Lessons learned from implementing a research support hub in the library

This post is part of a growing series on the Library Beyond the Library. 

Research institutions like those in the OCLC Research Library Partnership (RLP) are striving to meet growing demands for research support services that assist scholars and researchers throughout the research lifecycle. These services are distributed across a complex web of campus units at most institutions, creating an invisible barrier to access for researchers.

Montana State University (MSU) has addressed this challenge by establishing the Research Alliance: a centralized hub that co-locates several research support units within the main library, improving awareness, convenience, and usage by researchers. Additionally, co-location fosters improved knowledge sharing and collaboration among participating units.

The Research Alliance exemplifies how libraries are adapting to new operational structures and communicating an evolving value proposition. By hosting the Research Alliance, the MSU library is strategically positioned as a central research support hub for the entire campus, both physically and operationally. This initiative provides a robust framework for ongoing cross-unit engagement and partnership, increasing visibility and engagement with other units, and ensuring closer alignment with institutional priorities.

Operationalizing a cross-unit partnership is a multi-phase project

Creating this centralized research support hub required years of persistent and patient effort to socialize the idea, identify partners, and eventually secure institutional support. But making the institutional decision to establish the Research Alliance was just the first phase, which I roughly equate to the initiating or design phase in project management lingo. According to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK),^[1] project management is described in five discrete phases:

• Initiating—defining a new project and obtaining authorization to begin
• Planning—processes to define objectives, scope, and next steps
• Executing—performing the work to implement the project
• Monitoring and controlling—tracking, reviewing, and initiating changes as needed
• Closing—processes to close out a project, if applicable

As any project manager knows, the work really begins with project approval, and this was certainly true for the Research Alliance.

I recently spoke with Doralyn Rossmann, Dean of the Library, and Jason Clark, Head of Research Analytics, Optimization, and Data Services (ROADS) at MSU. They expanded our understanding of the MSU Research Alliance story and offered a candid inside view of the significant challenges and frequently invisible library leadership presented by the project’s planning and execution stages.

Challenges

Turnover in executive leadership. The leaders of all of the original units—the library, the center for faculty excellence, and the vice president of research—all left their positions after the agreement to form a partnership was made, but before any physical movement or logistics regarding shared spaces took place. And, while information technology’s research cyberinfrastructure was envisioned to have a role in the alliance, the chief information officer had been minimally involved in initial planning. In turn, subsequent leaders had to move a partially realized vision into being a reality.

Ill-defined scope and partners. When the Research Alliance concept was initially approved by the leaders of the involved units, it was still a loosely defined vision – even the name “Research Alliance” was not established. Details of the agreement were not captured in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at this phase of the project, resulting in significant uncertainty for subsequent leaders. The office for undergraduate research entered the alliance at the eleventh hour as the reality of the alliance became more visible, creating needs for scoping expectations for subsequent growth.

Poorly defined leadership roles. Working primarily on a handshake agreement, there was no clear articulation of goals, roles, or responsibilities. No one was assigned responsibility to lead the effort, and the project advanced largely due to the adoption of new work responsibilities by library leadership. The library was the implied leader in large part because the Research Alliance was to be housed there—this involved taking responsibility for architectural planning, remodeling, formulating an MOU, and convening ongoing committees of both executive sponsors and Alliance partners.

Internal pushback. Not everyone was excited about the idea of centralizing research support services in the library, and there was significant pushback from both students and library employees. Some students who protested the loss of study space even left hostile messages on a library whiteboard, visible to Research Alliance workers. Some library staff members who had little awareness about the strategic reasons for the partnership opposed the focus on a research support unit housing non-library personnel in what had been quiet library study spaces. Library leaders had to manage resistance, explain library and campus priorities, and provide sustained leadership on a project unpopular with some.

Benefits

Enhanced and visible library value proposition. As I’ve described in an earlier blog post, the Research Alliance positions the library as the physical and strategic center for research support on campus. Just as physical collections have long demonstrated the library’s contribution to supporting scholarship, today the Research Alliance offers a tangible, compelling story about how the library is evolving to support research and campus priorities in new ways. It demonstrates the library’s evolving role in support for research that may not be recognized by other campus stakeholders, particularly those who have a role in decisions about library funding and autonomy. 

Increased interaction with other campus leaders. Implementing the multi-tenant Research Alliance has required increased interaction between the library dean and other campus executives. While the work of sustaining this group has fallen to the library dean, it offers a significant opportunity for her to demonstrate how the work of the library aligns closely with institutional priorities. Busy campus leaders may still adhere to a collections-focused view of the library, failing to understand the important roles that research libraries now play in research support and student success. Ongoing engagement with these leaders—on a project that supports high priority campus research productivity—provides an opportunity for the university librarian to help other stakeholders better understand the library’s value. Additionally, the Research Alliance has brought numerous faculty and administrators into the library who had not regularly entered the building in recent years. This has had the added benefit of these people seeing how incredibly busy the library is and has created increased interactions between library employees and people coming into use Research Alliance services.

Improved services for researchers and students. And, of course, there is the intended benefit of the Research Alliance—to reduce friction for researchers navigating campus services. More researchers come together in this shared environment and this results in improved referrals and collaborations between units. 

Recommendations to other libraries

Doralyn and Jason have gained valuable insights from their experience implementing the Research Alliance at MSU, including these recommendations that can help other libraries undertaking similar collaborative efforts:

Create decision support structures ASAP

Assemble executive sponsors and convene regularly. Executive sponsors play a crucial role in decision-making and removing project obstacles. They should meet regularly—at least quarterly—to receive updates, offer advice, and make joint decisions. Establishing their oversight role early in the project planning can significantly reduce project friction. Ideally, a member of this group would meet regularly with members of the alliance to communicate between the executives and members to understand needs and communicate priorities.

Establish an MOU. Drafting an MOU requires a thorough examination of roles, responsibilities, leadership, decision-making authority, and partner expectations. It also involves defining the collaboration’s objectives, scope, and efforts, serving as an important project planning document. Finally, it should delineate equitable financial responsibilities; given the situation of the Research Alliance in the library, it was, de facto, responsible for space and furniture costs. This MOU should be revisited annually to accommodate needed adjustments.

Create goals and an assessment plan. Part of planning the partnership is also determining how team members will monitor and track progress. Ideally, the partnership has clearly established goals and all members of the partnership have annual goals that set expectations to participate in meeting the goals of the partnership. Assessment planning can be integrated into the MOU process and provide resources for measuring success, resourcing, and evaluating whether the partnership should continue.

Communicate library value

Prepare for internal pushback. Resistance is almost a certainty, particularly in university environments characterized by decentralized, independent agents who often work at cross-purposes and have the freedom to openly oppose institutional initiatives. Universities are “complex adaptive systems” that make collaboration and change particularly challenging.

Relentlessly communicate the project (and library) value proposition. Establishing a new offering like the Research Alliance provides a visible, ongoing way to sell the library’s value to a wide range of stakeholders. Leverage this in storytelling, personal narratives, and metrics that demonstrate the central role the library plays in supporting campus strategic priorities.

Ensure the library receives financial recognition. While the library reaps significant benefits by hosting a research support hub, it also incurs costs, including the reallocation of valuable campus space. Libraries should seek remuneration by leveraging funding from participating research partners and through facilities and administration (F&A) monies. This isn’t just about the budget—it’s also about other units recognizing and rewarding the library’s value.

Extending the library beyond the library

The MSU Research Alliance represents a shift in library operational structures, as libraries forge new partnerships with other campus units to support research and institutional priorities. OCLC Research describes this shift as extending “the library beyond the library.” A current research project examines increasing library interactions with the broader campus, and how library expertise and capacities are combined with those of other campus units. By documenting the transformation of collaborative operational structures and value propositions, this project will provide valuable insights and recommendations for library leaders navigating the expanding landscape of cross-campus partnerships.

Writing this blog post was a collaborative effort. Many thanks to Doralyn Rossmann and Jason Clark for their input and for inviting us to continue the conversation. Special thanks also to Merrilee Proffitt.

---

^[1] The PMBOK is maintained by the US-based Project Management Institute (PMI) professional organization which offers the Project Management Profession (PMP) certification.