This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 06 November 2014, At: 21:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Serials Librarian: From thePrinted Page to the Digital AgePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wser20

The Team Approach in BuildingElectronic Collections andServicesWilliam Kara aa Albert R. Mann Library , Cornell University.Published online: 13 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: William Kara (1999) The Team Approach in Building ElectronicCollections and Services, The Serials Librarian: From the Printed Page to the DigitalAge, 36:3-4, 321-335, DOI: 10.1300/J123v36n03_01

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J123v36n03_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

USING TEAMS TO EVALUATEAND IMPLEMENT NEW SERVICES

FOR ELECTRONIC SERIALS

The Team Approachin Building Electronic Collections

and ServicesWilliam Kara

SUMMARY. Teams can be effective tools to evaluate electronic collec-tions and implement new services. With rapidly changing technologiesand the availability of new options, teams provide a way to share infor-mation, learn new skills, and develop a greater appreciation for thework, concerns, and needs of staff throughout the library. This commu-nication and involvement can be critical to implementing new libraryservices. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deliv-ery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com]

William Kara is Acquisitions Librarian/Acting Head of Technical Services, Al-bert R. Mann Library, Cornell University.E 1999 by the North American Serials Interest Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: ‘‘The Team Approach in Building Electronic Collections and Ser-vices.’’ Kara, William. Co-published simultaneously in The Serials Librarian (The Haworth Press, Inc.)Vol. 36, No. 3/4, 1999, pp. 321-335; and: Head in the Clouds, Feet on the Ground: Serials Vision andCommon Sense (ed: Jeffrey S. Bullington, Beatrice L. Caraway, and Beverley Geer) The Haworth Press,Inc., 1999, pp. 321-335. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-342-9678, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address:getinfo@haworthpressinc.com].

321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND322

Libraries differ in many different ways--in their mission, their size,and their history; but regardless of what type library they’re in, onething that all librarians have needed to deal with is change. In arelatively few years resources in a variety of electronic formats havebeen increasingly available and essential for any modern library.There are many library services that are still evolving due to thecontinuing rapid changes in technology and electronic collectionsavailable. This paper examines how a library can get to the point ofoffering and maintaining access to an electronic collection, particular-ly using a team approach to investigate and implement a new service.It will address project teams rather than investigate using the teammanagement approach to organizing the structure of library opera-tions. Although a more permanent team management structure sharesmany of the strengths of using teams for an investigation or imple-mentation project, the teams for these initiatives usually have a muchmore defined objective.1 This paper is divided into three sections,covering the purpose of teams and how they fit into the library orga-nization, a brief discussion of contemporary management theory aboutteams, and use of teams at Cornell to illustrate how teams can be used.

THE PURPOSE OF TEAMS

Although not written specifically for libraries or corporations, stan-dard definitions of ‘‘team’’ and ‘‘teamwork’’ help to illustrate thesebasic concepts very well. Webster’s Third New International Dictio-nary defines ‘‘team’’ as ‘‘a number of persons associated together inwork or activity’’ and ‘‘a group of specialists or scientists functioningas a collaborative unit.’’ The emphasis on collaboration or teamworkis an important element. Webster’s definition of ‘‘teamwork’’ is ‘‘workdone by a number of associates with usually each doing a clearlydefined portion but all subordinating personal prominence to the effi-ciency of the whole.’’2 Although these are very basic definitions theycan also be applied to teams in a library environment. A team thatutilizes the skills and contributions of all its members can more effec-tively tackle complex assignments and be a means of enhancing com-munication and collaboration within the organization. Teams can alsoserve as a mechanism for sharing ideas and building skills and aware-ness.

Project teams formed to investigate and implement new services for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 323

electronic resources have been used effectively at the Albert R. MannLibrary. The Albert R. Mann Library at Cornell University is thesecond largest library in the Cornell University Library system andserves the Colleges of Agriculture and Human Ecology and the Divi-sions of the Biological and Nutritional Sciences. The library has beenan innovator in providing access to electronic resources to the faculty,staff, and students in the Cornell community. In the early 90s thelibrary developed the Mann Library Gateway (http://www.mannlib.cornell.edu), which is a single point of access to the bibliographic,numeric and full-text titles selected by the bibliographers at MannLibrary. By the end of 1997, before it was integrated in the newCornell University Library (CUL) Gateway, it provided access toapproximately 1,000 titles. The new CUL Gateway now includes2,000 individually listed titles.

The Mann Library Gateway was developed before many commer-cial packages were available. In addition to mounting several biblio-graphic files locally on magnetic tape, it forged partnerships withcommercial enterprises and public agencies to provide the Cornellcommunity with titles essential for its teaching and research missions.As the Acquisitions Librarian at Mann I had the opportunity to beinvolved in the development of this online collection. Although thiscollection grew gradually with the addition of individual titles, muchof the growth was in large spurts, adding numerous titles at one time.Advances in technology or the opportunity to provide access to largercollections of titles often involved reexamining the gateway structureand workflow and user support issues. It was at these times that teamswould be formed to more fully analyze the possibilities and implementnew services.

During the last sixteen years I’ve worked in technical services,particularly in acquisitions, and I am familiar with the changes thattechnology brought to processing monographs and serials. Proceduresfor handling print items became well established. In the early 90s,however, acquiring electronic resources was something new. Therewere not well-established procedures and policies for acquiring andprocessing resources in varied electronic formats. Additionally, add-ing electronic resources to the collection would have an impact onevery department in the library. Electronic resources brought newchallenges and required many decisions on how they would be han-dled and supported. Working with my colleagues was an essential part

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND324

of my education about electronic resources. Working as part of bothformal and informal teams not only helped reinforce my appreciationand awareness of issues facing others in the library, but helped them tounderstand the complexities that acquisitions and technical servicesfaced when dealing with electronic resources. These teams with mem-bers from the different units also served as a hub, and each teammember could go back to their own units to discuss details and shareinformation. The team facilitated awareness and cooperation beyondthe relatively small membership of the team.

Libraries had been dealing with change long before the pace oftechnological innovation quickened during the last two decades.Whether through reorganization or reengineering, libraries havetackled new challenges differently. All libraries have needed to facethe new challenges and opportunities that electronic publications andservices offer. Nothing remains the same for long. Some libraries haveconcentrated expertise about new technology in specialized staff andunits, and technical specialists are certainly an essential part of anymodern library organization.

The addition of electronic resources and services to a collection,however, also requires the work and attention of staff in many otherdepartments throughout the library. In providing access to a largecollection of electronic resources--whether bibliographic, full-text, ornumeric--many questions need to be addressed: What will be acquiredand how? How will the resources be cataloged and organized foraccess? What are the technical requirements? What will the demandsbe on the public services staff?

This is far from a complete list, but it identifies the potential com-plexity involved in offering a new service. Each of the questionsabove would generate many more questions that would need to beanswered before the implementation of a new service. Library staffoften have expertise in a core area, but it’s unlikely that anyone wouldhave the experience, skills, or the authority to handle all details effec-tively. Many decisions cut across departmental lines, and how staff indifferent departments and at different levels cooperate, coordinate, andcommunicate their activities will dramatically affect the process andaffect the success of implementing a new service.

One of the mechanisms that a library could use to manage thiscomplexity is to form a team, comprised of selected staff fromthroughout the library, who provide different perspectives and exper-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 325

tise. This diversity of talent and experience is critical. With the rightmembers, teams can be very useful for sorting through the issues thatneed to be examined when making significant changes to our libraryservices. They can be useful in getting the job done and getting it donemore thoroughly.

A team is similar to a committee but often differs in its mission. It iscertainly a forum to discuss ideas and projects, but an investigation orimplementation team usually has a more defined goal. Depending onthe assignment to the team, teams can also be involved in differentstages of a project and need to investigate various aspects of any newservice before, during, and even after implementation. This involve-ment and continuity is important; it not only instills a sense of owner-ship in the project, but team members have been involved with somany details from the beginning that they already know much aboutthe project and its goals. At some point, however, the investigation orimplementation team would need to involve staff with other expertise,or when it is no longer a ‘‘project,’’ it should be fully integrated intothe more routine operations of the library.

Library organizations are certainly familiar with committees. Com-mittees come in all sizes and structures and serve many purposes. It isoften the case that many librarians approach what could be termed as‘‘committee overload.’’ The formation of yet another committee mightreceive less than positive responses, such as, ‘‘Oh no, not anothercommittee. Not more meetings!’’ There is also the situation when aquick answer is needed and one is told to ‘‘run it by Susan,’’ who thentells you to ‘‘run it by Joe,’’ who will then add it to the agenda for acommittee meeting two weeks from now. The quick answer or deci-sion wanted by you or your staff is now on the agenda at a futuremeeting.

At the same time that committees can add another bureaucraticelement to the process and even slow the pace of decision-making,nearly all professionals have also all had the experience of decisionsbeing made without the involvement or participation of staff who willbe directly affected by the result. A decision made without the input ofappropriate staff could also get negative reactions: ‘‘Didn’t she realizewhat impact this would have on public services?’’ ‘‘Are they nuts? Wecan’t do that by then.’’

Is there a happy medium between too much involvement and notenough? Not always, but good communication and the involvement of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND326

staff with appropriate skills and experience can make an organizationmore efficient and enable it to tackle changes effectively. Projectteams can be an effective means of involving appropriate staff.

Whether a group is designated a team, committee, or task force, themission and goals of the group are critical to the role it will play withinthe organization and its effectiveness in accomplishing its goals. Thename of the group should indicate some sense of the group’s purpose.For example, a group in the Cornell University Library system wasjust renamed the Database Review Committee (formerly, the DatabaseReview Task Force), reflecting the need for a more permanent, contin-uing review of electronic products and access in a fast-developingmarket. Most libraries would have a need for more formal committeesand staff to deal with the ongoing selection and support of digitalresources, but assigning staff to a team to deal with a project gives theorganization more flexibility in dealing with particular issues. It alsogives an opportunity for a wider range of staff to be involved indeveloping the digital library. At the Albert R. Mann Library--as inmany organizations--committees, groups, or teams can be formal orinformal; ongoing or temporary; can look at issues theoretically orpractically; and can include a myriad of styles, structures, or inten-tions. There’s no magic formula, but a team must include or haveaccess to a variety of skills, which differ from project to project.

MANAGEMENT LITERATURE ON TEAMS

The management or leadership style also varies among and withinorganizations. Library management can be fairly authoritarian; consul-tative, where the director consults with key staff or other administratorsbefore making significant decisions; or participatory, where much moreinvolvement from staff is encouraged and expected.3 Different manage-ment styles and structures certainly have their strengths and weak-nesses, but any management style that fails to fully utilize and developits staff misses an opportunity. At many institutions (Mann Libraryincluded) professional staff are hired after a long review, whose pur-pose is to identify potential as well as existing skills and experience.

One of the ways staff, whether new or long-term, can develop skillsis through involvement. At Mann Library a decision was made early inthe evolution towards the electronic library that for the library to moveforward all units in the library needed to participate in the changes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 327

Staff would not be sidelined, and technical skills would not be com-partmentalized or isolated in relatively few staff or units. This is not tosay that technical skills don’t vary considerably--they do--but there’s aminimum level of awareness and involvement expected of all staff,particularly the professional librarians. Even technical and computerstaff are hired with the potential or experience to think of the broaderrole technology plays in libraries. The culture of the library is that of a‘‘learning organization,’’ and teams fit well within that framework.

Libraries are organizations that provide a service, and many aspectsof library management are akin to working in business. Current trendsin management theory and practice include the concept of a ‘‘learningorganization.’’ Although these might be the 90s buzzwords, similar toTQM (Total Quality Management) that came along a few years before,there’s much logic in many points. Every organization, however, isdifferent, and each needs to examine what changes, if any, wouldbenefit them in helping them better fulfill their mission.

Current management theory has increasingly stressed involvement ofstaff and using their full potential. The top-down approach and strictpyramidal structure where decisions and ideas come from the boss tothe staff have been increasingly rejected as ineffective, especially inorganizations that deal with complex variables. This is particularly truein organizations that have a need to discuss and develop ideas to betterserve their patrons. Buzzwords and theories come and go and are usual-ly built on earlier ideas and what worked well in practice.

One of the leading proponents of learning organizations is PeterSenge. In his books The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of theLearning Organization4 and The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strate-gies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization,5 he and othersdescribe the skills needed in contemporary organizations. These twobooks contain over a thousand pages of his and others’ ideas and howto put them into practice. Teams and team learning are not only centralto his ideas, but are also an essential component in successfully devel-oping a learning organization.

In The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Senge summarizes the five disci-plines, which are core to learning organizations, as follows:

Personal Mastery--learning to expand our personal capacity tocreate the results we most desire, and creating an organizationalenvironment which encourages all its members to develop them-selves towards the goals and purposes they choose.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND328

Mental Models--reflecting upon, continually clarifying, and im-proving our internal pictures of the world, and seeing how theyshape our actions and decisions.

Shared Vision--building a sense of commitment in a group, bydeveloping shared images of the future we seek to create, and theprinciples and guiding practices by which we hope to get there.

Team Learning--transforming conversational and collectivethinking skills, so that groups of people can reliably developintelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual mem-bers’ talents.

Systems Thinking--a way of thinking about, and a language fordescribing and understanding, the forces and interrelationshipsthat shape the behavior of systems.6

Senge’s work and other literature on learning organizations is the90s idea of management and transforming corporate culture. Althoughmuch of management literature is written more from the corporatestandpoint, much is applicable to the library environment. In the abovefive disciplines there is an emphasis in building skills that permitindividuals and organizations to move forward, to think creatively anddifferently, and to develop a vision of the future and examine how thatvision could be realized. Team learning is essential to this process.Rather than individuals working separately with little communication,teams permit the free flow of ideas among the members. By examin-ing projects holistically and understanding the larger system, teams--although given a specific assignment--should be able to better sort themany details and issues in a complex project. In the Fieldbook there isalso an emphasis on the need to start afresh and question assumptions,which is something librarians have needed to do for electronic re-sources where new procedures and policies need to be developed.Senge also writes about avoiding the ‘‘quick fix,’’ which might be theeasiest solution at the time but often lets a problem resurface later oreven cause additional problems. By having a project team carefullyanalyze many details and issues, the system can more completelymanage changes rather than react to individual new titles on an ad hocbasis. By systematically analyzing workflow and policy issues theorganization can take a more holistic view of the electronic collection

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 329

and how it should be developed. In learning organizations teams arean important element in the structure. A collaborative team approachshould engender open discussions of the issues. The importance of thecomposition of the team is also critical and must include participationand representation from all units that would need to implement andsupport a new service.

The concept of a learning organization isn’t confined to corporateliterature. A recent article by Rena Fowler in College and ResearchLibraries addresses the need for libraries to invest in their organiza-tions to accommodate technological innovation. She also stronglyendorses the concept of ‘‘planned change’’ and that ‘‘through the teamor group may be examined the presence of shared vision, team learn-ing, and continuous or lifelong learning.’’7

EXAMPLES OF INVESTIGATIONAND IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS AT MANN LIBRARY

Leadership is also essential in moving an organization forward. Ifthe shared vision isn’t shared by the director, a crucial link is broken.The organizational structure and will need to be there to lead theorganization through change, to encourage participation and innova-tion, and to create both formal teams and an informal, effective teamenvironment. The absence of effective leadership can be a severeobstacle to adapting to change. A library should not merely react tochanges around it, but should proactively investigate opportunities anddevelop the structure and skills to better meet new challenges.

Fortunately, throughout this evolutionary period, having a strongleader was not a problem in Mann Library. The director, Jan Olsen,had the vision to see what changes and opportunities technologywould bring to libraries and information management. The directorand other senior administrators worked closely together and were ableto articulate a vision for the library, engender enthusiasm and coopera-tion among the staff, and develop the organizational structures tosupport the development of a digital library.

In the early 90s the director formed the Electronic Resources Coun-cil (ERC), which served as a discussion forum and decision-makingbody for significant new initiatives involving electronic resources.This group mirrors teams, but is a standing committee. It containsrepresentation from all involved units, it is a forum to exchange and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND330

discuss ideas and information, and it serves as a mechanism to identifythe needs and concerns of different units. The ERC primarily com-prises administrative and supervisory staff, but regularly invites staffwith particular expertise or assignments to join in discussions.

One of the ERC’s goals was to get the council’s members out of theloop for all decisions. In order to do this, the ERC needed to grapplewith and understand the issues and put policies and procedures intoplace that would integrate the processing of electronic resources intothe workflow of the different divisions. Mainstreaming was a goal,and a fairly successful goal. Adding pointers to selected publiclyaccessible Internet sites, establishing subscriptions to individual elec-tronic titles, and adding new CD-ROMs to the LAN all eventuallybecame fairly mainstreamed. With electronic access still undergoingconsiderable changes, there were new issues that arose along the way,but, in general, collection development hashed out the selection policyand technical services developed the skills to catalog and add titles tothe gateway. The information technology section and public servicesbecame adept and flexible in handling a wide variety of electronictitles. Many items were effectively mainstreamed into procedures ineach division. Originally the ERC met more frequently, hitting newissues or rehashing earlier ones. More recently, however, it only be-comes involved when there are larger new iniatives to discuss or whennew technology is involved. For example, within the last two yearsGIS, Geographic Information Systems, raised a number of issues re-garding what will be collected and how it would be supported by thelibrary.

When there were issues involving larger initiatives to discuss ordecide, the director, the Administrative Council, and the ERC wouldoften form an investigation or implementation team. These teams haveproven to be very useful in sorting through the numerous detailsinvolved in any larger project. I’m going to use examples of severalteams, not going into detail about their investigation, but more on whatrole they and their members played. I’ll use examples from MannLibrary and from the Cornell University Library system to identifysome teams and their work.

One of the first teams I was involved with for investigating andimplementing a new service started basic discussions at the end of1992 and by the end of 1993 provided a new service to the Cornelluser community. The library worked closely with Dialog Information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 331

Services to provide access to over 100 databases and full-text re-sources to the Cornell community via the Mann Library Gateway.Although aggregations or collections of electronic resources are com-mon now, this was particularly innovative at the time. The library hadalready mounted locally on magnetic tape several major databases thatwere core to our collection. These were heavily used and directlyavailable to the user, but were only the tip of the iceberg of whatdatabases were available through mediated searching with the refer-ence staff. Contact was made with Dialog and there was interest onboth sides in pursuing an experimental service. In the library theDialog Team started out as an investigation team, which then becamean implementation team. Some seriously considered services or pro-jects never reach the implementation stage.

In the library, the Dialog team comprised the head of collectiondevelopment, who looked at developing the collection in all formatsand who also managed the acquisitions funds, the bibliographic filesselector (who was also a public services librarian) and the acquisitionslibrarian (who handled contracts for the library). In addition, a staffmember in the information technology section was assigned to lookinto the technical questions. Although he wasn’t involved in the selec-tion of files or the financial and contract discussions, he needed toensure that what we were talking about was doable. Could we handlethe scripting and security issues and control the passwords and ac-counts? Another important member of this team was Anne Caputo(manager of academic programs at Dialog Information Services), whowas both our advocate and our primary contact. Usually I wouldn’tconsider a vendor representative to be an integral part of the investiga-tion team, but Anne’s role and support were pivotal to this project. Wewere not dealing with an off-the-shelf product, but developing aninnovative service. Anne was contacted frequently, sometimes in con-ference calls, and she also visited Cornell for very open discussions ofissues.

The team met frequently, gathering information, prioritizing whatfiles would be appropriate for the service, contacting Anne regardinglimitations and getting test passwords to explore possibilities. Thebibliographic files selector fully involved the public services staff indiscussions about the list of titles. The programmer assigned to theteam also had experience with interface design, but back in 1993systems looked much more primitive than they do now, and we cer-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND332

tainly couldn’t rewrite Dialog’s programming. I worked on contractualdetails with the team and with Dialog, and in technical services wediscussed how over 100 titles would be listed and organized for theMann Library Gateway. Adding a large number of new titles wouldrequire some reorganization and refinement of our subject structurefor the gateway. The team met with the ERC to give updates and metwith the director to make final decisions. We had an ideal vision ofwhat type of service we’d like to provide, but reality reined us in.There were technological limitations, financial issues, and contractualdetails to consider and deal with. Before implementation there neededto be programming completed in the library and at Dialog, subjectterms needed to be evaluated to better organize the significantly ex-panded Gateway, there was publicity to do, staff instruction, and userguides to write. It did become a service, a heavily used service, forfour years. During those years much changed. The Mann LibraryGateway moved from telnet to Web. There are now numerous prod-ucts and services available commercially to choose from. Users, whowere thrilled in 1993, within a few short years wanted more andexpected much more user-friendly systems. This is no surprise; tech-nology has changed rapidly. Despite all the planning and preparation,however, even the best laid plans sometimes hit a snag. Back in 1993our accounts were turned on by Dialog in July as agreed. As a univer-sity governed by the cycle of the academic calendar, one of our cardi-nal rules--which we break often enough, but try not to--is to bring upmajor changes during the summer and not in the middle of the fall orspring semesters. However, due to other projects taking priority in ashort-staffed information technology section, this service wasn’t im-plemented until early October.

This was my first experience with a team involving electronic re-sources, and it was a very positive experience. Not only did it fostercommunication before, during and after implementation of the Dialogproject, but it built long-term avenues of communication with mycolleagues in other departments. It also developed my skills andawareness of a variety of issues and developed an awareness in thelibrary of how tricky some contractual issues could be. Sometimes it isnot very obvious why there are delays in implementing a new service,but there are many potential pitfalls. This project and the ongoingsupport for it developed a better understanding of the complex vari-ables that need to be considered. Some of the sticking points were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 333

confidential contractual issues, but I appreciated being able to discussand share these points with members of the team.

With a large collection of bibliographic files in place, the library alsowanted to further develop its full-text collections. Pointers to individualfull-text titles were already being added to the Gateway, but we nowwanted to add a critical mass of full-text titles in our core subject areas.Another team was formed, with similar composition to the Dialog team,but with a full-text selector instead of a bibliographic files selector, andthe information technology section member had a more active role indiscussions, especially since the retrieval and display of full-text werestill undergoing significant changes. This was in 1995, before the ex-plosion of aggregators offering online collections. This was an opportu-nity for all the members of this full-text team to dig into a variety ofissues, many not particularly related to our primary responsibilities.However, there was no implementation following our investigation.There were a few contractual and price issues where the library drew aline in the sand and wouldn’t cross. Even though we were anxious toprovide more full-text, and have since done so, there were principlesthat we thought were a bad precedent. The team, the ERC, and thedirector all concurred. As the staff member primarily responsible forcontracts, I’ve particularly appreciated this type of support.

The last example is of a campus-wide task force formed to investi-gate which databases and electronic resources that the entire librarysystem should offer. For a major research university this is an enor-mous undertaking and involves significant expenditures and planning.Staff who were not previously intensely involved in these decisionsnow became involved. The Database Review Task Force (DRTF) did anice job sorting through the mass of possibilities. It was formed inearly 1997 and included collection development and public servicesstaff. Additionally, the central acquisitions librarian participated toassist in contract negotiations. The DRTF, however, did not include aspokesperson for cataloging issues. Although as a system the proce-dures for cataloging and providing access to large bibliographic data-bases were well established, among the resources selected for remoteaccess in 1997 were two UMI ProQuest Direct databases. Thesecollections provided access to several years of the full-text for nearlythirteen hundred journals. As a result of not considering the catalogingand access issues thoroughly beforehand, these collections wereavailable through the CUL Gateway without the individual titles listed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HEAD IN THE CLOUDS, FEET ON THE GROUND334

in any way. Users who were looking for the full-text of a particularjournal needed to know to check the UMI ProQuest Direct link orneeded to be directed there by library staff. To provide enhanced accessto these collections through the OPAC and the gateway would be nosmall undertaking, and it would be several months after the start ofthese subscriptions before the cataloging issues were discussed campus-wide. Teams can be very effective in sorting through the issues, and inthis case, very effective in selecting resources for the whole system;however, in this case the team failed to adequately address all the basicissues. Cataloging is a core library activity, and catalogers need to befull participants in the development of the digital library. There is acampuswide ERC that took up this challenge and now these accessissues are being more proactively targeted. Understanding the com-plexities in offering a complete service is a learning experience for anyorganization.

CONCLUSION

Project teams can fit well within the organizational structure ofmany libraries. They’re not meant to replace the existing structure, butwhen the project needs the skills and experience of staff in differentunits for a specific goal, they can more comprehensively investigateand work with numerous details and issues. Effective teams also havea lasting legacy; they build skills and awareness and open up lines ofcommunication that exist well beyond the project.

One of the goals of Mann Library and the ERC is to develop theskills necessary for staff to handle various electronic formats. Bytackling different issues holistically, we’ve found that many itemswere suitable for ‘‘mainstreaming’’ and no longer needed special han-dling by a team or committee. There are now procedures and struc-tures in place to handle many electronic titles. Teams certainly don’tneed to be formed everytime something new comes up, but such teamscan fill a real need in any organization undergoing significant changesin its collections and services.

NOTES

1. For more information on team management as a way to structure a library or-ganization, see Robert Bluck’s Team Management (London: Library AssociationPublishing, 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Teams to Evaluate and Implement New Services for Electronic Serials 335

2. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C.Merriam Co., 1961), 2346-2347.

3. For more information on the types of organizations, see Robert D. Stueart andBarbara B. Moran’s Library and Information Center Management, 4th ed. (Engle-wood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1993).

4. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the LearningOrganization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990).

5. Peter M. Senge et al., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools forBuilding a Learning Organization (New York: Currency, Doubleday, 1994).

6. Ibid., 6.7. Rena Fowler, ‘‘The University Library as Learning Organization for Innova-

tion: An Exploratory Study,’’ College & Research Libraries 59 (May 1998):220-231.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 21:

20 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014