Yesterday the Access and Engagement workgroup met to begin brainstorming ideas on how our library system might implement our new service model. We’re off to a good start and have come up with several ideas, but we also acknowledge that in order to create a model that best serves all of our 19 library branches, we need as much feedback as we can from everyone!
Please share your ideas/vision of what the implementation of our new access and engagement service model looks like. What do you think this should look like in action?
What questions do you hope the Access and Engagement workgroup will address in our discussions?
Feel free to post your feedback here. If you’d prefer to provide your feedback in private, you are welcome to email us instead.
Thank you!
The Access and Engagement workgroup
Michelle Merriman, Ashley Welke, Dana Beach, Kate Brooks Etzkorn, Mark Schuster, Britni Brecheen
I'm curious as to how librarians will be called upon for difficult reference questions. It is my understanding that access specialists will field most member questions and that librarians (who fall under the engagement track) will be pulled in for more complex questions. Will a librarian always be "on desk" and available if such a situation arises? What will the "triage system" be to determine if a question should be forwarded to a different staff member?
Thanks for asking this Katherine! I have been wondering the same thing. My concern is saving the time of the user and providing the highest quality customer and reference services that we possibly can.
Lindsay- I love that member service is your top priority! When we create a schedule, we should always base it on member needs. Our opportunity with our new service model is to consider member needs both inside and outside the library. What ideas do you have that would take both into account?
If we want to best serve our library members, Librarians need to be on the floor to field difficult reference questions as well as to go out into the community to hold programs and events. Librarians have the best expertise and knowledge of resources and materials available to assist library members in a timely manner.
I agree absolutely. Saving the time of the user and fielding questions to those with the knowledge and expertise needs to be a priority. We went to library school so that we could work directly with library members to answer reference questions. That is the modus operandi of many of us.
Katherine- this is a great question and the A&E Workgroup would love your thoughts on what you envision.
I researched how other libraries implemented a "one desk" model and trained paraprofessionals to answer reference questions. Here are a few that stood out to me with models that could be replicated at MLS:
1. Pierce County Library System. They set a goal of 80%: 80% of questions are to be answered by para staff. To reach this goal, they developed an online course using self-paced modules and webinars covering the following topics: General Reference Sources, Jobs, Career and Education, Business and Finance, Consumer Information, Hobbies, and Do-It-Yourself (DIY), Local and Genealogy Reference Sources, Legal and Medical, Homework Help, Technology, and Reader's Advisory. Each paraprofessional completed the training and now is expected to provide "first response" to all reference questions. This means that they are able to provide some kind of basic response to all questions received at the desk. If the question requires more than a first response, it gets forwarded to a librarian.
Concretely, this might mean that there is not a librarian on desk but a librarian "on call" in the back available during all operation hours to provide the second tier of reference help. I think this model could work with solid training for access staff and a transition period during which librarians shadow the access staff to help them through the first few months.
http://www.urbanlibraries.org/reference-triage-and-the-one-desk-model-in...
2. Library Journal: There's a comment thread on a library journal article for people to share their library's model. One poster said: "Rule of thumb is that if something can’t be answered in 30 seconds, it’s reference." I'm not a fan of time being the factor that gets a question forwarded to a librarian. There are plenty of access transactions that take more than 30 seconds; time isn't always reflective of the difficulty of a question
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2014/05/29/telling-t...
3. Library Journal: “This has never really been an issue at the small (very short-staffed) academic library where I work. If the aide doesn’t know/can’t find the answer, they enlist the help of the librarian or library technician. Of course, it does help that we all wear name tags, clearly indicating our job titles, if people care to read them.” Putting job titles on name tags might be helpful to visually communicate to a member that a question is “going up the chain.” They might be frustrated that a staff member has to ask someone else to jump in, but if they see it’s someone with more credentials (going from an access specialist I to an access specialist II) they might be more amenable.
4. Library Blog: suggests making appointments with librarians. I know this was suggested as a pilot project and it might be worth revisiting the possibility. If fewer librarians are at the library at any given time, it makes sense that there be some kind of method to meet one-on-one for more in depth conversations. http://www.swissarmylibrarian.net/2010/10/26/performing-reference-triage/
5. Deschutes Public Library: set the goal that 90% of reference questions would be handled by paraprofessionals. After comprehensive training and shadowing, they found that paraprofessionals were more than able to handle the questions that came their way. A librarian is always scheduled to be on desk to jump in for the other 10% of questions. http://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=olaq
6. Pasadena Public Library: uses headsets to quickly communicate. Also uses the “first response” model by training all staff to be able to answer basic questions.
Not related but very interesting system: Exeter Public Library in Rhode Island has an institutional subscription to Netflix. If a customer requests a DVD the library doesn't own it is ordered from Netflix. The customer picks it up at the library and returns it to the library. ßlove this idea
Exeter also uses the Meebo instant messaging aggregator on its home page to encourage people to IM the library. I like this idea but could also see instant messaging being used among staff members to communicate, especially across the system.
http://pvlddirectorsblog.typepad.com/kathy/2007/04/reshaping_refer.html
I’ll do some more research and see what I can find. What I have found so far that I like is:
•Having a librarian available at all times in case difficult questions come up. Maybe this person isn’t on desk but they are a few steps away and can jump in. I’m conflicted about whether or not they should be at the desk: if librarians are only answering 10-20% of questions then what are they supposed to do for the rest of the time they are on desk? There will be the temptation to multi-task which lowers the quality of customer service.
•Providing very comprehensive training to access staff. I personally think that access staff are more than capable of answer most questions. Empowering them through training could go a long way.
•Some form of instant communication with engagement staff, whether it be IM or headsets (I think headsets might be a bit much but I do like the concept, maybe something a bit more discrete).
- I believe that expecting access staff to answer about 80% of questions is a good and realistic goal.
- How about having each ESII and Librarian spend 2 hours on desk a day? I think this is manageable and would allow them off desk time to pursue programs or interreach.
Hi Katherine, this was interesting reading - I haven't been a reference librarian in a while but it's fun to think about desks.
Even more fun to think about communication. Slack, with its channels, archiving, and quick searching, might be a good solution to the IM. What's more, if a librarian wasn't immediately on hand in the branch there could be one (let's say at the call center?) monitoring the Reference channel who could help. Or if it was someone asking for medical information the person on the desk might be able to find #medical and see a link to a good resource.
HI Sadie,
I was thinking about Slack as well, or Gimlet, which wouldn't necessarily be a live conversation but a collection of answers to questions we could all share and use - https://gimlet.us/ Another product is Spark, which is a new Cisco project. It's more of a virtual meeting room or discussion space, but depending on the type of reference assistance needed we could have "rooms" for different specialized areas: how to use databases (or specific database resources), genealogy, medical reference, local history, etc. https://www.ciscospark.com/
I love the idea of having different channels (or rooms) for different reference questions, especially if they could be sectioned off by demographic (children, teen, adults). Could we also use it as a place to upload resources? Kate always does a great job of sharing children's resources through the Child Programmers listserv and I have to dig through my e-mail archives to pull them up months later. It would be great to have some kind of virtual repository to store them.
Katherine,
Great job compiling some ideas from other library systems. I think that the keys to making this new model work are going to be on-going training and a better mode of communication between staff. Something to also think about, as ESII staff are 'on the floor' and not necessarily tied to a desk at all times, we can be more proactive in reaching out to members who may need reference assistance. See someone using a database on the public computers? Ask if they need help navigating. See a mom wondering through the Easy books? Ask if she needs some recommendations. I think when we start to do a better job of making our presence known, it will be easier to assist members with this new service model. We could also make our iPads more reference friendly for on the spot database/ catalog searching.
I like your idea of putting job titles on our nametags in order to more clearly indicate to members our role. I recently went on vacation and noticed that everyone in the hotel had a nametag that said their name (obviously), but they also said "Passionate about"... and listed their expertise. Maybe we could incorporate something similar at MLS?
Lindsay Jones, passionate about Teen Services and Harry Potter (just an example).
Agreed! Titles on name tags would be a fairly easy step to take. It also fits well with the idea of zone experts. It identifies staff members as experts within the library.
Bridget (leaving my last name off due to recent events lol), passionate about EVERYTHING! :D
I appreciate your research and your thoughts. I like the idea of an Engagement staff member have some scheduled time "on call" when they're not actually physically at the desk but are easily accessible - because thinking about the kinds of questions that I answer daily, I agree that Access staff could easily answer at least 80%, especially with a little training. I also like the idea of engagement staff having some additional scheduled roving time.
As others on this thread have pointed out, planning programs and Interreach activities does take time. Right now, I know of potential Interreach opportunities that I could be pursuing, but I am unable to because of the amount of time that I spend at the desk performing essentially Access tasks. These tasks are of course extremely important, but they do keep me from pursuing Interreach activities that could help MLS meet its goals and initiatives, and I think that is what the Alignment is hoping to address. That doesn't mean that I'll never do Access tasks or that I'll never spend time on the public floor, but that won't be my primary focus.
Additionally, some comments on this thread have pointed out that spending time on the public floor can help us get to know the community and plan programs accordingly. I agree, but I'd also suggest that the community members we see on the public floor are only giving us a picture of the part of the market that we've already reached, not the 67% or so that are not currently using the library at all - so perhaps Interreach activities could be even more useful to our in-library program planning than desk time.
Maybe not the correct forum topic for this but Katherine mentioned another library utilizing IM.
My #1 Wish List item for the library is to have inter-office IM. It would be great if Outlook had the same chat function that gmail does. A friend of mine works in a medical research office and the employees there communicate via IM throughout most of the day. I think this would help keep everyone on the same page, offer a stronger thread of connection than email does, and help foster community in our libraries between staff. Tracking people down is sometimes difficult and not everyone gets through the TONS of emails we are sent every day. Having the ability to send a quick "Heads up!" would be awesome. Maybe this is something the new communications person could look into!
I love G-chat and would love for Outlook to offer something similar. I send a lot of one sentence e-mails to my colleagues every day that could easily be sent in an IM format. E-mail does offer the benefit of posterity and a "paper trail" of communication, so we would just have to be mindful of encouraging people to use e-mail for important conversations that might need to be referred to.
Skype has an IM function. I use it almost daily. If you use the web version of Outlook you can access it through your email. Look at the top right to see if you have a S in a bubble.
Hi Bridget. I checked in with Anne on this, and she said we do have this capability within certain parameters. See below:
I talked to John Utley who manages our Office365 installation and he gave me the following information:
Anyone who has a Pro-plus license, which should be any staff that have their own computer that they don’t share, should already have Skype for Business installed. All they need to do is login with their Office 365 credentials when they launch Skype for Business for the first time.
Also, ALL staff can use the web-based version of Skype for Business when they are logged into the Outlook Web App.
You can access it by clicking the Skype icon in the upper-right part of the website, just to the left of your user image.
Michele
I am more curious about how we are staffing the desk WITHOUT the help of the engagement staff? Since the idea is to be freeing them up so that they have the time to do programs and outreach, etc, and they are currently the only ones who staff the desk, how will that work? I know we are changing some processes that should increase available time for the access staff, but can they really cover all that desk time?
Great point Robin, especially when you consider that access staff will also be responsible for collection development and maintaining displays. Is it feasible to juggle all of these responsibilities while still maintaining a high standard of customer service?
Hi Robin!
I was thinking that we would start from scratch and rethink the entire way we are assisting our members. So, we wouldn't have "desks" really that would need to be manned, but would maybe have zones (there were some other posts pertaining to this in the forum previously which had a lot more thoughtful detail). That being the case, we wouldn't need as many people assigned to be on the floor because there would be more of us out there naturally...filling displays, shelving materials, maintaining the collection, etc.
I can see the zones working at Edmond, but here at Southern Oaks where all the high-demand services are centered in one location (30 computers, printer, copy/fax, checkin/out, DVD and ILL reserves, iPad kiosk, study room rental, tax forms, etc), I can't see a way to reduce the staff that handle that need. We usually have 4-5 people at all times in that area. Engagement staff members who are only each "on the floor" about 8 hours a week are not going to be enough to cover the 69 hours the library is open...
Hi Robin-
While we are looking at ways to more effectively and efficiently schedule staff there isn't a mandate that engagement staff never work on the public floor. I think what I'm hearing you say is that you still see engagement staff serving an important role in the library on the public floor. What does that look like? What types of questions would engagement staff answer? What are your ideas for how we provide excellent customer service in the library and in the community?
We've been told that the decisions we make now won't necessarily be permanent, but I don't understand how that will work in practice. In five years, if an Engagement Specialist II has been overseeing programs and Interreach, how does he become the most qualified candidate for an Access Manager position, when he's competing against an Access Specialist II? At this moment, we seem to be moving away from cross training, so I can't see how anyone will successfully keep up with best practices in an area that is not their specialization. Similarly, if a Children's Librarian I decides he wants to try for a Teen Librarian I position, how does he compete against a seasoned Teen Librarian I, who perhaps just wants to move to a library closer to her home?
I suppose one of my long term concerns is simply how to ensure our staff are getting the experience they need to further their careers either in the Metro or elsewhere, when we're dividing duties so precisely. Our librarians will no longer have collection development duties and our access specialists won't get reference experience, even if their ultimate goal is material selections or library school, respectively. Personally, I know what path I want to take, long term, but not everyone does and I'm unclear on how they can maneuver between access and engagement.
Hi Kara!
My thinking was that the plan was more that a specified percentage of time, such as 80%, would be spent performing specialized tasks that pertain to specific titles, but then a smaller chunk of time would be devoted to cross training in other areas. So, ASI would spend 80% on "library aide" stuff and 20% on "circulation" stuff, or engagements would spend 20% on access and vice versa. I could be wrong, but that's what I was thinking it was.
Hi Kara,
Although this is somewhat outside the scope of our committee, I'd encourage you to do some research on how other library systems and/or organizations develop staff. What types of programs do you think would work well at Metro? As our new Learning and Development team is formed, this will be a great conversation to have.
This is also a topic being discussed as part of the new performance management system. Two additions were discussed at the last committee meeting: core competencies and formalized goals. One of the core competencies suggested for all staff was "Professional Development / Learning Agility" and one of the core competencies suggested for managers was "Developing Others". In addition to core competencies, formalized goals would provide staff the opportunity to set goals directly related to growing their skills (either for their current position or their next position). You can read the full project updates and committee notes here: http://my.metrolibrary.info/drupal/project/performance-management-system
I can't speak to how staff have developed skills in the past at Metro, but I am confidant in saying that staff development is incredibly important to the system. We have an exciting opportunity to develop new programs and pathways for staff development, so keep researching and sharing ideas!
I feel like all staff have certain things they are better at (YA, technology, POS, reader's advisory, etc.). All staff are responsible for providing customer service to their best abilities, but I think everyone needs to be comfortable initiating interactions with members. Once a point is reached in any individual interaction where the staff member feels as though the member may be better served by someone with more specialized knowledge, he or she can take the member to that staff member and hand them over. For example, if a member needs directional help, everyone on staff could/should assist the member. However, if the member has an in-depth question about emedia, the staff member would help as much as they could before asking someone else to step in and assist.
In planning for the day, I feel as though more weight should be given to larger chunks of time. At least at Edmond, I feel like we are planning hour by hour instead of forecasting out days, weeks and months. Here is an example of what it could possibly look like:
By title….
Engagement Librarian – 40 hours per week
8 hours – Attending activities outside the library
8 hours – Coordinating and planning with access staff
8 hours – Working the floor (assisting members directly)
8 hours – In-house programming
8 hours – Creating displays, reader’s advisory lists, etc.
Access Manager – 40 hours per week
8 hours – Working the floor (assisting members directly)
8 hours – Assessing backroom procedures and workflow
8 hours – Assessing frontline procedures and workflow
8 hours – Coordinating and planning with engagement staff
8 hours – Developing and implementing engagement plans
Access Specialist II – 40 hours per week
8 hours – Shelving materials
8 hours – Assisting members at POS/issuing library cards
8 hours – Assisting members in the stacks/at computers
8 hours – Collection maintenance
8 hours – Greeting members and assisting with item return/checkout
Access Specialist I – 20 hours per week
8 hours – Shelving materials
4 hours – Greeting members and assisting with item return/checkout
4 hours – Working bookdrop/sorter
4 hours – Meeting rooms, POS, other duties
By shift….
1 Staff member in computer area at all times
1 Staff member roving the stacks during peak hours
1 Staff member roving the children’s area at all times
1 Staff member at POS at all times
1 Staff member at self check/item return station during peak hours
Obviously those lists aren’t comprehensive and would vary by library. But it’s a basic idea of what I was thinking.
My thinking is that the way we currently have it, schedules are written based around the needs of the week. But what I think would be more effective would be to have a base schedule in place which the individual would need to work around. So, I would know months out that I always work the floor on Monday mornings, or shelve Tuesday afternoons, or meet with the Access Manager on Thursdays at 3:00 and would be able to plan my schedule accordingly, rather than the other way around.
From experience, I can tell you that trying to regulate a schedule this way sounds great but fails in practice. Although taking the schedule a week or two at a time is frustrating and can create a feeling of uncertainty, setting up a schedule you hope to stick to but always have to abandon for the needs of the library creates more frustration and uncertainty. It also creates the risk of miscommunication--perhaps you conceive it as just one method schedulers could employ, but over time that can be interpreted as "we're SUPPOSED to do it this way." In a year or two, you have a situation where people think they MUST work according to this breakdown and can't add another daycare outreach storytime because they're already at their 8 hours.
You have a good point. I so think having a basic idea of the amount of time we should strive to work towards for each aspect of our task loads would be ideal. We can/should adjust as necessary, but, in the interest of being clear about expectations, we should at least set guidelines.
I hope we don't create a strict divide between access and engagement. Doing "access" functions has been the main way that I've gotten to know our community of members at Wright. I wouldn't know how to customize my programs for this community if I didn't spend time working the desk, assisting members with questions, helping with circulation, and just talking to members. In order to know how to "engage" a community, we need to have some day-to-day interaction with the community. So I think some level of access work is crucial to our ability to do engagement work.
This goes along with another concern I have about the new system: Planning good programs takes a ton of time. I've planned my LEGO club and STEAM programs while sitting at the Wright desk for many hours over multiple days, helping members as needed and spending my downtime brainstorming ideas and creating materials. If my entire job became focused on constantly leading a huge number of programs, it would be extremely difficult to plan everything quickly enough. The job would become more like being a teacher, and we all know that teachers do much/most of their work at home after hours, without pay.
So doing some access work could help engagement staff have the time and energy to keep creating programs. I guess we could also just give engagement specialists lots of alone time set aside for planning, though if I'm spending a few hours at a desk brainstorming ideas, I might as well help members who come along with questions. Either way, I hope we are very careful about giving engagement staff lots of time to develop ideas and plans. And I urge the workgroup to keep in mind that access work can help us do engagement work more effectively.
I can certainly relate to your point about access work improving the quality of engagement tasks, particularly as it pertains to Carl X. During interreach events, I inevitably end up fixing blocks on people's accounts or doing other account maintenance things. The Carl X knowledge I gain from interacting with members in the library has helped me provide better service while I'm out in the community.
+1 to Adam's great comments here
I don't come up with good ideas (or really, any ideas at all) sitting by myself in the office. Setting aside "brainstorming time" usually leads to me aimlessly searching Pinterest or Librarian blogs, trying to come up with an idea. 20 minutes later on desk, I am frantically trying to put my ideas down to get them all together, because something a member said while I was answering their phone call gave me an idea.
As per my post under the question about "what engagement means to me", I obviously love programming in the community, outside of my branch. I am a huge believer in the value that it adds. And honestly, I think we've failed our community there. We've made much of our programming inaccessible to members who don't have cars/can't drive due to medical reasons, who don't have time off on a Tuesday afternoon, who can't afford to leave their second (or third) job to bring their child to programming, who are currently housed in a federal/state/county prison/jail, etc. We axe programs just because they don't meet a minimum number of attendees, when the reality is, those 2 or 3 attendees might desperately need the program we're offering.
But at the same time, we are human, and we need time to regroup, to brainstorm, and to spend time with our members NOT doing programming. While I like the idea of one or two people roaming, I also think we need to have a stable desk. Many of our members will not like being approached. In addition, I can recall the furor of folks who I approached one too many times at retail jobs. It's important they know we're available, without intruding in their space. A desk provides that.
If we are expecting staff to constantly be building and working on programs, we are going to have a lot of burnout. We are going to have a lot of programming that isn't successful because it is being created to fill a quota, not meet a need. Spending time, on the floor, with our members, helps us discover needs and create better, stronger programming.
I think the best way to do this would be to have several current Librarians at different branches implement different types of trial schedules. For example:
Librarian 1 (Control):
-Continue working in the same manner
-Record what they accomplish and how much time it takes
-Share thoughts about what they feel is lacking in their day to day
Librarian 2 (Programming Max):
-Librarian only focuses on programming with very limited engagement IN the branch
-Record what they accomplish and how much time it takes
-Share thoughts about what they feel is lacking in their day to day
Librarian 3 (Engagement and Programming Mixed):
-Librarian has a balanced schedule that includes both programming and engagement in the branch
-Record what they accomplish and how much time it takes
-Share thoughts about what they feel is lacking in their day to day
I agree, planning programs does take time! In the world of education, schools try to set aside time for their teachers to plan lessons and activities for their students (though in practice this doesn't always happen). I think being mindful that some of the time away from the public floor will include planning periods, not necessarily constantly actively leading interreach or programming, is important in order for this model to be successful.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do think we should balance our time assisting members on the public floor, leading IR/Programs, and purposefully devote some time for planning and development. It generally takes more time to prep for a program or IR event than it does to actually put on or attend the event. If we use Jill's suggestion as a guide, we still need some planning time earmarked each week.
I am hopeful that this model will evolve in a way that will allow us to focus more on different tasks without being as distracted, such as assisting members when working the floor, or having uninterrupted time for planning engagement activities.
As a children's programmer, I need uninterrupted time to plan events. I often spend at least two hours a week at home planning for storytime and other events because balancing a desk schedule, collection maintenance, interreach events, supervising volunteers, and actually hosting programs keeps me always keeps me slightly busier than I can finish in my time at the library.
While some tasks can be worked on peripherally while answering questions from members, most tasks leave you in either a state of looking busy/unavailable to members or the final product ends up suffering because of lack of continuity from multitasking/being 'interrupted'. Sure, I've done a lot of valuable work while on the desk, but I tend to do better/more efficient work when I have time to devote more concentrated attention to a task.
Having more time off the desk paired along with time that was reserved specifically for planning would greatly allow me to increase my interreach efforts, school relationship, and in-house programming. I definitely believe in the importance of working the front lines with our members, but I also see the need for programmers (especially those working in youth services) to have more devoted planning time.
Additionally, my best interactions with our members (especially our kiddos) don't happen behind the desk. They happen when I'm able to interact with them on a more personal level, either at schools, interreach events, our in-house programs, or while I'm setting up an exhibit or a display. This may be because I work primarily with children and teens. Perhaps adult-focused librarians feel/connect differently and they could have more focused time for on-desk interaction.
One question I have: how will we ensure there is equitable distribution of engagement tasks among children, teen, and adult librarians? Engagement looks different for each demographic. I imagine that children's librarians will at least have a weekly program (i.e. story time) or an interreach event whereas adult librarians may not. Will the target number of engagement programs vary for each demographic, recognizing the additional barriers adult librarians may face in finding interreach sites?
Personally, I hope we reach out to more nursing homes. Julianna Link had a great program set up in The Village, where she went to a nursing home each month and did book talks. When I took it over, we turned it into a story time and craft session. The residents LOVED library days and we were an asset to them. I had the chance to promote Books By Mail, as well. There are nursing homes all over the city, so I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a weekly program for adults. The same goes for teens. There are plenty of home schoolers who could enjoy our spaces for instruction time or even day time volunteer efforts organized by teen librarians. We could visit middle and high schools for book club or educational sessions on how to find good information in the digital world. I like the focus on engagement, because it allows us the time to think outside the box and the typical programming time limitations.
I'm hoping that Beyond the Walls will be available to make connections, provide resources, and help set up nursing home visits. That way there will be a more unilateral approach being taken to outside programming. I'm worried that some of the communities will miss out on awesome outside-of-the-library services due to how busy/how many staff members there are devoted to the different age brackets. For instance, if there are only one or two adult services librarians at a location then it is going to be difficult for them to seek out, plan, and execute a variety of services on and off-site. I'm thinking Beyond the Walls will help beyond the walls and Learning Experiences will help inside the walls. This will be especially helpful to those librarians who maybe haven't been doing a ton of programming or interreach up to this point.
I'd like to see this. I know a lot of librarians are feeling pressure to be everywhere at once, with this new model, especially those without programming experience. It'll be interesting to see how Interreach balances out with Beyond the Walls and dedicated librarians.
With our new model, could we eventually see librarians scheduled time for professional development? For example, I know a few librarians on the Sequoyah selection committee for OLA. In addition to the obvious greater impact, their involvement makes for much better readers advisory resources and allows for networking among librarians working with similar age groups. These librarians are the first ones I consult when someone has an obscure request, but they use extraordinary amounts of personal time on this project, as I'm sure do others involved in OLA. While I know that these commitments are unlikely to ever be fulfilled on the clock, at all times, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to provide five to eight hours a week for a very involved OLA member to focus on related tasks.
Here is an example of a name tag that could be modified to include job title and a special area of interest or expertise. http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=11792