Exploring new service models: Can consolidating public service points improve response to customer needs?

Exploring New Service Models: Can Consolidating Public Service Points Improve Response to Customer Needs? by Pat Flanagan and Lisa R. Horowitz

This article describes an experimental “integrated service point” that combines the desks and staff who perform reference and circulation at one of M.I.T.’s five main libraries. The Integrated Service Point concept was previously presented as “United We Stand, Divided We Fail?” at the April 1999 ACRL conference in Detroit.

A

s we stand at the doorstep of the 21st century, libraries face an environment of constant change and rapid technological advances. This change inevitably affects day-to-day methods of doing business. The impact includes the burden of learning and generally keeping up with the latest technologies. It also includes the exciting opportunities to leverage the World Wide Web (Web) and other vehicles for communication, teaching, and access to resources and services. Taking on the burdens and attacking the exciting possibilities has been essential for libraries that hope to remain relevant. Corresponding adjustments to daily workflow, job descriptions, and ways of organizing staff time, skills, and responsibilities have not been as obvious. It is vital that, in times of static or decreasing staff and budgets, ways are found to adapt priorities and methods to both accommodate and anticipate the changing climate. The reference desk has long been a mainstay of the academic library. The refPat Flanagan is former Reference erence function can be characterized as Coordinator, Rotch Library of Architecture “expert help,” incorporating subject-speand Planning; currently Associate Head cific knowledge, research skills, and the Librarian and Reference Coordinator, ability to instruct students and faculty. Dewey Library of Management and Social Over the years, other services have beSciences, Massachusetts Institute of come attached to the reference desk, genTechnology, Building E53–100, 77 erally because they have been thought to Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, require “professional” knowledge or Massachusetts 02139-4307⬍[email protected]⬎. oversight. These include database searchLisa R. Horowitz is former Social Statistics ing, interlibrary loan applications, access Librarian, Rotch Library of Architecture and to information about other collections, Planning; currently Foreign Language document delivery, and help with using Librarian and Data Specialist, Humanities the online public access catalog. At many Library, Massachusetts Institute of libraries, staff wait behind the reference Technology, Building 145–200, 77 desk for users who need these services to Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, come by. The best is done to instruct and Massachusetts 02139-4307⬍[email protected]⬎. publicize reference value in this regard. In The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 5, pages 329 –338

an environment of self-service databases, electronic forms, Web information, and the growth of distance education, however, waiting at the reference desk may no longer be appropriate. More important, it is no longer adequate. Although library users still need expert help, they are interacting with the library on many planes that extend beyond the physical reference desk. They are interacting virtually with library collections and resources, with various machinery within and outside of the library, and with a whole host of information resources that librarians did not “select” or may not even know about. Their library experience takes them by the reference desk even less often than in the past. Reference staff, as they learn the technology, acquire the electronic collections, and amass the Web pages, does not have the luxury to wait at the reference desk, assuming users will approach at the right time and for the right things. A broader view and experience is needed to serve library customers well. A more practical and cost-efficient means of deploying staff to work with users who are in the library is needed, because serving remote users also expends time and energy.

BACKGROUND Rethinking the physical reference desk is not a new concept. Many models have been proposed and tried, varying from the extreme of closing down the desk entirely to triaging service to staffing with other expert help, such as graduate students.1 At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), staff are exploring the possibilities of merging the circulation and reference desks and the respective staff groups at one location to maximize customer ser-

September 2000 329

vice. This exploration has been given validity through a full-scale Public Services Redefinition process. At the Rotch Library of Architecture and Planning, however, this exploration began earlier in answer to a variety of needs, and because the Rotch Library staff was interested in exploring new service possibilities. Rotch Library is one of five large, “divisional” libraries, each of which corresponds to one of the five schools at M.I.T. The library collection is 215,000 printed volumes. At the time of the Public Services Redefinition pilot described in this article, there were six librarians and six staff members in circulation, four of whom contributed time to information service. Monthly traffic in Rotch is approximately 2,500 users, and information interactions during term are about 300 per month. Unlike most universities, M.I.T. does not have a main or central library. Though the processes and administration of the five main library units and several smaller branches are centralized, each local unit retains the autonomy to plan and implement individual activities, to explore staffing models, and to develop services that may best serve its particular departmental clientele. In this context, the staff of the Rotch Library began exploring a public service model, in 1997, where reference and circulation staff operate from a single service point. The circulation desk is now referred to as the “Library Services Desk.” The original, separate reference desk location is not currently being used. The new, consolidated service point is more than a physical location, however. The two staff groups have been crosstrained in basic levels of each other’s responsibilities, and provide services to users in a more flexible and broad fashion. In addition, the consolidation moves toward a breakdown of the arbitrary assignment of certain services to each desk location. Many details of refining this service model are left to be tackled, though much work has been done and excellent progress made. The ultimate success or failure of integrating service points is yet to be determined, but the rewards of the experiment, the opportunity for the two staff groups to work together, and the focus on meeting customer needs as an overriding priority have been satisfying in and of themselves and can certainly be declared a success. The rest of the article describes how Rotch Library consolidated its service

330

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

points by reviewing why the staff chose this particular model, various iterations of the model, how the model was assessed, and some of the issues faced and successes achieved.

RATIONALE

FOR A

NEW MODEL

Various evidence suggests that reference statistics are declining in academic libraries (witness a LIBREF-L discussion of May, 1999, and Association of Research Libraries’ statistics, as examples). A recent survey of M.I.T. Libraries’ users indicated, also, that among all of the reasons respondents came to the library, consulting someone at reference was the purpose of only 8.3% of those surveyed.2 Anecdotal evidence indicates, however, that the length of reference transactions may be longer, due to the widening array of sources to be consulted, the need to instruct about choosing among these resources, and the need to inform users about the means and importance of evaluating resources.3 Another factor may also be significant. We know that users approaching reference staff are more likely than in past years to have already begun the research process. Though some may still appear saying, “I am doing a paper on topic X. Where should I begin?,” it is much more typical that users will indicate that they have already begun the search: “I’ve searched in the database but haven’t found anything on my topic.” “This is all I’ve found on my topic. Where else should I look?” Or, more cryptically, they may ask, “Can I get access to another library? You don’t have anything on my topic.” Clearly, all of the above require investigation. What “database” was searched? How was the current selection of citations or information located? Was the database searched properly— keyword versus phrase-searched, for example? Has the user searched the appropriate tools to reveal what is held in the home institution’s collection? If patrons are beginning the research process without reference consultation, we need to look for ways to insert ourselves into that process at an earlier point.

“. . . should the user need to differentiate between what constitutes ”reference“ help versus other sorts of information or guidance?”

Perhaps most importantly, should the user need to differentiate between what constitutes “reference” help versus other sorts of information or guidance? Should the onus be on the patron to understand which library staff members are librarians and which are not, and what that really means in terms of assistance? Organized instruction is one obvious means of supplying help before research begins. The need for formalized instruction in information competencies has been emphasized in recent years, as have been Web tutorials more recently. What else can be done, however, to aid those who do not receive instruction—faculty, for example, or others who miss or do not absorb the nuances of the instruction effectively?

“Working together makes all staff smarter about the broad range of user needs and interactions, the particular areas of expertise of each staff member, and the range of methodologies through which staff meet user needs.” The model being explored at M.I.T. attempts to resolve some of these issues in another or complementary way. By placing all public service staff behind the same desk, users are given one identifiable location to go for help, whatever their need (see Figure 1). It also places librarians and other reference staff in the path of users at a point that may precede users’ decisions about whether or not they require “reference” help, at a point when they are first inquiring about the library catalog or where the databases are located. It places staff in a position to have more frequent encounters with users than they might otherwise have, and where they have more opportunity to observe fellow staff members working with users. Working together makes all staff smarter about the broad range of user needs and interactions, the particular areas of expertise of each staff member, and the range of methodologies through which staff meet user needs. In Figure 1, note that the layout of Rotch Library places the reference desk alongside the reading room, rather than where users would see it as they enter the

Figure 1 Rotch Library Main Level Map

September 2000 331

library. The reference desk is also out of sight and hearing from the circulation desk, so interactions at each location are entirely isolated from one another. Referrals from one desk to another are difficult to track as staff cannot see if the user actually goes to the other desk, and likewise cannot get any visual clues as to the potential success of the interaction there. The staff has no opportunity, using the two-desk system, to observe one another in order to learn something about user needs or the means by which the staff person helped the user. The consolidated desk is an attempt to overcome these obstacles to maximize the service provided by each separate desk. The model also attempts to address the nature of self-service systems by training all public service staff in the basics of the systems and products provided to users. If users are expected to encounter and utilize these resources on their own, should not all service staff have some grounding in using these resources? The model also recognizes that the nature of circulation work and job descriptions is changing with the onset of self-service circulation systems. As staff time devoted to performing circulation transactions begins to decline, time will be freed up for participation in other public service functions. Perhaps the most important advantage to the merged service point is the potential for a well executed “hand-off.” Reference staff are well acquainted with the concept of referral. Reference librarians accustomed to specialization based on subject knowledge are comfortable with helping users to the best of their ability, then transferring the user to the librarian most knowledgeable about the subject in question. By placing circulation and reference staff together at one service point, the staff of Rotch Library have come to focus and expand on perfecting this concept as the “hand-off” in a much broader sense and with more options for follow through. All staff seek to help users to the best of their training and ability, and to recognize when and to whom the user should be handed off for resolution of their need. By focusing on the hand-off, we achieve several things. We recognize that all staff, even within their circulation and reference roles, have varying levels of knowledge and expertise. We attempt to hand-off and resolve needs between staff rather than leaving referrals to the user to pursue. We often have the opportunity to observe the resolution of the need if it

332

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

takes place immediately at the service desk, and thereby learn something for future reference. We hope to maximize the experience for the user and the staff member, and to shorten the time frame from initiation to resolution.

INITIAL VERSIONS

OF THE

MODEL

In the spring of 1997, reference staff in Rotch Library discussed the problem of being tied to the reference desk during slow periods, the summer most particularly. Also, the typical reference schedule rotated staff on and off the desk frequently to avoid long periods of desk duty. This is a necessity in busy semester months, but served mostly to break up blocks of time one might spend on other projects in the summer. Reference staff were anxious to consider an alternative desk schedule addressing slower business periods, in hopes of spending consolidated blocks of time on collection activities, Web pages, and other off-desk activities. Circulation and reference groups also had a desire to learn more about the responsibilities and experiences of the other group, and staff wanted to overcome the physical isolation of the two service desks. Librarian and circulation staff members liked the idea of working together to plan services. Staff members brainstormed possible service models as a basis for discussion of an experimental summer reference service. Within these models, services were included to offset reduced emphasis on the physical reference desk: librarian office hours, virtual services like Web forms (which were in their infancy at the time), a sophisticated virtual reference system, triaging of all sorts of questions by circulation staff, regular instruction opportunities, preparation of extensive frequently asked question (FAQ) information to help circulation staff, and preparation of extensive Web-based research guidance for users. Joint discussions led to the decision to provide all service from the circulation desk, the most focal point on entering the library, despite its distance from the reference collection and the fact that the desk was not designed with this purpose in mind. Opinions varied about staff responsibility at the desk. Only some circulation staff were interested in being trained as information assistants. Some librarians were hesitant to learn any circulation tasks, feeling their time should be spent only on professional duties. It was agreed, however, not to let differences of opinion deter progress, so we moved for-

ward allowing that staff would contribute whatever they felt comfortable contributing. Late in the summer of 1998, the two service points had been successfully integrated for two summers and a January intersession. The components developed over time. A “buddy system,” pairing a librarian and an information assistant each day to provide reference was created, a pager was incorporated so that the “librarian of the day” could be tracked down at any time, and reference hours were reduced overall for these slow periods. In effect, librarians went from serving some eight to 10 hours a week sitting at a desk to only three, plus pager access on their designated day. Through a series of training sessions, circulation staff learned the rudiments of the reference interview and the reference collection, the structure of the Libraries’ Web pages and significant pages such as those for databases and subjects, and some basics on the particulars of academic research areas and typical questions or research topics. The importance of referring questions to librarians was stressed. A FAQ list was prepared to help participating circulation staff members answer simple questions and provide basic services. The two staff groups met together regularly to assess the high and low lights of the project and to plan the next iterations.

LIBRARY-WIDE REDEFINITION PROCESS During the Rotch experiments, under the leadership of the new Associate Director for Public Services, a Public Services Redefinition project began in spring, 1998. A series of planning task forces met consecutively over several months, focusing on topics ranging from values to evaluating service to communication processes. An overriding goal of the project was, and continues to be, improving customer service. The task force that worked on public services priorities dealt with the topic of reference. Priorities for reference service were hotly contested among staff providing input, and opinions ranged from desire to extend reference hours to eliminating the reference desk entirely. Task force members reviewed recent M.I.T. Libraries user surveys for input. In the final report submitted by the task force, two reference-related concepts emerged among the recommendations: The first was the “Integrated Service Point” (ISP), combining reference and circulation ser-

vices at one physical desk location, and the second was creating “Mobile Service Points,” staff not tied to any desk, but equipped with technology that could be used to locate them when needed (e.g., pagers) or to assist users wherever they might be (e.g., with laptops and wireless technology). These concepts were somewhat interconnected as grouping staff together at an ISP seemed a way to move toward more mobility. Multiple staff at one desk could more easily come and go to provide service on demand because someone would be left at the desk to hold down the fort. The Redefinition process called for pilot ISPs in one or more library units. Rotch Library, having succeeded with non-term ISP service, was looked to as a viable site for a term-based ISP, and the Rotch staff was enthusiastic about doing a pilot.

SEMESTER-BASED PILOT For many years libraries have taught students and faculty to seek reference help. Though clearly the message has never been thoroughly received or accurately understood by some, more sophisticated researchers recognize the reference desk, the function of the librarian, and the value of reference expertise available in a quiet place conducive to consultation. To evolve away from this model, for whatever valid reasons, has the potential to lead to confusion. To do so during the semester when research needs are most intense involves significant forethought. Simply changing geographic location is not adequate; the full scope of user needs must be considered and planned for. In Rotch, we focused on user success and getting users to the help needed as efficiently as possible. In developing the semester-based pilot the Rotch Public Services staff accepted the following goal statement: To experiment with peak term reference service under a new model of staffing, but one which will provide users with as good or better a level of service and satisfaction as traditional reference desk staffing. To keep user-oriented focus and the personal accountability of staff for assuring the success of users as more important objectives than the hours or the location of the service point.

The semester-based iteration of the ISP at Rotch differed from the previous iterations in three significant ways. In anticipation of higher levels of circulation activity, it was imperative rather than

optional for reference staff to participate in handling circulation transactions. Only two computer stations exist at the desk, and when lines form, both are used for circulation transactions. If reference staff were going to “take over” one of these stations, they had to be willing to do some basic circulation there when needed. Due to the positive experiences of the summer and intercession ISP experiments, reference staff were now unanimously receptive to doing so. More frequent and complex semester reference activity led to the addition of an appointment service. The purpose was to address the need for longer consultations with users than was possible at the desk, and to offer a means to provide this service to users efficiently. The appointment service was self-serve, consisting of a notebook, indicating all librarians’ regularly scheduled office hours. The notebook was left out on the services desk along with appropriate signage, instructions, and information on areas of librarian expertise. The appointment service empowered circulation staff with a helpful option to offer researchers during nonreference hours. It was a helpful tool for librarians when referral to another’s subject expertise was needed. Librarians’ office hours could also double as backup for busy reference periods. Though patrons had always had the option of scheduling in-office appointments by contacting a librarian, the new service attempted to provide a painless way to schedule the appointment. In the past users were also encouraged to make appointments only with their subject specialist. The new service offered all librarians’ available times so that the user could choose, based on his/her research need and schedule, when and with whom to schedule. The service improved the hand-off by eliminating the need for the user to contact a librarian directly when referred for help, though that method was still open to users. The third significant component of the pilot was to establish a subgroup focused on evaluating the pilot’s success, described in detail below, under “Measuring Success.” Throughout the course of the term, the ISP responsibilities of each category of staff— circulation staff, circulation staff trained for reference, and librarians (who were all doing circulation)—were better defined. A subgroup of librarian and circulation staff worked on lists of tasks that each category would be expected to perform. For example, the list of circulation

transactions that librarians were to do was broken down into three priorities: those that they must know how to do, those that they would learn once they were ready, and those that they should not do. Circulation staff that did not perform information service work answered only basic “reference” questions (e.g., catalog lookups). Circulation staff participating in information service had a more extensive set of responsibilities and requirements for responding to reference questions.

MEASURING SUCCESS A major component of the semester-based Rotch ISP pilot was the assessment of its effectiveness as a new means of service. This, too, was driven, in part, by the M.I.T. Libraries’ Public Service Redefinition, in which one of the task forces was charged to discover an effective way to measure library performance. With the Redefinition’s emphasis on customer service, it became critical to implement a continuous program of assessment to ensure that customer service goals were met. Another aspect of the assessment of the ISP was to evaluate its effectiveness in achieving one of its other goals: to reorganize staff time to allow for focus on new service priorities (determined through task forces). Finally, as was mentioned previously, a major goal in redefining reference service is to accommodate and anticipate the changing climate. Continuous assessment has to be a part of that effort. Performance measurement in academic libraries has been defined as “the collection of statistical and other data describing the performance of the library, and the analysis of these data in order to evaluate the performance. Or, in other words: Comparing what a library is doing (performance) with what it is meant to do (mission) and wants to achieve (goals).”4 At M.I.T. Libraries, certain factors have been determined to contribute to valid performance measurement: ●

All staff must be involved to ensure that they will support the results.

●

All stakeholders must be included. This implies that qualitative measures should have as much input as traditional quantitative measures.

●

The expectations of the users must be valued. This again emphasizes the importance of qualitative data, because that is where the expectations of the users are discovered.

September 2000 333

●

Confidentiality of the participants and of the collected data must be ensured.

●

The results of performance measurement may be unusable if they are not based on sound theory.

ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT With these ideas in mind, the staff involved in the ISP explored how to assess the semester-based pilot. A subgroup was formed to create simple assessment tools that could gather feedback from the users and from the staff. Because no qualitative measurements existed for the previous version of reference and circulation services at Rotch, a comparison to those results could not be made. Instead, the staff hoped to create a “benchmark” of existing Rotch services, against which future services could be compared. The assessment of the pilot had to be restricted to the timetable of a single semester. The time available when the library was most busy (when users would likely have the most to say about the new set-up) was therefore limited. Given the very short time frame, the staff knew that they could not plan nor implement a scientifically based assessment. However, they agreed that an informal survey—a quick method for gathering user input across a large (albeit non-representative) sample— would at least give an informal basis for considering whether to continue with the ISP. The subgroup evaluated what should be measured from a qualitative standpoint, and developed instruments to gather these data. Traditional quantitative measures, collected within the libraries on an ongoing basis, were not augmented or changed for this first semester, but may be at some future point. To determine qualitative measures, the subgroup examined the goals and success criteria of the ISP. From a list of goals that had been established for the new service priorities, of which the ISP was one, they extracted a shorter list of goals that were directly relevant to this version of the ISP: ●

Empowers users to succeed, promoting self-sufficiency (by helping users determine what they want, and by directing them to tools and giving them training);

●

Timely delivery (by smooth handoffs);

●

Easy to use (by improving signs); and

334

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

●

Cost/benefit (by ensuring that the benefits of time-savings for staffing this model outweighed the costs of training the staff).

itive,” giving support for our efforts to continue to evolve the ISP.

All ISP staff then brainstormed “success criteria,” those factors that would demonstrate the success of the ISP:

“The respondents of the survey almost uniformly felt that their needs were met by the new service, with a large percentage finding that they were served in good time.”

●

Clarity of service offerings;

●

Efficient use of patron’s time;

●

Efficient use of staff time;

●

Faster service;

●

Increased customer confidence;

●

Increased customer knowledge;

●

Satisfied customer;

●

Smoothly effected hand-offs; and

●

Timely service.

From these criteria, the subgroup drafted a user survey and a staff survey, each focusing on those success criteria that were most relevant. User surveys were left out for two weeks, with candy as an inducement for users to fill out the survey. The staff survey was available to staff as an anonymous Web form for one week.

RESULTS5 Though there are no figures for the exact number of people who used the Library Services Desk during those two weeks, we estimated a figure based on transaction statistics (both information and circulation). It was determined that approximately 12% of those who were served at the ISP filled out user surveys (98 completed surveys). No strong indications emerged from this set of surveys, possibly because of the way that the questions were worded, or because of the specific questions that were asked. However, the one weakness that the survey did highlight was a need for better signs, which would be implemented once the M.I.T. Libraries’ new logo was complete and approved. The concern of the staff that the hand-off would be a problem to users was not evidenced by the survey results. The respondents of the survey almost uniformly felt that their needs were met by the new service, with a large percentage finding that they were served in good time. As a pleasant side effect of doing a user survey, the library also got some publicity as the survey made known to users how the staff was trying to improve services through the ISP. The staff found the results of the survey “cautiously pos-

Of the 12 staff members involved in the ISP at that time, 10 were able to respond to the more in-depth staff survey. This survey gave more solid results than the user survey, both about the staff’s feelings and concerns about the ISP, and about their perceptions of users’ views of the ISP. The clearest revelation of the staff survey was the enjoyment that the reference and circulation staff groups got from working together. This was also clear from anecdotal evidence. Other positive feedback from this survey was that staff members really want to help the user in the best way possible, illustrating the internalization of an emphasis on customer service, and that both staff groups were building their knowledge through observing one another work. The biggest concern of the staff was dealing with the hand-off, despite the fact that the user survey results did not emphasize this as a problem. ISP participants agreed that hand-offs could be smoother and more efficient, so the group brainstormed some ideas for making staff more comfortable with them. The new procedures, it is hoped, will also give the user a more complete understanding of what is happening. Other concerns about the ISP uncovered by the staff survey focused on the awkwardness of the desk layout, the need for more training for both staffs, the need for more publicity about what services are offered, and how to be productive during quiet times at the desk. Neither circulation nor reference staff felt that the ISP had freed their time to enable them to pursue other service priorities, but they did see the potential for this as the structure of the ISP evolves. While the staff absorbed implications from the surveys, they also evaluated the usual quantitative data. Reference statistics were similar to the previous year’s, thus negating the varying impressions that in the ISP model we were doing less reference than in the past, or conversely that

we were catching more questions by encountering users as they began their research. It is possible that transactions were longer—a statistic that may be useful to gather in the future. Statistics that showed how many circulation transactions librarians were doing underscored the importance of good signs: Circulation transactions done by reference staff decreased even after minimal signage was set up to clarify where people should go first for circulation transactions. The staff continues to examine other quantitative statistics, both to learn about the ISP pilot and to determine what other statistics might be useful to gather. The staff learned a lot from the assessment process. It illustrated the importance of testing questions in devising a survey, as the staff discovered when the questions on the user survey did not obtain answers that were as useful as anticipated. It is easy to assume that questions mean something very particular, only to discover that survey respondents read them entirely differently. A performance measurement consultant would have been extremely helpful for guidance on some basic principles of surveying. However, the results provided a baseline for comparison, some experience in doing qualitative assessment, and knowledge to use in moving toward future evolutions of the ISP.

THE CONCEPTUAL VERSUS REALITY As noted in the Measuring Success section, everything did not turn out as planned. However, overall we were pleased with the results and had been pleasantly surprised by some of the outcomes. Realities One of the assumptions staff made was that signage would not be necessary. Because the goal was to have various expertise available simultaneously at the desk, staff had hoped to move users fluidly to whatever staff member could best serve them. In reality, it was awkward to shift people back and forth between staff members, to ask them to repeat their questions for another person, or to know they had waited in line, only to find that the person who began helping them was not the best person for the job. It became clear that patrons needed some basic indication about whom to approach for a given need. A few weeks into the semester we posted signs at the two stations, one for “Borrowing/Reserves/Renewals” and the other for “Information Services.” The signs

helped direct users, but did not preclude anyone behind the desk from investigating the need of a person waiting in line, and taking care of the need, if possible. In fact, we expected one another to take the initiative to do so. We also hoped that having multiple staff available would make all staff more mobile. The merged service point produced almost the opposite effect. In the traditional staffing model, each staff group working at its own individual desk had been able to spend quiet periods doing work a short way from the desk: reshelving reference books, reshelving current periodicals, working on reserves, and so forth. Arriving patrons could bring the staff person back by ringing a bell on the desk. In the new model, patrons would simply approach the person remaining at the desk. When the information person was away from the desk, the circulation person was approached with reference questions. When the circulation person was away, the reference person handled many circulation transactions, and might need to perform complex transactions he/ she was not trained to do. Reference staff learned to carry the pager, and to tell the circulation person where they were going, so that they could be recalled as needed. The circulation staff learned not to do tasks that took them out of the desk area during ISP hours, or at least to be in sight so they could return as soon as someone approached the desk. Having librarians do circulation work was another sticking point. When the new model was first introduced, reference librarians expressed hesitation about learning circulation at any level. Therefore, initially, learning circulation functions was voluntary for librarians, and in the off-season models, librarians generally did not do any circulation. Over time, librarians grew accustomed to being at the consolidated desk, and during the semester pilot, no librarian was uncomfortable with the idea of doing some basic circulation tasks. Librarians learned, however, that “simple” circulation transactions can get complicated very quickly. Most librarians found themselves bumbling into complex renewals and loans, fine issues, and recalls, that required expert knowledge of the library system’s circulation module. Circulation staff were patient about being interrupted during their own transactions to get the librarians back on track. Librarians learned to ask more precise questions of users, like “Are you just checking out a couple of items?” to en-

sure that complex circulation transactions were handled by the circulation staff whenever possible. Training was an ongoing problem. The semester-based model implies that both circulation staff who acts as information assistants and librarians will continue to learn their new functions. Librarian staff, pressured by their workloads, let their circulation-training lag. This meant that, although all the librarians were capable of doing the most elementary level of circulation (e.g., simple check-in and checkout of material), they had trouble learning some agreed upon advanced tasks that would make it possible for them to support circulation fully in this model (e.g., updating a patron record). This caused some frustration among the circulation staff. Other training issues included circulation staff occasionally feeling awkward about training librarians, and the fact that librarians were not able to devote the time needed for ongoing information assistant training. To solve these and other similar problems, all issues were open and discussed in joint staff meetings. The mutual respect that had developed among staff was important to resolving the problems. One purpose of exploring a consolidated service desk was to find a more expedient way of deploying staff. If fewer people are coming to the library and if more virtual services need to be developed, staff should somehow be reducing desk hours in favor of increasing hours spent developing online services. In practice, staffing the ISP during a busy semester took as much time as staffing the two original desks. Circulation staffs who participated as information assistants were adding extra desk hours by staffing two different functions. They were also spending additional time going to training sessions. Librarians lost time previously spent doing collections and other work at the reference desk due to the intense flow of circulation transactions in addition to reference questions. They were also allotting three office hours per week for appointments that made up for desk hours transferred to circulation information staff. The appointment/office hours service was underutilized, or used for reasons other than what had been expected in planning the service, but was still felt to be an important component of a complete customer service package. Librarians were, at first, surprised by patrons’ sometimes using the appointment service for very basic reference transactions, though

September 2000 335

it had been conceived as a means of responding to in-depth research questions. One hypothesis to explain this was that perhaps we had struck on an unmet need. That is, that some patrons, due to either time constraints or shyness about approaching the desk, might prefer knowing that a librarian would be available exclusively to them, even for brief transactions. It was planned that the service would be continued with more publicity, both to build awareness of its existence and to further explain its purpose. Librarians felt that, with time, more patrons would rely on it. At the same time, librarians themselves did not use the office hours as effectively as they might have. During office hours when no appointments were scheduled, librarians could have been called in to help at the desk when things got busy, but this fact was often overlooked or forgotten. Even though expectations changed, it is hard to change old habits. It was, and still is, difficult for librarians to remember simple tasks such as forwarding and unforwarding the phone (still done from the original reference desk) so users would hear the correct message. They forgot to check paper supplies in printers and to notice things amiss in the reference collection area, all simply due to being busy and being in those areas less frequently. Friendly reminders did not go a long way toward improving the situation. Rewards On the positive side, one reason for consolidating service desks was the assumption that patrons did not use the traditional reference desk “well.” Librarians at the ISP did feel that they were encountering patrons more frequently and building more complex relationships with them, catching questions that might not have been caught otherwise, and learning about how patrons use the library in a much broader sense. A number of patrons responded well to the appointment service. Certain topics (e.g., questions about numeric data) produced several appointments for in-depth research help, and some patrons voiced enthusiasm for the idea. Positives for the circulation staff included their receiving training that helped them work with users, whether they were acting as circulation staff or as information assistants. Some negative geographic obstacles to the ISP did not seem to cause problems for users. Working from the new location took librarians farther than was preferable

336

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

from the reference collection, although it placed them in better visual range to the library entrance. Another problem was the design of the desk itself, which, having been constructed for circulation, is wide, and requires reference staff to lean across to talk with patrons. Computers at the desk are installed in such a way that they cannot be turned to face patrons. Librarians solved this problem by inviting patrons behind the desk to view searches or leaving the desk to work a few feet away at other terminals. Another issue was more conversation noise at the new location, both between staff members and among the public near the services desk. The extra noise made it harder to hold consultations with researchers. Though these conditions were awkward, librarians were pleasantly surprised to find that they did not seem to have an unduly negative effect on helping users. The user survey results confirmed that most patrons felt their needs had been satisfied. One faculty member noted that he liked seeing librarians “up front.” As mentioned earlier, an unexpected highlight of the pilot was the camaraderie that developed between circulation and librarian staff. All got to know each other better, learned more about one another’s abilities, and shared enthusiasm for the project. Librarians learned how complex the circulation job can be, and observed the jovial and more casual relationship circulation staff enjoyed with patrons. Librarians were also impressed by circulation staffers’ ability to retain composure and a sense of humor during difficult transactions. Circulation staff became more aware of what may be behind a simple question. Some were surprised to learn that many answers to questions still lie in print sources.

“. . . through our discussions staff learned to focus their perspective and plans toward meeting user needs and expectations, rather than on more artificial staff and administrative breakdown of responsibilities.” Perhaps most importantly, through our discussions staff learned to focus their perspective and plans toward meeting

user needs and expectations, rather than on more artificial staff and administrative breakdown of responsibilities. As the relationship of a library to its users continues to change dramatically and quickly, a service model requires continuous change to match changing needs. It was impressed upon staff repeatedly that the new model would be evolving, and that it would be necessary to plan its steps forward together.

MOVING FORWARD Because the user survey indicated “cautiously positive” results, circulation, and reference staff were in agreement to continue operating an ISP service model during the fall 1999 term. This decision was substantiated by staff turnover and promotions in September. The staff’s strengthened ability to assist in one another’s service areas, as well as the increasing focus on meeting customer needs, helped during this period. Unfortunately, reduced staff caused temporary reduction to add-on services like the appointment service. In terms of the pieces of the service package, in the long-term, staff would like to see a number of enhancements, including such things as a virtual equivalent to the appointment service sign-up book. Even better would be an appointment service that includes all subject librarians in the M.I.T. Libraries, not just those within Rotch Library, and that operates through a centralized, possibly Web-based, appointment-making system. Technology is also likely to move the model forward, as previously stated, by the expected conversion to self-service circulation. There are also hopes of identifying various methods through which staff can be further empowered to create satisfactory interactions with users. Building a truly successful consolidated service point relies, in large part, on factors beyond our individual library. The M.I.T. Libraries is considering redefining circulation staff jobs with specializations: a choice of technology or information services as a focus. This change, if undertaken by library administration, will involve work with M.I.T.’s Human Resources office to ensure that jobs are properly classified and compensated. Until such a change comes about, information work done by circulation staff is largely voluntary. It provides circulation staffs who participate a change of venue, the opportunity to learn new skills, the ability to build marketability in the library

work place, and the appreciation of the Libraries for their efforts. It does not at this time, however, reflect their job descriptions. Another component of the Redefinition project was the decision that all public service librarians should select a primary and a secondary priority focus from the choices of reference, instruction, and collection development. The adjustment of tasks to reflect these specializations is still underway and will presumably have an effect on staffing issues, including hours that will be devoted to desk staffing. One caution we perceive is that the purpose and outcome of the ISP model be clearly understood by library administration. It is easy to become concerned that administration could misconstrue that “less expensive” support staff can handle information service tasks, meaning that fewer “expensive” librarians are needed. Likewise, it is easy to anticipate that administrators would have concern that circulation staff performing tasks beyond traditional circulation transactions would need or expect to earn more money. Hopefully, circulation staff are, and will be, compensated fairly and will also see the value in evolving their skills in new directions as self-service circulation gradually erodes some of their existing duties. It is essential that library administrations understand and move toward providing adequate staffing for all developing collections and service needs. Statistics that do not support public desk staffing models should not be equated with a lack of need for subject expertise in a continually more virtual service world. A much broader view of customer satisfaction will be what holds relevance for the library’s future.

“A much broader view of customer satisfaction will be what holds relevance for the library’s future.” In the fall of 1999, a Public Services task force began to study the concept of the ISP in more detail, focusing particularly on the evaluations of the Rotch pilot and a briefer pilot held in one of the other divisional units. Recommendations will be reported to the Redefinition Implementation team that will act upon them. If the

implementation of a new service model proves successful, another group will study the possibilities of a “Super ISP,” a much more complex service point combining the circulation desk that serves two libraries with a separate reserves room, as well as various administrative services such as reciprocal borrowing permissions. One final consideration to the future of the ISP model is the obvious one of everchanging technology. We cannot see far enough into the future to understand exactly how technology may further impact where and how we interact with users. We only know for certain that service models will not be static, but will need to keep evolving to remain relevant.

ADVICE

FOR

OTHER LIBRARIES

The ISP at Rotch Library has been judged successful by its participants, who understand the many local conditions that led to its success. The ISP concept would not be adaptable to every library system and layout. Its application would be unique to each library and user constituency involved. Even within the range of the five divisional libraries at M.I.T., if the ISP concept is expanded, the incarnation that might prove successful will be somewhat different for each location. At Rotch, circulation staff were critical to the realization of the ISP in several ways. First, simply the fact that Rotch Library has five full-time circulation staff members, in addition to part-time and student workers, was a necessity to the pilot. Second, the circulation staff at Rotch are all committed to their work and are very enthusiastic; they fully understand and believe in the importance of their role in the library system. Additionally, the circulation staff form a “collective,” where they all share the workload and responsibility for circulation services, allowing them the decision to take on and share the additional work involved in staffing and planning the ISP. Librarian staff were also vital to the implementation of the ISP. They are generally comfortable in a less hierarchical environment, able to look beyond the professional/support staff dividing line to consider what is best for the user. They have been willing to learn some circulation functions, and, in turn, trained the circulation staff in basic information services. They added other reference services, such as office hours, which ultimately meant that there was no reduction in reference hours for them to do other things. Both circulation and reference staff exercised great flexibility, and were willing and interested in being part of developing change in

public service. The flexibility of the M.I.T. Libraries’ culture itself, which permits experimentation within units to achieve better service, also contributed to the success of the ISP. It has also been noted that the ISP model is very similar to a branch library model, in that circulation and reference are served from the same point, and sometimes by the same person. In this regard, Rotch Library may have another advantage in that it is a specialized library, not the main library for a university. Services from the ISP are therefore more targeted, and this may have contributed to the generally positive reception that it received from users. In contemplating a similar project at another library, consider the following: ●

Evaluate local geography. If the floor plan of the library is not conducive to consolidating services, a single service point may not be appropriate.

●

Approach the system as evolutionary. Change only a few things at a time, thus gaining support and enthusiasm from staff, helping people feel less threatened by the changes. At the same time, this prevents any iteration from being a “failure” as there is always an expectation of future changes and improvements.

●

Involve all staff in planning. This permits the service to grow in a way and at a pace in which staff can fully support and feel vested.

●

Consider the unique needs of the user population, the flow of research projects, and the undergraduate versus graduate populations. Users’ needs may suggest a particular service point structure appropriate to them.

Different libraries serve varied and different needs, and these should all be weighed in the process of planning a new service model. When designing an integrated service point, one size does not fit all!

CONCLUSION The concept of integrating reference and circulation service points is not an end, but rather a means to evolving toward a model of service in keeping with technological advances and the need to deploy all staff to a broader array of tasks. It is less about geography than it is about awareness and satisfaction of customer needs, and about ways to expand the concept of “reference” beyond being a separate function or a physical

September 2000 337

location in a world of ever more virtual services and collections. It is also a physical indication that many library staff members would prefer to be a part of exploring and determining the future of services than having that future inflicted upon them. Though we know that our ISP model of service is not yet perfect and has some drawbacks, we know, too, that it has advantages and potential for further refinement, and we plan to continue to evolve so that we meet our customers’ expectations, or perhaps even exceed them. Acknowledgment: We gratefully acknowledge thoughtful suggestions from Karen Mueller–Harder, Virginia Steel, and Catherine Friedman.

338

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

NOTES

AND

REFERENCES

1. In the pilot described in this article, the model evolved without review of the literature on triaging, tiered service models and using paraprofessionals at the reference desk. However, for comparison, here are a few recent articles on the issue: Marcelia D. Genz, “Working the Reference Desk,” Library Trends 46 (Winter 1998): 505–525; Vicki Coleman et al, “Tiered Reference Services: A Survey,” The Reference Librarian 59 (1997): 25– 35.; Felix Tse-Hsiu Chu, “Another Look at Staffing the Reference Desk,” College & Research Libraries News (November 1997), pp. 713; Douglas Herman, “But Does It Work? Evaluating the Brandeis Reference Model,” Reference Services Review 22(4) (Winter 1994): 17–28; Carol

2. 3. 4.

5.

Hammond, “Information and Research Support Services: The Reference Librarian and the Information Paraprofessional,” The Reference Librarian 37 (1992): 91– 104. M.I.T. Libraries’ User Survey (November 1996), unpublished. Nancy K. Reger, “Redefining Reference Services,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 38 (Fall 1998): 74. Roswitha Poll, “Measuring Quality: International Guidelines for Performance Measurement In Academic Libraries,” IFLA Publication 76 (1996): 16. The article does not include numbers or percentages for the survey because the results were gathered very informally, and specific percentages imply more scientific proof. However, the authors can supply specific data to anyone who requests it.