Originally planned for a three-year implementation, the Virtual Library Project
172 Arsenault, Hanson, Pelland, Perez & Shattuck
ran to five years. During this time, staff successfully implemented many activities outlined in the Blueprint. However, several sea changes occurred during that five- year period, including a Provost’s Task Force to reorganize the USF Libraries, the death of one of the library directors, emerging supervisory issues, and significant changes within the operations of the teams. For example, several teams dissolved due to lack of a ‘real’ activity once their primary charges had been accomplished or due to dwindling team ‘volunteers’. There was a growing realization among the library directors that the remaining virtual library teams had duties that needed to be integrated into ongoing library teams/departments (i.e., these activities were no longer ‘projects’ but daily library functions).
Most importantly, the library directors felt that the original Blueprint needed a close review considering the university’s new USF Libraries strategic plan that resulted from Provost’s mandate. This was crucial, since a strategic plan represents how the values, purpose, and operating principles in an organization are connected to its vision and strategy. Strategic objectives must be tied to the everyday operating environment and be measured through well-reasoned, logical performance criteria.
(APQC, 1999). Library directors thus began the crucial process of reviewing the Virtual Library in light of new university missions and goals.
Although there were many positive outcomes and products in the development of the Virtual Library, there was one critical lesson learned: monitor the place of the team within the organization as the goals and structure of the organization change.
To stay aligned, teams need to talk to one another and to the organization. By setting a clear direction, the organization also sets the boundaries within which teams work (Forrester & Drexler, 1999). Furthermore, according to Katzenbach and Smith (1993), teams require both individual and team accountability.
Sometimes, leaders of change also must be managers of change. Building job assignments and evaluation capacities into team positions is difficult and requires the use of concrete performance measures. However, without the accountability for staff time (within both regular and team assignments), organizations cannot have an accurate picture of the time, staff, and effort actually involved in projects or other aspects of organizational change. This is particularly true in the case of ‘volunteer’
projects.
There was a reluctance to build in or use the necessary administrative tools to measure work performed outside a staff person’s normal job duties. For example, the Directors, the Implementation Team, and the Project Manager relied heavily on the volunteer status of the VL teams to accomplish the work necessary for the implementation of the Virtual Library. During the first year or two, people were enthusiastic. However, since participation in the Virtual Library was a volunteer effort, there were no mechanisms in place to ensure performance or delivery of product as the project continued into years three, four, and five.
Implementing Large-Scale Programmatic Change 173
This lack of administrative tools also made it difficult to place VL tasks in relation to ongoing library duties. Several supervisors and department heads felt that virtual library work infringed upon actual duties. They felt unable to ask for clarification of VL activities or to ‘interfere’ with VL work. From a larger management perspective, it was impossible to determine the actual number of work-hours involved in creating the virtual library or to review concrete workflow processes.
The 1996 goals stated in the Blueprint were misaligned with the successive years’ goals of the USF Library system. It was evident to the directors that the Virtual Library would initially be a complement to, not a replacement for, the traditional library, at least for the near future. Maintaining the parallel structures and workflows of the Virtual Library teams and the traditional library departments seemed increasingly untenable.
Further, with the reclassification of the University of South Florida to a Research I university by the Carnegie Institute, the university’s mission changed from a comprehensive university to a research university. The USF Libraries had to move to being a research library system and unique print resources were more essential than ever. The main research library, with the distinctive regional and specialized libraries, continues to build traditional collections unique to their constituencies as well as contribute to the growth of the collective electronic resources. The USF Library system’s former mission to serve the comprehensive university alone was expanded to include development of both print and electronic scholarly collections of value to the state and national research communities. With this new mission, the USF Libraries began to plan for the collections and services appropriate for an institution that would eventually aspire to be accepted by the Association of Research Libraries.
This incongruence in goals and objectives between the USF Libraries and the original Virtual Library plan became a point of considerable tension among the library staff. “Us against them” mentalities and personal relationships forged among existing library departments and VL teams made workflow integration difficult. The recognition, travel opportunities, and new professional visibility available to certain VL team members became a source of resentment by traditional library employees who felt that their contributions were not valued. At the same time, certain VL team members may have felt that library integration would lead to a loss of status.
Understandably, people who thought of themselves as ‘agents of change’ in 1996 perceived that the integration of the ‘virtual library’ into seamlessly organized USF Libraries represented a step backwards, both personally and institutionally.
Although the resulting tensions greatly complicated library-restructuring ef- forts, the recent integration of “virtual” activities with “traditional” activities has met with approval by many faculty and students who, ironically, did not see the two
174 Arsenault, Hanson, Pelland, Perez & Shattuck
“libraries” as separate entities. In addition, the cross-functional team structure has been continued for those ongoing virtual library teams, although these teams now encompass a more inclusive perspective of the USF Library system. Library staff still self-identify those teams that appear most closely aligned with their interests and apply to join them. From a larger external perspective, the upcoming SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) accreditation has encouraged library system staff to see the total library system, not just portions of it.