Sustainable growth with sustainable resources: Using change management, participative consultation, and grassroots planning for a new future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Libraries are situated in an ever-changing research, teaching, learning, and scholarly communications environment. Faculty and students have new and different expectations that are compelling libraries to expand their offerings. At the same time, their broader institutions are also facing changing times and academic libraries are being asked to demonstrate value and justify the use of limited and high-demand resources. In order to address the resulting challenge, the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) Library undertook a process to deliver relevant and responsive (and, therefore, reflective and adaptable) library services while working within its current librarian complement. Significant changes were necessary for this to be successful: the librarians would need to undertake new responsibilities, learn new skills, and engage with learners and researchers in new ways. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: The U of S Library chose to meet this challenge through a multi-part approach comprised of regular participative consultations with librarians and a grassroots-based planning process underpinned by change management methodology. Findings: This approach resulted in widespread employee engagement, from initially clarifying the necessary change and throughout the change implementation. This led to a sense of ownership, responsibility, and accountability. Originality/value: Change is difficult and often met with resistance. The U of S Library presents a case of successfully engaging library employees throughout a change process, demonstrating the importance of bringing together participative consultation, grassroots planning, and change management as a combined change implementation approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".