Do More, Better, for Less

Pretend it’s the halcyon days of the 1990s. You work at a big successful Midwestern library system that circulates millions of items. For years you have been able to rely on consistent budget growth owing to sound fiscal management and a solid, generous mix of local and state funding. Predictably, your collection and staffing have grown along with your service population and the expectations of your customers. Everyone is happy.

Flash forward to the Millennium decade. The nation’s economic doldrums have reached the Midwest; your library system gets significant funding cuts in 2002 and 2003. By 2004, library funding is essentially frozen at the 2002 level for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, your service population continues to grow, become more diverse, and develop new expectations.

If you are in charge of most libraries, you do the obvious: trim staff and fill only crucial vacancies, pare the collection budget, substitute people with technology, outsource, and scale back on landscaping and adjust the thermostat. If you are the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) of the Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML), OH, you do the not so obvious: you commit to no reduction in customer service and no layoffs—unless the financial situation takes a serious turn for the worse—and you take process and quality improvement seriously. Figuring out how to do more, do it better, and do it with less can be a powerful way to bridge the gap between customer expectations and library resources. This is the story of how CML, a large urban library in central Ohio, is using this strategy to meet its commitments to customers and staff.

Over the years, CML has experimented with various continuous improvement initiatives. Some projects fizzled owing to the universal killers of grand ideas such as inertia, inconsistent implementation, lack of buy-in, “flavor of the month” attitude, and the all-time favorite: if we ignore this idea it will go away and we can keep doing things the way we always have.

The projects that succeeded, such as one in technical services designed to decrease the time customers wait for new material (see “On the Shelf in 48 Hours,” p. 30), proved that it is possible to make and maintain sizable process improvements with fewer staff. These trials fueled CML’s passion for more. Like many organizations, CML is made up of multiple departments all working hard to achieve the mission and vision of the library but not necessarily all working together. Clearly we needed a comprehensive systemwide orientation to identify areas for improvement, work across department lines, and implement lasting change.

To address these needs, CML executive director Patrick Losinski and the ELT added a new objective to the organization’s 2005 tactical plan: Objective 4.2.3 To determine a strategy, structure, time line, budget, and overall implementation plan for a quality improvement program at CML by 2005. The objective was assigned to Chris Taylor, CML’s director of strategic projects. To underscore the organizational commitment given to this objective, a new library division was created, Quality and Process Improvement (QPI), and a full-time position was added. As the former manager of the catalog division and self-avowed process freak, I moved into the new position.

Chris and I started by looking at existing business world methodologies that claim to provide a framework for achieving continuous improvement in customer service. Programs such as Kaizan, Total Quality Management, Balanced Scorecard, Six Sigma, and Lean (to name a few) have gained recognition in the United States and internationally as tools to create a broad approach to change management.

Based on our research of those strategies and interviews with practitioners, we recommended that a combination of Six Sigma and Lean would be the best fit for CML. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is a customer-centered, systematic, data-driven method for doing things better. Doing things better equals improving the experience of customers, staff, and stakeholders in a way that is measurable, meaningful, and maintainable. Projects start with, and success is measured by, meeting customer wants and needs; data are collected and used to make good decisions. Lean, with a history in the manufacturing world, adds a focus on eliminating waste (as in time, complicated processes, and materials) by increasing efficiency and speed.

Before your eyes glaze over from the thought of reading any more about something alien like Six Sigma, consider this: major companies including GE, Bank of America, Honeywell, DuPont, Samsung, Starwood Hotels, Bechtel, Raytheon, Starbucks, Home Depot, and Motorola have successfully used this strategy to provide outstanding service, increase quality, minimize errors, and save money. “Sure,” you say, “but my library isn’t anything like those businesses.” Wrong! For all of the obvious differences between a big business and a library system, they both are impacted by societal and economic forces such as financial upheavals, exploding technology opportunities, high customer expectations for both product quality and superior customer service, changing demographics, outsourcing, and needing to differentiate our offerings from those of others.

Sound familiar? Sure it does, and the strategies developed in the business world to cope with these challenges are applicable and adaptable to the world of libraries.

Chris and I completed 132 hours of classroom training in LSS spread over four months in the fall of 2005. Running an actual project during training is required as it enables the student to apply classroom learning in the real world. We picked our projects based on a variety of factors and after many meetings with department heads and directors. We wanted our projects to benefit the organization as well as “show off” the new methodology. Also of crucial importance was the need to ensure that the projects aligned with the tactical and strategic goals of the system.

Using a prioritizing matrix to rate possible opportunities and lots of management input, we chose a project in the public service department for me and one in community relations and development for Chris. We put together project teams based on knowledge of the target area, and subject matter experts (now there is some library terminology!) were included from any department that touched the process.

Once the teams were established, the first step was to define and scope the problem. A big deal, sometimes this has to be done several times over the course of the project. Think of it as an extremely focused reference interview. As happens when trying to help a customer with a question, sometimes the crux of the matter is buried beneath alluring side issues and has to be identified through probing and reviewing, e.g. “Where are your books on poodles?” when what they really want are recipes to make dog treats for a poodle.

For instance, my first project involved looking at how long a customer waits to speak with library staff after calling 645-2ASK, CML’s Infoline, the only published phone access to reach CML main and the 20 branches. It handles systemwide account and reference questions, fielding over 370,000 calls in 2005. This frees staff at the locations to focus on face-to-face service. Infoline is a key service point for the library and is staffed by a dedicated, hardworking group. Unfortunately, sometimes the wait on hold to reach an Infoline staff member exceeded five minutes, and a customer survey verified dissatisfaction. In general, management and staff consensus was that more people needed to work in the center so that calls would be answered faster.

My initial data review (with Minitab® statistical software, which we learned to use in LSS training) did not confirm this seemingly logical assumption. I found no real correlation between the number of staff answering the phones and the wait time. We also tested day of the week, time of day, and type of staff (full time vs. part time, primary “home” location, etc.) without finding a significant connection. This was great news because it confirmed that staffing was adequate but bad news because the problem was not solved.

We went back to the define phase of the project and looked for other variables that could contribute to customer wait time. In the end, the two factors that had the most impact were handled with training and the actual recorded phone menu. There’s a little button on the phone that you push when you are available to take a call. Pushing the button speeds the assignment of a call to your extension, thus decreasing the hold time. Who knew? The menu itself is long and confusing, and we are reprogramming it.

On average, over 80 percent of Infoline calls are now answered in under 15 seconds, and we continue to improve.

Without following a data-focused methodology, we might have “trusted the gut” and thrown more people at the problem instead of resolving the root issues. This is impractical in today’s tight staffing reality. By using data instead of conjecture, decisions can be made with facts, and this is the real beauty of LSS process improvement.

Meanwhile, Chris’s project in community relations and development followed an equally winding path. Her team examined the print request process. CML main and branches plus the administrative offices regularly ask this department to produce printed materials such as posters, flyers, bookmarks, forms, etc. In this case, the customers were internal rather than external, so a staff survey was conducted to gauge which factors in the print request process were critical to them, such as speed, error proofing, communication, look of piece, responsiveness, etc. Survey results indicated that one of the factors most important to customers was receipt of the print piece on time.

Unlike the Infoline project, which had lots and lots of data available through the telephone report software, this project faced a challenge more familiar to many libraries: very little data. No one really knew how many pieces were produced in a year or how long it took from receipt of the print request to shipment of the product. Although the department felt that it was doing a good job, customers cited late receipt of materials as a big problem.

Chris’s team began tracking information about print requests and delivery dates. With data in hand and facing the reality that the on-time delivery rate was not as good as they thought, the team considered setting a time goal for request turnaround similar to how technical services handled timing how long materials stay in the department. However, since some requests are sent weeks or even months before they are needed, applying an artificial time frame did not make sense. Eventually, the team challenged themselves to meeting the customer request due date 100 percent of the time.

To achieve this goal, the team made flow charts of their processes to identify and eliminate non-value-added steps. They also followed Lean principles to relocate frequently used equipment closer to main work areas, simplified the print request form, and implemented a tracking system for all print requests. The result? The department achieved 100 percent on-time delivery for six of the last seven months!

With the success of the two initial projects, systemwide demand for attention from the QPI division has increased dramatically. Plans are underway to increase our project capacity by training more staff in LSS in late 2006/early 2007. Currently projects are being run in human resources, which is examining the recruiting process, and finance, which is looking at the purchase card process. Other projects in HR, finance, IT, and public service are either scheduled or under consideration.

Of course, true systemwide quality improvement will require more than a handful of successful projects. Change is risky, it’s scary, and it takes time. We have to grow our ability to teach, communicate, and model change. Quality and process improvement is about change and risk. It is about looking at everything we do from the perspective of the customer, from the outside in. It is about not being afraid to make mistakes, and it is about collecting and using data to make solid business decisions. Fear of loss (of competence, status, familiarity) is a powerful obstacle, particularly when a change results in the reorganization of duties or reassignment of staff. Tellingly, most CML managers and staff have responded to the concepts of formal quality and process improvement with an open mind. This factor combined with continued administrative support will smooth the road ahead for CML’s QPI team.

Pretend it’s the halcyon days of 2010. Your large library system is efficient and your programs are targeted and effective. Funding is tight, but you are able to squeeze lots of value from the dollars you have. Customers praise your great staff, sophisticated use of technology, and well-rounded collection. Everyone is happy.