This document summarizes a process improvement project at Emory University Libraries. It discusses mapping the end-to-end electronic resources selection, acquisition, and management process which involves over 40 staff across multiple libraries and has an annual budget of $5M. The project involved creating process maps for each step through a systems approach. It identified areas for improvement such as lack of prioritization and communication issues. The final report included revised process maps and recommendations to address roles, responsibilities, and documentation.

1. Lars Meyer
Chuck Spornick
Emory University Libraries
Nov 5, 2010

2. Change in UniversityAdministration

4. $5M in
annual
expenditures
E-resources
are important
to faculty &
students
More than 40
staff involved
in process
End-to-end
process not
formally
documented

5. Customers
– External
& Internal
Vendors
StaffSponsors

6. Report to
AssociateVice
Provost
Report exclusively
to Dean of school
Spend
• Woodruff
• Business Lib.
• Health Sciences Lib.
• Law Library
• Theology Library
• Oxford College Library
• Over 90% is with
Woodruff and HSL

7. Systems
approach
SIPOC
Process
Mapping

8. Libraries have been
good at counting
what and how many
 Creating policies and
procedure manuals
Can’t see the whole
end-to-end process

9. Focus on the
Customer
• External
• Internal
Inclusion
• More than 40
staff
Transparency
• Groups
• All process
participant
mtg.
• documentation

10. Suppliers
• Vendors (internal and external)
• Infrastructure (computer systems)
Inputs
• Requests
• What triggers a process
Processes
• Core processes cut across units
Outputs
• Products
• Services
Customers
• External
• Internal

11. Systems approach to work
SIPOC

12.  Process: select, acquire and manage
e‐resources, i.e. end‐to‐end process
 Purpose: to provide reliable and timely
access to electronic materials to support
research, teaching, and patient care at
Emory

13. Major steps
• Handoffs
• Feedback
loops
Who
• Who does
what
• 85/15 rule
Areas for
improvement
• Noted with
each draft

14. Draft end to end map
All process participant meeting
2 half day sessions Each cluster presented their map
Clusters
selection; decide / approve; license and
create metadata; pay
Each group drafted a map

15. Process begins with Select Decide Approve License Process ends with
Subject Liaisons CMTAG / ElCoDe Licensors / ECR Outputs Customers
Requests from faculty, students
and staff
Purchase decision form ECR Team
1
2 3
Parking lot:
Handoffs 1. single titles are not prioritized and placed at bottom of pile
1 Request Form (CMTAG or ElCoDe) 2. form is lacking info needed by ECR, cataloging, and accounting
2 Feedback 3. no formal process to review at renewal time
3 Purchase decision form 4. when invoice is received we have less than 1 month to respond/decide
5. no current way to notify campus/libraries of cancellations at renewal time
6. no formalized way to seek/use collaborative funding
8. communication between libraries needs improvement
9. This process does not fully reflect the decision process of other libraries. It could be good to
identify the similarities and processes for the professional school libraries. Can Woodruff learn from
the simpler processes? Are the professional schools the same or different? For instance, are GBL and
Law similar because they each buy non-academic databases. How different is GBL because they
purchase rights for alumni?
7. libselectors-l is not inclusive for other libraries need to explore expanding to allow for more
communication during moving beyond projects
Review
request
Identify
funding
Request
approvedand
formsubmitted
toLicensing
Prepare
RequestForm
Assignstaff
memberto
license

16. • Capture all the steps in
sequence
• Structured: use of
symbols
• Significant amount of
effort to complete

17. Final Report
Final map:
Drafted by planning team Reviewed by clusters
Clusters:
Revised maps for each cluster

21.  Staff are deeply committed to the work; passionate about it
 Difficult to talk about the work critically because it’s personal
 We learned the value of focusing on handoffs and not individuals
 Failures in the process are systemic; they are not the failure of an
individual
 Insight to systemic failures is found in the handoffs
 Some staff feel that they can now make changes to how the
work is done
 Some of the work has been changed

22. Roles &
Responsibilities:
investigation and
recommendations
Documentation:
investigation and
recommendations
Phase 3

23. Hamel, Gary. The Future of Management. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Library Press, 1997.
Scholtes, Peter. The Leader's Handbook: Making
Things Happen, GettingThings Done. NewYork:
McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline:The Art & Practice
ofThe Learning Organization . NewYork:
Doubleday, 2006.

24. American Society of Quality. ASQ: Voice of Global
Quality. Website. www.asq.com
Jude Heimel & Associates: Organization
Transformation. http://www.judeheimel.com/