98Hanson

CHAPTER THREE

Convergence of Academic

Support Services

Derek Law

Introduction

The first converged services in the UK, bringing together library and computing centre under a single manager are already over a decade old. Indeed, as early as 1988, the British Journal of Academic Librarianship devoted a whole issue to the topic, seeing a trend which 'is gathering momentum' (BJAL, 1988, p. 121). Since then the progress of convergence has appeared inexorable, although occasional distinguished voices have spoken out against it, arguing that 'at the very least the priorities and management needs in two such diverse bodies are incompatible' (Ratcliffe and Hartley, 1993). Yet even in 1993 this comment from the then Librarian and Computing Centre Director at the University of Cambridge appeared to say more about the distinctiveness of Cambridge than the merit of the argument. Since then, very few higher education (HE) institutions have consciously rejected the opportunity for convergence when it occurred and none has yet chosen to revert to the previous structure when offered the opportunity, although one or two may be considering it. Sidgreaves (1995)

50 Managing the Electronic Library

Has perceptively pointed out that convergence is a logical consequence of libraries and computer centres moving towards the same point and that senior institutional managers can see this quite as clearly as those directly involved. Like many others he also stresses that there is no single optimal model. The fullest description of the background to convergence has come from the Impact on People of Electronic ­Libraries (IMPEL) project conducted by Day. The project has undertaken case studies in six institutions, but has also looked critically at the growing literature on the topic. A follow up project, IMPEL2 has carried out further studies in 1996 and 1997 (Edwards 1997) in twenty-eight institutions and has again conducted an extensive literature review on monitoring organizational and cultural change.

Impact of the Follett Report

It is popularly, if erroneously, supposed that it was the Follett Report (HCFCE, 1993) which produced the pressure for convergence and yet the Report is curiously ambivalent on the topic. Its sole recommendation comes in Paragraph 91 and reads:

'The Review Group considers that there are many advantages in organisational convergence, particularly in enabling an integrated information strategy to develop. While it must be for each individual institution to decide which approach it wishes to take it is impor­tant that these organisational issues are addressed, and that the place of the library and of other information providers is assessed within the context of an overall information management strategy'.

Elsewhere the report says, 'There is no single model of a future library or information service which can or should be imposed on individual institutions or libraries within them’. It seems reasonable to suppose that this less than ringing endorsement was, however, sufficient to cause university_. management to focus on the issue of academic support ser­vices. A whole series of other reports and initiatives ranging

Convergence of Academic Support Services 51

from Al Gore's very public support for the Information Super- highway in the U.S.A, the G7 digital library initiative and the

several Bangemann Reports in Europe have given great prominence to the concept of the Information Society. In turn, lay members of university governing bodies would be increasingly familiar with the notion of a Chief Information Officer at board level in commercial companies. Follett too stressed the idea of information policies and most librarians, aware of the way that things were moving, will have been pressing for such strategies, expecting them to be led by insti­tutional mission rather than driven by technology.

The Fielden Report

The Fielden Report (John Fielden Consultancy, 1993) was commissioned by the Libraries Review Group and has a rather fuller review of the issues surrounding convergence. The report is concerned in general with human resource issues and in it Fielden helpfully distinguishes between two types of convergence:

· organizational, in which library and computing come together for management purposes. The most limited example of this is where a single manager is appointed but no other change takes place;

· operational, in which detailed functions or operations are brought together. This can be brought together through strategic co-operation and does not require a single manager.

Yet despite all this it appears that at the time of writing approximately half the HE sector has adopted a converged structure. Over fifty institutions * appear to have a professional

*These figures are derived from a survey undertaken by Bruce Royan while he was librarian at the University of Stirling. It was published as ‘Are you being merged?’ in the SCONUL Newsletter no.1, 1994, and subsequently maintained and circulated privately to directors of converged services. Allowance has been made for additions since the survey was undertaken in 1994.

52 Managing the Electronic Library

head of information services bringing together the library and computing services, while a further dozen have an academic

pro-vice-chancellor in charge. Further institutions continue to make the change on a regular basis and although opportunities have occurred, no institution in the UK has yet reverted to its previous structure. To the core of library and computing centre is often added a range of other, often smaller, academic services, not least as a convenient device for organizing line management. In addition to obvious areas such as learning resources, one may find included telephony, administrative computing and media production as well as such exotica as the university chapel, the careers service or hazardous waste disposal.

Fielden (John Fielden Consultancy, 1993) notes that the head of the converged service may now manage a large enough part of the organization to justify a place on the central management team of the university. This brings valuable political clout as well as an information flow. Further, where the budgets are combined and virement is allowed, this flexibility gives managers much greater scope for effecting change. Several areas have proved most suscep­tible to such change:

· joint strategic planning. The funding councils' requirement for an information strategy is most often driven within the organization by a converged service, while the develop­ment of teaching and learning strategies again benefits from convergence;

· joint use and development of networks. As services such as campus-wide information servers, networked CD-ROMs or mirrored resources become more common, joint planning becomes ever more important;

· increased physical co-location. The most visible manifest-tation is in the provision of open access terminal areas within learning centres and libraries, but convergence also allows more effective space utilization of everything from offices to common rooms. As new buildings and extensions begin to emerge in the post-Follett era, one can also

Convergence of Academic Support Services 53

see a growing number of commonly managed service delivery points;

_· shared training in information management skills. This is more often talked about than happening, although the various training projects funded under the eLib programme are likely to have a marked impact on this. Another useful extension of this is in the provision of common documenta­tion describing either resources or services;

_· physical sharing of resources in various media. Books, Computer assisted learning (CAL), audio, video and online may be 'owned' or purchased by different budgets but are presented together to users.

As Buckland (1988) has noted:

'With convenient telecommunication, the physical location of an elec­tronic text is substantially irrelevant. Databases (which are copied not borrowed) at a distance are likely to be more reliably accessible than paper documents owned by one's local library. What is needed, then, is a bibliography of what is conveniently accessible rather than the much narrower concept of a catalog of what happens to be locally owned'.

Fielden (John Fielden Consultancy, 1993) expected organi­zational convergence to continue (as has happened), and operational convergence to expand in some areas. It was thought unlikely that any single model would become domi­nant (again true), but the report perhaps expected more multi-skilling of individuals to take place than has happened. At least in discussion the multi-skilling appears to be most likely to develop amongst teams of specialists with comple­mentary skills than through individuals with multiple skills. This seems more plausible than developing a superbreed of renaissance men and women.

Winners and Losers?

At first convergence was seen as a turf war issue and in terms of winners and losers. But it soon became clear that

54 Managing the Electronic Library

more often than not, the institutional librarian was being chosen to head the converged service. And yet there was no discernible logic to this. Most institutions have claimed that there were particular local circumstances which dictated the outcome, and Fielden (John Fielden Consultancy, 1993) appears to accept that the trend largely follows a fairly random pattern dictated by retirement and job vacancies. Yet nationally the ratio of appointments appears to run at perhaps 5:1 in favour of librarians. This appears to stretch the bounds of coincidence rather far. However only the most superficial of examinations suggests that one group is_, more competent than the other. One perhaps unexpected benefit of convergence is that once the turf wars are over, there emerges a growing respect for each other's professional skills. Computing centres have faced impossible pressures over recent years and have tended quite unfairly to become insti­tutional whipping boys. In 1985 the Computing Centre of King's College London supported perhaps 500 users from an essentially centralized mainframe based service. In 1995 it supported some 15,000 users in a largely decentralized PC-based service, with very few additional staff. A 3000 per cent increase in users has been combined with only a 10 per cent increase in staff. Worse, the level of desktop sup­port required even by experienced users has increased by further orders of magnitude, while the constant upgrading of networks and workstations has given computing centres a quite unfair reputation for financial insatiability coupled with eroding levels of service. The inability and/or unwillingnes_s of most universities to adopt a standard PC configuration and a standard suite of office software means that almost every installation is unique and every upgrade fraught with difficulty.

A recent report suggests that there are also clear problems of image: ‘they have a poor attitude to their non-IT colleagues are politically naïve at work and even promote a bad image through their dress and posture.’ (Kavanagh, 1997) The same report notes that IT people have traditionally been loyal to IT, not their employer, whereas Norman

Convergence of Academic Support Services 55

Higham, former librarian of the University of. Bristol famously remarked that he was a university man first and a librarian second. It is also indicative that many computing centres see themselves as precisely that and have failed even to make the cosmetic but symbolic change of title to computing services. Libraries have, of course, suffered over the same period, but not to anything like the same degree. During this period of time there has been a significant profes­sional focus on customer care and quality assurance which has mitigated the effects of cuts, while librarians have effec­tively and skilfully passed all of the blame for poorer provision on to journal publishers. In summary, skilful manipulation of stereotypes has benefited one group rather than the other.

Management Structures

At its most extreme the services are merged. The University of Birmingham is a case in point where existing departmental barriers have been completely removed and a quite new structure developed. Perhaps more common is a structure in which the traditional departmental structures continue to exist, but joint working groups are set up to address specific problems or issues. At the other end of the spectrum lies the situation where a joint manager is appointed, perhaps on a rotating basis as at Southampton, but where the existing management structures remain largely untouched and the two major services produce development by committee and cooperation. Day et al (1996) notes that the IMPEL Project found a distinction between the success of convergence at institutional level and on the ground. Generally the organi­zational convergence was felt to be successful. University managements felt that their objectives had been achieved.The same may be true of converged service directors. In the summer of 1997 it was proposed to close the listserv for this group due to lack of use. After a flurry of e-debate the list w

as retained although it appeared that the decision was

56 Managing the Electronic Library

based as much on nostalgia as realism. This 'success' was not true at an operational level. Many staff saw (and see) convergence as a fad to save money and while accepting

the needs for departments to work together saw convergence as a threat to their professional skills. This cultural lag was seen at one institution where ‘... professional identity [was] fiercely defended by both sides, and attempts to instigate a joint Help Desk for students [were] thwarted. Communication lines remained vertical, with little horizontal contact even between systems staff and computing advisers.' (Day, 1996). This lack of horizontal contact seems^-to be a widespread problem and the one which needs to be addressed most if converged services are to succeed.

The Emerging Model

The findings of those libraries with most experience in the electronic future are quite consistent. Students use the library as a physical place more and more, while faculty members use it less and less, expecting to find resource available at the desktop. This has been most clearly articulated by Geleijnse (1995) describing the experience at Tilburg University. If this pattern does persist. It has implications for user support activities, which is one of the areas where convergence has most to offer. The post-Follett building programme has concentrated on learning and resource centres and on information centres, where the two groups of user support staff from library and computing centre are brought together. It does seem plausible to suppose that a joint model can develop in which support and basic training for undergraduates is delivered within the library/information centre and support for research is delivered in the office/laboratory by multi-skilled teams of library and computing staff. Another view is that we should expect the development of hybrid staff where the individuals are multi-skilled. In either case it is important that such teams have an early impact on academic departments. Many academic staff have

Convergence of Academic Support Services 57

no perceived information shortage and there is a danger that

a growing band of the satisfied inept will emerge, who under-

value information management skills and confuse ease of use

_.with quality of response. The team approach has the advan-

tage that it acknowledges a spectrum of skills from book

cataloguing to network installation, assuming some commonality of skills only in _.the user support area, rather than assuming a common skills set applicable to all staff in information services.

Advantages of Convergence

In management terms the biggest single advantage is the creation of a single very large budget-holder. Where a library has typically managed perhaps 3-5 per cent of the institu­tional budget, a converged service may well be managing close to 10 per cent of the institutional budget when equip­ment costs are included. For the manager this means that anything is possible, anything is achievable. Of course the resources are not sufficient to make everything possible, which leads to a quite proper concentration on information strategies and the prioritization of ambitions. With a larger budget, there should be opportunities for improved value for money. This can be in areas as varied as library system procurements, space utilization or furniture purchases.

But perhaps the biggest potential lies in the area of shared services. These can range from new services such as elec­tronic journals, campus wide information server (CWIS) or CD-ROM networks to the sharing of service points where issuing documentation and printout or selling diskettes sit happily and commonly with both services. The recent Pilot Site Licence Initiative gives a good example of this. Libraries were expected to make an average saving of £10 000. No thought was given at national level to the knock-on effect on computing provision. Quite apart from the availability of suitable hardware, there was a need, at least in principle, to load a standard Netscape browser and Adobe Acrobat —

58 Managing the Electronic Library

and commit to appropriate upgrades as new software was released. If the task were to be performed properly, the computing centre would have to recruit perhaps two extra desktop support staff in order to save the library its journal subscriptions. In a converged service it should at least in theory be practical to have a seamless introduction of such a service.

Similarly, as JISC begins to propose charges for JANET usage* based on international traffic, institutions will begin to look at what traffic is being sent and received by the site. We may confidently expect that mirroring and cacheing strategies will be developed and that converged services will be well placed to act to provide economic information management.

Training and instruction is the second area where change may be expected. The IMPEL2 study has found that there is a general consensus among library and information services (LIS) staff that the clearest impact of the changing LIS environment is a shift in their role towards more instruc­tion and teaching of users. The experience in learning resource centres and previous knowledge of the practices of academic staff lead one to suppose that converged services could perform the critical role in operationalizing computer assisted learning.

The broad area of user support is the third area where convergence has the potential to show real benefit. There are many reasons why systems will not perform as users might expect, and there is no good reason to expect them to perform the diagnosis of why failure or imperfect perfor­mance has occurred. User-centred support where and when the customer requires it should be a fundamental objective of converged services.

It is also worth remarking that the main thrust of funding council policy has been led by content-focused national initiatives.

______________________________________________________

*This is discussed in the letter of 22 September 1997 from Dr M. Read, secretary of JISC to Vice-Chancellors. It is available on the JISC and NISS home pages and provoked much debate on LIS-UCISA

Convergence of Academic Support Services 59

ranging from the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) to dataset provision. Institutions may reasonably expect new structures to maximize the benefit from these programmes.

Disadvantages

The disadvantages — or perhaps better the challenges — facing converged services are equally clear. Firstly is the fact that apart from the possibility of an all too brief honeymoon period, institutions have not faced up to the reality that they are under-resourcing academic services. A new management structure offers some room for economy and for innovation, but this is essentially at the margin. The institution will often place impossible demands on the new service. The director of a converged service does well carefully to artic­ulate strategy and the optimum resource requirements while making clear the limited outcomes that can be achieved with the resources actually provided.

Secondly, there will be unrealistic expectations of the speed and impact of such a change. But at least initially, the same staff, are usually in the same roles as formerly, with the same skills set and the same attitudes. It takes both time and patience to weld the different approaches together.

It is a commonplace belief that libraries and computing centres have different cultures. What is perhaps more impor­tant is that each of these cultures has positive and productive areas rather than one being superior to the other. It may for this reason that very few institutions have attempted wholesale merger of the two departments, preferring to recognize the value of cultural diversity and to build on the strengths of each tradition. There is however the danger of cultural lag: the need for all parts of the culture to catch up with and understand that which is changing most rapidly

Finally, and as noted previously, in most cases convergence is usually managerial rather than operational at least in the

60 Managing t

he Electronic Library

first instance. If much of the institutional thrust for convergence is concerned with strategic planning and development this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it gives time for a climate of trust to develop between the services. We may then expect a further IMPEL study to show these barriers of cultural lag eroding. If however they remain, convergence will come to be seen as a marriage of convenience rather than a love match.

Conclusion

One last question remains. This is a particularly British phenomenon (although there are examples in other countries), but why in the UK? And why now? When reviews of academic services are undertaken in universities, the local administra­tors always say that they are considering convergence as a local response to local issues - and yet a clear national pattern has emerged. If we cannot attribute this to the Follett Report we can perhaps attribute it to a whole series of reports on various aspects of higher education, culminating in the Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997). Although British higher education may now be the most over-analysed anywhere, sev­eral key strands have emerged, which appear to lead towards convergence. One is the importance of strategic planning; one is the pervasiveness of Information Technology; a third is a belief in the inevitability of computer-assisted learning; fourthly, as Dearing puts it, 'Communications and Informa­tion Technology is too big, too expensive and too fundamental to the operation of the institution as a whole to be decided at faculty level' (p. 207); and finally the report acknowledges that this whole enterprise is a senior management issue and must be handled at that level. ^‘. . . We believe it will be necessary for institutions to introduce managers who have both a deep understanding of C and IT, and its application to higher education, and senior management experience. There is a shortage of such individuals within higher education' (p. 207).

Convergence of Academic Support Services 61

It is that central area of management that seems likely to keep some form of _.convergence firmly within institutional structures and on institutional agenda. Dearing's Recommendation 42 seems destined to become engraved on as many hearts as Parry's famous recommendation that 6 per cent of the institutional budget should be spent on the library. Recommendation 42 says that 'All higher education institu­tions should develop managers who combine a deep understan­ding of C and IT with senior management experience'. It seems difficult to disagree.

References

British Journal of Academic Librarianship (1988) Issue devoted to con­vergence 3, (3).

Buckland, M. (1998) Bibliography, library records and the redefini­tion of the library catalog. Library Resources and Technical Services, 32, 299-311

Day, J. (1996) The culture of convergence in electronic library and visual information research: papers from the Third ELVIRA Conference, 1996. London: ASLIB

Day, J. et al. (1996) Higher education, teaching, learning and the electronic library: a review of the literature for the IMPEL2 project: monitoring organisational and cultural change. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 2, 131-204.

And at: http:/ / www.unn.ac.uk/-liy8/impe12/abstr.htm

Edwards, C. (1997) Change and uncertainty. Ariadne, 11, 6-8. And also at http: / /www.unn.ac.uk/-liy8/impe12/cni⁴.htm

John Fielden Consultancy (1993) Supporting expansion: a study of human resource management in academic libraries. Bristol: HCFCE.

Geleijnse, H. (1995) A strategy for information access. In Networking and the future of libraries 2: managing the intellectual record. London:

Library Association.

62 Managing the Electronic Library

Higher Education Funding Council for England, et al. (1993) Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review Group: Report. (Follett Report)_.

Bristol: HEFCE

Kavanagh. J. (1997) Why IT staff are losers with an attitude problem. The Times Interactive Section, 27 August 1997, p. 10.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. (Dearing Report). London: HMSO

Ratcliffe, F. and Hartley, D. (1993) Library services: letter. Times Higher Education Supplement, 5 March 1993, p. 17.

Sidgreaves, I. (1995) Convergence - an update. Relay: Journal of UC & R Group, 42, 3-6