Notes from Strategic Planning Sessions
August 30, 1999

Situation Analysis

External influences

• information vs. knowledge - knowledge cumulative - archival role of libraries - information dates (becomes stale)
• "quick obsolescence of knowledge" - not in all disciplines, may mean the obsolescence of technology instead?

• expectations of users for comprehensive information as well as simplicity
• students’ need for quiet study space, look to the libraries
• demand for extended hours for above

Challenges

• staff buy-in to change
• getting in touch with our customers/users - learn what users need
• apathy on part of faculty and students
• need to get out message of what libraries offer
• need to educate libraries staff - re: products and services
• staff development and training
• management need to encourage broad-based training
• communication - among ourselves and with faculty and students
• increased opportunities for learning
• become more approachable to the user
• sell ourselves better to make users recognize value of libraries
• cheering section needed to pump-up staff
• overcome structure/bureaucratic barriers to service
• overcome defensive/turf mentality
• maximize staff abilities, i.e. training
• communication - create organizational structure that encourages communication between departments that perform similar functions. It was noted that there is no official forum for reference/circulation departments to discuss issues of importance to them
• unity of purpose
• restructuring positions to facilitate mobility
• e-journals: don’t serve all patrons equally
• loss of control over collection building to a growing extent because of new package offerings by publishers
• no clear sense of where the whole scholarly communications process is going and what part we will continue to play in it, e.g. impact of e-print servers, etc.
• what is our place in the e-journal world
• so much information, keeping up with technology
• in "Challenges" no. 3 we should speak of getting in touch with scholars rather than customers
• communication among staff needs to be better; everyone needs to know

Strengths

• comprehensive and unique in region in variety of subjects covered: medicine, law, engineering, research collections
• "location of the library school" - we don’t make enough use of this strength
• "proximity to computer services" - not applicable to DalTech or Kellogg
• staff open to change
• types of competition and additional competition
• competition from outside does not matter, be it commercial or another institution electronic supply of journals/chapters from outside sources at competitive prices could hurt
• not all libraries close to computer labs (would be nice)
• subject knowledge
• subject divisions, e.g. Science
• "community of learning"
• commitment to academy, not marketplace
• we operate in a learning environment

Weaknesses

• physical condition of the building keeps people away. It would be to our advantage to create an environment conducive to studying/learning. Provide some, even minimal, physical comfort level.
• lack of understanding of our clientele and their needs
• University AND Libraries tradition and governing structure - make this clearer
• need more basic computer knowledge/training, e.g. Windows vs DOS
• departments/libraries isolated from one another
• lack of guidelines, policies for dealing with new situations, formats
• need system (Novanet) training for more staff
• staff not viewed as friendly, but instead "snooty" in attitude
• look of building is un-inviting, appears to be a fortress, referred to as "the Borg"
• "Staff Recalcitrance":
  1. cannot get blood out of a stone. Overworked—underpaid, not enough time to add more duties, or change
  2. fear of technology: change and usurping jobs
• supervisors reluctant to share across dept’s or units, especially during times of shortages. Not pooling our human resources. Lack of interdepartmental
• cooperation/communication.
• Physical Plant too vague, not just those things under the dept facilities management, needs clarification
• why is "upgrading the plant" number 4 in priorities?
• what’s with this "Staff Recalcitrance"? Clarify. Is this in regard to change as opposed to being insubordinate. Don’t agree this is so. This may be more a matter of perception rather than an absolute known. It is worth pointing out we have had some "upgrades"(eg Windows 98) that have been setbacks and that can be when eyes roll. Without opportunity for change how can you demonstrate your willingness to change.
• lack of staff input is a weakness before implementing change
• recalcitrance - "wrong word"
• need to define "customers/users"
• who are our user groups?
• commitment to academy, not marketplace

Mission Statement

• "learning environment" should be part of mission
• prefer current one
• statement should be grammatical and well written
• collecting/organizing information/knowledge and making access as easy as possible
• "high" quality
• who is the intended audience for the mission and vision statements?
• should be short and snappy
• too overblown
• too simplistic
• designed for marketing
• do not see the purpose to market our mission
• being re-worked and/or re-worded perceived as a marketing tool. All participants want to "get on" with the major tasks that are needed to go forward with the new re-energized library system
• Mission 1: succinct
• Mission 1: "vague"
• Mission 1:
  1. quality needs modification (high, low, indifferent) It is a significant concept, needs an adjective.
  2. whether high quality needs to be included was debated (assumed for service? or important to point out?) It should be a given to provide high quality service
• missing element from Mission option 1 was promoting learning
  1. how do we promote learning
  2. what role does the library play in promoting learning
  3. need a more pro-active approach
• suggest — "To promote learning by providing expert and innovative access to quality information and the world’s knowledge"
• Mission #2: end at "range of users"
• Mission 2 is preferred, still refers to collections
• Novanet broadens the meaning of who our users are - they are within and outside the University
• Option 1 or option 2 - majority favoured option 2
  1. does need re-wording
• who are our users?
  1. Dalhousie faculty/students
  2. broader community
• should be one level of service as much as possible
• learning one side of the coin
  1. must also support research needs of faculty
• #2 better, reflective of what we do (no broad consensus)
• Mission 2:
  1. insert access along with collections
• suggested revision to Option 2 (preferred): "...collections to scholars primarily within but also outside the university."
• what is a collection - what is on the shelf or broader to include what is accessed elsewhere through the web, etc.
• what are the library’s boundaries
• suggested new wording for mission statement
  1. to promote learning by facilitating access to high quality service and collections to wide range of users within and outside the University
• Mission #3: (suggested)
  1. "To promote learning by providing expert and innovative access to (high) quality information and the World’s knowledge for the Dalhousie University community."

Vision

• like draft
• set priorities
  1. can’t be all things to all people
• delete "cutting edge"
  1. alternate word
• delete "professional" in phrase "professional communities"
• be more inclusive
• good draft
  1. "do-able"
  2. within reach
• ban the gerund!
• communities as resource rather than drain
• lacks poetry
• lacks coherence
• not vibrant and compelling
• not grammatical or well-written
• use 1st person plural (i.e. "we") after DUL is identified
• more mention of people - DUL is not just it’s building and machines
• get rid of "cutting edge"
• "leadership" = facilitating access
  1. conceptual problem here
• doesn’t allow for development, evolution
  1. grammatical errors noted
• no quotes around cutting edge
• "Including out-reach and community-based initiatives" is redundant
• is "friendly" necessary? More important to be responsive, expert (add "expert")
• last sentence seems defensive, too much. "Unified" implies fixed, not moving — change to "forward-looking"? "pro-active"?
• "friendly" is important - it means we go out of our way to help people
• the word "books" or "collections" should be mentioned: to "cutting edge", add "the maintenance of important print collections"
  1. "trained staff" - should ensure the training is relevant and directly improves work
  2. "unified vision" - only possible through communication, knowledge of who does what
• is it meant for internal or external consumption
• how do the Technical Services areas fit in to the Vision. Compliments do not come when books are in the stacks, catalogued accurately and efficiently
• being re-worked and/or re-worded perceived as a marketing tool. All participants want to "get on" with the major tasks that are needed to go forward with the new re-energized library system.
• cannot afford to be cutting edge. (Some debate on this) Cutting edge too slangy. "Library tends to follow rather than lead." Expensive. May not be necessary to lead but to keep up.
• "professional" term queried, other communities are served
• final clause: Will this ever happen in our lifetime?
• Paragraph 1, Sentence 2:
  1. too long - need to include collections along with access
• Paragraph 3.
  1. This one took the longest. Comments re professional, comments re will we act,
  2. Within the university and professional communities , it takes a leadership role by facilitating access to and provision of the best information resources.
• Paragraph 4.
  1. Using the word "vision" in the vision statement is a shade redundant (try goals, mandate, focus). At the same time, how do you balance specialized and unique features in a unified Context.
• the environment is too short term for a vision to be useful
• suggested word change in the third paragraph replacing "best information resources" with "quality information resources". It was noted we may not always be able to provide the best but we would strive for that standard.

Strategic Directions

• partner not verb!
• include staff education
• objective #3: to "create reputation"
  1. delete this - sounds like smoke and mirrors

SD1 and SD3

• must raise profile
• SD3 major task of SD1
• must move quickly or people will go elsewhere for information/knowledge
• make it easy and pleasant in using databases, etc.
• get moving on some major tasks to give more dynamic image of libraries
• more joint need of teaching
  1. coordinating with faculty
• major task
  1. implement SilverLinker and create links form databases to full-text sources
• improve technology infrastructure
• 5 and 6 are most important
• connect with customers
  1. need to extend our connections to alumni, off-site users — market services to them
• optimize our services and collections
  1. tailor specific services to groups, e.g. consultants
  2. prioritize services
  3. are services available at the right times? May need to extend/change hours for some services
  4. help desk concept may work in Libraries
• raise our profile
  1. some services will promote themselves if done appropriately
  2. brag — be colourful — radio — DSU
• upgrade physical & electronic infrastructure
  1. important enough to be separated into two SDs, one physical and one electronic
  2. more private offices needed
  3. air/dirt problems
  4. better/more computers and support for expanded services
  5. better teaching labs a priority
• develop effective organizational supports
  1. training must be a continuing process
  2. need an improved and reliable communication process
  3. need more participation, team discussion rather than individual isolated action
  4. make connections between departments, levels of staff and all libraries — What’s Happening?
  5. communicate through e-mail, regular inter-library reports, digests, updates
• connect
  1. should be offering tours
  2. find out what they want: broaden the Novanet list to get e-mail comments on services, ask students, do we offer what they really want?
• optimize
  1. should serve primary clientele first
  2. can’t make all needs free of charge, prioritize
• profile
  1. to raise funding and our level of support
  2. subject specialists are front-line in raising our profile, but all staff are now important information providers - profile lesser known work
  3. explain the network of staff and how they all contribute
• upgrade
  1. building (Killam) looks bad: carpets, leaks, dark/gloomy
  2. printers too slow
  3. microfilm equipment outdated
• organizational support
  1. better communication with staff: regular general staff meetings, e-mail updates from the University Librarian, what’s happening
  2. better training: extensive overview of the system/processes as well as a particular work step
• Connect with Customers: does this mean all of these, some or something else?
  1. understanding their needs
  2. being more user friendly
  3. marketing
  4. PR (Hi, how are you level of Approachability)
• Raise our profile: With whom?
  1. The university?
  2. The general public
  3. You may need to target different groups in different ways.
• Actively Partner needs explanation
• Organizational Supports? What’s that?
• our teaching role needs to be emphasized somewhere
• need training to deal with public so all users are treated with the same high standard irrespective of which staff member they happen to encounter in a particular service
• priority for records management
• we have much work to do to reconnect with customers
• we need to bring together physical space, technology, and support to meet our customers needs
• lots of meetings and sharing of ideas
• all staff are encouraged to forward their ideas to Bill Maes

The Customer/User/Client Conundrum

• "Customer" is business-oriented, shopping mall, presumes payment (NO)
• "Patron" implies donation, old-fashioned (NO)
• "User" applies only to person on-site, but is most familiar and well-used (NO)
• "Client" is more appropriate to the future vision, has a higher-level ring than "customer", implies cutting-edge. (YES!)
• "user" indicates taking advantage, a negative idea
• "patron" = old-fashioned
• "client" is preferred to "customer" - the latter is purchasing a product, the former is using a service

  opinion expressed that the appropriate "buzz" word being drawn from the corporate world, and was that acceptable. Is it mandatory that we have labels. Another comment - marketing focus directed toward those groups that have money, usually the corporations!

• why just one term? patron most common. (not customer or client)
• Names: Worst: User Next: Customer Next: Client Best (ish) Patron
• what do we call our users? customers - too much of a marketing bias; patrons - too elitist, old fashioned; users - too negative

Comments/Suggestions

• implement a web page which reports to everyone on the progress of the planning process and which allows for input/comments, etc.
• solicit more input from students, who comprise our primary user group
• recalcitrant attitude not apparent with this group
• set up a communications network by creating a WEB page which is easily available, for viewing reports, summary of meetings, ideas. Either make it publicly available from the home page (www.library.dal.ca) or staff only page (www.library.dal.ca/libstaff).
• Issue reports and discussions on the topic of strategic planning including the "information common" debate plus anything else that, will ,or could impact on the working environments of staff and students.
• Include a feed-back lope - through the WEB page, so the staff can let you, as Chief Librarian, know their ideas and reactions.
• we have to have a structure for addressing these issues together. Many of us have been here a long time, learned from past experience, and can contribute positively.
• Morale issues: From the broad perspective of this document, people feel they cannot make any difference, very discouraging not to have opinion/experience taken seriously.
• need for reassurance that this is a work in progress, and more consultation will follow
• not enough time in workday to read-digest-comment
• suggestion: Support staff standing committee, across the sites. Facilitate communication, pass along information, address institutional versus Novanet issues.
• discussion re whether any of this input gets used, when implementation will occur
• Implementation: bring in representation across the bargaining units

  people do get compartmentalized in this big an organization