Agile Project Management Facilitates Efficient and Collaborative Collection Development Work
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:Stoddard, M. M., Gillis, B., & Cohn, P. (2019). Agile project management in libraries: Creating collaborative, resilient, responsive organizations. Journal of Library Administration, 59(5), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2019.1616971 Objective – To examine the advantages and obstacles of using Agile (an approach to project management) principles to guide collection development work in ways that allow libraries to better address user needs while increasing transparency and collaboration in their processes. Design – Descriptive case study. Setting – Libraries at a private, R1 university (doctoral university – very high research activity). Subjects – Five cross-disciplinary teams of three to six people, with each team focusing on a separate strategic aspect of library collections work (Communications and Data Visualization, E-Resource Contract Negotiation, Serials Workflow Analysis, Demand Driven Acquisitions, and Serials Budget Projection & Assessment). Methods – The authors facilitated group reflection sessions for the teams to surface outcomes of employing Agile practices and also as a means through which they could learn from their experiences with Agile. The teams engaged in reflection throughout the year-long process where they were asked to share their work, respond to the work of the other teams, and contemplate their own learning and development as a member of a team. Main Results – Using Agile principles to structure and direct collection development work allowed the libraries to meet their stated goals of spending all available funds on relevant materials within the time frame allotted. This style of collaborative work benefitted from recognition of interrelated information needs, willingness to prioritize experimentation over seeking formal training, centering user needs in planning stages, and practicing reflection as a powerful learning tool. Additionally, the authors noted a strengthening of core skills held in high value throughout libraries, such as leadership and project management. Task-oriented skills that included capabilities like data visualization and operational analysis also progressed through learning by working on cross-functional teams. The authors offered guidance for applying these lessons to situations in other libraries that can be generalized to fit other projects. Conclusion – Based on their experiences with adopting Agile practices, the authors offered scalable approaches for implementing Agile that speak to employee buy-in and the overall impact of projects undertaken in this manner. Training that reflects a library’s authentic level of investment in Agile, whether minimal or extensive, is crucial to realizing positive outcomes. The authors also recognized that resistance to change and discomfort with working under transparent conditions will present challenges for many libraries in aligning workflows with Agile methodology. However, Agile did allow for positive shifts toward more investment in shared work on team and individual levels. While failure in Agile projects is more visible and therefore more intimidating, librarians can find themselves able to learn from and correct mistakes more efficiently.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,034 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».