Himmel & Wilson Home Page
 

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Main Report

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

LIBRARY SYSTEMS AND COOPERATIVES

Executive Summary

Five multi-type library directors, unofficially calling themselves the Light Bulb Group, sought a snapshot of what exemplary multi-type cooperative systems look like today.  Based on information gathered through web surveys and telephone interviews, Himmel & Wilson, Library Consultants, the firm hired to conduct the gathering of data, found evolving organizations, balancing various key relationships and working to find their niche in an information rich world. 

Continuing education was the single service provided by all of the participants in the project.  While this may be a traditional system service with a long history, the content of the courses/programs and the methods of delivery are often technologically sophisticated and far from traditional.  Sometimes the area served extends far beyond the political/geographic boundaries of the system.

A majority of those participating in the project are heavily dependent on their state legislature or state library agency for their basic funding. They are worried about that dependence.  A few are seeking to diversify their funding base; others, probably a larger number, are growing more aggressive in their advocacy efforts. 

Those that are diversifying their funding sources are entrepreneurial; they are providing traditional services in new ways (continuing education and databases via electronic means, for example); they are looking for partners and business models as they seek new markets for services, redefine their niche in the information world, and measure their accountability and value to members.

The best administrative structure for a system is as a non-profit corporation because that provides a level of independence, flexibility, and accountability.  The structure allows the system to be “agile.”

Innovative systems are using creative solutions to ordinary problems, funding models from the business world to diversity their resources, and developing new services using technology to deliver those services.

The successful system director needs to be flexible, innovative/creative, political, entrepreneurial, a good communicator, and a good listener. 

Background

 The Light Bulb Group, five multi-type library directors interested in the current status and activities of multi-type library systems, contracted with Himmel & Wilson, Library Consultants, to develop a “snapshot” of exemplary library systems in the United States.  Of special interest to the LBG were the challenges the systems were addressing, their use of innovation, and successful leadership skills.

The LBG also identified several individuals in state library agencies who had been actively involved in the development of library systems over the past forty years. The consultants interviewed these individuals via telephone for their perspectives on the changing roles of library systems and those characteristics that best describe the exceptionally good system today.  The consultants also emailed the state librarian or development officer for the state library agencies whose web sites indicated that the state had library systems of some type and asked them to identify exemplary systems in their states.  Responses were received from most of those contacted and a list of system directors was created.  Those system directors were sent an email invitation to participate in the project by completing a web survey.  A subset of those completing the web survey was interviewed via telephone.

Initially the definition of library systems used by the LBG and the consultants was limited to cooperatives and multi-types; however, as the project evolved and recommendations from state library agencies were received, the definition was broadened to include networks and systems whose members were all independent public libraries.  The majority of the participants were multi-type cooperative library organizations.

It is important to note that a complete census of all states and all library systems was not conducted.  From the outset the purpose of the project was to identify exemplary systems and to learn more about them.  Because the selection process was not random, generalizations cannot be made to all systems, merely to those who participated in the project.  Similarly, the twenty-nine telephone interviews do not represent a random selection of the directors who responded to the web survey.  Of the twenty-nine interviewed, four were in Illinois, three in New Jersey, three in New York, and three in Wisconsin.  Consequently, the responses and comments are heavily slanted toward the environments that exist for library systems in those states.

Expert Advice

The consultants interviewed six individuals who were or had been actively involved in state library agencies and system development.  The interviews explored four areas: the major role/responsibility for library systems and cooperatives today and how that has changed in the last ten years; the biggest challenge to the ongoing viability of systems/cooperatives; the best administrative structure; and the difference between an adequate system/cooperative and one that’s exceptional or outstanding. 

Major role/responsibility for library systems and cooperatives today and how that has changed in the last ten years:

Technology, specifically the Internet, has had a great impact on libraries and library systems.  Today the role of systems is to enable libraries and facilitate services rather than provide services directly.  Systems provide services that can’t be done by individual libraries alone.  Cooperatives have to be on the same level (developmentally) as their members, but also be pushing their members toward new things.  Systems have to do those things that state libraries cannot.

Biggest challenge to the ongoing viability of systems/cooperatives:

The challenge is to find their niche.  There’s competition from state libraries and networks.  Some things are better done on a statewide basis; some on a regional basis.  Systems have to be aggressive in identifying needs and trying to meet those needs.  Adequate “critical mass” funding is essential.  Systems have always had the problem of being invisible, which makes getting adequate funds difficult.  People don’t understand that specialized staff (rather than redundant administrators) are a big expense and drive system costs.

Best administrative structure:

The best structure is as a non-profit corporation because that provides a level of independence, flexibility, and accountability.

The difference between an adequate system/cooperative and one that’s exceptional or outstanding:

Exceptional systems focus on things with a financial impact.  They try to identify best practice and to create things that can be used elsewhere.  Responsiveness in the leadership is critical.  The leaders understand what makes a difference in member libraries.  The capabilities of the system staff are key.  There’s an active partnership with the state library.  An adequate system focuses on its own members; an exceptional one is ahead of its members.  Adequate just helps libraries be what they are now; exceptional takes them where they haven’t been yet.

The Web Survey

The web survey was sent to 55 system directors identified through state library agencies and colleagues as being exemplary in some way.  Forty-four from 16 states responded by completing the survey.  (80.0% competed the survey.)

Who Participated

Thirty-five (79.5%) were multitype organizations; the other nine were systems of independent public libraries.  Of the multitypes, all had academic and public library members;  thirty-three had school library members and thirty-three had special library members.  Two multi-state networks, MINITEX and SOLINET, drastically skewed the statistics: MINITEX has 159 academic members, 179 public library members, and 1731 school district members.  SOLINET has 555 academic members and 756 public library members.  Consequently, the table below does not include MINITEX and SOLINET in the ranges, mean or median for academic, public, and school libraries.  (SOLINET does not have school library members.)  Similarly the range, mean, and median for special libraries does not include the Chicago Library System, which has 267 special library members, and METRO (New York), which has164 special library members.

With such wide ranges the median (the mid point of the range) is more indicative of the relative sizes of the systems than the mean (average). 

*Note that the school libraries numbers are for school districts rather than buildings.

The oldest systems participating in the survey were established in 1961 (Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania), the newest in 1993 (Illinois and Pennsylvania).  The highest number was established in the 1960s.  The median year of establishment was 1975.

Nearly a third (31.8%) reported having over 20.0 full time equivalent (FTE) staff members.

Over three fourths (77.3%) reported outsourcing some system services.

Over sixty-three percent (63.6%) had operating budgets of $ 1 million or more.  Nearly a third (31.8%) had operating budgets of $ 2 million and greater.  During the telephone interviews participants sometimes indicated that they served as “pass-throughs’ for county or state funds that were earmarked by the funding agency for member libraries.  Consequently the budgets of some of the respondents may be inflated while others chose not to include the “pass through” funds in their response to the question.

Planning

All of the participants reported having recent planning documents.  In some cases one or more of these documents are required by the major funding agency for the system, generally the state library agency.  Only four respondents had neither a long range nor a strategic plan.  Of those four, three had an action plan or a compliance plan that is required by their state library agency.  Twenty-one had both a long range plan and a strategic plan or a plan that combined the two types.

The other plans included Deficit Reduction, Archives, Communication, 100 Year Plan, and a Special Needs Plan.

One question on the web survey asked what processes they used to determine system/cooperative priorities.  Almost all of the responses indicated a broad level of participation from staff, member libraries, committees, and governing board.  Some responded with techniques: surveys, formal and informal interviews, focus groups.  In three cases the director or administrator completing the survey said some priorities were set by the state library agency.

Services Provided

All of the systems responding to the web survey provide continuing education services to their members (and sometimes beyond their membership to other libraries in their states).  The list below provides an overview of what they reported in the survey.

(Appendix 3 contains listings of the responses that were given to open ended questions, beginning with the ‘Other Services’ answers to question 14.)

The other services provided by the systems ranged from advocacy to distributing operations allocations to bulk loan collections to cataloging services.  Some of the responses that came multiple times were access to or purchase of databases, advocacy, technical services (acquisitions, cataloging and processing), web site/page development, distribution of grants or funds to member libraries, grant writing, facilitating networking among members through discussion groups, and loan of various types of collections and equipment, including Ellison die cutting equipment. 

Most Successful Services

Question 15 asked the system directors which two services did they consider the system’s most successful.  These are listed in Appendix 3 following the heading, question 15.  The most frequent answer was continuing education, although delivery and resource sharing/ILL also received many nominations.

Question 16 asked which two services would their members consider the most successful.  These answers are also listed in the appendix.  Given that all of the systems indicated they were heavily involved in planning and gathering member input, it isn’t surprising that the answers to questions 15 and 16 were generally the same.  Where there were differences the system directors offered as reasons that they had a wider perspective of the impact of services than did individual members.  Individual members tended to identify tangible things they received while system directors could see the intangible effects across multiple libraries.

Challenges

The final question on the web survey asked, what do you consider to be the biggest challenge to the ongoing viability of your system/cooperative.  Of the 44 respondents, 31 (70.5%) mentioned funding in some context—shrinking state aid, decreasing state aid, inadequate funding, increasing revenues to meet salary increases, etc.  The second most frequent topic was developing consensus/agreement among members or maintaining a spirit of cooperation.  This was often offered in the context of the diverse memberships—in terms of library types and sizes, sizes especially.

Telephone Interviews

Of the 44 who had completed the web survey, 25 were selected for telephone interviews.  Initially the selection for interviews was based on multiple nominations by colleagues and state library agency personnel for exemplary programs and achievements. However, as time passed the scope was widened to include a total of 29 system directors in order to include successful systems in additional states.  Had the time frame been longer, all those who answered the web survey would have been interviewed.  The telephone interviews explored a number of topics not easily confined to a web survey. 

Because the compelling response to the web survey question about challenges had been funding, two questions began the telephone interview:  how is your system funded and what steps have you taken to address the issue of funding in order to remain viable.  The telephone interviews also explored ways in which the system had been innovative and the “best” organizational/administrative structure for systems.  The final two questions explored the issue of leadership in the environment of the specific system: what qualities, characteristics, and experiences will your successor need to succeed and what advice would you give to your successor.  Compilations of the telephone interview responses to the individual questions follow as Appendix 4. 

Here are a number of generalizations based on those telephone interviews.

1.  While the systems participating in the project get their funding from a variety of sources, a majority is heavily dependent upon funds from their state legislature or state library agency (wherever it’s located in state government) for their basic funding.  More than half (58.6%) of the participants in the telephone survey received more than half of their operating funds from state government. They are worried about that dependence.  A few are seeking to diversify their funding base; others, probably a larger number, are growing more aggressive in their advocacy efforts.

2. Those that are diversifying their funding sources are entrepreneurial; they are providing traditional services in new ways (continuing education and databases via electronic means, for example); they are looking for partners and business models as they seek new markets for services, redefine their niche in the information world, and measure their accountability and value to members.

3.  Several prefaced their response to the question of being innovative that it probably wasn’t innovative elsewhere, but in this state, we were the first to…  Examples of innovation included several models of web based training, web page development for member libraries, working to make everything available electronically, cooperative projects involving e-books, Internet radio, statewide electronic reference service, a marketing initiative for members, and a pre-school outreach bookmobile.  In a few instances the innovative aspect is including schools/school libraries in the project.  There were also several instances of systems stepping into what was once the responsibility of state library agencies with statewide services, sometimes with the encouragement of the state library agency, sometimes in ways that were less collaborative.

4.  No one was negative about the organizational/governance structure of their system.  Often the response was, “it works…”  Some liked having a board of professionals; others thought having a mix was good.  One director (public library system) especially liked  that her board was non professional and did not represent any specific library.  Some had been public library trustees before they came on the board, but all took the countywide perspective in decisions rather than favoring a particular library.  Generally those with 501c3 status liked the flexibility that not being connected directly to a government gave them.  Several people mentioned it was important for an organization to be “agile,” able to move in new directions as necessary without the excess baggage of government limitations.

5.  The most frequent adjectives used to describe the director’s successor were flexible, innovative/creative, political, entrepreneurial, a good communicator, and a good listener.  The experience(s) needed reflected whether the system was multitype or public libraries only, but the underlying concept was that the director needed to be perceived as knowledgeable in the environments of the member libraries and credible.

6.  Often the advice to that successor followed closely on the adjectives used to describe the person needed to fill the job.  Several emphasized giving lots of attention to the board, being technologically savvy without being a techie, enable good people to do their jobs.  Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Page created 03/27/03.
Page updated 03/27/03.