Managing Academic Support Services in Universities: The Convergence Experience

Martin Myhill (Deputy Librarian, University of Exeter Library, Exeter, UK)

Program: electronic library and information systems

ISSN: 0033-0337

Article publication date: 1 January 2006

144

Keywords

Citation

Myhill, M. (2006), "Managing Academic Support Services in Universities: The Convergence Experience", Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 98-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330330610646843

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2006, Emerald Group Publishing Limited


This book deals successfully with a dichotomy – world‐class universities do not have converged library and IT services yet many excellent institutions have applied a converged model to very great effect. The reader soon learns that in the UK, almost half of all universities have converged support services with similar take‐up in the Antipodes. Despite popular anecdotal evidence, the North American experience appears to be more patchy, and the concept of convergence is very rare in the rest of Europe. Bearing in mind Ivan Sidgreaves's (1995) statement that “each university must examine its own organisational needs, its own focus in teaching, learning and research, and the appropriateness of its support services to meet its aims”, Terry Hanson approaches this problem intelligently and informatively by marshalling case study evidence (mainly from the UK) from the converged, the non‐converged and the de‐converged. Clive Field offers an excellent definition of convergence and (with deference to Pugh) sensibly pronounces three types of convergence model in order of increasing managerial complexity; towards the end of the volume, “collaboration” is added by others as a further possible model.

It is necessary to read this book in contemplative fashion. Each case study raises a number of different issues – as diverse as the various managerial structures present within UK higher education establishments, and the detail is worth very careful consideration. It would seem that convergence is always a function of top‐level management, generally induced (even imposed) from the top rather than proposed from below. Converged services require constant monitoring for effectiveness and can (and do) subsequently de‐converge following the departure of vice‐chancellors who have originally prompted or promoted the cause. Indeed, a number of case studies read almost apologetically, especially as one major rationale appears to be the weakness of computing services compared with the relative managerial strengths of library directors (who have taken on the resulting converged roles on a five to one ratio). The reader will also be convinced that financial or staff saving is not an appropriate reason to undertake convergence and resulting large units (often with control of around 10 per cent of the institutional budget) require very considerable and rare management skills, constant strategic planning input and usually a top‐level reporting structure. It is no accident that many converged service directors find themselves on university executive management groups – perhaps they might even become vice‐chancellors themselves one day?

From the content it is abundantly clear that successful convergence relies heavily on energetic, highly capable direction and must be enabled rather than hindered by institutional politics. Members of staff from all services need to be equally involved in discussions and the various user constituencies must feel ownership of the final decision. Convergence requires a very good and clear reason (or reasons), achievable aims (even quick wins) in the local context and must produce identifiable structures rather than create a web of complex bureaucracy and endless committees. Somewhat surprisingly, it would seem that certain comparable activities (such as helpdesks) do not converge well, while other functions do, especially those directed at e‐learning. The process must, therefore, deal with what is strategic and appropriate and may take time – as in one extreme example, over ten years – to complete. Of all the studies, the “green field” approach – which is only really feasible in a brand new institution – has produced the most obvious success, noting (ironically) that very few case studies describe formal evaluations of the effects of convergence.

I would agree with Larry Hardesty's submission in the final chapter that it is the people who matter much more than the organisational structure – “if people have a good attitude and can communicate, structure does not matter”. That statement also allows for convergence if the people have a poor attitude and/or can't communicate. The service convergence debate has been going on for over 20 years and will continue – there is no single, “one size fits all” solution. That does not detract from the superb quality of this book, which must surely be regarded as the definitive UK study of this complex subject.

References

Sidgreaves, I. (1995), “Convergence: an update”, Relay: The Journal of the University College and Research Group, Vol. 42, p. 6.

Related articles