ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 396 / C&RL News versity, Norfolk, VA 23508; Elinor Ebeling, 228 Clubhouse Drive, Middletown, NJ 07748; David Kaser, 2402 Rock Creek Drive, Bloomington, IN 47401; William A. Moffett, Director of Libraries, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074; Charles B. Osburn, Dean and University Librarian, Central Library, University of Cincinnati, University and Woodside, Cincinnati, OH 45221. ■ ■ A proposed p lan n in g process for the A ssociation of College an d R esearch Libraries P rep a red by th e Ad H oe P la n n in g P rocess Subcom m ittee Susan Klingberg, Chair Keith Russell, Member A C R L ’s strategy fo r planning over the coming years. A t the January 1983 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the ACRL Planning Committee appointed a sub­ committee to develop a planning process for the As­ sociation. The Subcommittee first outlined the ele­ ments which the process or model should include. It should: a) produce a w ritten plan to guide ACRL for at least five years; b) have a built-in mechanism for evaluation and feedback; c) accommodate peri­ odic reviews and updating; and d) simplify (as well as codify) the work of the ACRL Planning Com­ mittee in carrying out its responsibilities. The model proposed in this report is a strategic planning model. The strengths of strategic plan­ ning have been widely discussed in recent manage­ ment literature. In his book Academic Strategy, George Keller discusses the advantages of this ap­ proach. He describes strategic planning as active rather than passive, responsive to changing condi­ tions, competitive, decision-oriented, and partici­ patory (Johns Hopkins, 1983, pp. 143-148). An­ o th e r d is tin c tiv e c h a ra c te ris tic of s tra te g ic planning is its emphasis on form ulating and evalu­ ating alternative strategies. Together, this report and model constitute a “plan for planning” for ACRL. It should first be re­ viewed and revised by the Planning Committee be­ fore being more widely distributed within ACRL. Following review and revision, the Subcommittee recommends the appointm ent of an ACRL Strate­ gic Planning Task Force. The Task Force would be responsible for coordinating the planning process and w riting the resulting strategic plan. W hen this is accomplished, the ACRL Planning Committee would take over responsibility for implementation of the plan, as well as evaluation, periodic review, and updating. The planning process Accompanying this report is a schematic dia­ gram or model of the proposed planning process (see p.397). This section provides additional infor­ mation about the steps in the process. The purpose of each step is explained, and related issues to be considered are discussed. Wherever possible, an appropriate group or body is nam ed to carry out The great divide. Faxon’s new Academic Division rewards you with better service. You now get the individual attention of someone familiar with your needs along with access to the vast resources commanded by Faxon. More than 100 years of dedicated service to libraries have put Faxon at the forefront of the information frontier. We were the first agency to completely automate subscription management. First to develop an international online network. First to establish online links with major publishers. We’ll give you an edge on tomorrow. A frontier we conquer by not resting on our laurels. 800 225-6055 or 617 329-3350 ON THE FRONTIER OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The Faxon Company, Inc. 15 Southwest Park Westwood, MA 02090 September 1984 / 399 the step, and other stakeholders in the process are identified. An effort has been made to show the re­ lationship of steps to one another. The diagram is m eant to be a symbolic representation of the plan­ ning process. Aspects such as the sequence of steps should not be strictly interpreted. For example, some strategies may be approved and implemented while the plan is still being w ritten. The involvement of ALA, ACRL, and ACRL sections and committees is represented in steps 6 and 7 of the model, under “Strategy Form ulation.” Please note th a t these groups are involved at other steps of the process as well. Appraisal 1. Analyze member needs. For this analysis, membership data is reviewed and trends are stud­ ied. C urrent members and potential members are profiled, as well as others who might make use of ACRL programs, e.g., non-ACRL members who attend ACRL continuing education programs. For these categories, both current and future needs th a t could be met by ACRL are identified. A formal survey of at least a sample of the membership is rec­ ommended. ACRL has not done a member needs assessment in recent years. President-elect Sharon Rogers has also expressed interest in a member sur­ vey. In addition to identifying member needs, the survey could provide feedback on the effectiveness of programs and services. C ontracting w ith an out­ side consultant would be the most efficient way to conduct the survey. Other sources of data should also be reviewed, such as membership files and evaluations from p a r­ ticip an ts in ACRL co n tin u in g education p ro ­ grams. All of the data gathered on members and members’ needs should be synthesized in a w ritten members’ needs statement. The analysis and result­ ing statem ent could be contracted out to a consult­ ing firm experienced in member needs analyses. Another option is to assign responsibility to ACRL h e ad q u arters staff, who w ould w ork w ith the Membership Committee. It is expected th at such an analysis could be completed in seven months. Provision should be m ade for updating the member needs data periodically. 2. Analyze the external environm ent. In this step, economic, political, technical, and social fac­ tors are reviewed which have an im pact on the As­ sociation. The Activity Model Com m ittee’s final report (abbreviated AMFR; C& RL N ews, May 1982, pp. 164-69) already does much of this, but it should be reviewed and updated to cover both cur­ rent and anticipated environmental conditions. The ACRL Planning Committee, since it has been heavily involved w ith the AMFR, should be given responsibility for this analysis and for the production of an external factors analysis state­ ment. W ork on this could begin at any time, and it could be completed in three months. A literature review of recent publications may be a good start­ ing point. 3. Identify strategic factors. This step builds on the activities in the two preceding steps. The data collected is further analyzed and opportunities and threats facing the Association are identified and as­ sessed. Much of this will be similar to a market analysis, where markets and competition are ana­ lyzed. This analysis should be carried out by the ACRL Strategic Planning Task Force and should culmi­ nate in a working docum ent which will guide sub­ sequent planning activities. Suggested completion date is two months after step 1 is completed (i.e., the end of m onth 9). 4. Conduct a strategic audit. The strategic audit is a statem ent of ACRL’s current situation and, to some extent, how it got there. It identifies the mis­ sion, activities, programs, services, policies, m an­ agement inform ation system, etc., of the Associa­ tion, along w ith strategies it is pursuing. It also identifies and discusses the strengths and weak­ nesses of the Association. Much of the work for the strategic audit was done in preparing the AMFR; th a t work will only need updating. Another docu­ ment to refer to as a model is the American Associa­ tion of School Librarians’ Future Structure Report (AASL, March 1984), which has elements of a stra­ tegic audit and of strategy formulation. T h e A C R L S tra te g ic P la n n in g T ask F o rce should work closely w ith ACRL headquarters staff to prepare this report. It should be completed three months after step 3 is completed (i.e., end of month 12). Step 3 should be completed before step 4, but a good deal of the work can proceed simultaneously. 5. Review and revise as needed the ACRL mis­ sion, goals, and objectives. This step should be done w ith th e ACRL strategic au d it in hand. While the mission, goals, and objectives were re­ vised in the p rep aratio n of the AMFR, another careful review will be necessary in light of the in­ formation turned up in steps 1-4. This review should be carried out by the ACRL Strategic Planning Task Force. It should be com­ pleted two months after step 4 is completed (i.e., the end of m onth 14). Strategy formulation 6. Carry out activities planning. First, it is neces­ sary to refer back to the strategic audit for an analy­ sis of the current mix of programs, services, and re­ search activities. Recommendations can then be m ade to alter the mix by modifying, dropping, or adding activities. This step can be worked on at any time, but it cannot be successfully completed before the com­ pletion of step 5. The ACRL Strategic Planning Task Force should produce w ritten recom m enda­ tions on activities w ithin one month of the end of step 5 (i.e., the end of m onth 15). 7. Carry out resources planning. This step in­ volves reviewing ACRL resources currently avail­ 400 / C&RL News able and those needed in the future. It includes or­ ganizational resources, human resources (ACRL headquarters staff and the membership), office fa­ cilities and equipment available to ACRL, finan­ cial resources, and the ACRL management infor­ mation system. For financial and organizational issues, the ALA Operating Agreement will be a use­ ful document. The advantages and constraints of the present relationship between ALA and ACRL should be studied. A resources planning report should be completed within one month of the end of step 6 (i.e., the end of month 16). It is recommended that headquarters staff prepare the resources planning report accord­ ing to guidelines from the Task Force. 8. Evaluate and select best strategic alternatives. Essentially this step brings together the step 6 and 7 reports, and decisions are made concerning the mix of activities and the resources needed to support them . An im portant consideration is the feasibility of implementing the various alternatives. The ACRL Strategic Planning Task Force will do this evaluation and will prepare the following report, within two months of the end of step 7 (i.e., end of month 18). 9. Prepare a w ritten five-year ACRL strategic plan. A five-year period was selected for the plan to cover because it is a reasonable time span in terms of forecasting. It would be difficult to make predic­ tions any further in advance for internal factors such as member needs and for external factors such as advances in technology. Also, a five-year plan would mesh well with the Activity Model, which looks ahead to the year 1990. The first five-year plan should be developed to cover from 1986 to 1990. The plan should focus on the strategies selected in the preceding step. It should also draw on other key steps in the planning process by synthesizing work done in the strategic audit and in the activi­ ties and resources planning reports. The plan should demonstrate how activities and services re­ late to organizational goals. It should provide clear and specific direction to all of the elements within ACRL (governance bodies, headquarters staff, sec­ tions, etc.). Documents such as the mission and goals statements and possibly some of the previous planning reports could be included in the appen­ dix. The ACRL Strategic Planning Task Force pro­ duces this report (at the end of month 18) as its last major activity. Strategy implementation 10. Implement the strategy that has been devel­ oped. The ACRL Planning Committee will oversee and coordinate the implementation of the strate­ gies described in the w ritten plan. Evaluation 11. Evaluate. Since the strategic plan is designed to cover a five-year period, it could be reviewed and updated either annually or biennially. During each review, one or two years could be added to the period covered so that the plan is self-perpetuating. This review and update would be conducted by the ACRL Planning Committee, which would also evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and progress in its implementation. On an ongoing basis, the Committee would also informally monitor factors which might affect Association plans and activi­ ties. Recommendations for executing the planning process The subcommittee recommends the following for executing the above described planning pro­ cess: Recommendation 1. This report describing the planning process should be disseminated as widely as possible within ACRL. It should be published in College and Research Libraries News, and in other ways brought to the attention of ACRL members. Recommendation 2. Once a revised report is ac­ cepted, an ACRL Strategic Planning Task Force should be appointed immediately to begin coordi­ nating the planning process. The Task Force should have 7 members, includ­ ing a) at least two regular members of the ACRL Planning Committee; b) one past ACRL president; c) the ACRL executive director; d) the ACRL vice­ September 1984 / 401 president/president elect; and e) two additional members. Recommendation 3. To kick off the planning process, a facilitator should be hired to work with the Task Force for one day to explain consider­ ations in strategic planning, etc. Recommendation 4. The ACRL Board of Direc­ tors should set aside appropriate funds to support the work of the Task Force. Such funding should allow additional meetings of the Task Force be­ yond those possible in conjunction with ALA con­ ferences. Perhaps extra meetings could be sched­ uled to coincide with ACRL executive committee meetings, which some of the Task Force members would be attending. R ecom m endation 5. The ta rg e t date for the completion of this project should be no later than the annual ALA conference in the summer of 1986. Based on the time estimates in this document, it will take approximately 18 months to complete the planning process. Recommendation 6. Finally, the charge of the Planning Committee should be revised to place more emphasis on planning as a prim ary responsi­ bility. W ithin ACRL’s governance structure, the committee should be responsible for developing plans and strategies which will help the Association achieve its goals and objectives. This responsibility is not adequately described in the current charge. In addition, the task of reviewing and revising the five-year plan should be added to the charge. E ditor’s Note: The authors prepared this report as members o f an ad hoc subcommittee o f the A C R L Planning Committee. Susan Klingberg, chair, is from California State University, Sacramento, and Keith Russell is fro m the Council on Library R e­ sources, Washington, D .C. On June 25, 1984, the fu ll A C R L Planning C om mittee endorsed this re­ port. A t its meeting on June 26, 1984, the A C R L Board o f Directors voted to endorse and support the planning process described in the report and to appoint a Strategic Planning Task Force. ■ ■ The ACRL President’s Program for 1984-85 Priorities for ACRL and for academic librarian- ship will be the focus of the ACRL President’s Pro­ gram in 1984-85. The President’s Program will be a year-long series of activities requiring the involve­ m ent and com m itm ent of hundreds of ACRL members across the country. ACRL members and their ideas about academic librarianship will be the President’s Program at the annual meeting in Chicago in 1985. They will be setting the associa­ tion’s priorities w ithin the framework of the Activ­ ity Model for 1990. W hat IS the Activity Model for 1990? In 1980, D av id W e b e r, th e n th e vice- president/president-elect of ACRL, recognized the need for professional associations to engage in sys­ tematic planning to ensure the viability and rele­ vance of the association. He appointed a commit­ tee “to review the Association’s activity structure and propose such changes as appeared needed to bring it into accord with the likely demands of its second century of service to begin in 1990.” This ad hoc committee (David Kaser, chair, Olive James, William J. Studer, Carla J. Stoffle, and Julie Car- roll Virgo) submitted its final report in 1982. The report was adopted by the Board in 1982 as the Ac­ tivity Model for 1990 and it was disseminated to all ACRL members in C&RL News, May 1982, pp. 164-69. W hat ISN'T the Activity Model for 1990? The Activity Model for 1990 stimulated many initiatives w ithin ACRL. For example, the charges to the task forces th at past president C arla Stoffle appointed grow directly from recommendations in the Activity Model. However, useful as the Activity Model for 1990 is for stimulating growth õf ACRL programs, it is not helpful for guiding decision­ making within the association because no priorities are set. Therefore, in 1984-85, ACRL members will be asked to advise on the priorities for ACRL, by responding to a membership survey and by p a r­ ticipating in a group decision-making process at the annual meeting. The cast of characters The program plan calls for a cast of hundreds to contribute their time and energy in the following ways: •600 ACRL members will receive a survey in­ strum ent designed to guide them through the pro­ cess of recommending priorities among and within major activity areas. Each of the 600 members will also be asked for some background information about themselves and their involvement in aca­ demic librarianship and in ACRL. •1 0 ACRL members, prim arily located in the Washington, D. C ., area, will form a Research Team to review the data collection and analysis, 402 / C&RL News and draft a report of the results. • 5 ACRL members will form a Presentation Team to take the results from the Research Team and design a presentation of the membership sur­ vey results for the first part of the annual meeting in Chicago in 1985. •10 ACRL members, primarily located in the Chicago area, will form a Local Arrangements Committee to handle the logistics of the annual meeting itself. •70 ACRL members will be asked to serve as discussion leaders at the annual meeting. Names have been suggested by the chairs-elect of ACRL sections, but volunteers are still needed. Training sessions will be held during Midwinter, 1985, in Washington, D. C. •700 ACRL members will participate in the fi­ nal priority-setting activity during the annual meeting. The pay-off When the program is complete, at the end of the annual meeting in Chicago in 1985, ACRL will have the following information and resources to use to take the lead in anticipating the needs of the profession of academic librarianship: 1.The membership’s assessment of priorities for the association’s activities. The final results from the annual meeting will go to the second Board meeting in Chicago for the Board’s review. Adop­ tion of these priorities, or a modified version, will provide decision-making guidance to the Board, the Budget and Finance Committee, and the Plan­ ning Committee. 2. Demographic and attitude information from a random sample of the ACRL membership. This may be compared with demographic and attitude information from the participants in the annual meeting. Such a comparison may reveal similari­ ties and/or differences between the general mem­ bership and the activists within the association. 3. Results to inform further planning activities. These will be recommended to the ACRL Board in 1985 by the Strategic Planning Task Force. 4. A prototype of an ACRL membership survey. Such a survey may be instituted on a scheduled ba­ sis. The program serves as a pilot study to assess techniques and costs. Stay tuned More information on the 1984-85 ACRL Presi­ d en t’s Program will appear in future issues of C&RL News. In the meantime, 600 ACRL mem­ bers can be watching their mailboxes for their first opportunity to participate by responding to the membership survey.—Sharon Rogers, A C R L Pres­ ident. ■ ■ ACRL/PLA grant for humanities programming The Association of College and Research Li­ braries and the Public Library Association have re­ ceived a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities to conduct workshops for aca­ dem ic and p u b lic lib ra ria n s and h u m a n ist scholars. Six two-day workshops will be held re­ gionally throughout the country during 1984 and 1985. The primary goal of these workshops will be to initiate communication between public and aca­ demic librarians and humanists for the purpose of working together on cooperative humanities pro­ gramming projects and to stimulate them to seek funds for appropriate humanities activities. Applications are being sought from public and academic librarians wishing to participate in these workshops. Participants will be provided lodgings and meals at the workshop site and a travel subsidy of up to $150 per participant will be provided. Par­ ticipants will be selected based on the following cri­ teria: •demonstrated philosophical interest in public programming; •ability to assess each library’s humanities hold­ ings to identify potential topics for humanities pro­ grams; •ability to assess the resources and structures of the academic institution and public libraries in terms of joint programming efforts; •interest in learning how to develop innovative methods of programming to stimulate interest in the humanities in the general adult public using the resources of public and academic libraries; and •potential to work cooperatively with a com­ plementary library and humanist. Workshop dates, locations, and deadlines are as follows: October 17-19,1984, St. Benedict Center, Mad­ ison, Wisconsin. Apply by September 15 (this is an extension of an earlier deadline). December 12-14,1984, La Casa de Maria Cen­ ter, Santa Barbara, California. Apply by October 31. March 13-15, 1985, Shakerstown, Kentucky (near Lexington). Apply by January 31. May 1-3, 1985, Bon Secours Center (near Balti­ more, Maryland). Apply by March 22. August 28-30, 1985, The G reenbriar, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. Apply by June 28. N ovem ber, 1985, N o rth w estern /M o u n tain Plains Region. Apply by September 27, 1985. For applications contact: B arbara Macikas, NEH Project, ACRL/ALA, 50 E. Huron St., Chi­ cago, IL 60611-2795; (302) 944-6780. ■ ■ NEH gives more prominence to its Humanities Projects The National Endowment for the Humanities has reorganized its Division of General Programs to include a separate section for Humanities Projects in Libraries. New guidelines for the program will be available in October 1984. Along with the Divi­ sion’s other programs, the purpose of Humanities Projects in Libraries is to fulfill the Endowm ent’s m andate “to foster public understanding and ap­ p reciatio n of th e h u m a n itie s.” A cadem ic, re ­ search, and public libraries are the ideal places to interpret masterpieces of art and literature for the general public and thus increase the appreciation and use of library collections by 130 million adult Americans. These projects, a cooperative effort be­ tween the nation’s libraries and the Endowment, are once again being fully supported by more than $3 million per year by the NEH. The deadline for proposals is March 8, 1985. Projects can begin as early as September 1985 and are generally supported from one to two years. All types of libraries are welcome. Many success­ ful projects use a combination of types of libraries. Librarians interested in programs for out-of-school adults which use materials in their humanities col­ lections should call the Endowment for guidance at (202) 786-0271. Early in 1982 a merger between H um anities Projects in Libraries and Special Projects section on Program Development was made by the Chair m a n ’s office of the E ndow m ent. At th a t time guidelines for the two programs were also com­ bined. Since libraries were only one of many insti tutio n s eligible for ap p licatio n th ro u g h th ese merged programs, the name of the new guidelines became “Program Development” rather than “Li braries.” As a result fewer and fewer applications for humanities programs in libraries were receivecd during the next two and one-half years. During 1982 the amount of money available to libraries from the Endowment for public programs was substantially reduced from more than $3 mil lion to less than $1 million. In 1983 and 1984 th e Congress appropriated $2.5 million and $3.0 m il lion respectively. The 1982 cut in the budget w aas probably a contributing factor to the waning num­ ber of proposals from the field. Because fewer pro posals were received, less money than was appro priated in 1983 and 1984 was awarded for projects in libraries. Consequently there is a very real need for proposals from libraries. September 1984 / 403 404 / C&RL News Since the merger of the programs at the Endow­ ment, many librarians have apparently assumed that NEH was no longer as responsive to projects on humanities topics and themes through libraries. While this is not entirely true, the results were clear: fewer proposals and less money offered for support. There were only 27 proposals received in 1983, down from 78 in 1981, and by the 1984 dead­ lines only 37 proposals were received, of which 20 obtained Endowment support for a little less than $2 million. Once again the Congress has marked a level of support for Humanities Projects in Libraries at over $3 million for fiscal year 1985. For more infor­ mation about this renewed effort, or for guidelines on programs through libraries, call or write to: Thomas Phelps, Division of General Programs, National Endowment for the Humanties, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N .W ., Washington, DC 20506; (202) 786-0271. ■ ■ A case study in closing the university library to the public By B renda L. Johnson Coordinator for Circulation and Interlibrary Services Rutgers University Libraries The pros and cons of restricting access in a state-supported university library. O n October 28, 1983, a number of Rutgers Uni- versity librarians attended an ACRL tri-chapter (New York Metropolitan Area, Delaware Valley, and New Jersey) symposium based on the case study m ethod. The symposium, “ Life on The Technology Express,” led one librarian, Adeline Tallau, to conceive of a similar-type program for her Rutgers’ colleagues. She immediately thought of an issue of great concern to the Rutgers Library community—serving the non-Rutgers clientele. Rutgers University Libraries’ Forum on Services (a faculty group made up of librarians working in the areas of reference, interlibrary loan, circula­ tion, online database searching, technical services and bibliographic instruction) agreed to sponsor a program entitled, “A Case Study in Closing the University Library to the Public.” On May 16, 1984, about twenty-five librarians gathered to dis­ cuss the issues, problems and solutions generated by a pre-distributed set of documents or “case,” set at the fictitious New Jersey University Library. The mythical New Jersey University, with over 40,000 students on two campuses in New Towne and Dennison, is one of the major state university systems in the nation. According to the case, sev­ eral years before her arrival at New Jersey Univer­ sity as the university librarian, Manfreda Edsel published the highly controversial article, “Are Li­ braries a Public Utility?” in which she divided pub­ lic utilities into two classes—the service type and product type. Clearly, she stated, libraries are a service and “services to a group which the library