1 A new model at the University of Arizona Are staff classification systems reflecting current and future library competencies?

2 Presenters Robyn Huff-Eibl, Access & Information Services Team Michael Ray, Library Support Services Team Jeanne Voyles, Document Delivery Team

3 Abstract Over the past several years the work of classified staff at the University of Arizona Library has changed significantly. The staff has significant responsibilities for control of the work of the team. This includes the ongoing improvement and redesign of work processes, supervision and training of other staff and student employees, monitoring of budgets and work process statistics, and negotiation of contractual agreements with vendors. Classified staff responsibilities extend to participation in library strategic planning, space planning, regular peer reviews, and the allocation of Career Progression/Merit.

4 Abstract Classified staff has also experienced the demarcation of some professional librarian work, such as cataloging and some reference duties, to their positions. As a result, the University of Arizona Library has worked with both the Library and University Human Resource departments to design a new series of library job classifications. We developed a process for reclassification and implemented four new classified staff job titles. We have further worked to develop specific competency-based job descriptions, reflecting current and future competencies, which are used in the hiring and performance management of library employees. This work has helped to bring pay and job descriptions into alignment with changes in library classified staff tasks and responsibilities.

The Constant is Change “The difficulty in funding positions caused by the early 90’s recession has restrained our ability to expand capacity through hiring into new positions. Nearly everything we do is through the creative use of existing positions. The Library today operates today with more than forty fewer positions than it did in the early 1990’s. Work has been automated or assigned to outside vendors. The work that remains is often more complex or skilled…what a person is willing and able to do is becoming more important than what position they are assigned to.” Pay Equity White Paper by M. Ray 5

Timeline Documenting changes in work tasks and competencies, concerns about budget cuts, working out of classification, compensation Meet with HR reps-work on new job descriptions and titles 2006Spring: implementing new titles; integrating competencies into job descriptions for hiring Fall: New Titles and grades approved Winter: Moved forward with reclassifications 2007Integrating competencies into positions for Document Delivery and Access Services 6

Data and Reports Gathered 1) LibSpecialist Tasks – from 2003 Career Progression Applications 2) Analysis of UA Peer salary schedules for Library Specialists 1/13/04 3) Library Specialist Position Descriptions and Background Briefing 11/17/03 4) Local Comparisons – Community College, Public Library 5) Library Specialist Tasks – from local and peer job descriptions. 7

8 Drivers for Change that Lead to New Classifications Salary compression and turnover State funding static and declining; no Merit Award or “pay for skill” Outdated compensation system for classified staff Changing environment for Access and Information Services Maturing technology being utilized and implemented increasingly with teams populated with classified staff (ie, Illiad, E-Commerce, Self Check-out, Video Furnance, Course Management Systems)  Work changing from routine to complex in nature

9 Drivers for Change that Lead to New Classifications Organizational Requirements for team participation and project management (ie, hiring teams, strategic planning, administrative team and staff governance teams, attendance and participation at national conferences and user group meetings, training in process improvement and Six Sigma) User Behavior Changes  Demanding more efficient, faster and self sufficient services 24/7 Opportunity to realize greater efficiency/effectiveness by implementing competency requirements

The Evolution of Job Titles 10 Eliminated 97 Eliminated 93

Evolution of Competency Model Strategic Plan team charge: “Determine the actions the Library should take to ensure that it has the necessary competencies to accomplish the work it must do to be successful” – integrated into Appointed R&H Process Improvements Model developed from internal study and external sources. Model archive changes as work requirements change.

Hiring for New Positions and Incorporating Competencies Competency based language incorporated into job ad Job ad included gaps in competencies missing from library More descriptive language provided applicants better understanding of the position Resulted in stronger pool of applicants which also included non-traditional candidates Behavioral based interview questions resulted in descriptive examples of their experience 12

Implementation of new job titles through performance review with existing staff Update job descriptions incorporating competency language Goals written based on new job title and competencies Engage key stake holders as appropriate Working to close the gap between current abilities and needed abilities Shared work required goals to be consistent for each staff One performance goal for reference services and ILL processing 13

Learned Takes time and effort to implement competency models More tracking of progress through observation, testing and quality control checks Over time more fairness with tracking performance outcomes consistently across the team and library Value of integrated system: classification, job description, competency 14

FAQ How did you implement?  Completed Knowledge, Skills and Ability document and answered questions  Updated Resumes submitted to HR Who makes decisions regarding reclassification?  Human Resource Program Coordinator, Sr in consultation with Team Leaders when more information was needed to make final decision 15

FAQ Did all staff move to and meet the new job classifications?  No – but development plans were created for staff to gain necessary skills to be upgraded one year later; not everyone was upgraded Did staff receive a raise?  New staff hired in a mid-point  Goal to raise existing staff salaries to 95% of market  Raise pending until market money becomes available from University and Legislature 16