Libraries must demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness in service provision, and in relation to achieving primary purpose and resource priorities in order to survive. Examining the relevance of defining and distinguishing core and added-value services in relation to performance assessment and strategic vision addresses a gap in existing knowledge. However, such terms are of limited value if viewed as rigid definitions or categorisations, as in practice, it is difficult to draw distinct lines between core business and value added services. Views of service priorities change over time, in relation to external pressures and developments and are, moreover, subject to individual interpretation, depending on perspective. Furthermore, politically, managers need to exercise caution in labelling services; in an economic recession especially, categorising an activity as core or value added has significant implications for planning future service delivery, staff morale, and customer perceptions of worth and value. Defining an activity as central to basic purpose may curtail the future freedom of managers to redefine strategic priorities to meet changing customer needs and expectations and to adapt service delivery in line with technological developments. Once activity is defined as 'core', it may take significant longer to change service priorities in response to market forces, thus making institutions less agile and less able to compete in a dynamic and complex environment. Therefore, reflecting the views of Walton (2005), as outlined earlier, whilst there is some validity in the use of such terminology, rethinking or reconceptualising services in relation to their ability to contribute to basic organisational purpose to a greater or lesser extent may be a more helpful measure of significance.
展开▼
