ERIC ED391539: From Quick Start Teams to Home Teams: The Duke TQM Experience.

9 Pages·1995·0.23 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
IR 055 817
ED 391 539
Lubans, John; Gordon, Heather
AUTHOR
From Quick Start Teams to Home Teams: The Duke TOM
TITLE
Experience.
95
PUB DATE
9p.; In: Total Quality Management in Academic
NOTE
Libraries: Initial Implementation Efforts.
Proceedings frcm the International Conference on TQM
and Academic LLbraries (1st, Washington, DC, April
20-22, 1994); see IR 055 811. The illustrations
mentioned in the paper are not included.
Speeches/Conference
Descriptive (141)
PUB TYPE Reports
Papers (150)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Academic Libraries; Higher Education; *Library
DESCRIPTORS
Administration; Library Planning; *Management Teams;
*Organizational Change; Organizational Objectives;
Participative Decision Making; Qualitative Research;
*Quality Circles; Research Libraries; Staff
Development; *Total Quality Management; Vertical
Organization
Continuous Improvement; *Duke University NC
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the Duke University Libraries'
transition in early 1994 from its traditional hierarchical model to
(TOM) concepts
an organization emphasizing Total Quality Management
such as self-managing teams and continuous improvement. Existing
conditions at the libraries that played a role in the decision to
(1) rising costs of library materials leading to
switch included:
(2) the arrival of
less purchasing and more temporary access;
(4)
networked information; (3) a t'uncation of time and workspace;
(5) diminishing library share
fiscal distress at other universities;
(6) expectation
as a percentage of the overall university budget; and
service.
among non-MLS support staff for a career ladder in library
The participatory approach had been getting results in technical
services since the late-1980s, but it had yet to be implemented on a
wider scale. Library administrators developed and made public a
"Library 2000 initiative" to create a more flexible, holistic, and
customer-based approach to library services. Three pilot project
teams, or "quick start" teams, were assembled to define and
investigate three problem areas. At the end of 3 months, the
Implementation Planning Team looked at the quick start teams' work.to
and of
assess the effectiveness of continuous improvement processes
the team infrastructure. Team members were also surveyed for their
comments. Then library administrators solicited proposals on
organizational redesign; the 99 responses resulted in the formation
of quality circles within "home teams," the new name and less
hierarchical arrangement for "departments." Department heads were
invited to become home team leaders. Recent team assessment has
included performance criteria like inputs, processes, outputs, and
outcomes as well as group-dynamics factors like inclusion, elbow
clarity of
room, ease of discussion, approach to conflict, support,
(BEW)
purpose, use of skills, and leadership styles.
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
hr,e,ch ana Improvement
Oh.cr.si
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
CENTER (ERIC)
O This document has been reproduced as
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
received from the person or organization
Laura A. Rounds
originating it
O Minor changes have been made to
FROM QUICK START TEAMS TO HOME TEAMS:
improve reproduction quality
THE DUKE TQM EXPERIENCE
Points uf view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OEM posdion or policy
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
John Lubans and Heather Gordon
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"
Duke University
administrative officers including the deputy,
THE TRADITIONAL MODEL
associate, and assistant university
The Duke University Libraries, in
librarians authorize department heads to
January of 1994, broke away from its
tr)
carry out their work. All of this, of course,
traditional hierarchical model to become an
is done in a collegial manner but there is a
organization emphasizing self-managing
firm protocol that is followed nevertheless.
teams and continuous improvement
C:)
As with most organization charts, ours
concepts clustered under the Total Quality
f.L.1
is limited by not showing the many informal
Management (TQM) umbrella. How did
communication networks, i.e., it fails to
this come about? How could a well-
show "the way things really work" and it
established, long term hierarchy achieve this
without collapse? While the date for the
excludes the customers, the people for
whom we do it all. They are, of course, the
transformation is recent the process actually
central tenet of TQM-based organizations.
started back in 1986.
In walking about the organization, we
Here (illustration 1) is what Duke's
noticed this somewhat crude but apt
general library system looked like
representation (Illustration 2) of the way
organizationally not very long ago. As you
some staff see the organization. We include
can see in May of 1993, we did not look
it to suggest that at least some staff
very different from most other university
members are not happy with the
libraries. Duke, in many regards, is a
bureaucratic model prevalent in all
prototypical large research library. The
American librAries for most of this century.
Perkins Library System contains slightly
What staff members would rather have is
over 3.6 million volumes, the budget is
not totally clear but we know from the
approximately $12 million dollars, and has
organizational literature that most people
a staff of about 220 full-time equivalents.
like to work, that they want a say about
The May 1993 organization chart
their work and how it gets done, and about
suggests there is a regularity to our decision
the decisions affecting their work. The
making and communication. Orders are
hierarchy or pecking order limits and in fact
given and they flow downward, along with
inhihts the achievement of organizational
adequate resources. Results, one hopes,
and personal goals, sometimes to a
flow upward and all is well. There is an
implicit and expected delegation and
significant extent.
We were aware of the limitations of the
acceptance of authority and responsibility,
present organizational structure, but like
flowing from the President's office through
many others working within the inherited
the Provost's to the University Librarian.
organization had worked with it and
Jerry Campbell, the University Librarian, in
around it, figuring out ways to inspire cross
turn, authorizes several of the
functional efforts, creative thinking, and
administrative staff members to supervise,
streamlining to get rid of rework and
coordinate, organize, and otherwise pursue
duplication yet staying within the general
the mission of the library. These
1,0
(IL
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 123
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
A truncation, if you will, of time and
lines of the hierarchy.
space in how we do our work
(electronic records flow unlike paper
AN IMPETUS FOR CHANGE: THE BOARD
ever did or could
ubiquity achieved,
OF TRUSTEES AND TQM
In late 1992, the President of Duke
sort of);
University convened a select group of his
staff members and encouraged them to
Fiscal distress visible at other
consider using Total Quality Management.
universities as seen in sizable staff
This was at the insistence of certain
layoffs and cut backs in programs;
members of the Board of Trustees who had
first hand experience in their organizations
Diminishing library share as a
with TQM concepts and had found them
percentage of the overall university
useful. They saw direct application to
budget; and
Duke, a university that was in good
budgetary health, but possibly anticipating
Expectation among our non-MLS
future budgetary difficulties similar to what
support staff that they have a career
was already occurring at all of our peer
ladder in library service.
institutions. Why, they may have asked,
should Duke be exempt from what is
This chart, (Illustration 3) derived from
happening nationally?
ARL data, was distributed at a recent
Several of those in attendance at the
OCLC meeting in March of 1994. It shows
President's meeting, including the University
that in 1980 we started a downward skid
Librarian, saw the possibilities TQM
toward a projected total loss of purchasing
offered in helping us move forward,
power in the year 2010. The speaker, Brian
enabling us to anticipate and confront the
Hawkins from Brown University, ventured
major changes and challenges already facing
when that happens no one will be able to
universities and all research libraries.
buy anything and we will have to borrow
That's not to say that this meeting with the
everything from each other.
President was our wake-up call or that we
While we have been spared much of the
had not already seen the handwriting on the
pain of downsizing and other budgetary
wall requiring us to be more proactive and
reduction schemes found at other
flexible. All of us know about the upheaval
institutions, the Perkins Library System has
in the world of information and that what
had too little money for automation or staff
we now see is but a precursor of more
development. That which we have had has
changes in how libraries work and are used.
come from a rigorous examination of how
There are long list ; of issues bearing down
we use existing resources. Illustrative of this
on the traditional approaches used by
is the visible diminishing of the percentage
libraries. These are some of the more
that salaries take up in the total budget
important for our situation:
(Illustration 4). Starting in 1986 we began
to move dollars deliberately from the staff
Rising costs of library materials
lines into those budget items most in need,
leading to far less purchase and more
e.g., computers and training. No layoffs
temporary access;
were made nor was anyone fired to
accomplish this. More than a few positions
Delivery, at long last, on the electronic
saved were moved to "hot spots" where the
promise of networked information;
case was made that need was so great that
124 ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES
choices, we think what we are trying to do
positions should go there. Over ten Fib
at Duke is to create an organization that
now are working on transforming the card
can make those choices. We believe that
catalog into an electronic one
all of these
organizations can anticipate and deal with
positions came from existing staff.
what is goirg to confront them in the near
There was another reason to explore the
and long-tei m; it just does not happen to
promises held by TQM: The participatory
them like a roll of the dice.
approach was getting results in technical
services. From about 1986 onward we
So in December 1992, the library's
administrative officers attended a TQM
began to seek efficiencies in how we worked
workshop sponsored by Duke University's
in technical services. We were challenged to
Office of Human Resources. We learned
improve when we saw the results of a
that TQM principles include defining
productivity survey conducted by Stanford
quality from the customer's focus, fostering
University Libraries, Illustration 5, "Duke's
employee involvement and training,
Ranking," sums up where Duke fell out
applying statistical methodologies to
compared to about 20 other research
manage by fact, benchmarking (searching for
libraries in per capita output. While the
best practice), and understanding the cycle
results confirmed what we thought might be
of continuous quality improvement. Total
happening, we were dismayed (even a bit
Quality Management appeared to be a
jolted) that our overall score in the 1987
workable management system that would
column put us at the bottom of the list.
enable the library to accommodate the
Over the next several years we sought to
conditions of our changing environment.
eliminate complexity, rework, duplication,
and irrational work processes. We pushed
Our vision for change is officially known as
the Library 2000 initiative. Its goal is to
the hierarchy to its limits during this time
create the library of the 21st century through
and went largely to a team-based approach
the principles of Continuous Improvement
in all of our work. Staff members were
(CI), the library's name for its adaptation of
expected and encouraged to speak up about
TQM. Along with our vision, we developed
ideas and decision making was based solely
guiding principles, that serve as a compass
on speeding up all of our processes and
to keep us on course with our vision (see
eliminating the backlog to better meet the
Illustration 6). Both the vision statement
needs of our users.
and guiding principles were published
That we made real progress is seen in
broadly and were referred to frequently as
the column for 1992/93 wherein our overall
we began to shift paradigms within our
score is now the best among our peers.
library culture (see Illustration 7).
Achieving this, the questions became,
"Okay, what's next?" and "How do we
In order to meet the emerging demands
exceed the present boundaries?" The
of our technologically enriched environment,
we needed to create a more flexible, holistic
answer is linked to the general sense among
and customer-based approach to library
many of us that we are in an era of
services. We want to meet and exceed our
transition, one of uncertain dimensions and
external and internal customers' needs for
qualities. It is a time fo;. opportunities. As
quality services. Our goal is to develop
K. Wayne Smith said at OCLC's Research
interrelationships among ourselves, to
Library Directors meetirtg in March of 1994,
develop partnerships both externally and
"This is a golden age for libraries, if we
internally. We want to emphasize results
choose to make it so." While he did not
by working on methods and to shift our
elaborate on his emphasis of the implied
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 125
focus from the individual and the end
PILOTING WITH QUICK START TEAMS
product to the work process. If we are able
After looking at TQM models used in
to improve how the work gets done instead
business and at the medical center at Duke,
of simply improving what is done, then we
we created our own infrastructure to plan
will have developed systems that will
and guide the progress of CI throughout the
become less reactive. By recognizing the
library (see Illustration 8). We have five CI
process of change, we will learn to recognize
steering teams responsible for staff
how through our own best efforts we
education, recognition, communication,
cmtribute to some of our own problems.
implementation, and futures research. Our
We wanted to discard systems based on
CI infrastructure is probably typical of most
numerical quotas, a controlling atmosphere,
organizations that embark upon TQM
and decision by opinion. Too often our
except for the Futures Team that is
reliance on numerical quotas created
responsible for scanning the library's
internal conflict as staff members found
environment and the external environment
themselves competing against one another
to identify issues that may contribute to the
to reach goals that were short-term in
creation of the library of the 21st century.
nature, or were often set too low to ensure a
The CI steering teams have one member
safe return. Our focus on individual or
from the library's administrative
group plus
departmental actions was at the expense of
staff members from throughout the library.
the larger collective consequence; we simply
Each team has developed a role statement
lost sight of the library's purpose. We
to describe its functions and purpose, and
wanted to move to a working environment
works with all library staff to implement CI.
where staff members make decisions based
Before deciding whether or not to implement
on facts. Jerry Campbell is fond of the
CI throughout the library, the administrative
saying that no one is prohibited from
group decided to test actual models of the
thinking on the job. We wanted to use this
CI process using three pilot project teams,
philosophy to ensure that quality is the
.referred to as quick start teams.
responsibility of everyone in the library and
The administrative group and the
is not confined to a single "department of
management group (composed of branch
quality."
librarians and department heads) used
We define continuous improvement as
several CI tools to select topics for the quick
using specific methods and measurement to
start teams. Each team was given a brief
systematically collect and analyze data to
problem to define and investigate: the Shelf
improve those processes critical to the
Failure Team was asked to improve the
library's mission. Instead of trying to do
success rate of users in finding books on
better in an undefined, intuitive way,
library shelves; the Document Delivery
Continuous Improvement emphasizes a
Team was asked to improve and expand
structured, problem-solving approach to
the present document delivery service; and
building quality into every system and
the Branches/Perkins Team was asked to
process in the library. With each
improve the working relationships
among
improvement, processes are better and there
our centralized services and the branches.
is a recognition that systems (not
The teams were cross-functional, with
employees) are responsible for most
representation from most areas of the
inefficiencies.
library. Each team had approximately
seven people including a team leader and
two facilitators (drawn from our regular
126 ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES
quality into every system and process in the
staff). One of the goals of involving many
library unless we were willing to work in
staff members as either participants or
iacilitators was to distribute to the
teams.
functional, home teams hands-on experience
in applying CI methods. The teams learned,
REDESIGNING WITH HOME TEAMS
In the spring of 1993, the University
tested, and demonstrated an objective
Librarian invited all library staff to make
approach to identifying problems, gathering
and analyzing data, and developing
suggestions for the library's organizational
redesign that would improve the library and
solutions within limited time frames. At the
its ability to offer services. Our goal was to
end of the three month period the
create a library organization with flexible
Implementation Planning Team (IPT)
structures and processes that will enable us
surveyed each of the quick start teams to
more rapidly and effectively to incorporate
assess the effectiveness of the CI process
and the team infrastructure. We wanted to
new methods of offering information and
determine how well the teams understood
services while still maintaining the key
functions of our traditional operations. We
and accomplished their mission, how
wanted to accomplish our goal within our
effective they were in using the scientific
existing budgetary resources and had four
approach to problem-solving (e.g., data
major objectives to:
gathering, use of CI tools such as
brainstorming, multi-voting, selection grids,
Increase the library's technological
etc.), how they communicated and
capabilities;
interacted with the CI steering teams,
especially with the IPT and the
Increase the technological expertise on
administrative group, and how effective the
the staff;
facilitation was.
All 21 team members responded to the
Shift more financial resources toward
survey and 85 percent found the CI
new methods of offering information;
approach overall to be effective, only 3
and
percent found the experience not to be
effective and 76 percent would serve on
Streamline existing supervisory layers
another quick start team. Those declining
the opportunity to serve on another quick
(one in every four staff members was a
supervisor).
start team cited restrictions on their time as
the barrier rather than a lack of confidence
Thirty-five staff members submitted
in the CI process. The teams also made
valuable observations about what worked
ninety-nine proposals for redesigning the
library. Several of the staff members
and what needed improveztent (see
suggested dramatic changes including the
Illustrations 9 and 10). Given this level of
mergers of major departments and the
support, we decided to implement CI
elimination of other departments. Other
throughout the library. However, it became
staff members took a nore cautious
apparent that our existing hierarchical
approach to the redesign asking us to also
organizational structure was a barrier to the
consider the demands and upheavals
achievement of our vision of creating the
already imposed by the installation of a
library of the 21st century. We would not
new online catalog system, and a major
be able to emphasize a customer focused,
renovation of the largest branch library on
problem-solving approach to building
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 127
6
campus. The ideas were compiled and
deputy, associate, and assistant university
scrutinized using CI problem-solving tools
librarians now work with all the home team
including selection grids and multi-voting.
leaders on system-wide issues. Leadership
As a result, we chose an organizational
and facilitation are now the major
design that flowed easily from the e,isting
responsibilities of the administrative team.
structure. Departments became home teams
Emphasis is on open feedback, coaching,
and are grouped into quality circles of
enabling, and counseling.
similar function (see Illustration 11 and 12).
We officially began to implement our
In their quality circles home teams cooperate
redesigned organizational structure on
in addressing issues of mutual interest and
January 1, 1994. The redesign reflects the
responsibility. The quality circles are also
vision statement and guiding principles of
essential to the plan to distribute control of
the Perkins Library System and we hope
the library's budget throughout the
that it will be flexible enough to help
us
organization. Although the home teams
meet existing and emerging challenges. In
coincide with the former departments, their
working in our redesigned organizational
internal structure is less hierarchical and
structure we have discovered the benefits of
their boundaries are more porous. All
having people of all levels work together in
library staff members are based in a home
teams. At the same time, we recognize that
team, but they also participate in various
it requires hard work. Each team has its
temporary cross-functional teams as
own dynamics and we are still working at
appropriate. We are working to empower
breaking down barriers and rivalries to
library staff members so that each will be
build interrelationships and partnerships
able to think about what they do, explore
among teams. We have many issues still to
how they can do it better, and then act to
resolve including personnel matters such as
implement continuous improvements.
classification, compensation, recognition,
The administrative officers of the library
and career paths. Currently we are
are also aealing with change. Supervision is
considering how to shift from an individual
now less important for both the
performance appraisal system to a team-
administrative officers and the former
based assessment. system.
department heads. All existing department
heads were invited to become home team
TEAM ASSESSMENTS
leaders. The mdin objective of the home
For us, team assessment differs from
team leader's role is to empower and lead
performance appraisals. The focus of
the home team to deliver quality services
performance appraisal is to serve as a tool
and products. The home team leader is
fot pay, promotion, and training and
responsible for looking beyond the
development for the individual. Team
boundaries and interests of the home team.
assessment focuses on the team's work
To seek out opportunities to work with
performance, i.e., on what that team has
other individuals and teams to focus on
done and whether those actions are
library-wide issues that will move the
appropriate. Although jobs may vary
library forward into a new era of
within the home teams, each team has core
information service. Department heads not
work processes that can be used to analyze
wishing to assume this new leadership
team performance. At this workshop we
position were reassigned without prejudice
divided the participants into four different
within the Perkins Library System. Instead
teams, gave each a task, and then had them
of supervising specific team leaders, the
brainstorm a list of criteria to use to assess
128 ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES
Purposes: Known to the team or are
the team's performance. Each team
they ambiguous? If known are they
multivoted to select their top four criteria
acted upon?
that they would use to design an instrument
for team assessment. Most of the top
Use of skills: Full or poor?
criteria that were identified (results
achieved, time taken, cooperation, risk-
Leadership: Facilitating or controlling?
taking, and collaboration) show that teams
can develop a variety of ways to measure
For the most part of our ARL workshop,
the following key performance indicators:
teams identified the critical elements
experts believe are basic to group
Inputs - Resources used to provide
effectiveness. There is however a difference
service
in the teams not mentioning, in any direct
way, dealing with conflict. It is noteworthy
Processes Work activities carried out
that in our other observations of teams in
to produce outputs
libraries conflict resolution generates the
greatest differences in how people assess
Outputs - Amount/type of services
team performance. If conflict is normal and
provided
healthy among groups, and we think it is,
then teams may need extra help from
Outcomes - Impact on the customer
trainers and coaches in recognizing and
managing conflict. It does appear that
Another way to look at the results from
conflict is difficult to deal within the dozen
the team brainstorming and multivoting
or more groups we have worked with in
exercises, is to examine the elements that
libraries.
make groups work well. One of the briefest
At Duke we are working to replace
but best summaries is provided by Marvin
individual performance appraisal with team
Weisbord in his book, Productive
assessment. We have stopped doing the
Workplaces? We have amended his criteria
former for all support staff and are now
somewhat for use when assessing teams:
working on ways to incorporate a system
for regular feedback on the work of teams.
Inclusion: Who's in, who's out?
The temptation is to replace the old
individual assessment with something
Elbow room: Comfort in working
similar but adapted to a group. We think
together, ranging from "I'm crowded"
we are working towards something, but the
to "I'm easy."
shape of that something is not well-defined.
It will be different in its frequency, input
Discussion: Is it free and easy, or
from customers, and its lack of paper and
labored and guarded? Does everyone
formality. If we can achieve it, the
speak up or only a few?
discussion will be spontaneous more than
orchestrated. We hope to encourage our
Conflict: Is it worked on or avoided?
teams in the Perkins Library System to
Support: Who does the work? All,
measure performance not just annually but
throughout the year as projects end, turning
one, or a few?
points are experienced, budgets are
developed, equipment is acquired, and new
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 129
services are designed. Our goal is to devise
an assessment tool that will promote
teamwork and encourage problem solving,
not finger pointing.
REFERENCES
Joiner, Brian L. Fourth Generation: The New
Business Consciousness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.
Lubans, John. "Productivity in Libraries?:
Managers Step Aside!" Journal of
Librany Administration, 17(3): 23-42,
1992.
Scholtes, Peter R. et al. The Team Handbook.
Madison, Wisc.: Joiner and Assoc.
1992.
Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline. New
York: Doubleday/Currency. 1990.
Weisbord, Marvin. Productive Workplaces:
Organizing and Managing for Dignity,
Meaning, and Community. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
5
130 ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES