FINAL REPORT
from the Task Force on Communicating the Directions and Goals of the University Libraries
 

This is the formal report submitted to the University Libraries Director, Jennifer Younger, on March 30, 2001.

On January 17, 2001, the Task Force on Communicating the Directions and Goals of the University Libraries was formed. The members were Parker Ladwig, Mathematics Librarian, Chair; Cameron Tuai, Business Librarian; Theresa Casad, Manager, Budget and Facilities Services; and Melodie Eiteljorge, Senior Administrative Assistant.

The work of the Task Force can be found on its Web site:  http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/taskforce/directionstf.htm, including the complete charge. It consists of two broad assignments: 1) put the existing documents into the framework of a strategic plan, and 2) assess the current state of strategic planning in the University Libraries and make recommendations for its improvement.

A status report was presented to the Library Administrators and Managers Committee on March 7, 2001. This report can also be found on the Web site.

The work of the Task Force can be separated into six areas: 1) basic definitions concerning planning, 2) strategic planning process, 3) formal statements resulting from the process, 4) identification and evaluation of the Libraries' formal statements, 5) findings, and 6) recommendations.

BASIC DEFINITIONS

The Task Force began by agreeing on working definitions of planning, corporate planning, and strategic planning. Planning is defined as an "analytical process which involves [1] an assessment of the future, [2] the determination of desired objectives in the context of that future, [3] the development of alternative courses of action to achieve such objectives, and [4] the selection of a course, or courses, of action from among the alternatives."1 The Task Force then distinguished between corporate planning, which involves the strategic planning process, and other types of organizational planning like budgeting, divisional planning, committee planning, etc. Finally, the Task Force evaluated different types of corporate planning (e.g., Total Quality Management, Zero-based Budgeting, behavioral strategy) to get a clearer understanding of strategic planning. The Task Force found that "strategic planning differs from other forms of planning in that it deliberately attempts to concentrate resources in the areas that can make a substantial difference in future performance and capability."2 As a result, the strategic planning process often changes the culture of an organization.

STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

The Task Force then turned to identifying a strategic planning process adequate as a framework for its purposes. After comparing four or five plans, many similarities were discovered. However, one plan had enough additional features that it was worth adopting. The Ten-Step Strategic Planning Process3 is highlighted on our Web site. The two unique features were: 1) identifying organizational mandates (in the Libraries case, the mandates from the University), and 2) waiting until Step 8 to finalize a vision. The Web site also includes a definition of each step in the process and the reasons for the step.

FORMAL STATEMENTS RESULTING FROM THE PROCESS

After choosing a strategic planning process, the Task Force listed the formal statements that would result from it: vision, mission, strategic issues, and strategies. Each of these is defined on the Web site, but it is worth highlighting those definitions here.

Vision: 1) "allows organizational members to know what is expected of them, without constant managerial oversight,"4 2) "possesses potent orienting capacities. It can play a key role in providing a sense of purpose and meaning greater than oneself and can serve as a beacon of inspiration during times of change and disruption"5

Mission: "should say: 1) who you are, 2) what you do, 3) what you stand for, and 4) why you do it"6

Strategic issues: "are fundamental policy questions or critical challenges that affect: 1) an organization's mandates, mission and values, 2) product or service level, 3) clients, users, or payers, or 4) cost, financing, organization or management"7

Strategies (or Directions): "defines what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it [i.e., the mission] through a pattern of: purposes, policies, programs, decisions, or resource allocations"8
 

 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF THE LIBRARIES' FORMAL STATEMENTS

Using the strategic planning process framework, the Task Force next identified the Libraries' statements that matched the formal statements. The corresponding Libraries' statements are listed on the Web site on the page of each type of formal statement. The Task Force found two possible candidates for the vision statement, one for the mission statement, one for the strategic issues statement, and at least four for the strategies statement. The Task Force also noted that except for one of the vision statements and the mission statement, none of these candidates were actually written as formal statements resulting from strategic planning.

The Task Force then chose two of the types of formal statement to evaluate: the mission statement and the strategies (directions) statements. Each of these types was evaluated in two ways: the statement was evaluated in isolation against the criteria identified in the ten-step process, and then the two sets were compared against each other to determine if the mission statement actually governed the directions statement.

Criteria for evaluating each type of statement can be found on the Web site. When evaluating the mission statement, the Task Force found that it should be 1) shorter, 2) more powerful (but not set the world on fire), 3) unique to Notre Dame, and 4) reviewed more regularly. For a more detailed overview, see Slide 7 of the Status Report to LAM.

When evaluating the directions statements, the Task Force recognized immediately that since the four or five statements were not written as strategies statements, they could not be expected to meet the evaluation criteria. However, if the criteria were applied, the Task Force found that it should be 1) one statement (not four), 2) dealing with formally identified strategic issues, 3) addressing concerns of key stakeholders, and 4) conforming to the organization's philosophy and core values as laid out in the vision and mission statements. For a more detailed overview, see Slide 8 of the Status Report to LAM.

For the next evaluation, the Task Force chose the Directions Statement published in Access in May, 1998. When evaluating whether the mission statement governed the directions statement chosen, the Task Force found that since they were not written together as part of a strategic plan, they did not support each other. For example, "Collecting library materials in all formats necessary to support course work, research and service" from the mission statement was compared to "Focus greater attention on developing library collections and information resources" in the directions statement. For a more detailed overview, see Slide 9 of the Status Report to LAM.

FINDINGS

As a result of its work, the Task Force concluded that without modifying the statements in some way (editing, selecting, etc.), the statements that now exist cannot be formed into a strategic plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to improve strategic planning within the Libraries, the Task Force identified four options for action:

    1. heighten awareness and manage expectations about strategic planning,
    2. reconcile the formal statements with the framework of a strategic plan by using a small committee with input from senior management,
    3. rework the mission statement, strategic issues, and strategies with broad input and pilot the strategic planning process with one department, or
    4. create a complete strategic plan with broad input.
In considering the four options, the Task Force noted that each option involves more commitment from people, resources, and time, and has greater risk of failure, but greater potential for reward than the one before it.9 The first option's main advantage is the little commitment involved, but its disadvantage is that fails to accomplish the minimum impact desired.

The second option's main advantage is that the statements would appear to those outside the Libraries as a strategic plan; its disadvantage is that it does not provide all of the internal benefits of a formal strategic plan.

The third option's main advantage is that is more thorough, but its disadvantage is that its results need to be part of a complete strategic plan in order to be most effective.

The fourth option's main advantage is that it would attempt to realize the full potential from the process, but its disadvantage is that it would require enormous commitment, not only on the part of the entire Libraries' personnel, but especially on the Libraries' senior managers.

 The Task Force did not have all of the information desired, for example, the level of commitment by the senior library administration, or the resources which will be made available. However, we do recommend one course of action--a complete strategic plan with broad input. This recommendation is sound as long as the following conditions can be met:
    1. a serious long-term commitment from the Director of the Libraries in terms of time, funding, strong leadership, and determination to overcome obstacles,
    2. direct involvement of one of the Associate Directors in the strategic planning work,
    3. a small steering committee of no more than five people-- (subcommittees could be formed as necessary, but the steering committee should remain small)
    4. a determined and experienced chair of the steering committee who is also willing to see the process through difficulties
    5. membership on the steering committee of at least one library staff employee, and finally
    6. a careful transfer of the information gathered from the Communications Task Force to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee.10
If all of these conditions can be met, the strategic planning process has a good foundation for success.
 

1 Robert D. Stueart and Barbara B. Moran, Library and Information Center Management, 4th ed. (Englewood, CO:  Libraries Unlimited, 1993):  29.
2 Stueart and Moran, 35.
3 John M. Bryson, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations:  A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, rev. ed. (San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1995), 21-44.
4 Bryson, 35.
5 Ira M. Levin, "Vision Revisited," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36 (2000):  92.
6 Jack D. Deal, "How to Create and Use a Mission Statement," The Small Business Journal (2001).
7 Bryson, 30.
8 Bryson, 32.
9 For a more detailed list of advantages and disadvantages, please see the Task Force's minutes dated March 2, 2001, http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/taskforce/tfminmar2.htm.
10 For a description of how this process might work, see Eric C. Shoaf, "Fifteen Months in the Planning Trenches," Library Administration & Management 15, no. 1 (2001):  4-12.