Dunn & Wilson scholarship project 1995

Observation data

Observation of John, Sandra and Wilma revealed some similarities and some differences. One major difference was in the actual focus of the work. Whereas John's work was management oriented, Sandra's was project/facilitation oriented, and Wilma's was task oriented.

John
John was mainly involved with management of the service and staff, and management of a project. Aspects of his management of the staff included support and facilitation that was demanded by the self management model which he had developed. Prior to a combined meeting, staff referred to him about the integration of the orders section with the bibliographic searching section. He supplied them with essential information such as a floor plan and also gave them some input about alternatives for organisation, 'we're set up by supplier ... they're set up by funds' and about the running of a meeting 'best discussion will come by letting it all blend ... look at strengths, people, roles'. John also suggested that there might be a need for a reasonably immediate follow up meeting to address any unresolved issues. Staff asked if he and the other section head had any preferred model to which John replied: 'I hope you will work it out at your level'. Further, he also gave the staff some essential information which they required for their preplanning in relation to the changeover to the INNOPAC system: they thought they could accession in the following week and he told them they could but that they had to edit the list. This information led to some confusion and John took on a more directive approach which facilitated a more logical outline of the process and the staff's realisation that they could carry out the procedure. This intervention revealed that John was ultimately in control of activities as did a staff question, 'Will you want us to add items that we accession?' and a later comment 'It's after 4pm you could leave' to staff in a group talking outside his office; although no one actually left I think it was an indication that John continually monitored their activities. Conversely his willingness for staff to solve their own problems was evident: staff queried a flow chart in relation to data entry for INNOPAC and John suggested that they review it.

The impact of the above and previous discussions with John was reflected in a document which a member of staff had prepared for a combined meeting. It outlined the reasons for inviting certain participants and for developing a structure based on a self management philosophy; it addressed negative perceptions held by some staff; it spelt out John's role in relation to the integration; it made suggestions for strategies to be used to move forward both in relation to the integration of the sections and the changeover to the INNOPAC system. This document clearly reflected John's development of sectional staff to a self managing groupJohn commented that he used to organise blitzes to clear backlogs but the staff took it over, and also that when staff shared a problem he usually gave it back to them to solve.

John was also responsible for a project to get equipment and software out to the branch libraries in preparation for the launch of the INNOPAC system. He had been asked to manage the project about a week prior to my visit and this had been confirmed on the previous day; everything had to be in place by the end of the week. John had delegated the actual work to two members of staff, one of whom had computer expertise and another who had a great deal of anxiety about working with computers. John spent some time talking to them to make sure they were clear about what was required and informing them about what he was doing. John also liaised by phone with some branch libraries about the equipment they would receive and about sending an e-mail out to inform everyone. He was open to alternatives and could even see the value of same 'if the Division want to do something extra ...[they] may see something we haven't noticed'. John had composed a notice for readers; based on minutes of the circulation committee meeting and consultation about procedures with a member of the implementation team. John had used what he called a 'positive interventionist' approach to its construction and it certainly very clearly informed the users what they could and could not do as from mid-December and the impact of the changeover on loan information. He had to await approval from the signatory before organising printing and distribution. John maintained contact with staff to ensure that everything was proceeding well. In addition to his project management skills, John clearly took into account staff development issues [the involvement of someone with computer anxiety] and the importance of liaison.

John had an appointment with a member of staff to discuss her application for another job. He asked her to outline the position she was applying for and then suggested she ask for a position description. John got her to reflect upon her supervisory skills and audiovisual collections and he suggested she do some research by talking to audiovisual staff within Baillieu Library. He also suggested talking to a member of staff from a small branch library to gain information about lending services in a similar environment to the position she was applying for. He systematically went through essential criteria with her and suggested revision of her curriculum vitae to emphasise what she had done in relation to those criteria. He suggested that she consider her weak areas and said that he would be interested to hear about same. John also emphasised the importance of seeing the position supervisor prior to the interview. This discourse revealed John's awareness of the selection process, his detailed knowledge of staff within his Section, and his interest in their growth. This was further evidenced in a sensitive interaction with another member of staff who had had a great deal of computer anxiety and whom John had counselled through to the point where she was willing to work on those issues: whilst applying for leave John raised the fact that they would be considering more computer skills when she returned and she responded positively to his suggestion. At a more basic level he was involved in skills sharing when he informed staff how to send an e-mail.

John's obvious respect for his staff was apparent in the above interactions as it was when he commented on a group interaction outside his office: 'it's a long time since [I've] seen [such interaction] - it's nice'.

John was involved with financial matters in relation to the acquisition of materials. He had some interactions with his supervisor in regard to the clearing of funds by the end of the financial year and organised for a member of the Administrative Services Section (ASS) to provide him with a cash balance; he also informed her that he was going to assess the organisation of accounts at the beginning of the following year. John was obviously aware of the fact that INNOPAC would provide better accounts reporting information for everyone who needed it including staff in branch libraries. He had more interactions with ASS about payment of invoices and comments revealed an awareness of real schedules and his willingness to operate according to same, for example the university's accounting system had a different closing date to that of the library. John informed me that he put into effect a twelve month cancellation policy because he had found out from reading the manual that the previous automated system would not cancel under approximately two thousand days and this resulted in a skewed picture of what was committed. He would determine what was required to continue this strategy on INNOPAC. John commented that he used checking of invoices to monitor for problems and addressed same when they arose. A staff member presented an invoice for authorisation of payment and John checked that the amount was correct before signing it; his interaction with that staff member revealed his knowledge of the recording system. John indicated an awareness of the need to continually monitor supplier activities and had in fact put into place a strategy for keeping a major supplier 'honest': he occasionally used a smaller supplier and had informed the major supplier of that strategy. The latter responded by offering a discount which they maintained despite the fact that John continued to use the other supplier. This indicated that not only was John involved in the basic processing of invoices and the maintenance of records but he had put in place a strategy that ensured the best possible use of funds.

Different aspects of John's involvement in orders were observed. He followed up a phone call about an order by asking someone to type it upHe sent an e-mail thanking a supplier for sorting out an order; John believed it was important for him to maintain personal contact with suppliers and to give thanks when they were due. He dealt with orders including a problem order and followed this up with required action to facilitate the agreed-to fast track. He assessed the INNOPAC system's acquisition plus create list capabilities. He discussed the strategies for changeover from the LIB to INNOPAC system. He gave some thought to the selection of a member of staff for delegation to the INNOPAC implementation team for data entry of fund and vendor codes and then subsequently went through an in-depth introduction of that person in order to provide them with sufficient information to perform the task. He had a discussion with the leader of the INNOPAC implementation team about various codes, worksheets and the difficulties associated with understanding them and tricks learnt from others. John identified the need for the INNOPAC procedures manual to be updated and indexed. Throughout all of these tasks and interactions, John's understanding of acquisition systems, both manual and automated, and human resource management issues were very evident.