ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 4 7 8 / C&RL News ■ June 2000 news College & Research Libraries Thinking about a joint-use library? A Memorandum of Agreement and timetable can ensure success by Kathleen Schwanz P roviding quality library service points at reasonable cost continues to make joint- use libraries an attractive option. To thriv today’s marketplace, many types of academic institutions, including m ulticam pus and single-campus universities, community col­ leges and schools, have opted to join forces with each other and even with hospitals, gov­ ernmental installations, and corporations to provide better or more convenient facilities for their customers. The spirit of the result­ ing joint-use libraries, of course, is unique and influenced by many variables, including the participating institutions involved and the community served. Whether the result of extensive planning, surveys, and assessments of specific service areas or of something innocuous like an in­ formal brainstorming session by individuals from different institutions, a cooperative ven­ ture can be brought into being. Improved service and actual evidence of value to each participating institution should be the sought- after goals. The impetus for the arrangement should motivate and serve as the guiding force in building a strong alliance among the par­ ticipants. A mutual objective, complementary needs, shared risks, and trust building are all key elements of a successful partnership.' If the stimuli for cooperation are one-sided or if benefits accrue to individuals rather than or­ e i ganizations, a cooperative venture should not be pursued.2 n Planning for a cooperative undertaking should begin with an overarching vision but the operational process must be factored into the plan, as well. To accomplish the big pic­ ture goals, those expected to implement the plan should be participants in the planning process.-’ Because so many factors affect the outcome of an alliance, inclusivity in the pro­ cess rather than exclusivity should be sought. Oft times, it is the little things that sink or sabotage a relationship. They are important enough that they should not be an after­ thought. Ensuring the success of any joint-library venture requires careful planning by all the institutions involved and thoughtful imple­ mentation. In administering all aspects of the venture, no one institution should be in a situation of assuming something should hap­ pen or that something should be one par­ ticular institution’s role; a good rule of thumb, especially for a joint-use library, is clarity in all things. Two written documents are recommended to provide requisite structure for a project. The first is a written Memorandum of Agree­ ment (MOA) to remind participants of their joint-venture agreement. The second docu­ ment is a timetable of the planning and imple­ mentation phases to move the project along A b o u t t h e a u th o r Kathleen Schwanz is Spokane campus librarian a t Washington State University a n d m anaging librarian fo r Cooperative Academic Library Services (a joint-use library o f WSU Spokane and Eastern Washington University), e-mail: schwanz@wsu.edu mailto:schwanz@wsu.edu C&RL N ew s ■ Ju n e 2000 / 479 in an agreed-upon fashion without any of the participants feeling pressured or hur ried. The details surrounding joint-use librar ies are as unique as the libraries themselves. To aid individuals considering a joint-use li brary venture, points to cover in a MOA (MOA rhymes with boa) will be detailed in the re maining paragraphs. Timetables of the plan ning and implementation phases will be left to the readers’ discretion. At the end of the article, some selected implementation and evaluation issues will be explored. Creating an MOA All parties should come together to create an MOA. It should begin with a general agree ment regarding the scale of the joint-use li brary and the services to be provided. B u d g et. The MOA should delineate how the venture's annual budget is to be con structed. Should each institution be billed to make a common joint-library budget, should all line-items remain with the originating in stitutions, or should some combination of the two be used? Typically, a good document would include the following costs— each item broken down by percentage being shared by each institu tional party: 1. identification of ongoing costs such as staff, goods and services, initial acquisition of materials, equipment and travel; 2. start-up costs for computing equipment and related telecommunications; 3. start-up costs for furniture, shelving, area dividers, and any additional equipment; and, 4. space costs by projection of needed space for library collections, growth, and ample study space. Depending on the type of institution in volved, percentages of costs could be based on enrollment, clients served, or services ren dered. During this phase of planning, a dis cussion of grant sources or fundraising alter natives to purchase needed items could be conducted. M a n a g e m e n t a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n . Addi tionally, the MOA should delineate the joint- use library’s management and organizational structure. Should institutions that contribute more heavily dictate what the joint-use library’s management should be or should each party be an equal partner? Ensuring the success of any joint- library venture requires careful planning by all the institutions involved and thoughtful im ple m entation. Although a joint-use library’s management and organizational structure may seem very straightforward, differing organizational mis sions and climate in the parent institutions may lead to differing expectations at the plan ning table. Avoid surprises by exploring in stitutional differences ahead of time; exer cise clarity by careful planning. P o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s . During the planning of the MOA, major policies and pro cedures for the joint-use library should be decided, including those for circulation, col lection development, acquisition, cataloging and processing, interlibrary loan, document delivery, and reference services. Although it would seem this planning would take the fla vor of “how something is accomplished” or a “who does what” among institutions, the clientele served and service quality should not be neglected. Who are the joint-library’s potential users and how shall they be treated? Are there other potential unaffiliated groups and what provisions need to be made for them? Fee-based and other services to the greater community need to be considered. L o c a t io n . The last factor, the location of the joint-use facility, is a major consideration that can be comparatively easy to decide (very few places in the community offer enough square footage at a good price) or a major stumbling block (the inner city versus the suburbs). Because it could determine whether the project moves forward, the dis cussion about where to locate shouldn’t be left until the end. Im plem entation: putting the agreem ent to work As noted above, a written timetable o f the planning and implementation phases en ables all participants to realize their joint expectations. Such documents inspire trust. Robert Frost’s famous words, “Good fences make good neighbors,” are never truer than 480 / C&RL News ■ June 2000 o n the subject o f joint-venture libraries. W hen participants d o not follow thro u g h w ith their a g reed -u p o n points on time, p ro b lem s arise. Partnerships are far less untidy in th e a b stract th an in real life. W hat m akes this so is the addition o f p e o p le an d th eir w ays o f b e having a n d d o in g things. They create the en v iro n m en t in w hich th e p artn ersh ip will thrive o r not— w h e th e r co n g en ial o r hostile. T hose w h o w ork the front lines o f a joint ven tu re n eed to feel secu re in th eir o w n p o sitions; they m ust trust o n e another; and, in the b e st o f circum stances, they sh o u ld b e lieve in th e legitim acy o f th e union. A lthough difficult to generalize in v e n tures as u n iq u e as joint-use libraries, c o n flicts b o rn e o f institutional differences are b o u n d to arise, w h e th e r the library o p e n s w ith b ran d n ew e m p lo y ees o r c h o o ses s e a so n e d veteran s from e a c h institution. For individuals plan n in g joint libraries, th e stress o f bringing an in ex p erien ced , o p en in g -d ay staff u p to sp e e d m ust be w eig h ed against putting to g e th e r a s e a s o n e d staff o f w ould- b e adversaries from e a c h institution ready to call h o m e w ith any p erceiv ed p ro b lem or infraction. For th ese reasons, a m ixture o f very n e w e m p lo y e e s a n d v eteran s w orks best. W hatever the m e th o d u sed, strategies to h a n d le th e co m m o n conflicts that arise sho u ld be resolved a h e a d o f time. Even in the best im plem entations, differ ences in m ission a n d organizational culture can som etim es threaten the fledgling library an d affect service quality. E xam ples include differing institutional attitu d es c o n cern in g procedures (insisting u p o n a rigid w orkflow vs. e n c o u ra g in g e m p lo y e e latitu d e), h o w business is co n d u cte d (conducting face-to- face service transactions vs. doing business through e-m ail an d th e Web), an d training op p o rtu n ities available (taking care of busi ness vs. prom oting em p lo y ee lifelong learn ing). Again, frank d iscussions o f d o rm an t problem s by all the parties involved are ab solutely necessary. Such discussions form the basis o f the mission an d organizational cul ture o f the evolving joint-use library. Partnership: fait accompli O rganizations n e e d to ask them selves w hat o u tco m es they h o p e to achieve by com bin ing operations. T hese q uestions m ust be an sw ered candidly w ith acceptance o f good and b a d scenarios playing out. B ased o n w hat dev elo p s from questions, answ ers, and w hat the planning gro u p decides it can live with, a cooperative facility is born o r not. If th e decision is m ade to p ro c e e d w ith a joint-use facility, all that hard w ork that w as realized will co n tin u e to b e used b ecau se the MOA is a living docum ent. It will change as the new library evolves an d it b eco m e s clear that many pre-partnership assum ptions do not p an out w hile several unanticipated o n es do. O nce th e joint-use library is in service, the evaluation process will begin a n d how w ell this n ew p artnership w as im plem ented and operates will be assessed. Results o f the evalu ation will (o r sh o u ld ) cause the partners to begin tw eaking p ro b lem areas. P roblem ar eas can b e things such as services, processes, an d personnel. Essentially, the evaluation and fine-tuning cycle should occur throughout the life o f the p artn ersh ip to en su re success of the venture. Notes 1. Harvey Meyer, “My Enemy, My Friend,” J o u rn a l o f B usiness Strategy, 19 (1998): 42-46. 2. Richard M. Cyert an d Paul S. G oodm an, “C reating Effective U niversity-Industry Alli ances: An O rganizational Learning P erspec tive,” O rg a n iz a tio n a l D y n a m ic s 25 (1997): 45-57. 3. Maxine Marks Teitler, “Alliances Are Not Mergers: W hat Problem s Should You Expect?” N on profit World, 17 (1999)- 51-53. ■ Register for ACRL preconferences Save y o u r sp o t in o n e of these ACRL p reconferences, w hich will b e held prior to th e ALA A nnual C onference in Chicago o n Friday July 7: • Legislative Advocacy: Key Roles for T oday’s A cadem ic Librarians; • Shining a Flashlight o n the Library, T e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e C u r r i c u lu m : D esigning Your O w n Study; • U nderstanding th e Licensing Land scape; and • B eyond Words: Visual Inform ation in Special C ollections (July 5-7); Visit h ttp ://w w w .aIa.org/acrl/confhp. htm l for registration details. http://www 482 / C&RL N ew s ■ Ju n e 2000