Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Sir Anthony Kenny, Warden of Rhodes House (Chairman)
Dr P.A.W. Bulloch, Assessor, and Librarian of Balliol
Mr R.P. Carr, Librarian, University of Leeds, and current Chairman of the
Standing Committee of National and University Libraries (SCONUL)
Ms E.A. Chapman, Librarian, Institute of Economics and Statistics
Mr P.K. Fox, Librarian, University of Cambridge
Mr D.G. Vaisey, Bodley's Librarian
2 The group's brief was to advise on the management structure of an integrated library system. We have understood that to mean assessing the prima facie feasibility of running an integrated system of the type and scale envisaged in the Thomas Committee's report and with the task of
(a) delivering services to readers in support of the University's teaching and research;
(b) serving as a major national and international research resource; and
(c) serving as a library of legal deposit.
Are there any insuperable difficulties which would nullify a decision by the University to approve recommendations (i), (ii), and (vi) of the Thomas Report, which Council in its initial consideration has identified as the main proposals?
3 Also our understanding has been that our assignment is without prejudice to final decisions by Council and Congregation on whether to approve the main proposals. We record, nevertheless, our agreement with the main thrust of the report, notwithstanding that there are specific points where, either collectively or individually, our views diverge from recommendations in the report. Although not strictly part of our brief, we have nevertheless included such observations as a contribution to consideration of the report. Some of them, in any case, are implicated in our consideration of management issues.
4 At our request, Mr Vice-Chancellor agreed that we should have a sight of the comments on the Thomas Report submitted by faculty boards and other bodies and individuals before these went to Council in order to see whether any modifications were required to our own recommendations. We have in fact anticipated a number of points and believe that where concerns have been raised they are in many cases addressed in what follows. We accordingly recommend to Council that our report should also be published prior to discussion in Congregation.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
5 In the report the organisation chart is explicitly proffered as a basis for consideration and not as a blueprint on whose plausibility the recommendations stand or fall. The details of the suggested structure aside, the Thomas Committee is `clear as to the major objectives which the structure would be expected to facilitate:
6 We agree that a structure combining university-wide functional and subject-based divisions is the right one; and we also endorse the view that the size of the senior management team composed of those reporting to the Director of University Library Services and the `divisional heads' should not be too large.
7 However, we think that the functions in the functionally based divisions in what for convenience we shall call the `Thomas model', and the subjects in the subject-based ones, need to be redistributed and the number of divisions increased to accommodate more homogeneous groupings. Conversely, we do not see the need for a separate Oriental Division. (This is in any case queried in the Thomas Report.) Our alternative model for the management structure is set out in the Appendix to this report and is discussed below.
9 Like Thomas, we attach the utmost importance to ensuring that the management structure of an integrated library system is—and is perceived to be—a new management entity and not a revamped Bodleian management imposed on other libraries. Their responses to Thomas show that two large faculties, English and Modern History, notwithstanding emphasis to the contrary in the report, see the Thomas proposals as a Bodleian takeover. The model which we have developed on the basis of the suggestion in Thomas depends, however, upon a restructuring of the previous management entities–Bodleian, Taylorian, Ashmolean, and so on—in order to create what we recommend should be called the Oxford University Library Service, which although managerially integrated would still allow parts to retain a recognisable identity as historical collections housed in particular buildings.
Ensuring that the new structure remains outside the gravitational pull of what was previously there will depend on:
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
(a) A post of Associate Director of University Library Services (as stated above). We see the heads of the various divisions either reporting to the Director through the Associate Director, or reporting in parallel to both. In either case the aim would be that the Associate Director—although not in charge of a division—should be sufficiently close to the divisional ground to afford the Director real support in discharging the ultimate responsibilities of that post for the management of the system as a whole. In our model, we have suggested a possible planning and project development brief for the Associate Director.
(b) Reorganisation of the subject-based divisions according to the accepted broad divisions of academic research—Humanities, Social Sciences, Science/Medicine.
Para. 6.3 of the Thomas Report addresses the integration of departmental/General Board libraries. We think that it will be in the interest of the departmental collections, of the library staff in question, and of the effective delivery of services, for them to be incorporated sooner rather than later into the integrated structure, and that the opportunity should be taken to start including them at the outset rather than confining the initial operation to Libraries Board libraries. Additionally, any new library developments in the future should be incorporated in the integrated system.
The allocation of individual subjects to one of the three divisions is an administrative convenience which should not however stifle interdisciplinary provision. The Director of University Library Services and the heads of division will have the responsibility of ensuring that this does not happen, and we would envisage the Director having a special budgetary allocation to support interdisciplinary and interdivisional developments.
(c) Reconfiguration of elements in the Research Library Services Division to take greater account of the distribution of research collections and existing research provision outside the Bodleian. This entails:
(d) Redistribution between two distinct divisions, (1) Administration and (2) Technical Services, of activities placed in `Central and Technical Services' in the Thomas model.
(e) The grouping of certain functions in a Technical Services Division does not in our view imply the imposition of rigidly centralised procedures. In line with the degree of devolution envisaged in an integrated system by the Thomas Report it must continue to be possible for site librarians to respond to urgent demand from readers by making `off the shelf' purchases. Cataloguing could also continue to be undertaken throughout the system as at present on OLIS, with catalogue maintenance and support available from a central resource. Similarly, as regards the inclusion of binding in this division, we are not proposing that there must be central decisions on what material is bound, when, and by whom; but we do intend that there should be central advice and expertise available; and it may be that this will edge the system towards the development and widespread use of a central facility capable of coping with an increased volume of work.
(f) Legal deposit functions will also be located within Technical Services as a specialised branch of acquisitions processing. (It is currently part of the Bodleian Acquisitions and Collection Development Section.) The selection of legal deposit material for open shelves would be the responsibility of staff in the subject divisions, and location of the remainder would be the responsibility of Reader Services as part of collection management.
11 The present post of Bodley's Librarian (which is super-scale) aside, there are currently seven ALC6 library posts in Oxford: four keeperships in the Bodleian (the Secretaryship of the Bodleian was formerly ALC6 but on Dr Mould's retirement the post was restructured and is now ALC5), the Ashmolean and the Taylor Librarians, and the Director of Health Care Libraries. Relative to other institutions this number is on the high side. Comparison with other major libraries suggests ALC5 as the basic grade for heading a division in the longer term, but in the special circumstances of Oxford ALC6 could be appropriate in some cases. We think that in the longer term the number of established ALC6 posts should be not more than five. The timescale in which the existing ALC6 posts are due to fall in through retirement could have been far more of a constraint in terms of restructuring opportunities and costs than in fact is the case. In the next decade only four ALC4/5 posts are due to become vacant by retirement.
Other things being equal, we should expect many of the newly created posts to be filled from within the University, and this should facilitate restructuring though vested interests in specific grades would have to be protected. Nor, we believe, should consideration of the staff establishment for an integrated system be confined to senior academic-related posts: the Libraries Board has for some time been reviewing staff establishments in the clerical library grades in its libraries (with some comparative examples from General Board and college libraries) to assess their adequacy and consistency across the libraries for which it is responsible. The need to accomplish such a review for an integrated system would, in our view, be more urgent, but also, in fact, more straightforward in an integrated system.
12 In view of the need to resolve the tensions that have arisen under the current arrangements, the location of the senior management posts will have an important symbolic force. We recommend that the locations of the offices of the senior management team should be distributed, perhaps as shown below. If in due course there is a major library development on part of the Radcliffe Infirmary site, that too would provide a suitable location.
Director of University Library Services Clarendon Building Assistant Director Clarendon Building Head of Administrative Division Clarendon Building Head of Technical Services New Bodleian Head of Reader Services Old Bodleian Head of Special Collections Old Bodleian Head of Humanities Ashmolean/Taylorian site Head of Social Sciences St Cross site Head of Science/Medicine Radcliffe Science Library
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
13 Where an impending vacancy can be identified as a key post in the context of the restructuring, it should not be filled without input from the Director-elect. We do not think that this need result in any serious planning blight, since the identity of the new Director could be known by as early as April 1996 if decisions are taken allowing the post to be advertised at the beginning of 1996. Nor do we believe that it would be necessary to introduce a moratorium on filling of middle-management posts as long as in making appointments and drawing up contracts regard is had to the possibility of restructuring.
14 However, the post of Librarian of the Taylor Institution, which falls vacant from 1 September 1996, is clearly a key post which could be restructured to head the proposed Humanities Division. (We do not think that the Head of the Humanities Division could be expected to be responsible for the day-to-day management of the present Taylor Library, which would have to be the subject of separate consideration by the Director of University Library Services.) We therefore recommend that the impending vacancy vice Barber should not be advertised until, first, it is known whether the University approves the recommended move to an integrated library structure with a Director of University Library Services at its head, and, secondly, in that event, until an appointment has been made to the Directorship, and it is possible to involve the Director-elect in an appointment in succession to Mr Barber.
15 We endorse the replacement of the Libraries Board and the Curators of the Bodleian with a single body to which the Director of Library Services is formally responsible and to which the Director will submit policies for approval, which will be involved in making senior appointments, and which it is vitally important should, mutatis mutandis, inherit the statutory responsibility of the Bodleian Curators `to maintain the Bodleian Library not only as a university library but also as an institution of national and international importance'. However, the proposed title `Library Board' is in our view unsatisfactory. The aim should be to signal clearly the difference of what is now proposed from both the existing Libraries Board and the body proposed by the Nicholas Report (also the Library Board). We suggest that `University Library Committee' would achieve the desired effect.
16 The Thomas Report does not say to which body this new committee reports. In our view it should report jointly to Council and the General Board; and in bidding for funds it should have direct access to the Resources Committee.
17 It will be important to have external representation on the University Library Committee. Bodley's Librarian points out that the experience of having a Curator from outside the University has been very helpful. It has been standard practice on the Curators of the University Chest. External representation would, moreover, be appropriate in view of the status of Oxford's collections as a national resource. Also we think that there should be at least one external member with experience of running a major research library, who can bring an independent source of professional and technical expertise to the deliberations of the University Library Committee. (This is important in view of the ultimate executive authority envisaged for this body—#Thomas, para. 6.12.) Involvement in the work of the University Library Committee would, however, represent a heavy commitment to a working university librarian and would need to be remunerated. We recommend that of the three persons appointed by the Hebdomadal Council at least one should be a member of Council, at least one a member of the Resources Committee, and one an external member. At least one of the three persons appointed by the General Board should also be an external member. (By external, we mean not employed by the University or a college, since the persons appointed might well be members of Convocation.)
18 With regard to the proposed membership of a fellow- librarian of a college elected by the Committee of College Librarians, it has been suggested that it is anomalous that this particular group of librarians should have representation on the University Library Committee whereas university librarians are specifically excluded. While taking this point, we nevertheless think that the Thomas Committee was correct to seek structural expression of the fact that, although college library provision is outside the control of the University, it is a crucial element in the way that provision is made overall for students, which HEFCE looks at as a whole. The opportunity should be taken to consolidate progress that has been made to date in increasing liaison and co-ordination between college and university provision. We therefore recommend that the college representation should be expressed as `one person, with experience of managing a college library, elected by the Conference of Colleges'.
19 Furthermore `the provision of university-wide services such as library automation and electronic media, preservation, and staff development' (Thomas, para. 6.7) means that it will be important to carry over into the new arrangements the Libraries Board's now well-established practice of securing the involvement of college library interests in subcommittees covering either services provided to colleges or areas (such as subject provision) in which co-operation and co-ordination between university and college providers are desirable or necessary. It seems clear to us that, effectively, this will entail college involvement across almost the full range of activities comprehended in the integrated structure.
20 The Thomas Report proposes (para. 6.12) that professional library staff can be in attendance as required at meetings of the University Library Committee. We endorse the importance of this provision.
21 The Thomas proposals allow for the continuation of individual subject committees that provide faculty input to policy and a direct channel of communication with library staff by which users can comment on the adequacy of provision and services. In addition to these subject committees there will be a need for user groups corresponding to the Reader Services and Special Collections Divisions in our suggested structure.
We make the point in para. 9 that the operation of the subject committees and user groups will be crucial to the success of the integrated system. They will advise those who are responsible for managing the system on what provision and disposition of material are required by the needs of teaching and research in their respective areas. It will be the responsibility of the Director of University Library Services to make budgetary allocations to the various subjects but those decisions will be made on the basis of management information which will include the views of faculties, etc. on academic needs. (In passing, we note that the management of trust funds, about which concern has been expressed, does not seem to us to raise problems of substance. Where management of a trust fund is vested in a body which is not affected by the structural changes, e.g. a faculty board, that will continue to be the case. Where it is proposed that the management body should be discontinued, e.g. the Bodleian Curators, the alternative arrangements for administering the fund will have to be such that they accomplish the objectives of the trust.)
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
23 Nomenclature. The recommendation that the integrated library structure should be called `the Bodleian Library' has aroused some opposition from non-Bodleian library staff. We accept—as does the Thomas Report—that there are arguments on both sides: principally, on the one hand, the need to avoid giving credibility to any suggestion that the new arrangements represent a `Bodleian takeover', and, on the other, the historic significance of the name `Bodleian'. We agree that the title of Bodley's Librarian should be retained by the new senior post, but recommend that, given the aim of the proposed restructuring, the natural order in the title would be `Director of University Library Services and Bodley's Librarian' and the name of the integrated structure `The Oxford University Library Service'. Within that service, the name of the Bodleian can continue to refer to the buildings to which it originally applied, namely Duke Humfrey's Library and the buildings of the Old (and New) Bodleian. Regarding what is said in para. 6.10 of the Thomas Report about avoiding the risk of jeopardising the legal deposit privilege, we draw attention to the fact that the terms of the 1911 Copyright Act accord the right to claim material to `the authority having the control of each of the following libraries, namely: the Bodleian Library, Oxford ...' (our italics).
24 Qualifications for the post of Director of University Library Services. We endorse the essential qualifications identified in recommendation (ix) of the Thomas Report. While accepting that the formulation `substantial experience of high-level managerial responsibility in major libraries or comparable organisations' was designed in order not to rule out applications from candidates who either are not professionally qualified as librarians or have not previously held a managerial post in a library, we affirm the view that library experience and qualifications would be strongly desirable in the holder of the post and that their absence would need to be powerfully compensated for by other qualities. We also suggest that the phrase should be amplified to read `comparable institutions such as museums or galleries'. We assume that it was thought necessary to single out an awareness of technological and IT developments on the grounds that an appreciation of the requirements for managing major historic collections could be taken as read. It would, however, be desirable to be explicit about this in the further particulars.
25 We also think it vital that the person appointed should have those skills of personnel management that are required to manage large-scale change. The Director must be able to gain the confidence and support of staff in the task of restructuring.
27 Candidates for the post of Director can justifiably expect the University to provide clear statements on:
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
(1) Advisory group's report to be published prior to discussion in Congregation (para. 4).
(2) Alternative divisional structure (paras. 9 and 10, and Appendix).
(3) Early incorporation of appropriate departmental libraries and any new library developments into the integrated structure (para. 10 (b)).
(4) Deputy post (Associate Director of University Library Services) (paras. 8 and 10 (a)).
(5) ALC5 as basic grade for heading a division (para. 11).
(6) Distributed locations for senior management posts (para. 12).
(7) Moratorium on refilling any key posts pending involvement of Director- elect in appointments. Post of Librarian of the Taylor Institution to be included in the moratorium (paras. 13 and 14).
(8) Rename proposed `Library Board' as `University Library Committee' (para. 15).
(9) University Library Committee to report jointly to Council and the General Board and to have direct access to the Resources Committee (para. 16).
(10) University Library Committee to have two external members, at least one of whom should have experience of running a major research library (para. 17).
(11) College representation on the University Library Committee should be `one person, with experience of managing a college library, elected by the Conference of Colleges' (para. 18).
(12) Formation of user groups for Reader Services and Special Collections (para. 21).
(13) New senior post to be called `Director of University Library Services and Bodley's Librarian' (para. 23).
(14) The integrated system to be known formally as the Oxford University Library Service, with `the Bodleian' referring to certain constituent buildings (paras. 9 and 23).
(15) Further specifications for the post (paras. 24 and 25).
(16) Preparation of the job description and other statements (para. 27).
A.J.P. KENNY
P.A.W. BULLOCH
R.P. CARR
E.A. CHAPMAN
P.K. FOX
D.G. VAISEY
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
COMMITTEE------------------DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
SERVICES AND BODLEY'S LIBRARIAN
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
(Planning and project development)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | |
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G]
(See below for key)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT FROM USER GROUPS AND SUBJECT COMMITTEES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to List of Contents of the supplement