IFLA LBE 2016 Conference CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

BRYAN IRWIN; SASAKI ASSOCIATES SHARON BOSTICK; ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ENHANCING STAFF COLLABORATION; DEFINING NEEDS AND DESIGNING SPACES

■ Libraries are in a state of constant change

■ Change has made us strong but has challenges

■ It is imperative that library staff are partners in the change environment

COLLABORATION AND CHANGE

TWO CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE CHANGE ENVIRONMENT

■ Staffing and organizational structure

■ Flexible and innovative library spaces

THINKING ABOUT STAFF COLLABORATION

■ Many libraries spend a lot of time planning and implementing collaborative spaces for users

■ Less has been done about collaborative staff space

■ This is changing and there is a great deal of interest in providing a variety of spaces for staff to work with each other

STAFF S P A C E S

■ Ideally, staff spaces are flexible, adaptable and support staff members’ work

■ They are pleasant working spaces

■ They include spaces for collaboration

■ For public services staff, they should include space for “messy” work away from public service space

SOME PROBLEMS

■ Older buildings tend to have for rigid spaces for staff

■ Staff spaces are often cobbled together to meet changing needs

■ In a renovation or new build, flexible staff spaces are often sacrificed because of budget cuts

BUT LET’S BE MORE OPTIMISTIC!

I spoke with some experts about desirable spaces for staff collaboration

Some IIT librarians!

What do they see as necessary for effective collaboration?

FLEXIBILITY!

■ Older buildings tend to have for rigid spaces for staff

■ Staff spaces are often cobbled together to meet changing needs

■ In a renovation or new build, flexible staff spaces are often sacrificed because of budget cuts

TECHNOLOGY

■ Videoconferencing

■ Big screens

■ Shared digital workspaces

■ Plenty of whiteboards

■ Ability to collaborate from individual offices

VARIETY

■ Spaces for “bantering”, spontaneous conversations

■ Place away from students and the public

■ Place to see each other

■ Informal collaboration

■ Bars

■ Include some technology in informal spaces

■ Space that looks different from regular offices

THE STATE OF

ACADEMICLIBRARIAN SPACES2015

STAFF PROFILE BY INSTITUTION SIZE

As expected, there is a clear correlation between institution size and the number of full-time and part-time students. Student workers were less consistently connected

to the institution size, and there was no noticeable trend between student workers and institution type (public or private) within each respective institution size category.

OTH

ER: 3

0 re

spon

dent

s

YES:

167

res

pond

ents

NO:

49

resp

onde

nts

ROLES & TITLE CHANGES IN LAST 10 YEARS

When asked if the roles and titles of the respondent’s library’s staff has changed over the past 10 years, 68% of the respondents to this question said yes. Many of the responses indicated that changes in their roles or titles were due to the development of new digital services and electronic resources positions, shifts towards metadata (and away from cataloging), and an emphasis on outreach and educational roles. Additionally, many noted a decreasing staff size and a rise in part-time employees.

“We are a small staff and a large student staff. We all wear many hats and, outside of administrative duties, everyone shares various responsibilities.”

STUDENT WORKER [average]

20160 11

FULL TIME EMPLOYEE [average]

3

PART TIME EMPLOYEE [average]

<1,000; 1,001 – 5,000

STUDENT WORKER [average]

2186 26

FULL TIME EMPLOYEE [average]

10 or less

PART TIME EMPLOYEE [average]

5,001 – 10,000; 10,001 – 20,000

STUDENT WORKER [average]

10 –60 119 42

FULL TIME EMPLOYEE [average]

10 or less

PART TIME EMPLOYEE [average]

20,001 – 30,000; 30,000+

RESPONDENTS

RESPONDENTS

RESPONDENTS

18 19

SHARED SPACE BY INSTITUTION SIZE When respondents were asked to identify all other services their library shared space with, 27% of the total response group said their library’s space was their own. The other 73% indicated they are sharing their space with typically one or two academic enrichment programs. Knowing the majority of libraries of all institution sizes are sharing their spaces is critical in understanding the changing landscape of space and services that libraries are expected to support.

Larger institutions were the least likely to share their library’s space with an enrichment program, while small-sized institutions were the most likely. Although shared library spaces cannot be definitively correlated to institutional space and resources, it is highly plausible that larger campuses may have the spatial capacity to afford these programs having their own facilities.

1

2

3

4

5

NUMBER OF SHARED

SPACES

1

3

3

1

12

18

9

5

1028 13

3

131

12 14

12116

TUTORING

WRITING

LANGUAGE

MATH

OTHER

209 10

1

33

2

3

1

134 5

1

35 3

2

2 68 8

2

2

2

2

2

13

715

16

15 17 2 17

4

4

4

4

1111

<1,000; 1,001 – 5,000

5,001 – 10,000; 10,001 – 20,000

20,001 – 30,000; 30,000+

160respondents

86respondents

67respondents

26 27

SHARED SPACE Many libraries have begun to take on alternative names, such as learning, information, or academic commons. As these names imply, many libraries are inviting other programming, academically oriented or otherwise, into their physical space. The survey focused on the academic enrichment programs incorporated into existing library spaces; although several respondents indicated the library was also becoming home to maker spaces and other technology-oriented services.

ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS

Writing centers and “other” were consistently the first or second most selected answers. The “other” category predominantly represents some type of technology support or media center (30%, 31%, and 29% respectively for small, medium, and large institutions), or a space for special programs (Honors courses) or special subject research centers (7%, 19%, and 17% respectively for small, medium, and large institutions). Career services, for students and faculty alike, was another service with which libraries are sharing their spaces (7%, 8%, and 8% respectively for small, medium, and large institutions).

Only 11% of the respondents anticipated adding a shared space in the future.

WRITINGCENTER

128respondents

TUTORINGCENTER

104respondents

LANGUAGELAB

7respondents

MATHCENTER

33respondents

OTHER

114respondents

NONE

107respondents

1respondent

WRITING + LANGUAGE

2respondents

TUTORING + WRITING + LANGUAGE

5respondents

TUTORING + OTHER

27respondents

WRITING

1respondent

LANGUAGE + OTHER

2respondents

OTHER + NONE

7respondents

TUTORING + WRITING +

MATH + OTHER

33respondents

TUTORING + WRITING +

OTHER

3respondents

MATH

12respondents

TUTORING + WRITING +

MATH

45respondents

OTHER

1respondent

MATH + OTHER

3respondents

TUTORING + WRITING +

LANGUAGE + MATH

20respondents

TUTORING + WRITING

3respondents

TUTORING + WRITING +

MATH

16respondents

WRITING + OTHER

104respondents

NO SHARED SPACE

1respondent

TUTORING + NONE

4respondents

WRITING + MATH + OTHER

21respondents

TUTORING

22 23

“TECHNOLOGY IS THE NAME WE GIVE TO THINGS THAT DON’T WORK YET”

DAN HILLIS

ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION

OPEN OFFICE VERSUS PRIVATE OFFICE

CONSIDERATIONS

■ Acknowledge that most job tasks require both engagement and introspection

■ Your offices should convey a sense of community and shared values, not interchangibility and expedience

■ Privacy should not connote status

■ People perform best when given options

THE PUBLIC INTERFACE

HOW TO GET STARTED

■ There is not a one-size-fits all solution

■ Create a master plan and implementation strategy…then stick to it!

■ Design for the mission of the library, not the personalities of the staff

■ Take some cues from the corporate sector

■ Expect things to change