Associate Professor Gillian Hallam QUT ALIA Information Online 22 January 2009

1. The strategic and operational dimensions of staff training and professional development for information professionals: What neXus2 has revealed Associate Professor Gillian Hallam QUT ALIA Information Online 22 January 2009 CRICOS No. 00213J

2. Background • neXus1: a snapshot of the LIS profession in 2006 – individual respondents • To provide the backdrop to discussions on workforce planning in the LIS sector • neXus2: pilot study with CAVAL members in late 2006 • Ultimately developed into major study in 2008 – institutional respondents • Supported by ALIA and NSLA, with interest from groups of academic libraries (ATN, WAGUL and QULOC) • To help the LIS sector better understand the diverse issues that impact on staffing: • Recruitment and retention • Training and development

3. Training and development: policy and practice • Relationship of staff development (SD) to strategic planning processes • Policy and infrastructure issues for SD • Financial aspects of SD practice • Extent of SD activities across the different LIS sectors • Support for and recognition of SD by employers

4. Research approach • Required active participation of library management to obtain data at organisational level • Targeted approach, via: • correspondence with chief librarians • agency e-lists, eg NSLA, PLA, ALLA, AGLIN etc • Survey Identification Code to manage the multi-part survey • 191 requests for survey identification code • 101 valid responses to the survey • 82% completed all 4 parts of the survey

5. Respondents by sector Specials n=34 Fed govt Health Law State govt Corp

6. Respondents by State/Territory

7. Public libraries • 45% in Victoria • 36% in NSW • Reflects strategic interests • Workforce sustainability project in Victoria • Public Libraries NSW – Metropolitan Association (PLM)

8. Size of institutions

9. Inevitably, special libraries and some public libraries had low numbers of professional staff • Academic, State and Territory libraries and larger public libraries reported higher numbers of staff • Ratio of professional : paraprofessional staff • Largest proportion of professional staff: 2 Federal government special libraries • Largest proportion of paraprofessional staff: 2 academic libraries and 2 in the NSLA group

10. Approaches to staff development (n=90) • Comments: • Part of overarching parent body plans • Tied in with performance planning and review Planned approach Informal approach Individual responsibility

11. Formal strategic planning document • Comments • Parent body has strategic plan • Library itself has operational plan • Those with no strategic plan indicated that progress was being made Yes No

12. Level of priority for staff development in strategic plan Low Medium High Not included

13. Alignment of staff development with strategic planning processes • Workforce Strategic Plans • Strategic plans supported by Business Plans • Business Plans encompass Staff Development requirements • Balanced Scorecard approach • Personal work plans : PPR • Individual development aligned with organisational goals • But also… Ideally… In reality… Not addressed… Needs to be explored more… Strategic Plans are public documents, so staff development excluded

14. Evaluation of strategic effectiveness of SD Unsure Yes No

15. Comments on evaluation • Internal review, rather than ‘evaluation’ • Limited… • Informal… • Adhoc… • At times we do, at times we don’t • Assumptions… if business goals are met, then staff must be doing OK… • But also evidence of external review with recommendations for improvement

16. Use of evaluation measures to determine return on investment in staff development • 10 respondents (ca 10% of all respondents) • 4 public libraries • 1 NSLA • 1 Academic library • 1 TAFE library • 1 School library • 2 Special libraries

17. Results of service quality evaluation to inform staff development (n=49) No • Comments • ca 50% undertake service quality evaluations • With high levels of customer satisfaction, hard to find the ‘gaps’ • Process is not so formal • Can see the value, but hard to apply Yes

18. Strategies to align service qualitywith staff development goals • Formal service quality tools appear to be better at identfying shortcomings and gaps • Formal review of survey results to identify areas to be improved • Professional development activities tailored to goals in business plans • PPR used to address poor performance • Staff focus groups • Peer mentoring • Ensuring that it is seen to be important and that it is discussed!

19. Attempts to measure impact of these staff development activities on subsequentservice quality evaluations Unsure • Comments • Eg cross-cultural awareness identified as concern in one survey; led to SD activities; distinct improvement in subsequent survey • Planned and scheduled for 2009 • It was ‘yes’, but it is now ‘no’ Yes No

20. Formal Staff Development Policy Unsure Yes • Policy at institutional level • Guidelines at library level No

21. Staff Development Manager Unsure Yes • Comments • Centralised role (HR / OD) for the organisation • Coordinating role (eg Director with responsibility across library) • Distributed roles – all managers have responsibility for staff development No

22. Staff Development Committee Unsure No Yes • Comments • Centralised model • Distributed model • Selection committee for conference attendance • Disbanded • Being re-established • Defined Terms of Reference / Role Statement

23. Coordination of staff development activities Staff development is the responsibility of staff development committee 1 Overall coordination of staff development is the responsibility of a designated staff development manager 17 There is no overall coordination of staff developmentin the organisation: staff development is the responsibility of the managers in each operational areaof the library 22 Responsibility for staff development is shared between area managers and a staff member with designated authority for staff development 34 Other 14

24. Staff Development Plan Unsure No Yes • Comments • Interpretation… • Individual or institutional? • Difficult to analyse…

25. Budget for staff development Unsure No Yes

26. Quantum of the payroll 0.0%-0.4% 0.5%-0.6% 0.7%-0.8% 0.9%-1.0% 1.1%-1.5% 1.6%-2.0% 2.1%-2.5% 2.6%-3.0%

27. Quantum of the payroll • neXus2 respondents • Less than 1% of payroll : 61% • More than 2% of payroll: 11% • American Society of Training & Development: • US average in recent years : 2.3% payroll • ‘Best practice’ : over 3% payroll

28. TAFE respondents 0.0%-0.4% 0.5%-0.6% 0.7%-0.8% 1.1%-1.5% 1.6%-2.0% 2.6%-3.0%

29. Winners and losers • Top end of the scale: • TAFE libraries • Academic libraries • But some TAFE and Academic libraries also fall into the bottom groupings… • Public libraries are all in the lower end of the scale, but up to 1.5% of payroll • NSLA ranges from 1.1% – 2.5% • Low response rate from Specials, but those who responded fell into broad spectrum

30. Average hours per staff memberspent on staff development Specials 0 → 10 20 30 40 50→

31. Percentage of staff undertaking staff development each year 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

32. Extent of need for ongoing training IT/Systems staff were believed to be the cohorts with the highest need for ongoing training, while public services staff were the ones who least needed training and development.

33. Preferences for types of activities funded by organisation • The greatest support for: • Induction • Conferences • Seminars and workshops • In-house short courses with internal trainers • On-the job training programs

34. Preferences… • The least support for: • External mentoring • Staff exchanges with other organisations • Job exchanges within the organisation • Sabbatical/ research leave • Anything to do with research did not score well: • Time for research • Research output • Support for publication • University libraries being the main players

35. Topics for external courses • The most common • Job-oriented skills training • Technology skills training • Management training • Leadership training • The least common • Personal/career development • Customer-service related training

36. Topics for internal courses • The most common • Technology skills training • Job-oriented skills training • Customer-service related training • The least common • Personal/career development • Leadership training • Management training

37. Other topics • Cross-cultural awareness • Health and wellness • Occupational health and safety • Project management • Values and behaviours • Public service issues, legal and financial compliance

38. Themes for staff developmentin current year • NSLA • Leadership • Management • Customer/client service • Project management • Cataloguing (n=1) • Public libraries • Web 2.0 / Libraries 2.0 • Customer service /frontline service • Teamwork • Workplace issues (OHS) • Community issues (policy driven) • Food handling

39. Themes cont. • University libraries • Eclectic – very broad range of topics • Emerging technologies • Professional writing • Skills audits taking place • More ‘hands-on’ topics, not so much ‘big picture’ • TAFE libraries • Web 2.0 • New learning technologies

40. Themes cont. • Specials • Tailored to staff needs • Evidence based practice • Cataloguing • Emerging technologies relevant to the immediate work environment • Schools • Web 2.0 in schools context • Curriculum development support • Learning technologies

41. The next 2-3 years • Planning happening now • Awareness of need to be less ad hoc to support changing workforce • Change management issues • Skills audits • Succession planning, coaching, mentoring • Leadership • Values and behaviours • Fostering innovation • Cataloguing and metadata • Bibliometrics • Technological developments • Specials still need to be spontaneous to meet immediate needs

42. Change in amount of staff development over past 5 years Unsure Decreased Increased • Comments • Increased: • Public libraries • University libraries • Decreased • TAFE • 2 university libraries • Budget a serious issue Stable

43. Impact of ICT developments on staff development needs To a minor extent Neutral To some extent To a great extent

44. Evaluation of staff development activities Unsure No Yes

45. Evaluation mechanisms

46. Support for staff development

47. Recognition of staff development Other – Reports, Presentation, Awards/prizes

48. Encouragement or recognition through ALIA PD Scheme Never heard of it Unsure No Key message: Even where SD is encouraged, it isoften not formally recognised Never heard of scheme: NSLA, academic, legal & school Yes

49. Summary • Immense diversity of policy and practice • Overall positive approach to staff development • Still some pockets of resistance to investment in training • Ad hoc arrangements more common than strategic approaches • Retention of staff is closely aligned with the opportunities for staff development • What will happen with current economic crisis? • Staff development must remain high on the agenda for employers, for ALIA and for individual LIS professionals and paraprofessionals • Shared responsibility – to work towards common goal of a dynamic, nimble profession that can adapt to the changing demands of the information environment