu mailto:bstem@andy.ggsu.edu July/August 1994 / 4 0 7 A B e t t e r Way To Sea r c h Databases We started in 1 9 8 5 , database searchers committed to better search software design. We becam e the premier vendor of M e d lin e , th e n e x p a n d e d o u r c a ta lo g to o th e r d a ta b a s e s . L a s t y ear we w on In fo rm a tio n W orld R eview ’s P R O D U C T O F T H E Y E A R fo r faster, easier search software. B ut a better way means meeting the evolving needs - individual and campus wide - o f today’s library users. Announcing O V ID : a database interface so flexible it molds itself to your search environment. W ith OVID you’re free to move from one operating system to another without retraining. O VID’s Common User Interface assures identical functionality in DOS, Windows and UNIX. A haven fo r beginners‚ OVID’s Easy Mode has on screen prompts. The more experienced can pull-down menus showing an array o f search options. Experts w ill fe e l at home using online syntax. Search with natural language i f you like. OVID mapping cuts through the mystery o f controlled vocabularies, homing in on precisely matching subject headings. There’s an unprecedented array o f search tools - indexes, thesauri, limits and fields - many never before available in an interface. They’re all standard OVID features. HELP fo r every search function is context-sensitive and on screen, never more than a key­ stroke or mouse click away. 408/C&RL News lated. In a quality management environment, however, the library seeks to discover what users need and then designs services to meet those specific needs. Quality would be what our users tell us it is. It is the users’ problems that are paramount, not those of the service providers, keeping in mind that customers are both students and faculty, as well as internal library departments and staff who rely on other departments and staff for services. Systemati­ cally listening to and tracking users’ needs al­ lows for continuous improvement and the de­ velopment of new approaches for delivering valuable services to those users. Quality improvements are not based on dra­ matic innovations which move the organiza­ tion ahead suddenly, but are based on steady progress in all areas, even areas in which no major problems have been identified. Quality management is not results-oriented, but pro­ cess-oriented, which, in the long run yields improved results. The goal is not to produce the best possible output today, but rather to provide the capability and means for produc­ ing the best possible output each day. Honda Motors’ emphasis on continuous quality paid off in high sales volumes, not from improved marketing or pricing, but because consumers gravitated toward its high-quality products. In other words, it is better to ensure high-quality service now than to waste time and energy down the road dealing with users whose needs are unmet. Patching up poor services is more energy intensive and less efficient than design­ ing high-quality and user-oriented services in the first place. Quality should be determined and evalu­ ated systematically through objective, factual problem analysis. Tools typically used for this purpose include flowcharts, fishbone diagrams, Pareto charts, control charts, and histograms, among others. Depending on the nature of a problem, one or more of these techniques are utilized to pinpoint the root cause of service deficiencies and to suggest alternative solu­ tions.3 As Ted Marchese pointed out in a re­ cent issue o f C hange, . the central idea here is to get managers and work teams to move beyond decision-making by personal impres­ sion, anecdote, or complaint.”4 In some ways, this particular aspect of quality management is open to the charge that it is just plain old com­ mon sense and nothing new. Perhaps it is sim­ ply a matter o f emphasis and ties in with a total change in the culture o f the organization. The team management approach The entire organization must believe in and stand by its humanistic principles in order to support each individual’s pursuit of quality. Ad­ ministrators must support quality management principles fully, relinquishing much control in order to foster the development o f leadership skills throughout the organization. Potentially, the heart and soul of quality management in an academic library is the empowerment of employees and the increased level of partici­ pation garnered through team management approaches. Participatory management, at least in theory, is not new in academic libraries and many of the principles o f collegiality and con­ sensus-building that underlie quality manage­ ment are already endorsed widely in libraries. The use of empowered teams in an academic library, however, requires an additional change in the organizational culture, in how people relate to one another, and how work is accom­ plished. It is very much an evolutionary change instead of a revolutionary one. The culture of the organization changes gradually and those institutions which are successful in implement­ ing quality management must be willing to expend both the time and effort to achieve positive change over the long term. We do this now! We have committees A common criticism of team management is that it is no different from the committee structure most libraries employ. However, there are dif­ ferences between committees and teams, at least theoretically: C om m ittees • members appointed by administration • result-oriented with specific charge • leadership appointed • agendas set with charge • broad participation not required Team s • Members are those who “do the work” • process-oriented • leaders chosen by team • agendas set by teams • everyone participates Barriers to quality management Most academic institutions that try to imple­ ment quality management fail. Reasons for fail­ ure are numerous and may include: July/August 1 9 9 4 / 4 0 9 • it is not a quick solution to problems and many administrators lose patience with the ap proach; • professionals are reluctant to relinquish their expertise to the “whim” of the customer; • middle managers feel threatened by per ceived loss o f power in a flattened organiza tional structure; • the jargon usually associated with the business world is unfamiliar to academics and is often uncomfortable for librarians; • many managers perceive an inordinate amount of time and resources required for train ing and development activities; • just another “fad”— nothing really new. Benefits of quality management If implemented carefully, quality management principles yield positive benefits in an academic library, such as: • incremental changes lead to continuous improvement— quick solutions may yield only partial results; • forces library managers to develop lead ership skills instead o f relying on power within position to obtain results; • increases staff participation in decision making, thus increasing the feeling of “owner ship” o f decisions and directions once charted; • improves the level o f training given to staff, thus increasing skills; • helps break down barriers between li brary departments and improves communica tion within the organization; • provides a method o f improving services to users in a period o f limited resources. The BGSU experience In response to flattened budgets and increased costs, as well as reductions in staff size, Bowl ing Green State University (BGSU) Libraries un derwent a multifaceted reorganization in 1992. The goal o f this reorganization was to utilize more effectively available human resources to meet the mission of the libraries. Specifically, structural changes involved combining areas with similar or parallel functions into much larger departments to allow more flexibility i reengineering workflow around the features o a newly installed integrated system and in ac com m odating essential services with few e personnel. At the same time, the use of self managed teams replaced a traditional commit tee structure to develop policy and decision m aking g en erally, as w ell as to e n h a n ce ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ n f ­ r ­ ­ ­ interpersonal skills and foster improved com­ unication and cross training. While not a full QM system, the BGSU system incorporates any o f its main principles into a more de­ ocratized and participatory management struc­ ure. Teams were formed to deal with policies nd services in critical areas o f collection de­ elopment, preservation, physical facilities and nvironmental concerns, research services, ac­ ess services, technical services, human rela­ ions, and professional development and train­ ng. Each team o f eight or nine people includes ibrarians and support staff members who are ore or less permanently assigned to the team. ther staff members may join a team to dis­ uss a specific issue or to serve as a resource erson. Each team selects its own leadership and etermines its own basic agenda and sched­ le, with some overall limit on total time con­ umed by team meetings. Teams use the Li­ raries’ Strategic Plan, which has been in place ince 1987, as well as a team manual, which erves as a guideline for team interaction and ommunication. The manual addresses behav­ ors and skills essential for effective team inter­ ction such as conflict resolution, consensus ecision-making, tolerance, trust and respect, hared power, creativity, motivation, and re­ ards. It also provides practical suggestions for voiding team subverting roles such as shut­ ing off others, labeling behavior, dominating iscussions, and naysaying, among others. The assistant dean for library services coor­ inates team activities and serves as the liaison etween teams and the administrative bodies f the libraries. Team facilitators meet regu­ arly with the assistant dean to ensure that is­ ues which cut across team lines are coordi­ ated properly and cross-team communication s facilitated. Issues from preservation to col­ ection development to access are being ad­ ressed by teams, but these issues are interre­ ated and require teams to coordinate policy roposals with one another. Teams are responsible for identifying prob­ em areas, gathering and analyzing objective ata, developing alternative solutions, and pro­ osing changes to policies and procedures to mprove library services to internal and exter­ al constituencies. Their proposals generally re made to an administrative council within he libraries, the members o f which are respon- (Quality cont. on p a g e 422) m T m m t a v e c t i l m O c p d u s b s s c i a d s w a t d d b o l s n i l d l p l d p i n a t