Strategic Planning Steering Committee

Monday, May 20, 2002

2:00-3:30 p.m. Room 222

________________________________________________________________________

jy, ct, dm, svj, lf, dg, em, lb, pl, gd, ms

Issue 1: Recap of last meeting

Desired outcome: To ensure there are no questions left over from the last meeting

JY mentioned status reports from the committee at first open forum. Up to members whether to attend tomorrow's open forum.

Outcome:

Issue 2: Review of index of strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats (challenges) from self-study

Desired outcome: To have an index that captures the major opportunities and threats listed in the self-study and to have a sense of how we decided whether an item was an opportunity or threat.

Outcome: After some discussion about the differences between strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, the committee agreed that strengths and weaknesses refer to the current or historical situation. Threats and opportunities are situations or factors that are likely to occur in the future. Threats are those situations or factors "that will bite you if you don’t pay attention to them." In other words, threats are futures situations or factors that the library should keep an eye on. Opportunities are threats that the library has decided to act upon. For example, copyright is a threat to the library. It can become an opportunity if the library decides to do something positive to deal with that threat, like creating a copyright liaison or czar for the library. Opportunities, therefore, are based on strategic choices.

After reviewing the SWOT index of the self-study, the committee asked Parker to re-sort the list by tab to see how it compares to a simple alphabetical list. Scott, Laura F., and Parker also volunteered to meet before the next SPSC meeting to see if they could organize the opportunities and threats by subject or category. As it stands now, the index is not good enough to send out to the rest of the library as an aid to helping folks think about opportunities and threats. Once Scott, Laura, and Parker's work is done, the committee will re-visit whether to send it out to the library.

Issue 3: Discussion of how the strategic issues will be prioritized, i.e. list of top priorities for the library as a whole regardless of program, list of top priorities for each program, something else?

Desired outcome: To provide necessary background for establishing the framework for the final report.

Outcome: After some discussion, the committee agreed that the final report would have a list of the top priorities for the library as a whole (not by division or program), but that for each priority, necessary contributions by each division (or program) would be highlighted.

Issue 4: Review of Cameron Tuai's tool for evaluating opportunities

Desired outcome: To understand the tool and to determine areas that should be modified for our use.

Outcome: Cameron's tool emphasized three questions that should be asked when evaluating (or justifying) an opportunity: 1) Does it contribute to the University's mission (i.e., academic excellence and Catholic identity), 2) What is its impact on our patrons, users, or customers for whom we are providing our services and collections, and 3) What is the cost taking into account not only the direct cost, but mitigated by any ability to build off existing resources and by advantages that would occur from leveraging the opportunity into other areas. For example, a veterinary science collection does not contribute significantly to the University's mission (no existing dept. or college), would not have significant impact on our faculty or students, and would have a high cost because the direct cost would not be significantly reduced by existing resources or the ability to use the collections and services in a number different areas. Thus, the tool is also a way to improve discussions about opportunities (e.g., are we talking about its contribution to the University, its cost, or what?) The committee decided it would be helpful to have a simple handout about Cameron's model for the library. Also, it would be helpful for the committee to see how the model works with several concrete examples, not a made up example like veterinary science. Cameron will try to have these available for our next meeting.

Issue 5: Discussion of how to get internal, library input about opportunities that may not have been identified in the self-study; e.g., input through LAM, one-day library-wide retreat; series of workshops over several days, etc.

Desired outcome: To decide how the committee will gather internal information about opportunities and what handouts need to be developed.

Outcome: The committee decided that focus groups (faculty and staff separated) would be a good way to gather input from the entire library. Since there are about 200 employees, 20 groups of 10 would be best. We would try to gather input during the last several weeks of June. Laura B. and Eric decided to meet to create a more detailed proposal for the committee which we could discuss at our next meeting. The committee also needs to think about who is going to make the final determination about the priority of the opportunities. This information, a brief overview of Cameron's model, and an SWOT index of the self-study should be part of the information provided to the library employees to help them think about opportunities.

Issue 6: Next steps

Desired outcome: To review likely agenda for next meeting.

Outcome: It was clear to the committee that we need to get input from the library about opportunities soon. We will also have to organize the input we're already getting from the subject librarians/liaisons. The scheduling of the next meeting will be difficult because several people will be out. The committee will meet, however, to make sure things are continuing to move.

Next meeting: Monday, June 3, 1:00 - 2:30 pm