The original Committee Concept Map from 2014.
When I arrived at Rutgers, I was charged with clarifying central vs. local functions. In the October and November issues of The Agenda, I talked about changes in the organizational structure that (among other things) moved central and shared librarieswide functions from purview of the AUL for Research and Instruction to central units.
In December, Cabinet reviewed the Committee Concept Map—a now historical document developed in late 2014 to better understand decision-making responsibilities and flows in the libraries. The diagram showed many different types of groups, including committees, working groups, taskforces, etc. and their reporting relationships. During the review process, we discussed each group—what work it was assigned, whether that work was complete, where it falls within the current organization’s footprint, and who ultimately is responsible for the output of the group. As a result of this work, some groups were sunsetted or moved to new reporting structures. These outcomes were already communicated via the cabinet minutes.
Finalizing the review of the Committee Concept Map enabled us (among other things) to clarify a few more areas where the lines between central and local responsibility were not clear—especially in the area of public services. Coordination of shared public services—LCC, Ask a Librarian, and Webscale Discovery—were all moved to Shared User Services (SUS). An additional 3 groups on the Committee Concept Map—Access Services, Disabilities, and ICOP—did not fit under the SUS umbrella. Instead, the work of these groups needs some level of central coordination even though their functions are local and the responsibility of the library director.
Access Services, for example, used to report to the AUL for research and instruction in her central coordinating role, even though they were addressing local policies (e.g., bulletin boards). While the committee itself has representatives from many locations, this reporting structure essentially meant that central was creating policies to govern local services and spaces (a perception further complicated by the former structure where the AUL for research and instruction was also the director of New Brunswick Libraries).
Under the new system, Access Services, along with Disabilities and ICOP, will report to a newly formed Directors Group that is composed of the library directors—Consuella Askew, Katie Anderson (in her role as interim director of Robeson Library), Judy Cohn, and Jeanne Boyle (in her role as interim director of New Brunswick Libraries)—and Rhonda Marker, the director of shared user services. This will align the important work of these committees more closely with their local units and clarify the director’s role in decision-making, while ensuring two-way flow of information about the needs and resources required for the work.
Since I know there have been a lot of questions, it is worth spending a little more time talking about the purpose and goals of the Directors Group. The directors convene to address local concerns, discuss shared issues and how they can work together to establish best practices and avoid duplicating effort. This group does not extend the responsibility or authority of the Library directors. Instead, it provides a means for Library directors to work together collectively to solve problems and to benefit from each other’s experience. Ultimately, each Library director is responsible for providing the vision, leadership, and management necessary to deliver collections, services, and spaces that are tailored for their local community.
Some of the comments that I heard noted that the Directors Group seemed to have taken on many of the responsibilities that USC used to have. As I think about the changes that are occurring at the University-level, and of my charge to clarify local vs. central function, I realize that the comments accurately reflect the changes in the libraries. In the past, decisions related to public services occurred centrally with a goal of developing the most cost-effective library system possible. Rutgers Libraries had a long history of successful internal collaboration. Now, each campus expects services that are tailored to meet local needs. Directors are being held accountable on their campuses for ensuring that the library system provides services (and collections) that directly support local initiatives and programs. The shift from a large, representative decision-making body to a more federated model that favors local decision-making is necessary to support the changes within the broader University context.
Before ending, I do want to acknowledge the hard work that went into finalizing the Committee Concept Map. We originally worked from a single-page document with over 40 administrative and faculty groups. On the administrative side, we now have a structured list 17 active committees, taskforces, and working groups with clearly defined “homes” in the Libraries. The faculty have also made substantial progress refining their committee structure. This project required a lot of heavy lifting and input from our colleagues, so please accept my thanks for your efforts.
If you have additional questions about these changes, please speak with your AUL or Director.
