REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE * Patricia Aguado ... - ALIA conferences

* Patricia Aguado
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE
Manager, Gardiner Library Service
Hunter Health
Locked Bag 1
Newcastle Mail Exchange, NSW 2310
Telephone: (02) 49213777
Fax (02) 49213775
Email: Patricia.Aguado@hunter.health.nsw.gov.au
* Leanne Cummings Manager Library Services
Queensland Police Service
Information Resource Centre
GPO Box 1440
Brisbane QLD 4000
Telephone: (07) 3364 3742
Fax: (07) 3364 3942
Email: cummings.leanne@police.qld.gov.au
Patricia Aguado holds qualifications in Fine Art, Education, Counseling, and Library Science.
She came to Australia in 1971, working in various library and teaching positions. She has
managed the Gardiner Library Service since 1985, heading innovative and entrepreneurial
ventures, supported by a dedicated and lateral thinking team. From 1985-90 she coordinated
online training programs for medical students, with NH&MRC funding. In the 1990's, following
an earthquake and depleted funds, she applied business principles to the Library's
operations. The Library maintains a revenue budget, supports 18 staff, and generates
income from in sourcing and marketing.
Leanne Cummings holds a Graduate Diploma of Applied Science, Bachelor of Economics
and an Associate Diploma of Library Practice. Leanne commenced working in the library and
information industry as a Cadet Library Technician with the Newcastle City Council (NSW) in
1987 and has worked in a variety of libraries including special, public and academic. These
include Blake Dawson Waldron Solicitors (Sydney), Dixson Library, University of New
England (NSW) and Brisbane City Council Library Service. In 1997, Leanne commenced
employment with the Queensland Police Services as Manager, Library Services.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 1

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
Abstract
The Gardiner Library Service (GLS) provides highly dynamic, entrepreneurial and cutting
edge services to Hunter Health (HH) (New South Wales Department of Health) clients and
associates, geographically dispersed over 28,000 square kilometres.
Its main focus is to provide an information framework which progresses HH’s goal to be the
“leader in creating healthier communities” and “a leader in health research and development”
(Hunter Health Corporate Plan 2000-2004). Library products and services are mostly
provided in hard copy, or accessed in person. However with the geographical dispersement
of GLS clientele there is an impetus to increasingly migrate services and resources to online
delivery whilst maintaining a core collection of hard copy resources. In particular, there
currently exits an inequity in levels of client access to library and information services,
internet facilities and computers. These challenges and other notable factors were
addressed in the framework of the GLS review with a view to identify the necessary
infrastructure and foundations for a viable, competitive and innovative library service.
In July 2002, the GLS underwent a review of its past, present and future services, roles,
partnerships, information technology, personnel, space and collection. The review was
conducted on site over a three (3) day period where a panel of three (3) external
representatives interviewed GLS clientele. The aim of this paper is to discuss the review
process including the terms of reference, framework, methodology, strategies and ongoing
outcomes of the review.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE
Unlike Albert Einstein who said “I never think of the future. It comes soon enough”, the
Gardiner Library Service (GLS), New South Wales Hunter Health, adopted a proactive and
enterprising approach in exploring, managing and securing a viable and competitive future. 1
The GLS provides information resources and services to over 9000 Hunter Health personnel
and clinicians dispersed across 28,000 square kilometres. Similar to many other library
services, they were experiencing increased pressures with limited funding, proliferation of
information technology and greater client demand for 24x7 online services. To manage these
pressures, as well as identify future service models, the Manager of the GLS identified a
need for a fundamental reappraisal of the library service. In particular, the scope of the
review addressed infrastructure framework, personnel skill sets, resources, clientele profiling
as well considered and reflected upon internal and external influences.
What Is A Library Service Review?
A library service review is an objective and independent audit which defines the current state
of play and the identification of best practice and standards that best achieve corporate
strategic outcomes. It involves the recruitment of an independent team to investigate,
analyse and report on key issues identified in the terms of reference and review framework.
The investigation and analyses may involve a site visit to the actual agency providing the
review team with face-to-face interaction with key stakeholders and an opportunity to tour
facilities. The GLS review involved a three-day site visit enabling the team to experience and
1 (The) Oxford Book of Quotations, New York, Bantam, 1988, p.178.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 2

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
learn first hand of the issues. An essential component of a site visit are interviews with key
stakeholders such as senior executive management, library clients and personnel who can
freely express their ideologies and requirements to an independent, objective and
confidential forum.
The review process can offer numerous direct and indirect benefits. It may provide an
opportunity for reflection and critical thinking where stakeholders, resources, activities and
outcomes are analysed and evaluated against all potential alternatives. More so, it is an
opportunity to challenge or re-focus what we do; why we do it; how we do it; when we do it;
to whom are we doing it for; how much does it cost and; what are the alternatives?
It may also be considered as an instrument to measure the library service’s performance
within the industry. The identification of a benchmark agency provides a substantial measure
to evaluate and review the library’s progress in achieving core competencies and goals on an
ongoing basis.
If successful, recommendations identified throughout the review process may facilitate for
change management and provide the required foundations and framework for a viable and
rewarding future. A review does not necessarily infer continuing development of an existing
library service or individual aspects of such. In some instances the analysis of alternative
options including outsourcing may be deemed preferable.
The level of success of a review and the extent to which the recommendations are endorsed
and implemented depends upon six (6) key factors:
1. Preparation and planning
2. Review team
3. Methodology
4. Legislative requirements and industry standards
5. Information gathering and extrapolation
6. Presentation of the findings
1. Preparation
Preparation and planning plays a pivotal role in the success of a library service review.
These are essential tools necessary to establish a comprehensive framework and strategy
for the organisation and review team to work within. In undertaking the information gathering
exercise, key issues, challenges and desirable outcomes should be identified, documented
and endorsed by senior executive management. Referred to as the ‘terms of reference’,
these are considered the key areas or issues to be evaluated and assessed. It is essential
that the terms of reference are identified prior to the undertaking of the review as these will
govern the principles, processes and outcomes.
The GLS terms of reference identified five (5) key areas to be addressed in the review, as
well as nominating a ten year framework for the implementation of recommendations. An
example of one of these key areas referred to in the terms of reference related to the
structure of the GLS i.e. “The most effective structure for the Library, with particular reference
to the role of branch libraries, and the optimum balance between elements of staffing, user
services, collection development, and IT support”.
The success of a review may also depend upon the degree to which key issues, corporate
knowledge and culture is imparted to members of the review team. Prior to the site visit, a
portfolio was provided to the GLS review team that highlighted essential information,
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 3

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
statistics and terms of reference. Documentation aimed to inform the review team of
corporate culture, business requirements, infrastructure, terminology and other processes
discrete to the organisation. By imparting an extensive level of knowledge and understanding
prior to the site visit, the team was confident, competent and highly focused in meeting their
objective.
Site visits are intensive for both the review team and the stakeholders where the effective
utilisation of time and energy is an invaluable requirement. Prior knowledge and insight will
reduce valuable time expended in clarifying information and jargon, minimise confusion as
well as nurture a consistent, confident and collaborative review team. More importantly,
without clear direction and identification of purpose, the recommendations and outcomes
may fail to align with the actual business requirements of the agency.
2. Review Team
The on-site visit is an information gathering exercise and often involves tight schedules and
time frames requiring the review team to work closely together within a pressured, intense
and foreign environment. To adequately prepare for the visit, individual review team
members must be familiar with the terms of reference, methodology and corporate business
requirements. They need to acquire a strong understanding of the environment, clients,
framework and current state of play. In addition, it is important that the reviewers are familiar
with acronyms, industry standards, corporate terms and jargon and legislative requirements.
It is mandatory that the reviewers operate as a highly professional and unified team. There is
no time or energy available to debate team structure and positional issues and it is
imperative that the team hit the ground running and are confident in their role. As such, it is
recommended that members of the review team endeavor to contact each other prior to the
review, as well as clarify issues or terminology with the review contact officer.
Each member must be flexible, open and adaptable to each other’s styles and
methodologies as well as ensure that personalities do not obstruct the review. At their first
point of meeting, the team should discuss “house rules” - how they will work as a team for
the duration of the review, expectations and other elements that govern the principles of a
professional and collaborative team.
The GLS review team were a successful partnership of three (3) individuals who were able to
openly communicate and discuss opinions and reasoning without compromising review
outcomes. The members bought to the review a wealth of experience and knowledge from
different backgrounds including that from the Australian Capital Territory and New South
Wales health industry, and the Queensland Police Service.
Personal attributes of a reviewer include:
• flexible and adaptable
• strong verbal and written communication skills
• observation and investigative skills (reference interview skills are a valuable tool in the
question and answer session)
• skills in extrapolating objective verbal commentary
• time management
• chairing meetings and minute taking
• boundless supply of energy
3. Methodology
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 4

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
The review team were invited to conduct a three (3) day site visit of the GLS and of its parent
organisation, the John Hunter Hospital. Upon arrival at the GLS, the review team were
briefed by the manager of the GLS and met with the GLS personnel before commencing
three (3) days of scheduled interviews and facility tours.
Adopting a user-centered approach, the site visit involved a series of question and answer
sessions with GLS stakeholders. The review panel developed six (6) broad open-ended
questions to provide a framework for conducting the interviews. The questions were carefully
constructed to ensure objectivity and to avoid bias and coercion.
The team found the question and answer sessions to be an “effective method to identify
feelings and convictions about situations, products and services, as well as how these
motivations build people’s behaviour”. 2 It provided a mechanism to analyse the past, present
and future state of play. In addition, the sessions identified internal and external influences
that have and may impact upon activities and the decision making process of the
organisation.
Core facts and figures were extrapolated from client responses within a non-political or
coercive environment. The question and answer sessions gathered data and information to
define the current state of play and the future vision of the GLS.
Approximately fifty (50) GLS stakeholders were interviewed, including Hunter Health
Department executive managers, professors, conjoints, doctors, nurses, medical students,
library staff as well as external personnel from organisations within the industry. Each
session ran for exactly thirty (30) minutes and the chair provided interviewees with a verbal
brief of the framework, time allocated as well as surety of confidentiality. Interview sessions
ranged from one-to-one to groups of four (4) or five (5) clients with the most valuable
sessions included discussions with clinicians, information technology management and the
CEO.
Other activities undertaken by the review team included tours of key facilities both on site
and off site. These included the Gardiner Library and John Hunter Hospital administrative
facilities. At the end of each day, the review team would revisit their notes and draw out
common themes and inferences that had been expressed by the clients. They would discuss
and debate information recorded with the aim of capturing key issues pertinent to the GLS
review.
4. Legislative Requirements and Industry Standards
The information gathering process also required careful exploration and consideration in
balancing GLS activities and processes (current and future) against relevant legislative
requirements and industry standards. It was imperative that all recommendations and
findings reported in the review complied with legal and industry standards and requirements.
The GLS review team considered the following mandatory requirements in their findings:
• Copyright Act 1968
• Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000
• Guidelines for Australian Health Libraries: minimum space requirements for health
libraries (3 rd ed. of the former National Minimum Standards for Health Libraries)
2 B.J.Leitao and W. Vergueiro, W. “Using the focus group approach for evaluating customers’ opinions: the
experience of a Brazilian academic library”, New Library World, Vol.101, No.1154, 2000, p.61.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 5

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
• Patient care and accreditation requirements
• New South Wales Postgraduate Medical Standards: Standards for Junior Medical Officer
Education and Supervision (Postgraduate Medical Council NSW)
5. Information Gathering and Extrapolation
The information gathering and extrapolation process requires attention to detail as well as a
holistic and elementary analysis of the situations and activities reported. This phase of the
review aims to establish the current state of play, the future state of play and gap analysis in
regards to the requirements in migrating the GLS from here to tomorrow.
Throughout the interviews, copious amounts of notes were recorded by each review team
member with the objective to extrapolate key issues in alignment with the terms of reference,
as well as compile a series of practical and realistic recommendations, deliverable within a
ten (10) year time frame. In particular, the identification of core competencies provided
evidentiary data to establish and facilitate best practice and competitive advantage. 3 The
team also identified activities, including services and resources, that were considered to be
inefficient or redundant within the new GLS vision. A typical SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) analysis provided a consistent framework by which to assess
these issues, and to ensure recommendations provided met the GLS business requirements.
In addition, causes and aggravators of risk were examined to maximise the opportunity for a
viable and fiscally enduring future.
6. Presentation of the Findings
The findings of the GLS review were formally presented to the CEO two (2) weeks at the
conclusion of the site visit. The review team discussed at length the framework and content
of the report both on-site and off-site, via email and telephone. The aim of the report was to
present to the key stakeholder, the CEO for Hunter Health, a highly professional and
polished document that provided a realistic and concise snap shot of the GLS today: the
vision for the future and; a gap analysis of required resources and strategies to achieve this
vision. It was imperative that the recommendations were in alignment with Hunter Health’s
business requirements, strategic direction and the terms of reference including the specified
ten (10) year time frame.
The GLS report included a series of fifty-three (53) recommendations that comprehensively
addressed four (4) key areas pertinent to the future of the GLS. These were:
1. Accessible and equitable services
2. Aesthetics and spatial
3. Stakeholder relationship management
4. Excellence and innovation
Outcomes Of The Review
The literal meaning of ‘review’ is to ‘look again’ and without doubt, the best outcome of the
review has been the opportunity for library staff and stakeholders to see the library service
and its future through new eyes. Like architects planning a new extension, the review team
had examined the library from the bare bones of infrastructure to the minute details of
function, and then formed expert recommendation as to the development of the whole. As in
all redevelopments, the strongest and most viable elements were identified, as were the
3 Stuart Hannabuss, “Scenario planning for libraries”, Library Management, Vol.22, No.4/5, 2001, p.175.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 6

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
weakest. Inevitably, some structures were identified as no longer able to sustain future
growth, and other functions and services as no longer efficient or useful. Emerging from this
was the vision of the future structure, with a clear definition of priorities.
Reconciling the continuity of traditional services with the advent of rapidly evolving
technologies, the reviewers visioned a ‘hybrid’ library, through which collections, resources,
and access to information are redefined, and through which a dynamic and flexible approach
stimulates adjustment and change.
Implementation Process
Within one (1) week of receipt of the reviewers’ findings, a Committee, comprising of ten (10)
stakeholders, was established to assist with the implementation of the recommendations.
These were to be completed within twelve (12) months, with a draft report to be submitted to
the CEO within nine (9) months. The Committee, meeting on a monthly basis, prioritised and
time-framed the recommendations. Some were found as ideal but not feasible, and were
discarded, (for example, the creation of generic group Internet accounts). Others were
affected by developments occurring after the review, and were to be held over. Inevitably, the
highest priorities were also the most difficult to achieve. These mostly concerned competing
interests, viability of space, and decisions concerning collection development and
maintenance.
The usefulness of this committee cannot be underestimated, as it provided a forum for
stakeholders to discuss common and sometimes conflicting issues, but always with the
library and its patrons’ interests central to discussion. The Committee disbanded after nine
(9) months, with only the Chairperson meeting with the Library Manager to submit the final
report.
Library Staff Thoughts on the Review
Unlike the institutional/hospitals accreditation process with which health libraries are usually
measured (by the Australian Council of Health Care Standards - ACHCS), with little or no
input from library authorities, a review is grounded entirely upon the needs and deeds of the
unit it is reviewing, and defined only by its own terms of reference. In this sense, library staff
had some control in the process, and were empowered by their involvement in the process
from its inception.
Staff had input in several ways: first, they had the opportunity to reflect on aspects of service
that needed improvement or change, and to discuss issues with peers before the review
team’s site visit; second, they were able to select material and prepare reports in small
groups for the review team; and finally, they were invited to participate in an interview with
the review team either individually or in small groups.
Any initial doubts or concerns about the review were discussed, and the temptation to predict
outcomes or show bias was soon discarded. Inevitably, staff were sometimes defensive
about elements of service that they suspected would be found non-viable, but reported that
the review process validated these services as well as offered opportunity for redirection.
Position statements were prepared in small groups, which staff described as very bonding.
They reported that this ‘pre-review’ forced them to challenge blind acceptance of common
practice and created renewed interest in library operations which had not been their direct
concern. With new understanding of difficult issues staff felt committed to help to frame a
future direction and support recommended change.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 7

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
The opportunity to reflect on aspects of service in an interview with the review team gave
staff the recognition that their opinion ‘does’ matter. This was validated where the review
team did not assert their ‘expertise’ in any way, but gathered information and were
appreciative and respectful of sensitive input, and aware of conflicts of interest.
What has Transpired Thus Far?
Within the nine (9) month period, ninety (90) per cent of all recommendations were
completed or were in process. Some of the most crucial issues were also the most difficult to
progress. These nearly all concerned space and retrospective collections and were
interdependent upon the strategic planning of the organisation. Upon completion of the final
report approximately five (5) percent of recommendations are outstanding.
What has Management Accepted / Rejected?
Thus far, management has accepted almost all feasible recommendations, funding
permitting. The most important acceptance has been the requirement for extra space
whereby an architect has been appointed to provide a feasibility study for a 2 nd floor or
mezzanine to provide a much-needed ‘computer common’ and study space. Also gratifying
has been recognition of the need to upgrade computers and technology. A special fund was
provided, enabling the purchase of forty (40) new computers, including laptops, which are to
be available for loan. New photocopiers, scanners, printers and workstations have also been
acquired, and new charges for use parallel to those of the Newcastle University, since the
recommended ‘free services’ were not accepted by management.
The most contentious issue has been the future of the retrospective collection, which is
mould-affected, fragile, and expensive to house. However, an external archivist has been
employed to examine the material, and his opinion and that of an expert heritage group, will
seal its fate.
Positives of the Review
The review had many positive effects:
• A shared future direction: so much help and feedback was obtained from clients that
it enriched the experience for everyone
• Staff morale: it enabled staff to appreciate their own efforts, and see how good their
services really are
• Informed management: it also enabled management and stakeholders to appreciate
the excellent services that exist, as reflected by the review panel
• Professional recognition: it enabled staff to see themselves in relation to other
professionals in the field, particularly as we are basically an isolated rural operation,
with some idiosyncratic tendencies
• Future vision: it enabled staff, stakeholders and management to see a future
direction, in terms of the ‘hybrid’ library concept
• Visible cooperation: it enabled the cooperation between staff and stakeholders to be
visible and cohesive to management
• Challenged existing practices: the review challenged acceptance of current practices
as well as envisioning positive change
• Networking: links were forged with other libraries, in terms of networking and
benchmarking.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 8

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
Negatives of the Review
• Initially, there were fears held by staff that the review may have a hidden agenda, but
once these fears had been dispelled in the initial stages, staff busied themselves with
preparations, and there were no reports or signs of any negatives.
How Could it have Been Done better?
In hindsight, having more time to prepare would have been optimal. As it was, we had just six
(6) weeks to bring ourselves up to speed with statistics, reports and other paperwork, the
organisation of stakeholders, the selection of the review team, and the preparations for the
team’s schedule.
As well, at least five (5) days with the review team would have been better than the rushed
three (3) days, although there is nothing like pressure to maintain absolute focus.
Spin-offs
As quoted by Ashleigh Brilliant in 1997, “I may not be totally perfect, but parts of me are
excellent”, so too sums up the review. The most dynamic spin-off has been the impact of the
review on the morale of staff, who had tangible feedback that the library service, although not
perfect, was excellent in parts. This acknowledgement, after intense scrutiny from
authoritative and experienced peers, was powerful and validating, and has had a ricochet
effect on services, delivery, collections, and expectations, as staff endeavor to effect and
adjust to change.
As well, it has given a shared future vision to staff, stakeholders, and management. A
camaraderie has emerged which has already strengthened links between the library and
other departments and networks, including attracting funding for PC’s and future education
and training. A further, anticipated spin-off is that other librarians will make the decision to
have their own libraries reviewed, and that experienced consultant review teams will emerge.
Any Need for Future Review – Internal / External
Follow-up reviews are recommended as control mechanisms to ensure that
recommendations are progressed and that outcomes are achievable or remain flexible.
Internal reviews, or self-assessment, are ongoing, however, at least one (1) external followup
review, possibly two (2) years after the initial review, would seem to be in the interests of
both the library and the organisation as a whole, since the expertise brought by external
reviewers, plus new ways of looking at old issues, carry much more authority to
management. It is also proactive and empowering to establish an audit in which you
prescribe the process and the players yourself.
Much has been written about peer review, evaluation and accreditation of libraries; however,
as librarians we need to move beyond the concept of ‘minimum standards’, ‘making do’, and
accepting less, and look instead at infinite possibilities and desired achievement. And who
else better to help us ‘look again’ but our own professional peers?
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 9

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
Conclusion
“If you can’t measure something, you can’t understand it; if you can’t understand it, you can’t
control it; if you can’t control it, you can’t improve it”. 4 A review is a catalyst for change and is
the beginning of continuous incremental improvement and innovation. There is no
prescriptive list or criteria to be utilised in a review process however, careful planning and
preparation is essential to the successful execution and outcome of the process. It is a
challenging and intensive task which requires a high level of commitment from the
organisation and the review team. However, a review can offer a series of exciting and
untapped potential returns on a relatively short-term investment that may facilitate for a
highly dynamic and competitive library and information service for the future.
4
H.J. Harrington, The Improvement process, Qualitative Research in Information Management, New York, NY, McGraw-
Hill,1987, p.103.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 10

10th Asia Pacific Special Health and Law Librarians Conference – Adelaide 24–27 Aug 2003
Bibliography
Drabebstott, K.M. (1992), “Focused group interviews”, in Glazier J.D. and Powell, R.R. (Eds),
, Libraries Unlimited, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp.85-104.
Hannabuss, Stuart. (2001), “Scenario planning for libraries”, Library Management, Vol.22,
No.4/5, pp.168-176.
Harrington, H.J. (1987), The Improvement process, McGraw-Hill, Qualitative Research in
Information Management New York, NY, p.103.
Leitao, B.J. and Vergueiro, W. (2000), “Using the focus group approach for evaluating
customers’ opinions: the experience of a Brazilian academic library”, New Library World,
Vol.101, No.1154, pp.60-65.
Rockman, Ilene. F. (2003), “Thinking deeply about the future” [editorial], Reference Services
Review, Vol. 31, No.1, pp.7-8.
(The) Oxford Book of Quotations (1988), Bantam, New York, NY p.178.
Train, Briony and Elkin, Judith (2001), “Measuring the unmeasurable: reader development
and its impact on performance measurements in the public library sector”, Library Review,
Vol.50, No.6, pp.295-304.
REVIEWING YOUR FUTURE 11