v PERSPECTIVES ON . . .

score Competencies: Strategic Thinking about the Work We Choose to Do by Susan Jurow

acreating a University Web in a Team Environment by Jeanne Davidson and Cherie Rusk

@The Death of Quality Cataloging: Does It Make a Difference for hbrarv Users? by Joseph Harmon

Core Competencies: Strategic Thinking about the Work We Choose to Do

by Susan Jurow

W hat makes it possible for an enterprise to create products or services that are universally recognized as distinctive and valued? How is it that, year after

year, decade after decade, certain companies are able to develop products or services that appear a perfect match with their moment in time? One of the current theories in the management literature is that some organizations are better able than others to understand and exploit their core competencies or capabili- ties.’ They know how to bring their talent, knowledge, technol- ogy, and culture to bear not just on the needs of the present, but to use them as a foundation for creating value in the future.

For the past 30 years, since the expansion period in higher education of the 1960s academic libraries have been able to respond to the perceived needs of their users by developing pro- grams and services almost at will. Collections grew, and online searching, bibliographic instruction, and online catalogs were established. As funding became more uneven in the late 1970s and the 1980s some projects might not have been as well funded as desired, but academic libraries continued to expand services with CD-ROM products, integrated library systems, and remote access to catalogs.

In the 1990s as resources become increasingly scarce, aca- demic libraries find themselves in the position of having to make choices about what programs and services to maintain, what to drop, and what new ones to begin. Since making choices has played little or no role in planning processes of the past, the lack of experience makes these particularly difficult questions to answer. The concept of core competencies or capabilities may be a useful framework for thinking strategically about how the choices made today can have a positive impact on the programs and services that can and should be provided in the future.

Susan Jurow is at Association of Research Libraries, 21 Dupont

G-c/e, NW Washington, D.C. 20036.

300 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

DEALING WITH DECLINING RESOURCES

In a recent issue of the Journal of Library Administration, Margo Crist, Assistant Director for Public Services at Univer- sity of Michigan Libraries, reported on interviews she conducted as part of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Senior Fellows program with six directors or senior library administrators engaged in large-scale library change efforts.2 When she asked them why they had decided to undertake these projects, the universal reply was “survival’‘-the need to respond to a changing environment and shifting user expecta- tions to remain a viable player in the future on the campus.

Compounding the stress of technological and demographic change, fiscal concerns are a major driving force for change in academic libraries. The higher education community has expe- rienced declining financial support in recent years. During the past 10 years, the Association of Research Libraries reports that, in the aggregate for its members, the percentage of university budget going to the library has declined from 4 percent to 3 per- cent.’ As a result, academic library administrators and staff have been forced to seek ways of maintaining or improving library services within the context of declining resources.

In times of economic retrenchment, the need to alleviate bot- tom line pressures as quickly as possible often encourages orga- nizations to grasp at programs, techniques, and initiatives that promise swift fiscal benefits. If an economic downturn is likely to be of short duration, this may be a viable strategy. If the finan- cial situation appears to be a long-term readjustment, it is worth- while to consider a strategy that supports long-range growth through a process of organizational reexamination.

Over the past five years, three streams of practice have emerged in the academic library community, just as in the for-profit arena, in response to the need for both greater effi- ciency and flexibility. These streams are restructuring, reengi- neering, and redesigning. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. The key to choosing one of these methodologies to improve services should be a clear understanding of what the organization seeks to accomplish. Once the goals are set, the appropriate stream should be selected based on how well its characteristics address the purpose. To understand the merits of

.__._ . .

each of these methodologies and how each may be employed, it is important to describe them in more detail.

Restructuring is a reconfiguration of organizational units with a focus on reducing the number of staff employed to accomplish the work of the enterprise. Changes can appear in the size, shape, and number of units, and in the hierarchy required to manage the work. Staff are often expected to develop broader knowledge bases and areas of expertise, so that they can support what has been done previously through the efforts of multiple work units and a larger staff. The purpose of these initiatives is to reduce costs.

Reengineering focuses on realigning the internal processes of an organization. It assumes that the enterprise has already made appropriate choices about overall purpose and, more important, about where to focus energy to achieve its purpose. The problem being solved through these initiatives is how best to do the work: how to improve speed, to maximize resources, and to improve services. The end result can be reduced cost or the ability to real- locate resources internally for more effective utilization.

Organizational redesign is a rethinking of what an organiza- tion is trying to achieve, the programs and services to accom- plish it, and the organizational structure and systems to best support it. Organizations often get distorted over time through a variety of means, such as personalities and economic circum- stances. Redesign offers the opportunity to reexamine the fun- damental purpose of the enterprise and to design the most effective structure and set of systems to carry it out. This means rethinking the shape and direction of the enterprise in light of current and emerging user needs.

An approach that can be an outgrowth of any of these three initiatives is outsourcing, looking upstream and downstream in the supply chain of which the enterprise is a part, and entrusting to an outside agency traditional functions of the organization. Activities and tasks that are outsourced should be those that oth- ers can do more efficiently because of lower cost structure, greater scale, or stronger performance incentives. They should be activities and tasks that do not add to the qualities users con- sider important. In a time of fiscal constraint, maintaining pro- cesses that could be outsourced causes organizations to under invest in processes that are critical to ongoing success.

CORE COMPETENCIES

Before academic libraries decide on process reengineering or holistic organizational redesign, before either divesting them- selves of traditional functions or allowing other enterprises to take pieces of their traditional “market,” a central issue to be dis- cussed within institutions and profession-wide is what should be considered core competencies. This fundamental question- what constitutes the collective knowledge unique to this profes- sion and these institutions that adds value to the services pro- vided to users-is the strategic key to the choices that must be made. The answer to this question is what will allow academic libraries to remain viable even if for-profit enterprises come to find it worthwhile to operate in the higher education environ- ment.

Prahalad and Hamel offer three tests to identify a core com- petence: it provides long-term strategic advantage, it contributes to customer benefit, and it is difficult for others to imitate.4 Leonard-Barton further refines the definition by distinguishing core competencies from supplemental or enabling capabilities. Supplemental capabilities add value to the core competence, but can be imitated by others. Enabling capabilities are those that are

necessary to success, but which are not marks of superiority.5 Leonard-Barton also extends core competencies beyond the knowledge and skills of employees to include the ways in which work gets done in an organization through the technical and managerial systems, and the culture.6

Academic libraries engage in a wide range of processes and activities for the benefit of their users; collection management, acquisition, cataloging, reference and research services, circula- tion, reserve operations, interlibrary loan, to name a few. Because each institution operates in a different environment with different user populations, and because creating value for users is at the heart of this concept, it may be that core compe- tencies do and should differ from one institution to another.

One library may have developed a culture, systems, and an employee knowledge base that support the development of world class reference services while another makes its mark through an interlibrary loan program that can get materials into the users hands so quickly that deficiencies in the collection are immaterial. Undergraduate education as the core competency of one institution and research at another would dictate the core competencies that an academic library is likely to develop.

The identification of core competencies is critical because of its impact on future endeavors. If there are core competencies that are clearly going to be pivotal to the success of academic libraries in the future, it will not be possible to rebuild the knowl- edge, skills, systems, and culture once they have been out- sourced. It will not be possible to enter a new arena unless an organization has been investing over the long-term in the required human capital. It is difficult to know in advance what the magnitude of a lose is likely to be when a core competence is given up.

Thinking Strategically At the heart of these approaches is the assumption that the

administrators and staff of academic libraries can and should be thinking strategically about their future. The ability of those in any sector to think strategically is bound by the frames of refer- ence with which they are most familiar: the assumptions, beliefs, and accumulated knowledge of a profession or institution. Can academic libraries see beyond the historic place of higher edu- cation and their role within it to a potential situation where real competition could reduce or limit the scope or range of programs and services that would remain part of their territory?

“Business, more than government, is instituting the changes in education that are required for the emerging knowledge-based economy....Over the next few decades the private sector will eclipse the public sector as our predominant educational institu- tion.“7 What will the role of the academic library be in such a world?

To be truly strategic, academic libraries must be able to answer three questions. What is the fit between available resources and the opportunities to be pursued? In allocating resources, what is the best investment to make among competing priorities? Where will a long-term investment make the most sense? At the same time, these long-term considerations must be accompanied by a recognition that whenever possible resources should be leveraged to stretch to meet aspirations. Aspirations are where innovations appear, and innovation in a competitive world is the currency of survival.

The consideration of core competencies provides an oppor- tunity for academic libraries to focus on value. It places current effectiveness into a longer time frame, and provides an invest- ment context for resource allocation. These institutions and the

July 1996 301

profession as a whole can choose those few key areas where unique contributions can be made and where they can be truly excellent, rather than just good or adequate across the broad range of programs, services, and processes.

CONCLUSION

A company surrenders tomorrow’s business when it gets better without changing.

-Hamel & Prahalad, 1 9948

Rather than focusing on the successes or mistakes of the past and present, this is the time for academic libraries to be building the digital library of tomorrow. Now is the time to choose what should be done based on strategic importance and contribution to long-term success. This may be a period of transformation or discontinuity, or it may be that continuous, high-speed change will be the working environment of the future. It is critical not to let financial exigency and the chaotic nature of the period deflect the enormous opportunities for creativity and innova- tion.

Academic libraries are capable of doing many things and doing them well. They have taken on a wide range of programs and services over the years including the cutting-edge automa- tion of many of their processes. To be successful in the future will take a clear understanding of the potential inherent in the skills and knowledge that already exist within the profession. It will take a recognition that new skill sets and knowledge bases may be needed in the future. As difficult as it may be, it will also take a willingness to let go of competencies that do not offer stra- tegic advantage for the competitive environment that is likely to be the future scenario.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Some authors differentiate between these two terms. I have chosen to use them interchangeably. 2. Margo Crist, “Structuring the Academic Library Organization of the Future: Some New Paradigms,” Journal ofLibrary Administration 20 (1994): 47-65. 3. Kendon Stubbs, “Trends in University Funding for research Libraries,” ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions 172 (January 1994): 1. 4. C.K. Prahalad & Gary Hamel, “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review 68 (May-June 1990): 82. 5. Dorothy Leonard-Barton, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993, p. 4. 6. Ibid., p. 19. 7. Stan Davis & Jim Botkin, “The Coming of the Knowledge-Based Business,” Harvard Business Review 72 (September-October 1994): 170. 8. Gary Hamel & C.K. Prahalad, “Competing for the Future,” Harvard Business Review 72 (July-August 1994): 126.

Creating a University Web in a Team Environment by Jeanne Davidson and Cherie Rusk

T he World Wide Web allows information on diverse top- ics to be thematically and intuitively linked and dis- persed at will. Designing an effective Web site for a

university requires identifying an appropriate image, but, like the fabled blind men and the elephant, points of view as to important attributes of that image vary greatly.

Another aspect of Web design requiring serious consider- ation is the organizational dynamics supporting formation of an excellent Web site. While many articles have addressed man- agement of the technical aspects of creating a Web site, few dis- cuss the issue of the impact of institutional culture on Web site design.’ As participants in the team that revisited Oregon State University’s (OSU’s) central Web site organization and design, the authors discovered the importance of organizational support and communication. This essay explores issues related to the organizational structure surrounding the team working on OSU’s Web site (http://www.orst.edu). Discussion includes the demand which drove the project, the process which has enabled the University to be represented in a consistent manner through- out the Web site, the culture clashes between Web site designers and issues that surfaced and the ultimate benefits of the team approach.

DEMAND

The demand from all sectors of OSU for a high quality Web site is increasing very rapidly. This increase is mirrored in the literature as well. The number of citations in ERIC on “higher education” and “World Wide Web” doubled from 1994 to 1995. The popularity of the Web and its relatively low cost per poten- tial viewer has made creating a Web presence a priority among major colleges and universities. Web resources, with their rapid growth, flexibility, and high visibility, have become high-pro- file projects at campuses throughout the world. For institutions seeking to attract students, “image” is everything.* Administra- tive groups, especially those concerned with marketing to

? ro-

spective students, realize the importance of Web projects. Other administrative groups, such as campus research and extension, recognize the efficiency of sharing information on the web, both internally and externally.

Faculty want to utilize Web technology in their classes, both on campus and from remote locations. Although some depart- ments set up their own servers to accommodate the demand, they often want them attached to a main campus Web. Faculty with- out departmental Web servers are looking for a university-wide server to provide them with the necessary links. Researchers are looking for and requesting access via the Web to library or com- puting services which they may have previously dialed into or accessed via Gopher.

To maximize visibility, students want to attach their home pages to a central server, as do Alumni, Athletics, and the com- munity. Everyone recognizes the possibility that the site will be discovered by surfers who might (or might not) be connected with the University.

leanne Davidson is Physical Sciences Reference Librarian, Oregon State University, Con/al/is, Oregon 9733 7. Cherie Rusk is Electronic and Local Resources Cataloger, Oregon State University.

302 The Journal of Academic Librarianship