More reports from the conference ...
Workshop report by Beryl Morris, Hudson Rivers
This short, intensive workshop looked at several aspects of managing change including
• what happens during change
• practical ways to overcome resistance
• dealing with difficult and sensitive situations.
According to a recent Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) Report (2005), more than 40% of organizations fail to manage change effectively. Reasons include insufficient link with corporate strategy, little faith in the team leading the change, lack of communication and poor project management of the change itself.
The session looked at two models which explore what happens during change and help to explain people’s resistance.
Colin Carnall’s model identifies five stages:
Anger and blame
William Bridges suggests that there are three phases:
2. The neutral zone
3. New Beginnings.
If we ignore or gloss over these stages, our change efforts will be less successful.
Following a case study which looked at managing change in an information environment, the workshop considered CIPD’s recent work on ‘Strategies for Managing Change’. These include:
1. Choose the team
Visible leadership is vital if change is to be successful and people need to have faith in the group leading the change.
2. Craft the vision and develop the plan
It is important to paint a picture of success and clarify why no change is not a viable option.
3. Connect with corporate and external change initiatives
Find ‘hooks’ that link your change to wider environment. You made need endorsement from other people to convince your colleagues of the need for change.
4. Consult with stakeholders to ensure that the change is viable and anticipate likely resistance
Provide a consistent message, but vary the media and ensure that communication is two-way
6. Cope with change
Provide training for staff to overcome fears and anxieties and prepare people for changing roles
Use project management techniques to achieve a few ‘quick wins’.
7. Capture learning
Reflect on the process to identify what went well and what should be done differently next time and always make time to celebrate success and share the credit.
The workshop concluded with a list of sources of further information and support.
BRIDGES, W (2003)
2nd ed. Perseus
CARNALL, C (2003)
Managing change in organisations
4th ed. Pearson Education
MOLLOY, E and WHITTINGTON, R (2005)
HR: Making change happen
Journal Article Versions
Briefing session by Cliff Morgan, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
The purpose of this briefing session was to i) explain the ‘journal article version problem’ and ii) discuss work being done to address it, particularly the work of the NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles.
Cliff referred to a paper written by Sally Morris in March 2005 that identified the problems that could be caused by multiple versions of a journal article being made available on various web sites (publishers, authors, institutions, subject repositories, etc.) without a standard vocabulary for identifying the status of the version. (Sally’s paper can be found on the Working Group’s web site at http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html.) Sally’s paper was a call to action – many people recognized the problem, but it needed to be taken up by a group who could focus on it, with the authority of a standards body behind it.
The Technical Working Group has produced a set of recommendations for consideration by a larger Review group. At the time of the UKSG conference, these recommendations had only just been circulated, so although some comments had been received, others were still coming in. Cliff stressed that this was very much a work in progress, and that the recommendations would be subject to amendment after the Review group’s comments had been taken into account. Feedback up to that point had been very positive, and generally supportive of the WG’s policy to identify versions at a relatively high level. (Current suggestions are Author’s Original; Accepted Manuscript; Proof; Version of Record; and Updated Version of Record, but these may change or be finessed – refer to the web site above for the latest situation.)
Cliff mentioned other work in this area:
· RIVER (Repositories – Identification of VERsions) – a scoping study carried out by RightsCom (together with OUCS and the LSE Library) for the JISC, focused on institutional repositories; see https://arl.org/Lists/SPARC-IR/Message/376-02-02-B/river%20public%20description%20final.doc
· VERSIONS (Versions of Eprints – a user Requirements Study and Investigation Of the Need for Standards) – also funded by the JISC, by the LSE Library and Nereus Consortium, focusing on the field of economics, where Working Papers play a major role; see http://library-2.lse.ac.uk/versions/
· CrossRef has an Institutional Repositories Committee that has been preparing a glossary of terms for various versions, and recommending standard wording to accompany authors’ postings; this work is not yet public.
Each project is aware of the work of the other projects, and the projects have committee members in common, but the scopes do vary and the projects are independently timetabled.
Cliff summed up by saying that everybody agrees that it would be good if there were standard terms – the problem is agreeing what those terms should be, but progress is being made through the work of these groups.
Setting up an institutional repository:
Cranfield QUEprints – a case study
Simon J. Bevan, Cranfield University
This briefing session described the development and management of the Cranfield University institutional repository (IR) ‘Cranfield QUEprints’.
It started with some definitions and went on to cover some of the central issues starting with the initial selection of software. A discussion of the potential difficulties with ‘self-archiving’ led onto the description of the ‘managed service’ provided by the Library service where all of the submission, copyright checking, etc. is undertaken by Library staff.
QUEprints contains a number of different types of research output (53% working papers, 11% theses, 10% technical reports; 2% CVs and 24% - almost a quarter – pre/post prints). Over the life of the IR (created in May 2003) the rate of population overall is around 23 items per day.
No extra staff have been employed to manage the repository, but rather current staff have been redeployed, specifically from inter-library loans and serial check-in. If staff costs are therefore excluded, the cost per item in the system is around £6.
The arrangement of the hierarchical structure within Cranfield QUEprints was discussed. This issue was one of the questions on a survey currently being undertaken with academic staff. There was no clear consensus, although the importance of a subject arrangement was felt to be important by many. Academic staff were also happy that library staff were doing most of the archiving and work around the submission of material, and they were also very positive about the future development of ‘researcher pages’ allowing lists of research output to be linked from a page about the specific member of staff.
A look at usage statistics showed that one of the chief reasons for setting up the IR – to increase visibility of research output – has met with some success with around 15,000 hits per month.